1 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY 

+ + + + + 

TUESDAY 

JUNE 21, 2011 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened in the 

Frankfurt Room of the Cincinnati Airport

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron,

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Phillip Schofield,

Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

ALSO PRESENT: 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 2 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU Team

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JODI JENKINS, ORAU Team

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

TIM TAULBEE, DCAS 

*Participating via telephone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

3

Roll Call 4 

Airborne Releases 

Comment Numbers 1 and 2 

(Reactor Discharges, Chem Plant,

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion

Program) 8 

Internal Dosimetry,

Comments 4 through 10 64 

External Dosimetry 190 

Deliverables and Meeting Plans 322 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4


2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is Phil 

3 
 Schofield. This site covers approximately 190 

4 
 square miles. It was started in 1949, it's 

5 
 had 52 working reactors. They have covered 

6 
 everything from fuel handling, reprocessing to 

7 
 complete meltdown testing. 

8 
 There's been 99 documented episodic 

9 
 releases. There's been a number of incidents 

10 
 of releases that actually were measured at the 

11 
 perimeter. So it's a very large, complex site 

12 
 with a lot of potential for internal exposures 

13 as well as high levels of external exposures. 

14 
 I guess we're ready to start on the 

15 
 matrix, unless anybody else has any comments? 

16 
 Okay, on the matrix, the first issue is 

17 talking about the routine airborne releases. 

18 
 And the finding was, "Routine 

19 
 airborne releases: source terms provided 

20 
 require improvement for use in determining the 

21 
 worker intake from airborne releases at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 different INL facilities. 5
 

2 
 The data NIOSH uses do not take 

3 
 into account the deficiencies in the 

4 
 environmental monitoring equipment and their 

5 
 locations. And in addition, NIOSH does not 

6 
 assess the uncertainties associated with 

7 
 mineralogical -- meteorological, excuse me, 

8 
 dispersion model used for the INL site. 

9 
 Most importantly the source terms 

10 
 do not account for worker inhalation of 

11 
 resuspended contaminated soils or materials 

12 
 around the INL facilities." So now it's your 

13 game, NIOSH. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, this is John 

15 
 Mauro. Just to set the stage a little bit 

16 
 might be helpful. It's my understanding that 

17 
 since we originally reviewed the INL Site 

18 
 Profile, which I don't recall, it must have 

19 been four years ago, perhaps --

20 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve, it was 

21 1996. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: '96, okay. Five years6
 

2 
 ago. And, Steve, you probably know a little 

3 
 bit more about it than I do. There has been, 

4 
 subsequently, revisions. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: 2006. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: 2006, I lose decades 

7 
 all the time. 

8 
 (Laughter.) 

9 
 DR. MAURO: And in light of that, I 

10 
 guess it would be helpful to me and I'm sure 

11 
 then everyone else, a little bit of what has 

12 transpired since our original review. 

13 
 There clearly were a number of 

14 
 revisions to the Site Profile, dome of which 

15 
 may have responded to many of our concerns, 

16 
 some may have not. We, SC&A, are aware that, 

17 
 now, Steve, you could help me out a bit. In 

18 
 the matrix there is a column to the right of 

19 
 the comments that has been filled out by 

20 NIOSH. 

21 
 And when I reviewed it over the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 weekend, I said to myself, well, it appears7


2 
 that these are comments that weren't there 

3 
 before, but they're there now and they reflect 

4 
 the latest information that NIOSH has as a 

5 
 result of the revisions to the Site Profile. 

6 
 Would that be a correct characterization of 

7 
 the matrix? 

8 
 MR. DARNELL: Some of the answers 

9 
 were in this matrix in 2006 when it started, 

10 
 they've been updated and completed over the 

11 time period. 

12 DR. MAURO: That helps, yes. 

13 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, it is mostly new 

14 information for the Work Group. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: And when was the last 

16 
 Site Profile revised? 

17 MR. KATZ: April of 2011. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: Okay, so it's 

19 
 relatively recent. And was that a major 

20 
 revision, several of the chapters or just the 

21 one, you know? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, these are all8
 

2 
 major revisions. We actually combined the two 

3 
 sites into one Technical Basis Document. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: For the purpose of the 

5 
 Working Group, SC&A did not do a formal review 

6 
 of that. So really we're right now on the 

7 
 recipient end to discuss, I guess, these 

8 
 important developments, in light of our 

9 
 original comments, it sounds like that is a 

10 lot. 

11 
 Now, Steve, I don't recall us going 

12 
 through a review cycle where we did a formal 

13 review of these revisions. 

14 
 DR. OSTROW: No, what happened is 

15 
 that our original Site Profile Review which 

16 
 was did in 2006, then in December of 2008, we 

17 
 took a look at the -- NIOSH had revised the 

18 
 Site Profile, or the TBDs, we had issued a 

19 supplementary report. 

20 
 And we updated a few of the issues, 

21 
 number 25, 26, 29 and 35 and we added three 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 new ones, 36, 37 and 38. And that was9
 

2 
 December of 2008. 

3 
 And everything's sort of lain 

4 
 dormant since then. NIOSH subsequently 

5 
 updated all their TBDs. The most recent was 

6 
 the external, which was April of 2011, which 

7 
 we didn't review any of these. 

8 
 As was just mentioned, NIOSH 

9 
 combined the INL and ANL web together with all 

10 
 the TBSs, changed their methodologies in a 

11 
 couple of places, updated a lot of things. 

12 
 And you'll see, a few days ago, in that 

13 
 matrix, the column with the NIOSH response, 

14 this is updated. 

15 
 And, as we're discussing today, the 

16 
 last column might be a little bit confusing 

17 
 with the Board Action. This, I think, NIOSH, 

18 
 Pete Darnell, added this as sort of comment. 

19 
 This is whether we, SC&A, had changed the 

20 issue from the original matrix. 

21 
 The first comments, under 1, it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 says under Board Actions, SC&A comments on10


2 
 matrix and we didn't change anything when we 

3 
 did our review in 2008. 

4 
 A few of them later on, we had 

5 
 changed the 2008 revisions. That's sort of 

6 
 where we stand right now. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Steve. Pete, 

8 
 do you want to walk us through? 

9 
 MR. DARNELL: Well, actually we had 

10 
 planned for Brian to be the main lead with the 

11 
 responses, is that --

12 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, sure. 

13 
 MR. DARNELL: -- he explained that 

14 
 what we wanted to go through the responses or 

15 


16 
 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: If I can help, you 

18 
 know, for my benefit and everyone. Because 

19 
 it's been some time and because we haven't 

20 
 read -- I haven't read, and I think others 

21 
 haven't read -- a bit of a story about each 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 one. 11
 

2 
 In other words, obviously, in the 

3 
 first item we're concerned about atmospheric 

4 
 dispersion modeling and the resuspension 

5 
 factors and how it was done originally. 

6 
 And maybe the way in which the 

7 
 story could unfold is to explain the degree to 

8 
 which you have developed perhaps a revised 

9 
 approach to dealing with atmospheric --

10 
 Because if I recall, on the first one, it was 

11 
 a matter of the way in which the modeling was 

12 
 done, the kind of data that was used, whether 

13 
 or not resuspension factor was taken into 

14 consideration. 

15 
 For workers that were actually on 

16 
 the different areas on the site and if, in 

17 
 fact, you have come up with a new strategy 

18 
 maybe conceptually explain that strategy, the 

19 data upon which it was based. 

20 
 More of a story than it is getting 

21 
 into the nuts and bolts. I suspect what will 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 happen, not to overstep my bounds, but, I12


2 
 guess, once we understand conceptually how the 

3 
 changes were, then the Work Group could decide 

4 
 whether or not they'd like SC&A to take a 

5 
 closer look to see how it was done, check some 

6 
 numbers, that sort of thing. Or perhaps 

7 
 judge, you know, that looks like it answers 

8 
 the question. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it sounds 

10 
 like, it looks like to me too there's also 

11 
 some action item imbedded in this for SC&A 

12 already. 

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes. 

14 
 MR. DARNELL: Just one thing. To 

15 
 answer your question before we got started, 

16 there are 1,422 claims for INL. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This area, the 

19 
 site is on the Snake River Plains there in 

20 
 Southeast Idaho. It's considered a high 

21 
 desert, about 5,000 foot elevation across most 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of the site. 13
 

2 
 And one thing this area of Idaho is 

3 
 known for is a lot of wind. So the modeling 

4 
 is very crucial for those people who were not 

5 
 monitored, or maybe they were only monitored 

6 
 for certain things because of the fact that 

7 
 this area does have a lot of high level winds, 

8 
 you might say. I mean, it's very well known. 

9 
 It's referred to, I think, by a lot 

10 
 of people in that area as the Rexburg wind, 

11 
 which encompasses the site. So the modeling 

12 
 unit, I don't know exactly how you can do that 

13 
 kind of modeling over such a large area with a 

14 great deal of accuracy. 

15 
 I mean, that's just my opinion, you 

16 
 know, and I would like to hear NIOSH's 

17 explanation how they feel they can do this. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can say, in 

19 
 a general sense, atmospheric dispersion models 

20 
 work best at great distances in large areas. 

21 
 It's when you approach the source term, which 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 is probably the source of the comment, that14


2 
 you have difficulty with the interpretation of 

3 
 the atmospheric model. 

4 
 And a high wind actually disperses 

5 
 the radioactive effluent more and makes 

6 
 exposure potential less from a particular 

7 
 release. A high wind in a dispersion -- if 

8 
 you're worried about the dispersion, exposure 

9 
 from dispersion, a windy situation is better 

10 than a calm situation. 

11 
 But the fact remains that the use 

12 
 of that atmospheric model to predict close-in 

13 
 concentrations is problematic. So that, I 

14 
 think, is the point. I'm not so sure we've 

15 
 gone very far on that particular part of the 

16 finding. 

17 
 The finding has two actual sort of 

18 
 pieces. One has to do with deficiencies in 

19 
 the monitoring approach, in addition to, what 

20 about uncertainties in the model? 

21 
 The deficiencies in the monitoring 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 approach -- I'm paraphrasing here, I hadn't15


2 
 planned to talk very much today. I'm 

3 
 paraphrasing here, but the deficiencies in the 

4 
 modeling approach relate to some findings 

5 
 related to non-compliance with NESHAPs 

6 
 requirements, EPA/NESHAPs requirements, which 

7 
 a lot of our data was collected for other 

8 
 purposes than what we're using it for now. 

9 
 But it provides a level of 

10 
 stringency that probably much of the 

11 
 monitoring does not. EPA was very specific 

12 
 about where we should comply with NESHAPs, we 

13 
 shall do things, these things have to be 

14 
 compliant. And whether or not the fact that 

15 
 they were not completely compliant with 

16 
 NESHAPs obviates their utility for this is not 

17 clear to me. 

18 
 It seems to me that despite those 

19 
 findings about those sampling locations, that 

20 
 data is probably still good for the purposes 

21 
 we're using. We're talking about the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 environmental release pathway which, you know,16


2 
 as you said, Phil, there's potential for 

3 
 certainly high external exposures and 

4 
 containment fields at these places, there 

5 
 would be some internal exposure potentials as 

6 
 well. 

7 
 And so you're talking about an 

8 
 environmental pathway which is, you know, kind 

9 
 of at the vanishing end where people are going 

10 
 to be exposed. So I just wanted to throw that 

11 
 in as some context here for this particular 

12 
 finding. And I don't really know what, if 

13 
 anything, has been done to address this 

14 particular question. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: As far as when the 

16 
 revision of the environmental TBD took place, 

17 
 we didn't change any of the values in the 

18 
 assessment other than we, Jodi added iodine19 
 129 intakes because, as time goes on, the 

20 
 iodine-131 was decaying off for the later 

21 
 years after the reactors were shutting down 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and we didn't have any iodine, so we're17
 

2 
 concerned that thyroid cancer claims might be 

3 
 underestimating internal doses. 

4 
 So we added iodine-129 into that 

5 
 because that does become a significant isotope 

6 
 as the iodine-131 disappears. But outside of 

7 
 that and extending the year, some of the 

8 
 intakes for the subsequent years, it's like 

9 
 those values haven't been changed. 

10 
 And I guess part of the question we 

11 
 originally had and I think to their responses 

12 
 of what tells us, you know, it's like what's 

13 
 wrong, basically what's wrong with the model 

14 that was used and why isn't it applicable? 

15 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I 

16 
 looked into a little bit. First time I think 

17 
 we discussed the responses last week, I didn't 

18 
 get a chance to look at the new responses but 

19 I reread older ones. 

20 
 I think our basic problem is I 

21 
 think NIOSH is using the INL historical Dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Evaluation Report as a basis. And they're18
 

2 
 using the mesoscale model that is in that. 

3 
 And I looked into it a little bit. 

4 
 As you mentioned before, it's 

5 
 probably fine at long distances like off-site 

6 
 type dispersions but it's not really accurate 

7 
 for close in. It's not really accurate, even 

8 
 less than about 20 kilometers it loses a lot 

9 
 of accuracy, because it can't really model the 

10 local topography too well. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'd like to add a 

12 
 little, it's coming back to me now from the 

13 
 last meeting. I'm familiar with a lot of the 

14 
 off-site dose reconstruction work done as part 

15 
 of this program. The dose reconstruction work 

16 
 that CDC Radiation Studies Branch has 

17 
 supported, in fact, I was involved in a lot of 

18 that work. 

19 
 And the modeling that was used 

20 
 which was mainly devoted to people that did 

21 
 not live onsite. And as you can imagine we're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 talking fairly large distances. 19
 

2 
 Now I remember the last time we 

3 
 were here and you start to look at each of the 

4 
 work areas and you'll have a facility that 

5 
 might be, let's say, the Chem Plant or TAN or 

6 
 these various locations. 

7 
 They might have emissions, both 

8 
 chronic, which they had. And also, more 

9 
 importantly, these episodic emissions. And it 

10 was more of a conceptual problem. 

11 
 And then you had people working in 

12 
 the immediate vicinity of these sites. Let's 

13 
 say within a few hundred yards of where the 

14 release point was. 

15 
 And I remember my concern was that 

16 
 when you're up close to a source, certainly 

17 
 within a few hundred yards, what happens is 

18 
 the Gaussian dispersion model, which you take 

19 
 the average annual releases, you multiply by 

20 
 average annual chi over q and that works great 

21 
 if you're a kilometer, two kilometers, three 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 kilometers away. 20
 

2 
 But when you're in the near field, 

3 
 my concern was that building turbulence, 

4 
 episodic nature of the releases, all of a 

5 
 sudden the type of work that was done for, I 

6 
 guess, the off-site dose calculation that was 

7 
 originally done is, I believe, RAC did it, 

8 
 Risk Assessment Group did the original work. 

9 
 And it seems to me that that 

10 
 extrapolation has some flaws to it. And to 

11 
 make sure that you don't underestimate --

12 
 because when you're in the near field, those 

13 
 models just break down. Especially if you're 

14 
 close to a building wake effect, the whole 

15 thing doesn't really work anymore. 

16 
 Now the degree to which a case 

17 
 could be made that you use certain assumptions 

18 
 in the near field that would tend to bound it, 

19 
 that there are ways of tricking these things 

20 to try to get to it. 

21 
 But I guess all I can say is right 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 now I can't say whether or not that's what you21


2 
 folks did. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: In all honesty, 

4 
 we're not aware of what was done because we're 

5 
 not the original authors on the TBD on that. 

6 
 And some of them just aren't on the project at 

7 
 this time. 

8 
 And so it's tracking down some of 

9 
 that information could be tricky to find out 

10 those details. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, as it turns out, 

12 
 just coincidentally, I spent several years 

13 
 looking at the off-site doses from this 

14 
 facility and the models. And, in fact, we ran 

15 
 different models to see how wrong the Gaussian 

16 model might be. 

17 
 We ran three-dimensional puff 

18 
 advection models and stuff like that. So what 

19 
 I'm getting at is that this happens to be a 

20 subject that I happen to know a lot about. 

21 
 And, you know, people run into this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 problem all the time. You've got lots and22
 

2 
 lots of met towers collecting wind speed, 

3 
 direction, stability class. And that's your 

4 
 raw data and there were dozens of these. In 

5 
 the early years, there was just three, later 

6 
 years, you had a lot more. 

7 
 But a lot could be done with that 

8 
 data in order to do far field and near field 

9 
 modeling. And I guess we were hoping to hear 

10 
 a little bit more about that story. 

11 
 Acknowledging that that situation exists and 

12 
 how you come to grips with that situation when 

13 
 you're trying to reconstruct doses to people 

14 who are close to the source. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: I'm not aware of any 

16 
 near field monitoring models out there for 

17 this type of radioactivity. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: When I was working at --

19 
 I did a lot of work at commercial nuclear 

20 
 power plants just for this reason. And we 

21 
 used to have to calculate the doses to workers 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 who were working on Unit 2 while Unit 1 was23


2 
 being built within, you know, a few hundred 

3 
 yards. 

4 
 And that was a requirement and 

5 
 there are ways of dealing with that. And 

6 
 there are Reg Guides out there, there are 

7 
 strategies. So there are, people have had to 

8 
 deal with this kind of class of problem 

9 
 before. 

10 And I guess when we originally 

11 
 reviewed this we were hoping to see a little 

12 
 bit more attention to, okay, how do we come to 

13 grips with this dilemma? 

14 
 It sounds like that dilemma still 

15 
 might exist. And we'd be glad to look at it, 

16 
 I guess, if so desired by the Board, and 

17 identify why these are weaknesses. 

18 
 And if so desired by the Board, we 

19 
 could also identify possible strategies for 

20 
 coming to grips with those. Because those 

21 strategies exist. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: John, would you24
 

2 
 explain more about the RAC measurements? Was 

3 
 that independent? 

4 
 DR. MAURO: I believe all this work 

5 
 was done based on the -- RAC took, what they 

6 
 did is they collected all of the effluent data 

7 
 that they could from every facility in the 

8 
 entire plant. And then they went through a 

9 
 classic atmospheric far field mesoscale 

10 dispersion modeling. 

11 
 Because they were concerned with 

12 
 off-site doses. So what happens is, so now 

13 
 you're ten miles away. Now the question is --

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: No close-in? 

15 
 DR. MAURO: No, all of a sudden you 

16 
 -- and everything sort of averages out. You 

17 
 know, the winds are blowing, but when you 

18 
 bring it in it's almost like, you know, you 

19 
 have a release from here and you're interested 

20 
 in the doses over here, to people living over 

21 
 here. But you've got people living over here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 What happens is you get building25


2 
 wake effects that affect what's actually here. 

3 
 Eventually those building wakes effects are 

4 
 all schmeared out and things sort of tend to 

5 
 average out at far distances. Especially if 

6 
 you're doing it over the course of a year, 

7 
 let's say. 

8 
 But let's say you have an episodic 

9 
 release. And in theory the episodic release 

10 
 will come out of here on this day and the wind 

11 
 could be blowing it that way. And there would 

12 be no impact for people here. 

13 
 So, I mean, it becomes a completely 

14 different kind of problem. 

15 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So RAC's method -

16 
 -

17 
 DR. MAURO: RAC did that. 

18 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: -- was off-site? 

19 
 DR. MAURO: RAC was off-site, 

20 absolutely. 

21 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: That's what I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 wanted to know. 26
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: RAC was entirely off3 
 site. And it was, you know, in those days 

4 
 they were concerned about, the Radiation 

5 
 Studies Branch was researching whether they 

6 
 needed to do any epi work off-site. And they 

7 
 used the RAC as a way to, first, let's take a 

8 
 look at the collective burden on the 

9 
 population groups that live in the area, what 

10 
 kind of dose they may have gotten and if it 

11 
 was high enough, they would have triggered an 

12 
 epi study. And that was the whole mission 

13 behind RAC. 

14 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Good, 

15 thanks. 

16 
 DR. TAULBEE: So if I understand 

17 
 what it is that the Board or SC&A is concerned 

18 
 here with these particular releases are the 

19 
 routine releases coming form the sites and we 

20 
 use the RAC data in order to estimate those 

21 
 doses and you feel that we should be looking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at a more detailed analysis. Taking into27
 

2 
 account near field --

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, what adjustments 

4 
 might be needed. Yes. As far as the, I agree 

5 
 with you by the way, Stu, regarding the Clean 

6 
 Air Act and the isokinetic sampling issues. 

7 
 They were operating at a level of resolution 

8 
 that had to do with compliance with the 

9 
 radionuclide NESHAPs. 

10 
 Which, I think, probably came much 

11 
 later. And it certainly would be 

12 
 inappropriate to hold it, there's some very 

13 
 fine-structure issues there. So the degree to 

14 
 which we may have referenced that, in my 

15 
 opinion, is the bigger problem. The 

16 
 fundamental problem of how an atmospheric 

17 
 dispersion model is doing, than, let's say, 

18 some fine-structure NESHAP requirement. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The 

21 
 resuspension issue, particularly, what was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 brought up by some people who have worked28


2 
 there, is they had these evaporation ponds 

3 
 where they might have held three million 

4 
 gallons or something to this effect of waste 

5 
 material was pumped into these ponds and then 

6 
 it was allowed to evaporate, they brought in 

7 
 loaders and they would scoop this up and they 

8 
 would bury it. And the big question is a lot 

9 
 of those people had, is they said, we weren't 

10 
 wearing face masks, you know, once we start 

11 
 doing this it gets very dusty, then for some 

12 
 time after this work is finished they said you 

13 
 can be going past there and you'll actually 

14 
 have the dust being kicked up from these 

15 
 evaporation ponds, you know, and you're 

16 
 driving right through this cloud of dust from 

17 them. 

18 
 And this is an area of concern that 

19 
 some people have expressed. And I could not 

20 
 find anything, so far, in the database that 

21 
 gives me any real confidence about how these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 were monitored, these evaporation ponds. 29
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Don't we know the 

3 
 location of the evaporation ponds? 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't 

5 
 remember off the top of my head. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: There's multiple 

7 
 ones. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are 

9 
 several. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And how these 

11 are going to be addressed. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: If it helps any, we've 

13 
 learned a lesson, I guess, on Nevada Test 

14 
 Site, which is an interesting challenge. We 

15 
 encountered a lot of problems but in the end a 

16 
 couple of strategies were identified which 

17 
 seemed reasonable that, in theory, could apply 

18 here. 

19 
 If you know that over many, many 

20 
 years you've been releasing airborne 

21 
 radioactivity, that a certain amount of that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 material may have deposited on surfaces. And30
 

2 
 very often at a site like this, I can't say to 

3 
 the degree to which it was done. 

4 
 We have a pretty good idea of the 

5 
 number of becquerels per meter squared, or 

6 
 picocuries, becquerels per gram, in the 

7 
 surface soil. 

8 
 And if you're concerned about 

9 
 resuspension factor to me the simplest 

10 
 approach is say, well if I have some 

11 
 information on the dust loadings, milligrams 

12 
 per cubic meter in the air, and in and around 

13 where people might be working. 

14 
 And very often, those kinds of data 

15 
 are collected. And you know the picocuries 

16 
 per gram in the soil, well, you know, you 

17 
 don't need meteorology anymore. You just 

18 
 simply say, well, listen, if I know I've got 

19 
 typically one milligram per cubic meter of 

20 airborne dust. 

21 
 And I know typically the soil 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 contains one picocurie per gram of whatever.31


2 
 You could just assume that that would be the 

3 
 dust load, that would be what would be 

4 
 available in the dust that a person might be 

5 
 inhaling. 

6 
 This is a way to come to grips with 

7 
 these kinds of problems. It's really 

8 
 straightforward. And some could argue that 

9 
 under some circumstances that could 

10 
 overestimate because -- or underestimate. I'm 

11 
 sorry, this is just a subject that I'm so 

12 
 familiar with because I've done it so many 

13 times. 

14 
 The particle size distribution 

15 
 that's in the soil is different than the 

16 
 particle size distribution that's in the air. 

17 
 What happens is what's in the air is usually 

18 
 finer particles, things that are larger than 

19 50 microns stay down. 

20 
 So what happens is you actually get 

21 
 an enhancement. So what's in the air, if you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 get a certain amount of picocuries in the32


2 
 topsoil and you get a certain number of the 

3 
 picocuries, you're going to assume that 

4 
 whatever the picocuries per gram is in the 

5 
 topsoil that's the picocuries per gram that's 

6 
 in the soot in the air. 

7 
 Well, it turns out there often is 

8 
 an enhancement because the particles in the 

9 
 air are finer particles, they're the ones that 

10 
 are more likely to be resuspended. And as 

11 
 finer particles, we know that they carry more 

12 activity per unit mass. 

13 
 So there may be enrichment. But 

14 
 there's literature on that, in fact I wrote a 

15 
 report on that. The enhancement factor from 

16 that process. All of which is trackable. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now to go back 

18 
 to your other problem you brought up, and this 

19 
 is another point that has been brought up by 

20 
 some of the people who've worked up there, is 

21 
 that, particularly in the earlier days, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 exhaust ventilation systems for a lot of these33


2 
 reactors wasn't as effective as it is 

3 
 nowadays. 

4 
 They don't have high quality HEPA 

5 
 filters in a lot of these facilities stuff, so 

6 
 the materials that was escaping or off7 
 gassing, a lot of these people said, well, you 

8 
 know, we were only 200 yards from the reactor 

9 
 and that's where we, you know, our change room 

10 was, our lunch room was. 

11 
 We had the metal shop over here 

12 
 and, you know, in summer we had the doors 

13 
 open, in the winter we took our air, the air 

14 
 that was brought in was not filtered that was 

15 
 being brought into the buildings. And that's 

16 
 a big area of concern about what some of these 

17 people are getting in there. 

18 
 Particularly these people who were 

19 
 not on a bioassay program, what potential 

20 levels they were getting. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, one thing to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 note is the ones that were on a bioassay34


2 
 program would have had the same exposures as 

3 
 some of the ones that weren't. 

4 
 You know, is that the vast majority 

5 
 of the bioassay results of the INL facility, 

6 
 or the INL site were negative, something 

7 
 around the 90 percent of the results were 

8 
 negative, below the detection limits. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So you could 

10 actually use that as a bounding number? 

11 
 MR. DARNELL: The current TBD for 

12 
 environmental doses uses those stacks to 

13 
 calculate the doses. That's what the majority 

14 
 of the environmental dosing is based on is 

15 stack release data. 

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: I guess the issue is 

17 
 whether the model that was used is appropriate 

18 
 or not for near field in estimates. And it 

19 
 seems like I remember, did we touch on the 

20 
 issue of looking at the onsite ambient 

21 monitoring data on that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I recall during --35
 

2 
 Steve, please jump in, you know me, I start 

3 
 talking I can't stop. So jump in, correct me. 

4 
 I recall that there was some measurements 

5 
 made along the fence line of some of these 

6 
 areas, which is certainly useful data. 

7 
 DR. OSTROW: If I recall, there was 

8 
 two types of environmental monitoring 

9 
 programs. They had lots and lots and lots of 

10 
 TLDs, film badges, around the site perimeter, 

11 
 but they also had a lot of monitoring around 

12 
 the fence perimeters of the different 

13 facilities. 

14 
 Because INL spread out the 

15 
 facilities over a larger area of land and each 

16 
 facility was a little bit like an island and 

17 they had a boundary fence. 

18 
 So they did airborne monitoring at 

19 
 the boundary fences of each of these different 

20 
 facilities, a lot of the different facilities 

21 
 with that data too. Not just site boundary 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 data but also fence data from the different36


2 
 facilities. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: So you got this, you 

4 
 know, big, gigantic site. And inside the site 

5 
 is broken up into very large areas. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: Major operating 

7 
 areas. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Major operating areas 

9 
 which are very, very big also, where you 

10 
 probably have some good data on the internal 

11 
 fences around each of the area, which are 

12 
 helpful in knowing really how much left this 

13 area and is on its way over to another area. 

14 
 But it doesn't help too much on the 

15 
 people that might be inside the area. Because 

16 
 I think the spacing is pretty big. So in 

17 
 other words, you could have an area the size 

18 
 of this table, let's say this is the TAN area 

19 or the CPT, okay, this is the area. 

20 
 And there could be a building over 

21 
 here having its releases and people working 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 over here. And in my mind, the data you37
 

2 
 collect, you know, where Josie is, is not 

3 
 going to be too helpful to you, if people were 

4 
 here. 

5 
 It would be if the area was so 

6 
 small that yes, your site boundary data -- or 

7 
 not site, but your area boundary data was in 

8 
 close proximity to where people were, so that 

9 
 might work. But I think at this site the 

10 spacing, the distribution, if you would --

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: So even like the 

12 onsite monitoring data might be too far out. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: If it's at the fence 

14 
 line, it might be. And there's a case to be 

15 
 made. I mean, it really is a matter of 

16 
 looking at the layout, lay of the land, where 

17 the people are, where the monitoring is. 

18 
 And it's almost a judgment it's, 

19 
 just, you know, just too far away where you 

20 
 really have to question whether you could use 

21 that data for these people. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: But, you know, Steve38
 

2 
 again, I think one of the arguments that NIOSH 

3 
 has mentioned, I think it was Stu just said it 

4 
 a few minutes ago, that over 90 percent of the 

5 
 bioassays were negative. So they're using 

6 
 that as an indication that the people who were 

7 
 monitored didn't pick up any particularly high 

8 
 airborne from anywhere. 

9 
 So the idea that people weren't 

10 
 monitored probably didn't get exposure, I 

11 
 think that was part of NIOSH's claims in the, 

12 when you wrote this. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Could I add one more 

14 
 thing? This is one of the times when we 

15 
 started at the place where usually this is not 

16 the big source of exposure. 

17 
 Usually at any site, there's 

18 
 environmental issues, I mean, Nevada Test Site 

19 
 that was a big deal, of course, because of the 

20 nature of the operation. 

21 
 But most operating facilities, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 worry about the guys inside the buildings,39


2 
 that are doing the work. And we're sort of 

3 
 starting this at a place where, in all 

4 
 likelihood the exposures were certainly there. 

5 
 But my guess it that's not where the big 

6 
 exposures were. 

7 
 The big exposures was the people 

8 
 handing the material, doing whatever they do 

9 
 inside the buildings. But we happened to 

10 start here. 

11 
 So to keep perspective, these are 

12 
 issues that are certainly on the table but it 

13 
 may turn out there are more important issues 

14 
 of where people could have gotten 

15 
 substantially higher exposures that are of 

16 concern inside the buildings. 

17 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Just to follow up 

18 
 on that, then to me I'm not sure it makes a 

19 
 lot of sense for NIOSH to do a very elaborate, 

20 
 you know, labor-intensive modeling of these 

21 exposures. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 It seems to me that, you know,40


2 
 maybe you need to do more and maybe you need 

3 
 some sort of a factor to take into account for 

4 
 the near-term near-source exposures. 

5 
 And that's going to be a safety 

6 
 factor or something. I mean, I get your point 

7 
 looking at that. But I'm not sure you'd want 

8 
 to do a very elaborate model. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: I agree. I agree. Yes, 

10 
 we may have actually, I think the way it was -

11 -

12 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Let's clear the 

13 
 whole table, it can get filled up with sources 

14 and monitors. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 
 DR. MAURO: It turns out and it's 

17 
 SC&A's ball, when we wrote this proposal I 

18 
 think we did pay a lot of intention to 

19 
 environmental issues. Because we knew a lot 

20 
 of about environmental issues. But the 

21 
 reality is the action is inside the buildings. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So is there41
 

2 
 any real purpose in you guys going back to 

3 
 look at the modeling that they did on this? 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the first 

5 
 action is probably ours. To look at the 

6 
 model, you know, and get a picture and we 

7 
 understand the model and look for a fairly 

8 
 simple near field adjustment that maybe should 

9 
 be made to the models that we're using. 

10 
 Or whatever, or to provide a 

11 
 thorough argument. If we believe we're fine 

12 
 where we are, provide a thorough argument as 

13 
 to why that's the case. So I think the action 

14 on this is ours at this point. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: So NIOSH did ask for 

16 
 reference that SC&A used to determine 

17 
 uncertainties not accounted for in the --

18 
 DR. OSTROW: We did but --

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: -- meteorological 

20 dimension, is that necessary still? 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well to my way of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 thinking that was just the general near field42


2 
 issue with expert --

3 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, we didn't have 

4 
 anything specific in mind, just the near-field 

5 
 issue --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, so I don't 

7 
 know --

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: That was an SC&A 

9 
 request. I mean that was a NIOSH request --

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and what I'm 

11 
 saying is, having heard the discussion today, 

12 
 you know, you don't need to go find a 

13 
 reference for that, you know, they just do 

14 that in --

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think that 

16 
 kind of closes out the first comment and it 

17 definitely goes into Comment Number 2 --

18 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, I'll comment on 

19 
 this perhaps. This is Steve. We had made the 

20 
 comment about episodic airborne releases and 

21 
 particularly at the initial engine tests at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program where43


2 
 they blew radioactivity out all over the place 

3 
 into the air and we said that some of it might 

4 
 have been underestimated. 

5 
 The release is by a factor of two 

6 
 to 16 and NIOSH asked then in this comment 

7 
 where'd we get the number of two to 16 from? 

8 
 Well, we had referenced that in our original 

9 
 Site Profile Review Report from 2006. 

10 
 Actually, if one wants to look it up it's on 

11 page 56 of our Site Profile. 

12 
 We had referenced them, I think 

13 
 John alluded to this earlier perhaps. And we 

14 
 had done a report in 2003: A Critical Review 

15 
 of Source Term for Select Initial Engine Tests 

16 
 Associated With the Aircraft Nuclear 

17 
 Propulsion program in INL. So we had done 

18 that report in 2003. 

19 
 And in that, we had concluded that 

20 
 for some of the initial engine tests that the 

21 
 quoted releases were underestimated by a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 factor of up to 16. 44
 

2 
 In particular, the initial engine 

3 
 test number four underestimated noble gases by 

4 
 up to a factor of 16, halogen by up to a 

5 
 factor of seven and solids by a factor of up 

6 
 to two. 

7 
 And our original report in 2003 

8 
 elaborates what our basis was for that. John, 

9 
 are you familiar with this report? 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I was in it up to 

11 
 my eyeballs when we did that work. It was 

12 
 quite controversial because at the time we 

13 
 were, in effect, reviewing work done by RAC as 

14 part of the off-site dose calculation. 

15 
 And we were asked by Radiation 

16 
 Studies Branch to independently review the 

17 
 source terms that were used by the Risk 

18 
 Assessment Corporation on behalf of the 

19 Radiation Studies Branch. 

20 
 And we found some very significant 

21 
 underestimates and we go into it in agonizing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 detail. And to this day we feel very strongly45
 

2 
 that they significantly underestimated those 

3 
 source terms for the reasons given. 

4 
 And anyone reading the report can 

5 
 make the judgment themselves whether or not 

6 
 our position was well-founded or not. 

7 
 It's been published by the 

8 
 Radiation Studies Branch of CDC and I don't 

9 
 know if any action has been taken on it. But 

10 
 SC&A has looked very carefully at this 

11 
 question on behalf of CDC now, and has on the 

12 
 record published why we believe those source 

13 terms are low. 

14 
 DR. OSTROW: That's the basic 

15 
 point, I guess perhaps the action here would 

16 
 be, would NIOSH just take a look at that 2003 

17 
 report and see, you know, either agree with or 

18 
 if you don't agree with it why you think your 

19 current model is better. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I agree that 

21 
 it's a NIOSH action, yes. It's just first you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 start with reading that report and I think46


2 
 it's relatively straightforward to find in our 

3 
 files, they're on our website. 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, if you can't 

5 
 find it --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We got it. I think 

7 
 I looked it up a couple weeks ago. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

9 
 MR. DARNELL: One of the things 

10 
 that we were wondering though, these are not 

11 
 listed in the TBD as being significant 

12 releases. 

13 
 MR. GLECKLER: And you identified 

14 
 several of the initial engine test releases as 

15 
 being significant but these specific ones that 

16 
 you guys evaluated aren't listed in there as 

17 being significant. 

18 
 And the other thing I wanted to 

19 
 point out is, noble gases don't contribute any 

20 
 significant internal dose so it doesn't really 

21 matter if we underestimate those. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I can help you a47
 

2 
 little, and I'm not disagreeing with you. 

3 
 When we remember what the purpose of these 

4 
 analyses were by the Radiation Studies Branch 

5 
 is mainly whether or not there could have been 

6 
 -- did RAC come up with a reasonable estimate 

7 
 of the sources? 

8 
 There were many, many, many sources 

9 
 that came out of Idaho National Lab. The two 

10 
 of them were identified as the big bankers, 

11 
 these are the ones that anything is going to 

12 
 have a significant off-site impact it's going 

13 
 to be the Chem Plant and the Aircraft Nuclear 

14 Propulsion program. 

15 
 And so they went through the 

16 
 screening process, there may have been one 

17 
 more. And because of the importance of those 

18 
 source terms and in order to achieve closure, 

19 
 whether or not they've adequately looked at 

20 
 the important ones, we were asked to come 

21 independently and look at all of this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And we agreed that they picked the48


2 
 right ones as being the problem ones. And so 

3 
 we looked very carefully at the way in which 

4 
 RAC modeled the effluents, routine and 

5 
 episodic from the Chem Plant and routine --

6 
 well, it really isn't routine -- episodic from 

7 
 the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program. 

8 
 We found that the Chem Plant, they 

9 
 did a nice job. The source, the curies per 

10 
 year and even the emphasis on the episodic 

11 
 releases were well done, well within a factor 

12 of two. 

13 
 However, we found that, and the 

14 
 evidence that we've laid out is very 

15 
 comprehensive, that when you're running one of 

16 
 these aircraft nuclear propulsion, you 

17 
 actually allow it to run until the fuel melts. 

18 
 So that melted fuel is being vented directly 

19 to the atmosphere, which included everything. 

20 
 Everything went up. And it was a 

21 
 lot. And we believe that not only the noble 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 gases but iodine’s and other radionuclides49


2 
 were released. And it would be more of a 

3 
 local phenomenon because some of them would 

4 
 come down pretty quickly. 

5 
 But it was still, you know, our 

6 
 position is that this is a pretty nasty, dirty 

7 
 operation. The degree to which, and it was a 

8 
 major source term at the site, when that 

9 
 operation was going on. 

10 
 And to use the source terms that 

11 
 RAC used for the purposes of reconstructing 

12 
 near field doses to workers that might have 

13 
 been in the vicinity, we feel would have 

14 
 underestimated by about those factors, which 

15 
 are not small, factor of 16, factor of two or 

16 three, depending on the isotope. 

17 
 So in our mind taking a look at 

18 
 that, say okay, obviously there's another 

19 
 opinion out there, here's the work that was 

20 
 done, would it change things very much if we 

21 were to use those instead of the RAC values? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And, in other words, all of a50
 

2 
 sudden, do the doses involved in the Aircraft 

3 
 Nuclear Propulsion Program change 

4 
 substantially in light of the fact that 

5 
 there's new source terms, whether it's noble 

6 
 gases or otherwise? 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So an outcome here, 

8 
 I mean, I think we're obliged to look at this 

9 
 and the fact that the Site Profile says such 

10 and such is not a major release does not --

11 DR. MAURO: Because --

12 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- necessity to 

14 evaluate the finds. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: It was a major release, 

16 
 and that's why they were looked at twice, once 

17 by RAC, once by us. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It may resolve in 

19 
 almost no change to anybody's dose. 

20 Especially in this noble gas issue. 

21 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So it may not do51
 

2 
 that but we're obliged to investigate, you 

3 
 can't just say that without investigating. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, sir. 

5 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So that already 

6 
 is an action item for NIOSH. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is now. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: One other thing on 

9 
 that. It's like one of the documents I do 

10 
 remember reading those tests for the initial 

11 
 engine tests. It's like they only took place 

12 
 under certain meteorologic, they're very 

13 specific in those documents on that. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, but remember that 

15 
 was primarily to protect the public. You 

16 
 know, I mean, we don't want the wind blowing 

17 
 in the direction that there's populated areas. 

18 
 Now there may be more to the story than that 

19 but you're right, they did take the times --

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: I think the 

21 documents talked about the workers too. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: It may have been the52
 

2 
 workers too, at the time. 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, I read about 

4 
 that yesterday a little bit. Apparently 

5 
 that's true, what happened with the engine 

6 
 tests with actually running them was that they 

7 
 couldn't run them a lot of the time because 

8 
 they were waiting for the perfect 

9 
 meteorological conditions both for off-site 

10 and for on-site. 

11 
 They didn't want the releases to 

12 
 blow out over one of the other test areas 

13 
 either. So there were a lot of days when they 

14 
 couldn't operate at all which really hampered 

15 them. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: So you're right. I 

17 
 mean the point is that certainly may 

18 
 ameliorate the potential. Even though these 

19 
 emissions may have been higher it may not be 

20 of any significance. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 evaluation that was done for this, were those53


2 
 meteorological conditions factored into that, 

3 
 do you know? 

4 
 DR. MAURO: When we ran it? 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, we actually ran a 

7 
 much more sophisticated, a puff trajectory 

8 
 model, you know, as opposed to --

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Using either the 

10 actual augmented conditions or what --

11 DR. MAURO: No, we modeled --

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: -- the best 

13 condition specification was? 

14 
 DR. MAURO: We modeled the 

15 
 emissions based on a lot of indirect data on 

16 
 the failure of the fuel. In other words we 

17 
 knew how much fuels they started out with. 

18 
 And we knew after it was over what was left, 

19 
 and it wasn't there. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, but what was 

21 the meteorological data set that you used? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, we had great54
 

2 
 meteorological data. In fact this may be the 

3 
 lead federal facility in the world of 

4 
 meteorology. They have more met towers there 

5 
 than you can shake a stick at. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: But was it specific 

7 
 to the testing time frame or? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: No, what happened is, 

9 
 nice work, they only had three towers at the 

10 
 time. But then later they had 20 something 

11 
 towers. Then they calibrated the met data and 

12 
 wind fields that you would calculate using 

13 
 only the three field wind data, because you 

14 
 have the joint ones, frequency data. You've 

15 got three towers, right. 

16 
 And you could theoretically create 

17 
 a wind field, they use wind field as opposed 

18 
 to standard Gaussian, this is a nice 

19 
 technology which you're probably familiar 

20 with. 

21 
 So you almost could picture using 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the data, which comes in every 15 minutes.55


2 
 Wind speed, direction, stability class, they 

3 
 make little arrows in three dimensional space. 

4 
 This is the wind field at 2 o'clock 

5 
 in the afternoon on July 5th. And this is the 

6 
 wind field at 2:15, you know, and this goes 

7 
 on, so you have this wind field. 

8 
 You puff something into it, okay, a 

9 
 puff comes up and it enters the wind field and 

10 
 the puff sort of dances along inside the wind 

11 
 field, spreading, according to the way the 

12 
 wind field is. I mean it's a great model. 

13 It's called the puff advection model. 

14 
 Now, later, 20 years later, they 

15 
 don't have just three towers, they've got 20 

16 
 something towers. Okay, they say let's 

17 
 reconstruct the wind field using, as best we 

18 
 can, to see how much added value do the extra 

19 towers provide you. 

20 
 Does our understanding of the wind 

21 
 field change, for example now is now, if we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 were to construct the wind field now just56


2 
 using three towers as opposed to constructing 

3 
 the wind field using all 27, do we really 

4 
 vastly change the picture of these arrows? 

5 
 And the answer is no. The answer 

6 
 is those extra towers are nice. They maybe 

7 
 expand the distance over which you could start 

8 
 to get good wind field. 

9 
 Take into consideration maybe far 

10 
 away there is a mountain and a valley and you 

11 
 want to be able to see where the wind is 

12 blowing out there. 

13 
 But in the near field it really 

14 
 didn't change things too much. So what we get 

15 
 is the data was out there, they did a great 

16 job, the met data was there. 

17 
 The models were there and we 

18 
 benefitted from the fact that we had access to 

19 
 that data and we could run those models. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Correct me if I'm 

21 
 wrong but what it sounds like is you're using 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a long-term meteorological data set to do57


2 
 short-term episodic release models. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: No. All the towers 

4 
 give you is wind direction and stability class 

5 
 at the location of the tower. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: What about the time 

7 
 frame of the data? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: We'll show you the 

9 
 time. No. They give it like this, the tower 

10 
 is sitting there and it's -- every 15 minutes 

11 
 is putting out the wind speed over that 15 

12 minutes. 

13 
 The stability class, that's the 

14 
 delta T. The temperature difference between 

15 
 the higher sensor and the lower sensor, wind 

16 speed and direction. 

17 
 So it says in this 15 minute 

18 
 period, and it's a real 15 minute time period, 

19 
 so date, the time, that at that time the wind 

20 
 was blowing in this direction. The Delta T, 

21 
 the difference in the above tower sensor and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the low was this, which gives you stability58


2 
 class and direction. 

3 
 And that's changing every 15 

4 
 minutes, every 15 minutes. And it's almost 

5 
 like a living, and you got all this data. 

6 
 So you can construct, you could ask 

7 
 yourself the question, if I ran an initial 

8 
 engine test on this particular date and it 

9 
 lasted this long and this is what was puffed 

10 
 out during that time period, that one hour 

11 test let's say. 

12 
 You place that, and you know that 

13 
 this is the amount of radioactivity that came 

14 out, or you could estimate as best you can. 

15 
 Let's say it's a noble gas or an 

16 
 iodine, whatever, came up and was put into 

17 
 that wind field, you could do a great job in 

18 
 tracking now where did that puff go over the 

19 next 10 hours. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Is that what was 

21 done for this though? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: That's what -- 59
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That was done for 

3 
 the earlier work. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: No, the earlier work 

5 
 did not use puff advection, we did. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You did that before 

7 
 you did this work for EEIOCPA? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: We didn't do that work, 

9 
 we just cited it. In other words all that 

10 work was --

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so you cited 

12 that work that was done earlier --

13 
 DR. MAURO: We cited that work that 

14 
 was done. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in what you did? 

16 
 DR. MAURO: In what we did, you've 

17 got it. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Great. 

19 DR. MAURO: Does that help? 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I couldn't 

21 understand exactly what you were saying. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I wasn't making myself,60
 

2 
 this was all done years ago. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And the 

4 
 model is sort of a simulation, it sort of --

5 
 it does this 15 minutes and it does this 15 

6 
 minutes? 

7 
 DR. MAURO: Right. 

8 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I suggest for 

9 
 our next meeting we have a scale model of the 

10 whole site? 

11 
 DR. MAURO: In 3-D, like a movie. 

12 We can make a movie, Avatar. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll call Pixar. 

14 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

15 
 MEMBER MELIUS: That way John won't 

16 
 have to move glasses around and wave the wind. 

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: I know the 

18 
 meteorological specifications for performing 

19 
 those tests were such that, you know, the wind 

20 
 was blowing, the wind would not blow the 

21 
 radioactivity towards any occupied areas on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 site. 61
 

2 
 Unless there was an unplanned 

3 
 change of direction and meteorological 

4 
 conditions. So the effect of those tests 

5 
 should be minimal on --

6 
 DR. MAURO: You know what? I'd be 

7 
 the first to admit that, in all likelihood the 

8 
 action, again, is inside the buildings. And 

9 
 maybe we're over here gilding the lily. You 

10 
 know you could really do a great job on 

11 something that's not important. 

12 
 But quite frankly we haven't 

13 
 demonstrated that it's not important. I can't 

14 
 really -- because let me tell you they put a 

15 
 lot of radioactivity out during those initial 

16 engine tests. A lot. 

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: Short-lived 

18 radioactivity though. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, short-lived but, 

20 yes. You know, it was there. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: Because the big 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 thing is it would be a notable incident in the62


2 
 INL records if the radioactivity got blown 

3 
 back into an occupied area and contaminated 

4 
 that area with any significant level of 

5 
 contamination. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Again I'll be the first 

7 
 to admit that. But it was picked, in other 

8 
 words this is important. The Aircraft Nuclear 

9 
 Propulsion program and the Chem Plant were 

10 picked out of all of the different sources. 

11 
 They must have had 50 different 

12 
 sources and episodic events, as these are 

13 
 where the action is. If there's going to be a 

14 
 problem with off-site impact that might 

15 
 require epidemiological follow-up it's going 

16 to be these. 

17 
 And that's the only reason we were 

18 
 brought in, to look at that. So it's not that 

19 
 these happen to be the insignificant ones, no 

20 these were the big ones. 

21 
 And if any place there's going to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 be a local outdoor insult, it's going to be63


2 
 these. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: When you say these 

4 
 are the big ones are you specifically talking 

5 
 about the ones listed here in the 2006 report 

6 
 or the initial engine tests? 

7 
 DR. MAURO: Amongst, no, no. 

8 
 Amongst the initial engine tests there were so 

9 
 many tests. They were three, four and ten. 

10 It's coming back to me, three, they had --

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: It went higher than 

12 that. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: They went way above 

14 
 that. But these are the ones where the most 

15 
 severe meltdowns occurred. And these are the 

16 
 ones where if there's -- where the biggest 

17 releases occurred. 

18 
 The others we didn't even look at 

19 
 because on the scale they were like another 

20 
 order of magnitude lower in potential for 

21 having airborne remissions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: Okay, so you're64
 

2 
 saying the ones listed in the 2006 review on 

3 
 that are the probably the most significant 

4 
 ones? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. And --

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: Or some of the most 

7 
 significant ones. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Quite frankly what I 

9 
 would do is say let's go take a look at that 

10 
 work and see if in fact it adds, you know, use 

11 
 some modelings, looks at the source terms. 

12 
 We'd be the first to say well if RAC was here, 

13 
 I forget the president of RAC, he's very 

14 famous. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: John Till. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: John Till. If John 

17 
 Till was there he'd probably say, no your work 

18 
 is junk. You know, he won't, he would be 

19 wrong. 

20 
 He wouldn't, he's a nice man. He 

21 
 wouldn't, but he may not agree. But we'd 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 strongly disagree with him, we think that they65


2 
 missed it. 

3 
 But nevertheless it's on the 

4 
 record. NIOSH, CDC has accepted our work, has 

5 
 published our work, it's out there for the 

6 
 public to see. 

7 
 And I guess the question is if it 

8 
 turns out, in fact, our assessment is 

9 
 legitimate, probably have an obligation to put 

10 
 it to bed or to say the degree to which it has 

11 relevance here. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: I think that's our 

13 action item --

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: Great. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Here's the 

17 date of the study. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: That was the work we 

19 
 came off of, so sometime after that date that 

20 
 we looked at it. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: All right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Any more discussion on Item 2? Looks like66
 

2 
 NIOSH has to work. Then I guess we'll go on 

3 
 to Item Number 3 here. These are the fence 

4 
 line measurements, boundary measurements. It 

5 
 sounds like you may have got a lot of this 

6 
 already addressed. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: I thought we had 

8 
 this addressed, on that at the last meeting to 

9 
 where we had some concurrence out of it? 

10 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, this is Steve, 

11 
 unless John has any more opinion on this I 

12 
 think SC&A considered it satisfied and 

13 
 withdraws this issue. Or whatever, we're 

14 satisfied with NIOSH's response here. 

15 
 And this is sort of subsumed in the 

16 
 general environmental issues that we have. I 

17 
 don't think we need to carry this as an issue. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: So we can consider 

19 
 this one closed? 

20 
 DR. MAURO: Let me just understand. 

21 
 So I remember the original concern is that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 you really can't use TLD sitting on a67
 

2 
 fencepost to represent real people who are 

3 
 working inside. But you're saying that no, 

4 
 these real people were wearing TLDs, so what's 

5 
 the problem? 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: -- get inside that 

7 
 fence line is --

8 
 DR. MAURO: Can't argue with that. 

9 
 Okay. 

10 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I think we can 

11 consider this issue closed. 

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

13 
 DR. OSTROW: We're making progress. 

14 MR. KATZ: That's a good one. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We're 

16 
 going on to Issue Number 4. It's the quality 

17 
 and completeness of the internal dosimetry 

18 program. 

19 
 And I know there's been some issues 

20 
 here raised by some of the personnel work 

21 
 facility about missed data, the absence of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 data in some cases. Would you like to address68
 

2 
 that? 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: As far as the 

4 
 completeness of that data, or the quality, 

5 
 it's like I am usually, I guess our generic 

6 
 response to the Tiger Team stuff is it wasn't, 

7 
 you know, the Tiger Team, say that, like their 

8 
 focus was different than what our focus was on 

9 
 that. 

10 And their intent was different than 

11 
 what our intent for using the information was. 

12 
 But the one key thing that we have done is 

13 completely revised the internal TBD on that. 

14 
 And now for the activation fission 

15 
 product on that we're now using the OTIB-54 

16 
 approach on that. And for the actinides I put 

17 
 together a similar approach that OTIB-54 uses, 

18 
 we still use ratios, but it's based on site 

19 specific data on that. 

20 
 And it's a boiled down list to 

21 
 where so we've got a much broader list of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 nuclides that are now being accounted for and69


2 
 I believe that was the biggest concern in the 

3 
 last meeting, that was expressed in the last 

4 
 meeting, was the list of nuclides that we were 

5 
 factoring in was too limiting on that and some 

6 
 organs might miss out on dose because of key 

7 
 nuclides not being factored into that. 

8 
 So hopefully what we have in there 

9 
 now is sufficiently broad. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: OTIB-54 is a very good 

11 
 OTIB. What it basically does, and I'm trying 

12 
 to draw a bridge between what you just said 

13 and OTIB-54. 

14 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: OTIB-54 says listen, if 

16 
 I happen to have urine samples from workers, 

17 
 let's say a comprehensive set of urine 

18 
 samples, where I did gross beta-gamma analysis 

19 
 on it. I've got a pretty good idea of the 

20 gross beta-gamma that was in that urine. 

21 
 The problem I don't have is what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the mix of radio nuclides are. It -- what is70
 

2 
 it, the strontium-90, cesium-137, is --

3 
 whatever it is. So it sounds like I'm not 

4 
 quite sure what was done originally, you know, 

5 
 the approach taken originally. 

6 
 But ultimately if you're saying 

7 
 your starting point was gross beta-gamma 

8 
 measurements and originally you went about 

9 
 calculating the dose from that data. But now 

10 
 you say no, we're going to do it a better way. 

11 We're going to use the OTIB-54. 

12 
 Now embedded in the OTIB-54 is a 

13 
 mix, there's mixes, and you could pick and 

14 
 choose which mix of radionuclides. In other 

15 
 words you could be at this reactor, or could 

16 you could be at that reactor. 

17 
 And the reactors could be different 

18 
 enough so that the kinds of beta-gamma 

19 
 emitters that might become airborne from that 

20 
 reactor could be substantially different than 

21 the beta-gamma emitters from this reactor. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Now, and what OTIB-54 says if you71


2 
 know which kind of reactor you're working 

3 
 with, more or less, you probably could work 

4 
 with this mix. Saying that this is the way in 

5 
 which the beta-gammas would be mixed as 

6 
 opposed to this reactor. 

7 
 And all of that was fine in OTIB8 
 54. We reviewed it, Joyce Lipsztein reviewed, 

9 
 and others reviewed it and said, no, that 

10 
 looks like a really good way to come at this 

11 problem. 

12 
 So you basically are saying you 

13 
 basically have gotten to a place where for 

14 
 workers at this site you know that we have 

15 bioassay data 

16 
 You assigned that worker to a 

17 
 particular type of reactor, one of the 52 

18 
 reactors that are at the site, or class of 

19 
 reactors. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: No, OTIB-54 takes 

21 
 those individual reactors and comes up with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 basically a homogenized or collective set of72


2 
 ratios that are representative of all the 

3 
 reactor types. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: That's the one place we 

5 
 had a problem with OTIB-54. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes -- there's some 

7 
 changes that are being looked into for OTIB8 
 54. 

9 
 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct. 

10 OTIB-54 is under revision right now. 

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 
 DR. TAULBEE: But in general the 

13 
 description from reactor to reactor, it's my 

14 
 understanding that the mixed fission product, 

15 
 the mixture, doesn't change significantly from 

16 
 reactor to reactor as much as it does from 

17 reactor to separations area? 

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

19 
 DR. TAULBEE: And so that's where 

20 
 this huge delta is. That the ones within 

21 
 reactors are actually more time dependent than 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 anything else. 73
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

3 
 DR. TAULBEE: With the ten day, 60 

4 
 day, 180 day, right? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Mixing -- Yes. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: Right. And so it's 

7 
 really not so much different type of reactor 

8 
 it's the time sequence associated with the 

9 
 reactor and then the difference from the 

10 separations area. 

11 
 So by incorporating OTIB-54 that's 

12 
 where they're taking into account those 

13 
 radionuclides that take the highest dose 

14 
 associated with whichever time period, how 

15 
 long they kept the fuel there, how often they 

16 
 changed it, et cetera, that that's where that 

17 
 mixture is going to be changing. And that's 

18 
 what I believe you've incorporated into the 

19 revised TBD, correct? 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, for the most 

21 
 part when it comes to the OTIB-54, and that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 revised TBD says basically just use OTIB-54.74


2 
 It gives specific guidance on the decay 

3 
 periods for specific facilities and that are 

4 
 applicable and the reasons why those decay 

5 
 periods are applicable to those facilities. 

6 
 In the instance like the ICPP 

7 
 there's multiple decay periods the 

8 
 instructions are to basically evaluate all the 

9 
 potential decay periods and use the one that 

10 results in the highest dose. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Well see ICPP was not, 

12 
 see I think, OTIB-54 was really written for 

13 reactors. 

14 
 MR. GLECKLER: It covers both. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: No, it does both? 

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: It covers waste 

17 
 sites and reprocessing type facilities as 

18 well. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: It's a pretty broad 

21 scope document. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well it seems to me75
 

2 
 that since this revision was really 

3 
 significant that maybe SC&A might want to take 

4 
 a look at the new revision? 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: That's for O-54? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: See to me --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, for Finding 

8 
 Number 4. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Four, right. 

10 DR. TAULBEE: Right. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: But OTIB-54 is under 

12 review right now also, correct? 

13 
 DR. MAURO: One area is, that one 

14 
 aspect. This homogenized issue. Where if you 

15 
 don't know what reactor and you're going to 

16 
 work with a generic reactor, maybe we had a 

17 problem with that. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If you give me a 

19 little bit I can probably find out. 

20 
 DR. TAULBEE: I know we are 

21 
 revising it right now, internally, with a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 slightly modified mix due to some better data76


2 
 that we've got. But I don't know that that's 

3 
 hit for you all to look at yet. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So how would 

5 
 this be applied say for those people working 

6 
 up at TAN, in that area, versus those people 

7 
 at the Chem Plant who have a number of 

8 
 different reactors. 

9 
 I shouldn't say in that -- in that 

10 
 particular area. So now you have these two 

11 
 areas and you have, maybe you have personnel, 

12 
 which I assume there were many personnel that 

13 
 went back and forth between the two. How are 

14 
 you going to apply that to that particular 

15 person? 

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. This would 

17 
 typically be applied to individuals with 

18 
 bioassay data, so let's say the person worked 

19 
 there prior to 1960, they would typically have 

20 
 a gross beta and urine sample results, or 

21 multiple sample results going on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 We would take that gross urine77
 

2 
 sample result, and Table 7-1 of OTIB-54 has 

3 
 some ratios. Test Area North, it's an area 

4 
 with operating reactors -- reactors were still 

5 
 operational back in that time frame we'd use 

6 
 the ten day TBD. The INL TBD says to use a 

7 
 ten day decay period for that time frame. 

8 
 And that which yields the highest 

9 
 rations from Table 7-3. Now table 7-1 of 

10 
 OTIB-54 accounts for the fraction of the urine 

11 that's attributable to strontium and cesium. 

12 
 And for the gross-beta we would use 

13 
 the amount that's attributable to strontium. 

14 
 And then we take the intake that we calculate 

15 
 using that ratio and that information and 

16 
 apply the ratios in Table 7-3, I believe. I'm 

17 
 pretty sure I got these table numbers right, 

18 but I'm not positive. 

19 
 But for all the other activation 

20 
 fission products in OTIB-54 there's a list of 

21 
 ratios for each decay period. There's a ten 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 day, a 40 day decay period, 180 day decay78


2 
 period and a one year decay period. 

3 
 And the highest ratios for the 

4 
 activation fusion products come out of the ten 

5 
 day decay period. So that would yield pretty 

6 
 much the highest doses and intakes possible 

7 
 using the OTIB-54 approach. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: You got me on that one. 

9 
 I would have thought that as the core ages, 

10 
 in other words the reactor is operating for a 

11 long time period. 

12 
 And what happens is as time goes on 

13 
 the importance of cesium-137 and strontium-90 

14 
 is starting to become more and more greater 

15 
 inventory of the total curies inside the 

16 
 reactor. 

17 
 And therefore, those are the ones 

18 
 that, if you are going to inhale some airborne 

19 
 articulates, they're the ones that are going 

20 
 to give you the greatest dose per becquerel 

21 
 inhaled, as opposed to the shorter lived, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 which are not going to really, see the shorter79


2 
 liveds are going to go out and then stop. 

3 
 Even if you've operated for long 

4 
 periods of time the inventory's going to stop 

5 
 here. On the longer lived they're just going 

6 
 to keep climbing. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes but cesium and 

8 
 strontium are pretty much accounted for by the 

9 
 bioassay measurement to where the, in the 

10 
 Table 7-1 values, are not as time, as the 

11 
 decay period goes up, yes, the ratios get a 

12 little higher. 

13 
 Let me see, I've got it here --

14 forget which way they go. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: See to me a ten day mix 

16 
 is not going to be as damaging as a one year 

17 
 mix. In terms of the airborne gross beta18 gamma. 

19 
 What the mix of radionuclides is 

20 
 going to be you're going to have your dose per 

21 
 unit intake is going to be much higher for a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 one year mix. 80
 

2 
 Let's say you have a becquerel per 

3 
 cubic meter. The one year mix of becquerel 

4 
 per cubic meter is going to be a lot more 

5 
 harmful, theoretically, than a ten day mix, 

6 
 unless I'm thinking about it wrong. 

7 
 On a per becquerel per cubic meter 

8 
 or becquerel per liter, in urine, is the 

9 
 older, is the age material that's going to, on 

10 
 a per unit activity, is going to give you the 

11 
 higher dose. Because you have longer lived 

12 radionuclides that are making up that mix. 

13 
 And by longer lived ones, of 

14 
 course, are going to deliver a greater dose 

15 commitment. 

16 
 DR. TAULBEE: What OTIB-54 is 

17 
 looking at is ratios. So I think it's just 

18 
 giving you the ratio on the different 

19 
 radionuclides. They are not doses, which is 

20 
 what you're talking of it being longer. So I 

21 
 think we're actually talking two different 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 things here. 81
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because 

4 
 specifically this will have to do with 

5 
 intakes. But typically the doses will still 

6 
 yield higher because cesium and strontium are, 

7 
 you know, basically around the same sort of 

8 
 half life. And so they're going to be out 

9 
 the, and like the Table 7-1 values are the 

10 urine activity fractions. 

11 
 And it's like 7-3 where they use 

12 
 that indicator nuclide, which is cesium or 

13 
 strontium. Now if you calculate the others, 

14 
 and like for the cesium, if you're strontium 

15 
 the cesium ratios do not change from ten days 

16 to one year. 

17 
 And so it's the same throughout but 

18 
 you get a much larger mix of other short-lived 

19 
 nuclides at the ten day mark with much higher 

20 
 ratios. But part of what you said is true but 

21 not for that reason that you're indicating. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 It's because of the actinides,82


2 
 because the actinides tend to go yield a 

3 
 higher result with the longer decay periods 

4 
 the way that they're dealt with in this TBD 

5 
 revision. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: For the purpose of the 

7 
 work we're in the place what I think is 

8 
 important. What I'm getting at is this is the 

9 
 internal dose to workers inside the building 

10 
 exposed to airborne radioactivity from 

11 whatever the facility is. 

12 
 And this, in my mind, this is where 

13 the action is for internal events. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: John, can I 

15 
 ask you a question on that? What about say 

16 
 personnel who worked in the reprocessing of 

17 
 some of these fuel pins and stuff, like CTP, 

18 
 was that 602 I think it is, where they redid 

19 
 these. So they would have been exposed to a 

20 lot of the -- particularly the actinides. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: I have to say I always 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 thought of 54 as more of a reactor thing than83


2 
 a reprocessing tool, but I may be wrong. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: As far as what, I'm 

4 
 not familiar offhand with what that area did, 

5 
 could you elaborate on what that specific area 

6 
 was involved with? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well the 

8 
 development of the fuel pins, say extracting 

9 
 the uranium back out to have it recycled 

10 
 through the system. Or like the RaLa program 

11 that went on up there for --

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: Because well you've 

13 
 got RaLa, that's separate from the first thing 

14 
 that you mentioned. Because the first thing 

15 
 you mentioned deals with more the routine 

16 operations that took place at the facility. 

17 
 Then we're only talking about 

18 
 uranium as the actinide predominately other 

19 
 than it's recycled uranium. And there are 

20 
 things that were added to the TBD that account 

21 
 for the recycled component, you know, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 other impurities from the recycled uranium. 84
 

2 
 And that's based on Y-12 

3 
 information and material that they actually 

4 
 got from the ICPP. Then for the most part the 

5 
 other actinides stayed with the fission 

6 
 products. 

7 
 We don't have any indication that 

8 
 they've ever separated plutonium out, that's 

9 
 been something you see quoted a lot in a lot 

10 
 of the INL documents and I haven't come across 

11 
 anything to show that there's ever plutonium 

12 separated. 

13 
 So they all stayed with the fission 

14 
 products on that. So that actinide scenario 

15 
 that you're talking about is pretty much 

16 
 recycled uranium. High enriched recycled 

17 uranium on that. 

18 
 And then for the RaLa there is some 

19 
 specific guidance that I put in there because 

20 
 the ICCP, the decay periods that are 

21 
 recommended for that facility are the 40 day, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the 180 day and the one year that we have to85


2 
 evaluate except for the RaLa runs where then 

3 
 we do the ten day as well, I believe. 

4 
 There is specific guidance in the 

5 
 revised TBD for individuals involved with that 

6 
 work. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: How are you 

8 
 going to apply that to, say personnel who may 

9 
 have been exposed to both. Maybe they were 

10 
 there in the Chem Plant processing this stuff. 

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: Let me look real 

12 quick. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Then maybe 

14 they were filling in at one of the reactors. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: I believe the way 

16 
 that I've got it written in there, because I 

17 
 don't look at the RaLa stuff much because we 

18 
 don't encounter it too much. But I think the 

19 
 way I wrote it in there was that you just add 

20 
 the ten day in the list of scenarios that you 

21 have to assess. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 It's like then I believe you have86


2 
 to assess all four of them at that point and 

3 
 pick the one that's highest. I know that's 

4 
 the case for normal ICPT exposure is you've 

5 
 got the 40 day, 180 day and one year decay 

6 
 periods that are applicable to that facility. 

7 
 You have to assess all three and pick the one 

8 
 that yields the highest dose on that. 

9 
 And I believe I've got it written 

10 
 to where we just add the ten day into that mix 

11 
 for the RaLa workers, or workers that were 

12 there when they were doing --

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: So I think to answer 

14 
 your question, Phil, basically when somebody's 

15 
 split between the two we assume them to be in 

16 
 one or the other, and which ever one gives the 

17 highest dose. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. What 

19 
 about time frames? Say maybe they're only on 

20 
 an annual urinalysis versus a person's on 

21 semi-annual, quarterly or even monthly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: Because virtually,87
 

2 
 you know, the vast majority of the bioassay 

3 
 results are negative and that we're typically 

4 
 just doing a missed dose calculation anyhow. 

5 
 So we're only using the very last 

6 
 bioassay result for a given monitoring period 

7 
 -- and to deal with unmonitored periods and 

8 
 unmonitored workers, out at INL we're still 

9 
 doing the default dose approach that was 

10 initially described in the original TBD. 

11 
 And that's where we'll use a 

12 
 hypothetical bioassay result on that and 

13 
 assign them a missed dose. And that's 

14 
 typically, if they're unmonitored in order to 

15 
 get that for like a best estimate or 

16 
 compensable claim they have to have at least a 

17 
 positive external dose. Otherwise they'll 

18 
 just get the environmental for a comp or best 

19 estimate claim on that. 

20 
 But the basis for only giving them 

21 
 a missed dose for those unmonitored periods is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the fact that we've got the bioassay data,88


2 
 over 90 percent of it was, you know, less than 

3 
 detect. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: I'm constructing in my 

5 
 mind the logic sequence of how to get through 

6 
 this situation where you have, you're saying 

7 
 the rock you're really standing on is that 

8 
 you've got urine samples for a lot of workers 

9 
 and you've measured gross beta gap. That's 

10 
 really to make a generalization. And it 

11 applies -- no matter where they worked. 

12 
 And at the same time you run into a 

13 
 situation where those very people that were 

14 
 monitored, the vast majority don't have 

15 
 positive hit. They're less than the lower 

16 limits of protection, but a few are above it. 

17 
 So you're confronted with a 

18 
 circumstance that says okay, for those that we 

19 
 do have fairly good data, let's say quarterly 

20 
 urine sample collection, gross beta-gamma, you 

21 
 go back into maybe his work history. And if 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 he doesn't have a good idea of what his work89


2 
 history was you go back and make the worst 

3 
 plausible assumption. 

4 
 Well if he happened to have been 

5 
 working over here the worst thing that you 

6 
 could assume was that he's working over here 

7 
 and this was his mix, and we're going to 

8 
 assign that to him. I mean that would seem to 

9 
 be a reasonable way to go. And you've done 

10 the right thing by that person. 

11 
 But now you have a person, let's 

12 
 say, that he has all his results come back 

13 
 lower than limits of detection. All right, so 

14 
 you say, and let's say he was only monitored 

15 
 once a year. Okay, you got a guy, what do we 

16 do with this guy. And I guess I'm not sure. 

17 
 See to me it's always just a simple 

18 
 story. All right, what are we going to do 

19 
 about the guy that worked there for many 

20 
 years. We took annual urine sample. We know 

21 
 he could have worked in areas where he could 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have been exposed to some airborne. 90
 

2 
 What am I going to do with him? I 

3 
 don't have gross beta-gamma data on him, and 

4 
 everything is less than the limits of 

5 
 detection. How do I deal with him? I have to 

6 
 build a coworker model to somehow deal with 

7 
 him and assign him something. We can't just 

8 
 say he wasn't exposed, especially if there's 

9 
 evidence that he did work in areas where he 

10 
 could have been exposed. See I like to hear 

11 the story that way. 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: With INL it's like 

13 
 they didn't conduct as much routine monitoring 

14 
 as other facilities. Typically a lot of their 

15 
 monitoring was based on workplace indicators, 

16 
 air monitoring results, you know, something 

17 
 occurring within the facility. It's like they 

18 
 typically would, you know, you see this in the 

19 
 exposure results and the bioassay data for the 

20 workers. 

21 
 They'll monitor a whole group of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 workers that were in the vicinity of where91


2 
 there was a release event. And that and it's 

3 
 like judge by what those bioassay results 

4 
 yield. 

5 
 So if they're all negative it's 

6 
 like they're not, you know, not going to 

7 
 monitor anyone else or do much follow up, if 

8 
 any, at that point. 

9 
 But if there's significant intake 

10 
 and that sometimes they expand that out and 

11 
 monitor some other workers, but they'll 

12 
 typically have a whole series of monitoring 

13 
 results for those workers that were involved 

14 and had positive bioassays. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: So they weren't, so all 

16 
 workers weren't, it was just because they 

17 
 happened to work in this area where routine 

18 
 bioassay, on some kind of bioassay schedule, 

19 it was sort of like episodic. 

20 
 That is when we felt it was 

21 
 necessary, it was done. When it wasn't, it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 wasn't done. And the presumption being when92
 

2 
 it wasn't done there was no need to do it. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: From the most part 

4 
 it looks like they relied heavily on workplace 

5 
 indicators on that. It's like because there's 

6 
 a handful of them that you do see to where 

7 
 they do get annual bioassays. 

8 
 But typically that's about the most 

9 
 frequent of the routine monitoring that you'll 

10 see is annual. 

11 DR. MAURO: Annual. Now let's --

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: Or eventually annual 

13 whole body counts. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: But they all did have 

15 film badge, were they all badged? 

16 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: So what we have is, is 

18 
 there any argument that could be made that 

19 
 there was a relationship between the film 

20 badge reading and the bioassay? 

21 
 That is if you're consistently 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 seeing a relatively low film badge reading, is93


2 
 there any -- I'm trying to find, I'm putting 

3 
 myself in your shoes and to try to convince 

4 
 myself. 

5 
 You see, it sounds like you're in a 

6 
 tough spot. You've got a place where there 

7 
 was airborne radioactivity. The reactors, the 

8 
 Chem Plant, the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

9 
 Program. 

10 But you have relatively limited 

11 
 amount of positive readings, or a limited 

12 
 amount of bioassay, annual bioassays and only 

13 for select people. 

14 
 So somehow you've got to have a 

15 
 hook that says why is that we believe that we 

16 
 could bound the doses to all workers, internal 

17 
 doses. 

18 
 Because we have this indirect 

19 
 evidence, whether it's air sampling data, film 

20 
 badge data, operational data. In other words 

21 
 you've got to have a hook to allow yourself to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 walk away. 94
 

2 
 And say, well for these particular 

3 
 people here's the reason why it's okay we're 

4 
 not assigning you any internal does. Or we're 

5 
 assigning this internal dose. 

6 
 And I'll be the first to say, you 

7 
 know, I didn't read all this material. But 

8 
 I'm trying to give you an idea of how I think 

9 
 about these things and how SC&A thinks about 

10 these things. 

11 
 So you've just got to make like a 

12 
 common sense argument why in the end what 

13 
 you're recommending rings true. And 

14 
 unfortunately these matrices don't really help 

15 us understand that kind of story. 

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: But if you're saying 

17 
 that the workers that were monitored their 

18 
 exposures aren't indicative of the, you know, 

19 
 the workers that were unmonitored might have 

20 
 had equal or higher exposure, or more 

21 
 importantly, higher exposures than effectively 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a coworker, you know, you're saying that you95


2 
 wouldn't deem a coworker study valid for that 

3 
 site. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well I think the 

5 
 conclusion though is for a coworker study to 

6 
 be valid that you have to have some confidence 

7 
 that there wasn't a systematic exclusion of 

8 
 most highly exposed people. 

9 
 DR. TAULBEE: Let me, Page 5 of 

10 
 this, this actually comes under another issue 

11 
 a little bit later when we talk about gross 

12 
 beta-gamma. You know we've got 90,000 urine 

13 
 samples here at the site, and 98 percent of 

14 them were below detection limit. 

15 
 So that's what effectively, I 

16 
 believe, Brian correct me if I'm wrong here, 

17 
 that's why we're banking on the MDA assignment 

18 
 as being reasonable for somebody not being 

19 monitored. 

20 
 You know they've taken almost 

21 
 100,000 urine samples, and only two percent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 are showing positive. Therefore, for somebody96
 

2 
 who's not monitored, or we only have one urine 

3 
 sample, you know, for a year, and we assign a 

4 
 missed dose for that entire year based upon 

5 
 that, that's where we feel confident here. 

6 
 If the sampling was based upon 

7 
 workplace indicators, and we have 90,000 

8 
 results and that's the only sampling that was 

9 
 done, and only two percent are showing 

10 
 positive, the workplace indicators seem to be 

11 
 pretty significant as far as detecting 

12 something. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: And that story is all 

14 laid out in your Site Profile? 

15 DR. TAULBEE: That's what I'm --

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: It goes into now the 

17 
 number of bioassay samples that, the different 

18 
 types of bioassay samples. Like the gross 

19 
 beta in urine, gross gamma in urine, how many 

20 
 of them were, you know, negative and stuff. 

21 
 It goes into some of those statistics now that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 would chart in the matrix. 97
 

2 
 And that's a lot of that got in, I 

3 
 wrote the stuff for the matrix first, I 

4 
 believe, and incorporated it into the TBD, so 

5 
 the statistics are now in the TBD. But the 

6 
 big thing is, yes, it's not like they weren't 

7 
 monitoring people. 

8 
 And it's not the scenario where 

9 
 they were only monitoring people sparingly and 

10 
 yes, like 98 percent of them or whatever, it's 

11 
 like were negative and well that's not 

12 representative. 

13 
 You know they took a large amount 

14 
 of samples. Almost, just short of 100,000 

15 bioassay samples, and they were negative. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: To speak, I mean, what 

17 
 you just said is the story I like to hear. 

18 
 You have got 90,000 urine samples and it cuts 

19 
 across just about every activity you could 

20 possibly imagine, over all the years. 

21 
 And we're getting this non-detects. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 That's a pretty strong statement. It's also98
 

2 
 common sense that I'm not looking for heavy 

3 
 statistical analysis --

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: Right. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. And here's why 

6 
 you believe. And this almost becomes self 

7 
 evident. If you have 90,000 measurements 

8 
 representing, I don't know, how many. How 

9 
 many people over what time period in every 

10 facility. 

11 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well there's two 

12 
 questions. How many people and over what time 

13 period. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, right. 

15 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: That helps us 

16 better evaluate the significance of it. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well I guess back to 

19 
 my, you know, we opened this particular one. 

20 
 The internal TBD has been revised 

21 
 significantly since the last time this Work 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Group met. 99
 

2 
 So it seems to me it would be 

3 
 important for SC&A to look at that again and 

4 
 make those types of comments. These 90,000 

5 
 followed at this time period, workers on the 

6 
 TBD, make that comment and we can follow up 

7 
 on that. But that seems like -- that seems to 

8 
 me where -- the step we're at. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Anyplace where you 

10 
 could be fooled by the gross beta-gamma. That 

11 
 would be another dimension of the problem is 

12 
 that if you're working in a place where you're 

13 
 dealing with transuranics, you're taking gross 

14 beta-gamma. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: Right. That's why I 

16 
 think perhaps SC&A should look at this new 

17 
 revised internal TBD using OTIB-54 and the 

18 methods that Brian's talking about here. 

19 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Just for my 

20 
 information while we're on it, over what time 

21 period were those urine samples taken? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: Typically the gross 100
 

2 
 beta-gamma urine samples stopped somewhere in 

3 
 the mid `60s. And like the gross beta stopped 

4 
 around 1960, and the gross gamma stopped, you 

5 
 don't see hardly any of those after like the 

6 
 mid 1960s where once they got a lot more 

7 
 confidence in the whole body counting which 

8 
 started around 1960 and later. 

9 
 On that they pretty much went to 

10 
 whole body counting for the bulk of the 

11 
 workforce and in later years you start to see 

12 some Pu bioassays. 

13 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So the urine 

14 samples started back in '49? 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: I forget what the 

16 
 start year is. The initial year that they 

17 
 started operations at the site there weren't 

18 
 any bioassay results that we could find. But 

19 
 I believe it's the following years when they 

20 started up, like `53 --

21 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So we're looking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at a period of maybe 12 to -- 12 years, 101


2 
 something like that and how many people? 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: That we could 

4 
 probably -- I didn't do that sort on the data 

5 
 on that to figure out how many different 

6 
 individuals were there, but I think the 

7 
 information in the database would allow us to 

8 
 sort that if you really want that information. 

9 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: That would give 

10 
 us a idea of how representative these urine 

11 
 samples were for the group we're interested 

12 in. That's close enough. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: No, and I agree, and we 

14 
 all know the operations at these different 

15 
 areas was just completely different, time and 

16 
 space and I know a lot of attention was placed 

17 
 on the reactors. But there were some very 

18 
 exotic activities going on like the Aircraft 

19 Nuclear Propulsion Program. 

20 
 This sweeping statement regarding 

21 
 in the early years they were taking gross 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 beta-gamma analysis is sort of like the rock 102


2 
 you're standing on, at least for the early 

3 
 years. 

4 
 Then later you're saying chest 

5 
 count data became the currency for making sure 

6 
 that they understood what the internal doses 

7 
 were, and that would apply, again, universally 

8 
 to the diverse activities that took place. 

9 
 And why that would work and why it 

10 
 wouldn't necessarily be important. I mean in 

11 
 the end when I'm reviewing these things I just 

12 
 look for these simple things. You know, and 

13 start again. 

14 
 A funny way what I do is I say what 

15 
 could have tricked me into thinking I know 

16 what I'm doing when I don't? 

17 
 I almost look the other way around, 

18 
 not looking for reasons why I think 

19 
 everything's okay. No, looking for reasons 

20 
 why things might not be okay. It's sort of 

21 
 like flipping it. I like that way of looking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at almost testing yourself, where in here 103


2 
 could I have been fooled. And anyway. 

3 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So later on it 

4 
 would be the chest count in addition to whole 

5 
 body counts so they got most of the stuff plus 

6 
 the plutonium. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes in the later 

8 
 eras they start doing some PU bioassay and I 

9 
 don't know really why --

10 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: He said chest 

11 counts, I don't think you did. But --

12 
 DR. MAURO: I thought you said 

13 chest count, it wasn't chest count? 

14 
 MR. GLECKLER: I meant it in vivo 

15 Yes, they're whole body counts. 

16 DR. MAURO: Whole body counts. 

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, whole body 

18 
 counts. They do lung counts too for some 

19 workers at the --

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Was everybody 

21 
 badged on a yearly, did they have a whole body 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 scan done? 104
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: What's that? 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Were there 

4 
 personnel who were badged who didn't get these 

5 
 whole body counts done on a yearly basis or 

6 
 these quarterly, semi-annual? 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, there's a 

8 
 number of personnel that don't have any 

9 
 bioassay results on that to where ones that 

10 
 were monitored at all typically if they're in 

11 
 the whole body count era it's like they 

12 
 typically have annual whole body counts on 

13 that. 

14 
 Unless there's a one check to 

15 
 special, that usually means that there's a 

16 
 workplace indicator then that triggered that 

17 one to be taken. 

18 
 And they also did a lot of 

19 
 termination whole body counts for workers. 

20 
 Even sometimes that's the only bioassay result 

21 
 for individuals is their termination whole 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 body count. And that's, so they might not 105
 

2 
 have been monitored during any of their 

3 
 employment but they could receive their 

4 
 termination whole body count. 

5 
 MEMBER MELIUS: So, John, when you 

6 
 look at this, like one of the other issues I 

7 
 thinking that so needed to be in the Site 

8 
 Profile itself is look at were there groups of 

9 
 workers that were missed? 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's a --

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes and I don't see 

12 
 that data in here, I would expect to see it 

13 but if that's something you could look at. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: And also exposure 

15 
 scenarios that could have been missed by a 

16 
 gross beta-gamma when a person is exposed to 

17 
 transuranics, whether it's urinalysis or chest 

18 
 count or a chest count or a whole body count. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: And also the lab 

20 
 workers it sounds like had a possibly higher 

21 
 exposure potential. And I'm curious of what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 labs that they were looked at because it's not 106


2 
 listed in here also. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, you know the 

4 
 reality is it's been six years since we looked 

5 
 at this. It sounds like an awful lot of work 

6 
 was done, a lot of NUREGs came out -- OTIBs. I 

7 
 think we have to look at this again. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: The approach now is 

9 
 very different from the previous approach and 

10 
 in defense of the old approach it's like from 

11 
 what I've been seeing is, you know, the old 

12 
 approach is still claimant favorable in most 

13 situations. 

14 
 It's like it might be, you know, 

15 
 the argument that SC&A originally had is that 

16 
 for certain organs not having a certain 

17 
 nuclide in the list is like might result in an 

18 underestimate of dose. 

19 
 But from what we've been seeing 

20 
 with some claims that come back for rework for 

21 
 added cancers and that we haven't put them 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 through the PDR process yet. But some of them 107
 

2 
 have come back for rework and their doses 

3 
 typically go down. 

4 
 But the problem with the old 

5 
 approach is no one that put that approach 

6 
 together was still on the project and we 

7 
 didn't have the data to defend it, 

8 
 unfortunately, other than we hear that there's 

9 
 a lot of effort put into coming up with that 

10 approach, and it seemed fairly good. 

11 
 But right now after comparing it to 

12 
 the new, the comparisons that we've done with 

13 
 the old approach and the new approach it seems 

14 like it was claimant favorable. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Well I could imagine if 

16 
 you defaulted to strontium-90 on your gross 

17 
 beta analysis and did -- assumed it was all 

18 
 strontium-90 and the guy was doing his own 

19 
 dose, I mean you're going to come off the 

20 charts. 

21 
 And then later on you back off and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 say well we're going to do a realistic mix. 108


2 
 But I can see that are those just dropping 

3 
 like a rock. 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, I had the same 

6 
 question, I don't understand, but --

7 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Well was the old 

8 
 metric just not documented? It's making me 

9 
 nervous. 

10 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it sounded like 

11 
 it was documented but not in a manner that, it 

12 
 was with an individual where the project never 

13 
 recovered those files from them after they 

14 
 created them in the first place, you know, to 

15 
 support was done. And so essentially it would 

16 
 be counted as not documented, but not to, it 

17 wasn't completely undocumented. 

18 
 They did the legwork on it and 

19 
 there's documentation out there to support it, 

20 
 but the individual that would have had those 

21 
 records is retired and after a few years 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 never, you know, saw fit to retain them. 109
 

2 
 Ideally we would have recovered 

3 
 those and put them into the SRDB or somewhere 

4 
 where they were retrievable. That's why we 

5 
 just, by the time that this become an issue 

6 
 and now it's like OTIB-54 was out there and 

7 
 issued. 

8 
 So it's like that was one of the 

9 
 reactors from INL was used for the basis for 

10 
 OTIB-54, so it just seemed natural to go with 

11 that approach and be done with it. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Water under the bridge 

13 at this point I guess. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: No, I'm just trying to 

15 
 --

16 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

17 
 MR. KATZ: I think I'd just suggest 

18 
 that the Work Group task SC&A with doing this 

19 
 but as you're doing your work reviewing it 

20 
 that you raise questions as you go with DCAS 

21 
 about issues that seem to be unaddressed, or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what have you, before reporting out. 110
 

2 
 That way next time we have a 

3 
 meeting that kind of interaction on 

4 
 clarifications and so on, what was done, why 

5 
 and what might be missing. You'll already 

6 
 know answers to that at least instead of 

7 
 thrashing them out here and utilizing this --

8 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have to say one 

9 
 of the things I'd really like to do in 

10 
 circumstances like this is while we're reading 

11 
 your work products, have a chance to talk to 

12 
 you. And not to find, just to get 

13 
 clarification -- and this has been -- now as 

14 
 we have in the past we informed the Work Group 

15 
 that we're about to have a conference call, 

16 
 for clarification. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine. And 

18 
 then Work Group Members can sit in and listen 

19 
 to those calls. I think it'd be a good way to 

20 
 move it forward as opposed to waiting for the 

21 next Work Group meeting. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. 111
 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: I have a question. 

3 
 MEMBER MELIUS: And just one sort 

4 
 of procedural, then there'll just be some sort 

5 
 of documentation then of what happened at the 

6 
 work --

7 
 MR. KATZ: Technical call. 

8 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, so that we're 

9 
 not, just so when we meet again we don't say, 

10 well I think we did that. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Then if one of the other 

12 
 Work Group Members want to know what happened 

13 
 they don't have to rely on the one Work Group 

14 Member who was there or what have you. 

15 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Or if a Work Group 

16 Member has a question about a certain --

17 
 DR. MAURO: I have to say I think 

18 
 we've got to do a lot more of that as we're 

19 
 working on problem. We're working on so many 

20 
 Site Profiles and SECs and when we're reading 

21 
 it what is it you really mean here. And 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 document it and put it on the record. And 112
 

2 
 there'll be almost a new way, because we don't 

3 
 do enough of that. That's how I feel. 

4 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Well also I think 

5 
 it facilitates giving the time frames here and 

6 
 what's happened with this particular Site 

7 
 Profile. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because just 

9 
 sitting down and going through the TBD and 

10 
 trying to hash it out unfortunately, you know, 

11 I tried to write it as clearly as possible. 

12 
 But, you know, based on questions I 

13 
 get from our dose reconstructors and that and 

14 
 walking them through stuff it's not 100 

15 
 percent clear. So it's like it's, we'll 

16 
 probably need some help with understanding 

17 what was intended there and stuff. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: Let's say during one of 

19 
 these conference calls we say, it seems like 

20 
 you've got a hole here. Let's say that 

21 
 happens based on blah, blah, blah, blah, looks 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 like you got a hole here. 113
 

2 
 It's almost like a finding, and 

3 
 usually we try to avoid having, it's not a 

4 
 finding, but it's a conversation saying based 

5 
 on what I'm hearing it sounds like that we're 

6 
 still a little uncertain about how you 

7 
 actually will deal with this particular 

8 
 isotope under these particular circumstances. 

9 
 Which, in a way, would be the first 

10 
 step in identifying a possible finding. I for 

11 
 one would like to be able to have that 

12 
 conversation and pass on that concern during 

13 such a call. 

14 
 Document it, make sure that 

15 
 everybody's aware that we raised this concern, 

16 
 it's on the record. And in a way then it's 

17 
 almost moving into the Work Group arena, so I 

18 worry that --

19 
 MR. KATZ: I don't think we're 

20 
 moving in -- I mean I think it's fine if you 

21 
 come in and you say you don't understand how X 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 situation is being dealt with here and if they 114


2 
 don't have an answer, I mean that ends up 

3 
 being in your final report. 

4 
 And they have a cue that they 

5 
 better be ready at the Work Group meeting to 

6 
 address because they already know you have 

7 
 some concerns about something. I don't see 

8 
 any problem in that. 

9 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Or if NIOSH/ORAU 

10 
 agrees then they can be working to resolve it 

11 and --

12 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Come to the meeting 

14 saying get --

15 MR. KATZ: That's right. 

16 
 MEMBER MELIUS: This is what --

17 
 it's not --

18 MR. KATZ: You don't have to argue 

19 and arm wrestle, it's just --

20 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we're pretty 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 much leaving those days behind. 115
 

2 
 MR. DARNELL: In the past there 

3 
 were concerns about independence of this 

4 
 between SC&A and NIOSH. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's come up 

6 
 periodically. 

7 
 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But if these 

9 
 explanatory I mean, these technical 

10 
 conversations can be so much more helpful than 

11 just showing up down here. 

12 
 MR. DARNELL: I agree 

13 
 wholeheartedly. I just wanted to make sure 

14 we're not crossing that independence thing. 

15 
 MEMBER MELIUS: No, as long as the 

16 
 Work Group knows that it's occurring and 

17 secondly that there's a record of the call. 

18 Dr. MAURO: All right, you got it. 

19 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

20 
 Dr. MAURO: I mean, Gen, you've been 

21 on so many --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: We can listen -- it 116
 

2 
 moves it along. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: People listening could 

4 
 ask questions, whatever. 

5 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Or if you're not on 

6 
 the line you could get the memo and if there's 

7 
 something outrageous or wrong or whatever 

8 
 then, you know. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: So, Pete, I have a 

11 
 question. Your responses are all based on the 

12 
 new Site Profile Review that came out in 

13 April, is that correct? 

14 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes. It's --

15 
 information. 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: And the issues were 

17 
 based on the old Site Profile? 

18 
 MR. DARNELL: Correct. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I just wanted 

20 to make sure --

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: The most recent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 version that was released. 117
 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: -- that you actually 

3 


4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Only the external 

5 
 one came out in April, all the others came out 

6 
 prior to that. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: How much prior? 

8 
 They came out since our last meeting? 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

10 
 MS. JENKINS: The internal came out 

11 in March of 2010, roughly. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

13 MR. GLECKLER: Going back there --

14 
 MS. JENKINS: Actually it was 

15 
 January of 2010, external was May of this 

16 
 year. Site description was August of last 

17 year. 

18 
 Oh, Environmental was February of 

19 
 last year. Those are the dates that we have 

20 
 on the network as far as when they get there. 

21 
 Because the dates probably on the actual 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 reports tend to vary a little bit. 118
 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Based on what 

4 
 they have in the TBD there looks like the, 

5 
 whether this has any effect I don't know, 

6 
 that's why I'm asking this question. 

7 
 Basically when they're doing these fuel rods, 

8 
 running them back through and reprocessing 

9 
 this stuff. 

10 It seems they've had three 

11 
 campaigns of highly enriched uranium, 

12 
 neptunium and RaLa Programs. Now how that's 

13 
 going to effect these people who had a in vivo 

14 
 done or who maybe were missed, I don't know 

15 
 if, is that going to have any real effect on 

16 them? 

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: From what I've seen 

18 
 the ones during the RaLa release incidents is 

19 
 like they'll send a whole group in for 

20 
 bioassay and then depending on whether they're 

21 
 positive or negative, a lot of them had really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 high positives for iodine. 119
 

2 
 And most of those intakes for the 

3 
 RaLa work it's like were real high positive 

4 
 iodine, or real high iodine intakes, and they 

5 
 very short lived. And then it shows they'll 

6 
 take a whole series of subsequent bioassays 

7 
 after that in the subsequent days and it drops 

8 
 off really quick. 

9 
 So there's no indication that 

10 
 there's anything longer lived, like cesium and 

11 
 that present. So for those instances we could 

12 
 actually limit those acute intakes to just 

13 
 iodine. Because they've -- the site has in 

14 
 most cases gone in and written in what 

15 specific isotopes. 

16 
 And I think they'll do a gamma spec 

17 
 on the urine sample in most instances when 

18 
 there's, especially when there's a significant 

19 
 bioassay result and that they'll typically go 

20 
 in and do a gamma spec on it and determine 

21 
 which nuclides are the culprits, so to speak 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and then -- 120
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, and you track that 

3 
 and watch the iodine go away and then you can 

4 
 start to see there's a urine sample where 

5 
 you're doing gamma spec and the iodine starts 

6 
 to go away, as expected, and what's left 

7 
 behind would be some of the lesser amounts for 

8 
 possibly important radionuclides, like 

9 
 cesium. 

10 So the process, because you could 

11 almost see the iodine swapping your count. 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: And I’ve only seen 

13 
 one incidence to where the iodine tailed off 

14 
 and then you could definitely tell that there 

15 is cesium there. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: There's always cesium 

17 when you have iodine. 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well most of these 

19 instances it drops below detection --

20 DR. MAURO: Right off the radar. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: It drops right below 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the detection limit within a couple days. And 121
 

2 
 if there's any cesium there you should be able 

3 
 to see it. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: You should see it. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Should be able to 

6 
 see it there for quite a bit longer. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: Well I was thinking 

8 
 that maybe the iodine was just like a thyroid 

9 
 count but it's not. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: No this is 

11 
 typically, I think that's the gross beta and 

12 
 gross gamma in here and there, it's one of 

13 those two areas. 

14 
 But I think it's the end of the 

15 
 gross beta in urine era and the beginning of 

16 
 the gross gamma in the urine era is typically 

17 where most of those RaLa runs were done. 

18 
 And so I think a lot of it's gross 

19 
 gamma now that I think about it. But you see 

20 
 it in the bioassay results tail off within a 

21 couple days on that so there's --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: There wasn't a gamma 122
 

2 
 spec on this, this is just a gross? The gross 

3 
 count. 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, they'll just do 

5 
 a gross count. But in instances they'll do, 

6 
 when they're real high, they'll do a gamma 

7 
 spec and label, they won't give you the gamma 

8 
 spec result. It looks like they're just using 

9 
 the gamma spec to identify the nuclide. 

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: And they'll have in 

12 the record they'll write down what isotope. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, what peaks they 

14 
 saw. 

15 MR. GLECKLER: That they saw, and 

16 
 typically it's one of the iodines. Almost 

17 
 always especially if it's -- and there's 

18 
 usually an incident report for the RaLa runs 

19 or incidents. 

20 
 And for the routine stuff you don't 

21 
 tend to see as many incident reports with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 positive bioassays, the real big incidents you 123


2 
 do definitely see the incident reports for. 

3 
 But you'll see whole groups in the, 

4 
 even though they redact out the names of the 

5 
 other individuals, well we've got the 

6 
 unredacted data too, it's like in the database 

7 
 now. It's like in the exposure reports for 

8 
 individuals you'll see that they sent a whole 

9 
 group in. 

10 And the whole group's got a lot of 

11 
 significant positive bioassay results on that. 

12 
 So they're not just sending one worker in 

13 
 because of a workplace indicator, they're 

14 
 sending in groups of people that were in the 

15 
 affected area, and they typically show up on 

16 the same bioassay card. 

17 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I ask a 

18 
 different sort of global question just so I 

19 
 understand? This new profile incorporates 

20 Argonne West. 

21 
 Is there any differences in terms 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of operations or worker, you know, types of 124


2 
 workers that are covered or something like 

3 
 that? Because I think that makes some 

4 
 difference in terms of what we would have SC&A 

5 
 do, that's --

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: Originally the Site 

7 
 Profile included ANL West, we just recombined 

8 
 it. 

9 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: Because they were so 

11 
 closely related to where they had, you know, 

12 
 pretty much the same radiological control 

13 
 organization up until the very later years I 

14 think they were a little more separate. 

15 
 And then once Argonne West 

16 
 basically has since disappeared and got 

17 
 reincorporated into the site also, it's now 

18 
 all part of the same health physics 

19 organization or radiological control, so. 

20 
 MEMBER MELIUS: And so 

21 operationally it's always been --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: The same -- 125
 

2 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Argonne West has 

4 
 their own series of reactors, right? 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, they had their 

6 
 own facilities. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, their own 

8 
 facilities, they were reactor things like INL 

9 
 had? 

10 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Different design of 

12 
 the reactors but it was reactors but it was 

13 reactor technology, basically. 

14 
 MEMBER MELIUS: And the workforces 

15 
 were, sorry, to some extent combined, I mean 

16 in the --

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, you'll see like 

18 
 maintenance workers are probably the best 

19 
 example. Most of the maintenance workers work 

20 out of the CFA. 

21 
 They'll send maintenance workers, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and the same maintenance worker will go to the 126


2 
 ICPP as they'll send over to the ANL West at 

3 
 times on that. So even other -- you'll see 

4 
 them going to all the facilities out on the 

5 
 site. 

6 
 MEMBER MELIUS: I didn't think that 

7 
 was our rationale then for combining --

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes that and 

9 
 combined rate. 

10 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. I'm just 

11 trying to remember a few --

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It looks like 

13 on Number 4 that's SC&A's action items. 

14 MR. KATZ: Right. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We've got 

16 OTIB-54 and how it's defined. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Oh yes. Absolutely. 

18 Yes, we'll definitely take that. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: When the 

20 
 internals, new internals come out. 

21 MR. KATZ: Anybody need a break? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Sure. 127
 

2 
 MS. JENKINS: Sounds like a good 

3 
 place. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: So should we take a 

5 
 break until 11:00? 

6 
 Okay folks on the phone, we'll just 

7 
 break until 11:00, so just put the phone --

8 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

9 
 the record at 10:46 a.m. and 

10 resumed at 11:07 a.m.) 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. This is the INL 

12 
 Work Group. We're reconvening after a break, 

13 
 sorry it's a little bit longer than we 

14 expected. Phil, where are we? 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: One quick 

16 
 issue here. I know that's one concern about 

17 
 the high-risk jobs. I think for the most part 

18 
 we've kind of addressed where SC&A and NIOSH 

19 
 need to look because this, there again, goes 

20 
 back to the internal possible missed doses on 

21 
 Comment Number 5. Anybody have any feelings 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 on that? 128
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Other than the 

3 
 bioassay data it looks like they routinely 

4 
 sent people in to submit bioassays or have 

5 
 whole body counts when there was a workplace 

6 
 indicators that indicated that they had a 

7 
 potential exposure and that the vast majority 

8 
 of those bioassay results were below the 

9 
 detection limits. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: We're going to look at 

11 
 it. You miss those you've got a problem. I 

12 mean we're --

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So it's kind 

14 
 of covered then under your review of internal? 

15 MR. KATZ: TBD. 

16 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. This is 

18 
 an area where I've got admit I'm a little 

19 
 short on, is the calibration of the 

20 
 instrumentation and stuff, and accuracy in 

21 calibrations. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 How they were done. I mean that 129
 

2 
 was a deficiency in the Tiger Team reports 

3 
 which I think most of us throughout facility 

4 
 got nailed on that, I think, in many ways. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Just a real quick 

6 
 question. Pete, your response is that the 

7 
 problems that Tiger Team identified regarding 

8 
 calibration, et cetera, really are independent 

9 
 of the issues that we're dealing with here. I 

10 
 guess just a minute or two on why that 

11 independence exists. For whoever, you know. 

12 
 You would normally think that if 

13 
 the Tiger Team challenged the validity of 

14 
 calibration, low limits of detection, whatever 

15 
 techniques it was, that that would have an 

16 effect on the reliability of the data. 

17 
 MR. DARNELL: Well, I'm trying to 

18 
 go off of memory, I don't remember exactly why 

19 
 I wrote this, looking back over the original 

20 
 draft. I believe it had something to do with 

21 
 the CFRs that were cited for that Tiger Team 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

-- 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 report. 130
 

2 
 This 48, 50, which neither of CFR 

3 
 48 and 50, neither of which have anything to 

4 
 do with rad protection aspects. It had more 

5 
 to do with generalized, yes, CFR 50 and 48, 

6 
 excuse me, 40 CFR 50 and 58. 

7 
 These are concerning primary 

8 
 ambient air quality standards. The 

9 
 requirements for those type of equipment to 

10 
 measure air quality standards differ than the 

11 


12 
 DR. MAURO: Oh this has nothing 

13 
 with bioassay data then? I mean because 

14 
 really if there's an issue on bioassay and the 

15 
 methodology used, that would fall within the 

16 
 purview of the group. 

17 
 MR. DARNELL: You're talking about 

18 
 the CAMs right? 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. So you're inside 

20 
 the plant? And so this is -- okay it has 

21 
 nothing to do with the bioassay data, it has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 everything to do with the continuous air 131
 

2 
 monitors and the validity of those data. 

3 
 MR. DARNELL: Right. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: If you're not using 

5 
 continued air monitors but you're using 

6 
 bioassay data we completely agree. Because we 

7 
 would never use CAM data if we have bioassay 

8 
 data. 

9 
 It wouldn't hurt to look at the CAM 

10 
 data to see if it's compatible with the 

11 
 bioassay data, but I agree that that's not 

12 
 your primary source of doing those 

13 calculations. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And that also 

15 
 addresses the standards of the internal 

16 
 dosimetry analytical equipment, too. It's not 

17 
 just the monitors under Number 6, the CAMs and 

18 
 stuff and the neutron detectors or whatever 

19 
 instrumentation they're using. That almost 

20 should be split into two different sections. 

21 
 MS. JENKINS: I did the review of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the site reports, I went back and looked at 132


2 
 their dosimetry reports and their annual 

3 
 assessment reports and other audits and looked 

4 
 at the evaluation of the calibration and the 

5 
 internal dosimetry program. 

6 
 And they were found to be adequate, 

7 
 it was all right. There were no, in other 

8 
 audits, you know, in all the site assessments, 

9 
 the program reviews, all of that over quite a 

10 
 few years the program was deemed adequate as 

11 
 far as calibration. You've got the 

12 
 instrumentation and the implementation and all 

13 that. 

14 
 MR. DARNELL: One thing you have to 

15 
 remember about Tiger Team reports, a lot of 

16 
 the Tiger Teams were very much specifically 

17 
 directed at one thing. Or they were going on 

18 
 a, bad term to use, is witch hunt. But that's 

19 
 really the idea. They were going after a 

20 
 specific program or they were going after a 

21 specific idea to go look at sites. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Usually didn't have the generalized 133


2 
 Tiger Team looking at everything. It was very 

3 
 specific. And this particular Tiger Team 

4 
 report, and I'm going off of memory now, I 

5 
 apologize for that, was looking at air quality 

6 
 type of stuff. 

7 
 And even though they may have had 

8 
 comments in this section where we're looking 

9 
 at thyroid counters, whole body counters and 

10 
 stuff it would more lean towards the standard 

11 
 that had nothing to do with what we're using 

12 
 the, putting in that data for. So we tend to 

13 
 discount what that particular Tiger Team's 

14 report says regarding these items. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: We'll look at that. 

16 
 That'll be part and parcel of what we'll look 

17 
 at to put this to bed. If it turns out it's 

18 
 irrelevant, it's irrelevant. That's all part 

19 
 of internal dosimetry and reconstructing 

20 internal doses. 

21 MR. KATZ: SC&A will revisit it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's part and 134
 

2 
 parcel with everything else we're doing. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 7 about 

4 
 the changes of internal dose limits. I think 

5 
 we kind of have that covered under the 

6 
 bioassay, Number 7 for missed doses? And the 

7 
 MDA levels, what could have been missed. At 

8 
 least that's my take on it. 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because their 

10 
 response was that the dose limits have no 

11 impact on the missed doses. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: I agree. I agree. The 

13 
 only extent to which there's any relevance 

14 
 here is that over time as the technology 

15 
 changed so that the change in MDL, is there's 

16 
 a change in MDL notwithstanding the limits. I 

17 mean the limits are the limits. 

18 
 They don't bear on whatever you're 

19 
 doing, whether you're pulling a urine sample 

20 
 or you're doing a whole body count, there's an 

21 
 MDL and if you're getting non-detects with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that technology you deal with that information 135


2 
 in a way that is claimant favorable. 

3 
 So we don't even look at that. 

4 
 That's part and parcel again to all the 

5 
 internal dosimetry questions. The fact that 

6 
 the regs change doesn't really bear on 

7 
 anything. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: Right it might 

9 
 change the monitoring frequency but --

10 
 MS. JENKINS: -- the internal TBD 

11 
 has a table that they break down of the 

12 
 applicable MDAs, and they are broken down by 

13 time period. You can see how they change. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Now they could have 

15 
 changed because of a change in the regulatory 

16 
 structure, or whatever, that's fine. That 

17 
 wouldn't be our driver for why we would do 

18 
 this. We look at it solely from the point of 

19 
 view of the change in the MDA and what effect 

20 
 that might have in your coworker model and 

21 
 your interpretation of the data. So I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 quite frankly we're covered, we're going to 136


2 
 look at that. 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well a couple of 

4 
 questions came out earlier about the urine 

5 
 samples, the time period, and how many people 

6 
 were sampled, that 90,000 what it represents, 

7 
 how many people. I think those related back 

8 
 to Gen's questions. 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Dose limits might 

10 
 have some influence on monitoring frequency 

11 
 but like with, probably not as much in the 

12 
 case of the INL site because they tend to put 

13 
 more on, you know, bioassay monitoring appears 

14 
 to be more dependent on workplace indicators 

15 
 and the need for the likelihood of an 

16 
 individual being exposed for a given period of 

17 
 time outside of -- if there wasn't any 

18 
 workplace indicator that a lot of them were 

19 not routinely monitored. 

20 
 I mean if they were it wasn't any 

21 
 more frequent than annual which is about the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 least frequent for a routine monitoring 137
 

2 
 program, what they call routine monitoring. 

3 
 So it doesn't seem to influence the INL site's 

4 
 monitoring frequency at all. 

5 
 MR. DARNELL: And one thing, John, 

6 
 that they had, in rereading the comment that 

7 
 you guys made, it doesn't really talk about 

8 
 MDLs, is that something else that the group is 

9 
 going to be looking at? It's really just 

10 asking about history. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree with you. 

12 
 I mean that the comment really zeros in on 

13 
 change of dose limits, and I agree that there 

14 
 really is no -- and is the MDL and how it 

15 
 changes over time that affects how you use 

16 that information. 

17 
 So the fact that the regulatory 

18 
 limits change, my reaction is it doesn't 

19 
 really -- I hate to say this, but I don't like 

20 our Comment Number 7. 

21 MR. GLECKLER: Do away with it? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: With respect to 138
 

2 
 Josie's question about number of people 

3 
 monitored. Number of people from Gen's 

4 
 question, I noted that on Number 4 as 

5 
 something that we would try to answer. 

6 
 And we can tell you the names, how 

7 
 many people were monitored. The hard part 

8 
 might be the denominator, you know, the people 

9 
 that, that's not always apparent. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes I think that the 

11 data we have we sorted that way. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Given the 

14 
 large number of contractors who have gone 

15 
 through the INL is there any indication that 

16 
 you've seen that changed from one contractor 

17 to another? 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You mean the 

19 
 companies providing the contractors change 

20 from one --

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, in other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 words, did they, how would I say. Their 139
 

2 
 program they set it up so that maybe one 

3 
 contractor felt this is, you know, people who 

4 
 are likely to get less that 50 millirem per 

5 
 year won't be badged or won't be on an in vivo 

6 
 program. 

7 
 Next contractor may come in and say 

8 
 well anything under 100 millirem. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: When you're talking 

10 
 about different contractors you're talking 

11 about different prime contractors? 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, 

13 
 different prime contractors and whether that 

14 affected those numbers? 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: From what I've seen 

16 
 in that on the data that I've reviewed and 

17 
 all the numerous INL, ANL West claims that 

18 
 I've reviewed and completed it's pretty much 

19 seamless. 

20 
 It's like by looking at the data 

21 
 you can't tell that there's a contractor 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 transition other than maybe the format of the 140


2 
 records might have changed. 

3 
 The data for like the external 

4 
 dosimetry, the format of that changes in 

5 
 various eras, but you'll see that at any site 

6 
 with the same contractor too, so it's hard to 

7 
 tell. You know we haven't bothered to look. 

8 
 But that's just a formatting thing, that's the 

9 
 only thing that potentially could be evident. 

10 
 But other than that the contractor 

11 
 transitions, from our perspective, appear 

12 
 seamless. There's nothing that stands out to 

13 
 say, oh, this occurred starting this date 

14 because this contractor took over the site. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: In other words you 

16 
 didn't see like a 40 percent increase in the 

17 
 number of bioassay samples one year when some 

18 
 company or when a different contractor took 

19 
 over. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Correct. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what I'm talking about. And as far as the 141
 

2 
 calibration stuff wasn't AEC/ERTA/DOE 

3 
 responsible for the --

4 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It was the Russell 

6 
 Laboratory that I thought had always run 

7 
 radiation. Which is the AEC/DOE Laboratory, 

8 
 I thought they always ran that. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well that was 

10 
 my impression too, but I just, that's why I'm 

11 trying to get a little clarification here. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I know. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That standard 

14 was really being set by the Government. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And basically 

17 
 enforced because they were the ones doing the 

18 
 calibration, the measurements of the film 

19 badges and --

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, from where I 

21 
 sit they had a really good reputation too. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 I'd be interested in reading that Tiger Team 142


2 
 report, I mean I'll have to pull that out and 

3 
 look the at it, because that puzzles me a 

4 
 little bit that they would write those 

5 
 findings up against Russell. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I guess then 

7 
 we'll go and take, hopefully, just a short 

8 
 time for you to look at that. But otherwise I 

9 
 think that's a closed issue. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Yes it's, to me, the 

11 
 question that's posed is really off the table. 

12 
 Yes, I would say that 7 is closed 

13 
 and it's your answer that certainly we can 

14 
 look at when you talk about MDLs. So the 

15 
 question is posed really I don't think should 

16 have been raised. 

17 
 If anything should have been raised 

18 
 is that, you know, how did the changing MDLs 

19 
 affect your approach you're using to 

20 
 reconstruct doses to workers as the MDLs 

21 
 changed. That would be the issue and it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 sounds like you have addressed that issue and 143


2 
 we'll look at it. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No problem. 

4 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes but I think the 

5 
 whole issue of the representativeness of the -

6 
 -

7 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

8 
 DR. MAURO: That's the whole ball 

9 
 game. That's the whole ball game, if you've 

10 
 got, I mean, if those 90,000 urine samples cut 

11 
 across every work category, time period, type 

12 of operation that took place. 

13 
 And it all is coming in in terms of 

14 
 gross beta-gamma and then there is a bridge 

15 
 built between, when I have gross beta-gamma in 

16 
 this time period working in this facility how 

17 
 do I use this information to reconstruct the 

18 
 intake for that kind of work or doing that 

19 job. 

20 
 And you've got argument that's 

21 
 bullet proof, it's over. But if it turns out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that you could have missed something important 144


2 
 because of the nature of that work you're not 

3 
 going to see plutonium, or you're not going to 

4 
 see this, well then you've got a problem. It 

5 
 becomes that simple. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: One think you will 

7 
 not be able to get out of that data set is the 

8 
 work category and what type of worker those 

9 
 individuals were. You can sort them by name 

10 
 but they don't say anything about occupation 

11 or job site. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You're 

13 covering that under Number 4 right, Steve? 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well we are 

15 
 covering names. What we said we would do is 

16 
 we would come up with how many people does 

17 
 that represent, those 90,000 and change. 

18 That's what we said we would do. 

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

20 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Does it have work 

21 area or something like that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: It does in most 145
 

2 
 instances it does define what major operating 

3 
 area that the worker was working in. So we 

4 
 can sort on that, but then there's a number of 

5 
 those that are left blank. 

6 
 So it's like you won't be able to 

7 
 do a complete sort of, but we could also take 

8 
 the number of ones that we don't have the area 

9 
 for. 

10 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, let's have 

11 them take a look at it. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: That's how we always 

13 start. 

14 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, just to start 

15 with and then --

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: Because those 

17 
 particular data sets are available in the 

18 
 SRDB, they are not only partially sorted data 

19 
 that was done to come up with these statistics 

20 
 that are in the TBD and that and are in the 

21 
 SRDB. So if you've got access to those SRDB 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 files you can look at those and even do you 146


2 
 own. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Right, that's what we 

4 
 do on everyone of these. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Enough to just look 

6 
 at the in the internal TBD where it says that 

7 
 it will give the reference and back in the 

8 
 reference section you give the SRB document 

9 
 number and those are actually spreadsheets 

10 now. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: You know in the end we 

12 
 create this box, I keep referring to it as 

13 
 Rubik's cube thing, but we just try to see if 

14 
 we can fill the boxes up. By time, type, job 

15 
 category and facility. And say, okay, how 

16 
 much data do you have in each one of those 

17 boxes. 

18 
 And there's absolute answer to it, 

19 
 but if it looks like you have enough data 

20 
 there to construct a coworker model where the 

21 
 range of activities that took place. You 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 know, usually the problem you run into is that 147


2 
 you don't know which box a person belongs to 

3 
 and what do you do then. 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well the bigger 

5 
 question is do we need to construct a coworker 

6 
 model. The original TBD authors averted the 

7 
 need to do that by coming up with what they 

8 
 called the default missed dose approach. 

9 
 And that's where the unmonitored 

10 
 workers, if they any, positive external they 

11 
 deemed that they likely got more of than the 

12 
 environmental internal exposure so we'll give 

13 
 them a missed down and they become 

14 hypothetical bilaterally. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Yes you actually have a 

16 
 procedure, I don't remember the number, where 

17 
 you sort on that basis. Either you give them 

18 
 the 95th percentile, you give them the median 

19 
 or you give them the environmental. And this 

20 
 is your fundamental approach to all workers 

21 
 and it's actually a coworker model, in effect. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And then as applied now the 148
 

2 
 question always becomes is there a degree of 

3 
 confidence that what box you're going to put 

4 
 the worker in. That's always the problem you 

5 
 always run into. It's not always easy to do 

6 
 that. 

7 
 But we first look at though whether 

8 
 or not your 95th percentile, one of the things 

9 
 that we're always concerned about it, okay, 

10 
 here is the box that we call the up or down 

11 guys. 

12 
 So yes if we're going to put the 

13 
 person into this box so we can try to 

14 
 reconstruct his dose, are we confident that in 

15 
 building that upper end case is it possible 

16 
 you've missed some high-end exposures that 

17 aren't captured by that distribution. 

18 
 If that happens that's where things 

19 
 start to collapse. When you're saying we 

20 really don't know what the high ends were. 

21 
 Because these, in a particular 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 category of worker, that was doing certain 149


2 
 kinds of activities that might have 

3 
 experienced exposures that are not captured by 

4 
 that distribution. And that's when we start 

5 
 to run into problems. 

6 
 But that happens more often in 

7 
 older, this may go back in that to the 40s, it 

8 
 may have that circumstance arise in the 40s, I 

9 
 don't know, we'll see. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: They'll specifically 

11 
 still have claims of stuff like that, you 

12 know, from the claimants that occurred. 

13 
 It's like I know for INL there are 

14 
 some claimants that have said that they were 

15 
 involved with this major incident that's well 

16 
 documented and has all these people that were 

17 
 bioassayed but they specifically will state 

18 
 that for some reason they weren't bioassayed 

19 on that. 

20 
 And so they identify that they were 

21 
 identified in that study and it gets real 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 touchy of how you deal with that claim because 150


2 
 you don't have any real proof that they were 

3 
 actually involved with that. Whereas that was 

4 
 a heavily investigated incident in some 

5 
 instances. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: And is he part of that 

7 
 group? 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: And that but they're 

9 
 not listed in the names of individuals 

10 involved in that incident or not bioassayed. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So then you 

12 
 always run into the problem in a lot of these 

13 
 instances maybe the people are present at the 

14 
 initial incident for bioassay where they were, 

15 you know, checked out. 

16 
 But then a lot of these people who 

17 
 came in after the initial incident to do clean 

18 
 up or to go in there when the levels might 

19 
 still have been outrageously high or whatever, 

20 
 aren't necessarily documented in that initial 

21 group even though they were in there working. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: That's a very 151
 

2 
 plausible scenario and from what I can tell 

3 
 typically in instances where that might have 

4 
 occurred they probably didn't bioassay them 

5 
 because they had respiratory protect. 

6 
 They went in, you know, they were 

7 
 doing an accident response at that point to 

8 
 where they made sure they had the proper 

9 
 protection like respiratory protection and 

10 stuff. 

11 
 Whereas the ones that were 

12 
 initially there when the incident occurred 

13 
 it's like they didn't have the proper 

14 
 protection in place. You know the engineering 

15 
 control failed or they just weren't wearing 

16 respirators at the time. 

17 
 But the ones that responded would 

18 
 have had proper respiratory protection. So 

19 
 that's very likely why they might not have 

20 
 been monitored but we don't have any way to 

21 
 prove that that happened or didn't happen 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 actually. 152
 

2 
 You kind of can tell that that 

3 
 might have happened by what people are seen in 

4 
 their CATIs in the telephone interviews and 

5 
 stuff. I think that's a distinct possibility. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Just as a quick aside 

7 
 and then I'll let you move on. If those 

8 
 92,000 urine samples all occurred post 1970 

9 
 you realize you got a problem for the 40s, the 

10 50s and the 60s. 

11 DR. TAULBEE: They're all early. 

12 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: It said 50s and 

13 60s. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Oh they're all, you got 

15 a whole body count? 

16 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Think it's up to 

17 '65 which receipts the whole body counts. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: I don't see many 

19 
 after 1965, it dwindles off. They dwindle off 

20 
 significantly after 1965. Then they go to 

21 whole body counts. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So even though 153
 

2 
 the people, or workers, are on whole body 

3 
 counts a lot of them were also on your 

4 
 bioassay too? These ones on the two-prong 

5 
 approach here. And they give urine samples 

6 
 maybe quarterly or something or --

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Initially a lot of 

8 
 them were doing whole body counts and urine 

9 
 monitoring on the workers, typically in that 

10 
 area it was gross gamma in urine along with 

11 
 whole body counts. And as time goes on it's 

12 
 like the urine sampling dwindles off and it's 

13 all whole body counts. 

14 
 And from what I can tell, and this 

15 
 is just from observing, you know, looking at 

16 
 all the records they're basically just 

17 
 building up their confidence level in a new 

18 
 bioassay technique, which was the whole body 

19 counting at the time. 

20 
 And once they got their confidence 

21 
 built up with that and realized that yes, it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 confirmed that it's a much more sensitive 154


2 
 bioassay method and that to where they 

3 
 eliminated the urine sampling for the most 

4 
 part. 

5 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: And everybody 

6 
 prefers doing it that way. The worker and the 

7 
 people that monitor. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Kind of 

10 surprises me. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well it's mixed 

12 
 fission products. A big difference compared 

13 
 to, you know, if you think of plutonium type 

14 of operations you have a high missed dose --

15 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

16 DR. TAULBEE: Right, exactly. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, uranium -

18 
 -

19 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

20 
 DR. TAULBEE: But on mixed fission 

21 
 products you can. It's an easier way of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 measuring, and more accurate. 155
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Other kind of 

3 
 problem is a canary in the coal mine that 

4 
 maybe there's something there you need to take 

5 
 a look at. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think what they 

7 
 concluded and I think what I would judge to be 

8 
 the case is in mixed fission product 

9 
 environment can en vivo counter, or the whole 

10 
 body counts, provides the, you do the 

11 
 comparison for awhile and you recognize after 

12 
 a while that that urine data is not telling 

13 you anything that the in vivo count isn't. 

14 
 And so after reaching that 

15 
 conclusion they essentially did away with it. 

16 
 To me an in vivo count in a mixed fission 

17 
 product environment is pretty darn good 

18 
 bioassay and is probably better than gross 

19 gamma anyway. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Was there any 

21 
 indication that it was done more than annually 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 on, short of a person being involved in -- 156
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Outside of annual 

3 
 typically the only ones you'll see in the 

4 
 records are specials and that which indicate 

5 
 that there's a workplace indicator that 

6 
 triggered it. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So there is a 

8 
 potential missed dose there. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And that would be 

10 in the dose reconstruct. 

11 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Dose reconstruction 

13 would be that missed dose. 

14 
 MR. GLECKLER: If all their 

15 
 bioassays are negative they still get missed 

16 
 dose on that, which is for fission products 

17 
 it's typically much more significant to get 

18 
 that chronic missed dose than the acute intake 

19 of a fission product. 

20 
 Usually we can, if a case is 

21 
 potentially comp on that we can ignore the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 acute intakes because they don't amount to 157


2 
 anything on that. 

3 
 A lot of times they're less than 

4 
 one millirem on that for the year, total. Or 

5 
 the accumulative dose for that acute intake 

6 
 totals less than one millirem, it's a fairly 

7 
 insignificant dose in a lot of instances. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'd have to 

9 
 agree there. 

10 MR. GLECKLER: So it's missed doses 

11 
 that pack a pretty good whollop at INL based 

12 on the MDA information. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Well 

14 
 that kind of answered my question. Going on 

15 
 to Issue Number 8. The high fired plutonium 

16 
 and uranium intakes. It looks like you've 

17 already revised that? 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: In regards to 

19 plutonium, yes. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You got any 

21 comments there? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Well yes, the fact that 158
 

2 
 OTIB-49 or 47 covers it and we've reviewed it. 

3 
 So I assume that you've just adopted that 

4 
 protocol. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Exactly. And we 

6 
 just, the TBD just now lists, or identifies 

7 
 that Super S plutonium was a potential form of 

8 
 plutonium at INL and needs to be evaluated in 

9 
 terms with OTIB-49. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: 49, and of course, as 

11 
 always, the problem is who're you going to put 

12 
 in that box and how do you determine who 

13 
 you're going to assign that too. But that's 

14 not a, you'll deal with that I guess. 

15 
 You know, if you have any criteria 

16 
 for circumstances under which, because usually 

17 
 the high-fired occurs either because of this, 

18 kind of, accident or fire --

19 
 MR. GLECKLER: It get's, that's 

20 with everyone. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: -- or the nature. Oh, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 everyone? 159
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Across the board? 

4 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, it's high-fired. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: It's type M, type S 

7 
 and Super S. We have to evaluate and use 

8 
 whatever yields the highest for that 

9 
 particular --

10 DR. MAURO: So you're doing this 

11 
 the way you do the uranium, with the S or M or 

12 


13 MR. GLECKLER: Well for the uranium 

14 I'm not really sure. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: No, I just, let's go on 

16 to uranium now. 

17 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: I have to say I seem to 

19 
 recall that there are circumstances where you 

20 get a high-fired uranium. 

21 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve, I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it was yesterday -- 160
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Steve, yes. Please. 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: I think it was a NIOSH 

4 
 comment, what do you mean by high-fired 

5 
 uranium, and apparently the Rover facilities 

6 
 at the state's, where the state's programs 

7 
 reprocessed graphite state reactor fuel and in 

8 
 the process it resulted in the formation of 

9 
 high-fired uranium oxide. 

10 
 So that there was high-fired 

11 uranium oxide at the site. 

12 
 DR. TAULBEE: I talked with Dave 

13 
 Allen yesterday about this particular issue 

14 
 and he'd indicated that in other Work Groups 

15 
 this is something that has been addressed and 

16 
 so we can combine those former responses and 

17 get back to you on this particular issue. 

18 
 Dave indicated to me that really 

19 
 ICRP 66 incorporates this, that it's the high20 
 fired uranium is effectively just type S it's 

21 
 not a Super S scenario. But again we'll get 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 you the documentation on that. So we'll take 161
 

2 
 that action. 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: And I presume when that 

5 
 comes in we have the green light to go ahead 

6 
 and look at that because that's a little bit 

7 
 separate from reviewing your -- because that's 

8 
 currently in your TBD? 

9 
 DR. TAULBEE: Correct. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: Correct, it's not a 

11 
 direct, yes we don't address anything other 

12 than regular type S uranium. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: When they were 

14 
 reprocessing this graphite, wasn't that with 

15 
 238? Wouldn't that have been combined with PU 

16 238, of the space program fuel? That's --

17 
 DR. TAULBEE: Which it was, 238 

18 
 would be for RTGs but if this graphite uranium 

19 
 was for some of the SNAP reactors those 

20 
 wouldn't be RTGs, and so they could very well 

21 
 be graphite uranium. I'm not that familiar 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 with this. 162
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So we don't 

3 
 know which one of these are RTGs being brought 

4 
 in to be reprocessed? 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: No these are part of 

6 
 the Rover which was actually a space reactor. 

7 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, this would be a 

8 
 space reactor, not an RTG. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, this is 

10 
 not an RTG? Okay, none of the RTGs were also 

11 being recycled too? 

12 DR. TAULBEE: No. 

13 DR. OSTROW: No. 

14 
 DR. TAULBEE: You said that was 

15 part of the Rover program? 

16 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

17 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: That's something 

19 that was tested out at NTS I believe? 

20 
 DR. TAULBEE: Most likely, yes. 

21 
 I'm not sure where the Rover ones were tested 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at. 163
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, I'm pretty sure 

3 


4 
 DR. TAULBEE: So if the fuel came 

5 
 back at ICPP then --

6 
 MR. DARNELL: So on Comment 8, 

7 
 plutonium's closed --

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well I think we're 

9 
 going to look at --

10 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: So there's three 

12 
 actions items out of there, SC&A has two and 

13 NIOSH has one it looks like. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What are the two 

15 
 for SC&A? 

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: SC&A was going to 

17 look at OTIB-49 and then review --

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. Yes, I 

19 
 kind of thought that was one. But, yes. To 

20 review what we've done here in Item 4? 

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Because 49 has been 164
 

2 
 reviewed. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, 49 has been 

4 
 reviewed --

5 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

6 
 DR. MAURO: -- within the context 

7 
 of this application. 

8 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Within the 

9 
 context of this. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: And then after we get 

12 
 some White Paper or feedback from NIOSH on 

13 uranium we'll look at that? Okay. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We're 

15 on to Number 9 now? 

16 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I 

17 
 think the issue here were flakes of 

18 
 radioactive material. Not the airborne 

19 
 particles but actual flakes of object that may 

20 
 land on the skin or face depending on the 

21 
 person's job. And that wouldn't be picked up 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 by a, you know, a personal monitor. 165
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: So we'd be talking 

3 
 about non-respirable particle sizes then? 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: This is an overarching 

6 
 issue that's come up on a number of occasions, 

7 
 where it's been NIOSH's position not to 

8 
 calculate the dose to the spot under the skin 

9 
 where there may have been a flake that landed 

10 on it and caused the skin cancer. 

11 
 The reason being that the people 

12 
 were protected and that there were exit 

13 
 monitoring related to that. I believe from 

14 
 conversations, but nothing in writing, the 

15 
 agreement was when you have a facility where 

16 
 there was a lot of airborne particulates, and 

17 
 a perfect example would be the Aircraft 

18 
 Nuclear Propulsion Program, where a person 

19 could have experienced particulates landing. 

20 
 Now uranium's not as big a deal 

21 
 because the dosimetry is such that you're not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 going to really deliver some screamer. But 166
 

2 
 there are certain circumstances where you 

3 
 could have a cobalt-60 particle. 

4 
 I don't know. If it did land it 

5 
 could contribute significantly to a localized 

6 
 skin dose. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: That's an external 

8 
 dose. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: And that's external. 

10 
 So when I read, and, Steve, you help me help, 

11 
 when I read this Comment Number 9, it sort of 

12 
 reads about, at first it talks about this 

13 
 direct facial skin contamination then moves on 

14 
 to internal. 

15 And I agree with NIOSH response 

16 
 with respect to internal. That is they've got 

17 
 internal covered to the extent, of course, 

18 
 we're going to review that. But I agree with 

19 
 you what you said, Steve, my greater concern 

20 is what about we're now moving into external. 

21 
 What about the particles that land 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 on the skin. And under what circumstances 167
 

2 
 does that have play when you're doing a PoC 

3 
 for skin cancer? And whether or not that dose 

4 
 can be an issue. This is a tough one. And 

5 
 it's one that we've talked about on many 

6 
 occasions. 

7 
 And I don't think it's ever really 

8 
 been resolved to a point where we say, okay, 

9 
 here is NIOSH's policy, on what are we going 

10 
 to do about situations where a person, yes, 

11 
 could have experienced contaminant on his 

12 neck, on his ear. 

13 
 Because we're always seeing people 

14 
 with skin cancer in the facial area, and 

15 
 that's probably due to the sun, everybody 

16 knows that. 

17 
 But then again how do you rule out 

18 
 the possibility that the guy working at the 

19 
 Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, you know, 

20 this stuff is cooking. 

21 
 I don't know what you do about that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 but it's certainly a legitimate question. If 168
 

2 
 I was person showing up with skin cancer I 

3 
 would want to know an answer to that question. 

4 
 How do you know that it wasn't due to the 

5 
 particulates that landed on my skin? 

6 
 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith, 

7 
 with ORAU Team. And just for the record no 

8 
 conflicts with INL. I've got a little bit of 

9 
 input on that for the group to consider. 

10 
 And that would be OTIB-17 does have 

11 
 a section that discusses potential hot 

12 
 particle dose, especially when you don't know 

13 for sure. 

14 
 In other words you have no skin 

15 
 contamination report that shows a particle 

16 
 landed or was found on the area of the skin 

17 
 where the skin cancer was found. 

18 
 So in other words it gives you a 

19 
 way to do a distribution of dose based on the 

20 
 area of the skin. So that's probably 

21 
 something to consider when looking at this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 particular item. 169
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, is that 

3 
 Matt? 

4 
 MR. SMITH: Yes, it's Matthew 

5 
 Smith. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, Matt, I guess we 

7 
 were thinking more of in terms of a person, 

8 
 you know, the day is finished, he leaves. 

9 
 There's no portal monitor that's checking him 

10 
 out. And he could be carrying something on 

11 
 his skin. Goes home, takes a shower, it maybe 

12 goes away. 

13 
 So you got this period of maybe 

14 
 eight hours where there is this particle. 

15 
 This is how I'm visualizing, on the skin 

16 
 delivering a dose that no one knows about, and 

17 
 is never recorded. Twenty years later he 

18 shows up with a skin cancer on his neck. 

19 
 And somebody asks the question, 

20 
 well what makes you think that that skin 

21 
 cancer at that location wasn't due to some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 undetected particle that happened to fall on 170


2 
 the skin. Because we knew there was a lot of 

3 
 that going on. 

4 
 For example you know it was pretty 

5 
 dirty at a lot of these sites. The Nevada 

6 
 Test Site was one the places where this came 

7 
 up and I know the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

8 
 Program can certainly be another place where 

9 
 this issue could come up. 

10 
 From time to time we see sites 

11 
 where that was especially a concern. Airborne 

12 
 particulates and not necessarily having an 

13 
 exit monitoring program. You said something 

14 
 that sounded like the tech, they knew that the 

15 
 particle landed there. They knew where it was 

16 
 and whether or not the cancer occurred there. 

17 
 I misunderstood. 

18 
 MR. SMITH: Well, more even a 

19 
 situation where you lack the contamination 

20 
 survey. So we're kind of talking the same 

21 
 thing. In other words a situation where you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have the potential for particles being 171
 

2 
 deposited on the skin, but you don't have 

3 
 exact information. 

4 
 You're also correct in developing, 

5 
 you know, what is the residence time, that can 

6 
 get to be tricky as well. And also knowing 

7 
 the composition of that particle without some 

8 
 additional information. 

9 
 But the topic is discussed somewhat 

10 in OTIB-17, and --

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, we reviewed OTIB12 
 17. 

13 DR. SMITH: -- we know we've 

14 
 applied it at sites like Hanford. In their 

15 
 early years we've applied that methodology. 

16 
 So just a little bit of input there for, you 

17 know, formulating the path forward. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well it sounds to me 

19 
 like, you know, we initially read your comment 

20 as being internal. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Right, and withdraw 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that aspect of it. 172
 

2 
 DR. TAULBEE: And so this is 

3 
 external, so I guess we should ask that you 

4 
 look at OTIB-17, and this is how we apply it. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Well we have. We've 

6 
 reviewed OTIB-17, and I don't recall, and I 

7 
 have to say this issue was never resolved, 

8 
 not our review of OTIB-17. 

9 
 We'll certainly take another look 

10 
 at it as a record with the Procedures Work 

11 
 Group on this, and we've, but I've got to say 

12 
 I don't recall this issue being resolved to 

13 any degree in OTIB-17 review. 

14 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well can we get a 

15 revised comment then as to the concern? 

16 
 DR. MAURO: We will revise our 

17 
 comment. 

18 DR. TAULBEE: Regarding that study 

19 and address it. 

20 
 MR. DARNELL: I have one question 

21 
 here. Where you got this, mainly in regard to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project or 173


2 
 someplace else? 

3 
 If it's just the Aircraft Nuclear 

4 
 Propulsion Project, we do have to remember 

5 
 that the test requirements for doing those 

6 
 included specific meteorological conditions, 

7 
 so that whatever was put out by the test was 

8 
 blown away from work force. 

9 
 They actually stopped tests from 

10 
 being conducted because meteorological 

11 
 conditions changed, up until the last minute 

12 they did that. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I was trying to 

14 
 explain just something very conceptual. That 

15 
 is, when we looked at so many Site Profiles 

16 
 and the kinds of activities that took place, 

17 
 we noticed that there were certain places and 

18 
 I remember the Nevada Test Site was one, when 

19 
 I think about the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

20 
 Program, where you're generating a lot of 

21 
 airborne particulates that could be that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 small. 174
 

2 
 I mean they're, you know, in the 

3 
 visible range, and that they could settle out 

4 
 quickly, you know, that is blown up, and go 

5 
 away and be dispersed. 

6 
 They settle out locally and 

7 
 quickly, and if a person isn't wearing proper 

8 
 protective clothing it could easily settle on 

9 
 the hands, the neck, the face, and that sort 

10 
 of thing. So given that scenario, is a 

11 
 realistic scenario at some sites under some 

12 circumstances. 

13 
 It's something that we felt needs 

14 to be identified. 

15 
 Yes, we have a situation here where 

16 
 that is the scenario that could occur, and 

17 
 that's confounded by the issue that there is 

18 
 also some evidence that these people may not 

19 
 have been monitored when they left. In other 

20 
 words, they get the full scan to see if 

21 
 there's any hot particles and, you know, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 therefore they could've gone home with the 175


2 
 particle on them. 

3 
 And I'd be the first to say even 

4 
 then, okay, the person goes home, he's going 

5 
 to take a shower. You know, so likely it's 

6 
 going to be washed off. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: I just have a question 

8 
 because it seems like this has come up before, 

9 
 the going home part and when you leave the 

10 
 facility the exposure's no longer covered. Is 

11 
 that not the case, because it's at such a 

12 facility that your exposure is covered 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Dose at the facility 

14 
 now, that is once you get to the point of 

15 
 well, the particle landed while you were at 

16 
 the facility but then when you walk home, then 

17 
 the clock, you know the dose, start to 

18 
 accumulate dose when you walk off of the 

19 
 property, I don't know that anyone has 

20 actually reached that judgment. 

21 
 MR. MELIUS: I mean you could argue 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the same thing for any internal dose. 176
 

2 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

3 
 DR. MAURO: No, no, we've got a 

4 
 bioassay. We've got a bioassay. 

5 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

6 
 MR. HINNEFIELD: I think that an 

7 
 approach might be here to find out what we can 

8 
 about work controls at testing, because 

9 
 realistically, you know, I was on the tour of 

10 INL. We didn't see all of it. 

11 
 We did see the engines out in the 

12 
 air and they tested those out in the air. 

13 
 But, you know, you go up there and ICPP has 

14 
 got containment cells and operating corridors 

15 
 and the fuel, you know, fuel reprocessing 

16 
 facility went to, I forget what it's called 

17 
 now, as people, you know, we walked down the 

18 
 operating corridor in our street clothes. And 

19 
 there were people there working in essentially 

20 
 street clothes, and on the other side was, you 

21 
 know, spent fuel on the send out that they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 were dealing with. 177
 

2 
 So, you know, in terms of Idaho 

3 
 there are I think a limited number of 

4 
 situations, cell entries and these places. 

5 
 Where you're going to have this 

6 
 situation, as opposed to Fernald for instance, 

7 
 or we'll say Weldon Spring, keeping out of 

8 
 trouble, as opposed to Weldon Spring which is 

9 
 a uranium foundry, which probably didn't have 

10 
 any egress monitoring at any time during it's 

11 
 existence, and uranium was treated like a 

12 chemical and it was just kind of out there. 

13 
 So in that instance you have 

14 
 certainly a pretty significant potential for 

15 
 people to have unidentified skin contamination 

16 
 cancers. 

17 Seems to me to be really, really a 

18 
 different situation at INL, and I would just, 

19 
 it'd kind of be interesting if we could 

20 
 reconstruct, you know, work practices around 

21 
 these jet engines or the nuclear engines, to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 determine whether or not this is really, you 178


2 
 know, you're going to have much life with that 

3 
 there. Okay, because theoretically the plume 

4 
 is, you know, if in fact things are what we 

5 
 think the plume was being blown away from 

6 
 workers as it ran --

7 
 DR. MAURO: These are particles are 

8 


9 
 DR. HINNEFELD: Well, those are 

10 
 particles but they are going to blow the same 

11 
 direction. They're going to blow the same 

12 
 direction and then what do you do when the 

13 
 people re-enter, when people had to re-enter 

14 
 and examine the jet engine within some short 

15 
 period of time afterwards. What controls were 

16 
 done for that? 

17 
 I mean that's sort of the question, 

18 
 because it could be that they were dressed 

19 
 down and had some pretty fresh monitoring. 

20 
 So to me that's more the question 

21 
 than to deal with the arithmetic of the dose. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I think the arithmetic 179
 

2 
 of the dose is easy. We've already done it. 

3 
 We've done it parametrically up and down and 

4 
 sideways. We could do it, you know, of our 

5 
 skin or any kind of calc you could do it. 

6 
 The real question is the scenario. 

7 
 In other words, do we have an obligation to a 

8 
 worker who worked at a facility, comes out 

9 
 with skin cancer, and we say, well you fail? 

10 
 Right now it's not as if the guy's wearing an 

11 
 open-ended film badge, there's nothing there, 

12 
 right. 

13 
 Oh great, if there's nothing on the 

14 
 film badge, well that means there's nothing 

15 
 any place else. I find that hard to believe. 

16 


17 
 In other words, I find that it's, 

18 
 you know, it may not have fallen on his film 

19 
 badge because he already knew is, you know, 

20 
 well we don't see any hot spots on the film 

21 
 badge, you know. And one could argue, well 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 there's nothing -- 180
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well yes, but 

3 
 that's a weak argument. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: I agree with you. And 

5 
 we found it weak also, yes, so this is --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, in a situation 

7 
 where the peak of contamination is, we've got 

8 
 real legitimate opportunity here for 

9 
 unidentified skin contaminants. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: And he may not have 

11 
 been picked up on exit monitoring. That's the 

12 
 other part, because yes, sure this could 

13 
 happen, but you're going to pick it up, you're 

14 
 going to wash it off. So there's a relatively 

15 
 short period of time, you know, how far do you 

16 want to talk. 

17 
 But if it turns out you combine the 

18 
 two, potential for surface contamination, 

19 
 especially in high specific activity 

20 
 particles, potential that he could've left the 

21 
 site and end up with eight hours, ten hours, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 12 hours worth of exposure to one location, 181


2 
 all of a sudden that dose is not small for 

3 
 some particles. Uranium it turns out it's not 

4 
 that big. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Uranium? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, but this has been 

7 
 a concern we raised years ago, and really 

8 
 we've never come to grips with it. 

9 
 And it may be a generic issue, 

10 
 that's something that has to be resolved here. 

11 
 This may be one of these old global things 

12 
 that needs to be dealt with. But I don't 

13 think it has been yet. 

14 
 DR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think one 

15 
 thing we should deal with if we're dealing 

16 
 with it globally, is what kind of standards 

17 
 are we going to use for triggering this kind 

18 of dose restriction. 

19 
 Is there far, there's some, you 

20 
 know, a wide variety of work situations that 

21 
 we're encountering at different facilities 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 over time, and so there's got to be some 182


2 
 constraints on there that's credible. It's 

3 
 even credible terms. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. You can 

5 
 get in contamination, and I say this from 

6 
 having been there many times, without it 

7 
 really showing up on your badge. But normally 

8 
 when it is found or detected you don't sit 

9 
 there and say, well it's, you know, it was 

10 counting nearly 10 centimeters. 

11 
 Technically speaking, if there is 

12 
 even any record it will say, you know, skin 

13 
 contamination found on left arm, left hand, 

14 
 left side of their face and, you know, for 

15 
 many times, and particularly the earlier years 

16 
 before DOE regulations came, that was a simple 

17 
 matter. You go away and you get it cleaned 

18 up. 

19 
 If it's all clean, that's good and 

20 
 fine, there's no documentation anywhere about 

21 this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 This is even true from a lot of the 183


2 
 older guys who says, we never reported 

3 
 anything unless we could not remove that 

4 
 contamination, then it was reported. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Washed it off. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What's that? 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: You just washed it 

8 
 off on your own. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, you just 

10 
 washed it off and went back to work, you know, 

11 and --

12 
 MS. JENKINS: The general 

13 
 contamination and hot particles are kind of 

14 two different things. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, they are. 

16 
 But I'm simply saying that even in where these 

17 
 hot particles are a lot of times, say there is 

18 
 a notation in somebody's file that, you know, 

19 there was some found. 

20 
 The problem with that is usually 

21 
 they did not narrow it down to necessarily, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 they might have just said it was facial. And 184
 

2 
 they said, well actually it was on my ear not 

3 
 the side of my face. 

4 
 MS. JENKINS: Well I think that we 

5 
 can, you know, if you had the skin cancer on 

6 
 your face, and there was a facial 

7 
 contamination with the hot particles mentioned 

8 
 and it just said on the face, I think, you 

9 
 know, we could just make the assumption that -

10 -

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It was at the 

12 location. 

13 
 MS. JENKINS: -- it was under the 

14 
 particle. And we could, you know, do the 

15 
 evaluation based, you know, they would give 

16 
 you EPM per 100 or whatnot, and we could, 

17 
 based on that we could run the calculations 

18 and everything. 

19 
 MR. DARNELL: And I think that's 

20 pretty much the standard. 

21 
 MS. JENKINS: Yes, if we know of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 something somewhere and it's in the vicinity 185


2 
 of the cancer, then we assume it's where the 

3 
 cancer was. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that 

5 
 completely. And mine goes unfortunately to 

6 
 the point where, there is no record that the 

7 
 person had this contamination, but the 

8 
 scenario was real. That is, it could've 

9 
 occurred and it was missed. That's the one 

10 
 that I brought up and am bringing up, and it's 

11 a tough one deal with. 

12 
 DR. TAULBEE: And that's what 

13 
 you're going to flush out in this revised 

14 comment for us? 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Well what we'll do is 

16 
 we'll just clarify. What I just said is going 

17 
 to be what I'll write down. You just heard my 

18 
 comment and I just fleshed it out. Certainly 

19 
 if you need something in writing, we'll put it 

20 down. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: I thought one of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 actions here, or the action here was to look 186


2 
 at the actual control processes used around 

3 
 that. 

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: And we will. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: And that's the DCAS 

6 
 action. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: And that may make this 

8 
 go away. I would say if you could demonstrate 

9 
 that yes there was a, you know, a disciplined 

10 
 program of monitoring people on a egress, and 

11 
 that these were the steps that were followed, 

12 as far as I'm concerned you put that to bed. 

13 
 But if that program didn't exist, 

14 
 then I think the concern is legitimate. That 

15 
 is, you know, and I only use the Aircraft 

16 
 Nuclear Propulsion Program as an example. 

17 
 That intuitively to me sounds like one where 

18 
 you could have a situation like that, maybe 

19 
 not. But you understand the gist of my 

20 concern here? I don't think --

21 
 DR. TAULBEE: Are there areas that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have concerns? 187
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: I would look to you. I 

3 
 mean I would say, you know, you look at the 

4 
 operation practices at, you know, as Stu 

5 
 mentioned, certainly at these AWE facilities 

6 
 where they were grinding. 

7 
 Now there was no doubt, people 

8 
 probably were probably covered in the stuff. 

9 
 Now, how much of it, but in those cases, you 

10 
 would say that something would show up on a 

11 
 film badge if they were wearing film badges, 

12 
 but very often they weren't, because it's 

13 everywhere. 

14 
 And uranium, from our calculations 

15 
 show even if it's a pretty large particle and 

16 
 that you would do this, you know, what the 

17 
 heck is that, you know, the dose under the 

18 skin is not that high. 

19 
 But listen, all I'm really saying 

20 
 is that I think we just can't walk away from 

21 
 the concern a person might have that listen, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 got skin cancer. My film badge didn't show 188
 

2 
 any dose, but does that mean that I didn't 

3 
 have stuff that fell on my face or my hands 

4 
 that could've been responsible for my skin 

5 
 cancer? 

6 
 I think you've got to have an 

7 
 answer and why you feel no, in your case we 

8 
 don't think that that skin cancer was due to 

9 
 some particles that might've fell on you. 

10 
 Right now I don't think that answer is being 

11 given. 

12 
 MS. JENKINS: So we would look at 

13 
 the site, determine which areas we feel, based 

14 
 on the documentation, has a potential for this 

15 to occur? 

16 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

17 
 MS. JENKINS: And then evaluate 

18 
 those processes and how the controls were 

19 
 implemented to see if it is a reasonable 

20 scenario? 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. And then if you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 find out at the end of the process is that, 189


2 
 holy mackerel, this could've happened here to 

3 
 this guy. 

4 
 DR. JENKINS: Then we have to say -

5 
 -

6 
 DR. MAURO: Then you have to say, 

7 
 all right, how are we going to do his gross 

8 
 calculation and his Probability of Causation? 

9 
 But that, by the way, has always 

10 
 been an enigma to me, a skin dose when it's 

11 just a little spot. 

12 
 And I talked to Dave Kocher about 

13 
 this and he explained to me no, no, it's 

14 
 trackable, and he explained it to me. And 

15 
 I've got to say it was one of these kinds of 

16 answers that I didn't quite get. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Dave Kocher has 

18 that affect on a lot of people. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Hey, I'm sure he's 

20 right, don't get me wrong. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I'm sure he's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 right. I just don’t know what he’s saying. 190
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: It's one of his brain 

3 
 teasers, you know. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Going back to 

5 
 Hanford we had a gentlemen speaking. I don't 

6 
 remember if he was an electrician or he was a 

7 
 pipe fitter, which it was, but he was talking 

8 
 about them working on the outside of the 

9 
 building, and he said there was these flakes 

10 coming down. 

11 
 Now whether they were paint peeling 

12 
 off the stacks, whether it was corrosion, but 

13 
 it turns out they actually had these chips of 

14 
 material that were little flakes that were 

15 falling down that it turns out they were hot. 

16 MR. TAULBEE: Yes, hot particles. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I mean 

18 
 and it's not like, you know, if you're sitting 

19 
 there testing the rover or something, you 

20 
 know, or doing one of these nuclear propulsion 

21 tests or Kiwi reactors or something. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 You know, this is a scenario where 191


2 
 these guys are working outside and they're not 

3 
 expecting to be contaminated. They're not 

4 
 wearing any kind of a face mask or anything, 

5 
 but yet these hot particles are literally 

6 
 raining down upon them. It was, true it's 

7 
 unexpected. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Like REDOX? 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What? 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: REDOX? Did they say 

11 what? 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And they 

13 
 didn't turn out to be wearing radon something. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: No, I said REDOX. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh. 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: They had a fire in 

17 
 contamination and they just locked it down and 

18 
 went back to work. So years later the 

19 particles just started coming off. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, yes, 

21 
 because, you know, this gentleman talked about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 them being out there and there was these 192


2 
 particles falling on them, and it turns out 

3 
 they were --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Was this at the 

5 
 Chem Plant? 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, REDOX was a 

7 
 Chem Plant. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's a 

9 
 pretty well documented thing. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes I think so too. 

11 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, and you do 

12 
 realize that visible flakes of something 

13 
 falling on you is not a hot particle. Hot 

14 particles are very small and with just --

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. All I 

16 am saying is --

17 
 MR. DARNELL: -- the naked eye, you 

18 don't see them. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, but 

20 
 these, I mean, you know, you could have that 

21 
 same type scenario, particles small enough 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 they are not noticing them. 193
 

2 
 But in this case they were 

3 
 actually, you know, corrosion from pipe 

4 
 buildup, whatever that particular particle 

5 
 was, he did not know. But he did know when 

6 
 they actually started measuring, these guys 

7 
 were contaminated from these fallouts. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Snowflakes. 

9 
 MR. DARNELL: Snowflakes. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, 

11 
 snowflakes, you know. And they were not 

12 
 expected to be, you know, the reason they 

13 
 didn't have any, you know, face masks on or 

14 
 anything, they weren't supposed to be being 

15 
 exposed, but it did happen to these gentlemen. 

16 
 MR. SMITH: And this is Matthew 

17 Smith again. 

18 
 On those claims we definitely, this 

19 
 is where we use that methodology from OTIB-17, 

20 
 along with the information that's in the 

21 
 Hanford Site Profile documents, to put it all 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 together and give a kind of a distribution of 194


2 
 what that possible dose could've been to a 

3 
 skin cancer. 

4 
 There's no way to prove whether or 

5 
 not that flake landed on that skin cancer spot 

6 
 or not, so we worked it up as a probability 

7 
 estimate. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'm sure Chem 

9 
 Plant had corrosion within those stacks. I 

10 mean this is --

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a well 

12 documented event at the Chem Plant. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You've got 

14 
 some pretty nasty chemicals inside there. And 

15 
 I know this is not just a problem at Hanford. 

16 
 I know they had to replace the stacks in Los 

17 Alamos because of material eating them up. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, and the hot 

19 
 particle issue is actually multiple sites. I 

20 
 mean Savannah River has a measurement, we have 

21 
 so many hot particles per square foot. They 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 had pans set out to measure it, so it's well 195


2 
 known. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Well Matt makes an 

4 
 important point. He's saying that there is 

5 
 the protocol to NIOSH to deal with this issue, 

6 
 and they've been following the protocol. It's 

7 
 in OTIB-17, and I have to be the first to 

8 
 admit I don't recall OTIB-17 having the 

9 
 machinery in place to deal with this issue. 

10 
 If it's okay with Ted, I would like 

11 
 to take another look at OTIB-17, maybe we 

12 missed it. 

13 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. And if it's 

15 
 there, or if there's as aspect to it that 

16 
 doesn't cover some of our concerns, we'll say, 

17 
 yes it covers this, but it doesn't cover that. 

18 So we have an action on it. 

19 
 MR. GLECKLER: Do that as, I guess 

20 
 part of your own action to revise the comment? 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. This is --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: And we'll start 196
 

2 
 looking at the different facilities, and the 

3 
 potential for these particles and the rad 

4 
 monitoring. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: So that includes the 

6 
 work controls then? 

7 
 DR. TAULBEE: Right. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: It's probably a good 

9 
 time to break. I know Dr. Melius has a, 

10 unless we're close to the end? 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we're not close 

12 
 to the end. I just wanted to ask if number 10 

13 
 is going to go on very far, because 10 looks 

14 
 to me like it should be done. The breathing 

15 rate, occupational breathing rate. To me --

16 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, let that go. Let 

17 that go. 

18 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I 

19 
 think this is not an issue. We've discussed 

20 
 this before and I think it's closed now. 

21 MR. KATZ: Issue 10 is closed? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: It's closed. 197
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Any more like that? 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I'm sorry. 

4 
 That's my entire contribution of the day. The 

5 
 entire conference, the entire useful 

6 
 contribution of the day. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius has a call 

8 
 now for probably at least an hour or so. It 

9 
 might be a good time to break then if good 

10 with everyone else. 

11 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Can we leave our 

12 computers in here? 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, we'll just lock the 

14 
 door, pull the door closed, unless someone's 

15 staying in here for lunch. 

16 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 
 matter went of the record at 12:05 p.m. and 

18 resumed at 1:00 p.m.) 

19 
 MR. KATZ: We're reconvening. This is the INL 

20 Work Group after lunch break. 

21 
 And let me just check on the line 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and see, in particular, Steve Ostrow, do we 198


2 
 have you with us? 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: I'm here, Ted, thank 

4 
 you for asking. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Great. Okay, then Phil? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're 

7 
 now on number 11. This is about the 

8 
 background depleted uranium for non9 
 occupational workers. I guess I'm going to 

10 turn this one over to Pete. 

11 
 MR. DARNELL: Sorry, I'm re-reading 

12 it. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. 

14 
 DR. TAULBEE: I guess I would have 

15 
 a question for SC&A a little bit on this one 

16 
 of, is the proposal from the comment that we 

17 
 should get urine excretion data from non-INL 

18 people in Idaho Falls? 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Steve, do you want to 

20 
 take a run at this or do you want me to take a 

21 shot? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay. I'll take a 199
 

2 
 run. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: That was our original 

5 
 idea. What I understand from the background 

6 
 information is that at some point there was an 

7 
 attempt made to get data from offsite people 

8 
 to do the comparison, but these offsite people 

9 
 didn't cooperate so it wasn't able to do that. 

10 
 So the plan B was to get data from 

11 
 people on the site who weren't exposed to the 

12 
 DU, and use that as the background level for 

13 non-exposed people. 

14 
 And we were questioning whether 

15 
 this was actually a valid approach, because we 

16 
 thought that everybody on the site was exposed 

17 
 to some level of DU over the years. That was 

18 our basic concern. 

19 
 John, do you have anything to add 

20 to that? 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, my understanding 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 was if you're going to, you want to subtract 200


2 
 background, and since everyone carries a 

3 
 little bit of uranium, when you do your dose 

4 
 reconstruction for a person at INL, and you 

5 
 have your urine bioassay data and you get a 

6 
 positive result, you would subtract from it 

7 
 the normal background, which would be about 

8 
 0.05 micrograms per liter, but 0.16 micrograms 

9 
 per liter was what was subtracted. 

10 
 So I guess, but your position is 

11 
 no, 0.16 is the right number as to your 

12 reference value in ICRP? 

13 DR. TAULBEE: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: That being the case, I 

15 
 guess we're okay. We may have been incorrect 

16 
 thinking that the 0.04 to 0.5 would've been 

17 
 typical of reference man, but maybe we were 

18 wrong. 

19 DR. OSTROW: Well, that could be. 

20 
 I haven't had a chance to check the ICRP for 

21 the NIOSH comments. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I mean, that was my 201
 

2 
 understanding, that we were imposing on, 

3 
 saying that 0.16 was too much to subtract. We 

4 
 could've been wrong. I didn't check it. I 

5 
 can't say that one way or the other that I 

6 
 checked ICRP to see what the recommended 

7 
 default values are for a typical, you know, 

8 
 person with, everyone has some uranium in 

9 
 urine. 

10 MR. DARNELL: So the action on this 

11 would be for you guys to go look it up? 

12 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, I suggest that 

13 we do a call with, we'll take a look at --

14 
 DR. MAURO: Go give Joyce a call. 

15 She'll know in about one second. 

16 
 DR. OSTROW: It's perfectly 

17 
 reasonable to just close the issue. And we'll 

18 
 take a look, but we'll take NIOSH's word that 

19 


20 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, closed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Okay, we're now at number 12, unmonitored 202


2 
 workers potential displacements. The 

3 
 resuspension, at least for the internal, I 

4 
 think we've kind of already got that covered 

5 
 from earlier. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Well, the answer here 

7 
 is that you did do, the scenarios are 

8 
 considered. In other words you did look into 

9 
 resuspension exposures. 

10 
 Okay. Was that something that was 

11 
 always there and we just thought you didn't 

12 
 but you did or is this something new? In 

13 
 other words, the resuspension pathway, was 

14 that always something that was in your --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now, there 

16 
 are two situations. This is for, you know, if 

17 
 you're using a coworker approach based on 

18 
 monitored data -- make a copy. What did we 

19 send here? 

20 
 DR. MAURO: It has to do with 

21 unmonitored workers. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, okay. 203
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: You've got two 

3 
 categories of unmonitored workers. Ones that 

4 
 were likely only exposed to environmental 

5 
 internal levels of radioactivity. And ones 

6 
 that were exposed to a higher level, which we 

7 
 get a missed dose based on a hypothetical 

8 
 bioassay result. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well, we might need 

11 to address each one of those separately. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this seems 

13 
 real specific to me that it was from people 

14 
 eating in a contaminated area that was 

15 previously considered uncontaminated. 

16 
 Is that from worker interviews, or 

17 
 -- I guess I'm wondering where SC&A came up 

18 with this issue. 

19 
 DR. OSTROW: I believe I read, in 

20 
 the last day or two, our entire Site Profile 

21 Review from 2006. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And if I recall correctly, this was 204


2 
 from worker interviews with anecdotal that 

3 
 they would be sitting, you know, outdoors 

4 
 eating their lunch or it could've even been in 

5 
 the lunchroom, whatever, and this was a 

6 
 question. 

7 
 They claim that -- they go through 

8 
 an issue of, you know, breathing in 

9 
 resuspended contamination when they were 

10 eating in so-called clean areas. 

11 
 MR. DARNELL: Something like this 

12 
 occurring, you know, is going to be on a 

13 
 worker-by-worker basis, basically. And that 

14 
 type of scenario is accounted for when the 

15 dose reconstructions are done. 

16 
 I don't know that a TBD has to 

17 
 address the scenario that some guy might've 

18 
 been sitting in an office that two weeks later 

19 
 is now a contaminated area, wondering if he 

20 
 was eating contaminated food because he 

21 happened to be sitting in there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 That's something that every single 205


2 
 time the dose reconstruction is done, that 

3 
 type of thing has to be addressed in the dose 

4 
 reconstruction. I don't know if that's 

5 
 something that has to be in the TBD at all. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: I would agree that, in 

7 
 general, there's always a scenario of, you 

8 
 know, a person's in an occupational setting, 

9 
 he's exposed from airborne radioactivity due 

10 
 to the occupation, it's the operation itself 

11 
 and also to the residual radioactivity on 

12 
 likely surfaces. And your standard approach 

13 is to have both. 

14 
 And usually the, you know, if you 

15 
 have the bioassay data you're covered. If you 

16 
 don't and you have air-sampling data, you're 

17 covered. 

18 
 So, you know, if it turns out you 

19 
 don't have any data, though, on the person, 

20 
 which means that okay, now we have to 

21 
 reconstruct his dose and you have to consider 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what are we going to assign to him? 206
 

2 
 One of the pathways, and you have 

3 
 your standard methods for doing this is, we've 

4 
 got residual radioactivity, you know what it 

5 
 is in terms of becquerels per meter squared, 

6 
 if you know what it is, and you assign a 

7 
 resuspension factor, and of course we've had 

8 
 some discussion on what that should be. 

9 
 But it sounds like in this case 

10 
 that, well, I guess you do. You're saying 

11 that the scenarios are considered. 

12 
 So you're saying that in your TBD 

13 
 you do have circumstances where, guidance that 

14 
 says if a person is unmonitored but possibly 

15 
 could've been in an area that might've had 

16 some residual radioactivity. 

17 
 MR. DARNELL: It's actually stated 

18 
 more, person's unmonitored, here's how you 

19 
 calculate the internal dose if he had a 

20 positive --

21 DR. MAURO: It was unmonitored. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, unmonitored 207
 

2 
 internal. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Right. 

4 
 MR. DARNELL: Had a positive TLD 

5 
 reading. Here's what you do if the guy, 

6 
 different scenario, different type of thing, 

7 
 here's what you do with the guy. It doesn't 

8 
 specifically address someone sat down in an 

9 
 area. It tells you what to do with how to do 

10 the worker. 

11 
 What I'm saying though is, this is 

12 
 taking it to the next step, okay. In other 

13 
 words, in the person's Computer-Assisted 

14 
 Telephone Interview, he would say, I ate in 

15 
 this one office and the day after I ate there 

16 
 they said it was contaminated, you know, I got 

17 exposure from that. 

18 
 That would have to be addressed on 

19 
 a case-by-case basis in the dose 

20 
 reconstruction. There is no guidance to put 

21 
 in the TBD for that, except guidance on how to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 handle the workers in general which is already 208


2 
 in there. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: So you're saying that 

4 
 in the circumstance where there's no reason to 

5 
 believe that this person was exposed to any 

6 
 airborne activity, whether direct or from 

7 
 resuspension, you make that your guidance, and 

8 
 you don't assign anything but an ambient? 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Correct. If their 

10 external doses are zero. 

11 
 MR. MAURO: And if their external 

12 doses are zero. 

13 
 MR. GLECKLER: Zero, they only get 

14 ambient. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: But along comes a 

16 
 person, let's say in his CATI. He says, but 

17 
 wait a minute, I am concerned that maybe I may 

18 
 have inhaled some radioactivity because of 

19 this story. 

20 
 MR. DARNELL: That would have to be 

21 addressed in the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 209


2 
 DR. MAURO: I have to say, I'm 

3 
 inclined to agree that that's a sensible way 

4 
 to go. I don't know, Steve? 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: I agree also. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, let's withdraw 

7 
 this. It's resolved. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Everybody else okay 

10 
 with that? Yes, I'm sorry. I shouldn't be 

11 
 speaking through -- when I say that I mean 

12 SC&A sense on this. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: Understand. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But I think 

15 NIOSH is agreeing with you so --

16 DR. MAURO: I apologize. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- no reason 

18 
 to beat it around. 

19 
 Okay, this next one's on the people 

20 
 got a dose from naval reactor facility 

21 
 workers. Thought this was a jurisdictional 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 issue. 210
 

2 
 MS. JENKINS: Can't do anything 

3 
 about that. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Unless there's 

5 
 something that I don't understand. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Steve, correct me if 

7 
 I'm wrong, though. 

8 
 If a worker is not working for the 

9 
 naval reactor facility, but a worker's working 

10 
 for DOE or as a contractor, and somehow 

11 
 receive some exposure because he happens to go 

12 
 visit or do some maintenance work on behalf of 

13 
 the naval reactor facility, I think that his 

14 exposure of hazard --

15 
 MR. KATZ: It's not a covered 

16 facility. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: It's not a -- so any 

18 
 exposures he might experience when he's on 

19 assignment there --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Is at NRF? 

21 
 DR. MAURO: -- doesn't count. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 That's the end of the story, isn't it? 211
 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: Fine, good, close. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: It does say though 

5 
 that if they are an NRF worker while 

6 
 responding to an SL-1 accident, then they're 

7 
 covered. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, so go the other 

9 
 direction. 

10 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are 

12 
 workers who work at the covered facility who 

13 would be included. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Reverse, reverse. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: So that part of it's 

16 not captured in this comment. 

17 
 MR. GLECKLER: We have encountered 

18 
 that instance to where getting that dose, the 

19 
 one case that I can think of specifically that 

20 
 I was involved with, was like the individual 

21 
 didn't have a SL-1 dosimeter, but there was a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 chance he might have taken his NRF dosimeter 212


2 
 with him when he went over to the S to 

3 
 respond, he was an initial responder. 

4 
 And contacting the NRF dosimetry 

5 
 folks, you know, going through the DOE 

6 
 dosimetry folks, that was a real bear, and 

7 
 ultimately they would not give us that but we 

8 
 finally got a response. 

9 
 The only response that we finally 

10 
 were able to get out of them is in regards to 

11 
 that dose for that very specific time frame, 

12 
 for that any dosimeter that covered the SL-1 

13 
 accident time frame, you know, from January 

14 
 3rd, '61, and that was that his doses were 

15 indicative of his NRF exposures. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, that was the 

17 
 answer? 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: That was all we 

19 could get out of them. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: So you couldn't capture 

21 
 any dose of that time period while he as at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 SL-1? 213
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, they --

3 
 DR. MAURO: We could try. 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: So even if we needed 

5 
 to count that data, it's like it's another 

6 
 hurdle to be able to get it from the NRF 

7 
 folks. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: What was the case with 

9 
 that individual person? I'm curious. How did 

10 
 you do a dose reconstruction if you only had 

11 his exposure to the SL-1 accident? I 

12 
 mean, how do you know whether the SL-1 

13 
 accident caused the cancer or whether it was 

14 exposure at NRF caused the cancer? 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: Oh, that we can't 

16 
 determine. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our 

18 
 standpoint it's the same wash you face 

19 everywhere else. 

20 
 Program only considers, again, the 

21 
 radiation exposure at a covered facility and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 if someone worked commercially, and maybe they 214


2 
 worked commercially for 30 years and they 

3 
 worked two years at one of our facilities, 

4 
 then 30 years of exposure doesn't count. 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, that's true. I 

6 
 understand it's the same type of situation. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: So unless in this case 

8 
 if they would've gotten back, you said no, you 

9 
 know, there may've been a window of time where 

10 
 he did experience some exposure while visiting 

11 
 the SL-1 and that they could, somehow a number 

12 
 could be put to that, you would've assigned to 

13 that? 

14 
 But right now the feedback was you 

15 
 got was, there's nothing about this guy's 

16 
 records that show his exposures are any 

17 
 greater because he happened to have been at 

18 SL-1. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: And I believe there's 

21 nothing else, what else can you do? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: So can we close that 215
 

2 
 one? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thank you. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 14 on 

6 
 the plutonium monitoring. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, basically 

8 
 plutonium, because plutonium wasn't separated 

9 
 from the spent particulate fuel at INL. 

10 
 It's like they relied heavily on 

11 
 gross beta in urine, gross gamma in urine, 

12 
 strontium in urine and whole body counts for 

13 
 their bioassay program. And that which, 

14 
 because the fission products were much more 

15 
 readily detectable than what the plutonium 

16 
 would be, they could use those easier to 

17 
 perform analyses as an indication of an 

18 intake. 

19 
 And it's not until the later years 

20 
 where they did start doing some Pu bioassay, 

21 
 and typically what you see is that bioassay 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 data, there are a lot of false positives from 216


2 
 the fecal sample results. 

3 
 We got a lot of slightly detectable 

4 
 Pu bioassays for fecal samples that aren't 

5 
 detectable on any subsequent results, whereas 

6 
 it should still be there if they had a real 

7 
 intake. You don't see any real huge intakes, 

8 
 they're just barely detectable results, if you 

9 
 see any at all. 

10 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, this is Steve. 

11 
 I'm a little bit confused because I thought 

12 
 that some of the fuel at INL was reprocessed, 

13 
 but you're saying that even then they didn't 

14 separate out the plutonium? 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: Correct. That is 

16 
 one thing that I encountered when I was 

17 
 interviewing for my very first job with 

18 
 Westinghouse, is I interviewed with some INL 

19 
 folks and they were talking about the ICPP 

20 
 facility and I say, oh, you're reprocessing 

21 it, and they got very tense and irate. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And it's like, no, we're not 217
 

2 
 reprocessing, we're only extracting the 

3 
 uranium, which, I guess, reprocessing implies 

4 
 that they're also taking out the plutonium. 

5 
 And that was a very -- I thought I 

6 
 lost my opportunity to get my first job, but 

7 
 fortunately they shuffled me over to the 

8 
 Hanford folks who were the ones I wanted to 

9 
 talk to anyhow. 

10 (Laughter.) 

11 
 But it's a very touchy subject, 

12 
 from what I gathered back then. I find it 

13 
 hard to believe that they've never separated 

14 
 it, but I've looked high and low through the 

15 
 documents and have always been on the lookout 

16 
 for that and have not found anything to 

17 
 indicate that they have, so, so far it checks 

18 
 out. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, one 

20 
 thing, plutonium can be concentrated in the 

21 
 leftover material after you remove the highly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 enriched uranium. 218
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: It would still be in 

3 
 the same concentration as what it was in the 

4 
 mixed fuel, you're just extracting the uranium 

5 
 out of the mixed fuel makers. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: So you effectively 

7 
 have the plutonium in the waste stream with 

8 
 the mixed fission products, that ratio. 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: You have a little 

10 
 bit that goes with the uranium and that's part 

11 
 of the recycled uranium matrix, a mix, and 

12 
 there's new things in the INL TBD that account 

13 for the recycled uranium component. 

14 
 DR. TAULBEE: The other thing to 

15 
 consider here is that a lot of the uranium 

16 
 they were reprocessing -- not reprocessing, 

17 separating out, was enriched. 

18 
 And so to be making plutonium, you 

19 
 use more of a regular uranium-238. And so 

20 this has got a much higher ratio at 235. 

21 
 And so to get to the plutoniums, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 plutonium-239 in particular, is rather 219
 

2 
 difficult from that particular isotope, if 

3 
 that's what you've got is mostly enriched 

4 
 uranium. 

5 
 So you have much less than what you 

6 
 had at Hanford and Savannah River. That 

7 
 concentration of plutonium in these fuels is 

8 
 much smaller because of the enrichment. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: The key here though is 

10 
 that you've got your gross beta-gamma and 

11 
 you're making an assumption regarding the mix, 

12 
 which includes of course not only your beta13 
 gammas, but also includes your transuranics, 

14 your plutoniums, everything else. 

15 
 And so my position would be, okay, 

16 
 in picking this mix given the variability and 

17 
 uncertainty in what the mixes are from time to 

18 
 time, place to place, or whatever, so there is 

19 
 a variability here. Have you picked the mix 

20 that is plausibly bounding for most workers? 

21 
 I mean, really what you're saying 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 is did you pick like, especially if there's a 220


2 
 lot of variability. One of the things that we 

3 
 would do if we were revisiting this question, 

4 
 and maybe we did when we originally visited 

5 
 it, was: what is the mix? And is it very 

6 
 variable? And if it is very variable, did you 

7 
 pick a mix that would be plausibly bounding 

8 
 for all workers? 

9 
 Because one of the problems we keep 

10 
 running into over and over again is that, and 

11 
 this is not really a criticism, it's just that 

12 it's a mindset. 

13 
 You look for the best number. This 

14 
 is like a reasonable mix, yes, we've got a 

15 
 reasonable mix here so it captures what we're 

16 dealing with. 

17 
 But that's not what we're doing. 

18 
 What we're doing is picking the mix that we're 

19 sure no individual got worse than that. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: I can address that. 

21 
 The approach that I put together for the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 actinides with INL, there's basically three 221


2 
 main types of fuel. 

3 
 And they're identified by cladding 

4 
 categories, where the bulk of the fuel that 

5 
 was reprocessed at the ICPP was comprised of, 

6 
 got aluminum-clad fuel, which it could come 

7 
 from the NPR and TRA area reactors, then we've 

8 
 got zirconium-clad fuel and stainless steel9 
 clad fuel. 

10 And so we've got the mixture 

11 
 information, we've got waste stream 

12 
 characterization data for the ICPP for each of 

13 
 those major fuel types. And that's where we 

14 
 developed the ratios for the various 

15 
 actinides from, and so with the INL TBD, we've 

16 got actually four options. 

17 
 Because we've got a maximizing 

18 
 option on that, and it depends on where they 

19 
 work, when they work there as far as for like 

20 
 the reactor areas, the bulk of the reactor 

21 
 areas at INL, like the MTR and such, they get 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the aluminum-clad fuel category. 222
 

2 
 If they worked at ANL West, they 

3 
 get stainless-clad fuel ratios applied. On 

4 
 the zirconium-clad fuel, ratios only really 

5 
 come into play if they were naval type fuels 

6 
 not at the ICPP. And if they worked with the 

7 
 ICPP, you basically got to consider all three 

8 
 cladding types after a certain date. 

9 
 Prior to a certain date, they only 

10 
 processed aluminum-clad fuels. But after that 

11 
 certain point in time, I forget what the year 

12 
 is, but it's identified in the TBD, that after 

13 
 that point in time you have to consider all 

14 fuel types. 

15 
 And for an easy maximizing approach 

16 
 I put in maximum values across the board, so 

17 
 there's a maximum plutonium ratio amongst all 

18 
 three cladding types. A maximum uranium 

19 
 ratio, neptunium ratio and so on, for all 

20 
 three of those cladding types, and they can 

21 
 opt to use that set of ratios, that maximizing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 set. 223
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: What about burn up? 

3 
 There was I would imagine, the mix also is 

4 
 affected by burn up? 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it's based on 

6 
 from burn up ratio. But it was -- I'm trying 

7 
 to remember now. That goes into the document 

8 
 or the INL document that we got that 

9 
 information from. 

10 
 DR. TAULBEE: All of this is in the 

11 internal TBD, correct? 

12 MR. GLECKLER: Correct. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: And it's been there 

14 from the beginning? 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: No. The actual 

16 
 source document that I did use has been one of 

17 
 the key references from the previous approach. 

18 
 So I kept what that, one of their key 

19 references. 

20 
 That's from somewhere, I think 

21 
 their original ratios that were just, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 know, plutonium ratios, and I think they might 224


2 
 have had a uranium ratio for certain areas and 

3 
 certain years, but that was one of the key 

4 
 documents that was used for that. So I kept 

5 
 with that key reference. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: I guess what I'm 

7 
 looking toward is that -- the story you just 

8 
 told is very cogent. 

9 
 In other words, you looked at the 

10 
 different types of fuel, and the different 

11 
 burners, and on the basis of that and the data 

12 
 that was presented to you in some source 

13 
 documents, you picked a mix that you felt was 

14 
 appropriate for different circumstances. And 

15 
 then of course, the dose reconstructor is 

16 
 giving you guidance on when to use what mix. 

17 That would be the sensible thing to do. 

18 
 Is that whole thing developed and 

19 
 described in the original Site Profile, which 

20 
 means that we probably shouldn't have made 

21 this comment? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: That was the problem 225
 

2 
 with the originals. A lot of that wasn't, we 

3 
 didn't have the documentation for those, you 

4 
 know, it depended on what was in the original. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Got it. I would make a 

6 
 recommendation that we should look at that. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: I just wrote that 

8 
 down. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I had a 

10 question on that. 

11 
 EBR 1 and EBR 2, I don't remember 

12 
 which one it is, one of them used what, I 

13 
 think a three-meter fuel pin loading, and the 

14 other one had used one-meter, I believe. 

15 
 One of them was also being used a 

16 
 lot for some test loadings of plutonium carbon 

17 
 pellets and depleted uranium pellets. That 

18 
 seems like to me it would definitely skew the 

19 issue on the plutonium levels. 

20 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, from what I --

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That was in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the '70s, I can tell you that much. 226
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and from what I 

3 
 can tell that was a relatively small time 

4 
 frame in the operation of that reactor, if I'm 

5 
 not mistaken. 

6 
 And so, it's, you know, because 

7 
 like all the fuel categories, ICPP processed a 

8 
 lot of different fuels, some from other sites 

9 
 even. And it's a wide variety and you'd have 

10 
 to boil it down a little bit. And that is 

11 like the, you know. 

12 
 So we just went with what was the 

13 
 major -- hopefully, you know, the basis that 

14 
 I've put together now and hopefully 

15 
 sufficiently documented will defend, you know, 

16 
 what we did, the approach on the burn up 

17 
 stuff, because I don't know if I've got, the 

18 
 burn up stuff might be in my reference 

19 
 material that I used, the basis for that. 

20 
 It's somewhere. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: This is John. It would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 be helpful if any source documents that you 227


2 
 drew upon to come up with your mixes that may 

3 
 not be in the Site Query Database, that be put 

4 
 be in the Site Query Database so that we could 

5 
 look at that, because we're going to look at 

6 
 that. 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: In other words, if 

9 
 there's burn up information that played into 

10 
 your decisions, we're going to need to look at 

11 that. 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well, we don't have 

13 
 the mix, the characterization data on the 

14 
 other types of fuel from what I remember. I'm 

15 
 not -- those are the main fuel types that they 

16 
 characterized that the vast majority of the 

17 
 fuel being processed at the ICPP at the time 

18 or throughout its history. 

19 
 And it's like we've got historical 

20 
 information that shows what fuel types are 

21 
 being categorized for the various years and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that throughout the ICPP's history. 228
 

2 
 That's how you can tell that, okay, 

3 
 you know, the aluminum-clad, you know, prior 

4 
 to these years was pretty much exclusively, 

5 
 you know, processed at ICPP. 

6 
 And then the later years, they 

7 
 start handling all kinds of different cladding 

8 
 or different fuel types with many different 

9 
 cladding types and stuff. 

10 
 But outside of having the detailed 

11 
 characterization data, it might be difficult 

12 to find anything on the other. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: You know what it all 

14 
 comes down to is, you know, what you used and 

15 
 what your thinking was in terms of like, 

16 
 listen, this is what I've got and this is the 

17 
 assumptions I'm going to make, and why I feel 

18 
 they're reasonable and we'll take a look at 

19 it. 

20 
 We realize that, you know, you're 

21 
 never going to have complete information in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 trying to do something like this. And the 229
 

2 
 question becomes, given the information you do 

3 
 have, you have to make certain assumptions. 

4 
 And at some point you reach a place where you 

5 
 know where it might be. 

6 
 So put yourself in our shoes. What 

7 
 we're looking at is, well, let's say you pick 

8 
 a certain parts per million or whatever it is 

9 
 of plutonium, relative to something else. 

10 
 But there may have been scenarios 

11 
 where workers could've been working with a 

12 
 particular type of fuel, a typical degree of 

13 
 burn up, where in theory, and this is 

14 
 something where the nuclear physicists come in 

15 
 with nuclear, you know, in theory you could've 

16 
 had a very different mix at some period of 

17 time, in some group of workers. 

18 
 Well, that creates a problem. 

19 
 Because it means that you really are going to 

20 
 have a hard time saying, well, what would be 

21 
 the upper end of the plutonium in that mix? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 So how do I interpret my gross beta-gamma 230


2 
 results? 

3 
 I mean, that's all we really do, 

4 
 it's nothing more complicated than that. We 

5 
 look for scenarios that maybe you didn't have 

6 
 the data, nobody's fault, it wasn't there. 

7 
 But the scenario could have been real; there 

8 
 may be enough evidence in the record that 

9 
 these scenarios did occur. 

10 
 And here's the judgment that we 

11 
 always find ourselves making. Was the 

12 
 scenario to such an extent that it's plausible 

13 
 that a guy or a group of people could've 

14 
 worked for an entire year with that type of 

15 
 material, and how are we going to deal with 

16 that? 

17 
 You might have 99 percent of the 

18 
 workers 99 percent of the time you've got it 

19 
 cold. But there may be some real scenarios 

20 
 where the real people could've been exposed 

21 for an extended period of time, a year. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And what are we going to do about 231


2 
 that, and is it important? 

3 
 We would also ask the question, 

4 
 well, all right, so we could've been off by a 

5 
 few percent, you know. But if all of a 

6 
 sudden you underestimate the dose to an organ 

7 
 by the back of his head, because it could've 

8 
 happened, you know, what do we do about that? 

9 
 I mean, quite frankly, we're both 

10 
 in the same boat, you know, trying to say, 

11 
 what am I going to do about this guy, you 

12 
 know, this time period for people who might've 

13 
 worked on this material? And that's how we 

14 
 look at it. 

15 Any information you could give us 

16 
 or put on the record that will help us 

17 
 understand the rationale and the weaknesses 

18 
 and the strengths to the approach you're 

19 
 taking, and why maybe, when you look at the 

20 
 whole picture, what you've done is reasonable 

21 
 and bounding for just about everyone. I mean, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 you have to understand, we're not doing 232
 

2 
 anything different in your --

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and hopefully 

4 
 the revised internal TBD, it's like, we'll, 

5 
 you know, answer all those questions. But 

6 
 that's one of the key things that I tried to 

7 
 do when I put together that basis is document 

8 
 all the assumptions, or as many as I possibly 

9 
 could that were, you know, that I thought 

10 
 were, you know, everything that was important, 

11 and hopefully that's been done. 

12 
 One of the things that I would 

13 
 recommend when you do look at that part of the 

14 
 TBD and review that part, also look at the 

15 
 references. Because we've had, I've put some 

16 
 references like my spreadsheets that I used to 

17 
 simplify the actinide list and that are out in 

18 
 the SRDB now, and those are key parts of, you 

19 know, the basis behind that approach. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: It sounds like this is 

21 
 one of those places where we're probably going 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to be on the phone a little bit to understand 233


2 
 your spreadsheet, the assumptions you made and 

3 
 make sure we understand what you did. 

4 
 Because the hardest part we 

5 
 encounter very often is understanding what you 

6 
 did and your rationale from the documentation. 

7 
 You know, we spend 90 percent of our time 

8 
 doing that and if there's anything we can do 

9 
 to shorten that, so that we could put the, oh 

10 
 okay, I see where they did it and why they did 

11 it. 

12 
 Then, amongst ourselves, it becomes 

13 
 self-evident, wow, there is a problem here and 

14 
 here's what it is. And we'll tell you that so 

15 
 you know here's why, and then you can come 

16 
 back and say, well, this is why we don't think 

17 it's a problem. 

18 
 Unfortunately, we spend too much 

19 
 time trying to figure out what in fact you did 

20 
 and why you did it because it's not always 

21 
 well-documented. It's hard to pull the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 information out of it. 234
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well, there's always 

3 
 the possibility of there is an exposure, you 

4 
 know, some sort of a scenario out there that 

5 
 wasn't, you know, thought of or planned for. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, and there's no 

7 
 doubt that's true. But then I think 

8 
 reasonable people come to the point, well, 

9 
 that scenario is just too obscure. And here's 

10 where the Board comes in. 

11 
 I mean, we get to a point where 

12 
 there's a scenario that wasn't modeled, can't 

13 
 be modeled, what do you do about it? And, you 

14 
 know, then it becomes a judgment call. Is 

15 
 that a showstopper, you know, and that's where 

16 
 the Working Group has to get your best story, 

17 and decide for themselves. 

18 
 So we've got this as an action 

19 item. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you have a 

21 
 good feel about when they were doing these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 experimental fuel pin loadings using the EBR? 235


2 
 Like I said, I can't remember right now if 

3 
 it's 1 or 2, and as far as the breeder reactor 

4 
 program. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: You asking me that, 

6 
 or --

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

8 
 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you have a 

10 handle on that? 

11 MR. GLECKLER: No, I can't --

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Because it 

13 
 seems like that would change the amount of 

14 plutonium in the mix. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, I mean that's 

16 
 something we could look into in more detail as 

17 
 far as exactly when that was. And I know 

18 
 there's not a whole lot of information out 

19 
 there or at least I haven't, but I haven't 

20 
 gone specifically searching the SRDB documents 

21 for that sort of thing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Phil, it sounds like 236
 

2 
 you have a lot of knowledge on these different 

3 
 fuels most of the time and you're likely to 

4 
 help us make sure that there's no holes there. 

5 
 Because it's too easy to say, sounds like you 

6 
 know about what went on to a level of 

7 
 resolution that could identify scenarios that 

8 
 might be important that haven't been 

9 
 explicitly addressed, so we have one, you 

10 know, help us out if you can. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Anybody 

12 got anything else on 15? Any comments, Jodi? 

13 MS. JENKINS: No. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Is that 14? 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, that's 

16 
 14. 

17 DR. MAURO: It's 14, okay. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're on 

19 
 to number 15 now. This is dealing with the 

20 
 SL-1 incident, potential from this, and 

21 internal and external doses. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So has NIOSH -- I 237
 

2 
 just read both of these, now has updated 

3 
 information to come up with this conclusion 

4 
 that they have significant dosimetry history, 

5 
 or was there a misunderstanding by SC&A in the 

6 
 first place there? 

7 
 Sounds like NIOSH is saying yes, we 

8 
 can do that because we do have the records, 

9 
 and --

10 MR. DARNELL: Look at the list of 

11 
 all personnel that were involved, the 

12 
 dosimetry that was used, the whole gamut of 

13 information on the accident. 

14 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Then how come 

15 SC&A said that you don't have --

16 
 MR. DARNELL: I don't remember what 

17 
 that revision said about it. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: Steve, do you recall in 

19 
 the original Site Profile that we reviewed, 

20 
 where this comment emerged regarding concern 

21 
 about adequacy and completeness of the SL-1 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 accident and the 1,000 rescue and clean-up 238


2 
 workers? I don't know, have you had a chance 

3 
 to look at, when you said you did look at our 

4 
 original review? 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: John, I think the 

6 
 original TBD we looked at covers SL-1, but we 

7 
 thought it was sort of scanty. Possibly the 

8 
 current TBD may have a lot more information on 

9 
 it. I didn't compare the old TBD to the new 

10 one. 

11 
 But I think, I see what NIOSH is 

12 
 saying in that we would have to take a good 

13 
 look at the current, the data that was 

14 
 covered. 

15 DR. MAURO: Did you folks add a lot 

16 
 of material in the new TBD on SL-1 or is it 

17 basically the same as it originally was? 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: In regards to the 

19 SL-1, it's pretty much unchanged. 

20 DR. MAURO: Unchanged, okay. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: Pretty much either 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the individuals were monitored for external 239


2 
 dose or the site estimated the individual's 

3 
 external dose based on one of the other 

4 
 coworkers that was present and had a 

5 
 dosimeter. 

6 
 And typically bioassays were 

7 
 performed on those for the initial responders. 

8 
 It's like for the ones that, you know, the 

9 
 post-accident type activities, it's like they 

10 
 went in with respiratory protection and stuff 

11 
 like that so they may not have performed 

12 
 bioassays, but then they would've been 

13 monitored for external. 

14 
 You know, so we assume appropriate 

15 
 monitoring was performed for the ones at post16 accident type activities that took place. 

17 
 But if it's the initial responders 

18 
 where there's only the potential for that type 

19 
 of concern, and from what we can tell the site 

20 
 estimated external doses for those 

21 individuals, and we do --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MS. JENKINS: If you have the data 240
 

2 
 we just do it just like a regular dose 

3 
 reconstruction. 

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: And these doses are 

5 
 high. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: I mean, fair enough. 

7 
 What you're saying is, you do not agree with 

8 
 our comment. 

9 
 Nothing's really changed. You 

10 
 believe that you do have the data and we have 

11 
 the statement here that says well, we think 

12 
 the data may be deficient. And that's fine, 

13 
 and the suggestion will be made that we should 

14 take another look. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: Take another look. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: Take another look. 

17 
 Shouldn't take too long to see whether, you 

18 
 know, why did we say this in the first place. 

19 Maybe we were wrong. 

20 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Certainly we should 

21 
 take a look at the metric used to estimate the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 coworker doses. 241
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Got a question 

3 
 there on the --

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, but that's what 

5 
 the site did. The coworker dose that we used 

6 
 was the site's coworkers. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Particularly 

8 
 on the first responders in those first hours 

9 
 and days, are there any documentation to show 

10 
 there weren't many people present that weren't 

11 monitored, at least externally? 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: In the 

13 
 documentation of the accident, if I recall, 

14 
 there's a pretty clear write-up of the 

15 
 accident, the night of the accident itself, 

16 
 and who responded that night. That seems to 

17 
 be pretty well -- that was reconstructed at 

18 the time by the site. 

19 
 And it was during that process, 

20 
 during that investigation, I believe, that 

21 
 this site estimated some of those responder 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 doses from the people who received the dose, 242


2 
 from the vantage of the people responded with 

3 
 them. Isn't that how that happened? 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, so the 

5 
 later workers who came in later for the 

6 
 deconstruction themselves to do clean-up and 

7 
 stuff, were they all badged? 

8 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. There's no 

10 
 reason why they wouldn't have been badged like 

11 
 any other routine effort. You know, they're 

12 doing a somewhat routine --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Now in terms of, I 

14 
 mean, this thing I think went on for months, 

15 right? 

16 MR. GLECKLER: Or longer. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Now as far as I 

18 
 know, we don't have a roster of all the people 

19 
 who worked on it during the month or is that -

20 
 -

21 MR. DARNELL: We've got the roster 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of who responded. 243
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: The initial 

3 
 responders. 

4 
 MR. DARNELL: But all of the 

5 
 remaining activities, no, we don't have a 

6 
 roster of all of those people. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, you know, 

8 
 the thought being that those people, you know, 

9 
 at that point you have a known radiologic 

10 
 situation. You are doing known radiologic 

11 
 work and you're treating your people with 

12 
 radiologic work. So, you know, there's badge, 

13 
 then I don't know what the bioassay situation 

14 is, but --

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: So you're dealing 

16 
 with a planned activity for the post-accident 

17 
 stuff versus the initial responders that was 

18 an unplanned event, right? 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, because 

20 
 there has been at least one person make the 

21 
 comment that their family member was one of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 those who responded in that initial group, 244


2 
 that they weren't badged. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That I believe is 

4 
 true. I believe that is true and that's why 

5 
 they used the people that responded with the 

6 
 badges for those people in order to 

7 
 reconstruct the dose. The site did that at 

8 
 the time of their investigation. 

9 
 MR. GLECKLER: And their documents 

10 
 do identify the names of the individuals that 

11 were present. 

12 
 DR. TAULBEE: And we've redone that 

13 
 dose reconstruction for that particular -- I 

14 
 think it's the one particular case that you 

15 might be talking about. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: How did your 

17 numbers come up against theirs? 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: Ours were much higher. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Ours were much 

20 higher than the site's. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: And something to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 aware of too, just as a note. You know, 245
 

2 
 there's a lot of individuals that claim to be 

3 
 initial responders. The DOE person that 

4 
 provides us the dosimetry data for INL workers 

5 
 says, last time I talked to them, they said, 

6 
 yes, they're up to about 20 different 

7 
 ambulance drivers so far. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: For the one 

9 
 ambulance. 

10 MR. GLECKLER: For the one 

11 
 ambulance. I don't know how they could fit 

12 
 all the drivers into the car, but -- so 

13 there's quite a few people that kind of --

14 
 I think, you know, it probably 

15 
 comes from claimants, you know, survivor-type 

16 
 claimants, to where it's like, where the 

17 
 original energy employee bragged up, you know, 

18 
 their personal involvement some years ago, so 

19 
 that's how they understood that, oh yes, they 

20 
 were probably initial responder and stuff and 

21 so it gets blown out of proportion. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a certain 246
 

2 
 amount of lore about the history of that 

3 
 specific ambulance, too. 

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: To answer your 

5 
 question about how we did that dose 

6 
 reconstruction for that, based upon that 

7 
 coworker data. It wasn't documented in the 

8 
 TBD, it was documented in the individual dose 

9 
 reconstruction because it only affects, I 

10 
 believe there were seven people for which we 

11 
 did not have data on, and so for those people 

12 we do an individual dose reconstruction. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. Was that 

14 
 triggered by the CATI? What triggered it, you 

15 said that --

16 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well, we have the 

17 
 name of the people who went back into the 

18 building. 

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, I see. 

20 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: So it usually shows 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 up, I mean, just shows up. Usually anyone 247
 

2 
 employed in 1961, the dose reconstructor is 

3 
 going to look, you know, for SL-1 exposures 

4 
 because that's a very good chance that, you 

5 
 know, not a very good chance but a reasonable 

6 
 chance that you can maybe work that as an easy 

7 
 comp claim on that and make it go comp, 

8 
 because you're going to get a decent amount of 

9 
 external dose for that time frame. 

10 
 In some instances, that's where 

11 
 virtually all of their professional dose came 

12 from is from that incident. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Any 

14 questions on that one? Okay, number 16. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: So wait, for 15, just 

16 
 to clarify, SC&A's going to take another look 

17 at the --

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, clarify the 

19 
 basis for their comment. If they're getting 

20 
 caught cold here like everybody else, you 

21 
 know, we're kind of all refreshing our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 memories. 248
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, I just wanted 

3 
 to make it clear in my head. That's fine. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, this is 

5 
 in relation to the beta-gamma dosimetry of 

6 
 record-keeping program. 

7 
 We'll go back to the DNFSB and the 

8 
 Tiger Team reports. So I guess really it's 

9 
 your chance to response to what NIOSH said. 

10 John? 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I mean, I guess I 

12 
 don't have anything to add. I mean you 

13 
 disagree with the position that -- well, 

14 
 apparently, Steve, it looks like that we got 

15 
 some feedback from some people that said that 

16 
 there were the data adequacy and completeness 

17 
 is in question on the bioassay samples. I 

18 
 guess this has to do with, I believe, the 

19 gross beta-gamma. 

20 
 DR. TAULBEE: Actually, this would 

21 be beta dosimetry. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is beta-gamma, 249
 

2 
 I'm trying to read it quickly. 

3 
 MS. JENKINS: External dose. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: This is, oh, this is --

5 
 we're going into external dose. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: Missed external dose. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: Missed external dose. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: So is this something 

9 
 that was updated in the TBD also, or not at 

10 all? 

11 MS. JENKINS: Well, it kind of, my 

12 interpretation was it kind of boils down to 

13 
 the fact of test facilities' dosimetry 

14 badging practices. 

15 
 I went through, and like I said, I 

16 
 reviewed their reports and everything and they 

17 
 were, you know, the DOE was running the lab 

18 and everything. 

19 
 And their internal audits and 

20 
 program assessments and everything didn't have 

21 
 a problem with their badging process. And you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 know, like I said, it was the radiation 250
 

2 
 safety, this is all coming out of the 

3 
 radiation and safety labs. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't know 

5 
 if this is particularly relevant or if this is 

6 
 even related to the topic, but in my lifetime 

7 
 I also interviewed INL. And I can remember 

8 
 being told during that, it must have been that 

9 
 visit, that there was a period of time at 

10 
 Champlain, and I don't know if this was for 

11 
 the entire site, but there was an issue with 

12 the badge construction. 

13 
 Because they had had a combination 

14 
 security and dosimetry badge, and there was a 

15 
 security requirement to redesign the badge 

16 every so number of years. 

17 
 And so security redesigned a new 

18 
 security badge without worrying about 

19 
 including any dosimetry window. And by the 

20 
 time the dosimetry people figured this out 

21 they were kind of stuck with this situation. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 What are we going to do, they 251
 

2 
 didn't want to separate, they didn't want any 

3 
 people to wear separate dosimetry badge and 

4 
 separate security badge, they wanted them to 

5 
 be combined. 

6 
 And so they hung the dosimetry chip 

7 
 behind the security badge. The security badge 

8 
 had already been designed and they wouldn't go 

9 
 back. They did acquiesce in drilling a hole 

10 in it. 

11 
 And so the idea is you hang your 

12 
 TLD behind there so that your open window TLD 

13 
 pokes out through the hole in your security 

14 
 badge. Now there was some misgivings on the 

15 
 part of the radiation staff about are you 

16 
 really developing reproducible geometry by 

17 
 having this, because it wasn't fastened to the 

18 
 security badge, it hung behind it on the clip. 

19 
 So there was some discomfort about 

20 
 that, on the part of the radiation safety 

21 
 people. And I don't know what, I can tell you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 about when I interviewed out there but I don't 252


2 
 know what year this badge was -- I don't know 

3 
 if any of this is related to that at all. But 

4 
 I hate to sit here quiet and have that in the 

5 
 back of my mind. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: With the Tiger Team 

7 
 report what was the -- you know I'm coming 

8 
 into this a little bit cold here as well. 

9 
 What was the actual issue with the 

10 
 completeness and quality? Steve, could you 

11 elaborate some on that? 

12 
 DR. OSTROW: I can elaborate a 

13 
 little bit. I don't have the Tiger Team 

14 
 report in front of me, but in our original 

15 
 2006 Site Profile Review, on page 96, we just 

16 
 list, I think six different things summarized 

17 in the Tiger Team report. 

18 
 They say the overall gamma neutron 

19 
 response was within plus or minus 40 percent, 

20 
 which did not satisfy the 25 percent 

21 
 requirement specified in DOE 5480.11, for one 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 thing. Absence of centralized, integrated 253
 

2 
 dosimetry program. Absence of calibration 

3 
 sources for the dosimetry program. 

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: Did they elaborate on 

5 
 absence of calibration sources? 

6 
 DR. OSTROW: The absence of any 

7 
 calibration sources for daily functioning of 

8 
 dosimetry processing and developing element 

9 
 collection factors and quality control. This 

10 is like a summary from the Tiger Team report. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, so that's on 

12 
 the reading of the dosimeters, not daily 

13 checks on the TLD readers, okay? 

14 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, anyway, there's 

15 
 a couple of, I'd have to go back to the 

16 
 original Tiger Team Reports, it's hard to tell 

17 
 from these summaries what it is you're talking 

18 about. 

19 
 But what they say the conclusion 

20 
 was, during these -- they interviewed five 

21 
 experts and past and current workers, and they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 came up with they think there's potential 254


2 
 missed dose scenarios and deficiencies in 

3 
 personnel protection programs and dosimetry 

4 
 record-keeping overall. I'd have to go back 

5 
 and see what the actual details are for that. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: What I'm hearing is 

7 
 that, well, one of the things that's becoming 

8 
 clear during this conversation is that there 

9 
 are categories of comments that we make, where 

10 
 in our original review, that NIOSH feels, you 

11 know the original TBD that we review is okay. 

12 
 And there are other comments where 

13 
 we note that NIOSH has done a lot of work in 

14 
 this area and it's probably a good idea for 

15 SC&A to take a look at the new TBD. 

16 
 So it's really two things, either 

17 
 the action is going to be on SC&A to go back 

18 
 and revisit the original comment we made, 

19 
 maybe we were overzealous. Or maybe, no, 

20 
 NIOSH has developed a lot more material and 

21 
 so, you know, and therefore we should go look 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at the new TBD and to see if that new TBD 255


2 
 answers the questions. 

3 
 Now that being the overall 

4 
 framework, we look at this one. Now this one 

5 
 looks to me that NIOSH's position is no, our 

6 
 original TBD, it was okay. And this concern 

7 
 that's being expressed by the Tiger Team, et 

8 
 cetera, et cetera, is really not a real 

9 
 problem. 

10 But NIOSH is saying, please provide 

11 
 us with a little bit more information. So 

12 
 maybe there is more to the story that we 

13 better look into. 

14 
 Steve just said that, well, there 

15 
 is a lot more to the story, and it's all laid 

16 
 out in Tiger Team Report and the citations and 

17 so forth. 

18 
 So I walk away from this saying, 

19 
 clearly Steve has just read some material that 

20 
 goes to some very specificity about problems 

21 
 that might have existed at the time that were 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 uncovered by the Tiger Team and NIOSH's 256
 

2 
 reaction is one to dismiss that. 

3 
 Now I would argue that really maybe 

4 
 this is a case where perhaps NIOSH may want to 

5 
 go back, and take a look at the Tiger Team 

6 
 Report, concerns in the record, follow the 

7 
 record and whether or not you feel that 

8 
 everything is in fact fine, notwithstanding 

9 
 what the Tiger Team said. 

10 
 Because I think we did give you 

11 
 everything we need. Steve, is there any other 

12 
 things that we need to provide them, for them 

13 
 to see whether or not our position has legs or 

14 not? 

15 
 DR. OSTROW: This is a little bit -

16 
 - I agree with you, this is a little bit of a 

17 
 philosophical question. We did, we had a 

18 
 number of our comments that we developed 

19 
 originally, based on our reading of the Tiger 

20 Team report and the DNFSB report. 

21 
 And NIOSH is saying, I think sort 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of in general that the, well, even if these 257


2 
 reports are true they're not directly 

3 
 applicable to the NIOSH dose reconstructions, 

4 
 because they were done for the purpose of 

5 
 these reports. And NIOSH isn't really relying 

6 
 on the same information that the Tiger Team 

7 
 was, that the Tiger Teams looked at. 

8 
 And so it's a little bit of a 

9 
 philosophical question whether the Tiger Team 

10 report apply or not. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: I think, I agree with 

12 
 you, John, that at least in my opinion, Stu, 

13 
 correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems 

14 
 like where there's things like this that the 

15 
 Tiger Teams have identified, we should go 

16 
 through what their findings are and the ones 

17 
 that, you know, in the absence of a 

18 
 centralized system, well, do you really need 

19 
 one if you've got, each facility has their own 

20 and it's working fine. 

21 
 It doesn't matter. The 40 percent, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 though, plus or minus, does our TBD 258
 

2 
 incorporate that? And so it seems to me we 

3 
 should go through each of those Tiger Team 

4 
 issues and address them as to which ones apply 

5 
 and which ones don't. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Also site interview, 

7 
 your write-up pinpointed the site interviews 

8 
 and what their problems were, correct, John? 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's thoroughly 

10 supported. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: So those points are 

12 in your write-up also. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: That those need to 

15 
 be addressed as well. 

16 
 MEMBER MELIUS: I think there's a 

17 
 third possibility to John's too, which is that 

18 
 NIOSH was asking for clarification on your 

19 
 comments, and what specifically in the Tiger 

20 
 Team Report or whatever were you referring to. 

21 
 And in that case I think the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 burden's back on SC&A in this new review to 259


2 
 come back, yes. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: And that's fine, that's 

4 
 what I was really looking for is who's got the 

5 
 ball right now? 

6 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Right, yes. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: And what I'm hearing 

8 
 though is a consensus that maybe we better go 

9 
 back and provide some, if there is, you know, 

10 
 do the best we can to give you everything we 

11 have and why we --

12 
 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, and if you go 

13 
 back, because like Steve said he hasn't looked 

14 
 at the Tiger Team, so go back and look at it 

15 again. 

16 
 If you think you've provided 

17 
 everything you should have then, you know, 

18 
 like maybe it's something for some sort of a 

19 
 technical call or something that we're having 

20 trouble understanding the issue. 

21 
 I think we can avoid, if we just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 start in the right place, we avoid going back 260


2 
 and forth ten times. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: So we'll take it, we 

4 
 got to the -- we'll take another look at it, 

5 
 make sure that we've collected all the 

6 
 information, make sure our position is still 

7 
 as it is, and if any information or rationale 

8 
 for where we come out that you don't have, 

9 
 we'll give it to you. 

10 
 And then we'll have one of these 

11 
 conference calls and we'll see where it goes. 

12 So we got the action. 

13 
 MR. GLECKLER: Has anyone looked at 

14 
 the site's responses to those Tiger Team 

15 
 findings, to see if, you know, did the site 

16 
 make any major changes in what they, in the 

17 
 practices that would change the doses, because 

18 
 if it affected the doses, you would think that 

19 
 they would have to go back and recalculate the 

20 doses. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: Not necessarily. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. GLECKLER: No. 261
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They wouldn't 

3 
 necessarily go back retrospectively. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: It would just go 

5 
 forward from there, from what I've seen. 

6 
 MR. GLECKLER: That would be a clue 

7 
 that we might need an adjustment. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: My understanding of 

10 
 what happens is that Tiger Team generally only 

11 
 deals with the complex, going-forward type of 

12 
 exercise. That the different sites improve 

13 
 their monitoring program going forward but I 

14 
 don't think they generally recalculate 

15 anything in the past. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's not my 

17 recollection, either, that they would. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've never 

19 seen them do anything like that. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This really doesn't 

21 
 matter to our discussion but I just want to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 point out that 40 percent, you know, which is 262


2 
 higher than 20 percent, is specifically in 

3 
 regards to the nuclear accident dosimeters. 

4 
 So that would only matter if we 

5 
 actually reconstructed a dose using nuclear 

6 
 accident dosimeters. It's not their first but 

7 
 it's not their normal personal dosimeters. 

8 
 DR. TAULBEE: That was quick. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: We got them, the 

10 actions are on us. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have an 

12 
 action too, though, we won't sit around, we're 

13 going to go check out the Tiger Team report. 

14 
 I think that they were lobbying for 

15 
 additional funding for the dosimetry in order 

16 
 to pass DOELAP. Because these are right out 

17 of DOELAP requirements. 

18 
 MR. DARNELL: I worked for DOE and 

19 
 it was part of stuff like this, and you would 

20 
 not believe the low levels they would stoop to 

21 
 to use these Tiger Team's reports and reviews 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 for what they wanted to get done. 263
 

2 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Believe me, we do 

4 
 not have a lower opinion of you. 

5 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, I know that 

6 
 about you. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Do you hear that, Greg? 

8 
 (Laughter.) 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Thank you, but I'm 

10 
 going to have to leave, sorry. It's great to 

11 see everybody. Steve, carry on. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's good to see 

13 you, John. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: By the way, 

15 
 those who leave first get dumped on. Okay, 

16 
 Number 17, the penetrating, non-penetrating 

17 
 dose. NIOSH should re-evaluate the missed 

18 
 gamma dose due to deficiencies in procedures 

19 and calibration. 

20 
 That one, I don't know enough about 

21 that to make a informed decision. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, I want to 264
 

2 
 apologize a little bit, you know, the official 

3 
 summary, this was actually in the original 

4 
 Site Profile AWE did its like a page and a 

5 
 half of material, that I think I orally 

6 
 summarized in one sentence here. It's a 

7 
 little bit hard to see issue, just by reading 

8 
 this little summary we have in the matrix. 

9 
 I think that the basic issue, and 

10 
 NIOSH addresses it under seven pages here, is 

11 
 the categorization of gamma and beta doses, 

12 
 penetrating versus non-penetrating dose and 

13 the methodology for handling it. 

14 
 NIOSH responded here with a 

15 
 methodology that -- I think maybe NIOSH could, 

16 
 it would be good if you summarize a little 

17 bit, how you handled this issue. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: I guess, just for my 

19 
 own benefit, I'm not clear what the issue is 

20 
 here. 

21 MEMBER MELIUS: It makes it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 difficult to summarize. 265
 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: If you take a look at 

3 
 the NIOSH response to the matrix, it goes on 

4 
 for a couple pages. 

5 
 DR. TAULBEE: Right, well, I've 

6 
 read that, what the NIOSH response was, I'm 

7 
 just not sure what the original SC&A issue 

8 
 was. Maybe somebody here who's more familiar 

9 
 with that, can give more detail the paragraph 

10 that's here listed. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, part of the 

12 
 issue is that in the early days the film badge 

13 
 service underestimated Hp(10), because low14 
 energy photons were considered beta radiation. 

15 
 I guess this would be a low-energy photon 

16 
 that would register on the open window but not 

17 under the shield. 

18 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And they were 

20 
 registered as beta radiation, that's one 

21 thing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: So it's 266
 

2 
 underestimating the shallow dose? Well, it 

3 
 wouldn't underestimate these, you use the open 

4 
 window the photons would over respond. Low5 
 energy photons would cause an over response, 

6 
 so you guys should be overestimating that 

7 
 dose. 

8 
 Low energy photons in a shielded 

9 
 window doesn't have the penetration power for 

10 Hp(10). 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Then you need 

12 to help us out here. 

13 
 MR. GLECKLER: The key individual 

14 
 that helped provide the response to this is 

15 
 Jack Fix, who was on the call but was 

16 
 conflicted. 

17 DR. TAULBEE: Matt, are you on the 

18 phone? Matt Smith? 

19 
 MR. SMITH: Yes, I am. When I 

20 
 think about Idaho and correction factors I'm 

21 
 visualizing the table, I don't it have right 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 in front of me, but Brian knows what I'm 267


2 
 talking about. 

3 
 There are correction factors in 

4 
 there for the open window, to deal with beta 

5 
 dose or electron dose. To my knowledge we 

6 
 don't do any adjustment downward, in other 

7 
 words, we're not taking anything away for an 

8 
 over response to low energy protons. 

9 
 Although, again, there's some 

10 
 language in OTIB-17 that, you know, if you're 

11 
 aware of the correction made by the site you 

12 can take that into account. 

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: This is where I'm 

14 
 guess I'm confused with the, I'm surprised at 

15 
 what the SC&A issue is here with the 

16 
 penetrating, non-penetrating, missed dose due 

17 
 to deficiencies in the procedures and 

18 
 algorithms for the over response, under 

19 response, the badge. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: This may be another 

21 
 one when SC&A needs to come back with -- maybe 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 relook at that issue. Shallow dose is 268
 

2 
 captured later on, I don't think it's that. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: They kind of 

4 
 summarize things a little bit with INL, I 

5 
 guess the key thing is where are the plausible 

6 
 scenarios where there's a significant low 

7 
 energy, as in less than 30 keV photon 

8 
 exposure. For the site there really are very 

9 
 few of those, I won't say there aren't any 

10 because it's such a large site. 

11 
 There are so many exposure 

12 
 scenarios, but the vast majority of the 

13 
 exposure scenarios do not have a significant 

14 less that 30 keV photon component to it. 

15 
 But if there was, the way that we 

16 
 currently do our dose reconstructions, those 

17 
 dosimeters would have over responded to the 

18 
 less than 30 keV photons and we would have 

19 
 assigned them as electron dose. Based on our 

20 
 current --

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 was going to ask, is that actually -- because 269


2 
 an over response actually helps the claimants? 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and then we 

4 
 also, on top of that over response, we apply 

5 
 typically a fairly large electron dosimeter 

6 
 correction factor. They range, depending on 

7 
 the year, they range from one, the later years 

8 
 are just one, but for the early years from 

9 
 about two to 4.8. 

10 
 MS. JENKINS: 4.8 in 1974 and 1975, 

11 
 and we have a 3.3, a 3, a 2.8. In the '50s it 

12 was 2 to 2.8 and in the '60s it was 2.8. 

13 
 MR. GLECKLER: So it shouldn't 

14 
 really be an issue of underestimating the dose 

15 
 versus underestimating the PoC because of it 

16 
 being assigned to the electron dose versus the 

17 
 less than 30 keV proton dose. If that's, if 

18 there is an issue there. 

19 
 MS. JENKINS: Prior to 1986, a 

20 
 correction factor of a minimum of two is 

21 
 assigned and it could go as high as 4.8. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 After 1986 then that's when they're using the 270


2 
 Panasonic TLDs, and it's a correction factor 

3 
 of one. Prior to that, it would be a minimum 

4 
 of 2, a maximum of 4.8, depending on the 

5 
 background. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Sorry, you 

7 
 health physicists want to kind of help me out 

8 
 on this one, man, I'm lost. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Steve, are you still 

10 there? 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: I'm busy reading. I'm 

12 
 not an expert in this either to tell you the 

13 
 truth. Too bad John left at just the right 

14 the moment. 

15 
 MR. DARNELL: I think John needs to 

16 go back and re-review this. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: I think so too. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It seems to me that 

19 
 none of the arguments in the Site Profile is 

20 
 that, there are low energy photons which will 

21 
 contribute to Hp(10), which will not be read 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 under the filter of the two-element badge. 271
 

2 
 Now I'm not saying that's true or 

3 
 not, that's the nut of the conversation, they 

4 
 even talk about, well, it gets into Compton 

5 
 scatter and mean free path of photons for low 

6 
 energies and effective dose for photons at 60 

7 
 keV, greater than 1.2 NEV, I think is missing 

8 
 something. 

9 
 But that seems to be the nut of the 

10 
 argument, is that the filter over the deep 

11 
 element, the filtered element of the two12 
 element badge, will filter photons that 

13 
 contribute to Hp(10), or will sit there 

14 
 completely, essentially completely filtered, 

15 
 they don't make any contribution to this heat 

16 -stamped badge reading. 

17 
 MS. JENKINS: They would be 

18 assigned as a electron dose in that case. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And they would go 

20 
 into electron, yes, to the extent that they 

21 
 contribute to Hp(10) then, the question is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 though, if those photons, if a), that they're 272


2 
 present, because like you said, they seem to 

3 
 be kind of a high-energy photon facility. 

4 
 If you have fields where you have a 

5 
 significant contribution of low-energy 

6 
 photons, and in fact they are completely 

7 
 shielded by the filter over the filtered 

8 
 element, but they are energetic enough to 

9 
 contribute to Hp(10), or to the organ dose 

10 
 that you're interested in, then you've missed 

11 
 that information by using the deep element of 

12 
 a two-element badge. That seems to be the 

13 argument from the Site Profile. 

14 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, this is Steve. 

15 
 I suggest that they may take a look at the 

16 
 NIOSH's response, and then see if our concerns 

17 
 are answered or not. We'll have to evaluate 

18 
 it. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks, Steve. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now number 18 

21 
 here. Correction for beta dose and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 uncertainties. 273
 

2 
 MR. DARNELL: I think this is just 

3 
 a continuation of the same type of stuff and 

4 
 may be something that SC&A needs to review. 

5 
 Not that I'm trying to cut off any 

6 
 discussion, but it's really kind of pointless 

7 
 to go over it right now. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The trouble 

9 
 is, you guys quit speaking English after a 

10 while. 

11 DR. TAULBEE: We tend to do that. 

12 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, when the 

13 
 question is specific they have to get into 

14 specific information. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You guys could 

16 be totally BS'ing us and we wouldn't know. 

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: We'll try. 

18 
 MR. DARNELL: We could always do 

19 that. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Thanks, that 

21 gives me a lot of confidence. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Reminds me of an 274
 

2 
 old joke, how do you tell if a health 

3 
 physicist is BS'ing you? 

4 
 MR. DARNELL: His lips are moving. 

5 
 (Laughter.) 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're on 

7 
 19 now. The angular dependence correction 

8 
 factor for gamma dose, seems like this comes 

9 
 up at every facility, correction, what the 

10 correction factors are, if they're correct. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: This is something --

12 
 in our response, just to correct it a little 

13 
 bit here for you all. The TIB-10 is actually 

14 
 a geometry correction factor, not an angular 

15 
 correction factor. Technical information, so 

16 
 we will revise this and respond back to you 

17 all. 

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

19 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, in other 

20 
 words, you've done it but need to revise your 

21 answer, or what? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: Many of the sites 275
 

2 
 there is angular responses, and this morning 

3 
 when we were discussing this in more detail, 

4 
 there was some misunderstandings. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Tim, you need to 

6 
 make sure you speak up, so you're captured on 

7 
 the microphone so that the recorder can record 

8 
 your comments. 

9 
 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 

10 
 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry. We are 

11 
 looking at this from the actual question of 

12 
 angular response and not geometry correction 

13 
 factor, which is what the TIP-10 is, is just a 

14 
 geometry, it's a glove box factor, that 

15 
 particular response. So it was a 

16 
 misunderstanding on our part, we will correct 

17 that. 

18 
 MEMBER MELIUS: See, if she doesn't 

19 
 pick up your voice then she'll just say 

20 "Health physicist is moving his lips." 

21 (Laughter.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: I understand now, 276
 

2 
 okay. I'll try to speak up some, sorry. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 20. 

4 
 Restate beta dose as gamma dose, this is not 

5 
 claimant-favorable to state the entire dose 

6 
 measured in open window is due to the beta 

7 
 dose. 

8 
 MS. JENKINS: Doesn't this go back 

9 
 to 17. 

10 DR. OSTROW: It goes back to Number 

11 18, I believe, looking at it. Is it 17? 

12 DR. TAULBEE: Seventeen. 

13 MR. DARNELL: Comment 21. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Steve, you got 

15 any comments on this? 

16 DR. OSTROW: Number 21 we're on? 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 20. 

18 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: He said it's 

19 
 covered. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Covered. 

21 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we are 277
 

2 
 now on Number 21. The photon spread and 

3 
 split. You got any comments there, Steve, on 

4 
 their reply? 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, they're asking 

6 
 for a basis for the 50/50. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, split. 

8 
 MEMBER MELIUS: So I think SC&A 

9 
 needs to clarify. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: We wrote up something 

12 
 in our original discussion, and at a quick 

13 
 look at it, I think we have to provide you 

14 
 more information on that, why we think 50/50 

15 
 may be good or whether we're dropping that or 

16 
 not. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, and 

18 
 again I'm probably better off keeping my mouth 

19 
 shut. Were we really calling a dose 

20 
 reconstructor on each individual case to make 

21 
 a judgment? Wouldn't there be some general 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 guidelines for areas? 278
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: For the energy 

3 
 splits? 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: No, it's like 

6 
 basically it's a 25/75 split for every 

7 
 location on the site, except for the SMC. And 

8 
 in that case it's like it's a 90 percent, 30 

9 
 to 250, ten percent greater than 250. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So there is -- is 

11 
 that specifically written in the Site Profile? 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it's embedded 

13 in our tool for that site. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, then I don't 

15 understand the comment. 

16 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well, the comment 

17 
 kind of implies that a 50/50 split's more 

18 appropriate. 

19 
 MR. DARNELL: In the write-up it 

20 really doesn't explain why. 

21 
 DR. TAULBEE: Which is why I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 SC&A is going to revisit it. What the basis - 279
 

2 
 - why they feel a 50/50 is better than a 

3 
 25/75. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So apparently their 

5 
 scenario is described by SC&A, but at this 

6 
 point, I should -- I just need to go back and 

7 
 read it. I'll shut up. 

8 
 MR. DARNELL: No, we like it when 

9 
 you talk, Stu. 

10 MR. GLECKLER: Gives us time to 

11 read. 

12 
 MR. DARNELL: Gives us time to 

13 catch up. 

14 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It says the 

16 
 margin dose reported on dosimeter due to semi17 
 infinite cloud radiation be approximately half 

18 
 the actual dose received. NIOSH should 

19 
 therefore consider a weighting factor of two 

20 for immersion dose. 

21 
 DR. OSTROW: This comment was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 actually based on a teleconference we had with 280


2 
 NIOSH about five years ago. 

3 
 DR. TAULBEE: Can you elaborate a 

4 
 little on that? 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: I think we're going to 

6 
 drop this, it doesn't appear that TBD looked 

7 
 at it afterwards. I looked at this yesterday 

8 
 actually, the semi-infinite clouds that appear 

9 
 to the TBD. This comment that we made wasn't 

10 
 based on the TBD, it was based on a phone 

11 
 conference that we had with NIOSH, 2005 or 

12 2006. I think we'll withdraw this comment. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Hey, Steve, this is 

15 
 John Stiver from SC&A. Was there a situation 

16 
 or many instances where a semi-infinite cloud 

17 
 may have been a significant source of 

18 exposure? 

19 
 I was just kind of wondering what 

20 
 the basis was. I know it's digging way back 

21 
 in the past here. Do you recall any of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 details of that conversation and why it ever 281


2 
 even came up? 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: I'm trying to recall 

4 
 why it came up. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: It would be applicable 

6 
 if, you know, if that was a significant source 

7 
 of exposure, then it may be something that, 

8 
 you know, should be addressed. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: I think it had to do 

10 
 possibly with the plume releases and then, you 

11 know, exposure to something else. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I just wondered 

13 
 if there are situations where that would have 

14 
 been a significant source of a dosimeter 

15 
 reading, as opposed to just, you know, more of 

16 
 a background or environmental type dose that 

17 was a pretty small component. 

18 
 MR. GLECKLER: But the original 

19 
 Review Document indicated it was in terms of 

20 
 internal dose, is what the concern was about 

21 and that's what had us confused. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that doesn't make 282
 

2 
 any sense, I mean, this would clearly be an 

3 
 external exposure. I guess that's another one 

4 
 we need to go back and revisit then. 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: I think -- I'm doing 

6 
 some reading, I don't think it actually 

7 
 appears in the TBD that we're commenting on. 

8 
 I think we're just going to go ahead and close 

9 
 this issue. 

10 MR. STIVER: We're just going to go 

11 ahead and close it out? 

12 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, like I say, I've 

14 
 got practically no background on INL and just 

15 
 been listening in on the conversation here. 

16 Let's go ahead and close that one. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We are now on 

18 
 Number 23, high-risk jobs. Beta-gamma 

19 
 exposures, site experts interviewed by SC&A 

20 
 classified INL as an acute dose site with a 

21 
 significant number of facilities, operations, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 experiments and occurrences providing 283
 

2 
 possibilities for personnel receiving 

3 
 dangerous levels of radiation. 

4 
 NIOSH did not evaluate 

5 
 comprehensively facility and field data to 

6 
 identify and separate the high risk or high 

7 
 dose jobs for worker external exposures. This 

8 
 information is essential for dose 

9 
 reconstructors to fill the gap when dose 

10 
 records in a claimant's file are not complete. 

11 
 According to your guys' 

12 
 documentation, there was 99 episodic events 

13 which would definitely qualify there. 

14 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well, from the 

15 
 standpoint of monitoring for individuals for 

16 
 external radiation, going into any of these 

17 
 facilities, you had to pick up a badge. So I 

18 
 guess my question is: what is the concern 

19 here? 

20 
 From an external dose standpoint 

21 
 people are monitored, for these type of high 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 risk jobs, for these episodic releases. In 284
 

2 
 these areas, people were monitored here, so 

3 
 I'm asking, I guess. 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: SL-1 being the only 

5 
 exception. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver again. 

7 
 Steve, was this was an issue related to missed 

8 
 dose or unmonitored dose that we felt might 

9 
 have been significant? 

10 
 MR. DARNELL: Well, when you go 

11 
 back to the original write-up that SC&A 

12 
 provided, it talks about hot particles in 

13 
 fission products, rather than acute dose in 

14 high risk jobs. So I don't know. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Back to your earlier 

16 comment on the hot particle deposition. 

17 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, there's 

18 
 something wrong here because the write-up for 

19 
 the issue appears different than what's in the 

20 
 original write-up from your -- SC&A's report. 

21 
 You guys might want to kind of figure out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 which comment you're actually making. 285
 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: I'm looking at the 

3 
 original report right now, because the 

4 
 characterization, the original report focused 

5 
 on what we talked before with the hot 

6 
 particles are actually flakes that wouldn't be 

7 
 necessarily monitored that landed on the 

8 
 clothing or skin. I think actually the 

9 
 original issue was the matrix summary doesn't 

10 really reflect that correctly. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: I believe that we 

12 have that under Issue 9, correct? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's been covered. 

15 
 DR. TAULBEE: In which case both 

16 
 SC&A and NIOSH have action items. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, that's 

18 
 number 9. 

19 
 MR. DARNELL: So 23 could be 

20 
 closed? 

21 MR. GLECKLER: Merge this one then 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 with 9? 286
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the same as 

3 
 number 9, we'll just answer 9. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Number 

5 
 24 is extremity dose, they should evaluate the 

6 
 potential for missed external dose, workers in 

7 
 facilities or highly contaminated equipment, 

8 
 piping --

9 
 MR. DARNELL: Excuse me, I'm sorry 

10 
 to interrupt but, 9 is an observation, 23 is a 

11 finding, so we should go the other way. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, however we do 

13 
 it, Andrea wants to know the answer both 

14 places. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I didn't see 

16 
 anything in there about -- someone correct me 

17 
 if I'm wrong, but I didn't see anything in any 

18 
 documents that indicates that the use of 

19 
 dosimetry rings, finger rings, sort of thing 

20 was widely used? 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: They did use them, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 we do see those in the record, it's not a 287


2 
 frequent thing, except for some individuals, 

3 
 you do see it fairly frequent during different 

4 
 eras. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver again, 

6 
 it looks like this is an example of potential 

7 
 missed dose for a worker who might not have 

8 
 been wearing those rings. 

9 
 You guys have adjustment factors 

10 
 that you'd apply, evidently, according to your 

11 
 comment here, as needed. I guess the question 

12 
 in my mind is then how do you determine that, 

13 
 do you typically have enough information, the 

14 
 granularity on a particular worker's tasks 

15 
 that you can confidently assign those factors? 

16 
 Or is it something that you just kind of use a 

17 claimant-favorable assumption to provide? 

18 
 MR. DARNELL: The worker or the 

19 
 workers, send it, give the information in the 

20 
 Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. That's 

21 
 where we would be told whether they worked in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 glove boxes or not or they did specific work 288


2 
 that would trigger looking at extremity 

3 
 dosimetry. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, if it's in the 

5 
 case file then you'd address it, otherwise 

6 
 then it wouldn't be an issue? 

7 
 MR. DARNELL: Yes, unless we saw 

8 
 something in the worker's job title. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: The job title or 

10 
 something in the CATI or the correspondence 

11 
 that would indicate maybe there was some 

12 potential for that. 

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: And in general we 

14 
 would really only consider that when there was 

15 a skin cancer or some cancer. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: And it would have to 

17 
 be related to a shallow --

18 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

19 
 DR. TAULBEE: On the hands or 

20 forearms, something. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: On an extremity, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 which is very rare. 289
 

2 
 DR. TAULBEE: On a typical cancer 

3 
 we wouldn't even --

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Typically 

5 
 speaking, you didn't see these finger rings 

6 
 issued to particularly construction workers or 

7 
 something. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think that, 

9 
 this is what that would really get to is those 

10 
 who weren't monitored who may have still had 

11 that type of exposure potential. 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: I know we're 

13 
 typically cautious about pipefitters a lot, 

14 
 especially because when they have high doses, 

15 
 because there's a good chance that they would 

16 have had. 

17 
 But in most instances, we're not 

18 
 dealing with a cancer on the extremity. So we 

19 
 don't need to do anything in that regards, and 

20 
 so if there's actually, the instances of when 

21 
 those two things come together, to where they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have a likelihood of having that exposure 290


2 
 scenario, and then also having an extremity 

3 
 cancer. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, skin cancer on 

5 
 the hands or forearms, something along those 

6 
 lines? 

7 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it becomes very 

8 
 limiting as far as, you know, the number of 

9 
 claims that you'll encounter, and it's really 

10 hard to think of any offhand. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: My initial assumption 

12 
 would be that we could probably close that one 

13 
 out. Steve, do you have any objections to 

14 that? 

15 
 DR. OSTROW: No, that's fine, I 

16 
 just wanted an explanation from NIOSH on how 

17 
 to handle it, sounds like it's a good 

18 explanation. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Now these factors are 

20 
 affecting the TBD tables, those values, how 

21 they're used? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, it's kind of a 291
 

2 
 combination of OTIB-17 for skin claims, and 

3 
 then also potential glove box factors, there's 

4 
 hand to wrist ratios. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Wouldn't those 

6 
 be based upon expected potential for dose? I 

7 
 mean entire dose, particularly glove box 

8 
 workers? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the wearing 

10 of it is --

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: There would be 

12 
 some criteria, I assume, that separated those 

13 who used and those who don't. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Well, it typically 

15 
 would be glove box workers, but this would be 

16 
 a category like pipefitters who wouldn't 

17 
 necessarily be assigned ring dosimeters but 

18 
 might still have additional exposure, 

19 extremity exposure potential. 

20 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, so to make sure 

21 
 I'm clear on this, are we talking basically an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 unmonitored extremity exposure versus missed 292


2 
 dose, which means they were monitored but the 

3 
 dose might not be fully accounted for by the 

4 
 dosimeter's detection limit? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: It seems to me if they 

6 
 were issues of extremity dosimetry, it would 

7 
 probably be for a well-defined type of work, 

8 
 like glove box work. But in my mind it would 

9 
 apply more to the unmonitored exposure. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: I know some of the 

11 
 early reactor workers would have ring 

12 dosimeters at times. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Well, it could 

14 
 potentially be in either situation. You might 

15 
 have to have an adjustment factor to account 

16 
 for that or, you know, for a person who may 

17 
 have had dosimetry but may not have adequately 

18 
 measured the dose, the potential dose, you 

19 
 know, the upper bound dose, and you might also 

20 
 have other categories of workers who had no 

21 
 dosimetry at all that may have been exposed to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 these situations. 293
 

2 
 MS. JENKINS: Well, we put them in 

3 
 the response on a case-by-case basis and, like 

4 
 Brian was saying, the case where you've got 

5 
 an unmonitored worker with the actual lack of 

6 
 dosimetry data, is probably going to be rare. 

7 
 In those cases we would evaluate it 

8 
 and there are things that would tip us off, 

9 
 like pipefitters, stuff like that, and the 

10 
 type of job they're doing and that's something 

11 
 that could be incorporated into the actual 

12 
 dose reconstruction itself, as opposed to 

13 
 doing it in the TBD. Because it's so 

14 specific. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: I guess is there the 

16 
 machinery in place to do that, is there a 

17 
 methodology that's been developed and a TIB 

18 
 that addresses that or some portion of a TIB? 

19 
 Or is this all based on the 

20 
 adjustment of the dosimeter readings? Maybe 

21 
 we should just keep this one open until we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have a chance to look at it. 294
 

2 
 MR. DARNELL: Isn't that TIB-10 or 

3 
 17? 

4 
 DR. TAULBEE: So TIB-17's a shallow 

5 
 dose right, Matt? 

6 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, a shallow dose, 

7 
 17. 

8 
 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 

9 
 MR. DARNELL: I mean, there's 

10 
 already procedures in place, if you guys want 

11 to go look at them again. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think we'll 

13 
 -- I think we decided to take an action on 

14 
 here to kind of consider how we're doing this. 

15 
 One thing that gives me a little 

16 
 discomfort is relying on the interview. To 

17 
 say, okay, give me, if it's uncovered in the 

18 
 interview that a particular thing is done, 

19 then we'll assign --

20 
 MR. DARNELL: Well, there's only 

21 done if --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's what 295
 

2 
 I'm saying, let's have a more complete 

3 
 discussion, let's put together a more complete 

4 
 discussion, how we would deal with it. 

5 
 And even, we could even go so far 

6 
 as to look for extremity cancer cases and see 

7 
 what, you know, how rare those are, just 

8 
 because --

9 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that might be a 

10 
 good place to start and see how many cases 

11 does this really affect? 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think there 

13 
 are going to be that many cases, possibly 

14 
 affected by it because my perception is you 

15 don't see extremity cancers that often. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The limits are 

17 very high anyhow, very high. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the dose 

19 
 limits are high but we don't even see the 

20 
 cancers, so in this case we wouldn't be doing 

21 a dose reconstruction. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: I've only seen a 296
 

2 
 couple of them myself. 

3 
 MR. GLECKLER: The ones I do recall 

4 
 from INL are typically truck drivers and it's 

5 
 usually their left arm. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh is that right? 

7 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, hanging out 

8 
 the window. 

9 
 (Laughter.) 

10 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: On the site's 

11 
 health physics program they had there, do you 

12 
 run across any documents where they spell out, 

13 when they're going to be using these? 

14 
 Because typically speaking, even 

15 
 for a person who's going to be doing a high16 
 level, very short-term job I wouldn't think 

17 
 would, even then would be given, likely to be 

18 given extremity finger rings. 

19 
 DR. TAULBEE: Well, for the modern 

20 
 era, you look at what the dose could 

21 
 potentially be, so if it's short enough 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 duration, yes, you wouldn't. 297
 

2 
 If it's going to be less than, say, 

3 
 ten percent of what the regulatory limit is 

4 
 you might not assign extremity dosimetry. So 

5 
 I guess that is something we could look at is 

6 
 when they assigned extremity dosimetries, 

7 
 follow up what Stu was saying. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: That might also be 

9 
 something where we have a historical change in 

10 
 procedures where it may be more important in 

11 earlier years than in later. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: So it looks like 

13 SC&A and NIOSH both have actions out of this. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I'd say that we 

15 definitely need to take another look. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're 

18 
 now on Number 25, the discrepancy between PIC 

19 
 and film readings. NIOSH should compare PIC 

20 versus film badge, shallow and deep. 

21 
 Here again we run into this problem 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of the use of the PIC to begin with. 298
 

2 
 DR. TAULBEE: We don't really use 

3 
 that. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I know 

5 
 most facilities will not use the PIC as 

6 
 official data measurement. 

7 
 MS. JENKINS: It's a go/no-go 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes it's 

9 
 basically a go/no-go or, you got enough on 

10 
 your PIC that we're going to pull the badge 

11 immediately. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, my experience of 

13 
 those have been that they typically over 

14 
 respond, they're just more, not really a 

15 
 triage-type dosimeter, but something that 

16 would trigger a more thorough review. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: So does this one go 

18 away? 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I'd say we can 

20 close that one. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 so. 299
 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: Our original 

3 
 suggestion, this was more of a suggestion than 

4 
 anything else, that it might be possible to 

5 
 use the PIC data indicated the film dosimetry 

6 
 underestimated the Hp(10) dose. I'm not sure 

7 
 what it would show, but you know, if the PIC 

8 
 data was available, it might provide some 

9 
 information. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: How much -- I 

11 
 mean, how many records even show any data, PIC 

12 
 in them, I mean, I'm kind of curious now, this 

13 is more curiosity than anything else. 

14 
 MR. GLECKLER: The records up to 

15 
 1958, the particular format that they used 

16 
 does have PIC data for a good chunk of the 

17 
 weeks. They have the weekly PIC dosimeter 

18 
 value there next to the, right after they have 

19 
 the film dosimeter results for that week. And 

20 
 it's like any others, they usually don't 

21 correlate very well at all. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 It's not like there's a fixed 300
 

2 
 ratio, you know, because you would think if 

3 
 they were being exposed to the same photon 

4 
 sources, you'd gradually start to notice, oh, 

5 
 they vary by their certain PIC's value that 

6 
 different by, but they're all over the board, 

7 
 sometimes. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's some kind 

9 
 of a calibration factor or there may be some 

10 bias, some offset. 

11 
 MR. GLECKLER: Or if they just 

12 knock it against the wall. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, they're easily 

14 damaged. 

15 
 MR. GLECKLER: It doesn't take much 

16 
 to cause them to go off scale. I mean, this 

17 
 issue is brought up by a lot of claimants in 

18 
 the CATIs, you know, that they were restricted 

19 
 from a radiation area because they were 

20 overexposed and they are over the limits. 

21 
 And it's like we go look at their 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 dosimetry records, which for us is just 301
 

2 
 looking at the dosimeter results, not the PIC 

3 
 data, and it's like, well, wait, there's 

4 
 nothing here that would have caused them to 

5 
 have been restricted or whatever for that time 

6 
 frame. 

7 
 And yet, you look at the pencil 

8 
 readings and okay, that's what they're going 

9 
 by and so we, a lot of times it causes 

10 
 difficulty for us because we have to kind of 

11 
 explain this scenario to them in the DR 

12 Report. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: A lower tier in the 

14 
 data quality hierarchy. Steve, was there a 

15 
 significant number of those PIC data we looked 

16 
 at back in our original review that triggered 

17 this? 

18 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, this is based 

19 
 more on the talking to some of the claimants 

20 
 that brought up that issue that was just 

21 
 mentioned. That their PIC dosimeters would, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 you know, spike on the high end and they'd see 302


2 
 things so they were very suspicious. 

3 
 We raised the question: did NIOSH 

4 
 take a look to see if there's any sort of 

5 
 correlation between the PIC and the film badge 

6 
 result? 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, we had this issue 

8 
 a lot for the Atomic Veterans, there was a 

9 
 lot of them had pencil dosimeters and they 

10 
 consistently read about a factor of one and a 

11 
 half to two times higher than the film badges. 

12 
 I can't recall offhand but I 

13 
 believe there were some studies that were done 

14 
 that compared the two under controlled 

15 
 conditions that were able to determine that 

16 
 there indeed was a bias to the high side on 

17 the pencil readings. 

18 
 I don't know if anything's been 

19 
 done with that, you know, regarding this site 

20 
 or the types of dosimeters that were used in 

21 
 this program but it might be worth at least 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 putting something together, you know, that the 303


2 
 claimants would be able to look at and see, 

3 
 you know, these are the reasons why, it's just 

4 
 an over response issue. 

5 
 MR. GLECKLER: Well, that's usually 

6 
 what we explain and explain how it does over 

7 
 respond, we've kind of got some generic --

8 
 MR. STIVER: Almost seems like 

9 
 something for a fact sheet, really. 

10 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and we'll 

11 
 usually describe that or address that in the 

12 
 incident sections and not on the DR report. 

13 
 Because, and we have informally kind of looked 

14 
 at, you know, if there is a correlation 

15 
 between the PIC data and, you know, the actual 

16 
 dosimeter results, which back in the area 

17 
 where, the time frame that we have that 

18 
 information is in the film era, and myself and 

19 
 one of the former experts for the INL sites 

20 that's no longer, he's now retired. 

21 
 And we weren't observing any, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 couldn't find any correlation, they're just 304


2 
 all over the board. Sometimes you'd have 

3 
 high, sometimes I think the PIC data would 

4 
 even be less than the film dosimeter results. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: My inclination would to 

6 
 be to close this one out, to tell you the 

7 
 truth. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The film 

9 
 dosimetry was the one of official record, not 

10 the PICs, correct? 

11 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I think we 

13 should close it. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 

15 
 close it. 

16 DR. OSTROW: Yes, SC&A agrees. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, so we're closing 

18 issue 24? 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: 25. 

20 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: 25. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We're now on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Issue 26. The minimum detection limit, NIOSH 305
 

2 
 should reevaluate their approach in 

3 
 determining MDL of the dosimetry system by 

4 
 taking into account the system's 

5 
 uncertainties. 

6 
 DR. OSTROW: That would be, what you 

7 
 just said was from our original report. In 

8 
 2008 we did a extended look at other issues 

9 
 and we expanded this issue where it said the 

10 standard is wrong. 

11 
 We questioned if the ten millirem 

12 
 was collected for high energy gammas and we 

13 
 think that's too low, even for the modern 

14 
 dosimeters. 

15 DR. TAULBEE: Why do you feel that? 

16 
 DR. OSTROW: Oh, this was, the 

17 
 person who did this, this was based on 

18 
 knowledge of what the current dosimeters, you 

19 know, film decimeters work. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: So, Steve, did you 

21 look at the responses for finding Number 327? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: Hang on. I see we 306
 

2 
 looked at it, but we didn't get a chance to 

3 
 evaluate it for this region. What NIOSH wrote, 

4 
 but we haven't had a chance to evaluate it 

5 
 yet. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: So it sounds like 

7 
 SC&A needs to evaluate 26 and 27 and come back 

8 
 to us? 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: Exactly. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: 26, 27, 9 -- I 

11 
 mean, that's an eight. Okay, we are now on 

12 
 Number 28, minimum reporting level for 

13 
 neutrons, here again this is a something I 

14 
 know that's been, that has changed over time 

15 with a different dosimeter. 

16 
 DR. TAULBEE: Again, this is one 

17 
 that I think NIOSH will take the action on, to 

18 
 revisit our response on this, if we need to 

19 
 dig a little deeper on how they were reading 

20 the NTA films. 

21 
 These detection limits are not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 unreasonably low, they are lower than other 307


2 
 sites', but it really depends upon how they 

3 
 were, how the films were read, and the number 

4 
 of fields that were investigated. 

5 
 So it's not implausible that these 

6 
 are this low, I just think it -- we need to 

7 
 look at that a little closer and provide some 

8 
 better documentation of why we feel that these 

9 
 are reasonable. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now you have 

11 
 taken INL since AEC/DOE and really doing the 

12 
 health physics reading and calibration stuff. 

13 
 I assume you do have access to all that 

14 information? 

15 
 DR. TAULBEE: We should. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

17 
 DR. TAULBEE: I'm not -- like I 

18 
 said, I'm not as familiar with this site yet, 

19 
 but I know at other sites we certainly have 

20 
 this information. So we should have access to 

21 
 it here. Do you know if it's in the SRDB 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 already? 308
 

2 
 MR. GLECKLER: That I don't know, 

3 
 but if I remember correctly from Jack Fix, it 

4 
 sounds like we do have a lot of access to a 

5 
 lot of detailed records that we might just 

6 
 need to capture. 

7 
 But they do, from what I gathered 

8 
 from Jack, it's like they have a lot of 

9 
 detailed records. Dosimetry data stuff and 

10 
 calibration type stuff. He might have 

11 
 captured that already from part of his other 

12 efforts. 

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: Matt Smith, do you 

14 
 happen to know if that, if some of that 

15 information had been captured? 

16 
 MR. SMITH: Just from responses 

17 
 here it sounds like there is quite a few 

18 
 reports that detail how these MDLs were 

19 computed --

20 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

21 
 MR. SMITH: -- and that they're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 going to be okay. 309
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That one's 

3 
 for NIOSH. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: So is it time for a 

5 
 break or are we just going to roll through? 

6 
 MR. KATZ: That sounds great. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Great. 

8 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: What time is your 

9 
 plane? 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Not till seven. 

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: I have lots of time. 

13 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: I need to leave 

14 
 here about 3:30. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: I have a feeling 

16 we're going to be done by then. 

17 MR. KATZ: What time is it now? 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: 2:41. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Five minute break? 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: Short break. 

21 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 matter went off the record at 2:42 p.m. and 310


2 
 resumed at 2:49 p.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, we're restarting 

4 
 after a short break, and, Steve, are you 

5 
 there? Steve? 

6 
 John, are you online? 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. John Stiver, I'm 

8 
 on the line, Steve should be back here in a 

9 
 minute I would think. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'm going to --

11 
 it's sort of fair for him -- normally we're 

12 
 never as quick as we promise. We're on time. 

13 
 So I can understand Steve betting on averages 

14 
 here. I'll keep checking, I think we should 

15 
 wait for Steve, we need him to have any of 

16 these conversations. 

17 Steve, are you back with us? 

18 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, Steve is back, so 

20 continue on. 

21 MR. STIVER: John is back too. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, great, thanks, 311
 

2 
 John. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We're now on 

4 
 Number 30, the neutron calibration. 

5 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wait, what did we 

6 
 do with 29? 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: I appreciate your 

8 
 hurrying, but --

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, my 

10 
 mistake, I get in too big of a hurry here. 

11 
 We're on Number 29, neutron exposures in Iowa 

12 had --

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: The first page on 

14 
 failure to properly address neutron exposures. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, neutron 

16 
 exposures. "INL had a total of 52 reactors, 

17 
 most of which were experimental prototype in 

18 
 design, which typically operate in high-power 

19 
 density with minimum shielding and neutron 

20 
 moderation. It is unjustified to presume there 

21 are no missed neutron doses. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 In addition, there are deficiencies associated 312


2 
 with the neutron calibration. Due to use of 

3 
 plutonium-beryllium sources for neutron 

4 
 calibration, dosimeters would significantly 

5 
 under measure neutron doses from source's 

6 
 lower energy spectra. NIOSH should reevaluate 

7 
 its entire approach in the TBD to account for 

8 
 the potential missed neutron doses." 

9 
 One thing I do know is that talking 

10 
 to people, they used a number of different 

11 
 types of shielding in this facility. The 

12 
 reactors from some that are almost bare to 

13 
 lead, water, polyethylene -- I mean, plastic 

14 and --

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: Steve, I have a 

16 
 question for you, this is Josie. You 

17 
 expanded, you guys expanded on this one, is 

18 that a new expand or --

19 DR. OSTROW: No, this is 2008. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so it goes 

21 back to then, thanks. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. TAULBEE: Looks like we're 313
 

2 
 asking a question here that we're not clear of 

3 
 what the concern is. Is that correct, Brian? 

4 
 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, when it comes 

5 
 to the under measurement of neutron doses, the 

6 
 lower energy neutrons? 

7 
 DR. TAULBEE: I mean, we know that 

8 
 NTA under responds to lower energy neutrons 

9 
 depending upon the calibration factor, or the 

10 
 calibration source, compared to the work place 

11 energy spectra. 

12 
 So I guess I would like a little 

13 
 more explanation from SC&A: is that the issue 

14 
 that's concerned and that it's not addressed 

15 
 in the TBD? 

16 DR. OSTROW: If you look at the 

17 
 NIOSH response, I think that's sort of -- I'm 

18 
 sorry, the issue now is the new response. 

19 
 Where you say here that you revised the TBD, 

20 
 thought up the appropriate instructions to 

21 
 discount the INL workers and this neutron dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 assessment eliminated for this neutron dose 314


2 
 section of the external dosimetry TBD, and 

3 
 gone later, filled out the guidance provided 

4 
 in Rev 3 of the external TBD. We haven't 

5 
 reviewed the latest external TBD. 

6 
 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, that sounds 

7 
 like it would be an appropriate place to --

8 
 MR. DARNELL: Start. 

9 
 DR. TAULBEE: Or just to continue 

10 this one. 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: Our comments on the 

12 original TBD. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: So would this just 

14 
 roll in to our previous action item to review 

15 
 the new TBDs then and just this other aspect 

16 of it. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Well, we haven't 

18 
 actually had a tasking on the external TBD 

19 have we? 

20 
 DR. TAULBEE: I don't think so, but 

21 
 it seems appropriate that they would revise, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 look at the data. 315
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: I guess the question is 

3 


4 
 MR. STIVER: If anything's been 

5 
 revised significantly since our last review. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: My question is whether 

7 
 the revisions in the TBD have dramatically 

8 
 changed this component that you're addressing? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This finding? 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

11 
 MR. DARNELL: Actually if they're, 

12 
 if SC&A is going to do a review it would 

13 
 behoove them to look at the whole thing, 

14 
 because we had two different Technical Basis 

15 
 Documents combined, major changes in all the 

16 documents. They haven't read what's current. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: I understand that, but 

18 


19 MR. DARNELL: The original isn't 

20 even close to what's current now. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Right, I understand 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that, it's just that we've been going sort of 316


2 
 focused, we did say review the whole internal, 

3 
 and up to this point we haven't needed to say 

4 
 that to the external and so far we just have 

5 
 this issue. It seems like jumping the gun to 

6 
 say review the whole external on this basis or 

7 
 this one element. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: I agree with Ted, I 

9 
 don't want to do the entire external one if I 

10 
 can help it. I think, at least so far it's 

11 
 focused. I would want to review it on this 

12 particular issue. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Weren't there also 

14 
 some issues related to the external dosimetry 

15 
 photon and the shallow dose that we needed to 

16 look into? 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Right, I mean, these are 

19 
 sort of focused questions and that's all I'm 

20 
 saying here is if it gets to the point where 

21 
 it looks like the whole TBD comes into play 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 then, sure, review the whole thing but 317
 

2 
 otherwise we don't need to. 

3 
 MR. STIVER: So at this point we're 

4 
 looking at a focused review? 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, 

7 
 basically, after reviewing that external --

8 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what I 

10 
 was just thinking, just there was some major 

11 rewriting in there. 

12 MR. KATZ: This is 30. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Number 

14 
 30, neutron calibration deficiencies due to 

15 
 the use of plutonium-beryllium source for 

16 
 neutron calibration. Dosimeters would 

17 
 significantly under measure neutron doses from 

18 
 sources of low energy spectra, NIOSH should 

19 
 reevaluate the approach in the TBD to account 

20 for potential neutron doses. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Is that also addressed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 in the new TBD? 318
 

2 
 DR. TAULBEE: I would think so. 

3 
 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: I think the action 

5 
 item here, because we agreed that SC&A should 

6 
 check out NIOSH's statement. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: We'd have to address 

9 
 this. 

10 MR. KATZ: Right, and you have the 

11 
 new TBD, you're looking at this part of the 

12 TBD anyway. 

13 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Number 

16 
 31, complete disquality of Idaho National Lab 

17 
 neutron dosimetry and recordkeeping programs. 

18 
 Identification and determination of neutron 

19 
 dose from workers are heavily influenced by 

20 
 the assumption of confidence -- by this 

21 assumption of confidence. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 But SC&A found this premise to be 319


2 
 unsupported after examining several critical 

3 
 DOE Headquarters, Tiger Team and DNFSB Site 

4 
 Audit Reports. 

5 
 DR. TAULBEE: I think this is 

6 
 another one where we can go through the Tiger 

7 
 Team issues and identify them. The ones that 

8 
 are addressing the neutrons here and go 

9 
 through and address them like we are for the 

10 beta-gamma dosimetry ones. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

12 MR. STIVER: I agree. 

13 MR. KATZ: That sounds good. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we might 

15 
 get to go home tonight after all. Number 32, 

16 
 on certain re-estimation for neutron doses, 

17 
 NIOSH should explain how the FNCFs were 

18 
 obtained and provide instruction to dose 

19 reconstructors how to apply them. 

20 
 DR. OSTROW: Here again, NIOSH 

21 
 responded that the latest provision of TBD 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 appears to adequately explain the FNCF. 320
 

2 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Is that fast 

3 
 neutron correction factor, is that what that 

4 
 stands for? 

5 
 MR. DARNELL: Facility. 

6 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Facility neutron 

7 


8 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, each facility 

9 
 had a different correction factor. 

10 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: These acronyms 

11 
 can sometimes get you. 

12 
 MR. GLECKLER: That's the site's 

13 
 acronym, yes. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, so SC&A will cover 

15 
 that because that's part of this neutron 

16 
 revisitation -- well, not revisitation, but 

17 
 visitation of the new TBD. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds like 33 and 

19 
 34 are -- maybe 33 for sure, are the same 

20 
 thing. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Is that true? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: 33 is also, SC&A has 321
 

2 
 to check it out. 

3 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, 33 would be 

4 
 applicable too. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Number 

6 
 34, let's see. 

7 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: I know, late in 

8 
 the day it goes faster. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, John left. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Multiple factors but 

11 that's right. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: High risk 

13 
 neutron exposure: NIOSH did not evaluate 

14 
 comprehensively the facility and field data to 

15 
 identify and separate out the high risk or 

16 
 high dose jobs from worker neutron exposures.
 

17 
 This information is essential for 

18 
 dose reconstructors to fill in the gap when 

19 
 dose records in the claimant's file is not 

20 complete. 

21 
 DR. TAULBEE: This is very similar 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to the language in the other comments on high 322


2 
 risk jobs. And the last one on beta-gamma 

3 
 actually was related to hot particles, and so 

4 
 that was being revised for that. So I guess 

5 
 my question for clarification is: what is the 

6 
 concern with regard to neutrons from this 

7 
 standpoint? Steve or John, can one of you 

8 
 guys? 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Steve, want to take 

10 this one? 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, I think here 

12 this is specifically for neutron --

13 
 MR. KATZ: Steve, can you speak 

14 
 closer to the speaker phone? It's hard to 

15 hear you. 

16 
 DR. OSTROW: -- specifically for 

17 
 neutron exposure and we didn't see where NIOSH 

18 
 provided a list of what was considered to be 

19 
 at the high risk for neutron exposure, I mean 

20 what sort of job. 

21 
 MR. GLECKLER: The external TBD 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 identifies the specific facilities where 323
 

2 
 neutron exposures were possible. It doesn't 

3 
 specifically identify any as high risk neutron 

4 
 exposures, typically, I think, about the 

5 
 highest total neutron dose that I've seen for 

6 
 a worker is about 500 millirem for a career 

7 
 dose. 

8 
 There might be a couple that were a 

9 
 little bit higher, but those are very rare 

10 
 that you see anything in that magnitude, most 

11 
 of them are lots of zeroes. So to me there's 

12 
 no real indication that there's any real high 

13 
 risk neutron jobs -- exposure jobs at INL, 

14 other than an accident. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a question 

16 
 here and I want to make sure that we're 

17 complete on our investigation in this issue. 

18 
 I believe all of these findings by site 

19 
 experts as being, hey, you know, we had really 

20 
 high doses here. And there's a chance for 

21 
 really high dosage, and I would believe that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 those are summarized and the site expert 324
 

2 
 interviews are summarized in SC&A's documents 

3 
 in their report. Would that be true, Steve? 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: Some of it, yes. In 

5 
 our report we had some site interviews. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

7 
 DR. OSTROW: And they identified 

8 
 what at least they thought was high exposure 

9 
 risk. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, now we 

11 
 certainly agree that there are places in INL 

12 
 were you get really high dose rates; we 

13 certainly agree with that. 

14 
 Now the question remains: are 

15 
 people exposed to those dose rates while 

16 
 they're not monitored, in which case, that's 

17 
 the only time this would be an issue, 

18 
 otherwise you're wearing a monitor that would 

19 measure those high dose rates. 

20 
 So I think for completeness we 

21 
 should go back look at, specifically at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 interview portion of the report -- of the 325


2 
 review. Just to satisfy ourselves that they 

3 
 are not describing a situation that we don't 

4 
 know about, in terms of people encountering 

5 
 these dose rates without being monitored. 

6 
 Does that sound acceptable? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That pretty 

8 
 well sums it up. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that sums it up 

10 pretty well in my mind. 

11 
 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, so your 

12 
 information as to that there were certain high 

13 
 risk jobs, so forth, came from those 

14 interviews? 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think all these 

16 
 findings ascribed that finding to site experts 

17 
 who were interviewed for this. I think each 

18 
 one does. 

19 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, so you see, if 

21 
 there's some description of a facility or job 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 type that would not have been covered in the 326


2 
 assignment of unmonitored dose in another 

3 
 situation. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, and if you don't 

5 
 find that their interviews are substantiated, 

6 
 then we're done. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, one way or 

8 
 another we've got to provide something back on 

9 
 what we found out. 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, right. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Report back what we 

12 found out. 

13 MR. KATZ: Right, right. 

14 
 MR. DARNELL: So we're reviewing 

15 
 the interviews to see if an unmonitored worker 

16 
 could have excess --

17 
 DR. TAULBEE: To see if there's any 

18 areas of neutron exposure. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: To see if there are 

20 any gaps in the --

21 
 DR. TAULBEE: Is there something 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that we didn't know about, that we feel that 327


2 
 we've got an approach that works, but this may 

3 
 even describe a situation that we didn't know 

4 
 about, you know, things like that. You know, 

5 
 is there something to this comment? 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Is this something 

7 
 that SC&A can cite different interviews that 

8 
 brought this comment on? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if they could 

10 


11 MEMBER BEACH: I mean, that might 

12 be helpful. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If there's a 

14 
 specific person or a way to identify the 

15 specific interview. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: We certainly might be 

17 able to narrow it down that way. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that way that 

19 would save us some time. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: That would save you 

21 a lot of time. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 328


2 
 DR. OSTROW: Then SC&A would have 

3 
 to go through the interviews that --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if they don't 

5 
 know any better than us, I mean --

6 
 DR. OSTROW: It could work either 

7 
 way. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: But they're the 

9 
 one's that brought the issue up, SC&A did. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: But I think we might 

11 
 be able to better identify where we felt that 

12 might have been a problem. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Don't you normally 

14 
 reference these in your reports, when you have 

15 a finding? 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I believe we 

17 
 do. 

18 MR. DARNELL: There's a summary in 

19 Attachment 3. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: They usually include a 

21 summary attachment. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. DARNELL: It's not the 329
 

2 
 interview that came from this, it's just a 

3 
 summary of this situation. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What I'm reading 

5 
 from is Rev 1 of the Site Profile Review and 

6 
 in this they is, I found no other explanation 

7 
 than site experts interviewed by SC&A 

8 
 classified INL as an acute dose site. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Number 

10 
 35, multiplying factors for missed neutron 

11 
 dose. NIOSH provided data support, two 

12 
 multiplying factors, 1.25 and 2, the fixed 

13 
 missed neutron dose, default value of 50 

14 
 millirem. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: That takes us back 

16 
 to 29. 

17 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. We're going to 

18 revisit -- or revise that TBD. 

19 
 MR. DARNELL: Or SC&A's going to go 

20 back. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody else 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have any other comments on that? 330
 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Part of the Rev 3 

3 
 neutron component review. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: For 36 and it looks 

5 
 like 35 -- I mean 35 and it looks like 36 is 

6 
 going to be the same. Is that correct? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Looks like it. 

8 
 No, this is a 36, 37 issue. 

9 
 DR. TAULBEE: This is a different 

10 issue from the --

11 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the beta 

12 dose. 

13 
 DR. TAULBEE: This would be beta 

14 
 dose, this would be another focused part of 

15 that TBD. 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: Which is, there's a 

17 
 current revision to the TBD. Yes. 

18 
 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

20 
 DR. OSTROW: So SC&A will look at 

21 the section that covers this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. 331
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're on 

3 
 Number 36, 35, SC&A is going to go back and 

4 
 review that. 

5 
 MR. DARNELL: Same for 36. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Same for 36. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, SC&A 

8 
 review. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds like 37 is 

10 done. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we're 

12 
 now down to 38, the shallow dose. NIOSH 

13 
 should consider making use of OTIB-17, 

14 
 Technical Information Bulletin, the 

15 
 interpretation of dosimeter data for 

16 assignment of shallow dose where appropriate. 

17 
 Additionally, contrary to the 

18 
 OTIB's claim, on page 15, the assumption of 

19 
 undergarment pant thickness, two millimeter 

20 
 each, is claimant-favorable. SC&A believes 

21 
 the measured thickness are about half that and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 hence the OTIB assumptions are not claimant- 332


2 
 favorable. 

3 
 MR. DARNELL: I think that's an old 

4 
 one. 

5 
 DR. TAULBEE: This is OTIB-17, it's 

6 
 been reviewed from the Procedures? 

7 
 MR. SMITH: Yes, it has, this isn't 

8 
 that. We've dealt with that issue in the 

9 
 Procedures Work Group. 

10 
 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, so can we close 

11 this one out then? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, we can close 

13 this one out. 

14 
 MR. GLECKLER: Excellent. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: So who gets the 

16 
 action of revising the matrix at the end of 

17 all this? 

18 MR. DARNELL: SC&A people. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 MEMBER BEACH: It is SC&A people? 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Steve, you want to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 take that one? 333
 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: Just by referencing 

3 
 the Linde review, as Gen Roessler notes, we 

4 
 ended up with, I don't know, about ten columns 

5 
 of --

6 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Say that again 

7 
 Steve, I couldn't hear you very well. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: What I'm saying is, 

9 
 well, you know, where we ended up with Linde 

10 
 we ended up with about ten columns in our 

11 
 matrix review before we finally closed 

12 
 everything out, we kept on adding columns to 

13 it. 

14 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, as long as 

15 it fits on the paper it's okay. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: You have to use the 

17 17-inch paper for that. 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: Or small print. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, really really 

20 small print. 

21 
 DR. OSTROW: I don't think we have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to revise anything right now, because we have 334


2 
 all these action items, but I'm suggesting, 

3 
 I've been taking very good notes, I think, and 

4 
 what I'd like to do probably today, before I 

5 
 lose everything in my mind, just summarize the 

6 
 38 issues very quickly, what's closed and what 

7 
 the action items are. Send out a draft to Ted 

8 
 and to the Board and to NIOSH. 

9 
 And if everybody agrees that will 

10 
 be our action item. We could have like a 

11 
 checklist and make sure we cover everything. 

12 Does that sound like a good idea? 

13 
 MR. KATZ: That sounds good. Are 

14 you covering the NIOSH actions too? 

15 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I worked on 

16 everything. 

17 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: You're so 

18 organized. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, I got them too so 

20 
 if you have questions, I took good notes too, 

21 I think. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. OSTROW: I'm just going to do 335
 

2 
 sort of a draft and send it out and, you know, 

3 
 people can finalize it and, Ted, maybe you can 

4 
 put out the final one after everybody agrees 

5 
 on the action. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Absolutely, that's, I 

7 
 think, always a good way to go, and doing it 

8 
 soon like you're saying, is, I think, helpful 

9 
 for everyone since we want to move these 

10 things along. 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I'm going to work 

12 on that actually right now. 

13 MR. KATZ: Great, thank you, Steve. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody got 

15 anything else? 

16 
 MR. KATZ: Anything else for the 

17 good of the order? 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: How about 

19 deliverables and meeting plans? 

20 
 MR. KATZ: I think, so we know the 

21 
 deliverables, we got those captured pretty 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 well and clearly, I think. And meeting plans: 336
 

2 
 it seems like we need, folks need to go back 

3 
 after they have their action list and do some 

4 
 figuring before we can schedule the next 

5 
 meeting. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, before we 

7 
 schedule --

8 
 MR. KATZ: And it sounds like 

9 
 they'll be some technical calls before we have 

10 
 a meeting too, so I think we can put that off 

11 for a bit. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the idea is 

13 
 that, you know, we have 38 issues, we got rid 

14 
 of a few today and the idea is to get it down 

15 
 to manageable number, just identify a few 

16 
 issues that are important issues, you know, 

17 
 and try to get rid of the lesser, the ones of 

18 
 lesser importance, you know, get them out of 

19 the way. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, and there are a lot 

21 
 of overlapping issues that will get conquered 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 with one effort, so -- 337
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't think 

3 
 we're in a situation to schedule anything 

4 
 today. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, no, absolutely. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That'd be a 

7 
 resource of time. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right, I understand. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: So, thank you everybody, 

10 
 on the phone and in the room, and have a good 

11 
 rest of your day. It's starting to pour and 

12 
 looking really ugly here. 

13 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 
 matter was concluded at 3:14 p.m.) 

15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 338
 

2 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com