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. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

+ + + + +

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

MARCH 25, 2014

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the 

Brussels Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

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

Chairman, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES MELIUS, Member*

GENEVIEVE ROESSLER, Member
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.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH*

PETE DARNELL, DCAS*

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JODI JENKINS, NIOSH ORAU*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

*Participating via telephone
4

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

Welcome and Roll Call 4

Discussion

Status of WG Review 7

Issues Recommended for Closure 12

NIOSH/SC&A Matrices 185

NIOSH Responses (White Papers)

on Issues 1, 2, 19, 24, 34 190

Deliverables & Future Meeting

Plans 308

Adjourn 332
5

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

(9:00 a.m.)

MR. KATZ: So good morning, 

everyone. It=s the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health INL Work Group, and 

let me just check on the line. Do we have Drs. 

Richardson and Melius on the line? Jim Melius, 

are you on the line? And David Richardson? 

Dr. Richardson or Dr. Melius, are either of you 

on the line?

MS. BURGOS: Dr. Richardson is going 

to be late, Ted.

MR. KATZ: Wait, who=s going to be 

late, sorry? Dr. Richardson?

MS. BURGOS: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Zaida. 

And have you heard from Dr. Melius?

MS. BURGOS: No.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay, well, then I 

think we could probably just carry on. I know 
6

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Dr. Melius intends to attend most of this 

meeting, but I know he also has a couple of 

things he has to attend to which why he didn=t 

travel here for this.

So, we can get started with B let me 

just do the roll call now. We=ll circle back 

and see if he=s joined us, then we can carry on.

So let=s just start with Board 

Members. We=re talking about specific sites, 

so please speak to conflict of interest as well. 

And let=s go with Board Members= attendance.

(Roll Call.)

Okay, very good. The agenda for 

the meeting is online on the NIOSH website under 

Today=s Meetings for the Board and there=s some 

more items than are on the agenda in terms of 

NIOSH White Papers, but otherwise that should 

be accurate.

And the papers being addressed 

today, almost all of them, there may be one 
7

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

paper still to be posted, but otherwise, all the 

NIOSH response White Papers and a version of the 

matrix should be posted for people online and 

we should have Live Meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Live Meeting right 

now says, AWelcome to today=s NIOSH Conference. 

Please stand by, your conference will begin 

shortly.@

MR. KATZ: Okay. So we=re not 

running Live Meeting quite yet.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don=t know what has 

to happen for it to start there.

MR. KATZ: So that=s where we stand.

MR. HINNEFELD: Do you know what has 

to happen?

MEMBER BEACH: I think a presenter 

has to present, don=t they? Or B

MR. KATZ: No. So, Zaida, are you 

still on the line?

MS. BURGOS: Yes.
8

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KATZ: Can you just check out and 

see whether Live Meeting is ready for someone 

to post something or not?

MS. BURGOS: It is ready.

MR. KATZ: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, yes, we=re 

fine. I=ve got it. 

MR. KATZ: Okay, we=ve got it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I can share what 

people want to look at.

MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks, Zaida.

So for folks on the line, if you need 

B if you want to see something on Live Meeting 

that we=re talking about let us know and Stu 

will post it, share it.

And, Phil, it=s your meeting.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, the last 

meeting was clear back in 2011, it=s been a 

while. We had 38 items, we closed out ten. 

SC&A has recommended the closure of another 11, 
9

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

so B

DR. OSTROW: Excuse me, Steve 

Ostrow, 14.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Fourteen, 

okay.

DR. OSTROW: And NIOSH agreed with 

us.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That=s right, I 

forgot about those other three, my math=s off.

So I think that=s where we=ll start 

off, with Steve. He=s going to give us a 

history and then we will just go right down the 

suggested items that we close before we get to 

the White Papers.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Steve Ostrow.

Brief chronology. For people who 

want to see a little more detail, SC&A put out 

a report on February 24th, 2014, a month ago, 

which is called INL Site Profile Review Status 

Update Revision 1, which went into the history 
10

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

in more detail and the status of every single 

one of the items. So I=m just going to take 

some things from that chronology.

The Site Profile, the original one, 

came out in 2004, in July. SC&A had its first 

review in 2005. So some of these comments date 

back nine years.

First Work Group meeting was in June 

of 2009. Subsequently, NIOSH revised all the 

TBDs in the period from the end of 2009 until 

April 2011 and those are all the current TBDs.

And one of the things they did at 

that time was include ANL, Argonne National 

Laboratory West, in the INL TBDs since 

physically, ANL West is located within the INL 

Reservation.

The second Work Group meeting was 

held June 21, 2011, then nothing much happened 

for a while after that. The SC&A was asked by 

the Work Group and Ted to take a summary of the 
11

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

issues and we ended up producing this document 

I referred to before, Rev. 0 and then Rev. 1 in 

February of 2014 where we basically summarized 

all the issues and the status of all the issues 

and it includes the matrix. Except instead 

doing the traditional matrix where you end up 

with very narrow long columns, we had like a 

separate page for each individual issue. It 

was easier to read, same material, it was just 

easier to read. And today is the third Work 

Group meeting.

In the last two weeks or so, NIOSH 

came out with, by my count, six White Papers 

plus an updated matrix and that=s responding to 

different issues. They responded to issue 

one, issue two, nine and 23, those were 

combined, hot particles, issue 19, issue 24 and 

issue 34. So we have all that from NIOSH.

SC&A has looked at all of them and 

has formed opinions, some of the preliminary 
12

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

opinions, not all of them, but couldn=t do a, 

you know, a really thorough review since then.

So issues now, originally, the 38 

issues that we identified, this was one of the 

B I think this might have been the first Site 

Profile review or maybe the second one. So at 

that time, we made a lot of comments that some 

were less important than others and some could 

have been combined with others. We=ve gotten 

better over the years at focusing on issues, so 

originally 38.

At the June 21, 2011 meeting, the 

Work Group closed out ten of the issues, so ten 

have closed and if people are keeping track, 

it=s 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 25, 37 and 38, 

those are all closed and done.

Subsequently, SC&A was asked to 

look at the issues again after NIOSH gave us 

some response and in two different rounds, we 

recommended closing 14 additional issues.
13

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And the first round was 4, 8, 14, 17, 

18, 20, 26, 29, 33, and 36. And then a little 

bit later, we recommended closing 21, 30, 32 and 

35. This was based on reading the Site Profile 

review, TBDs in more depth and some 

correspondence with NIOSH. 

NIOSH subsequently agreed with us 

that all these issues B but we recommend that 

the Board close it. Well, we don=t actually 

close them, we just recommend to the Work Group 

to consider closing it.

So by my count, that leaves 14 open 

issues. The open issues are 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 15, 

16, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 34, that=s 14. 

And as I mentioned, NIOSH White 

Papers that they=ve sent in the last couple of 

weeks addresses most of those. A few of the, 

they haven=t addressed. A couple of B looking 

at the NIOSH=s comments and the matrix, a few 

there=s a few of them B a few things that they=re 
14

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

still developing and that will come later.

So that=s where we are right now. 

And I recommend for this meeting it might be a 

good idea to go through the issues of the 14 that 

we recommend for closure and see which ones we 

can, you know, knock off and which ones the Work 

Group wants to look at further.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Any comments?

MEMBER BEACH: I think that sounds 

like a good path forward.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, I guess 

we=ll get into it.

MEMBER BEACH: So the first one is 

issue 4.

DR. OSTROW: The first one is issue 

4 that I recommend closing. Give me a second 

here to find it.

Phil, how do we want to do this? Do 

you want me to summarize each issue quickly, 

then B
15

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 

so, that way people understand what=s 

happening.

DR. OSTROW: Okay, sounds like a good 

idea.

Okay, if anyone=s following along 

in the SC&A report from February 2014 that lists 

all the issues, that=s on Page 20 of that 

report.

MR. HINNEFELD: Can I ask if people 

on Live Meeting are seeing that page on Live 

Meeting now? Is there anybody on the phone on 

Live Meeting?

MR. DARNELL: Stu, this is Pete. 

I=m not seeing anything on Live Meeting. It 

just has that conference will begin shortly 

screen.

DR. OSTROW: Should wait, perhaps, 

until someone knows how to do this?

MR. KATZ: Pete, I wonder if you=re 
16

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

B there=s more than one link into the Live 

Meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Let me see, I don=t 

think I have it up.

MEMBER BEACH: Because you have to 

sign in as the presenter, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I=m in.

MR. KATZ: No, he=s in.

MR. HINNEFELD: I=m in, I=m trying to 

come in as what was called Leader.

MR. DARNELL: Okay, it just came up. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right.

MR KATZ: Good, thank you, Pete.

MR. HINNEFELD: User error on my 

part.

MR. DARNELL: Hey guys, I=m going to 

be off line for a while. Brian has my telephone 

number should you need me.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks, Pete.
17

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Okay, so we=re on issue 

number 4 entitled Completeness and Quality of 

INL Internal Dosimetry Programs. And the 

issue started out as looking at missed internal 

dose, how is that handled.

SC&A had reviewed at this time, and 

this is talking about years ago, DOE had Tiger 

Team reviews of a lot of the DOE sites, I think 

in the late 80s or early 90s, I think so.

And these reports are huge. I 

think the one for INL runs several thousand 

pages over a couple of volumes. And this was 

done like in the entire DOE complex so it wasn=t 

just INL and the Tiger Team report, a lot of 

places criticized dosimetry, record keeping, 

and a lot of programmatic things.

And so sort of a lot of bad things 

about how DOE did dosimetry. We made a comment 

about the completeness and quality of the 

internal dosimetry program.
18

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

NIOSH responded to us that a lot of 

the issues that we brought up weren=t really 

questioning whether the data was good or not, 

it was more programmatic issues than anything 

else.

Since we made the original 

comments, NIOSH had revised the TBD because we 

looked at the original Rev. 0, now there=s Rev. 

3 of occupational external B this is 

environmental dose, excuse me. We=re up to 

Rev. 3 in that already.

We saw that NIOSH had deleted some 

of the things we objected to and they edited 

entire new sections, 5.6 which is entitled 

Intake and Internal Doses Assessment from 

Unmonitored Workers, they added that. And 

they referred to a bunch of OTIBs for signing 

the default doses for missed internal doses.

And SC&A had reviewed these OTIBs 

separated under the Procedures group and we 
19

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

resolved all issues there. So basically at the 

end, we=re satisfied in the way NIOSH resolved 

the dosimetry issue here and we recommended to 

the Work Group that the issue be closed and 

NIOSH subsequently looked at our 

recommendation and they agreed that we should 

recommend to the Work Group to close this issue.

But basically the few objections 

that we had weren=t that profound and NIOSH 

revised its wording and its references in the 

latest version of the TBD, so the problem went 

away as far as we=re concerned.

MEMBER BEACH: So when I reviewed 

this, I noticed that NIOSH is going to use OTIB 

18, 33 and 54 under this action or under this 

issue.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: When I went into BRS, 

054 still has 19 findings in progress out of 34 
20

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

and 18 still has one in progress, two that were 

transferred, three that were closed.

So I guess for me, that issue is 

leading a reconstructor to several different 

OTIBs. I guess I=m wondering how that 

direction goes to the dose reconstructor when 

there=s so many different OTIBs for that issue 

and 54 is not finished. There=s still several 

items that are in progress in the Procedures 

Work Group.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our view, 

you can track this finding one place. If there 

are findings on 54, I=m saying, that are, you 

know, we=re tracking those with the Procedures 

Review and that tracking system and the 

resolutions of those finding then is always to 

the extent they don=t change anything are 

carried back and revisit on the site on all the 

things that used them.

So the PER that would follow a 
21

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

revision to 54 would pull in anything done in 

accordance with Idaho.

So, you know, if you leave it open 

in two places, you=re essentially tracking the 

same finding in two places. And anytime you 

have a finding on a TIB or a procedure, you have 

this sort of universe of claims that may have 

to be revisited when the finding is resolved and 

this is just, you know, these Idaho claims would 

part of that universe and would have to be 

resolved, have to be finished when the findings 

and the procedures system resolved.

Otherwise, you=re essentially 

tracking the same findings in two different B

trying to find it here as well as trying to track 

it in the Procedures Subcommittee.

So in my view, you know, tracking it 

in Procedures is sufficient because the PER 

that follows the change, you know, then sweeps 

up everything that was done including these 
22

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Idaho claims.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it=s just a 

little bit misinterpreted when you say 054 is 

all done and everything looks good. I 

understand the tracking of it. But how about 

on the dose reconstructor side of things when 

you=re trying to track that dose and you=re 

sending them to several different OTIBs?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, 18 and 33 are 

essentially the magnitude of the activity of 

the exposure, I believe.

Brian, if I say something wrong 

here, just jump right and correct me.

MR. GLECKLER: Typically for the 

overestimates, we use OTIB 18 and OTIB 33 is

kind of like the go-between that it covers 

overestimates which solely is in OTIB 18 but it 

also goes into the best estimate approach a 

little bit. It allows us to downgrade the OTIB 

18 doses. And OTIB 54 is used with the missed 
23

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dose so we=ll either use either missed dose 

approach or an OTIB 18 approach for INEL claims.

If we can go with the overestimate 

we will use OTIB 18, but if we can=t afford that, 

because of the Probability of Causation, we=ll 

dole out a missed dose and then OTIB 54 merely 

accounts for all the other nuclides that may not 

have been monitored for.

DR. MAURO: Josie, this is John 

Mauro. I have a little perspective on this too 

that might be helpful.

The way we=ve been looking at OTIB 

18 and 33, that=s a shortcut approach when you 

B where if there=s a good health physics program 

in place, you can make certain assumptions that 

the airborne activity in a room is within 

certain fractions of the maximum permissible 

concentrations.

So where we came out on that, I 

remember this because, going over this, it was 
24

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

really B the real question is, conceptually, 

the approach used in 18 and 33 is sound in terms 

of interpreting where are you within the 

distribution of possible airborne dust 

loadings if you have good health physics 

oversight, access controls, airborne 

monitoring, that sort of thing. And the 

approach used is reasonable.

The question always becomes for 

different time periods, for example, at INL or 

any facility, is it reasonable to assume that 

there was a comprehensive health physics 

oversight program so that you could make use of 

dose OTIBs.

So I mean that=s usually the issue 

that confronts us when NIOSH defaults to those 

B I would say reasonably maximizing approach to 

internal dose.

Fifty-four, right now, we=ve done a 

lot of review work on that, on the actual 
25

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

methods and I think that=s very mature, our 

review. Where we are now and folks in the room 

maybe know a little bit more because I was 

somewhat involved in that, in 54 right now there 

is a workbook that is being used and it=s an 

extremely complex workbook and Ron Buchanan is 

right now seeing if the workbook itself 

implements OTIB 54 in a way that seems to be 

appropriate.

And so all of these OTIBs are fairly 

mature. The real question is the degree to 

which they apply or they can be applied.

By the way, 54 would imply that 

there is a significant amount of beta/gamma 

bioassay data upon which the base exposures to 

workers that worked at reactors and in effect, 

that=s what 54 will buy you. It=s a way to do 

that.

And I think basically we agree with 

the fundamental approach that=s been adopted. 
26

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

You have to pick which, you know, which category 

reactor. If you do have comprehensive 

bioassay data in terms of gross beta/gamma in 

urine, you know, it=s a way to get at the problem 

and reconstruct internal doses and right now, 

the only B I believe B the area that we=re really 

focusing in on is the workbook and it=s one of 

the more sophisticated workbooks I=ve ever seen 

and Ron is working on that real hard.

So I think that=s my understanding 

of where we are with regard to these different 

OTIBs.

DR. OSTROW: John, this Steve again.

The OTIB 54, I=m leading the review 

of that and then B yes, it=s Rev. 1 of that right 

now and if I remember, we have some comments but 

none of them are showstoppers.

One of the comments we have is NIOSH 

did a lot sophisticated ORIGEN runs to get the 

radionuclides and spent fuel and we don=t 
27

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

disagree with any of them. We just wanted more 

background information of how they actually did 

the modeling. You know, what data they used 

and what assumptions they used and things like 

that.

But I think the characterization is 

good. OTIB 54 Rev. 1, our review is pretty 

mature. We don=t have any showstopper type 

questions about it. We just wanted further 

information.

We=re having, as you mentioned, Ron 

Buchanan actually run the workbook that=s 

associated with it to make sure that it gives 

the right answers. OTIB 54 provides, just very 

nice, three sample problems to run. So we=re 

running the sample problems to make sure they 

get the right same answer that we=re supposed 

to.

I think the Procedures meeting is in 

about a month from now or something. We=re 
28

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

going to have our report done before and we=ll 

anticipate we=re going to sign off on most of 

it, at least anyway.

MR. KATZ: And Steve, just to update 

further, I sent this past week to John Stiver, 

Rev. 2 because it=s out.

DR. OSTROW: Oh, you have Rev. 2?

MR. KATZ: Rev. 2 is out.

DR. OSTROW: Oh, I didn=t know.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was an 

additional reactor type.

MR. KATZ: Okay, it doesn=t address 

B

MR. HINNEFELD: I don=t know what 

else it has but I was just thinking that myself. 

I know we just published a rev.

MR. KATZ: You did.

MR. HINNEFELD: And I=m trying to 

remember what it changed. But it should have 

addressed findings, anything that was marked in 
29

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

abeyance. The findings should be address in 

this rev.

MR. KATZ: That=s what I=m saying.

MR. HINNEFELD: And I was thinking 

there was some pointed out that there was a 

reactor type that wasn=t included in 54 that had 

to be in it, but I=m not sure.

DR. OSTROW: I think one of the 

triggers is something maybe B

MR. HINNEFELD: I don=t know.

DR. OSTROW: I=m not sure. 

Anyway, I=ll look at it once I get back to my 

office.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don=t 

actually know what=s in the things we publish.

MR. KATZ: My only point was that 

then some of the matters that were in abeyance 

may be actually B

DR. OSTROW: Yes, okay none of the 

comments we had were showstopper type comments 
30

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

anyway.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I do have 

something I want to put out is that there=s 

concern about this, particularly the 

environment internal is you have, well, chem 

plant is probably the biggest thing out there.

You know, you start looking at the 

Rose data for the facility and Southeast 

Idaho=s known for its wind. I mean, you know, 

everybody talks about their expert wind up 

there.

And so, you know, you can find 

numerous references, you can talk to a lot of 

the workers and they talk about the cornflakes 

coming out of the stack and, you know, depending 

on wind, the dispersion, where they=re going. 

Are those landing outside the perimeter fence 

for B

And then, you know, you=ve got crews 

come through that area doing weeding or 
31

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

whatever particular job they=re assigned. 

Some of them probably aren=t on a bioassay 

sampling program because typically speaking, 

they would not be in a plant, something.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, well Phil, I think 

what you=re talking about is more addressed in 

comments one and two with the NIOSH=s two White 

Papers of the environmental routine and 

episodic releases. I think that=s where they 

go more into what=s onsite and what=s offsite, 

you know, as far as the environmental doses. 

So that=s a little bit of a separate issue. 

Your point=s well taken but it=s 

like issues one and two for that.

DR. MAURO: The way I understood this 

particular issue is it=s really for workers 

indoors and the reconstruction of their 

internal doses which is distinct, of course, 

from the outdoor exposures from those effluents 

which is an entirely different set of issues 
32

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that certainly we=re going to be talking about 

today, I presume.

So but I think I understand that the

dilemma is that if we still have certain OTIBs 

that are in the process of being reviewed, I 

know what the DR, and the question came up 

before, how do we deal with this situation when 

we do DR reviews? Well, typically, when we 

review a dose reconstruction, we see if the DR 

follows all of their procedures and their Site 

Profile, and follows it explicitly. And so, if 

it does, it is not scored down. We don=t give 

any negative score if they follow their 

procedures.

However, we do have a separate 

section in the DR review called Section 1.3 

where we list all of the open items as best we 

can that pertain to the Site Profile and perhaps 

the procedures that might have a bearing on the 

case. 
33

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

But we don=t score the DR 

negatively. We sort of leave it, you know, as 

Stu pointed out, we allow the Site Profile 

review process, the procedure you process to go 

forward independent of the score card we give 

to the DR review. So when we do the review, we 

just check to see if they followed their 

procedures.

Now the only exception to that is 

AWE sites where we do what I would call a full 

blown review.

And so the question I think that is 

before the Work Group is the fact that we have 

these procedures that are still somewhat in a 

state of review. Does that mean we should 

close this issue or, you know, because they did 

revise the Site Profile and explicitly make use 

of procedures that go right toward the issues 

we are concerned with. And B which is good. 

The fact that those procedures may still have 
34

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

some open questions associated with them puts 

us in this sort of limbo area and that=s a 

judgment call on how you would like to proceed.

MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius, 

can I raise a related issue? Can you hear me?

MR. KATZ: Yes, we can.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. My 

understanding is that the coworker model for 

this site is under development still.

MR. GLECKLER: There is an internal 

coworker model under development, but the plan, 

I don't think was with the intention to ever use 

that model. It was more to fend off, to my 

understanding, the SEC type petitions that 

might pop up on that. Because we think the 

approach for INL, I think we've got it covered 

for dealing with the unmonitored dose 

assignments.

And hopefully the -- unless the 

internal coworker model shows dramatically 
35

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

different, which it shouldn't. Because the 

vast, you know the vast majority of the bioassay 

results are negative. So it should just come 

out to a missed dosed assignment. And that's 

what we do for the unmonitored workers, is a 

missed dosed assignment if they had like a 

positive external dose.

MEMBER BEACH: In our last meeting, 

it was stated that we would get an external 

coworker model. But then NIOSH said no, they 

weren't planning on doing an external. So 

there's -- it's a little conflicting. And if 

you look at last -- the last meeting's notes, 

it's there.

MR. GLECKLER: I don't recall that 

myself either. I recall the internal, but not 

the external in that.

MEMBER BEACH: I've got it in notes 

from last meeting, so.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. And also it 
36

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

turned up in one of the emails that Pete Darnell 

had sent a few months ago, it was like a little 

bit of a status update. And they listed 

the -- it was supposed to be internal lines 

external coworker.

But the latest matrix that NIOSH 

sent us like two weeks ago, had a little note 

with no external coworker model.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes. Because I 

thought we -- I think one of these issues, I'm 

trying to remember which one now. It's like we 

resolved that with -- because it was in regards 

to the worker, you know because to get into the 

major operating areas, you had to wear a 

dosimeter. So everyone was monitored inside 

the major operating areas.

And then the ones outside those 

operating areas were the only unmonitored 

workers typically. There's an exception to 

some construction work activities where they 
37

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

would move the fence inside and use a group 

dosimeter, and so on. And have a separate 

revised internal fence for them to work in.

But the -- for the most part, 

everyone inside the major operating areas 

were -- which were where the radiological work 

was done, and that was monitored at INL. And 

so we typically have all their dosimetry for 

those individuals. And whoever doesn't have 

dosimetry, you know, that's an indication that 

they weren't inside those areas at any given 

point in time. And we assigned environmental, 

internal.

And I think that's one of the 

resolved ones from the last meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think that 

realization of not them not having a typical 

need for a coworker model because of the badging 

practices, could have occurred at anytime 

during this research. So at some time we could 
38

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have said that we were going to work on a 

coworker model, until we realized the badging 

practices and decided B I mean the fact that we 

said that we were going to do something at one 

point and then just changed and said oh gee, we 

don't need to do that later on, to me is not 

really a particular telling thing. Our 

research tells us different things all the 

time.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, but 

another area of concern on that particular 

subject, you know we're dealing with over 50 

reactors for this facility. You really almost 

have to go back and look at the ventilation 

system for each reactor.

How was anything generated, any off 

gases, anything generated from that building. 

Was it run through a -- I mean you know, it's 

not an uncommon thing sometimes, they get a lot 

of these really short lived, high dosed things. 
39

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

They trap them and just let them sit there and 

decay. Or were these just generated and sent 

right out to stack?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well really, 

depending upon the state of you know, where you 

get your information from, if you were 

depending upon an emissions value, then you 

would have to know the major emitters. Now you 

talk about 50 reactors, a lot of these things 

are things like zero power reactors, slow flux, 

fast. And so because of their power level, 

they're just not going to have much emission 

anyway.

So I don't know that you need to 

do -- to look at each reactor. You need to look 

at the major emissions forces if you're doing 

an emission calculation for your environmental 

impact, you need to look at the major emissions 

forces, not all 50 reactors.

That's -- I would --
40

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So that would 

be covered in a pretty generic way. You could 

cover most of them, is that what you're saying?

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that major 

emission sources are numbered. Getting back 

to one and two again. But I think the major 

emission sources are known and they're 

documentation out there on that.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, the chem plant I 

think, this is also goes back to issues with it. 

The chem plant put out most, almost all the 

radioactivity other than the Aircraft Nuclear 

Propulsion test. That's totally separate.

And the chem plant I think had two 

really high stacks. Like everything went up 

two very high stacks. And that accounted for 

most of the emissions.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

Because that's a concern I know that's come up. 

And talking to a few people that they were 
41

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

worried about, well you know, with the 

reactors. And true, a lot of them were small, 

very low power reactors. But you know, how 

does the ventilation, was anything generated, 

just sent out the stack, or you know, at some 

facilities you actually have a trap and you trap 

those and you let them decay before you send 

them through the filters and on out the stacks.

MEMBER BEACH: So going back to 

Jim's question on coworker model, it looks like 

Issue 15 was a -- it was indicated on that one 

that they were -- you guys were going to work 

on a coworker model for internal. And then 31, 

there's notes that indicate an external dose 

coworker model, which may have changed like you 

said, with new information. But that's what we 

had from the last meeting, so.

DR. OSTROW: You're right. That's 

in my notes also; I see that.

MEMBER MELIUS: So is there or is 
42

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there not an external and is there or is there 

not an internal coworker model being developed?

MR. GLECKLER: There is an internal 

coworker model being developed. There is not 

an external coworker model being developed.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Then my 

concern would be on Number 4 is that we just be 

careful to keep that in mind. And when one 

talks about the completeness and quality of an 

internal dosimetry program, I think it's a 

little bit of a misnomer, when we're really just 

focusing on you know, missed dose here.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, because that's 

important: that completeness and quality, 

which is what had me digging through it a little 

bit closer.

MEMBER MELIUS: And can I just ask 

also, is there a timetable for the coworker 

model? I thought I saw something about it 

being produced in June or July. Is that still 
43

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

realistic or, Stu?

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have a date 

in front of me right now. I'd have to do some 

research.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: To see what, when I 

know about that.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. I'm 

thinking that of that just as much in terms of 

we had talked about doing our July meeting up 

in the snow country there, so.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Steve, you 

got any feelings on this one?

DR. OSTROW: No. It's just that 

the -- just a little bit of perspective. 

Again, these issues evolved over time since we 

first looked at them. We might have, when we 

originally said completeness and quality of 

unknown internal dosimetry programs, that 

might have been the misnomer.
44

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And by the time we got to rev three 

of the document we're looking at, the focus is 

really on the missed dose type of a focus. You 

know, if we were rewriting the issue today, we 

would call it Issue Four Missed Dose, you know 

environmental dose. So --

MEMBER BEACH: So the completeness 

and quality of the internal data, that is 

covered in another issue? So one, maybe two, 

is that what?

DR. OSTROW: Well, one and two have 

to deal with the routine and the environmental 

monitoring program for the routine releases and 

for the episodic releases. The Issue Four is 

just basically a missed dose approach. And by 

timing NIOSH up to Rev Three of the document, 

and they gave instructions in the TBD to use 

these various OTIBs approach, we're -- SC&A's 

satisfied that they're on the right track.

And the comment, what we were 
45

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

discussing before, and John Mauro weighed in on 

this, what do you do since the OTIBs aren't 

totally signed off by the Procedures group yet. 

There's still some open items, especially on 

54. And that we understand the process, is 

that once the OTIB is signed off, and NIOSH goes 

and looks back and sees, has there been anything 

that's affected in any of the dose 

reconstructions, and they have a whole 

procedure for doing that, so that nothing falls 

through the cracks that way.

So I mean, this is the standard 

procedure that they do with all the OTIBs and 

they are signed off finally.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So we 

can -- maybe we could go ahead and close this 

issue with a caveat that once 54's done, then 

they come back to see the impact.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I think that's 

their routine procedure though, right.
46

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so then where 

is quality of the data? Is there something in 

here that is going to cover that? Because I 

realize this one is missed dose and it was maybe 

misidentified. But quality of the data's 

important also.

DR. OSTROW: Well we have a few that 

are called quality of data, like 16 for example. 

It's also a quality of data and record keeping.

MR. MAURO: You know, I have a 

suggestion. I understand the dilemma we put 

ourselves in, including SC&A, and we put 

ourselves in. In the process of going through 

this Issue Four, which really starts off as very 

broad. Quality of data's in there. Missed 

dose is in there. A lot of the original Tiger 

Team concerns.

So what happened is we started this 

very broad issue which -- and to interpret it, 

it would include you know, matters like a 
47

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

coworker model. And one could argue that 

that's part and parcel to Four.

So in a way, maybe the best way, as 

just a suggestion, is to explain ourselves 

better that you really would -- how we're 

defining this issue narrowly, and it's really 

pertaining to the missed dose part. And to 

explain that when we're -- and the other issues 

such as a coworker model.

And also if you would want, talk 

about other issues related to internal dose 

outdoors from the emissions. And it's not 

being addressed here. We're only addressing a 

narrower definition. Because I could see why 

one could interpret by closing this out means 

we've closed a lot out, but we really haven't.

We've only really closed out the 

missed dose portion of internal dose to workers 

working indoors. But we're not closing out the 

coworker model issue. That's certainly still 
48

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

open.

And I think it's important that 

whatever we do in terms of you know, assigning 

some closeout statement regarding Issue Four, 

we should make it very clear that it's

constrained. It's not as sweeping as one might 

think. And I think that's important.

MEMBER MELIUS: And -- this is Jim 

Melius again. And the call area that is those 

other issues, you know completeness of data, 

coworker, whatever you call them, need to be 

added onto the matrix of things that need to be 

addressed at some point in time if they haven't 

been addressed already.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I want to 

make sure I'm clear on this. We now have some 

sort of task to address completeness and 

quality of internal monitoring data? Is that 

what I just heard?

DR. OSTROW: Well, I think except 
49

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

before you go off in doing that, I think we have 

to take a look, and I don't think we can do this 

right on the fly right now, look at these other 

open issues that we have. Is this taken care 

of somewhere else? We don't want to do it 

again.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well I was just 

thinking, there were two B the next two are also 

internal dosimetry findings that you're 

recommending keeping open.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: So rather than drag 

these into Four, if there's some action to be 

taken, that clarify the response, it seems like 

we could move them into Five and Six. Because 

like you guys have said, from the time the 

original findings were written, there have been 

other, you know, there have been a revised TBD.

And so things have sort of morphed 

a little bit. The key element is to capture any 
50

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

weaknesses somewhere on this finding list.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. And I think 

that was my point. You know, clearly a lot of 

this you may deal with in terms of the coworker 

model development and the report on that, so. 

I think a lot of this is already under way.

I don't necessarily think there's 

more for NIOSH to do at this point until that's 

developed. But let's go through the rest of 

the issues and see what comes up.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, and as Steve 

points out, 16 does talk about completeness and 

quality of internal beta-gamma dosimetry 

record keeping programs. But then it also 

points out that it's for external and no 

external coworker models are going to be 

developed. So, yes.

DR. OSTROW: And 31 also has the 

same title.

MEMBER BEACH: These aren't very 
51

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

clear, so.

DR. OSTROW: You can't go by the 

titles of these.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, no, you can't.

MR. KATZ: I think your current 

plan to just churn through what you have 

already, --

MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

MR. KATZ: Will help you figure out 

what's left on the table if there are things 

that are left out.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: I think so.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And part of 

this that sort of addressed I think, if you look 

at OTIB 52 for the construction trade workers. 

When you get into OTIB 52, it=s actually even, 

there's a table there for INL on page 29.

MEMBER BEACH: I don't think any of 

these call that out, though. But, good point.
52

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. GLECKLER: Regarding the 

external coworker study issue, I just noticed 

that issue number three, and that is the one 

where we were -- I think we resolved that and 

determined that we didn't need the coworker 

study. That's kind of the explanation I was 

trying to give, of workers being monitored 

inside the fence line versus outside. I think 

we sort of hashed that out.

DR. OSTROW: Can I make a 

suggestion, Stu?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: That it's very -- if 

you guys are convinced you shouldn't do an 

external model, how about getting your thoughts 

together and just writing a memo or something? 

So this way the Work Group can take a look at 

it. You know, if you have good reasons that you 

don't need it, fine.

Does that sound like a good plan?
53

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think we 

can -- I guess we could do that. It sounds like 

Brian said we've kind of done it on Issue Three 

previously, and don't have to close.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, whatever the 

justification is, it's sort of open that I think 

the Work Group, and we were under the impression 

that you were going to do an external model 

until we saw it in the matrix that you said you 

weren't. So it might be nice to just write 

something short, you know saying why you don't 

think you need it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think 

it -- okay.

MEMBER BEACH: Well and Three 

doesn't say --

MR. HINNEFELD: And I understand, 

we were talking about an external or coworker 

model, we were talking about external model for 

photons and beta particles. Because there's a 
54

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

different situation for neutrons.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. So to just 

clarify you know, what you're talking about it.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So the action 

item would be for NIOSH to write their 

justification or how they're going to handle 

it.

DR. OSTROW: Does the Work Group 

having any more questions, concerns?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't.

DR. OSTROW: So maybe you guys want 

to call a vote?

MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't have any 

questions.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we 

can, like he says, we can close this one with 

that caveat, that they'll be going back and 

taking a look at this. And given the you know, 

putting out a paper, not even a whole paper, 

just how they're going to deal with it.
55

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: It's a different 

method.

MR. HINNEFELD: What we're going to 

do on Four, the issue that we need to complete 

on Four is when these procedures, these TIBs 

that are resolved in Procedures Review to make 

sure that the PER, you know, sweeps these in. 

I mean that's just going to happen.

I mean I think rather than saying a 

conditional closure, I think you're closing 

with the understanding that the process for 

finishing the TBD reviews will go back and 

address any changes with cases that were done 

in accordance with these old, you know, at that 

time, which will be old TBDs.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

That's my understanding.

MR. HINNEFELD: So I think that's 

what the -- what the -- I believe the suggestion 

is that you close Four with that understanding.
56

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Yes, with that 

recognition that this is the standard process 

that NIOSH does all the time.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Right.

DR. OSTROW: It's not like anything 

unique or new for this.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. MAURO: I would also suggest 

another qualifier because when you look at the 

original issue, it's very broad. You know, 

covering things that one could interpret as 

being deficiencies in data quality and that 

sort of thing. A very broad statement.

And what we're really trying to 

close out here is a relatively narrow piece of 

that. The extent to which the original -- see 

that's one of the problems, the original issue 

was all-encompassing and could easily involve 

things like coworker model and data adequacy 

and that sort of thing.
57

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And we're not closing that out. 

We're just closing out I guess the strategy for 

dealing with missed dose, for internal exposure 

indoors. And so -- so that it's clear that 

we're not, you know, it's easy --

MR. KATZ: But John, we don't need 

to qualify this closure because that will be 

addressed in the other findings. And if it's 

not covered by the other findings, we'll add a 

finding for that.

MR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

MR. KATZ: But so it's just --

MR. MAURO: Okay, okay.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: And I agree with 

closing it on those terms.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Why don't we 

move on to Finding Number Eight, unless 

Jim -- sorry. My apologies, Jim.
58

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So we shall 

move on. The next one is Issue Eight.

And Issue Eight is called -- oh, 

this was an interesting one. High-Fired 

Plutonium and Uranium Intake. And this one 

also evolved over time.

And SC&A was discussing this as 

recently as 7:30 this morning. We looked at it 

again and we weren't quite sure as of yesterday 

that everything was okay.

The issue was the -- we'd said 

originally the TBD didn't evaluate the hazards 

associated with high-fired plutonium and 

uranium at the chem processing plant and the 

radioactive waste management complex. And the 

NIOSH -- it goes a little bit further.

NIOSH responded that the -- that 

they revised the internal TBD, which is true. 

And they included Super S Plutonium. That's 

basically high-fired plutonium, as I 
59

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

understand it. And they asked us what do you 

mean by high-fired uranium intakes?

There was a dialogue back and forth 

over the years on this stuff. And there were 

some action items. We reassessed it and we 

discussed about how fuel pellets are produced. 

And fuel pellets are typically uranium dioxide 

powder, UO2, centered at high temperature, 1700 

degrees Celsius. And then the pellets are 

ground to a uniform size.

So the question is you know, this is 

a little bit UO2 dust and inhalation or 

ingestion of this centered material is what is 

meant by high-fired uranium intakes. And 

the -- we reviewed Rev. 3 of the TBD and we 

confirmed that Super S Plutonium has been 

included, and they were the solubility Class S.

And we did a little bit of research 

as of yesterday and today. This is a generic 

issue; it's not the -- INL is not the only place 
60

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that has you know, high-fired uranium or 

plutonium. It's sort of typical.

And we discovered or confirmed that 

the -- it's generally accepted that UO2 and 

U-3O8 have Type S lung clearance. And John 

Stiver weighed in with an email this morning 

like at 7:30, that this is actually covered in 

ICRP 68, where it's specified.

So based on all that, SC&A remains 

happy the way NIOSH responded to this. We just 

did like a you know, last-minute confirmation 

because it sort of rung a bell in our head 

yesterday to take another look at it.

So we think they handled it fine in 

the current version of the TBD, and we recommend 

to the Work Group that this issue be closed. 

Stu, do you have anything to add to this?

MR. HINNEFELD: No. Just like 

Steve said, whereas for plutonium, there's 

evidence from plutonium registry of plutonium 
61

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

being retained longer than Type S, which is the 

longest retention in the ICRP models. And 

because of that, we've done the Super S 

Plutonium. And we did a TIB, we've done the PER 

and we included it now in the Site Profile for 

here and other places.

So we recognize that for plutonium, 

you know, there is -- there are materials that 

are retained longer than Type S. For uranium, 

there is no evidence of material like that. 

You know, this high-fired UO2 that's ground 

into pellets, you know the UO2 fuel that's used 

in reactors behaves as Type S based on the 

studies that have been gathered so far.

And so we don't see evidence of a 

Super S uranium and the Site Profile, like 

essentially all of uranium exposures, when 

there is potential for exposure to a variety 

of compounds, says you take the solubility, or 

the clearance class, slip SRM, which provides 
62

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the highest Probability of Causation to the 

claim. So we do that routinely.

So that's why we felt like this 

should be closed. Because we've covered Super 

S Plutonium and we don't think there is any 

Super S Uranium.

MEMBER ROESSLER: So Steve, when 

SC&A came up with this comment, that was before 

NIOSH talked about Super S?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That original 

comment=s way back.

DR. OSTROW: Actually, they 

responded to our original comment which was on 

the Rev 0 of their TBD. And by the time they 

got to, I think it's Rev 3 or something, it's 

included. They have language in it, it's just 

like what Steve said basically.

And we checked it out and you know 

it -- this is correct with the ICRP models.

MEMBER BEACH: So in these Rev 1 
63

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

status and review information from SC&A, that 

is current? That's February current, correct?

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: Because you've 

got --

DR. OSTROW: That's right.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: This is a -- all these 

issues that we have in our report are 

chronological. The original one goes back 

like 2005, 2006 or so. And by the time you get 

to the bottom of the page, that's the Rev 1 

status one. That's the February, 2014 --

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and that's the 

way I read it.

DR. OSTROW: Of last month. Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So when you 

said you had a call this morning, I was 

surprised because basically it showed in your 

current Rev in February you were clear.
64

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Yes, what 

happened -- yeah, we were clear. I was 

discussing all these issues on the phone with 

John Mauro yesterday --

MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

DR. OSTROW: And John who's a 

thorough health physicist, this sort of rung 

something in his head that he wanted just to 

check further, you know.

MR. MAURO: Can I speak a little bit 

more to this? It's good that we separate the 

uranium from the plutonium. There's no doubt 

that from -- you know that, the process that 

took place since all this began, the plutonium 

high-fired issue has been thoroughly vetted. 

So that aspect of this comment is 

certainly clear to us, can be closed. The 

aspect of this comment that brought -- that came 

to my attention quite frankly during the 

preparatory work for this meeting was when I 
65

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

looked at this 1700-degree centered uranium. 

And the fact that -- the reason that I bring it 

up is that I know that this is an issue for 

example, we're going to confront at Kansas 

City, because in fact I called Joe Fitzgerald 

up yesterday, said Joe, this whole -- I know 

this issue of high-fired uranium has come up 

previously. And he said yes, you recall that 

also I called Arjun because I got to say that 

I was sort of the one that brought this up in 

the eleventh hour because I don't recall 

looking at, not that it wasn't looked at, but 

I don't recall myself seeing the data 

on -- where a demonstration was made that you 

really can't see that Type S works for whether 

you're dealing with, you know, airborne uranium 

dust generated during machining during of 

uranium, let's say, at AWE facilities.

And you know the data, that's a 

certain type of airborne uranium oxide that is 
66

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

produced during machining operations. And 

when I came across this, where this is a 

different process where you're -- it sounds 

like you might be machining centered uranium, 

which is produced under fairly high 

temperatures, I think it was 1700 degrees 

centigrade.

So I -- that reminded me, it goes 

back some time that, did we ever really close 

out on other sites, or other -- and when I spoke 

to Joe, he mentioned that. It turns out those 

issues were brought up, but they sort of went 

away because eventually the site was granted an 

SEC, that sort of thing.

And I have to say that the fact that, 

Stu, you're putting forth data and information 

that shows you really can't see a difference in 

the clearance for these different uranium 

oxides. Whether they were generated by 

milling and machining, or generated during 
67

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

machining of centered uranium, that's very 

important. Because I think that that data and 

that research that shows we're not seeing a 

difference is important not only to this site, 

but it's going to be important to Kansas City 

and perhaps other sites as well.

So the fact that you have that 

information and you have a basis for saying no, 

there isn't. The clearance rates appear to 

be -- we're not seeing differences. I consider 

that to be very important you know, to 

this -- closing this issue and many others.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, John.

MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't feel 

called on to say anything.

MR. KATZ: No, it's a helpful 

perspective.

MEMBER BEACH: I don't have any 

questions for that one. I agree with closing 

it also.
68

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

any, do you?

MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't either. 

I agree.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Then we'll 

follow your recommendation and close that one.

MEMBER ROESSLER: But we should 

check to see if Melius is back on the phone.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Jim's going 

to shoot me. My apologies Jim. Okay.

DR. OSTROW: So if we can mark it 

closed, Work Group will close it?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Okay, good.

MR. KATZ: Actually SC&A keeps the 

matrix.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, we keep track of 

it. Now we'll have a hundred-page document you 

know, just to add to it.

Okay. Our next Issue is Issue 14. 
69

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Plutonium Monitoring. And this appears on 

page 34 of our summary document. So this is 

another plutonium one. And this is for 

occupational internal dose TBD.

This issue here that the -- and 

remember we're commenting on the original Rev. 

0. The TBD does not provide any historical 

information on plutonium analysis methods used 

at INL.

It's entirely possible that 

selective plutonium monitoring on workers was 

used at INL until 1980. But with this 

information, the dose reconstructors would not 

be able to assign missed internal doses due to 

plutonium intakes in the time period before 

1980.

And NIOSH -- our finding was NIOSH 

recommendation, NIOSH should provide 

information on plutonium monitoring. Okay, 

NIOSH responded and with their response, and 
70

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

they said, and I guess rightly so, plutonium 

wasn't separated at INL.

Whenever there was plutonium, it 

was part of the spent nuclear fuel. As people 

know who are nuclear engineers and nuclear 

physicists, you generate plutonium 239 when you 

have a uranium reactor.

This is a like a little factoid. In 

a commercial nuclear plant, by the time it's end 

of life of the fuel, you're generating about 20 

percent of your total power from plutonium 

fission and not from uranium fission because 

you're breeding plutonium in the reactor. 

It's sort of an interesting little fact.

MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't know that. 

Thanks, Peter.

DR. OSTROW: Well, I'm actually a 

nuclear engineer, so I knew that. That's my 

contribution to these proceedings.

MR. HINNEFELD: I actually didn't 
71

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

realize it had a 20 percent fission. I knew it 

was there.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, with a power 

reactor it's about 20 percent. So anyway, 

NIOSH's point is well taken that at INL, the 

plutonium wasn't separate. They didn't do 

separation work.

So you didn't have to monitor for 

plutonium separately. You monitored for the 

mixed fission products, which were much easier 

to monitor for, and there was a program for 

that.

We subsequently as of last Work 

Group meeting, NIOSH was supposed to supply 

SC&A with the source documents used. And we 

were supposed to look at the applicable 

portions of the current version of the TBD.

And our reassessment, we looked at 

the Rev 3 of the TBD, which is the latest one, 

of the internal one. And we saw that it's been 
72

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

revised in Section 5.1 and 6.3 to have a good 

discussion on bioassay monitoring where NIOSH 

discussed how the bioassay monitoring was done 

that would have accounted for any plutonium 

that was in the mixed fission product matrix.

So we're satisfied that this issue 

has been addressed by -- properly by NIOSH based 

on their discussion. And we recommend then 

that the issue be closed. So it's open for 

discussion.

MEMBER BEACH: I don't have 

anything on this one either, questions.

MEMBER ROESSLER: So you 

questioned originally whether it was necessary 

to do the selective plutonium monitoring before 

1980.

DR. OSTROW: Right.

MEMBER ROESSLER: But then once you 

realized the type of plutonium that would be 

present, you decided that wasn't necessary.
73

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Yes, after NIOSH 

explained it nicely. See you know, a lot of the 

comments really go two different ways in all of 

our reviews, Site Profiles and stuff like that. 

It's not that we think something was done 

incorrectly, you know calculated something 

wrong, they used the wrong reference values. 

That's one thing.

The other class of comments, which 

occurs very frequently like this case, it's not 

that we say it's wrong, we just want NIOSH to 

back it up, you know. Explain it and back it 

up. So in this case, they explained it and 

backed it up, we thought.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree with 

closing.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

any problems with closing this one.

MEMBER BEACH: So you're saying 

that they had plutonium there.
74

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: But it was 

adequately monitored?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, it's not a 

separation plant.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: If you did separation 

of the fuel, then you'd have plutonium by 

itself, you know without the rest of the fission 

products. And then it's a whole different ball 

game for monitoring for the plutonium. The 

internal uptake.

But in this case the plutonium was 

never separate -- a separate stream.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Did they ever 

run any tests that you know of, like some of the 

fuel test pins where they were basically using 

this for a breeder reactor, look at that 

possibility? Those fuel pins, were those 

separated into their cycle?
75

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: Not that I know of. 

But they had breeder reactors, they had like the 

EBR.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. But I 

mean theirs. Did they, or did they send those 

fuel pins somewhere else to have separation 

done?

DR. OSTROW: I don't know.

MR. GLECKLER: The instances that I 

looked into or was able to find on that, because 

that's one thing that I did a lot of research 

on, based on your input from before, is you 

know, because you need to have a reprocessing 

facility and not recover the plutonium. And 

from everything that I could find, they never 

recovered the plutonium.

In the instances that B where 

they're irradiating pins and that in the 

reactors and everything, all the documents that 

I found that showed what happened to those pins 
76

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

afterwards, they're typically sent off site to 

be processed. They're encapsulated while 

they're onsite.

There was -- there have been a 

couple Pu incidents. And then I think one, 

maybe two at MTR. There's definitely one at 

MTR, but they had the bioassay for that stuff, 

they didn't have assessed doses and stuff. 

There's an incident report on that.

And then there's some involved with 

the neptunium-237 work. Because they did 

separate neptunium-237 for a period of time. 

But radioactivity in that was dominated by Pu 

and all that was in hot cells for the most part. 

But I think the incidents come when they went 

to clean out those hot cells.

Beyond that I think they flushed 

them out. And so it's real limited and then 

because they have incidents and Pu bioassay, it 

looks like they're adequately monitored. And 
77

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there wasn't any routine type Pu exposure at the 

plant without the fission products present.

MEMBER BEACH: What about when they 

machine it? Because I know they machined it in 

one of their processes. Does that create the 

same issue as when they separate it? Or is --

DR. OSTROW: Yes, if you machine 

the spent fuel for some reason, you get all the 

mixed fission products come out also with it. 

So the plutonium is there, but it's buried with 

all the other stuff that you have, which is easy 

to find. You can't miss it.

MEMBER BEACH: So the assay program 

would catch that?

DR. OSTROW: That's right. They 

didn't have any place where they actually 

separated the plutonium out as a separate

stream.

MEMBER BEACH: Got you.

MR. GLECKLER: And because of the 
78

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

radioactivity from the beta-gamma emitters, I 

mean it's typically lethal levels to where it 

would have to be in a hot cell, so.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

MR. GLECKLER: You're not dealing 

with human contact with the plutonium at all. 

Not even with a glove box situation because of 

the radiation levels.

MR. MAURO: This is John. I just 

have a question. And not -- I know that we're 

moving along here. But in effect what I'm 

hearing is that you have data on beta-gamma in 

urine, and OTIB-54, certainly there if you 

know, chosen -- used correctly.

Am I hearing that -- and is there 

anybody for clarification, does that also have 

in the mix plutonium or transuranics that might 

be needed to be addressed? Or have you made a 

case that it's not an important contributor?

In other words, what I'm hearing is 
79

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that because you're working with fission 

products associated with reactor operations, 

and you do have gross beta-gamma readings in 

urine, you don't really need to separately 

monitor for plutonium because it's not 

separated. But do you pick up the -- do you 

somehow pick up the dose contribution by the mix 

that's used in OTIB-54?

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. I can 

address that. OTIB-54 does not address any of 

the plutonium or other actinides. Rev 0 of the 

internal TBD originally had some ratios in it. 

The ratio, the beta-gammas, either strontium or 

cesium to get plutonium estimates.

And one of the issues with the 

initial TBD version was that the radionuclide 

list was too limiting, especially for the 

actinides. When we revised that internal TBD 

that addressed a lot of those issues - t's like 

one of the things that I added was there's a 
80

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

whole set of actinide ratios and there's a 

justification - were only used - we used the 

cesium strontium intake values and use a ratio 

value, and there's several sets depending on 

the fuel type that they might have been exposed 

to.

But you'll have like neptunium, 

plutonium, thorium, uranium and some other 

nuclides that are all included in there. And 

there's only one isotope per actinide, each 

individual actinide that gets assigned. And 

there's a basis for that behind the internal 

TBD.

MR. MAURO: I think I understand. 

When I was reading 54, I remember you starting 

with a very large list of radionuclides that are 

in there, that includes everything we're 

talking about. And you trimmed it down through 

a screening process, down to 17 radionuclides.

Am I correct that you were right, 
81

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

what I'm hearing is that the screening process 

basically got rid of the one -- in other words, 

you kept those radionuclides that could 

contribute 99 percent of the dose. I know, you 

didn't want to have to work with this very, very 

large number of radionuclides, so you screened 

them down.

And was the plutonium for example, 

in some of the transuranics eliminated from 

further consideration in -- explicitly in 

OTIB-54 through that screening process?

MR. GLECKLER: I'm not an expert on 

OTIB-54, but the one thing that I'm pretty sure 

is it's limited to the beta-gamma emitters.

MR. MAURO: Okay. Well I got to 

say, I think -- I think we do have a little bit 

of a question here. And I'm sorry to do this 

to you, Steve.

DR. OSTROW: No, go right ahead.

MR. MAURO: But when I read the 
82

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

answer, I guess my reaction was oh, okay, 

OTIB-54 was generated in a way that 

demonstrated that the plutonium contribution 

is there. I mean we all know that it's there, 

it's part of the mix.

But you know, it's not going to be

an important contributor compared to all those 

other, what I call the 17 radionuclides that 

eventually made it to the table so to speak in 

OTIB-54. If that's the case -- see I was 

operating on the premise that that's the reason 

why we're okay in not explicitly addressing it.

And what I'm hearing is that maybe 

there's still a little bit of a question here. 

I hate to do this when we're in a position where 

we're trying to close something out. But in 

light of the conversation we're having now, I 

might have been wrong about the screening 

process.

I thought that maybe that that was 
83

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

one of the radionuclides that you were able to 

screen out. And therefore you have a technical 

basis not for explicitly including plutonium in 

OTIB-54.

DR. OSTROW: John, I think you're 

going -- what you're saying might be true, but 

it's not germane to this particular issue. It 

may be an OTIB-54 issue. We're reviewing 

OTIB-54 like right this minute.

MR. MAURO: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: We should look at 

OTIB-54, that could be a possible -- I don't 

recall all the -- how the plutonium's treated.

MR. MAURO: Yes, I don't -- I 

remember they had a very nice screening 

process. And I thought that's why the fact 

that the argument was being made here that well, 

there is no need to separately look at 

plutonium, because it's really captured as part 

of the gross beta-gamma ratios, these mixes.
84

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And I was interpreting it that way. 

But maybe I'm misinterpreting it. That's why 

I was arguing that yes, we could close this one 

out. Maybe we can and make it more of an 

OTIB-54 thing. I'm not sure. I need a little 

help here.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu, 

John. I think what Brian just said was that the 

plutonium, or the actinide intake approach for 

Idaho is sort of extra -- it's extracurricular 

to 54. But it relies on the cesium and 

strontium numbers the way 54 does.

So it's not a 54 -- you know it's not 

that we've screened it out in 54, what it is is 

that based on the fuel that these people were 

dealing with, we have a series of ratios of 

cesium or strontium to the actinides that are 

relevant for that particular fuel.

And so the -- in the Site Profile 

itself, there are these ratios and so you were 
85

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

still keying off of either strontium or cesium 

the way 54 does. But in addition to doing the 

54 work, we also have this actinide set that we 

drag into the intake.

MR. MAURO: And then how is the 

plutonium accounted for in that process?

MR. HINNEFELD: By, it's one of the 

actinides that is ratioed to the cesium or 

strontium.

MR. MAURO: I got you.

MR. HINNEFELD: Based on what kind 

of the fuel the person was potentially exposed 

to.

MR. MAURO: I have to say I 

misunderstood that. I thought this goes back 

to 54. You're saying that the -- in the mix

that's used, that it explicitly includes 

plutonium as part of that actinide mix.

Okay, I was -- I thought you were 

referring to OTIB-54.
86

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. GLECKLER: No, it's a similar 

approach though to 54, but it is distinctly 

separate and is site-specific to INL. And it's 

included, embedded in the internal TBD.

MR. MAURO: Got you. I 

understand. I withdraw my concern. I 

understand now. I'm sorry for bringing it up. 

But it does explain it. And I'm satisfied.

MEMBER BEACH: So that's in 007-5?

MR. GLECKLER: Correct.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then just 

a couple more things. So the source documents 

used, what -- because it -- we said at the last 

meeting that NIOSH was going to provide SC&A 

with source documents. Were there other 

documents besides --

DR. OSTROW: No.

MEMBER BEACH: 0007?

DR. OSTROW: No, just the TBD Rev 3.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then 
87

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

does that cover, because I'm just going back 

through the answer. Does that cover the 

laboratory workers? Because it says the 

exemptions -- exceptions, excuse me, to 

the -- these exposure scenarios may have 

included exposures to laboratory workers that 

may have separated and/or handled laboratory 

quantities of plutonium.

We hadn't really talked about the 

laboratory workers. So I just wanted to make 

sure that -- what that exception was, and if it 

was covered. It was a limited number of 

workers. And we're going back to the 

monitoring. I mean we haven't -- how they were 

monitored and --

This just seems like it captures a 

lot. So I want to make sure all of those are 

covered.

MR. GLECKLER: Because with the 

laboratory workers, you're typically dealing 
88

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

with tracer nuclides. If they're doing Pu 

bioassays for all the other workers, they're 

going to involve you know, an un-encapsulated 

plutonium source that -- to get their tracer 

nuclide, which is going to be a plutonium 

isotope.

MEMBER BEACH: So they --

MR. GLECKLER: That's where they 

would have potential for exposure there. 

Every -- I would think that they would be 

monitored. And that it's hard to verify it for 

sure a hundred percent whether or not they were 

monitored or not. It's like usually the ones 

with the potential for exposure that would have 

been monitored at INL.

INL's one of the big things that 

they did, it was -- they did away with routine 

monitoring early on for a lot of work -- for the 

vast majority of their workforce. And went to 

a workplace indicator type of an approach.
89

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And so if there was like a camel arm, 

or some sort of a bench spill, or an incident 

that --

MEMBER BEACH: But that was later 

on, right?

MR. GLECKLER: They would send the 

groups -- that was actually probably as early 

as the 50s when they switched and did away with 

the routine monitoring of a large workforce. 

And that went to a workplace indicator type of 

approach.

So they've been doing that for a 

very long period of time. And so it's like, so 

if there was a group of workers that was 

potentially exposed to a spill area, they would 

send in the ones that were most involved with 

that spill or closest to that spill for bioassay 

measurements. And if they turned up 

positive, they would expand that group and look 

at workers further around, send them in, is our 
90

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

understanding, you know, from their procedures 

and stuff that we've gotten.

And it's one of the things that 

we've also looked at is the sheer number -- you 

know, with them doing that approach and then how 

many bioassay samples that they've taken. And 

that was one of the statistics that we've 

accumulated and that's in the internal TBD now. 

And I have it here.

Let's see, the -- let me just flip 

to that page if I can find it real quick. For 

example they -- in the data that we've captured 

initially for the -- and we've since captured 

some of the more recent bioassay results, but 

this, I could get the dates that it went up to. 

I think it was like around -- up through 1985 

that we initially captured their bioassay 

results.

They had approximately 140,000 

urine bioassays. And out of those about 89,000 
91

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of them were analyzed for gross beta, gross 

gamma and only about -- or less than two percent 

of them were above the MDA.

So that's a very small percent that 

are detectable even. And so what that -- and 

you see in a large number of bioassay -- you 

know, a large monitor of worker -- if I can say 

it right. A large number of workers being 

monitored, and very little of those monitoring 

results being positive. That indicates that 

they're monitoring sufficiently. That 

they're monitoring more workers than need to 

be.

And in comparison, the in vivo 

measurements, they took 95,000 in vivo 

measurements and 69,000 of them were whole body 

counts. And less than ten percent of those 

were above the detection limits. And the in 

vivo measurements at INL were typically much 

more sensitive than the urine bioassays they 
92

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

took.

And so that gives us a pretty 

high -- at least SC&A -- or NIOSH and the ORAU 

team, it gives us a pretty good level of 

confidence that they did adequate monitoring. 

It's like when they monitored that many, you 

know poll that many bioassay samples and that 

low of a percentage is actually you know, 

detectible.

So it looks like they had a pretty 

good program in our opinion.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Can I pick up on 

Josie's comments here, because I think what 

she's looking at is this case, the exceptions. 

And the way I understand this, and see if this 

is right. Is that normally they didn't have to 

look at the bioassay samples for plutonium 

because the plutonium was not separated out. 

So they could determine it by the cesium or 

strontium ratios.
93

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

However, they had some sporadic 

plutonium bioassay data. And the question is, 

why would they have had that. And I think in 

this case it said it was probably because 

in -- that there were a few workers who were 

probably working and separated it. And in 

those cases they needed to look for plutonium.

Is that what that's saying?

MR. GLECKLER: As far as from a 

reprocessing standpoint, they did not 

reprocess the plutonium. But there were 

some -- like an incident, the NCR incident that 

I alluded to, if I recall correctly was like a 

fuel -- you know, like a pin that they were 

irradiating that was a plutonium source. And 

I think that pin, that the encapsulating 

material burst on it and leaked out the 

plutonium. Whereas normally they wouldn't 

even process that pin on site.

And then the other scenario was at 
94

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the ICPP, which is their reprocessing facility, 

where they didn't separate out the plutonium, 

but they did separate out the neptunium-237. 

But the majority, because it's got a low -- very 

low specific activity and it's kind of related, 

because it's also an actinide, it's like they 

also -- one of the impurities of that is 

plutonium, and the higher specific activity of 

the plutonium dominates that material, so. 

But that was typically all handled in hot cells.

So you've got a few rare instances. 

Because this is a very large facility. You're 

always going to have instances where, you know, 

especially with like lab workers, they're going 

to be dealing with liquid samples and that of 

unconfined plutonium. Because they're 

actively -- that's where they'll actively 

separate it for a urine bioassay, for instance.

MEMBER ROESSLER: But doesn't this 

basically say that it's covered. That they 
95

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have it covered because they did do some of 

those -- they call it here the sporadic 

plutonium bioassay data. Isn't that what they 

count?

MEMBER BEACH: Well they're saying 

that's why it accounts for this, could be why 

they have sporadic bioassay.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. And that 

it covers that exception is the way I read it.

MR. MAURO: That was my 

understanding too, Gen, just as you described.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes. To date I don't 

recall seeing any INL claims for like their lab 

workers that were involved. So it's hard to 

answer that until we see one of those claims and 

the bioassay data associated with it.

But for the incidents, the ones that 

I have seen, there's bioassay data associated 

with it. So they did get and did do internal 
96

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dose estimates for them back then. Even though 

we don't use the internal does -- you know, the 

estimated internal doses that they came up 

with, we reevaluate their data.

But they come up with their own for 

this project. But there is sufficient data in 

those instances for us to reconstruct the 

doses.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, lab 

workers are going to be in a class of 

themselves, though, just from the standpoint 

that they're going to be basically looking at 

small quantities and they're going to be trying 

to break it down into a much finer level then 

you would if you're just reprocessing it, I 

mean.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, they're not 

dealing with production quantities at this 

facility.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what I 
97

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

mean, so.

MR. GLECKLER: I guess that's the 

big thing that usually most of these site will 

focus on the production activities. Did they 

have any production activities associated with 

plutonium? No they did not.

MEMBER BEACH: But they obviously 

had some small stuff happening in the labs.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: That has to be 

accounted for also. And does -- Steve have you 

looked at that in those terms, based on that 

exception if --

DR. OSTROW: No, we didn't look at 

the labs.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, unless 

anybody else has any comments. Jim, you got 

any?

MEMBER BEACH: So is there any more 

work to be done on this do you think, Steve? Or 
98

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are you still comfortable with closing it?

DR. OSTROW: I think we're 

comfortable with closing this. It's like, I 

don't think it would really be fruitful to track 

down all the lab activities. It's very small 

quantities in the lab, and it's like, you know 

anything would be like a one-off exposure that 

would be noted at the time. It's not a routine 

exposure.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Plus they were 

working in hot cells and if there had been a 

problem, that would have been identified, I 

would think.

DR. OSTROW: Yeah.

MEMBER BEACH: Hopefully.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I 

guess -- okay, Jim? Are you on the phone? No, 

I guess not, okay.

DR. OSTROW: So close?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we'll 
99

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

call that one closed.

DR. OSTROW: All right.

MEMBER ROESSLER: When do we plan 

on a break?

MR. KATZ: Do you need a break?

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Okay. How about taking 

a 15 minute break.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

MR. KATZ: So it's about 10:30, so 

quarter of.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 10:27 a.m. and 

resumed at 10:46 a.m.)

DR. OSTROW: Okay. This is Steve 

again. The issues that we recommend the Work 

Group close -- we're up to Issue 17, and that 

appears on page 38 of our review report, and 

this has to do occupational external dose, in 

particular the original issue. NIOSH should 
100

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reevaluate the missed gamma dose due to the 

deficiencies in the procedures and algorithms, 

which were sort of general. But it came down 

to -- NIOSH responded the under-reporting of 

the penetrating photon doses to INL due to the 

two-element film dosimeter's limitation for 

measuring low-energy photon doses is a much 

less of a significant situation for the 

majority of the exposure scenarios than what is 

being indicated by SC&A. 

SC&A=s comment was pretty general. 

NIOSH focused us a little bit. What we're 

really talking about is the two-element film 

dosimeter. And this is not an INL issue in 

particular. This is a general nuclear 

industry issue for using two-element film 

dosimeters in those days until they switched to 

the electronic dosimeters.

And NIOSH responded with a long 

paragraph here talking about the ratio of open 
101

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

window to the shut window readings for the 

dosimeter, the two-element dosimeters and 

saying that the crux of the matter, the open 

window readings for two-element film 

dosimeters had a significant over-response to 

low-energy photons so that an unusual amount of 

blackening of the film -- that's how they 

registered radiation dose and the film actually

blackened. 

So the unusual amount would be 

observed when the dosimeter is exposed to 

low-energy photons. So that if you had an OW, 

open window to S reading ratio that was 

significantly higher than usual, it would be an 

indication that the worker's non-penetrating 

dose contained a significant contribution from 

low-energy photons. So therefore, you know, I 

mean you wouldn't be missing any low-energy 

photons when you're reading the film badges.

We looked at our action item from 
102

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the last Work Group meeting. We were supposed 

to read the current version of the external 

exposure TBD and reassess the issue. So we did 

and we discovered that that portion of the 

revised TBD did not change anything. It didn't 

change the wording with regard to this issue. 

So we liked NIOSH's response though 

that they sent us that's printed here. So we 

recommended that the Work Group close the issue 

with the proviso that NIOSH include the 

write-up that's here or something similar in 

the next revision of the TBD. We thought this 

explained it very nicely.

MEMBER BEACH: So would it be in the 

TBD-007-6, or 7-5?

DR. OSTROW: 7-6. This is 

occupational external.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Because it 

says provide the --

DR. OSTROW: No, I see that.
103

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: -- response into 

006. So I was confused on that, too.

DR. OSTROW: Oh, that's a good 

question. I got it wrong in one of the places.

MEMBER BEACH: So down under your 

reassessment it says five instead of six.

DR. OSTROW: That's right. That 

should be a six down there.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So I just 

wanted to make sure.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, when I typed it I 

got the wrong --

MEMBER BEACH: So don't we 

typically leave those like in abeyance until 

that is completed? Not that I don't agree with 

your suggestion.

DR. OSTROW: I don't think so, 

because this is not giving me directions to the 

dose reconstructor at all.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
104

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: This is just 

clarifying for us that the --

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: -- what the situation 

is. So this is more for an SC&A thing. And we 

want to be satisfied that this issue was taken 

care of. It doesn't change how the dose 

reconstructor would reconstruct dose in this 

case.

MEMBER BEACH: It's just how you 

understand what the --

DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's just --

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: So maybe we could 

close it just with NIOSH -- just saying that it 

include this statement or something similar 

next time they revise the TBD. Does that sound 

okay, Stu?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We'd 
105

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

recommend we close it then.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. That was 

quick. Anybody else have any comments on this?

(No response.)

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So we'll mark 

it closed. 

So the next open issue is -- where 

are we? Oh, okay. Eighteen. It's the next 

page, or the page after next. So 18 is on page 

40 of the SC&A review. 

MEMBER BEACH: You did the same 

thing on the numbering down below, 205 instead 

of 06.

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: Other than that --

DR. OSTROW: You wouldn't believe 

how many times we proofread this thing.

MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I can imagine.

DR. OSTROW: And still there can be 

stupid things like this. 
106

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Okay. Issue 18 is called 

Corrections With Beta Doses. And this is also 

external dose TBD. And the issue we had, NIOSH 

had developed a method to consistently account 

for uncertainties in dosimetry readings 

claiming favorable correction factors should 

be developed with beta dose reconstruction. 

That was the issue.

And you should realize that all 

these issues, while we're putting in the 

matrices that summarizes everything plus this 

SC&A document is just a shorthand issue, you 

have to go back to the original review report. 

Some of these issues go on for like several 

pages, hopefully. You know, there's a lot more 

detail there than here in the summary. 

NIOSH gave a whole treatise here in 

the response on how they handled external dose. 

And they note that table 6-9 in the TBD; that's 

the current version, provides correction 
107

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

factors for under-reporting beta doses. And 

gives some background information. they quote 

OCAS-IG-001 and so forth talking about photon 

energy distributions and splits between 

different things. That's also from the 

OCAS-IG-001. And it goes on. 

And similar to Issue 17, our action 

item was to review the applicable portions of 

the current TBD. We reviewed it and our 

finding was that NIOSH didn't make any changes 

as a result of this observation. However, the 

information they provided in their response, 

this whole-page response, is really good, that 

clarified for SC&A that they're using the right 

procedure. And just like the last issue, we 

recommend that the Work Group close this issue 

with the understanding that NIOSH will 

incorporate a write-up like this or similar to 

this in the next edition of the TBD, next 

revision of it.
108

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And as before, this doesn't affect the dose 

reconstruction. This is just background 

information.

Stu, would NIOSH also commit to 

providing some sort of a write-up in the next 

revision of the TBD?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: In the last 

little section on NIOSH's comments they talk 

about the correction factor used at the SRS. 

Is that Savannah River Site that you're talking 

about?

DR. OSTROW: Yes. I think in 

SC&A's large comment, the one that goes on for 

a few pages, that we mention that Savannah River 

uses this correction factor, 1.119. And 

NIOSH's comment back is that's very 

site-specific. It's not an INL correction 

factor.
109

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Thank 

you.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, and the other 

thing NIOSH at the very end said if SC&A has 

encountered any specific examples where INL 

workers' penetrating dose was likely 

under-reported that NIOSH would be willing to 

investigate this potential further. That must 

have been some comments from our last Work Group 

meeting. And I guess I'm just curious. Did 

SC&A explore that at all or --

DR. OSTROW: No, we didn't go 

through that. 

MEMBER BEACH: So then there wasn't 

anything, any specific examples?

DR. OSTROW: We didn't have any 

specific examples in mind.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: NIOSH gave us a little 

bit of a put-up-or-shut-up-type of a comment on 
110

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that, you know?

(Laughter.)

DR. OSTROW: If you think it's a --

you know, show us where it's important, which 

is okay. That's fair.

MEMBER BEACH: Was there any work 

done to look for anything or just you were --

DR. OSTROW: No, we were satisfied 

with NIOSH's response here. This is a good 

response.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We'll 

say 18 is closed.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Everybody 

agree on that?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. And NIOSH will 

incorporate some words in there, next revision 

of the TBD.
111

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Next one is 20, 

Issue 20, which is on page 43. And this is also 

occupational external dose TBD. Okay. Our 

issue was it's not claimant favorable to state 

that the entire dose measured in the open window 

is due to beta dose. This refers now also to 

the same thing. We have the two-part film 

badges, open and closed windows. 

And NIOSH's response, open window 

beta dose is discussed in OCAS-IG-001. And 

NIOSH again asked, please provide a basis for 

these opinions, whereas SC&A found data 

supporting less than 30 keV photons. And the 

action item from the last Work Group meeting was 

SC&A should review applicable portions of the 

current version of the external exposure TBD 

and recess the issues. And this is related to 

Issues 17 and 18 we were just talking about. 

It's the same film badge-type issue.
112

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

In this case we reviewed Revision 3. 

That's the latest revision. It shows that 

NIOSH revised Section 6.5.3 to address this 

issue. So NIOSH specifically addressed it 

there. We reviewed the revised section and 

believe that addressed the issue adequately and 

we consider it resolved now. I don't have the 

section in front of me so I can't say exactly 

what is in there, but when we reviewed it they 

addressed this issue. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: This doesn't 

really explain --

DR. OSTROW: No.

MEMBER ROESSLER: -- how they 

resolved it, so I'm not sure where we stand on 

this. 

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I know, we didn't 

include more explanatory information. I don't 

have a copy of the TBD.

MEMBER ROESSLER: It has something 
113

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to do with less than 30 keV photons.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Would you like me 

to try to find it?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, maybe one of the 

NIOSH folks can weigh in here. Section 6.5.3.

MEMBER BEACH: I have that up if you 

want to look through it, Steve, because you 

could probably find it -- 6. --

DR. OSTROW: 6.5.3.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm almost there. 

Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: What page is it?

MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- oh, gosh. 

Page No. --

DR. OSTROW: Forty?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Forty, yes, 

titled, "Missed Electron Dose." It looks like 

it's about half a page long, if you'd want to 

me to read it. 
114

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Let's see. "Missed Electron Dose" 

is the title of the section. "Non-penetrating 

dose is important for certain cancers; for 

example, skin, breast and testes, et cetera, 

because the non-penetrating and penetrating 

doses were measured by the same dosimeter 

because a dosimeter's LODs for electron doses 

are sometimes higher than the LODs for photon 

doses. And because of dosimeter correction 

factors that only get applied to electron doses 

are sometimes significant, special 

instructions are needed for assigning the 

missed doses for cancer locations affected by 

non-penetrating radiation. 

"The following are the special 

instructions for each situation that may be 

encountered for the affected cancer location: 

When the reported" -- this is No. 1. "When the 

reported non-penetrating result for a 

dosimeter is less than its electron LOD over 2 
115

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

value and the corresponding penetrating result 

is greater than its photon LOD over 2 value, a 

missed dose is assigned as a greater than 15 keV 

electron dose due to using the applicable 

parameters for electron dose." That's one 

situation.

No. 2 is, "For instances when the 

non-penetrating and penetrating doses for a 

dosimeter are both below the respective 

electron and photon LOD over 2 values. The 

missed dose is calculated as an electron dose 

using the applicable parameters for electron 

doses that is assigned as a more favorable to 

the claimant 30 to 50 keV photon dose."

And circumstance No. 3 is, "When the 

reported non-penetrating result for a 

dosimeter is greater than its electron LOD over 

2 value and the corresponding penetrating 

result is less than its photon LOD over 2 value, 

a missed dose is assigned as a 30 to 250 keV 
116

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

photon dose using the applicable parameters for 

photon dose."

So it describes how to treat and 

what radiation type to assign for the 

instances -- you know, the three possible 

circumstances where you've got neither one 

detectable, neither the photon nor the beta 

detectable. In one case the photon is 

detectable, but the non-penetrating is not. 

And in the third case the non-penetrating 

detectable of the photon is not. So that's the 

instruction that's provided in 6.5.3.

DR. MAURO: Hey, Stu, this is John. 

That sounds an awful lot like it came out of 

OTIB-17. Is that basically the OTIB-17 

procedure, because I know we reviewed that and 

we've been finding favorably with that 

approach.

MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt Smith 

with the ORAU Team, and that's exactly it. I 
117

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

remember Brian asked -- I was talking with Brian 

about this a long time ago and that's exactly 

right.

DR. MAURO: Yes, we've gone through 

this and we use it when we do our DR reviews or 

we do our blind DRs. So OTIB-17 is a very 

mature document that's undergone a lot of 

consideration. And what we just heard is 

basically -- the INL is going to adopt -- is 

using OTIB-17 for dealing with this beta open 

window -- or penetrating/non-penetrating 

approach in open window. So I think we're 

okay.

MEMBER BEACH: I don't have any 

questions on that one.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

any questions.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't either, 

but I think the NIOSH response as written here 

is not very good. This last one, 30 keV photons 
118

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

is confusing there. 

DR. MAURO: It's a real 

brainteaser, let me tell you. It took a while 

for it to sink in.

MR. KATZ: Is that closed?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I think everyone 

agreed that it's closed.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Maybe when SC&A writes 

this up -- I'll talk to John -- maybe we'll 

say -- just put a note that this is the OTIB-17 

approach just so that people can keep track of 

it, that this wasn't invented new for INL.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it was the site 

specific guidance for the decision was maybe 

incorporated into the TBD versus OTIB-17.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. GLECKLER: Been batted around 

for a long time.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. Yes, so we'll 
119

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

make some sort of a note --

MR. GLECKLER: -- where to put that 

guidance.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, so if people want 

to track it, they can see that it's OTIB-17 

basically. 

Okay. Next one is Issue 21, which 

is on page 44. This is also external dose, and 

this has to do with photon spectrum split. And 

this gets into a little bit physics 

nitty-gritty here. And the issue, NIOSH 

should provide guidance assigning dose values 

for the 30 keV is less than E photon energy and 

less than 250 keV. So that's one energy group 

between 30 keV and 250 keV. And the greater 

than 250 keV regions. 

So NIOSH wanted to provide guidance 

how they decide which group that an exposure 

falls. And NIOSH responded photon energy 

ranges are based upon the predominant 
120

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

radionuclides found in the work place. Okay. 

Scenarios like those discussed by an SC&A 

report would be reconstructed on a case-by-case 

basis. And they asked us then, please provide 

a basis for these statements and for the SC&A 

opinion that a 50/50 energy range is more 

appropriate. Okay. I understand.

We had commented that we thought a 

50/50 energy range split between the low-energy 

group and the high-energy group would be 

appropriate. And our action item, that we 

should explain why a 50/50 split between low and 

high-energy photon energy groups is preferable 

to the 25/75 split assumed by NIOSH. So NIOSH 

is assuming that 25 percent of the photon energy 

is in the low group and 75 percent in the high 

group. And we had made an opinion that maybe 

50/50 is more appropriate.

Further, NIOSH basically repeated 

its statement again. So we did a further 
121

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

review and we looked into this. And, well, our 

further review said that -- we talked about how 

a dose is recorded on a film badge, and 

typically a dose is recorded in three different 

energy groups: less than 30 keV, which is low 

energy. That's typically X-rays emitted by 

the transuranics. Then you have a typo here. 

It's 30 to 250 keV for X-rays and many 

radionuclides. And greater than 250 keV for 

the high-energy photon emitters. 

NIOSH used its judgment on how to 

make this split. The split is made because the 

risk conversion factors, risk per rad is 

energy-dependent. That's what you're really 

concerned about, the conversion factor, this 

energy-dependent conversion factor. And 

NIOSH says they do this on a case-by-case basis 

and judge the reasonableness of this split on 

a case-by-case basis. And we note that for INL 

there's a really wide range of radionuclides. 
122

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Since INL was dealing with pretty much 

everything, every radionuclide under the sun is 

there. 

So we concur with NIOSH's response 

and recommend the Work Group close this issue, 

that we defer to NIOSH's on this, basically.

MEMBER BEACH: So what was NIOSH's 

response, though, that they were going to use 

a case-by-case? I guess I'm missing what the 

full answer is.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, and I'm kind 

of confused by the 50/50. If they=re doing it 

case-by-case, it seems like it's going to vary 

rather than be a 50/50.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, once again, I 

don't have the TBD in front of me. Maybe NIOSH 

can elucidate a little bit with --

MEMBER BEACH: Well, I have it, but 

I looked for it last night and I looked for it 

just now. I don't know where it's listed in the 
123

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TBD. Because I'm assuming we're using -6 

again, right?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, this is the 

external.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, the energy 

distribution information is on page 28.

MEMBER BEACH: Of the TBD?

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, table 6-9. 

And generally we'll use the 25/75 split for any 

of the facilities that have mixed fission 

products. So the reactor is the ICPP, which is 

a reprocessing facility. And then waste 

facilities, what they call the uranium 

handling, is actually the SMC, and that's sort 

of I guess a more unique one where it gets a 90 

percent/10 percent split because they're 

dealing with depleted uranium and they don't 

have the mixed fission products at that 

location.

MEMBER ROESSLER: So is SC&A saying 
124

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that -- I'm confused as to whether you 

recommended a 25/75 ratio or --

DR. OSTROW: I think it's our 

understanding that NIOSH is using the 25/75 

split in general, but in specific cases they're 

using something different, which is more 

tailored to the specific case. Did I get it 

right, NIOSH?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's tailored 

to the location the person was working. 

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: So in that essence, 

it's tailored to the claim. Claims working in 

SMC, which is a depleted uranium facility, then 

they'll get the 90 in the intermediate range and 

10 in the upper range. But for the places where 

you have largely a mixed fission product 

inventory, like the chem plant and the 

reactor -- you know, test reactors where 

probably if they're doing anything they're 
125

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

examining the spent pins, you know, the target 

pins in the hot cells where you have largely a 

fission product. And I think in one of our 

answers we even talked about we had run some 

codes to like estimate -- maybe that was on 54.

MR. GLECKLER: That's kind of what 

I was trying to --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I thought we 

had run some codes in one of other responses, 

not -- separate from 54 I think we ran codes to 

indicate what -- where we had some information 

about the kinds of isotope inventories, and 75 

percent sort of understates the high-energy 

inventory. 

Now the reason why that's important 

is that the risk factor, the risk per ran factor 

is higher for the intermediate energy range. 

So by underestimating the fraction that's in 

the highest energy range, we're overestimating 

the amount in the more hazardous intermediate 
126

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

range. Okay? 

And then when you go to SMC, we put 

almost all the photon energy into the 

intermediate range because it's depleted 

uranium and that's where the photons tend to be. 

DR. OSTROW: I see. So what you're 

saying basically that the actual photon energy 

split per se doesn't really matter. It's the 

risk that you're really concerned about to the 

person --

MR. HINNEFELD: We want to --

DR. OSTROW: -- maximize the risk 

to the person.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we want to 

make sure that our dose reconstruction doesn't 

understate the risk. And so if you try to put 

too fine a point on percentages, you know, like 

the upper range and lower range, you just don't 

have the knowledge to put too fine a point on 

it. Seventy-five percent seems like a nice 
127

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dividing point which would cover us, meaning we 

would overestimate the percentage in the 

intermediate range for these facilities where 

we're using it. And it was a nice clean cut 

point. You don't have to mess around with 

saying use 89 percent in the chem plant or 

something, which was one of the figures I saw 

in here earlier. So I think that's why we 

arrived at these fractions.

MEMBER BEACH: I think we need a 

clearer answer from SC&A on this for me, because 

I don't think SC&A really gives us the full --

what -- I don't even know who looked at this for 

SC&A. And basically all you're saying is 

you've judged the reasonableness of the split 

on a case-by-case basis, but you don't really 

give us any information to what you looked at, 

how you determined that that was appropriate, 

I guess.

DR. OSTROW: Well, we didn't 
128

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

document it here. It's basically --

MEMBER BEACH: It could be just a 

case of that.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: What I heard was 

basically what Stu said, that they overestimate 

in the area where the risk is higher, and 

that's --

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and I'm not 

saying it's wrong. I'm just saying I don't 

think we have a complete answer.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I think that last 

sentence is confusing, but otherwise it's 

pretty straightforward.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I understand 

that. Sometimes when we're resolving these 

issues we did a little bit in shorthand and got 

a little bit lazy and didn't put another couple 

of paragraphs of explanation.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So if we have 
129

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

a claimant comes in and he says, you know, well, 

I was with the fire alarm maintenance -- so he 

goes from area to area, building to building 

constantly. You would use this kind of 

mid-range thing for him. Is that what I'm 

understanding? 

MR. GLECKLER: Well, based on their

dosimetry they'll get a different dosimeter for 

each major operating area that they go into.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But they go in 

and out of operating areas on a constant --

MR. GLECKLER: They'll wear a 

different dosimeter to go in those areas.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Every 

building would have a different dosimeter?

MR. GLECKLER: Yes. Well, not 

every building. Every operating area. So 

like the ICPP, which has numerous buildings for 

that operating area. Like everyone that goes 

into that operating area will have a location 
130

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

code on that dosimeter for that specific 

operating area.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, okay.

MR. GLECKLER: But if they go over 

to the MTR, another -- you know, or the TRA, more 

generically, they'll have another location 

code for that dosimeter that we can -- so some 

of the workers will have five dosimeters for the 

same monitoring period so we can tell that 

that's what they're doing, they're going from 

one facility to the next.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

That's not a policy I'm familiar with, because 

us, we have one dosimeter no matter where and 

own often you were in and out of both 

facilities.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, and I think 

that's changed. That may have changed in the 

modern area. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Are you 
131

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

saying I was with the dinosaurs? Okay.

MR. GLECKLER: No, all we're saying 

your technique was the modern era.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, yours would be 

the modern era. So you're ahead of your time.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I do kind of 

remember pterodactyls being cute.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because we 

don't see the location codes for the more 

recent -- after 1998 we don't see the location 

codes for those facilities.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, God, I was 

long gone. I don't have a problem with it. Do 

you, Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I'd like to see a 

clearer answer from SC&A, but that's just --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I think 

that's a verbiage thing more than anything 

else.
132

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Well, yes. 

DR. OSTROW: Well, we're going to 

revise our matrix, you know, so we can easily 

add at the uppermost ends a paragraph or two 

just to work --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Just close 

out.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, to close out.

MEMBER BEACH: I'd be fine with 

that.

DR. MAURO: You know, I think it 

would be helpful to this 50/50 number. I 

haven't seen that before and I'm not sure if 

that was something that was originally used in 

the TBD, or it was something that we in our great 

wisdom back in 2006 thought it might be a more 

prudent split. 

So, yes, Josie, I agree with you. A 

little bit more verbiage here explaining, I 

guess, where the 50/50 came from. It's not 
133

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

apparent to me whether that was something NIOSH 

put forth or something we put forth.

MEMBER BEACH: No, it was SC&A.

MR. KATZ: No, that was SC&A.

DR. MAURO: That was us. Yes, and 

it may have been something that was brought 

forth very early on. And now that we have 

gained such experience, I understand the 

current method that NIOSH uses with these 

splits as described is certainly reasonable. 

And I know when I check DRs, we can see what the 

splits are and the rationale for them. 

And, okay, that 50/50, if that was 

ours, I think that was just something that we 

might have brought up very early on before we 

knew very much more about all this.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I was reading 

this stuff recently, I mean, our full review, 

and I think that we came up with the 50/50 and 

I don't think it was that well-grounded in 
134

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

science at that time. It was like early 2005 

or --

DR. MAURO: Yes, I think that's the 

problem here. You're right. And we could 

certainly fix that in the write-up for this 

issue. So, you know, we're the cause of the 

confusion.

MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 

I mean, I don't think we should close this out 

until we get an explanation.

MR. KATZ: Well, I think we have the 

explanation, Jim.

MEMBER MELIUS: Well, we have an 

explanation that is pretty convoluted, trying 

to listen to it.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, it's clear 

to me. If they can take care of that 50/50 

thing, I think the rest of it's clear.

MEMBER MELIUS: Well, but I want to 

see it. That's all. That's what Josie said, 
135

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

also.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I 

think Stu's comment about it being more 

claimant-friendly, the 25/75 split, put that in 

there so people understand rather than trying 

to pinpoint --

MR. HINNEFELD: There was 

information that we saw today at some point 

where we even talked about -- we estimated what 

percentage of the photon dose from ICPP would 

be in the high range and what estimate from like 

MTR would be. I'm pretty sure I saw it today 

because I didn't know it before today. And it 

showed those percentages based on something we 

did. And so that supports the conclusion here. 

So I think referring to that would be part of 

the write-up.

MR. KATZ: So, Steve, you'll take 

care of that?
136

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: Should we take care of 

this or should NIOSH take of this? What do you 

think?

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We can 

write it.

DR. OSTROW: Can NIOSH write it? 

Okay. So we'll leave this open item.

MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, I think it's a 

two-way because if NIOSH writes it, then SC&A --

MR. HINNEFELD: What we'll do is 

we'll write something and we share it with 

everybody --

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- SC&A and the 

Work Group Members, and say this is what we 

think. And whether we do that extra -- you 

know, I think we will do it as a proposed 

addition to the revised matrix that Steve is 

probably going to repair. How does that sound?
137

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Well, or what 

section it is, because just going back in and 

looking at it it's not clear in SC&A's write-up. 

MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

MR. KATZ: It sounds like Jim was 

asking for SC&A to explain why they suggested

originally the 50/50.

MEMBER BEACH: And then agreed with 

the other.

DR. OSTROW: Oh, okay.

MR. KATZ: And now that's changed. 

So --

DR. OSTROW: Okay. SC&A --

MR. KATZ: -- SC&A can do that piece 

of the writing.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Oh, here's a 

question, Ted, procedurally. Okay. We have 

this little action item that if NIOSH writes 

this up and we provide a little piece on what 

happened with the 50/50 --
138

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KATZ: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: -- and if we dismiss 

the 50/50 as not being applicable anymore, and 

everybody looks at it and agrees, can that be 

closed then or do you actually need a Work Group 

formal meeting to close it?

MR. KATZ: We might as well just 

close it at the next Work Group meeting, yes.

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MR. KATZ: So we get the Work 

Group's nod on it. 

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Next one is 

Issue 26, which is on page 50, and this is also 

external dose. And it's called "Minimum 

Detection Level," and it refers to gammas. The 

issue was NIOSH should reevaluate the approach 

in determining the MDL; that's the minimum 

detection limit, of the dosimetry system by 

taking into account the system uncertainties.

Okay. We expanded the issue a 
139

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

little later. The selection of 10 millirem as 

the MDL for high-energy gamma is questionable. 

Even for modern densitometers and film it is a 

challenge to achieve this level as a single 

density click can correspond to greater than 10 

millirem for high-energy gamma radiation.

Okay. In English, when you read 

film badges, or did read film badges, you have 

an optical device, a densitometer that looks at 

the film badge, which is a film, and sees the 

density of the exposed crystals in it. It's 

measuring that. And we were concerned that the 

high-energy photons -- that a single step in the 

density can correspond to greater than 10 

millirem. So we're not sure how it can have a 

lower MDL of 10 millirem if a single change in 

the density is greater than 10 millirem. And 

we say this in our problem for intermediate and 

lower-energy gamma rays. 

And we go on and we say if the claim 
140

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is made that 10 millirem is a valid choice for 

the MDL, then we want supporting material such 

as film dose to density curves and densitometer 

calibration data. And we mention other sites. 

And we looked at Savannah River, for example, 

have adopted 40 millirems to high-energy gamma 

MDL for early film. So rather than 10 

millirem, Savannah River went to 40 millirem. 

NIOSH's response here, this 

observation is similar to Issue 27, which is the 

next issue. And the response to that finding 

also satisfies this one. 

So we have to go to Issue 27 in a 

minute to audit that. 

MEMBER BEACH: That one's open for 

further discussion.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: So are you 

suggesting that if we close 26 it's going to be 

captured in 27 or -- because the response isn't 
141

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

really adequate for 26.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. I think in this 

case that we recommend -- okay. Issue 27 is 

minimum reporting level for beta gamma. And we 

think that Issue 27 addresses really both, 

basically that Issue 26 has been subsumed into 

Issue 27. That's what we're saying. So we 

think that Issue 26 should be closed out and 

addressed in Issue 27. Does that make sense?

MR. KATZ: It seems like you might 

as well get into 27 before you decide about --

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. KATZ: -- closing this or 

whatever. 

DR. OSTROW: Oh, okay. 

DR. MAURO: We often transfer. 

We've done this on the procedures. When you 

have a -- one issue is really subsumed by 

another. Rather than clutter, we probably 

should track 27 and not worry about 26 because 
142

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's really a sub-part of 27. 

MEMBER BEACH: Well, and the 

problem with that is you don't really capture 

that in 27, at least not that you've listed 

here.

MR. KATZ: That's what I'm going to 

suggest. Why don't we just discuss 27 and then 

we'll know whether we can go with that or not?

MEMBER BEACH: Or table it until we 

finish with the closed items and come back to 

it.

MEMBER ROESSLER: That makes more 

sense. Table it and do the closed items, 

recommended closed. 

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

DR. MAURO: If this was the 

Procedures Subcommittee, the label that would 

have been given to 26 would have been 

"transferred." That's how they deal with this 

kind of issue.
143

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.)

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I wasn't quite 

sure on this procedurally.

DR. MAURO: Yes, as opposed to 

closing it.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. So what I'm 

hearing is to leave it open for now, because 

Issue 27 we think is still open.

DR. MAURO: Right.

DR. OSTROW: So the resolution of 

Issue 27, we should make sure that when we --

and NIOSH should make sure that when Issue 27 

is resolved it also adds Issue 26 so we're 

closing both at the same time.

DR. MAURO: Right. 

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So 26 I think 

will remain open for now.

MR. KATZ: Unfortunately they're 

consecutive here.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I know. 
144

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, except we're 

not -- we're dealing with a recommended 

closing, which takes us to 29.

DR. OSTROW: Too many issues to 

deal with, to keep track of them. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't think 

we're going to get through as far as that I 

thought.

DR. OSTROW: We're moving along. 

We haven't had any violent disagreements on any 

of it.

MEMBER BEACH: Yet.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No, anybody 

that loses their temper buys me a steak.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, okay.

MEMBER BEACH: So 29 is the next 

one, right?

DR. OSTROW: Twenty-nine is the 

next one. This is also external. And this is 

on failure to properly address neutron 
145

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

exposures. Okay. So here's the -- oh, okay. 

I remember this one now. We solved the issue. 

We make a statement; and I think Phil had 

mentioned before, and INL had 52 reactors. 

Most of them were experimental prototype in 

design. A lot of them were high-powered --

some of them were low-powered, but some of them 

were high-powered densities. And we say it's 

unjustified to presume that there are no missed 

neutron doses given the number of reactors you 

have and the fact that they're all experimental 

and so forth and so on. 

And we note there were also deficiencies 

associated with neutron calibrations back in 

the day. That was a preference.

And talking about neutron 

calibration, we say due to the use of the 

polonium-beryllium source in the neutron 

calibration, dosimeters would significantly 

under-measure neutron doses from sources with 
146

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lower energy spectrum. NIOSH should 

reevaluate the entire approach in the TBD to 

account for potential missed neutron doses. 

We noted that they're using 

plutonium-beryllium sources in neutron 

calibration and we thought this would cause 

missed neutron doses. We expanded the issue at 

some point later than that. We noted that the 

section of the TBD -- we thought it was a bit 

circular, that if no neutron dose was assigned 

to the worker or coworker for several months, 

the dose reconstructor should assume that the 

person was not exposed to neutrons.

And we made the comment this doesn't 

allow for individual workers having temporary 

or varying assignments. Also, if the program 

failed to correctly identify that they should 

have been monitored, the record will show no 

assigned neutron dose.

And the TBD makes the assumption 
147

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that high-Z materials, those dense materials 

such as iron and lead were never used. And we 

put down, for example, shield penetrations in 

place of hydrogenous materials such as water 

and concrete. However, no attempt is made to 

validate or qualify the assumption. 

And we also make the note here that 

OTIB-51, which talks about missed neutron dose 

at Oak Ridge's Y-12 facility was issued after 

the original Site Profile came out and has 

bearing on neutron dosimetry issues and it 

should be considered in this TBD.

So NIOSH responded here, and they 

respond basically the inappropriate 

instructions discount an INL worker's missed 

neutron dose has been eliminated from the 

section of the TBD. They're talking about now 

the latest TBD. So they eliminated that. And 

they note that OTIB-23 is considered an 

appropriate basis for eliminating unreasonably 
148

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

high missed neutron doses for some claims and 

say the neutron dosimeters at INL were only 

assigned and read when there was a potential for 

exposure. 

And that given that most of the 

reported neutron dosimeter results were 

reported as zero, the INL's process to 

determine who had the potential to receive 

neutron exposures appears to be appropriately 

adequate. And the guidance provided in Rev. 3 

of the external TBD; that's the current one, now 

requires missed neutron doses to be assessed 

for every worker using the reported neutron 

dosimeter results unless the missed neutron 

doses are unreasonably high per the guidance in 

OTIB-23. Okay. It goes on a little bit.

The Work Group action item from the 

last meeting: SC&A should review the applicable 

portions of the current versions in external 

exposure TBD and reassess the issue. So we 
149

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

read the current version of the TBD and we agree 

with NIOSH's response provided above. We 

reviewed the Rev. 3 and we found that the 

neutron correction factors given in the TBD are 

comparable to the ones given in the OTIB-51 

guidance, which is table 8-1 of it.

Finally, we reviewed OTIB-0023 

under the Procedures Review Subcommittee and 

originally identified eight findings. All 

eight of those findings are discussed and all 

are closed now. So we reviewed the OTIB-23 and 

all the findings are closed. So we consider 

the issue to be resolved and recommend that the 

Work Group close it.

MEMBER BEACH: Boy, this one's --

DR. OSTROW: Yes, this is a little 

complicated.

MEMBER BEACH: -- complicated, 

because you're using OTIB-23, 007-6, 6.5.4, 

table 5, which I'm looking at. And hopefully 
150

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

SC&A looked at it, too.

DR. OSTROW: We did.

MEMBER BEACH: And then OTIB-51, 

table 8-1. Where do you start this? 

DR. OSTROW: Well, we think 

basically the main document is that the -- we 

are reviewing all the procedures here. We're 

looking at the actual Site Profile --

MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

DR. OSTROW: -- for the TBD. And 

we think that the instructions are given as they 

stand right now in the TBD are correct and they 

reference the correct OTIBs, the applicable 

OTIBs. And that's sort of the result.

MEMBER BEACH: Right.

DR. OSTROW: This we did look at 

pretty carefully. 

Does NIOSH have anything to say 

about this one?

MR. HINNEFELD: As I'm following 
151

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this, the key finding seems to have been that 

the original guidance in the Site Profile that 

was originally reviewed was we said that if a 

person wears a neutron badge for several months 

and there's no neutron dose recorded, then you 

should assume he wasn't exposed to neutrons and 

you don't give him any missed dose. That seems 

to be the key problem.

DR. OSTROW: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: And that's been 

changed in the latest revision of the Site 

Profile. We don't say that anymore. We say 

you have to do something about this dose for 

these people who wore a neutron badge. 

Now, the reference to other TIBs and 

stuff like that gives avenues out of just a --

sort of what I call a blind application of our 

normal missed dose approach, which is L over D 

over 2 for every badge exchange. Because with 

a relatively high LOD on a neutron badge 
152

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

compared to a photon badge, if you just use the 

missed dose calculation, you could have these 

whopping big neutron doses in a much smaller 

possible photon dose and it just doesn't match 

reality for the work place. And so all this 

reference to other TIBs and stuff just provides 

there are avenues that you can use to do 

something other than just what I would call the 

blind application of the missed dose. So 

that's what that all is about. 

But to me, for this finding -- and 

I'm pretty sure there are other neutron 

findings in the matrix, because I know we're 

still doing work trying to sort out the final 

neutron answers there. But for this specific 

finding I think it was that we originally said 

if a person's neutron badge showed zero for 

several months, don't assign a missed dose. 

And we're not saying do that anymore. We're 

saying you have to worry about the missed dose 
153

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and we're providing some avenues to do that. 

MEMBER BEACH: And are you taking 

that on a case-by-case basis as well of what a 

person says, why I worked at this reactor and 

this one and --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in this 

particular instance they would have had a 

neutron badge.

MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So it would 

be based on their wearing a neutron badge.

MEMBER BEACH: Wearing a badge? 

Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Now I think there's 

another issue in here about people who didn't 

wear a neutron badge and maybe were exposed. I 

think that's out there. There's a 

possibility --

MEMBER BEACH: It is out there.

MR. HINNEFELD: The neutron badges 
154

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were different than the photon badges. I think 

the assignment was different. So whereas we 

can say we're pretty confident everybody who 

went into the major areas had a photon badge, 

we can't necessarily say that about a neutron 

badge.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But you would 

assume that if they were given a neutron badge 

they had that potential?

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. And so we 

don't say just because it read zero -- we used 

to say if it reads zero for several months, just 

assume they weren't exposed. We don't do that 

anymore. That's the essence of this finding. 

So what I'm saying is our change to the TBD; 

which would have been in '03, I think addresses 

the fundamental piece of this finding. Our 

change. We changed. Is that what you were 

saying?

DR. OSTROW: That's what we feel.
155

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Your explanation 

was helpful, though. Thank you, Stu.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 

that cleared it up.

DR. OSTROW: And then the problems 

with all these things is that it goes back so 

many years and so many different revisions of 

TBD. It's not just in this case, but in other 

places, too. Such a big time lag that events 

overtake the findings very often.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: So it's a little bit 

hard to follow all of the train -- the train 

of --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

DR. OSTROW: But we think that 

what's currently in the -- well, it's more than 

think -- what's currently in the TBD is a good 

explanation, it's good procedure and it 

accounts for possible missed neutron doses for 
156

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people with neutron badges. And it's not just 

the generic LOD over 2 approach. It's more 

refined than that. So that's why we recommend 

closing it.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have a 

problem with that the way it's stated.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm okay with it.

MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Jim?

MEMBER MELIUS: I'm okay with Stu's 

explanation.

MEMBER BEACH: That's the one I'm 

going with, too.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's the 

one I'm going with.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, you got all 

votes, Stu.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Next one is 

Issue 30, which is also a neutron issue and it 

also has to deal with occupation external dose. 
157

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And original issue was that due to the use of 

the polonium-beryllium source for neutron 

calibration, dosimeters would significantly 

under-measure neutron doses from sources with 

lower energy spectra. And NIOSH should 

reevaluate the approach in the TBD to account 

for potential missed neutron dose. 

Okay. Going back and forth a 

little bit, NIOSH responded that the recorded 

dose was 11 percent high based on this 

calibration, so that would be conservative. 

We looked at it again and as SC&A understands 

the 11 percent refers to the difference between 

the americium-beryllium dose conversion factor 

used by INL and the americium-beryllium 

conversion factor recommended by IAEA. And 

there's two different numbers here. That's 11 

percent difference. Both those conversion 

factors are specific to the 

americium-beryllium energy spectrum, however, 
158

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the issue is concerned with whether neutron 

sources with energy spectra lower than the 

americium-beryllium spectra are significantly 

under-recorded or missed entirely.

Okay. I'm going to say here 

originally NIOSH said there was like 11 percent 

over-estimation of dose based on how it was 

calibrated. We found out this 11 percent 

refers to americium-beryllium sources, not the 

plutonium-beryllium that was actually used at 

INL. So it's not really applicable. NIOSH 

didn't say anything else after that, but then 

we went ahead -- as an action item we looked into 

it in more detail and we looked at the current 

neutron calibration in the current TBD at 

Section 6.3.3.2, neutron calibration, where 

this time NIOSH provided a whole big 

explanation on what they were doing. And NIOSH 

noted that the initial NTA; that's the type of 

film, neutron badges were calibrated using a 
159

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

plutonium-beryllium neutron source and that 

later in 1982 they switched to an 

americium-beryllium source. 

We had commented earlier that we 

thought there was a neutron source energy 

spectra difference for the two neutron sources. 

I did some research into this looking at the 

Brookhaven National Nuclear Data Center and 

then the DC data for both americium-beryllium 

and plutonium-beryllium sources and looked at 

the neutron spectrum that comes off and 

basically found that the spectra for the two 

different sources are practically the same.

So we concluded that since the 

neutron energy spectra resulting from the 

americium-beryllium and the 

plutonium-beryllium sources are quite similar 

and very similar, that we withdrew our previous 

comments and recommend the Work Group close 

this issue. So basically our original comment 
160

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

went away when we did some more research.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Are you meaning 

to say polonium-beryllium instead of 

plutonium?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I keep on 

misstating. Yes, polonium-beryllium. PoBe. 

Polonium-beryllium. So you've got 

americium-beryllium and polonium-beryllium 

neutron sources. 

So this is a case -- so not so much 

NIOSH's response, that we're withdrawing our 

original comment based on further research. 

Does NIOSH agree with this, my assessment here? 

That was my physics contribution to the 

proceedings.

MR. HINNEFELD: I appreciate the 

physics. Okay. I hate to do this, but let me 

ask this question. We've got NTA film, which 

has a threshold somewhere between a half an MeV 

and an MeV, you know, depending on the energy 
161

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for detection. And then you have -- you're 

wearing this is a work place where you may or 

may not know the neutron energy spectra that 

you're encountering. Was that the basis of the 

original finding?

DR. OSTROW: Had to do with 

calibrating the film using one source, the 

polonium-beryllium or the 

americium-beryllium. And we originally 

thought there was a difference, depending on 

which one you're using. But after our research 

we saw they both have same neutron spectrum.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then you 

finding related to the change in calibration 

and did that affect --

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: That's right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. All right. 

Okay. 
162

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MAURO: Stu, I'm glad you 

clarified that because I think there are 

several layers to issues related to the neutron 

dosimetry. The one that we're dealing with 

here is really a very narrow issue in the 

calibration sources that were used and whether 

the differences were important. 

You are going down a road that I'm 

very interested in also, is what is the real 

neutron spectrum that workers may have 

experienced at different times and different 

places? And what the -- whatever the 

neutron -- the NTA film probably was used wasn't 

calibrated for that spectrum. That's a bigger 

question and a richer question that has to be 

dealt with. I'm not sure of the extent to which 

that's being looked at right now and whether 

that is still on the table. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Brian pointed out 

to me that that's not recommended for closure. 
163

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. In my 

opinion that is the -- well, not only on this 

site, but many, many sites. Knowing the real 

neutron spectrum and whether your calibration 

factors account for that properly is a 

recurring theme, and apparently it's one that 

we have to deal with here also. 

MEMBER BEACH: So I agree that that 

should be closed, too.

MR. KATZ: Phil?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have a 

problem with it. 

MR. KATZ: Jim? How about Jim? 

Jim, are you on?

MEMBER MELIUS: I appreciate 

John's neutron philosophy.

(Laughter.)

MR. KATZ: Closed.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Just a 

comment. Issue 31 is still open, but I'll just 
164

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mention; I was looking at the notes here, that 

this one INL is -- NIOSH is working on a specific 

coworker model to deal with this. This is also 

a neutron dosimetry issue, and that's the one 

that we just talked about where coworker models 

are in the works.

MEMBER BEACH: That's important.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is the 

external coworker model that --

DR. OSTROW: Oh, this is the one 

that you said you're not doing. This is the one 

you decided you're not going to do. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So we owe something 

on 31, is that right?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I think you have 

to say -- yes, it was related to Issue 16 why 

you're not doing the external coworker model.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: But there's 

probably more to this one anyway --
165

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: Probably.

MEMBER BEACH: -- besides that.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. But anyway, 

that's not really for this right now.

Okay. Next on the recommend 

closing is 32, Issue 32, which is on page 62. 

This also in neutron doses and entitled, 

"Uncertainty Estimation for Neutron Doses." 

And the issue was, okay, NIOSH uses something 

called a "facility neutron correction factor." 

We wanted NIOSH to explain how these FNCFs, 

facility neutron correction factors, were 

obtained and to provide instructions to the 

dose reconstructor. That was our original 

comment. These FNCFs are exactly what it 

sounds like. They're neutron correction 

factors depending on which site you are on, what 

facility in the INL site. So it's 

site-specific and it's facility-specific.

Okay. NIOSH said look at the 
166

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

latest TBD that explains it. So our action 

item is look at the latest TBD. And we did in 

the reassessment. And it appears to look at 

the latest TBD -- it appears that NIOSH did not 

develop the FNCFs by themselves, but they 

retained them from various references listed 

here. 

MR. GLECKLER: And NIOSH 

technically had nothing to do with those FNCFs.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

MR. GLECKLER: That was the site 

that dealt with those.

DR. OSTROW: Right. So we looked 

at the original reference also that's there. 

So we agree that providing only a 

summary of how they are developed is 

appropriate, because NIOSH didn't develop it. 

They just say what they are and how they applied 

them. I can get an example here. So we 

consider that NIOSH's response addresses the 
167

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

first portion of the issue. They reference 

where they got the FNCFs from. So if anyone 

really wants to find it, they can dig it out. 

Then subsequently we held a 

teleconference between SC&A and NIOSH in 2005 

and we say it's not clear that the -- whether 

the data provided in the workers' records were 

already adjusted based on the FNCFs or the dose 

reconstructor should make the adjustments. 

That was like an instruction thing. We weren't 

sure whether the data was adjusted already or 

whether the dose reconstructor should adjust 

it. And NIOSH replied the adjustments have 

been made in the recorded data. And NIOSH 

stated they would clarify the point in their 

future revision of the TBD. And we commented 

we couldn't confirm that the clarification has 

been provided in the current Rev. 3.

Then we looked at it again; this is 

our latest review, and we reviewed the current 
168

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Rev. 3 and noted that the facility neutron 

correction factors appear in Section 6.3.2.8 

under neutron albedo dosimetry. Table 6-5 

tabulates the FNCFs for different INL 

facilities and that's taken from this one 

particular reference, Cusimano 1981. And the 

accompanying text states this correction was 

applied to generate the reported neutron dose. 

So we think that the current table 

that's currently there and the explanation is 

fine. We understood it. So we believe that 

all the points at issue were adequately 

addressed. And we understand where these 

FNCFs came from and we understand how NIOSH is 

applying it and the directions to the dose 

reconstructor are clear how to use them. So a 

little bit of a torturous process, but we think 

it converged finally. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is an 

albedo dosimetry thing, so this would be later 
169

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

than NTA or --

DR. OSTROW: That is a different 

type of dosimeter. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'll take your 

word for it.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I'm 

going to, too. You lost me.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Gen, 

Cusimano was an RESL which did the dosimetry, 

so presumably they did this and built it into 

their Dosimetry Report. So I guess there's 

information from the report. So I think that's 

what they did. 

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, the big issue 

initially was that the way it was worded in the 

Rev. 0 of the TBD it implied we developed those 

facility correction factors and we're applying 

them. And now it's like once we clarified that 

to the Working Group and then we clarified it 

in the TBD that they developed by the site, the 
170

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

site applied them to the doses that they report 

to us. And so they've already been 

incorporated. And so we changed that part of 

the TBD to hopefully make that a little more 

clear.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the 

Radiological Environmental Sciences 

Laboratory, RESL, at Idaho Falls did all the 

dosimetry. That's actually a DOE lab. And 

the person named here was one of the primary 

scientists there for quite a long time. So 

they would have developed these to use these 

albedo dosimeters and have it interpret the 

results of various facilities.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I would 

recommend closing that. You got a problem with 

that, Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't have 

anything on this one.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Jim?
171

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm fine with it. 

MEMBER BEACH: Jim. Gen. Sounds 

close.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So can we 

record the Work Group closes it?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. All right. 

We're getting there. There's only three more 

left.

Okay. The next one is Issue 33, 

also neutrons. And this is neutron organ dose. 

This is a short one. The original issue was 

NIOSH would provide neutron spectrum 

information guidance for organ dose 

reconstruction for workers at ZPPR. It's a 

zero-power production reactor? I'm not sure. 

Z-P-P-R. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Plutonium.

DR. OSTROW: Plutonium. 

Zero-power plutonium reactor. I forgot the 
172

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

acronyms. And TREAT, which was another 

reactor. Do you know what the acronym means?

MR. GLECKLER: Not offhand, no.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Anyway, it's 

two reactors that --

MEMBER BEACH: I'm just trying to 

see if it's listed here, but I think it's just 

under the acronym.

DR. OSTROW: Anyway, it's two of 

the NIOSH 52 reactors. And NIOSH responded 

that the guidance provided is in Section 6.4, 

Spectrum Data in table 6-14 of Rev. 3, which is 

the current revision for the external dose. So 

our action item was to look at it. And we 

looked at it. Upon reviewing Rev. 3 SC&A 

agrees with NIOSH that the requested 

information has been provided in Section 6.4. 

SC&A considers this issue to be resolved and 

recommends that the Work Group close it.

So this we'll say we had a question 
173

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that NIOSH provide some information. It's in 

the current -- they did in the current Rev. 3 

and it's not too controversial. It's just some 

table information. 

DR. MAURO: This is John. You 

know, when I look at this material, I look at 

it also -- you know, are we getting to the root 

issue here? And when all is said and done, the 

way I always look at this; like this is a 

particular facility, is there a good basis for 

understanding the energy distribution of the 

neutron exposures experienced by the workers? 

Because once you know that distribution and 

feel confident that you have a good sense for 

it, it becomes a manageable problem. Even if 

the way in which your -- let's say it was NTA 

film was calibrated, may have used a different 

energy distribution to calibrate it, if you 

know what the actual distribution is, there are 

ways to deal with that with these correction 
174

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

factors. And that's what we've been talking 

about all along. 

And this other business of the 

albedo detector; I'd have to go back to my old 

textbooks, but I believe that's one way to solve 

the problem. I think what that does is --

unlike the NTA film where you're seeing only 

neutron energies that are I guess around 1 MeV 

or 0.8 to 1 -- and below that they start to 

disappear on you. And that's a problem. I 

think the albedo dosimetry -- and anybody on the 

phone or in the room could help clarify this for 

me, my recollection back to my dosimetry course 

back in graduate school. 

I think that what it does is no 

matter what the energy distribution is, it hits 

this dosimeter and I think it slows down the 

neutrons so that you detect them all. In other 

words, even if they're lower energy, you'll get 

a response. And so somehow the albedo 
175

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

dosimeter or dosimetry system allows you to --

you don't have the same problem you have with 

the NTA film where you don't see anything below 

a certain energy cut-off. 

If there's anybody on the line that 

could help me understand that a little better, 

I think that -- so what I'm saying is that I 

think when it comes to neutron issues and you're 

dealing with NTA film, which is what we often 

are dealing with, the dilemma we always have is 

what is the neutron energy distribution that 

the worker was exposed to? Do we understand 

it? And what implications does it have with 

regard to adjustment factors for the NTA film? 

Alternatively, if they do have 

other types of ways of gathering dosimetry data 

such as -- I remember there was something called 

a long dosimeter, a long detector, a long 

neutron detector, something like that; had a 

name like that, and an albedo, somehow that way 
176

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of measuring neutron exposure does not have the 

same limitations as NTA film. And that's 

another way to solve your problem.

Could anyone maybe a little bit more 

familiar with neutron dosimetry let me know 

whether or not I'm thinking about this the right 

way? I think it would be helpful for everyone. 

Because that really gets down to -- no matter 

where we run into this neutron issue, whether 

it's here or any other site, I always look at 

it from that perspective.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu 

and I bet there are people who know more about 

this than I do, but I'll give it a shot.

Albedo means the reflection. And 

so an albedo dosimeter measures the reflected 

neutrons that reflect off of the wearer 

essentially to the badge. And so the way you 

build this badge is your detection medium in 

this case, since we're not dealing with NTA film 
177

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

anymore -- we're dealing probably with a TLD. 

You have a neutron-sensitive TLD phosphor. 

And you'll usually have two badges. 

There are two elements. You have one where the 

phosphor is bare in front and so it will measure 

directly low energy and thermal neutrons. And 

then you have a second element which has a 

low-energy neutron absorber in the front like 

cadmium. And so it will not measure any 

incident low-energy photons. High-energy 

photons -- you know, the cadmium is pretty much 

invisible to the high-energy photons. 

High-energy photons will reflect 

off the wearer and be moderated by that 

reflection and you will have a certain portion 

of them are moderated and come back into the 

back side of the phosphor which is bare on the 

back side. An albedo then allows you to use a 

low-energy-sensitive detector to measure both 

the low-energy of the incident component as 
178

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

well as the high-energy component measuring it 

by reflection. So that's what albedo is. 

Good with that?

DR. MAURO: That's a great 

description. Thank you.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: Sounds good to me.

MR. HINNEFELD: Now I suspect the 

reason why they had facility-specific 

correction factors was that the extent -- you 

know, the amount of reflected-out neutron that 

you measure is dependent in some fashion on the 

average energy of the incident beam. And so 

that's why they would have to have facility 

correction, facility-specific corrections for 

their albedos, because depending upon what the 

incident beam was that would have a different 

calibration for the albedo.

DR. OSTROW: Well, because the 

human body is -- they can model it to the first 
179

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

order as water.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: So it's 

hydrogen-based.

MR. HINNEFELD: Hydrogen and --

DR. OSTROW: So you're getting

reflection of the neutrons off the hydrogen and 

the cross-section for that is 

energy-dependent --

MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

DR. OSTROW: -- to the scattering 

cross-section.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: That's why they add 

these correction factors.

MEMBER ROESSLER: And who 

discovered that?

MR. HINNEFELD: What?

MEMBER ROESSLER: Who came up with 

that?
180

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

There were some really smart people working on 

it.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's a unique 

method.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes.

MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

ORAU Team. It's kind of a sidebar, but --

actually it=s a double sidebar. When the 

albedo dosimetry went into use here at Hanford 

around the 1972 time frame, that's when they 

definitely saw an increase in neutron dose 

compared to what they had historically been 

measuring. And that prompted a lot of neutron 

dosimetry workshops that continued through the 

late '70s and into the '80s. 

The second sidebar is with respect 

to facility-specific factors. You see a 

similar thing occurred at X-10 and Y-12 where 

again they did a lot of cooperative 
181

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

measurements with the talent at the time and 

came in and did neutron spectral measurements 

in order to really, even with the modern TLD 

system, pin down what those facility-specific 

correction factors should be. 

MR. KATZ: This is a great health 

physics class here for everybody.

(Laughter.)

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I'm glad 

someone understands it, but when I look at table 

6.14 I don't know how we get to the organ doses, 

but I'm sure you guys must. Okay.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. These are sort 

of like double, triple sidebars.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: But I think the 

assessment -- it sounds like the Work Group 

agrees with us to close it. Phil?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It sounds 

reasonable to me. To be honest with you, they 
182

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lost me on that one.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm okay.

MEMBER BEACH: I'm good.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So close it. 

Thank you.

MEMBER BEACH: As long as Jim 

agrees. I don't know if he's still on the phone 

or not. 

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Next issue, 

also a neutrons issue, 35. And this has to do 

with multiplying factors from missed neutron

dose. So we're talking about missed dose 

again. 

All right. The original TBD issue 

was NIOSH should provide data to support the two 

multiplying factors, 1.25 and 2, on a fixed 

missed neutron dose to full value of 50 

millirem. This was in the original TBD. 

NIOSH responded that the values are 

based on weighting neutron spectra with dose 
183

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conversion factors to determine the fraction of 

the dose below 0.8 MeV as referenced in footnote 

37 of Revision 2. So this is saying this is to 

the problem of dealing with low-energy neutrons 

below about 0.8 MeV and it's always been a 

problem. 

And they clarified, NIOSH clarified 

regards to the 50 millirem neutron dose TBD is 

not recommending the dose reconstructors 

assign 50 millirem of un-monitored neutron 

doses to the affected workers. The TBD was 

merely describing an instance where 

un-monitored neutron doses were received by INL 

workers, and so forth and so on. 

Our action item at the last Work 

Group meeting, to look at the current version 

of the TBD and see if it's clearer now. And we 

noted that footnote 37 of Revision 2 is now 

Attribution 46 of Revision 3. So we looked for 

it changing from one TBD to the next, and so 
184

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forth. And it says right there that 

Attribution 46 states that the two multiplying 

factors are based on weighted neutron spectra 

with dose conversion factors to determine the 

fraction of dose below 0.8 MeV, but doesn't show 

the calculations.

And our review of Rev. 3 confirms 

that the fixed missed neutron dose to full value 

of 50 millirem has been removed since the 

un-monitored office workers' dose records were 

already corrected by INL. So that's where we 

left it.

Then we reviewed it yet again just 

recently and further review. NIOSH notes that 

the issue is related to Issue 29. Issue 29 is 

one that we -- the one we just discussed.

MEMBER BEACH: We closed it.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, we closed Issue 

29 already. These are very related issues. 

So we looked at the Issue 39 
185

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

resolution.

MEMBER BEACH: Thirty-nine or 

twenty-nine.

DR. OSTROW: Twenty-nine actually. 

Excuse me.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: I'm getting 

tongue-tied. So we looked at the resolution to 

that and then we looked at the Rev. 3, the 

external dose TBD again and looked at Section 

6.5.4 about -- we were just discussing the NTA 

dosimeters which were used at INL before 

October 1976, and then the Hankins albedo 

dosimeters we used thereafter. And Section 

6.5.4.1 points that for the earlier period when 

the LOD for NTA film is used to estimate the 

missed neutron dose, it should be multiplied by 

1.25 for most workers and by 2 for workers on 

the MTR experiment floor; that's one of their 

reactors, and on the TREAT or ZPPR experiment 
186

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

floor. 

And data to support the correction 

factors; finally we get to the crux of it here, 

is found in extensive discussion in ORAU 

OTIB-51. Although the OTIB is specifically 

for a Y-12 plant, discussion on the NTA film 

response to different energy neutrons is 

generic and applicable to INL as well. So the 

discussion on the dosimetry is the same for all 

the plants. Hence, a range of NTA film 

response multiplication factors given in the 

INL external dose TBD appears reasonable and 

consistent. 

So we basically are using the latest 

NIOSH TBD and a little of research and following 

it through to the OTIB. We see that NIOSH is 

being consistent and they based these 

multiplication factors on good references on 

their OTIB. So we recommend they close it, we 

close it. 
187

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Stu, you followed it?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Yes, I see 

you're reading it. 

DR. MAURO: I'm going to ask kind of 

a strange question. This is John. It looks 

like a lot of good work was done to deal with 

neutron spectra dosimetry so that doses could 

be reconstructed. And apparently though there 

are still open neutron items that we're not 

talking about today. I guess we're only 

talking about the ones we're going to recommend 

closing as a result of previous -- you know, the 

group we just went through, the 14, I guess, and 

we're going to be talking about the White Papers 

I presume this afternoon. 

But just for my own curiosity, 

because I haven't looked deeply into all of 

these matters, what are some of the neutron 

issues that are still at play, are still open? 
188

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Because I'm watching a lot of neutron issues be 

closed out, and for good reason, as being 

resolved. But apparently there are still some 

open issues. Can anyone give us a -- I think 

everyone would benefit from a little 30-second 

sound bite on what's still being done to look 

into neutron issues.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. John, this is 

Steve again. I can answer some of that 

quickly. For example, Issue 28, which is 

Minimum Reporting Level for Neutrons, that's an 

open item. And the response is NIOSH is 

working on a White Paper to address this issue. 

And the White Paper; at least the working title, 

was investigation of the NTA film dosimeter 

limits of detection being used for INL dose 

reconstructions. 

So INL is working on this -- I mean, 

NIOSH is working on this White Paper right now 

that's going to be dealing, I think, with a lot 
189

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of these neutron dosimetry issues.

DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

DR. OSTROW: So that's just one 

example I got quickly. It's Issue 28.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Thirty-four?

DR. OSTROW: Thirty-four also? 

Let me see.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It=s one of the 

White Papers.

DR. OSTROW: Thirty-four is also 

open. That deals with neutrons to high-risk 

jobs and NIOSH is revisiting the issue. That 

also deals with neutrons. I don't know if 

that's going to be part of your White Paper or 

if you're going to deal with it separately. 

That's going to be a separate thing from 

the --

MEMBER BEACH: Well, and 19 kind of 

touches into photons and neutron doses 

possibly.
190

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: No, 19 is angular 

correction factors such as gamma dose. It 

wouldn't be for neutrons. 

MEMBER BEACH: I was just looking 

at that OTIB-10 response talking about photons 

and neutrons. Okay. 

DR. OSTROW: Yes, anyway, so it's 

our understanding that NIOSH is still looking 

at neutrons to address a couple of the other 

issues. So at that time when they produce 

their report, we can go see if they addressed 

all the open issues on neutrons. 

MR. KATZ: Sure. Thanks, Steve. 

DR. OSTROW: Okay. John, you 

happy?

DR. MAURO: I'm very happy.

DR. OSTROW: Good. Okay. This 

was -- I lost track. So this is Issue 35, and 

I think we're at the point where the Work Group 

agrees to close it?
191

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I don't have 

any questions on it.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

any questions.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Thirty-five is 

closed. Now, this is the last one that we 

recommend closing, Issue 36, which is the next 

one. And this is not a neutron one.

MEMBER ROESSLER: How come that one 

didn't come up in green?

DR. OSTROW: I don't know.

MEMBER BEACH: It did for me.

DR. OSTROW: So this is Issue 36. 

This has to do with missed low-energy beta 

doses, and it's also external dose. And here 

the original issue, the TBD discusses the 100 

milligram per square centimeter plastic 

dosimeter holders and the fact that betas of 

less than 360 keV will not penetrate the holder. 
192

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, the TBD does not discuss allowances 

for or consideration of the possibility of the 

complete failure to detect these betas because 

they may not penetrate. 

And we said the general averaging approach that 

was used, that the missed betas was 

questionable, and so forth and so on. This was 

based on the original TBD. 

NIOSH said basically go look at the 

latest TBD Rev. 3, which we did. And we 

reviewed Revision 3 of the TBD, and which 

includes a brand new Section 6.4.2 and table 

6-12. That wasn't in the original TBD. And we 

agree with NIOSH that that section addresses 

Issue 36 now. It explains the correction for 

the plastic dosimeter holders for the missed 

low-energy beta dose.

We didn't elaborate why we think it 

addresses it, but we basically wanted NIOSH to 

explain it, and you did in Section 6.4.2.
193

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm willing to 

take your word for it.

MEMBER BEACH: And I didn't have 

any questions on it either.

DR. OSTROW: Phil?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

any questions.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So I'll record 

that the Work Group agrees to close this issue. 

And that's it. That's the 14 issues. And just 

off the top of my head I think; you can correct 

me, we closed out 13 of the 14 issues.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, that's 

right.

DR. OSTROW: And one of them we left 

open was --

MEMBER BEACH: Twenty-one.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. It was 21 

that's further --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I have one 
194

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question. It's more of a generic one that 

keeps coming up for a lot of sites. A lot of 

people are concerned about wearing their film 

badges under lead aprons, but there are some 

people says, well, that's okay because you gain 

enough neutron exposure to offset that 

reduction. How much neutron exposure -- I 

mean, I don't understand that part of it.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Can we ponder 

that during lunch?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, we can 

ponder that during lunch. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That would have to 

be a real facility-specific answer or 

circumstance, because I don't know -- I could 

postulate why someone might possibly say that, 

but without knowing the facility or more 

specific, I don't think I could make --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Well, 

if you take Rocky Flats, they used lead aprons 
195

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in a number of things when they were doing --

Los Alamos used a number of different things. 

They used lead aprons.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: One of the big 

factors though is Rocky Flats actually 

certified theirs. It's my understanding they 

would actually go through and QA them every once 

in a while and make sure they were still -- you 

know, there wasn't gaps in them and stuff.

MR. HINNEFELD: They didn't have 

crease voids and stuff like that.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And so this 

question has come up from a number of people. 

They want to know, well, how do you account for 

that they're wearing the badges under the lead 

aprons.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, gosh, I don't 
196

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know for Rocky. I'll have to do some research. 

I can't really answer off the top of my head.

DR. OSTROW: It doesn't sound like 

a great procedure though. That doesn't absorb 

neutrons particularly. It's a high-Z 

material.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it wouldn't 

affect the neutron badge. The argument would 

have had to have been made from if they said that 

the neutron dose, you have to overestimate, 

your neutron dose outweighs that. If that 

argument was made to them, I'd have to know more 

about the neutron approach and what we assigned 

the neutrons.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: All right. 

So that would really be almost a case-by-case 

basis.

MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly 

facility-specific, and I don't -- I have not 

been studying Rocky. I don't know what was 
197

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

done at Rocky about that. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. It was 

just one I wasn't -- I have grappled with.

MR. HINNEFELD: I can see if we 

can't find something out, if there is even --

you know, if we even agree that none of our 

people should have ever said that. I don't 

know if we would have said that or not.

MR. GLECKLER: For INL I don't 

recall seeing any claims for lead apron use.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember 

INL.

MR. KATZ: So lunch break. It's 

quarter past 12:00 right now. Do you want to 

take an hour? What do we want?

DR. OSTROW: Sound good.

MR. KATZ: An hour?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Less? More? 

MEMBER BEACH: I say 45 minutes, 
198

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but I'm good with an hour, too.

MR. KATZ: And Josie needs to leave 

at what time?

MEMBER BEACH: By 4:15 or so.

MR. KATZ: Okay. So, I don't know, 

let's use an hour as the outside edge here. And 

if we can meet 10 minutes before or so, that 

would be great. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So shoot for five 

after?

MR. KATZ: Yes, so let's shoot for 

about, yeah, five after the hour. Thanks 

everyone on the line. Catch you later.

(Whereupon, the meeting was 

recessed at 12:16 p.m. and reconvened at 1:18 

p.m.)
199

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

(1:18 p.m.)

MR. KATZ: Steve?

DR. OSTROW: I don't know if it's my 

item but the next item on the agenda's ORAU/SC&A 

matrices. I don't know why that's on the 

agenda, actually. The only thing I can say is 

that, as far as we know, our matrix, the current 
200

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

one, is in our February 24th, 2014 report. I 

think Pete Darnell, in one of his emails, 

mentioned that it doesn't quite match up with 

the NIOSH matrix. But I don't know, Pete 

didn't go into the differences between them.

MR. KATZ: That is why Pete asked me 

to put that on the agenda, for that reason.

DR. OSTROW: Yeah, so I don't know 

what the difference is.

MEMBER BEACH: When I compare the 

two, I only noticed there was a few things that 

Pete had added to his that weren't on the one 

that was sent out a little earlier, the February 

one.

MR. HINNEFELD: The things that 

I've noticed where there's a difference was 

where Pete recorded on our matrix that SC&A was 

going to take another look at a particular item. 

And then your February matrix, it was, you know, 

your recommendation to stay open.
201

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I mean, so to me, I don't know that 

that's particularly different. It just means 

that there's some more information that should 

be coming from our side to, essentially, fill 

out that response.

I don't know if it's going to work 

very well because I don't think I'm cognizant 

enough about those specific issues. But, you 

know, one thing we may want to do is make sure 

that we, on our side, know what needs to be 

addressed in order -- you know, what's the next 

item to be addressed there.

Because, from the last meeting, our 

thought was, well, SC&A's going to take another 

look at this. You guys just said you think it 

should remain open with no additional 

discussion. And so is it clear, then, to our 

side what needs to be done?

I guess we go back to what we did 

before and what you guys said before and say 
202

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that, you know, we might be able to figure it 

out. But I haven't gone through each one to 

know whether we can figure it out or not.

We could start down those. I'm not 

sure I could even find them real easily.

DR. OSTROW: Well, I suggest maybe 

the easiest thing is, when you guys start 

addressing the open issues, if it's not clear, 

just email or something, you know, what did you 

mean by this?

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that was 

what I was going to suggest, rather than try to 

fight through them here.

DR. OSTROW: Yeah, it doesn't make 

any sense to do that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Because we'll go 

through there, and if we don't understand the 

opening statement --

DR. OSTROW: Yes, just go through 

it one by one as they come up.
203

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, okay.

DR. OSTROW: Makes sense. I know 

Pete added a couple of little comments and he 

put a date, something like March 14th, and he 

had a little note on some of the matrix items 

that he added subsequent to our report. He had 

some little comments here and there, which are 

new, new comments.

MR. HINNEFELD: There were a couple 

things in there -- there are a couple of matrix 

items where we've added our next round of 

response directly in our matrix.

DR. OSTROW: A couple of them, 

yeah.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there are a 

couple like that.

MR. GLECKLER: Nineteen's an example 

of that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. GLECKLER: And then there's a 
204

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

number of them that have an additional response 

that we've added to the -- and that's why we 

added the dates, to show, okay, this is more 

recent and --

DR. OSTROW: Yeah, that=s not a 

disagreement or anything. It's just a little 

bit more updated.

But, anyway, this is just a 

suggested procedure. As you go through open 

issues, you know, just ask if it needs any 

clarification.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. KATZ: So then, Phil, do you 

want to move to the White Papers?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah, I have 

no problem with that.

MR. KATZ: So I assume NIOSH will 

sort of present. I mean, as far as to get the 

ball rolling.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well, we have 
205

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

one on Issue 1 so maybe we'll start with that?

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. Do you want 

me to give a little background on that?

MR. HINNEFELD: Absolutely. 

Better you than me.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, for this next 

round of White Papers, the NIOSH/ORAU folks, it 

looks back in '012, April, May and June, it 

looks like we did a pretty significant data 

catch effort to look for more records to help 

resolve these. We spent a week in 

April, a week in May and two weeks in June 

capturing documents. We captured about 2,248 

new documents, roughly, over that timeframe. 

So it amounts to a fairly large mass of 

material. There's thousands and thousands of 

pages that total that. And just to 

give an example, for Comments 1 and 2, a lot of 

it has to do with historical dose evaluation 

that was performed at the INL site. And for 
206

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that document, the base document is two volumes 

and it maybe totals, probably, I want to guess 

under 500 pages.

But when you factor in all the 

supplement, supporting documentation behind 

that, just that document alone has 4,200 pages 

or more of stuff to support it. So it's a 

fairly massive, large, massive effort for that 

particular document. And it's pretty massive 

as far as what we've captured in the Database, 

our Site Research Database. 

And so, you know, to answer these, 

you have to go through thousands and thousands 

of pages of documentation. So it's a pretty 

significant effort that's been put into these. 

So hopefully it'll come out. And we've got 

enough information gathered, and some 

instances, it was just like looking for a needle 

in a haystack for some of these. 

So, out of the 2011 Working Group 
207

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meeting, NIOSH was tasked to revisit the 

meteorological dispersion model, and 

especially in regards to the relatively close 

proximity to the release points and its 

applicability to that.

And I don't know if SC&A and 

anyone's had a chance to review that yet.

DR. OSTROW: Yeah, we did. Now, as I 

said, we haven't had a formal review for any of 

these yet. We have own preliminary look for 

some detail. John, you're on the line, right?

DR. MAURO: Yes, I am.

DR. OSTROW: Do you want to say 

something about this? You're the one who 

looked into the MESODIF stuff.

MR. KATZ: Well, does NIOSH want to 

-- before that, do you want to talk about what 

you did first before SC&A responds to what they 

make of what you did?

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, yeah. I 
208

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

guess to give some background and --

MR. KATZ: Thanks, Brian.

MR. GLECKLER: All right. So, 

let's see, some of the key issues -- well, the 

key issue involved the applicability of the 

MESODIF model. 

And one of the things we did 

determine was -- well, I guess SC&A indicated 

it was only set up for 20 kilometers or greater. 

In reality, from what we found out, it was 

actually one of the first atmospheric 

dispersion models that was capable of 

generating somewhat close, or fairly close 

estimates of atmospheric dispersion beyond 20 

kilometers.

And, in fact, it looks like some of 

the stuff presented in the paper indicates that 

it was definitely capable of going below 20 

kilometers and down to at least 100 meters. 

But to do that, that's where I really had to dig 
209

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

into the historical dose evaluation document 

and the basis behind that and track down the 

basis behind MESODIF and all of that 

documentation.

Because there's a lot of it, it just 

references. One document references another 

for the information. And you go to that one and 

it references another. And so it's really 

buried deep, in some instances, where I was 

able to find some of the equations being used 

for the MESODIF model.

And part of the other issue with 

that comment was that resuspension wasn't being 

addressed. And one of the things with looking 

into that, weren't able to find any indication 

that resuspension was a significant 

contribution to the airborne -- to the air 

concentrations onsite on that.

And most of that was done by just 

comparing the limited amount of air sample data 
210

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we had for onsite locations to the offsite 

locations. And so it's pretty much 

indiscernible from each other. So the focus 

was on a specific period of time that was 

identified. And I can't remember 

what the dates were on that. That's in the 

paper. Oh, fourth quarter of '74 and first 

quarter of 1975 is where we focused in on. And 

the air concentrations were pretty much 

indiscernible for onsite sampling locations 

and offsite sampling locations.

And one of the other issues touched 

on for this comment was in regards to the 

deficiencies in the INL's environmental 

monitoring equipment. And in regards to the 

equipment, we determined that it's not relevant 

to the environmental TBD because we didn't use 

any of those environmental air concentrations.

And we suspect that the original 

authors didn't opt to use that onsite air 
211

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sampling data because of -- based on my opinion 

was the air sampling network sampling for the 

INL, the onsite air sampling network, did have 

some serious deficiencies. They had these 

major operating areas separated by vast 

distances.

And they only had one environmental 

air monitoring station for each location. 

Whereas my background comes from doing that 

sort of work at the Hanford site, and we had a 

minimum of one environmental air monitoring 

station around each compass direction of each 

operating area, and then a whole bunch more, 

usually in key areas where we thought we would 

see high air concentrations.

So it had a much more extensive 

network, where INL, for being twice the size of 

the Hanford site, only had about, I want to say, 

about ten air monitoring stations onsite at 

most. And so it was very minimalistic on their 
212

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

onsite, and some of those stations were up in 

upwind-prevailing sort of situations.

So it was like they wouldn't even be 

downwind in the prevailing wind direction. 

And so they're not going to see much of the air 

concentrations from that major operating area. 

It's probably going to be the ones -- like the 

best one I can think of is the ICPP on that. It 

was on the west side of the facility, whereas 

the prevailing wind direction was blowing to 

the east, or north and northeast direction. So 

it was like you're not going to see much of the 

ICPPs -- if I can spit this out, releases from 

the ICPP stuff would not be seen on that air 

sampler. 

Predominantly, you're going to 

probably pick up more of the MTR and test 

reactor area emissions and that air 

supplementation. Whereas they ideally would 

have had one on the north side and east side and 
213

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the west side and the south side and some 

additional locations, given the size of those 

areas. But they didn't.

So, as a result, that's why we think 

that the original authors opted not to use the 

environmental air monitoring data and they went 

to using stack emissions and an atmospheric 

dispersion model instead. And so it's just a 

matter of being able to defend that dispersion 

model and its applicability for what we used it 

for.

And some of the issues being raised 

initially go back to an older document that used 

to challenge the historical dose evaluation 

document and some issues with that. But the 

focus of the INL's historical dose evaluation 

was in regards to offsite doses to members of 

the public.

And we're not using it for its 

primary focus with the TBD. We're using a 
214

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

portion of what they generated. And part of 

that was dispersion isopleths on that where 

you basically graft where they have similar 

dispersion factors throughout the site.

And it covers the onsite portion, 

and so we were able to use those to estimate air 

concentrations based on the stack releases. 

So we're using that document's information for 

quite a bit.

A related but somewhat different 

purpose of what was originally -- some of the 

issues for Comments 1 and 2 that were raised, 

are applicable to its original purpose than it 

is for onsite issues. And hopefully the White 

Papers will demonstrate that.

MEMBER BEACH: Didn't this one have 

something to do with the evaporation ponds?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that would be 

the source of contamination for the 

resuspension.
215

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: The source? That 

was one of them.

MR. HINNEFELD: So I think the two 

issues we tried to address mainly were that, in 

our research, we believe that the MESODIF 

dispersion model is usable for distances closer 

than 20 kilometers. And 20 kilometers is a 

long way. I mean, we're not talking really 

particularly close in when you get inside 20 

kilometers. So you should be able to work 

inside 20 kilometers. 

And some of the source 

documentation from the model calculation, 

gives a formula for calculating a particular 

parameter. I think it was sigma-y, which is 

just sort of dispersed in the horizontal 

direction.

They give those factors, and it 

gives a particular equation for 20 kilometers 

and more, and a different equation for less than 
216

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 kilometers, which is indicative to us that 

the model was intended to be used for less than 

20 kilometers. And then I guess the innermost 

part is always a debate, how close are those 

diffusion models really good for? There's 

always some debate.

Helping us out in that argument is 

that the emissions were largely ICPP emissions, 

were certainly, I think, most of the main 

emission points, except for the Aircraft 

Nuclear Propulsion, were three stacks that 

were, I think it was 70 meters, right?

DR. OSTROW: It was more than that. 

I think 76, if I remember

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so you were 

over 200 feet high. And so, you know, that 

plume will be off ICCP before it contacts the 

ground. So you have some advantage with that. 

You only have to get in so far and you don't have 

to worry about it because it's not going to be 
217

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the ground anyway.

So we believe that the MESODIF model 

is workable within 20 kilometers, and we 

believe it is acceptable to use it as we 

described it in the White Paper.

And then the second issue is about 

the resuspension. And that's where, what you 

were talking about, the evaporation pumps come 

in because that would be a source, a 

contamination source for resuspension.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, that's in 

direct relationship to what the workers --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and so what 

research we were able to do indicates that if, 

in fact -- you know, our premise is that if, in 

fact, resuspension is a significant 

contribution to the exposures in these work 

areas, then the onsite air sampling, which is 

essentially there where the resuspension is 

occurring, should a marked increase over what 
218

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you're showing on the boundary with the 

boundary stations.

And you don't see that. We didn't 

evaluate every year, but for the periods we 

evaluated we didn't see a particular 

difference. Those air sampling results seemed 

to be pretty similar, which we believe is 

indicative of the fact that the resuspension --

you know, we're talking about annual. And 

we're talking about the annual exposure. The 

resuspension is not a particularly important 

contributor to the doses of these people. 

Yeah, you may have a high wind and 

you might have a day when it's dusty and there 

might be some exposure. But on the annual 

average it doesn't seem to be an issue.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, around 

the chem plant there's -- they call it the 

cornflakes. That's a big concern because of 

their resuspension and the fact that one day it 
219

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

may be to the northwest, one day it may be to 

the southeast, you know. 

And there's no uniformity in the 

granularity of these particles coming out 

there. Some are going to be much larger and 

some of them look like paint chips, I 

understand, coming out. And others are just 

little fine, dust-sized particles that are 

obviously going to carry a lot farther.

MR. GLECKLER: A significant 

portion of those should be non-respirable. 

That's kind of a key thing with those. And then 

the ones that I get into on the White Paper is 

the ones that are respirable. Once they land 

on the soil they'll attach to a soil particle 

which is typically non-respirable. 

So you're not going to see a 

significant fraction of them that's going to be 

respirable. And there's going to always be a 

portion that's going to be respirable, but we 
220

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just haven't been able to find anything to 

indicate that that was significant.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do we have any 

measurements of the granularities of those 

particles?

MR. HINNEFELD: What do you mean? 

In terms of the location?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: In terms of 

size.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I don't know 

anything about that. I don't know of any 

particle size measurements, no. 

MR. GLECKLER: Because one of the 

things that was very hard for us to find, even 

after the extensive data capture efforts that 

we did back in 2012, was the air monitoring data.

It's like the only thing that, you 

know, we were hoping to find summaries data in 

the form of either monthly, quarterly or annual 

average air concentration. And we found very 
221

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

little. We found a few reports where, you know, 

a number of reports give it graphically but they 

don't give they don't give it a numerical value.

So you've got to physically pick the 

value out of the graph, which is hard to do to 

get an accurate value. And then some of the 

other results that we did find that we're hoping 

never to have to use, just like with the raw data 

on that per sample. But they do have a lot of 

the on and off dates, times and the airflow 

rates. So we have to calculate their air 

concentrations for them. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: A lot of their 

sampling was done with nothing more than a 

Shop-Vac. They put a piece of filtration paper 

into the nozzle and they go out there with a 

Shop-Vac. That's not calibrated. That's not 

-- you don't know what you're getting.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. Yeah, that's 

one thing I haven't seen as much, is on the 
222

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

design of their air sampling.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: They 

developed these in '92. That's when they came 

into being. They call it the silver bullet.

MR. GLECKLER: Silver bullet.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It is 

calibrated. They know exactly what they're 

getting.

MEMBER BEACH: But before that it 

was the Shop-Vac.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Before that it 

was just a Shop-Vac, hit and miss around the 

outside of the plant, even sometimes inside of 

the buildings. AWell, let's see, I wonder what 

we got in there.@ So, you know, somebody 

would poke a hose in there, take a sniff. And 

then they'd take that filter paper back. But 

it was just totally a random spot. I mean, 

there was no rhyme or reason to the way sampling 

was done.
223

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and we know 

that from -- that information comes to us from 

where?

MEMBER BEACH: Just the people.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: From the 

workers.

MR. HINNEFELD: So now they're 

describing that as -- they're trying to figure, 

you know, that would be a way to characterize 

what radionuclides you have present. But you 

really wouldn't be able to quantify a 

concentration by doing that, right?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah, they're 

wanting to find out what, roughly, do we have 

where. You know, what levels, what 

concentration. And, of course, the whole area 

around the chem plant eventually had to be 

cleaned up. They had to remove topsoil and 

barrel it because it was just everywhere.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, it's 
224

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pretty clear from the -- there's a '74 Bryce Rich 

Health Physics Improvement document that 

describes pretty openly about the chem plant 

being a source of what were call big-holed 

particles, some of which were hot and some of 

which were barely warm.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah.

MR. HINNEFELD: And then the chem 

plant was a pretty constant source of emission. 

Now, the question comes, is this a dosimetric 

issue or not? And so that's what Brian was kind 

of talking about. Once you look at these 

particles, and if they're big like cornflakes 

-- and I think that was like a particular 

cleaning event or something, and they were 

getting the big particles. I think that was 

sort of like a particular evolution that 

happened for a short period of time.

But aside from that, they were 

putting particles out to stack for other times 
225

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as well. So is this really going to be a 

dosimetric issue? Now, from an internal 

standpoint, like Brian was saying, a lot of 

these are not respirable.

If they are respirable, by the time 

they settle, they probably are not going to be 

resuspended in a respirable fashion. They 

would be resuspended with the soil particle that 

they adhere to and that soil particle is 

probably not respirable. So Brian kind of 

spoke to that issue.

And then I guess from a -- well, I 

guess that would be the issue about the internal 

dose from these.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, because one of 

the things with -- you know, you get into the 

resuspension too. Some of my past experience 

was at Hanford doing some resuspension studies 

under high wind conditions. And we were 

putting sampling, temporary air sampling 
226

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

networks around some of the areas with some of 

the highest outdoor contamination out there. 

And some of those are the tank farms. And they 

had over a million dpm per hundred square 

centimeters on the ground. 

And the concern that was being 

raised by a number of employees periodically, 

was when we get these winds blowing and you see 

all the dust blowing in and out of these tank 

farms and other, you know, burial grounds and 

so on, it's like, well, what kind of air are we 

breathing?

And even though they basically shut 

down work in those timeframes, in the high wind 

conditions, the outdoor work got shut down, they 

still worried. But we went out and sampled that 

and we couldn't get anything above out of the 

ordinary. And from what we could tell, any of 

that contamination, basically, if it was 

respirable, got blown away in the first couple 
227

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wind storms. And what you=re left with are the 

larger particles that got attached to soil 

particles.

And they're creeping along on the 

ground and just bouncing to where they're 

non-respirable particles. And the thing with 

INL, if we'd seen any indication that 

resuspension was contributing significantly to 

the ambient airborne concentrations on the 

site, you know, we'd try investigating that 

further.

But we tried already, to some 

degree, with looking for those types of records 

specifically back in 2012 when we just didn't 

have much luck at finding any air monitoring 

data. We found some raw data where we had to 

calculate stuff, but it was sporadic. So 

you don't get like a full month's worth of data 

at any given time. You get a chunk of air sample 

results between these date ranges here and a 
228

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

chunk here and a chunk there. And that kind of 

surprised me that we were unable to find that, 

because my experience out at Hanford was like 

we could have had that at our fingertips within 

less than a day. It's all electronic. But 

it's not that way at the INL site, 

unfortunately.

MEMBER BEACH: Brian, one of the 

questions that's embedded in here, and you may 

have addressed it and I missed it, but it says 

NIOSH uses do not account for the deficiencies 

in the environmental monitoring equipment in 

their location.

So does this White Paper address the 

equipment they used and the locations of it?

MR. GLECKLER: Well, the stance we 

took with the White Papers, because we didn't 

use the environmental air sampling data, those 

deficiencies aren't applicable to the 

environmental TBD. 
229

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We used the stack monitoring data 

instead to calculate the ambient air 

concentrations on that. And that, I suspect, 

had to do --

MEMBER BEACH: And that would just 

account for what was --

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, because the 

original authors for the TBD, one of them's 

deceased and so we didn't have the resource to 

go back to to find out why they did what they 

did. But from what I can tell, it was probably 

due to the deficiency of the number of air 

samplers onsite.

MEMBER BEACH: So that would be a 

question for SC&A, then, to explore if using the 

stack monitoring data is adequate in what this 

question brings up, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our 

view, the finding about the inadequacy of the 

environmental monitoring stations, we didn't 
230

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

use the data from those stations in our 

calculations. So whether they were adequate or 

not really isn=t relevant to what we did.

MEMBER BEACH: But the -- sorry, to 

finish this up, just for the source term, 

though, wouldn't that --

MR. HINNEFELD: The resuspension 

thing?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, wouldn't that 

account for some of that?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that'd be 

something I guess to be looked at.

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

MR. GLECKLER: But we would really 

need more air samplers on that site in order to 

do that adequately, too. That's part of the 

problem.

MEMBER BEACH: So I guess my 

question is can you adequately do it or not? 

That's one of my big questions with what we have, 
231

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what data we you have, so --

MR. GLECKLER: Can we adequately do 

what?

MR. HINNEFELD: Make a judgment 

about the resuspension.

MEMBER BEACH: Make a judgment on 

the resuspension and the source term, what's 

there. I know you're trying to, but I'm just 

thinking out loud because we haven't heard.

MR. GLECKLER: I guess the way to 

word it is we have not found anything to indicate 

that contribution from resuspension is 

significant.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, but 

let's go back a little farther in time. 

Because, I mean, as we all know in this business, 

we progressed with safety and filtration, 

things like this.

So the ventilation systems for some 

of the earlier reactors, by today's standards, 
232

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are grossly inadequate. Well, what was the 

danger, or was there a danger to personnel 

working outside in the perimeter area, inside 

the fence or outside the fence, it doesn't 

matter, while this running?

And, I mean, without kind of knowing 

what ventilation system these were, I mean, I 

would say, you know, 1964, there would be a much 

higher risk of someone being exposed than there 

would be, say, today.

MR. GLECKLER: Well, that's a good 

question. But the other thing that we did look 

for was contamination survey data for the INL 

site, because that would be another way it's 

used. Like a resuspension factor, for 

instance. The contamination survey data for 

outdoor areas would also give us an idea how big 

of an issue that was. How much was being 

deposited on the ground is good indicator. 

And that's one of the things we found 
233

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

even less information on, actually. Based on 

our tour that we got over at the INL site back 

then -- and that was part of the beginning our 

data capture efforts -- unlike Hanford, they 

don't have large outdoor areas of contamination 

posted off. Whereas the Hanford site it's 

like, yeah, you go out and you have these huge 

areas of outdoor contamination, and some of them

are probably some of the highest levels in the 

world because you're up over a million dpm per 

hundred square centimeters, which is per 

beta-gamma emitters, and that's really high.

But you don't see that same thing out 

at the INL site. And the way I look at that is, 

okay, that's a good indicator that they were 

cleaning up. You know, if they had something 

that showed up outside, they cleaned it up. 

Whereas sites like Hanford, they just let it go 

because we got more contamination for here than 

over there. And it became a bigger problem over 
234

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time. 

But from also the stack emissions, 

the ventilation systems, like the main 

reactors, like MTR, early on those were pretty 

much the same ventilation systems that they had 

later on its history prior to its shutdown, so 

it would have had the same effect. 

I don't think there's any difference 

there other than you had specific activities and 

radiological control practices that might have 

caused higher potential for exposure.

But from the ventilation system, I 

think the ventilation systems are mostly 

intact, or very similar to the early years as 

they were in the later. They might have 

upgraded the different filtration system. 

I know ICPP added things to trap the 

iodine better and other types of stuff to the 

filtration system to reduce their stack 

emissions. But you always have the potential 
235

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to encounter leaks and stuff. You'll see those 

as an incident where they'll send in a group of 

people for bioassay measurement on that.

MEMBER BEACH: If you have 

monitoring data for the stack emissions, is that 

capturing from all these different facilities 

the major releases that would be to the 

environment?

MR. GLECKLER: For each facility, 

yes, and those will get modeled using the 

dispersion modeling results, take those major 

emission sites and calculate what the ambient 

air concentrations are for the various points 

in the site.

MEMBER BEACH: So if resuspension 

is not a problem and the stack monitors are 

telling you what the emissions are, then it 

seems like the only question is whether your 

model is right, whether your model can do. It 

seems like that's what we should be 
236

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concentrating on now.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I would also 

like to see a little more data on the stack 

monitoring. Exactly, you know, the what, when 

and how they were doing it, you know, was this 

a constant thing? Did they only monitor it when 

they were in operation mode? Was it on again, 

off again? Or when did it even go into effect?

I mean, they really didn't put any 

monitors in until, say, 1968, 1970-something.

MR. GLECKLER: I believe the very 

early years, and I don't know the date range, 

like ICPP, that was intermittent monitoring. 

They would go out and monitor the stack during 

specific, you know, periodically they would run 

a sampling system on the stack.

And then eventually it went to 

continuous monitoring of all the stacks. So 

they would look at how much time because a lot 

of the operations were continuous, so they would 
237

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

take, okay, this is what the air concentration's 

been going out, our stack has been this. It's 

like, well, just assume that it was continuous 

for that entire period, and then between when 

they were doing the monitoring. 

MEMBER BEACH: What about the 

source term for the evaporation ponds? Do you 

have a pretty good handle on that?

MR. GLECKLER: I haven't seen 

anything on those specific ones.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: See, some of the 

people have talked about those, is that they 

would dump all this sludge, this solution in 

there and then they'd let it evaporate. And 

then they'd come in with a bucket or something 

and start scraping it up. And there was a 

number of times where it was quite windy while 

they were doing this. And they were generating 

a lot of dust.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, yeah, because 
238

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I don't recall ever seeing air monitoring data 

for that.

DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd like 

to jump in, but I want to make sure everyone had 

their chance to discuss it. I do have 

perspectives on this also. If this is a good 

time, I can give you a summary of my initial 

impressions.

MR. KATZ: Sure, John, go ahead.

DR. MAURO: Yeah, first of all, I 

agree with your characterization of MESODIF, 

the puff advection model, in that you certainly 

can use that model all the way up to 100 meters.

So the statement that we made 

originally about the 20 kilometer was wrong. 

But it was wrong within the context that when 

you start to get closer, and I think Stu 

intimated, you have to change your sigma-z and 

sigma-y, I believe. These are the atmospheric 

dispersion factors. So I know that you 
239

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stood on the shoulders of the work done by John 

Till and Risk Assessment Corporation where he 

did a lot of work on characterizing the chronic 

and episodic releases from the facility, 

throughout the plant, and the releases. And 

then his intent was to evaluate the doses 

offsite, quite far away.

And he ran MESODIF puff advection, 

which is a great model. I mean, there's no 

doubt that the skill set at INL, from a 

meteorological dispersion perspective, is at 

the cutting edge and the best there is. And has 

always been that way.

But all of that work, keep in mind 

the context within which you drew upon, was the 

source term data and the atmospheric dispersion 

modeling that was done by Risk Assessment 

Corporation in their 2002 report.

Now, SC&A was fortunate enough to 

have spent a couple of years independently 
240

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reviewing that work. So that's part of the 

story, and I'll try to keep it brief. But from 

the dispersion perspective, the use of MESODIF, 

the way it was used to model these large releases 

that came off these tall stacks, especially from 

the chem plant, it was called the ICPP, that was 

where the big releases occurred, both chronic 

and episodic. But there were other locations. 

And so the atmospheric dispersion 

model for that could certainly be used to bring 

you all the way close into the plant. As long 

as you changed, and I don't if you actually ran 

the calculations, but when you get close you do 

have to change the dispersion coefficients, the 

sigma theta or the sigma values on the spread.

I guess this is my first question. 

Did you folks run MESODIF yourself? Or did you 

simply use the atmospheric dispersion factors 

reported by Risk Assessment Corporation?

MR. GLECKLER: What I gather, from 
241

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Rev 0, the TBD's information, because we don't 

have the original authors available to ask that 

to, it looks like they relied on the 

INL-generated information. A lot that came out 

of the historical dose evaluation.

DR. MAURO: Yeah, the HDE was the 

work done by Till where he did all that 

dispersion modeling, and all of which is fine. 

We independently checked all of that work, and 

it's superb work. We matched their atmospheric 

dispersion factors offsite, so we have no 

problem with it.

The only question is, if you're 

going to use that model and try to come in close 

to the site, you would have to change the sigma 

values because the nature of dispersion changes 

when you get further away. 

And that's just a question that, 

when I read, it wasn't clear that the close-in 

calculations from the release points, for the 
242

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

elevated -- now, keep in mind we're talking 

about these elevated release points, which are 

where that puff advection model works very well. 

The only question I guess I will leave with you 

is when you used it for near-field atmospheric 

dispersion factors did you change -- or maybe 

Till did it, maybe Till actually provided 

atmospheric dispersion coefficients, 

chi-over-Q values, at touchdown, which should 

be like 300 meters, 400 meters downwind from an 

elevated stack.

Did he provide those chi-over-Qs? 

If he did, he would have made the change. Or 

did you folks run it? I guess that's just the 

question. Did you run it? Or, if DOE did it, 

do you know whether, when they did the 

near-field concentration from the releases 

using MESODIF, do you know that they did change 

the sigma values to take that into 

consideration? Because that needs to be done.
243

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And that's just a question. My 

guess is that if you took it out of a DOE 

publication where they gave you the atmospheric 

dispersion factors close-in, they would have 

run it correctly. I just don't know that to be 

the case. So that's one question.

But I do completely agree with you. 

You can use MESODIF all the way up to 100 meters 

within a release point and it's fine. The only 

thing you have to take into consideration is 

that change in the sigma value.

The other observation I have is, 

keep in mind that the source terms, these 

releases that I think you based everything on, 

the values reported, again, by the RAC 2002. 

And we, SC&A, independently checked those. And 

remember, those were all source terms that were 

estimated for the purposes of reconstructing

offsite doses.

We checked all those numbers, and 
244

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they did a great job except for the Aircraft 

Nuclear Propulsion Program. So another one of 

my initial observations regarding your work is 

I think that the source term for ANP, and we had 

many meetings with CDC and with DOE and the 

authors of the source term data for the initial 

engine tests, they call them IETs, were low by 

a factor of 2 to 7.

So we think that at least that source 

term, and there's plenty of documentation 

regarding this, as used by RAC, was probably low 

by, depending on which initial engine test 

you're looking at, and radionuclides you're 

looking at, could be low by a factor of 2 to 7. 

That was one of our conclusions.

If we didn't provide it, we can 

provide it where you can get a copy of that 

report. And the authors at DOE, when we met 

with them on a number of occasions, did agree 

in this that, yeah, they think they may have 
245

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

underestimated that. So that's the second 

comment.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. Hey, John, 

on the second comment, that one, you're jumping 

the gun. That's comment number 2, that's the 

next White Paper in line.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Then I'll 

stay with the atmospheric dispersion then. 

Because I know during the discussion we just had 

you did cover a lot of territory. But, yes, so 

I guess with regard to the simple question of 

atmospheric dispersion, I agree that MESODIF is 

fine. It'll do a good job all the way up to 100, 

a close-in at 100 meters to the source.

The only comment I have is that you 

have to make sure that when you're getting close 

that the different dispersion factor was used.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. And I can 

answer that.

DR. MAURO: Yes.
246

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GLECKLER: The one thing that we 

did found, and it is in the White Paper, the 

horizontal dispersion coefficient, the 

sigma-sub-y on that. For distances less than 

20 kilometers it has a separate equation for 

that built in.

DR. MAURO: Oh, good, you just 

answered the question. That solves that 

problem. That was one of my quick 

observations, whether that was the sigma-y, and 

it might have been the vertical also, but I'm 

not sure.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, they used the 

same equation for the vertical. And that --

DR. MAURO: And that's okay because 

you're elevated. So I'm okay with that. I 

didn't realize that you did make that change.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, you'll see 

that in an excerpt of the document that that came 

from in Figure 1 of the White Paper.
247

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay, good. One 

of my concerns, though, is that the source 

terms, remember, were all gathered and 

collected and used by RAC, Risk Assessment 

Corporation, for offsite doses. But there 

were a number of locations onsite where there 

were ground level releases, which were small 

compared to the releases, the episodic and 

chronic releases that were going out.

I think there were a couple of 

stacks, at least two. The question I have is 

I'm not sure about the Aircraft Nuclear 

Propulsion Program, whether that was an 

elevated or ground level release. You may want 

to look at that.

MR. GLECKLER: It was an elevated.

DR. MAURO: Pardon me?

MR. GLECKLER: It was an elevated. 

DR. MAURO: It was elevated, okay. 

But I do recall there are a number of places, 
248

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and this was mentioned during the conversation 

you just had, where there could have been ground 

level releases which were nowhere near the 

magnitude of the releases that were going out 

from the stacks.

But since there were ground level 

releases, there could be -- and after there were 

workers nearby, even though they were much 

smaller than the big releases, because when you 

release something from a high stack it's not 

going to touch down for quite some distance and 

you're going to get a tremendous amount of 

dispersion.

So even if you emit a large amount 

of material it may not have very much impact 

onsite. However, a small amount released from 

ground level sources, which didn't get very much 

attention, especially in the RAC report because 

they were small and there was no way they were 

going to be important contributors to offsite 
249

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

dose.

But ground level releases, even 

small ones, could be important to workers who 

are nearby and outdoors. And I don't know the 

degree to which you looked at that issue.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. That, again, 

deals with the episodic releases, which is 

comment number 2.

DR. MAURO: Okay, so you're saying 

that all releases that were chronic were 

releases that went up the stack? 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: John, do we 

have the measurements of all those stacks?

DR. MAURO: We have access, I mean, 

that information is out there. I mean, as 

mentioned earlier, the amount of information on 

the subject is off the charts. And we, SC&A, 

on a separate contract years ago looked at this 

in great detail over a couple of year period.
250

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, yes, all the information 

regarding the stacks is out there. But I think 

that there also is information on what may have 

been released from ground level. And I think 

that that's where -- I would agree completely 

that, when all is said and done, I think that 

the exposures onsite to workers from releases 

that were released from these very high stacks, 

even though they were large releases, may turn 

out not to be very large compared to, perhaps, 

the releases that occurred at the ground level 

onsite.

I'm not sure. But this is one of my, 

as I mentioned, one of my initial reactions to 

the report. That even though they were 

relatively small, I don't think we can disregard 

the ground level releases. In a similar 

manner, Phil, you had mentioned these 

particles. And it goes toward this 

resuspension factor issue. The argument that 
251

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you make, that you really don't see a difference 

in the concentrations, airborne from airborne 

onsite monitoring and offsite monitoring, 

that's a very compelling argument, that 

resuspension was not important.

But at the same time, we have this 

bit of a dilemma that the -- that would be an 

air sampling, argument. But, as you pointed 

out, we wonder whether or not that's reliable 

data to draw that conclusion.

I've got to say, I would like to see, 

I mean, if you look at the modeled amount of 

activity on the ground or airborne, airborne or 

on the ground, and you try to predict what might 

have deposited and then run models that 

resuspend, I mean, that's the way you folks have 

done it on so many occasions where you say, okay, 

we could estimate what might have deposited on 

the ground.

And both from the elevated, large 
252

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

elevated releases and also from material that 

may have settled out, particles that were heavy 

that settle out pretty quickly, and also any 

ground level releases. You see, I feel as if 

these issues were not explored deeply enough so 

that you could come up with, or you could argue 

that, well, we looked at both the elevated and 

the ground level releases and what kind of 

airborne exposures workers might have 

experienced who are nearby, outdoors, and you 

can get an idea of what those exposures are.

I still feel as if we still don't 

have a good feel for that. And the material 

that deposited on the ground, either because 

they're relatively large particles or because 

they were ground level releases and deposited 

out, and what you would predict would be on the 

ground in becquerels per square meter, and then 

you use your classic resuspension factors that 
253

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are out there.

I mean, that type of probing, I don't 

believe was done to really put this to bed. I 

think you made a lot of strong heuristic 

arguments that I can't dispute. But at the same 

time, I feel that there are analytical 

techniques in order to say, okay, let's try and 

put a number on this. And I didn't see any of 

that.

MEMBER BEACH: So, John, this is 

Josie. Are we going to expect an answer for 

this one, Comment 1, from SC&A?

DR. MAURO: Regarding the 

atmospheric dispersion model, I could give you 

the answer right now. The answer is yes, we 

agree with them that --

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, good. I got 

that.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER BEACH: But that's more 
254

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions. So I'm just wondering if we're 

going to get a written response.

DR. MAURO: Well, I guess we're 

looking for direction from you folks. All I'm 

doing right now is I read many of the White 

Papers. This is one of the ones that I looked 

at pretty closely because that happens to be a 

subject I'm very familiar with.

And I'm verbally giving you my 

impressions. Our expectation is that we'd 

write something up. How far we would go with 

it, for example, the kind of things I just 

described, in theory, are things that we could 

do.

But then at the same time, no, maybe 

all you really want us to do is sort of outline 

the things that we think NIOSH needs to follow 

up on. And then write something up like that.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now, if I 

understand you right, you've already got some 
255

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of this written up from information earlier.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: We just haven't 

heard it.

DR. OSTROW: I think what we're 

going to do, in general, just for all these White 

Papers, right, today we're giving you sort of 

the impressions. We looked at all of them. 

What we're going to do is actually formally 

write a response for all of them.

We're going to try to restrain 

ourselves from redoing the whole issue. But 

we're going to try to clarify any comments we 

have for NIOSH as to, you know, we agree with 

Points 1, 2, 3, 4. Point 5, either we disagree 

with it or maybe we want you to elaborate, gather 

more information.

So we're going to try to be specific, 

but not actually try to solve the entire problem 

in our paper.
256

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Well, and that's why 

I cut in, is because it seems like we have a lot 

of White Papers to go through.

And maybe if we could just go through 

the technical, like what don't you understand 

and what do you understand so that you can go 

back and write a response and we can expediate 

just to get through all the information.

DR. MAURO: Right, yes, I realize I 

went on a bit, as usual. But I wanted to give 

you my impression. That was it.

MEMBER BEACH: We appreciate that.

DR. OSTROW: To basically sum up, 

I think, for Issue Number 1, there were three 

issues. The first one was source terms. And 

we agree with the source term data because we 

looked at that back all the way when we were 

doing work for CDC. So the source terms are 

good.

DR. MAURO: Except for ANP.
257

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: Except for the ANP, 

yes, okay. 

The dispersion model, we think, is 

good. The MESODIF, we agree, can be used within 

100 meters or so if you have a high release.

So, resuspension factors, we 

understand your argument but we're not 

convinced that it's the final word. We have 

some comments on the suspension and suggestions 

which we'll look at further.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, well, one of the 

things to realize regarding the resuspension is 

the amount of air monitoring data and outdoor 

surface contamination survey data is very 

limited, if not nearly non-existent. 

DR. OSTROW: Yeah, there might be 

Plan B then, I think, that NIOSH comes up with.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, it's kind of 

hard to prove a negative.
258

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: I know.

DR. MAURO: Well, I think, as you've 

done in the past, when you do have models that 

you run to predict airborne concentrations as 

a function of distant due to the source term, 

you can predict what the concentration -- using, 

the term is called the d-over-Q. Just like your 

have an rBover-Q giving you the atmospheric 

dispersion factor and airborne concentration, 

you can predict what the concentrations is on 

the ground by deriving the d-over-Q. 

So, just like you model airborne 

activity you can model deposited activity. 

Granted, you'd be better off actually having air 

samples, and that would solve all your problems. 

But if you don't have that, you could run it and 

come up with a d-over-Q.

I expect that the resuspension 

contribution from the elevated releases is 

going to be small. So we'll write all this up 
259

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and explain where we think it might be worth 

probing. I don't want to go into any more 

detail now, but there are a number of things, 

lines of inquiry, that it might be worth 

pursuing to be this to bed. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Jim, 

are you on the phone still?

MEMBER MELIUS: Listening.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You got any 

comments?

MEMBER MELIUS: No. John said 

everything and more.

(Laughter.)

DR. MAURO: As usual, right?

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, Number 2?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, so the White 

Paper for Number 2, back in 2011 NIOSH was tasked 

to review the SC&A report, ACritical Review of 

Source Terms for Selected Initial Engines Tests 
260

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Associated with the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

Program and INEL,@ and the Risk Assessment 

Corporation modeling approach that was used for 

the INL.

And based on the main body of that 

document, or the main body of the Site Profile 

review, it pointed to IETs, initial engine tests 

No. 3, 4 and No. 10 as being the main ones for 

their potential underestimates of the total 

radionuclide releases. And so that's where the 

focus is of the NIOSH review was, is on those 

three.

And then it looks like we went back 

and pulled up some of the supporting 

documentation for the historical dose 

evaluation. And for IET No. 3 and No. 4, we were 

actually able to find the release trajectory 

information that demonstrated that it was the 

plumes from those initial engine tests just 

actually just went offsite and didn't go back 
261

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

over any of the facilities onsite.

So it was just an issue with offsite 

receptors and members of the public versus the 

onsite workforce on that. So even though it 

looks like they might have underestimated the 

releases, it doesn't really matter because 

those releases blew offsite, off mostly to the 

northeast quadrant, another direction from the 

site. So it didn't blow back over any of the 

operating facilities at the site. And so the 

workers didn't really have a potential to be 

exposed. 

Whereas for IET No. 10, however, it 

covers a much broader timeframe. And we didn't 

have the dispersion isopleths or trajectory 

stuff that they produced for the other IET 

tests.

And so we looked at that and we had 

two different periods identified. They 

referred to it as IET No. 10-A, which was from 
262

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

December 1957 to February 1958; IET No. 10-B, 

ranging from March 1st '58 to March 6th of 1958.

And our focus on that, it looks like 

they subdivided that into three phases. And 

they had all these different runs, you know, 

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 with different runs. 

But it's predominantly the Phase 3 runs that 

were the ones in question that were 

underestimated, where they underestimated the 

releases.

And from looking at that, it looks 

like, yeah, there may be a basis for some of 

those, for that issue being raised by SC&A to 

where we need to look into that and also look 

into the dispersion values for those. But we 

don't have dispersion isopleths, 

unfortunately.

And so that's one of the things NIOSH 

is proposing, is that we'll look into the IET 

No. 10 and those specific runs and, you know, 
263

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reevaluate those.

And one of the things we started to 

look into is additional data capture. We've 

done a lot for the site regarding the dispersion 

modeling information to see if they didn't have 

any of that original dispersion model stuff set 

up yet.

And it doesn't look like anyone has 

that capability to run the MESODIF model 

anymore. There's a replacement for it that 

they're now using at INL and it sounds like it's 

a similar type of a model. It's just now a 3-D 

type model instead.

And, in addition, we have confirmed 

that they do have the raw meteorological data, 

even though they don't have the original MESODIF 

runs, they do have the raw meteorological data. 

And so we're going to be looking at capturing 

that.

 But it's the DOE=s site. It's a 
264

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

matter of their resources. They map and 

coordinate that so it's to say when that 

information will be able to be captured at this 

point in time. But once we get that we'll look 

into that.

And we may try to, if we're lucky, 

what I'm hoping to be able to do is just, if we 

just are able to get the meteorological data, 

we might be able to show the wind trajectory for 

each of those runs of concern and show whether 

or not, maybe at least eliminate some of them 

if they can show that, okay, the wind blew it 

offsite in a northeast direction, like it 

typically does.

 Because they had real limiting 

meteorological conditions that they could do 

the initial engine tests for anyhow. And so 

it's really, when the runs were long enough to 

where the wind conditions might have changed in 

the middle of the run that are the bigger the 
265

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concern.

Because then they might have had to 

finish their run and it might have blew that 

plume back around over the INL site proper and 

over some of the operating facilities. And so 

what I suspect is for the short-term runs, it's 

probably not going to be an issue. The 

trajectory of those plumes is probably going to 

show that it didn't blow back over the operating 

facilities.

But the longer term runs, there's a 

chance that the wind direction changed 

directions during the longer term runs, which 

hadn't happened with some of the others.

DR. MAURO: I can sort of comment a 

little on that just to help out.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay.

DR. MAURO: I agree completely that 

looking at the wind direction at the time of the 

test, and if we could show that it was going a 
266

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

direction where it couldn't impact any workers, 

that's great. That's a quick way to solve that 

problem.

With regard to when the wind was 

blowing, let's say, in a direction where it 

could have impacted workers, I mean, to try to 

get joint frequency data at the time of the 

release, then run, there are computer programs 

like CALPUFF, which is very similar to MESODIF.

You can run it, but it's a big deal. 

It'll take you a lot of work. You may want to 

do just do a simple hand calculation using some 

conservative chi-over-Q, you know, using the 

Gaussian dispersion model with an appropriate 

conservative chi-over-Q for the elevation of 

the release, and some conservative deposition 

velocity, given that it is a particulate.

All of this could probably be done 

by hand. That's how I would do it, 

particularly, because I don't run these 
267

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sophisticated programs. But you can get a 

fairly good sense of whether or not the doses 

that you are assigned right now, whether or not 

they could be overshadowed by the issues that 

we're talking about, including any other ground 

level releases.

One of the things you'll be seeing 

from us is that there are a number of other 

places where there could have been ground level 

releases. And the question is could they be -

it=s possible they might be important.

And the way we'll probably do it when 

we write up our report is a simple hand 

calculation just to show the scope, whether or 

not it's possible it could be important or not 

important. And I think that very often you 

could put these things to bed with some simple 

calculations.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, John, 

I've got a question for you. Okay, we'll say 
268

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that some of the release is short-term, very 

fast dispersion. But my concern is how do we 

pinpoint people that may have been in that cloud 

under that dispersion?

DR. MAURO: You don't. I agree 

with you. What we do is we run it and we see, 

if there were people, this is what they would 

have gotten. And if it turns out to be still 

small and negligible compared to the numbers 

that you have right now, the problem goes away.

If it's not, yeah, then we take it 

to the next step. You're right. You're always 

going to be with that dilemma, how do you know 

were people outdoors at that time, downwind from 

the release. I'm not sure if you're going to 

be able to answer that question.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, this is Jim. 

Can we think about what if -- do we want to 

identify if there were people, or possibly 

people, that we may not be able to identify the 
269

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people right off. But were there people 

downwind? Because it seems to me that would 

play into somewhat how much effort you would put 

into doing this.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, Jim, I think 

that's the first question that we're trying to 

-- it's an object of our data capture, is to 

pinpoint wind direction during the course of 

these runs so we'll be able to make a judgment 

about whether or not there were people down 

there.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: And then, beyond 

that, then you could, maybe for people who don't 

go into the general areas, maybe you just 

decide, you know, hey, this environmental dose 

is going to get assigned to everybody because 

who knows within those areas. And so, I mean, 

there are ways to do it.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. No, I think 
270

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it depends on the level of the dose and how we 

can deal with it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, right.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, I just wanted 

to throw that out. Thanks.

MR. GLECKLER: The environmental 

intakes are assigned based on major operating 

areas. So there's Test Area North-specific 

intake values, ICPP-specific intake values, 

Test Reactor Area-specific values, CFA and 

INL-West. And so we can account for that on an 

area-by-area-specific situation.

MR. HINNEFELD: And this is one of 

the data captures that we have on our planning 

list that involve this specific question.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you know if 

they actually, when they were expecting one of 

these dispersions to possibly carry out over the 

fence line, I guess, what you want you to say, 

boundaries of the facility, did they put 
271

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

monitors out there? I mean, put personnel out 

there to take measurements?

MR. GLECKLER: They actually had a 

pretty large monitoring network in what they 

anticipated would be the downwind direction on 

that. Unfortunately, we have not been able to 

find that data. That's probably data that GE 

retained and took with them when they left the 

site.

It was encouraging news that we got 

here recently that it looks like the DOE does 

have the wind data on that. Because no one 

maintained that. Because even for Test Area 

North, back in that timeframe, we've got the 

wind data, supposedly. It's just a matter of 

getting it from the DOE as this point.

It kind of comes down the their 

resources and so on. So that data is available 

but we haven't found a trace of any of the air 

monitoring data. And I've got documents that 
272

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I found that show that it's a pretty extensive 

network of air sampling stations but I've not 

found an ounce of the data.

But a lot of the records from the ANP 

project left the site with GE and went to the 

Evendale site for a while. And now they've been 

relocated again, I think. And so it doesn't 

look like we're going to be able to ever find 

those.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Maybe it's 

with those little green bodies from Roswell.

MR. GLECKLER: Yes. They even had 

fixed air sampling stations in those networks 

and they also had sampling stations on vehicles 

that were portable, to track the plume and 

follow the plume even. So there=s a wealth of 

data that we would have loved to have found. 

But we didn't have any luck.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Guess you kids 

never heard that about the Evendale, the little 
273

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

green bodies with the UFO being moved there.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I thought they 

went to Wright-Patterson.

 MR. KATZ: It's all news to me.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, 

supposedly, at least according to one guy who 

posted recently, you know, wrote an article. 

Then they were shifted over there because people 

found out where they were.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, have we gone 

to GE about this air data? Do you know?

MR. GLECKLER: Specifically 

regarding that I'm not sure. But that has a lot 

to do with why the Evendale site's got an SEC 

is because we weren't able to recover data for 

that site. I was kind of involved with that 

site for a little while.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we got some 

dose records from GE for Evendale. You know, 

external dose records. I mean, we didn't get 
274

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

internal from GE. But we have --

MR. GLECKLER: For the covered 

period for that site?

MR. HINNEFELD: For a portion of it 

at least.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: And we had a contact 

at GE -- I think that we had a contact that 

produced their personal exposure, external 

exposure rankings. 

I'm just wondering, if we've only 

gone to Idaho for this and we think GE kept it 

with the GE Nuclear Aircraft Program, we might 

have a contact at GE where they might be able 

--

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, there's 

documents that we kept from INL that indicate 

that a lot of the records from the ANP went to 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: Went to GE.
275

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: It'd be worth 

pulling the string, wouldn't it?

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, it's been a 

number of years since we talked to these GE 

folks, but I think we've got -- at some point 

we had somebody who was at least marginally 

responsive.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, it's been a 

long time since I've been involved with that 

site but I started putting together stuff for 

an SEC for that site because they were 

non-responsive, basically.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they didn't 

have any internal data. We didn't get any 

internal data. But we had some external data, 

but we didn't really think their monitoring 

practices were necessarily comprehensive data 

monitoring.

MR. KATZ: But here you're talking 

about for offsite, right? And the data you 
276

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

don't have is offsite measurements, right? 

Isn't that what you're talking about right now?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. HINNEFELD: It would have been 

on the property but not in an occupied area. 

MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: See, if you look at 

the map, Test Area North is sort of by itself, 

up to the north, sort of amidships. You know, 

east to west, it=s sort of in the middle, but 

to the northern part of the site. And that's 

where the ANP runs were done, right, Test Area 

North?

MR. GLECKLER: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so if the wind's 

blowing to the northeast, you've still a stretch 

of the plume that's on the INL property, but 

there's nothing there. 

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, and the air 

sampling network that they had set up, the fixed 
277

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stations, was in that northeast direction, 

roughly, is where they anticipated it. That 

was one of the restrictions of wind conditions 

and meteorological conditions for them to run 

the IET test.

MR. KATZ: So are we moving on to 

issue -- what issue are we on now?

MEMBER BEACH: Nineteen, isn't it?

MR. HINNEFELD: Got the one for 9 

and 22?

DR. OSTROW: That'll be the next 

one, the 9 and 23 one, the hot particle one.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, okay. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Let's do that 

one. I like that one.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: When you're 

hot, you're hot. 

MR. KATZ: Hot particle, that's 9 

and 23.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Nine and 23? 
278

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It looks like we have a similar issue at NTS.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, that one's 

fairly common in the nuclear industry, hot 

particles. 

Regarding that one, I think I'll let 

Jodi Jenkins take that. Is she still on?

MS. JENKINS: I'm here. Can you 

all hear me okay?

MR. GLECKLER: Yes, we hear you very 

well, thanks.

MS. JENKINS: Okay. So, regarding 

the hot particles, in the last Working Group 

meeting we came to the agreement that Issues 9 

and 23 could be merged. And NIOSH was tasked 

to look into the possibility that hot particles 

could be deposited on the skin and go undetected 

by investigating the facility's health physics 

practices.

So what I did was I went through a 

lot of the documents in the SRDB and the stuff 
279

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we got in the 2012 data capture. And I 

looked at different facilities and the site 

overall. And what I found was that from the 

beginning they had health physics programs in 

place. Employees were issued plant clothing to 

wear and removed their personal clothing. In 

some situations they had additional protective 

clothing on top of that for work in contaminated 

areas. There were limits on the amount of time 

they could wear that clothing. It was 

laundered. Surveying was required 

when leaving areas and when contamination was 

suspected. They had special work permits to 

cover jobs that were out of the ordinary, some 

types of maintenance where you had radiation and 

contamination. And as part of that they 

surveyed the work area, their equipment, 

personnel.

Now, that's not to say that hot 

particles did not exist and that they did not 
280

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have issues. I think someone already mentioned 

Bryce Rich's report from 1974 regarding 

problems they identified with the health 

physics program.

I also looked at hot particles, 

where they had found them, how they quantified 

them and what not. And what I did find was that 

there were instances where hot particles left 

the areas. They found some on the buses. They 

had a problem at ICPP. They had the 1974 report 

issued about degradations in the program and 

what they were going to do to fix it.

When SL-1 occurred there were 

contamination incidents resulting from that. 

That's when they found particles on U.S. Highway 

20 and some of the other roadways. 

Let's see, what else. They did 

have, throughout the operating of the facility, 

there were contamination incidents. I found 

documentation of these.
281

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So the evidence I found was that 

there was a health physics program in place that 

required surveying, protective clothing, 

special work permits and all of that. They 

continuously monitored their program to see 

where it was failing. And if there was a 

problem with it, they identified it and they 

instituted corrective actions.

They were capable of identifying hot 

particles. So if one did get out they would 

find it, they quantified the activity, and, as 

necessary, they did dose reconstructions.

Now, that's not to say that we would 

use -- there was an iridium contamination 

incident where they did a dose reconstruction 

based on the hot particles. That's not to say 

that we would not use that data, but the data 

does exist so that, when a dose reconstructor 

gets the employee's record, their documentation 

of the particles and sufficient information 
282

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

exists so that we can do our own calculations 

for our dose reconstruction purposes.

Comments? Questions?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

question. This is Phil.

MS. JENKINS: That's a broad 

overview of what I get.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: When these 

releases, they didn't realize they had one, how 

many of these were, say, automatic because they 

had stack monitoring or they had some kind of 

monitoring data that triggered alarms? Or were 

largely generated because all of a sudden 

personnel started showing up with contamination 

where there shouldn't be any? I mean, what was 

the main trigger here?

MS. JENKINS: Well, they were 

doing, as far as the roadways and the buses, 

after SL-1 -- the particles on the roadways were 

pretty much, based on what I read, thought they 
283

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were attributed to SL-1 and subsequent activity 

based on that. So that was a distinct incident.

The bus incidents, they did routine 

bus surveys. But they were always checking 

their buses. And as far as personnel 

contamination, those were based on problems 

with jobs, someone set off a monitor, that kind 

of issue. CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: 

Okay.

MS. JENKINS: And then the report 

from 1974 where they talked about degradations 

to the program improvements, that was based on 

-- another thing they were also doing was 

issuing annual reports where they were 

reviewing their programs. So the upgrades that

they instituted because of that were based on 

their annual reviews.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is sort 

of a non-obvious argument that we're making 

here, because if you read some of the documents, 
284

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and particularly Bryce Rich's '74 document, 

you'll see accounts of particles.

And they don't call them necessarily 

hot particles, they call them particles. And 

they range from hot to barely warm, you know, 

you can barely find them with a pancake probe.

So, they talk about the regular 

encountering of these particles outside of what 

you would call a controlled area today, you 

know, on the bus, things like that. They had 

a couple accounts of people alarming a portable 

monitor on the way into work. You know, things 

like that, wearing the clothes they were wore.

So there are accounts like that, and 

you would say, you know, you're initial reaction 

when you read accounts like that is, my god, 

they're completely out of control, what's going 

on? But the argument here is 

that they monitored so much, so regularly and 

so many things that they generated all this data 
285

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about inconsequential particles, for the most 

part. It's not every one of them. But for the 

most part, these particles that they 

encountered were inconsequential from a 

dosimetry standpoint. These just weren't hot 

enough.

And that the ones that were 

consequential were recorded. For instance, 

the two where they alarmed the portable 

monitors, or when anybody alarmed the portable 

monitor whichever way they were going, it was 

written up and it was dosimetrically important, 

meaning it was a hot one. There would be an 

incident report written and then recorded in 

that person's file. 

So the fact that they have this large 

set of data, including quarterly bus surveys --

and they always found particles on the buses. 

But the fact that they have that large amount 

of data is indicative that they looked really 
286

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hard, recognizing some of the design 

deficiencies that they had that allowed these 

particles to come out of the ICPP stack in the 

first place.

So that's the reason for this litany 

of things that Bryce Rich is describing in 1974, 

not because they're dosimetrically significant 

but because, realistically, it's a pain to keep 

checking yourself so hard and keep surveying. 

And so he was really pushing for 

improvements on the ventilation system for ICPP 

and improvements in the program in general so 

they didn't have to do all these additional 

surveys and chase all these things and write 

these quarterly bus reports. So that's kind of 

what he said, Awe shouldn't be having to do this, 

we should be able to confine this stuff and not 

have to do this.@

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Makes sense.

MR. HINNEFELD: So when you read 
287

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

these things, and my initial reaction was the 

same. I said, my gosh, there's all these 

accounts of things all over the place. How can 

we say that they had control? But the argument 

here that we arrived at is that because they 

recognized the design deficiencies and they 

recognized some of these particles were getting 

now, that they had to do all these things. They 

had to do all this looking. They had to find 

all these things, almost always finding 

dosimetrically inconsequential particles.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah.

MR. HINNEFELD: So that's kind of

what we've put out there. I think this may 

warrant some careful evaluation and say is it 

dosimetrically inconsequential or isn=t it.

You know, if you get one particle on 

the bus, and that's the kind of activity we're 

talking about, well, that doesn't seem dose 

consequential. But if you've got a number of 
288

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

particles on the bus, does that really sum up 

to inconsequential then, in general?

So there might be room for some 

evaluation and discussion here. But just 

because there's a lot of survey evidence that 

particles were observed outside what we would 

now call the controlled area, I don't think 

that's indicative that there's an important 

dose element here that's not being captured. 

Because the important ones were captured and 

written in incident reports.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Was there a 

trigger level that there was basically, would 

there be like 500 dpm, 1000 dpm or something 

before any, you know --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if it's 500 

dpm you'd be able to find it with a pancake 

probe.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I'm just 

throwing out numbers --
289

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: They probably had a 

instrument response that they would consider 

definitive, but usually it's two or three times 

what is was in background is.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

MEMBER MELIUS: Stu or anybody, do we 

know, if there were "consequential" incidents, 

did they make it into the worker's records in 

some way?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, we have 

incident reports in people's records that 

describe contamination.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, so you've 

gone through that and identified that as part 

of the dose reconstructions that have been done?

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm pretty sure 

that was part of this. But I don't want to be 

too confident here. 

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe Jodi can help 
290

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

me out.

MEMBER ROESSLER: And then in 

addition to Jim's question, did they know the 

radionuclide and did they know the position on 

the body?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, well, a 

personal contamination incident will generally 

identify the contaminant and the contamination 

location, for sure, and a radionuclide maybe. 

MEMBER BEACH: Well, the one, the 

particles on the bus calls out quite a few 

radionuclides. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, they had a 

particular issue with ruthenium particles from 

ICPP.

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, and there are 

several listed here.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so you can 

certainly do that. You can certainly 

characterize a particle. I won't sit here and 
291

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

say that an incident report did it in every case.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, I mean, but 

they will have location on the body, for sure.

MR. HINNEFELD: An incident report, 

I think, will have the location.

MS. JENKINS: Yes. As far as 

incident reports go and stuff, depending on what 

was done as far as from the dose reconstruction 

perspective, if you have an incident report, the 

incident reports that I observed have, I found 

different things.

At a bare minimum they would have 

particle activity and location on the body. 

With just activity and location on the body, the 

dose reconstructor can make conservative 

assumptions based on radionuclides. And based 

on knowing an activity and a location, you make 

conservative, claimant-favorable assumptions 

to get a DOE.

In other situations you do have 
292

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

actual information as far as what the 

radioisotope was. And the way it appeared to 

me, looking over the records and everything, is 

depending on the magnitude of activity of the 

particle, the hotter the particle was the more 

they studied it. Does that make sense?

MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, that makes 

sense but I think my question was a little bit 

more fundamental, was are all these incident 

reports getting into -- are the individual's 

records? So are you retrieving those when you 

do a dose reconstruction on an individual?

Like we found at many other sites 

where those incident reports don't seem to get 

into the individual's records, so they're not 

available for dose reconstruction purposes.

And someone can follow up on that. 

That's fine.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, one part of 

this, the last paragraph says that these surveys 
293

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were discovered by, in some cases, personnel 

monitoring. So, yes, but you're right. 

MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, does it --

MS. JENKINS: I found the 

documentation that I presented in 

contamination control reports, SRDB documents. 

I mean, I can pull some names that I discovered. 

And if they have filed a claim that is a -- well, 

if they have filed a claim we can see if it's 

there.

MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Yeah. That=s a good 

call. That makes a lot of sense.

MS. JENKINS: I mean, I can pull a 

few names, but --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we 

won't be able to resolve it on the phone today, 

Jodi, but --

MS. JENKINS: No. I'm just 

wondering if we can pull big enough samples.
294

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, 

going forward, I mean, the first thing we can 

do is see if you have incident reports that were 

in our SRDB, which is Site Research Database, 

which is not claimant-filed.

MS. JENKINS: Yes. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And you have names. 

Well, just like you suggested, the first step 

is to take down some names. I'm not going to 

tell you how many. And check and see if they're 

claimants. And if they're claimants, you know, 

open up their claim file and see if the 

information we got from DOE on their exposure 

record includes those skin contamination 

incidents.

Because, as Jim said, that is a 

directly relevant question as to whether or not 

these incident reports are available for us when 

we do an individual dose reconstruction.

MR. GLECKLER: I can elaborate on 
295

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that a little more. My understanding is the DOE 

and INL is supposed to be providing us the 

incident reports when they exist.

In addition to that, because we know 

we have records in the SRDB and we actually had

this set up because of the Pinellas Plant and 

that first stuff for them because we were 

missing dosimetry records. But they'll do a 

run for each claim and they're looking for any 

of that information, like the claimant's name 

and stuff. And it'll pull up those excerpts of 

those SRDB references, the pages with the 

person's name of it.

And sometimes we only get that page 

with the name on it. We=ll have to go back to 

the original to get the full story, but that will 

tell us, like if their name popped up in an 

incident report that we've captured, we now have 

their incident report.

And I'm not sure if we've seen the 
296

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scenario to where we've got an incident report 

coming out of our SRDB but don't get anything 

from DOE. I can't remember that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Good, yeah. Well, 

I mean there are several relevant questions 

here. But the easy one is to do what Jodi 

suggested first. And then, as you said, I mean, 

if these are coming in, if we=re only getting 

them through SPEDELite then we only have a 

period of comprehensive list if we've managed 

to capture all the incident reports.

See, that's an issue. So it's really better if 

we're getting them from DOE.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Have you found 

any document that states what their limits are? 

I mean, somebody=s got a 95 dpm nasal smear so 

that's basically the end of the road there on 

it. But if they have 100, then now it becomes 

an incident. I mean, they've got this level 

that it has to go over before it becomes a formal 
297

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

incident.

MR. GLECKLER: The radiological 

control procedures are one of the key things 

that we were targeting for the 2012 data capture 

trip, and had high hopes for that, but it turned 

up a lot of goose eggs.

We captured a few more documents but 

no broad procedures and stuff that we were 

hoping to catch. We do have a few procedure, 

back in the timeframe for specific facilities, 

ICPP is one that we=ve got some.

MEMBER BEACH: Brian, that kind of 

leads into kind of what my question was going 

to be. The last paragraph -- and, Jodi, this 

might be for you too. This is Josie.

It says that in addition there's 

complex-wide guidance in place. And I guess 

that goes back to the procedures. Is there a 

guidance document? Do you have it? Is it 

available for SC&A to look at it, or for us to 
298

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

look at?

MS. JENKINS: Hold on a second, last 

paragraph that --

MEMBER BEACH: It's the last 

sentence. It says in addition there is a 

complex-wide guidance in place that addresses 

skin contaminations and hot particles. I guess 

I'm look to what you're referencing there. Is 

it a document?

MS. JENKINS: TIB-17.

MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-17.

MS. JENKINS: TIB-17 covers the 

technical --

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, so it's 

not an INL document.

MEMBER BEACH: I thought it would be 

an INL document. That's what it appeared to me.

MS. JENKINS: Okay.

DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

the hard part of this is going to be, as Jim 
299

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Melius mentioned, you know, will we know when 

we have a person that had a contamination 

incident when we do his dose reconstruction?

 Once you know that and you have the 

information that we think you'll have, then you 

use TIB-17 to reconstruct that dose. So, I 

mean, I think you're in good shape once, you 

know, you've identified the person and the 

radionuclide. 

But if you can't, you know, if you 

have a situation where there could have been 

particles coming down exposing individuals. 

You're telling me that they did have a 

comprehensive -- when they left the site they 

were all scanned, probably clothed, and whether 

this is indoors or outdoors, now. And 

then you'll have a way say with a degree of 

certainty that they did survey people, that 

theoretically those people that were 

contaminated did make it into their records. 
300

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

See, that's the big issue.

I believe that they probably did 

have some type of survey, access and egress 

surveys performed. But when they did trip 

something and the alarm went off, whatever the 

trip level was, whether that made it into a 

person's record. And if we know that to be the 

case and we feel confident with that, I think 

you're in good shape to be able to reconstruct 

those doses using TIB-17.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Did they also 

talked about, like, the RCT logs?

MS. JENKINS: No, what do you mean?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I mean, 

you know, the health physics monitors there are 

going to be on a job or in a certain area and 

stuff. And if they find someone above a certain 

level, whether it's a nasal smear, whether it's 

skin contamination, contamination of their 

clothing, then it becomes reportable. 
301

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But if it's under a certain level it's 

like, go change your coveralls. I=m assuming 

they=re keeping some kind of log book or record?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess what 

we'd have to say that we would not propose to 

go recapture all the RCT log books and look 

through that. I think, kind of like what you 

were talking about, when something mattered and 

when something got written up.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah. No, I 

mean, you wouldn't look at just the general 

stuff but --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, maybe some of 

the incident reports will tell us, you know, by 

seeing what kind of levels are on there. Maybe 

that might give us some hint as to what got 

written up.

And, you know, potentially less than 

that was sort of considered inconsequential 

from a dose standpoint. And it might be the 
302

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

right decision still today, who knows. We 

won't know until we kind of try to get into some 

judgments about that.

But I don't think we would propose 

trying to recover all the RCT logs.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I didn't 

mean that. I meant there's more like when you 

have, you know, I mean, there are certain --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah, all of a 

sudden you see somebody comes up in the RCT, 

comes up and this person's got 500,000 K on their 

face then there's something, you know, there 

should be something followed up on that one.

But just run of the mill stuff, you 

know, somebody's got a few K on their skin, you 

know, you go clean it and get it off and go to 

work. MR. HINNEFELD: We'll 

have to put that on the list of things we might 

pursue if we need to, since we couldn't find the 
303

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

HP -- you said you couldn't find the HP 

procedures that dictated when you did various 

things.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, it's pretty 

limited. We've got some from way back when, one 

of them Jodi references in her White Paper with 

the ICPP Health Physics manual on that. And 

then most of the other stuff's the modern era.

MS. JENKINS: No, I mean, there's 

also a difference between distributed low-level 

radioactive contamination and hot particles.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, right.

DR. MAURO: And OTIB-17 provides 

for all that.

MR. GLECKLER: Right.

MS. JENKINS: Right, it provides 

for both. But this, I was focusing more on that 

particle aspect. But I did throw in the other 

stuff as further evidence that they were 

discovering problems and they were quantifying 
304

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what they found.

MEMBER BEACH: So, two actions out 

of this, for NIOSH and for SC&A?

DR. OSTROW: Well, we'll respond. 

Yeah, we'll respond to the paper. And it sounds 

like NIOSH is still looking into it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we are 

specifically looking into whether the incident 

reports got included on the claim files.

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

(Pause.)

MR. GLECKLER: So on to the next 

one?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. Sorry, I was 

taking my notes out.

MR. KATZ: We're making nice 

progress. Does someone need a break? No, 

we're good.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, we're on 
305

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Comment 19, I guess. This one, I think either 

we've got a White Paper or just a response in 

in the Issues Matrix. And the White Paper 

provide a little more of the background and some 

excerpts of the Issues Matrix response, and then 

the main body of the document.

But the history behind this one was 

our initial response that we put together. And 

during the last meeting Dr. Taulbee identified 

that there were some inaccuracies in our prior 

response and indicated that we'd revise that. 

And we've since gone and revised that.

And it has to do with the 

angular dependence issue. And, basically, 

it's along the same lines. It's like we're 

still referring to DCAS-TIB-10 for handling 

that issue or addressing that issue.

So it's hopefully worded accurately 

this time. And then we've also committed to put 

some additional guidance to the eternal TBD for 
306

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the LNL site. I think everyone's had a chance 

took at that, if you have any questions.

DR. MAURO: This is John, I read 

it, and I think you've been fully responsive, 

taking into consideration this angular 

dependence issue. So my initial impression 

was, yes, you=ve proposed the revisions and 

dealing with this seems appropriate and fine.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I think you are 

pretty good at finding sources of information 

and knew to go to our 1956 book to get this.

DR. MAURO: Yes, nice job.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, so that'll 

take us to the next one.

MEMBER BEACH: I didn't have any 

questions with it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Process question. 

People seemed okay with this. Are we then 

thinking of closing it? Or does that mean that 

there's going to be a more careful evaluation?
307

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: Well, SC&A will 

respond and probably will say it's okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so, no action 

today, but --

DR. OSTROW: No.

MR. KATZ: Yeah, let's wait until we 

get the paper from SC&A.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's fine.

MR. KATZ: But that was a good 

question. So SC&A will write a response.

MR. HINNEFELD: I was going to say 

something, Steve, but I figured anything I say 

might sound like a dare of something --

(Laughter.)

MR. GLECKLER: The next one, Issue 

No. 24. And I'll let Jodi take this one.

MS. JENKINS: Sorry, I had it on 

mute.

MR. KATZ: No rush.

MS. JENKINS: Okay, so what we did 
308

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as a result of this, we were tasked with 

conducting a review of the INL claims with 

extremity cancers. And I did that. Just a 

second. I have too many things open on my 

desktop. I apologize.

Okay, so there were 63 total claims 

with extremity cancers. The different types of 

jobs the individuals worked on ranged from 

security guards, physicists, laborers, 

technicians. It encompasses a wide range.

Let's see. The total, there were 62 

total cancers. I apologize. Out of 1,736 

overall claims. So three percent of the claims 

involved extremity cancers.

And when I talk about extremity 

cancers, the ICD-9 codes I looked at were 

172.6-7, 173.7, 172.7-1 and 172.7-2, 170.79, 

232.6 and 232.7.

And when I did this I looked at the 

NRC definition of extremity, which is arms below 
309

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the elbow, legs below the knee, as far as 

determining that. And some of the employees 

actually had extremity dosimeters.

And in the paper I put out I 

identified whether or not the individuals 

actually had an extremity dosimetry. I also was 

tasked with looking over the interviews. And 

I did a summary and it pretty much ranged the 

gamut from evidence that extremity dosimetry 

was issued to no one ever got an extremity 

dosimeter attending. 

INL did assign the dosimetry based 

on a case-by-case basis. And we have the 

ability to look at that and identify issues, as 

we do the DRs, based on the workers' jobs, 

whether they had dosimetry or not.

 Dose constructors, with the use of 

TIB-17, have the ability to make professional 

judgments as far as that goes. And that's what 

I've got for that.
310

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER ROESSLER: Could I back up? 

This is Gen, Jodi. What was the motivation for 

doing this?

MR. GLECKLER: I think I can address 

that. Back in our original response to Issue 

24, Comment 24, that I had to do, we basically 

do this on a case-by-case basis because there 

weren't that many claims out there to, you know, 

the warrant putting it into the Technical Basis 

Document.

And that's where we got the task to 

go, you know, well, how many might there have 

been out there. That's where this task came 

from, to go out and look at how many. So we now 

know that it's less than three percent of the 

claim's about extremity cancers.

But then also, of those claims, how 

many of them had extremity dosimetry that would 

need to be factored in? That's an even lower 

percent, you've got to lower that three percent 
311

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

even lower. So the likelihood of someone 

having extremity dosimetry, a special dose, 

non-uniform type dose exposures that need to be 

accounted for for that extremity, and then 

extremity cancer, is pretty unlikely.

And so that's something that we've 

already, you know, warrants being addressed on 

a case-by-case basis versus generically on a 

TBD.

DR. OSTROW: Okay, I'm just 

curious. What do you actually do in a case where 

someone got an extremity dose and there's no 

external dosimetry? I mean, how would you 

actually solve --

MEMBER BEACH: Good question.

MR. GLECKLER: That implies that 

they've never worked in the radiological area 

at INL.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what you're 

saying is they had no extremity dosimetry?
312

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. OSTROW: Yes. No extremity.

MR. GLECKLER: Oh, no extremity? 

Oh, okay. I thought you said external.

DR. OSTROW: No, maybe I did.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay, that would be 

an easy one. That's where we have to look 

carefully what's in the CATI then, like 

especially to check if they did glove box work 

or say that they did any work behind a shield 

or they were extending their hands and --

DR. OSTROW: You look at all the 

details, yeah.

MS. JENKINS: We also looked at job 

titles, like one of the extremity cancers we've 

got a security guard who has moles on his foot, 

but if you have like a security guard with a 

cancer, extremity cancer and didn=t have those 

extremity dosimeters, you would factor all that 

in.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, pipefitter is 
313

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

another one that we're real sensitive to because 

that we have to look at carefully. It's like 

for unusual exposure scenarios.

MS. JENKINS: Some types of jobs 

lend themselves to more concern as far as could 

they have had an extremity exposure, as opposed 

to another type of job.

DR. MAURO: This is John. I don't 

know what more you can do. I mean, I agree with 

what I'm hearing, that from our perspective 

there's not much more that you can do than that. 

Then what will happen though is that, for those 

cases where you have an extremity cancer and no 

extremity dosimetry, you know, that's going to 

require some soul-searching in terms of how far 

you need to go and what's your threshold going 

to be when you do assume that something -- that's 

where your problem's going to run into.

But there really is no other way to 

deal with it than what you've just described.
314

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got an 

off-the-cuff question for you on that. Just 

for general information, what kind of levels are 

we talking about, extremity exposures, here? 

Ten, 15, 25 R a year?

MR. GLECKLER: From what I've seen 

with the extremity dosimeters, it was very 

intermittent, like it can vary from some decent 

doses. But I think it's under a rem, is the max 

for an individual dose.

I don't know. Did you encounter 

anymore dose information than I've seen? 

Because I just -- it's not that common. And 

then I've only seen what's in the claims, Jodi.

MS. JENKINS: No, not really.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's our view that 

extremity dosimetry would be issued sort of like 

on an a job basis. Like if somebody was going 

to do a particular job that was going to warrant, 

you know, that they were going to get their hands 
315

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

close to a source more so than typically would, 

that they'd get an extremity dosimeter for that, 

and then that would be --

MR. GLECKLER: That's correct. I 

think Jodi touched on that, that it was issued 

on a case-by-case basis by the site.

MR. HINNEFELD: Sort of like on a 

job basis as opposed to someone wearing an 

extremity dosimeter all year.

MEMBER BEACH: Wasn't it rare that 

they had dosimetry for extremities before '80, 

I think? I mean, in the earlier years wasn't 

there --

MR. GLECKLER: I've seen them back 

in the '50s, going back in the records form the 

'50s. They did have them back then.

MEMBER BEACH: And then is NIOSH, 

are you guys working on a TBD to address this? 

It says in your write-up that you are.

MR. HINNEFELD: We are working on, 
316

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think it's a modeled run to do kind of like 

generic adjustment from hand to badge. I think 

Matt was mentioning that. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER BEACH: How many worker 

comments do we have on this issue? Have you 

guys done very many interviews and asked the 

question on --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what we've 

done here is extracted from what the interviews 

that SC&A did here.

MEMBER BEACH: Right, I got that 

part.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

we've interviewed people specifically about 

that since this came up.

MS. JENKINS: Yeah, I based my 

summary of the comments on SC&A's -- basically 

NIOSH committed to doing a review of the SC&A's 

interviews, which I reviewed their summaries.
317

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

MR. GLECKLER: For this particular 

issue, the last meeting that we had, we were just 

tasked to look into how many extremity cancers 

there were to support our claim that they're not 

common. 

MEMBER MELIUS: Hi, this is Jim 

Melius. If someone could bring me up to date, 

how many interviews has SC&A done?

DR. OSTROW: This goes back to our 

original Site Profile review. And I don't know 

off-hand how many interviews we did at that 

time. We did do site interviews but I don't 

recall how many people were actually 

interviewed then.

MR. KATZ: That'd be in the addendum, 

wouldn't they, of the report?

DR. OSTROW: Yes, it's in our 

report. It's in the addendum of our report, in 

one of the appendices.
318

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GLECKLER: I know we had it on 

that one.

MEMBER BEACH: I think so.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Me too.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay. And the last 

one we have is Comment 34, the White Paper. And 

it has to do with, back in the 2011 Working Group 

meeting, it looks like NIOSH and SC&A will look 

at the interviews appearing in SC&A=s Site 

Profile review and elsewhere for relevant 

anecdotal discussions on neutron exposures. 

And I guess the key focus on that was 

I guess not as much the high-risk, but the 

unmonitored. Well, there are some high risks 

incidents, specific ones that were mentioned in 

the SC&A interview summaries. It was just like 

a summary of all this information that they 

gathered out of their interviews. And so let's 

see if I can find it now. 

I think we found three instances in 
319

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there that indicated there may have been areas 

where workers received unmonitored neutron 

doses that were more than incidental.

And the first one of concern had to 

do with the MTR and -- it=s probably just easier 

to read this. This is a quote that I took out 

of the SC&A document on that incident where the 

MTR had -- I guess it's a summary of the 

interview, so it could be more than one person's 

input being summarized here.

The MTR had several neutron beam 

ports for experimental work which could be 

plugged or unplugged to project beams to ground 

floor area. The beams were controlled by 

temporary shielding but they were detectable 

out to Highway 20.

In one case, radiation leakage 

exposed a truckful of film, ruining the film. 

One beam had what was referred to as a neutron 

chopper. Two discs were tied together with two 
320

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

slots. The chopper speed could be adjusted to 

obtain a particular neutron energy.

This unit was used to produce a 

neutron beam that could be used for analysis and 

research. There were some reported neutron 

leaks in the area of the reactor shield that were 

not intentional. During one occasion, leakage 

radiation set off an alarm in an area that had 

to be evacuated.

And so it looks like there's a number 

of interviewees that are providing that input, 

and the key one that we're mostly concerned with 

is the uncontrolled beam that was detectable out 

to Highway 20.

The MTR was designed with the 

ability to have a beam, a neutron beam extend 

outside the building itself. And from what I 

could find on that, it's like they never 

utilized that. I haven't been able to find any 

more information to indicate that they utilized 
321

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

-- you know, that it was designed for that. 

That is a possibility, but I suspect that they 

might not have used it.

But even then it would have been 

limited to a much shorter distance than Highway 

20. And we looked at, oh, a lot of their early 

periodic reports that were available, ranging 

from 1952 up to 1965, because we had to put a 

date range on the incident.

Something like that likely 

occurring, our guess, was during the early 

years, and I searched through the periodic 

reports in there and found nothing to indicate 

that something, anything like that occurred.

There were a couple neutron beam 

incidents that I come across. But they were 

within the building to where the workers, you 

know, there's a part of the MTR where that 

neutron beam extends out a little beyond the 

building, but it's part of the building yard.
322

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You can see it on the floor plan for the 

building. It's like the couple incidents 

involved the workers going back there to get, 

you know, to do some work and they forget to shut 

off the beam, and they walked through the beam.

But there's incident reports for 

those incidents and they assessed what their 

localized doses might have been, to where, you 

know, it=s like in the belly button, butt cheek 

area, on the waistline, is where the beam would 

hit in both of those. 3 14 46

In the circumstances where that they 

hadn't an incident, it looks like they were as 

least assessing those. So anything being 

detectable our to Highway 20 or beyond the 

structure itself it's like, you now, when you 

start thinking about it, it's like it doesn't 

sound like a credible incident.

Because in order for it to ruin a 
323

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

truckload of film, you ask yourself, what's the 

likelihood of a truckload of film being out 

there at that time and for that amount, 

sufficient time to get hit? And film, unless 

it's NTA film, it's not likely going to be very 

sensitive to neutrons. So it's going to take 

an awful lot to ruin the film.

And so the likelihood of that, it's 

either we're missing some information or 

something. It's like we weren't able to find 

anything on that. So we don't think that 

there's any situation there.

They did have issues inside the 

building. But then they also had neutron 

monitoring for workers who were involved with 

taking out the beam ports and handling that 

stuff, so they would have been monitored on 

that.

And there's another incident, or 

instance as I call it, where although there may 
324

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have been an absence of neutron monitoring in 

some areas of the ICPP, there were wall-mounted 

neutron systems used in the corridors of some 

buildings. And also located in these areas

were emergency dosimetry systems.

And that basically sounds just --

yeah, they were the emergency dosimetry systems 

to where they were probably set up there for 

criticality purposes versus any sort of routine 

monitoring of any neutron radiation fields.

Because the ICPP, everything's in 

the hot cells there. And so even when they did 

have criticalities, the only indicator that the 

criticality occurred was typically through 

their stack emissions versus any radiation 

alarms in the building.

And there's nothing that we've come 

across that indicates that there's any 

potential for neutron exposures at the ICPP 

other than the ones dealing with like some of 
325

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the calibration sources.

And then there's the third instance 

that we found. There was a potential for a 

missed neutron dose in the early days due to 

incomplete monitoring of the exposed 

population. For example, many laboratory 

analysts and chemists did not have neutron 

dosimeters as they were not aware that there was 

an issue with neutrons. This lack of neutron 

monitoring could be verified by evaluating the 

ambient neutron sources and cross-comparing 

this information with dosimetry processing 

data.

And I think I dealt with that one. 

The problem is that it's not identifying any 

specific areas and we subsequently couldn't 

find any areas or laboratory locations where 

unmonitored neutron doses may have been 

received. So in order to do any additional 

follow up on that we=d need more information. 
326

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Other stuff that I compiled for this 

one is we did a search of all claim data where 

we've got data entry files for. So it's not all 

the INL claims but it's all the one where we've 

created the data entry file, and so it might

exclude a few where those individual claims 

where there's just a handful of dosimetry data, 

because they typically didn't create data entry 

files back then for that.

And looked at how many of those 

claims have neutron dosimetry and what the 

neutron doses were. And typically, out of the 

vast majority of the claims that we had, it's 

like the measured neutron doses were below the 

LOD/2 value.

And since that gives -- like some of 

the comments I had on the internal monitoring, 

most sites will target the people with the 

highest potential to receive dose for either 

bioassay or external dose monitoring. And when 
327

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we look at those doses, and the majority of 

those, the doses being received are less than 

detect, then that tells us they're probably 

monitoring a lot more people than they actually 

need to be monitoring.

And so that's a good indication. 

And one of the other things that we found was 

a document from back the 1950s. I=m not seeing 

that page now.

Okay, here, yeah, 1952 vintage 

memorandum that indicated that 47 percent of the 

workers monitored for external photon doses at 

the MTR were also monitored for neutron doses.

So, later and later years, 

we see that we're not monitoring many people for 

neutron dose. It looks like they started out, 

at least, monitoring almost half of the plant 

for neutron dose and probably cut back based on 

what they learned from those dosimeters.

So that was a key document that I 
328

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

came across when I was doing the research for 

this. And we did find some stuff, some 

locations that we do need to add to the TBD. If 

I can find my pages. Oh, here they are.

It looks like those other locations 

include, let's see, ETR, that's Engineering 

Test Reactor. And the TR, the test reactor 

area, for handling the Pu-Be source. The ICPP, 

the ambient air where they handle the ambi 

source. And, let's see, a loft facility. 

Looks like maybe add those to the TBD areas.

Anything in the test reactor area 

won't really change what we do for INL dose 

reconstructions because we treat them as MTR 

workers anyhow. So I guess it's like if they 

have any neutron dosimetry and stuff it's like 

it'll be assessed and an MTR dose. 

And that=s where we got the higher 

dosimeter correction factor. And that gets 

applied, and so it's just a formality to add the 
329

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ETR and the test reactor Pu-Be source amounts 

to it, to the TBD.

And also the ATR, if that=s not 

already in there. So does anybody have any 

questions on it? Comments?

DR. OSTROW: No, we didn't review 

this particular one anyway. I didn't know you 

actually had this issue until earlier today.

MR. GLECKLER: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: But I understand what 

you're saying.

MR. GLECKLER: Yeah, hopefully 

these will be better spelled out in the White 

Paper. It's kind of hard to summarize and 

identify where the various pieces of 

information we had and where we looked. And so 

the White Paper will hopefully point to all 

those things and substantiate what we come up 

with.

DR. OSTROW: So the action item here 
330

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is for SC&A to read the paper and comment on it?

MR. GLECKLER: Right.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. The only thing 

I wrote down, on the high-risk or high-dose 

jobs, how were doses assigned? But we'll wait 

for that.

I went back through the 2005 and 2006 

Site Profiles for who SC&A reviewed and I didn't 

see any attachments on the front or back. So 

I'm wondering if maybe -- I know you've got the 

list.

DR. OSTROW: Which? The actual 

people?

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah. I'm sure it's 

somewhere but --

DR. OSTROW: I don't know if it ever 

appeared, the actual names, in our Site Profile 

review. I'm sure we have the information 

somewhere.

MR. KATZ: Well, it's normally a 
331

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

summary. I mean, it wouldn't be their names, 

right.

DR. OSTROW: No, that's right, it's 

just a summary.

MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 

The problem is it's all sort of mixed together 

in terms of how the data is reported. So it 

doesn't even pull out, you know, percentages or 

something like that. So it's a little hard to 

tell from that. And these interviews were done 

in 2005, it looks like.

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

MEMBER MELIUS: So it's nine years 

ago. And it seems to me there's an awful lot 

of issues that have changed or come up since that 

time.

MR. KATZ: Right, so I think the 

first step is to see how much coverage we did 

get with interviews from SC&A. And the second 
332

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is to what more interviews might be needed.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. And my other 

related concern, which I brought up earlier, is 

that if we do go ahead and make our July meeting 

in Idaho, I think we want to be able to make use 

of that meeting, or the public comment period 

anyway, to get more input on issues, including 

input on the internal dose model, coworker 

model, that we may or may not see before then.

Stu was going to check the 

schedule on that. But I think we sort of know 

the questions that come up in terms of who's 

monitored, did everybody follow the same 

monitoring protocol and so forth.

And so I think some thought ought to 

go into is there work that we could do ahead of 

that meeting that would help inform that 

meeting. And either can we get people to turn 

out for that meeting, which we've not have much 

luck with at INL, or whether we try to use that 
333

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time to -- or the time before that to gather some 

additional information.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, I still have 

some concerns that we might be missing stuff in 

the Site Profile. I know I gave a list to Steve 

this morning of something that was sent to me 

back in 2009. So I'd like to kind of follow up 

on maybe that avenue too with some new 

interviews possibly.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: There have 

still been concerns raised about how they did 

calcining and handled the materials from that.

Another area of concern was trying 

to grab and package up the noble gases and stuff, 

and the fact that they did have such a tremendous 

problem with them leaking.

MR. HINNEFELD: Are you talking 

about the chem plant?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yeah.

MR. HINNEFELD: The chem plant had 
334

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a calciner. They had an old calciner and a new 

calciner.

To the issue of more employee input 

into this, ATL has periodically been in 

discussion with, essentially, labor unions at 

Idaho. And I think the key element would be for 

us to frame the questions. You know, what is 

it that we would like more discussion from 

workers on? And I think we got some of the 

notes, or some of the items from today. Or 

really the issues in front of the Work Group for 

what we're interested in.

And can we try to pursue, through 

that avenue, getting a cadre of people to speak 

to those issues, interested in speaking to those 

issues? Then would we want to do that as a Work 

Group activity? I mean, to me, it's always a 

good idea for us and SC&A to go together to these 

interviews.

MEMBER BEACH: Right, I agree.
335

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HINNEFELD: So we=re not 

interviewing people separately and things like 

that. Maybe make it a technical effort on our 

part, make it a Work Group activity, or make it 

a technical effort on our part and invite Work 

Group participation, which seems to be the 

easiest. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: There's one 

area I'd really like you to look at more, both 

SC&A, the Work Group, and you. I mean, this is 

one of the facilities that's handling a lot of 

fuel rods, spent fuel rods. It's not something 

everybody does and it's very high risk, very 

high potential exposures.

What is the impact on these people 

and how are they handling these rods? Where are 

the areas that we maybe have not covered that 

we should be looking at? I know there's one 

thing they're talking about. Some of the fuel 

rods, when they got to move them, they have a 
336

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

little 2-inch wide hole in the floor.

And these guys sit there, bent over 

with a flash light, you know, in their eyes. 

They're right over that hole where they're 

trying to jockey to snag the top of the fuel pin 

loading so they can move them. MEMBER 

BEACH: I think that was one of the issues that 

was on the list that I gave Stu.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. And 

there's been some concern about some of the 

people having a lot of cataracts and stuff. 

Well, I don't know if that's germane to that 

exposure, but it could be.

Because, I mean, their film badges 

and stuff are not going to be -- I mean, 

basically they're putting their nose almost on 

the ground and it's their eyes that are directly 

aligned with that. And there's no real 

shielding there.

MR. KATZ: Well, if NIOSH takes the 
337

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lead in organizing an effort to sort of collect 

and organize what are the issues that are in some 

fashion open that could stand for more input?

If they organize it with 

SC&A and with the Work Group Members 

contributing whatever they can to that sort of 

matrix of issues. And then it seems, in terms 

of process, if we can organize some interviews 

in advance of the INL meeting, if we're going 

to go to INL for the Board, I mean, that will 

also help pop up participation at the meeting 

by doing those interviews in advance, if that's 

possible.

And if not, we can also organize the 

INL part, which we'll do before the public 

comments session. We can organize that 

presentation so it's not just a here's where we 

are with things, but actually quite specific on 

here's some issues we'd love to hear from you 

all as part of that session.
338

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We've never really done it so much 

as a directed sort of interaction with the 

public, but we certainly could do that. And I 

did speak with Brad, because, although he's 

conflicted in being involved at INL, I asked to 

get from him, and he was happy to do that, 

contacts.

I know you'll have that from ATL but 

I asked him just for his input on the different 

union groups. Because there's a number of them 

up there, and their retiree groups, the contacts 

that he knew to help with that outreach effort. 

And I'll provide that input if that's -- I told 

him to hold off until we decided whether we're 

going to INL.

But I will provide that to you folks 

and you can add that to whatever you have from 

ATL to help with that outreach effort. And, 

again, I think also getting DOE to do what they 

can to raise interest in the meeting, and DOL 
339

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would be good too as part of the process.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I like that 

idea. And, like I said, my concern is they're 

bringing in these spent fuel rods. They're 

having to cut them up, they're having to 

dissolve them up in some cases. And that's a 

real high risk area that I feel we haven't really 

covered per se.

DR. OSTROW: Well, Phil, I can't 

quite picture this. So you were talking about 

the hole in the shield and you=re trying to hook 

the fuel rods.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: Are they underwater or 

what?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, at that 

point they're still under the water but not real 

deep water at that point, because they're 

manually trying to snag, the way I understand 

is -- now, I may be totally wrong in this. 
340

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The way I understand it, basically 

it's an eye-hole that sits up there on top. And 

they can't do this automatically. It's a 

manual thing and you've got your nose right down 

almost on that water.

DR. OSTROW: Oh. 

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And it's your 

eyes that are looking through there.

DR. OSTROW: Kind of like in 

commercial reactors, the spent fuel pool. They 

usually have, I think it's about 40 feet of 

cover, water cover, above the top of the fuel 

rods.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I mean, 

they do have other pools too that are much 

deeper.

DR. OSTROW: So these are shallow?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: My 

understanding, at this point it is much 

shallower at this point. But, yeah, they have 
341

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

others. I mean, they have the one that looks 

like a big Olympic swimming pool. I mean, I've 

actually been in that facility and stuff.

But this is where they're having to 

run to risk of getting much higher exposure to 

their face than normal. I mean, normally, they 

can reach out there and they manipulate things. 

But in this case it's the fact they're having 

to get down right on the deck that raises that 

level.

And then what do they do when one of 

these casks gets dumped off a truck? And don't 

tell me it doesn't happen. It has happened.

MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, Phil, these 

are good examples for you to lay out in an email 

and contribute to the pile, in effect, of issues 

that would be looked at. 

MEMBER BEACH: Ted, I have an email 

from a site foreman that was sent to me in 2009. 

I just made a copy and gave it to Steve. But 
342

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'll send it to you. It has a whole list. Some 

of them pertain, some of them do not. Well, you 

can distribute it. If somebody wants to take 

a look at it.

MR. KATZ: Yeah, because, again, if 

NIOSH is willing to organize this with SC&A and 

then the rest of the Work Group supporting it 

then, yeah, we need to get all this to Stu, I 

guess, Stu and Pete?

MEMBER BEACH: Well, I'll send what 

I have to you. And we still have six items that 

--

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Send me a copy 

of that too.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, yes. He would 

send it to everybody.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

MR. KATZ: And we're going to have 

to take into consideration all that's already 

covered in looking at all those comments. 
343

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Exactly.

DR. MAURO: It's almost a theme 

that's emerged here, is that there was a lot of 

coverage by way of internal and external 

dosimetry. But there are also lots of very 

unusual exposure scenarios where there could be 

localized exposures whereby the dosimetry, 

especially external, could be very localized, 

especially the extremity dose, the point that 

was just made here.

So this list, what we're really 

looking at is a list of jobs that were somewhat 

unique where a person may have experienced an 

exposure that is not necessarily represented by 

whatever health physics dosimetry they receive. 

You have to sort of think of it in those terms. 

So people who are very familiar with 

the operations, the kind of things Phil just 

described, it's going to be important in 
344

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thinking through what we want to do by way of 

interviewing, kinds of information we're trying 

to seek.

MEMBER MELIUS: Jim Melius. To the 

comments or questions. One is I think the other 

theme is this has gone on for a long time and 

personnel has changed and so forth. So we're 

not quite as sharp as we usually are in reviewing 

some of these issues in terms of their 

historical, who did what when and so forth.

Secondly, though, I think what would 

be helpful is if NIOSH and SC&A, when you sort 

of decide what questions you want to ask or what 

issues you want to deal with, if you could 

circulate that to the Work Group for input so 

we don't miss the opportunity.

Same time recognizing that we can't 

have a thousand questions to try to address 

that. It has to be reasonable.

MR. KATZ: Right.
345

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MAURO: Could we start and talk 

to Brad, interview Brad?

(Laughter.)

MR. KATZ: Let's not get into that 

right now, John, at least --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER BEACH: We still have six 

items we haven't discusses that we should 

probably figure out how we're going to go 

forward on those, too.

MR. KATZ: Yeah.

MEMBER BEACH: Not that anybody's 

pressed for time or anything.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, if we are 

looking at another Work Group meeting before 

July, or anytime, I=d recommend we do whatever 

we can as soon as possible. It's really 

difficult to read all the material and kind of 

get up to speed on something. We're all up to 

speed. So if we're going to have another 
346

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meeting, I'd say do it as soon as we can.

DR. OSTROW: Well, look, SC&A 

should have responses to all these White Papers 

in the next couple of weeks, not months but a 

few weeks, since we=ve already formulated a lot 

of our opinions anyway.

We've heard today amplifications 

and so forth, so this is sort of towards the end 

of March. Probably like by the end of April, 

something like that, because it takes a little 

while to get things out the door. So like end 

of April I assume we could have responses to 

NIOSH=s White Papers.

And we'll also incorporate that into 

our report and just update the different issue 

or the items, the ones that we closed out and 

the ones that are still open and the new 

responses. So I=ll have like one document 

that'll have everything in it. We should be 

able to do that by the end of April.
347

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KATZ: But then aren't there 

still, beyond what the White Papers have 

addressed, there are other open issues.

DR. OSTROW: There's a few open 

issues, yes.

MR. KATZ: And how are those getting 

disposed?

DR. OSTROW: Well, there's a couple 

of them. I don't know off-hand on all of them 

but there's a few that are waiting for NIOSH to 

do something or other, like extremity doses. 

Let me think.

MEMBER BEACH: Number 5's the first 

one.

MR. HINNEFELD: Five and 6 are 

internal dosimetry models where we owe 

something because, you know, it came out at the 

last meeting, SC&A was going to go back and look, 

you know, re-look at something and they did. 

And they feel like it still is open. So that's 
348

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

two of them.

But I think we could get a 

comprehensive -- see, maybe I know this list 

from what we did today.

MEMBER BEACH: Fifteen and 16, 27 

and 28 are the ones I wrote down.

DR. OSTROW: All right, and 31.

MR. HINNEFELD: And 31. 

MEMBER BEACH: And 31?

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so let's see, 

5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 28 and 31.

DR. OSTROW: Right, these are the 

ones that I have that are open.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, based on a 

note I made a while ago in my hasty jottings, 

those are also the ones I have.

DR. OSTROW: Twenty-eight, I know, 

is you're having this paper on the NTA film 

dosimeter report. It's supposed to be --

MR. HINNEFELD: That's a data
349

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

capture issue.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, that's supposed 

to be Issue 28. I know that.

MEMBER BEACH: Well, 26 we tabled to 

go with 27.

MR. KATZ: Right, I knew there was 

one of those, right. And 27 is open. So I 

guess having a path forward for those, not to 

put anyone on the spot here.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well --

DR. OSTROW: And 15 and 16, but I 

have to look to see what's supposed to happen 

with 15 and 16. MEMBER BEACH: I 

thought NIOSH said they were --

MR. HINNEFELD: I think there's a 

tentative time to do this. I'm thinking the 

second half of May.

MR. KATZ: For a Work Group meeting?

MR. HINNEFELD: For a Work Group 

meeting, maybe. Before I commit to that I'd 
350

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like to get back and get -- because we still have 

June, because the Board meeting is not until the 

of July.

MR. KATZ: Right, end of July, very 

end of July.

MR. HINNEFELD: So we've got some 

time and we don't need to rush it. I know that 

the second week in May we're already -- the 

specific people who work on this are getting 

pretty committed because we have outreach 

meetings we're scheduled to go to with the Joint 

Outreach Task Group meeting the second week of 

May.

We've been asked to do a one-day dose 

reconstruction seminar in Oak Ridge the second 

week of May. The Kansas City Plant site visit 

is the second week in May. And so we're getting 

pretty heavily committed unless we start 

changing some of this.

I mean, the DR, we might be able to 
351

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do the DR Subcommittee another day, but a lot 

of times you go with the convenience of the --

MR. KATZ: We can push it later in 

May.

MR. HINNEFELD: So we want to go 

passed that, that bulk. And even if we get into 

June, it's not a crisis in terms of --

MR. KATZ: We have all the month of 

July too, right.

Mr. HINNEFELD: So I'm thinking we 

don't need to rush this. I want to make sure 

we get back to -- because I've got to talk to 

ORAU management about availability and what's 

going to happen in that going forward.

MEMBER MELIUS: What about doing a 

meeting the day before the Board meeting in 

July?

MEMBER BEACH: That's always good.

MR. HINNEFELD: Out there, you 

mean?
352

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

DR. OSTROW: That may make too full 

of a schedule if we're going to interview people 

too before the meeting or something.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, it seems 

like we should have this resolved before then.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the 

interviews -- well, what were you saying about 

doing the interviews, Jim? The day before?

MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I=m hoping the 

interviews would be done before then.

MR. HINNEFELD: The interviews 

would be beforehand.

MEMBER MELIUS: And by the time they 

get summarized and go through Privacy Act, et 

cetera --

MR. KATZ: That's true. That takes 

some time too. 

MEMBER MELIUS: Again, that 

wouldn't rule out a meeting, a Work Group call 
353

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in May or June. We'll look at the schedule. 

It's probably too early to tell.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I have no 

particular -- I mean, we were really struggling 

with an agenda for the Work Group meeting anyway 

-- I mean, Board meeting. I don't think the 

Board meeting's going to be very long.

MR. KATZ: Right, I mean, the only 

reason I was thinking that the Work Group 

meeting you might want to have sooner, as 

opposed to abutted with the Board meeting, is 

another Work Group meeting might help focus what 

we do at the Board meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

DR. OSTROW: I agree. It would be 

good to leave some time.

MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, I think the 

main thing that will focus what we do on this 

site is going to be the coworker model.

MR. KATZ: Well, these other open 
354

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issues too, right?

MEMBER MELIUS: I know, but I think 

the most consequential one.

MR. KATZ: Okay, yeah.

MEMBER MELIUS: Is the coworker. 

And I don't think that's going to -- I'm not even 

sure we'll have time to review it before the 

Board meeting, but Stu will let us know that. 

The finding on that.

MR. KATZ: Yeah, that will be part 

of what we follow up on, right. So it sounds 

like we should just go ahead and plan on doing 

the Board meeting at INL, no? Idaho.

MEMBER MELIUS: I don't think we 

have a better possibility right now.

MR. KATZ: Right, I need to commit 

to a place.

MEMBER MELIUS: Well, the Idaho 

Work Group, I move on behalf of the Idaho Work 

Group that we do it there.
355

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'm all for 

that. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I'm fine with that.

MR. KATZ: Okay, so I'm planning on 

that then. I'll get that ball rolling.

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Brad's taking 

us all fishing.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

MEMBER MELIUS: If we don't move 

this along he's going to take us bear hunting 

and leave us in the woods.

(Laughter.)

MR. KATZ: What's next? Are we 

finished?

CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we're 

done for the day.

MEMBER ROESSLER: We just did 

deliverables and future meeting plans.

MR. KATZ: Yeah, okay.

DR. OSTROW: Oh, one question 
356

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

before we finish, talking about deliverables. 

We've just been like on the fly discussing these 

items that are still open. Should we write them 

down somewhere, like just list the items that 

are still open, in one sentence each, you know, 

who does what?

MR. KATZ: Yeah, because we're 

going to get path forward emails back and forth 

from NIOSH and you guys as part of the follow-up 

to this meeting. And that'll be the place to 

sort it out.

DR. OSTROW: Okay, good.

MR. KATZ: Yeah, that'd be great.

MEMBER BEACH: So those eight we 

just discussed?

MR. KATZ: Yeah, whatever the 

number is, exactly.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think, as a 

default assumption, the onus is probably on us 

to provide something, or to let SC&A know we 
357

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

don't what's missing here, can you clarify the 

remaining issue?

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: So I think, from 

that standpoint, the onus is on us to start.

DR. OSTROW: Good, done.

MR. KATZ: So this has been a 

productive meeting. Thank you, everybody, for 

your homework. You've all been making this 

work well. And thanks, everyone on the line. 

Have a good day. Take care.

(Whereupon, the meeting in the 

above-entitled matter was concluded at 3:46 

p.m.)
358

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The 

reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com