1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON OAK RIDGE GASEOUS 

DIFFUSION PLANT (K-25), PADUCAH

GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT, AND

PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT 

+ + + + + 

FRIDAY 

DECEMBER 7, 2012 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard

Time, Phillip Schofield, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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


 

2 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ELIZABETH ALGUTIFAN, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

CHUCK NELSON, DCAS

JIM NETON, DCAS

JODIE PHILLIPS, ORAU Team

MICHALENE RODRIGUEZ, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

3 

C O N T E N T S 

Welcome and roll call 5 

Issues resolution for Paducah 5 

$ SC&A presentation 

$ WG discussion 

Issues resolution for Portsmouth 39 

$ NIOSH presentation 

$ SC&A Response 

$ WG discussion 

Issues resolution for K-25 50 

$ NIOSH presentation 

$ SC&A Response 

$ WG discussion 

Path forward for issue resolution for 

Portsmouth, K-25, and Paducah 88 

Adjourn 94 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

4 

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

2 
 (1:02 p.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 
 Board of Radiation Worker Health. It's the 

5 
 Portsmouth, K-25, Paducah Work Group. We have 

6 
 an agenda that is posted on the NIOSH website 

7 
 under the Board section under the meeting 

8 
 section for today's date. And along with the 

9 
 agenda, we have issue matrices for all three 

10 
 sites also posted. So I just wanted to note 

11 that for everyone on the line. 

12 
 And then let's start with roll call 

13 
 for Board Members to start with, beginning 

14 
 with the Chair. Since we are speaking about 

15 
 specific sites, please note your conflict of 

16 interest situation with respect to each site. 

17 (Roll call) 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, let me just remind 

19 
 everyone else, mute your phones except when 

20 
 you are talking, to help with the audio 

21 quality and thank you. 

22 
 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

5 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We are 

2 
 going to start off with the Paducah site. 

3 
 There are five items still open that after 

4 
 DCAS put out their update, their comments, 

5 
 their resolutions, SC&A has reviewed those and 

6 
 recommend that we close those five items. 

7 
 So maybe we'll turn it over to SC&A 

8 
 and -- for their findings, what they found, so 

9 
 that they could -- these items could be 

10 closed. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, this is Joe. 

12 
 Just going to the matrix, I think everybody 

13 
 has a copy of this, it's dated July 2011, but 

14 
 the update is October of this year, October 

15 2012. 

16 
 Okay? And on item 5, issue 5, that 

17 
 was a contamination control and extremity dose 

18 
 issue. That Site Profile finding was a 

19 
 question of whether sufficient information and 

20 
 background was provided for the dose 

21 
 reconstructors in terms of the significance of 

22 
 skin exposure and whether and how to address 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

6 

1 
 that. 

2 
 I think the NIOSH action was to 

3 
 provide more references to tie it to specific 

4 
 documents and the -- I think there was 

5 
 agreement in the Work Group last time that 

6 
 that was certainly a good step forward and I 

7 
 think NIOSH at that point in time, however, 

8 
 acknowledged that they wanted to take a 

9 
 further look, particularly into the technetium 

10 
 99 exposures at the gaseous diffusion plants, 

11 
 and you know, more elaboration abut the 

12 
 implications of technetium 99 in terms of 

13 
 exposure and how one ought to address any 

14 missed dose due to technetium 99. 

15 
 Essentially, what DCAS provided, I 

16 
 think, in the spring, was a new procedure, 

17 
 ORAU RPRT-59, which was external exposure to 

18 
 technetium 99 at the gaseous diffusion plants 

19 
 dated February 7th which was submitted to the 

20 Work Group for review. 

21 
 At the workers' request, we 

22 
 reviewed that and felt that was certainly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

1 
 responsive to the concerns that we raised in 

2 
 our review, and that was part of the -- that 

3 
 was the basis for the recommendation that we 

4 
 forwarded to the Work Group, suggesting that 

5 
 that be closed. 

6 
 So that's the -- that's kind of the 

7 
 background, and the recommendation to the Work 

8 
 Group. Are you still there? 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: I was waiting for 

12 Phil. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Sorry, I was 

14 on mute. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, I was saying 

16 
 that certainly was the -- where we came out on 

17 
 that and we felt the report was a good one and 

18 
 responsive to the biggest issue on the skin 

19 side, which is technetium 99. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. And I 

21 
 don't remember, has that White Paper been 

22 
 posted for the general public, the paper on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

8 

1 
 the --

2 
 MR. NELSON: I believe the report, 

3 
 report 59 for technetium, I think it's on the 

4 
 website. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It's on the 

6 
 website now? Okay, because I think I have 

7 
 them. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: I think I saw it just 

9 
 a couple of days ago. Maybe somebody could 

10 
 verify that. I don't have a computer in front 

11 of me. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, because 

13 the copy I have, I know isn't there. So --

14 
 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith, 

15 
 ORAU team. I can verify it's up there. At 

16 
 least I pulled it off under the Portsmouth 

17 
 section of the website. It's likely on all 

18 three. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thank 

20 you. 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Phil, it's up to 

22 
 you. I can go through all the open items from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

9 

1 
 the last time --

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Why don't you 

3 
 just go ahead and go through them there, so 

4 
 people can understand your findings. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. Just 

6 
 moving along then to the next open item on the 

7 
 matrix, which is issue 10, that was a question 

8 
 of whether in fact there was empirical 

9 
 information for Paducah relative to the 

10 
 particle sizes involved, such that you 

11 
 wouldn't necessarily have to default to the 

12 
 standard 5 micron AMAD, and we felt there were 

13 
 some references that we found that indicated 

14 
 that there might be in fact some actual 

15 
 measurements that would be usable, that would 

16 
 -- would, you know, certainly move one to use 

17 a lower number, a lower figure. 

18 
 And you know, we went back and 

19 
 forth on that, and I think that the action 

20 
 that resulted from the last Work Group meeting 

21 
 was, was DCAS agreeing to go back and just 

22 
 take another look at the references and try to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

10 

1 
 pin down this question a little better as to 

2 
 whether or not in fact it were -- it was 

3 
 documented measurements or any reports that 

4 
 would in fact be usable and would not 

5 
 necessarily lead to the use of the default 

6 
 measurement. 

7 
 And to summarize, I think the 

8 
 response was an outline of what DCAS went 

9 
 through in terms of its research and it was a 

10 
 fairly good research and I think it -- I can't 

11 
 confirm that -- there were in fact some 

12 
 citations, but the citations themselves 

13 
 involved some inferred or assumed 

14 
 measurements, not actual measured particle 

15 
 sizes, and therefore it wasn't necessarily any 

16 
 real improvement over use of the 5 micron 

17 default. 

18 
 So I think in the final analysis, 

19 
 it was validated that it was not in fact any 

20 
 real usable, empirical measurements that would 

21 
 move one to not use the default and it was 

22 
 felt that the 5 micron particle size was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

11 

1 
 claimant-favorable in that context. 

2 
 So we accepted that and recommended 

3 
 to the Work Group that the follow-up that the 

4 
 Work Group had asked for had been done and we 

5 
 felt that the citations that we had found were 

6 
 explained pretty well as to where they stood 

7 
 relative to the application. We felt that 

8 
 this was a pretty good argument to remain with 

9 
 the 5 micron. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: What about the 

11 
 aerosol size? That was mentioned in one of 

12 the bullets, too. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Three to 3.5 

14 micron? 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think -- I 

17 
 could defer to NIOSH on this -- but their 

18 
 argument was in terms of ICRP 66, that 

19 
 modeling, that it was roughly equivalent to 

20 
 the 4 to 5 micron, you know, actual 5 micron 

21 measurement AMAD. 

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

12 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: So I think even 

2 
 though that was found -- and this was part of 

3 
 the confusion. We did find some citations in 

4 
 our review that suggested smaller particle 

5 
 sizes. But I think there's some explanations 

6 
 as to why that would be either equivalent to 

7 
 or not necessarily usable in place of the 5 

8 
 micron. 

9 
 So that's kind of, you know, that's 

10 
 kind of where we came out. You can argue 

11 
 difference between 4 and 5, but it's pretty 

12 
 much equivalent to 5, based on that research. 

13 
 I don't know, Chuck, did you have anything to 

14 offer on that? 

15 
 MR. NELSON: That's correct, Joe. 

16 
 What it was, it was a mass medium diameter of 

17 
 3 to 3.5. If you go into ICRP 66, 1994, look 

18 
 at equation D5, we calculated that that number 

19 
 of 3 to 3.5 -- and it came out in the 4 to 5 

20 
 AMAD. So --

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: So not much 

22 different then. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

13 

1 
 MR. NELSON: No, pretty much 

2 
 equivalent. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And I think that 

4 
 was kind of the question we had, in seeing 

5 
 these other numbers crop up. We weren't sure 

6 
 if those had been fully reflected in the TBD, 

7 
 and I think it has been rationalized now. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, the other 

9 
 reference was AMAD of 1, but they were 

10 
 referring to ICRP 30 recommendations which had 

11 
 been later superseded. So it was a number 

12 
 people threw out on occasion in some of those 

13 
 documents, and it's just because that was what 

14 the current default was at the time. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Any more questions 

16 
 on issue 10? On particle size? If not, just 

17 
 moving to issue 17. That of course addresses 

18 
 the coworker model, and the question of 

19 
 whether or not there was sufficient site20 
 specific information regarding job categories 

21 
 or buildings, and this is not an uncommon 

22 
 issue with coworker models, and we -- in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

14 

1 
 looking at the Site Profile, we do raise some 

2 
 questions as to whether or not the examples 

3 
 that were given in the listings of job 

4 
 categories in fact were -- were really a 

5 
 sufficient list. 

6 
 And let me just see --

7 
 MR. NELSON: Hey Joe, I could pick 

8 
 that up for you. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe you could 

10 
 pick that up -- get them to think some of your 

11 analysis --

12 (Simultaneous speakers.) 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: -- used is to use 

14 
 the 95th percentile distribution. I think 

15 
 what you are saying is you have sufficient --

16 
 sufficient information but just to be more 

17 
 conservative, guidance is going to be added 

18 
 that will point to the 95th percentile, just 

19 to make sure. 

20 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, what we did, Joe, 

21 
 is -- this is Chuck Nelson -- we put some 

22 
 verbiage in there, basically for the first 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

15 

1 
 part was, you know, can we identify some of 

2 
 these job categories and areas where there's 

3 
 higher potential for internal exposure, to 

4 
 give the dose reconstructionist an idea, you 

5 
 know, for that specific site, of where the 

6 
 higher category jobs are that -- where the 

7 
 potentials are higher. 

8 
 So we put some nice tables in there 

9 
 and added some verbiage and including some 

10 
 work locations. Then on top of that we laid 

11 
 out how to assign dose, whether it be 

12 
 environmental dose, the full distribution of 

13 
 coworker dose or the 95th, and we gave 

14 
 specific instances or guidance for the dose 

15 
 reconstructor of when they could assign the 

16 95th. 

17 
 You know generally speaking you are 

18 
 going to assign the full distribution, the 

19 
 coworker dose. There are going to be possibly 

20 
 instances where there's going to be somebody 

21 that may get the 95th. 

22 
 So we put some good guidance in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

16 

1 
 procedure. It's found in Attachment B and 

2 
 Attachment C of Paducah internal TBD. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think, 

4 
 just a little more background for the Work 

5 
 Group in reflecting on this a little bit, you 

6 
 know, part of this discussion was, there is an 

7 
 OTIB-14, which provides guidance about 

8 
 providing, you know, applying the 

9 
 environmental internal doses as a means to, 

10 
 you know, assign doses when you know, other 

11 
 doses aren't available and we questioned 

12 
 whether that would be sufficient if you didn't 

13 
 really have site-specific information. So a 

14 
 lot of it just stemmed from can you handle 

15 
 this in a generalized sense or do you need 

16 more specific information? 

17 
 So I think what NIOSH is coming 

18 
 back with is that the information appears to 

19 
 be sufficient but reflecting the fact that 

20 
 there might be some variability’s, because you 

21 
 don't have all the site-specific data that you 

22 
 would like, I think the 95th percentile 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

17 

1 
 distribution is going to be suggested just as 

2 
 a means to make sure that we are on that side 

3 
 of the curve in terms of conservatism. 

4 
 So, in a way I think that is 

5 
 probably a good solution to what is a 

6 
 difficult -- you know, there probably isn't 

7 
 that kind of site-specific data available that 

8 
 would enable you to have more -- a better idea 

9 
 on those dose assessments. 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: I guess the biggest 

11 
 thing -- this is Josie -- is to -- how it is 

12 
 written up in the TBD and how clear it is to 

13 the dose reconstructor of which one to use. 

14 
 MR. NELSON: Well if you go -- it's 

15 
 actually, this procedure has been issued on 

16 8/24/12. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: So it's in the current 

19 
 -- if you want to look at it, it's in the 

20 
 current Paducah internal TBD. It's like 

21 
 attachment B and C 

22 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Joe, did you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

18 

1 
 get a chance to look at that? 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so that's what 

4 
 you're looking at. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and this is 

6 
 kind of not an uncommon Site Profile question, 

7 
 which is you know, not necessarily having the 

8 
 kind of facility-specific or job category9 
 specific information that you would 

10 
 necessarily want to make a coworker model more 

11 precise or more accurate. 

12 
 But what do you do to compensate, 

13 
 and I think we were looking for that -- we are 

14 
 looking for that approach to be reflected in 

15 the TBD. 

16 
 DR. NETON: I might have a couple 

17 
 of points here. Joe is absolutely right that 

18 
 this issue comes up periodically as to what we 

19 
 are going to use, but it has been consistently 

20 
 our position that, in most cases that we are 

21 
 aware of, the workers that were more highly 

22 
 exposed were monitored, therefore we have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

19 

1 
 their data. The ones that weren't monitored 

2 
 were typically ancillary support workers, and 

3 
 that is why we feel justified using the 50th 

4 
 percentile with the full uncertainty 

5 
 distribution. 

6 
 But what we also recognize -- and 

7 
 this is the issue that came up -- was that 

8 
 there are some cases where that might not be 

9 
 appropriate, and that's what we tried to 

10 
 correct or to amplify on in the procedure, 

11 
 that for instance a person may have been a 

12 
 chemical operator or something and with his --

13 
 flat out lost his monitoring record, well, we 

14 
 wouldn't use the 50th percentile in that case. 

15 We would of course use the 95th percentile. 

16 
 So that's what this additional 

17 
 information -- tries to accommodate. 

18 
 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

19 reporter. Was that Dr. Neton just speaking? 

20 
 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, this is Jim 

21 Neton, yes. 

22 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: All right, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

20 

1 
 Jim, this is Phil Schofield. I've got a quick 

2 
 question on that. How well does that data fit 

3 
 across the three facilities as far as the 

4 
 size, so that you would have that information 

5 
 that uses a coworker model? 

6 
 DR. NETON: Well, I think we have 

7 
 individual coworker models for each site. I 

8 
 don't think we have used one size fits all. 

9 
 So that's not the case. 

10 
 But if you are asking, do we know 

11 
 the job category of the workers, I think we 

12 
 have a pretty good handle in most cases on 

13 
 what positions people had and when we don't, 

14 we would assume a worst case scenario. 

15 
 But again, this is an issue that 

16 
 we, you know, the application of the internal 

17 
 coworker model has come up at many sites. 

18 
 Again, we feel this default justification of 

19 
 50th percentile is acceptable, but we 

20 
 acknowledge that that shouldn't be always the 

21 
 case. There are certain exceptions that we 

22 
 have to make, and we were careful to make sure 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

21 

1 
 we don't inappropriately assign the 50th 

2 
 percentile. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, I guess 

4 
 that answered my question. I kind of asked it 

5 
 in an awkward way. But that did answer it, so 

6 
 thanks. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Anything more on 

8 
 that particular issue? 

9 
 (No response.) 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Moving to 

11 
 issue 24s, and the s is -- this was, as 

12 
 opposed to a finding, it was a secondary 

13 
 finding in the Site Profile, the only one 

14 that's sort of left in abeyance. 

15 
 This was an issue of verification 

16 
 and validation, which is sort of a standard 

17 
 thing for the dose database, in this case the 

18 
 bioassay database being used, and just the 

19 
 issue that was raised in Site Profile was to 

20 
 what extent did NIOSH have an opportunity to 

21 
 look at the V&V of the internal bioassay 

22 
 database that was being used, and I think, at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

22 

1 
 that point in time there had not been a review 

2 
 on that basis, as I recall, and the Work Group 

3 
 felt that there -- you know, recognizing that 

4 
 this is a pretty extensive and open-ended 

5 
 issue when, you know, there's thousands of 

6 
 data points, but it was felt that there should 

7 
 be, and as we have done in other sites, some 

8 
 degree of a sampling process that would 

9 
 provide some confidence that the database in 

10 
 fact that was being used, the electronic 

11 
 database, was valid, and did not have too many 

12 discrepancies. 

13 
 And this issue, and this is 

14 
 something the Work Group will have to 

15 
 consider, I mean, there's no, you know, magic 

16 
 number or statistical test in terms of 

17 
 sampling. At the other sites and other SECs 

18 
 we have gone through different sampling 

19 
 regimes to look at this very same question, 

20 the validity of the data. 

21 
 And in this case, I think Chuck and 

22 
 his team looked at over 614 data lines -- I'm 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

23 

1 
 not sure what the difference is, lines and 

2 
 pieces of data, it may be the same -- and 

3 
 found about five percent of discrepancies, and 

4 
 these discrepancies are not all created equal. 

5 
 I mean, some of them actually dealt with 

6 
 transcription issues and that's not uncommon, 

7 
 some incorrect dates, two incorrect bioassay 

8 
 results, which probably are more significant. 

9 
 But nonetheless, that was the result of that 

10 particular sampling. 

11 
 Now, I think we -- we recommended 

12 
 closure but with certainly some discussion 

13 
 about how to, you know, how to address that 

14 
 particular sample size and that's something 

15 for the Work Group I think to consider. 

16 
 I thought it was sufficient to get 

17 
 at least a sense of the significance of any 

18 
 discrepancies in the database and like I said, 

19 
 there's not any magic standard that one meets, 

20 
 but this seems to be relatively low. So I'll 

21 
 stop there, but that's pretty much where the 

22 sampling came out in terms of the V&V. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

24 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: In the errors 

2 
 and the sampling the stuff, what kind of 

3 
 spread are we talking about there? I mean, is 

4 
 this really very significant or not? 

5 
 I mean, that's what I couldn't 

6 
 ascertain. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it compares 

8 
 with what we have found at other sites. We 

9 
 have found worse. We have found better. It's 

10 sort of, you know, it's not an outlier. 

11 
 It's notable in terms of the 

12 
 discrepancies found. Certainly, the 

13 
 conclusion was it was the five percent rate 

14 was acceptably low. 

15 
 Now, you know, I guess it's -- it 

16 
 really falls to the Work Group as to how one 

17 
 goes about determining what's acceptably low 

18 
 in terms of the finding. This one is -- this 

19 
 one I think, sort of compares well, but isn't 

20 
 necessarily a low finding in terms of number 

21 discrepancies. 

22 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

25 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Joe, the worst --

2 
 this is Josie again -- the worst part would 

3 
 have been the incorrect bioassay results 

4 
 entered. Is that correct? 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. The dates 

6 
 would have implications, too. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, the dates would 

8 
 too, you are right. So --

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have four 

10 
 incorrect dates, two incorrect bioassay 

11 
 results. You know, what we have done in other 

12 
 reviews, Josie, and other sites, we have done 

13 
 additional sampling, for example, to see if in 

14 fact that's a representative finding. 

15 
 But there's no other real good way 

16 
 to know if that's reflective or not, because 

17 
 you start getting into large numbers quickly 

18 so that that becomes the question. 

19 
 MR. NELSON: Also, I don't know if 

20 
 anybody from ORAU can give us the number of 

21 
 man-hours or person-hours spent on this. 

22 
 There was quite a bit of effort involved in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

26 

1 
 this and just to give you an idea of what was 

2 
 done, they went to handwritten logbooks and 

3 
 they randomly selected all these different 

4 
 lines and they compared them directly against 

5 
 these databases, and there was quite a bit of 

6 
 effort involved, I mean, if you are going to 

7 
 want to do a large sample size, it's going to 

8 
 take actually a lot of man-hours. It's going 

9 
 to be a substantial effort and I mean, this 

10 wasn't a small effort by itself. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: What -- just more 

12 
 reflections -- what we have done at other 

13 
 sites, we have looked for missing years and I 

14 
 don't know if folks will recall, you know, we 

15 
 I think at one of the sites, we are missing 

16 two years of bioassay data as it turns out. 

17 
 And that's the kind of major gaps 

18 
 that we have looked at. Other sites, we have 

19 
 looked at whether or not the transcription 

20 
 errors were acceptably low, not that there is 

21 
 a standard number but just looking at what we 

22 
 would find in terms of the transcription 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

27 

1 
 errors, and we would always find a few 

2 
 percentage of the data being transcribed 

3 
 wrong. 

4 
 As far as errors themselves, we 

5 
 have looked at that in the past and have found 

6 
 a certain percentage of just plain errors, 

7 
 where the bioassay or dose results were not 

8 
 entered correctly and things like dates. 

9 
 So it's always a subjective thing 

10 
 as to, you know, as to whether or not the 

11 
 results are -- you know, with quotation marks, 

12 
 acceptably low or not, and what one does with 

13 the data when you get the feedback. 

14 
 But I think the sampling itself is 

15 
 what the Work Group is looking for, as some 

16 
 means to get into this question of validating 

17 
 the database that was being used in coworker 

18 analyses and doing dose reconstruction. 

19 
 I don't know if, Chuck or Jim, you 

20 
 can provide some perspective. This is not --

21 
 this is a, a standard issue that comes up at 

22 
 every site as far as the validity of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

28 

1 
 database, and maybe how it compares with the 

2 
 kind of results we've seen, doing the same V&V 

3 
 for data such as Los Alamos. We did a V&V on 

4 
 Los Alamos, I think, not too long ago and I 

5 
 don't have it in front of me but I think 

6 
 that's the kind of comparison that maybe the 

7 
 Work Group needs. 

8 
 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim, I 

9 
 might fill in a little more here. Out of the 

10 
 30 -- we looked at something like 600 lines, 

11 
 and of the 30 that were -- the errors were 

12 
 identified, I believe it was like 24 that were 

13 
 actually in the logbook but not in the 

14 database. 

15 
 So in my opinion, unless there was 

16 
 some differential bias, meaning you know, they 

17 
 threw away all the incident high samples or 

18 
 something like that and there's no indication 

19 
 of that, then that leaves us only with 6 

20 
 errors out of the 600 lines, and some of those 

21 
 were dates and if they were the wrong date 

22 
 within the same year, it would have no effect 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 

1 
 on the coworker model because those were 

2 
 pretty much done on an annual basis. 

3 
 So I think it's significant to 

4 
 point out there was 24 out of the 30 errors 

5 
 that were identified, that constitutes that 

6 
 five percent where they just weren't in the 

7 
 logbook, I mean, in the database. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. The 

9 
 data set was from 52 to 76, wasn't it? Is 

10 
 that -- what years did you guys pull that 

11 
 validation from? Do you remember? 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't have --

13 
 DR. NETON: We pulled them from 

14 
 every year. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: Every -- so you just 

16 
 did a certain percentage from each year? 

17 
 DR. NETON: Yes. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: All the way back in 

19 
 -- all the way back? 

20 
 MR. NELSON: And Jodi, correct me 

21 
 if I am wrong, but I think there was a couple 

22 
 of years that we didn't have a logbook, and in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 

1 
 those years we went directly to the NOCTS file 

2 
 and we compared the data in the NOCTS files 

3 
 against the logbook entries, and we were -- we 

4 
 didn't find any errors in that whatsoever. 

5 
 MS. PHILLIPS: That's correct and 

6 
 we actually did it from 1962 all the way 

7 
 through 1988. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: What was the last 

9 
 year? 

10 MS. PHILLIPS: 1988. 

11 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

12 
 MS. PHILLIPS: And '75 and '76 were 

13 the two years that we had to use NOCTS files. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is Phil 

15 
 Schofield. I've got a question. Where did 

16 
 they get the data for the NOCTS files, since 

17 the logbooks seem to be missing? 

18 
 MR. NELSON: I don't know if they 

19 
 were the hard copy ones that -- there was like 

20 
 a -- I don't know if it's 4x5 or 3x5 urine 

21 
 cards, and I don't know if it's photocopies of 

22 those or not. Jodi might now better. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 

1 
 MS. PHILLIPS: It's whatever is 

2 
 provided in the files that is the target to do 

3 
 the dose reconstruction. It would be whatever 

4 
 DOE provided for a specific claim, and we used 

5 
 actual claims. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

7 
 MS. PHILLIPS: It could have been a 

8 
 copy of the written logbook. We don't 

9 
 actually have the logbooks. It could have 

10 
 been a 3x5 card or it could have been another 

11 
 method of their record-keeping because there 

12 are other methods. 

13 
 MR. NELSON: And when we say we 

14 
 don't have the logbook, I believe that to mean 

15 
 that we didn't have it in our Site Research 

16 
 Database, correct? 

17 
 MS. PHILLIPS: That's correct. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, so there was 

19 
 only a couple of years that we didn't have, 

20 '75 and '76. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Did anybody 

22 else have any questions? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

32 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Phil, on this one, 

2 
 again, I think it's so subjective, if the Work 

3 
 Group finds it of value, perhaps some sense of 

4 
 how this compares with other V&Vs that have 

5 
 been conducted on facilities like this. I 

6 
 mean, I don't know how else to give you some 

7 
 perspective on this, because it is very 

8 
 subjective, you know, when you do a sampling 

9 
 analysis of this sort. 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I think that 

11 
 would be of value -- this is Josie again, Joe 

12 -- to do that comparison. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, I don't know 

14 
 -- this is -- is this the same circumstance --

15 
 I know for Paducah we don't have a V&V because 

16 
 DOE didn't do one on Paducah. 

17 
 I don't think that's necessarily 

18 
 the circumstance with the other two GDPs. Is 

19 that right, Chuck? 

20 
 MR. NELSON: Can you say that 

21 again? 

22 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, in terms 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

33 

1 
 of validating the actual database, the 

2 
 internal database that is being used, I know 

3 
 we don't have -- DOE did not do that for 

4 
 Paducah and I don't believe you all had done 

5 
 that either. 

6 
 Is that the circumstance for the 

7 
 other two GDPs? 

8 
 MR. NELSON: I am going to have to 

9 
 ask the ORAU subject matter experts on that 

10 because I am not sure on that, to be honest. 

11 
 MS. ALGUTIFAN: This is Elizabeth 

12 
 Algutifan, Portsmouth subject matter expert. 

13 
 To my knowledge there has not been anything 

14 like that done for Portsmouth. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Because you know, 

16 
 the real implications that we raised for 

17 
 Paducah, and that would certainly apply to all 

18 
 the GDPs, is if, if none of the internal dose 

19 
 data has been validated by DOE and, you know, 

20 
 certainly has not been reviewed by NIOSH 

21 
 except for this one sample for Paducah, then 

22 
 you know, there might be a broader issue of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

34 

1 
 just trying to establish you know, the 

2 
 condition of that data. 

3 
 And I think this is a, this is a 

4 
 good first step, and a good step in itself. 

5 
 But I think that's probably the question for 

6 
 the Work Group, is to -- if it hasn't been 

7 
 done anywhere, then that may be something --

8 
 we recommended closure based on the fact that 

9 
 the Work Group wanted a sampling done, but I 

10 
 think that maybe the broader question for the 

11 
 Work Group is maybe -- whether it is satisfied 

12 
 that the data has been validated across the 

13 
 three GDPs, to the degree that you can rely on 

14 the internal database. 

15 
 And that's a tough one, and I think 

16 
 that's got to be balanced against the question 

17 
 of resources and it has to be addressed from 

18 
 the standpoint of what's a reasonable measure 

19 
 of validity. I mean I think that's a very 

20 
 subjective thing, but that's maybe something 

21 you might want to think about. 

22 
 DR. NETON: Well, this is Jim, one 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

35 

1 
 thing we've got to keep in mind, is that these 

2 
 sites are already SECs. So if the database is 

3 
 somehow, I don't know how you determined it 

4 
 was invalid, and I don't know what we would 

5 
 do. 

6 
 I mean, this is the data that we 

7 
 have to work with. We have demonstrated that 

8 
 there's a five percent or less error rate in 

9 
 this current one. There's a lot of money 

10 
 going to be spent to validate these databases, 

11 
 and I'm not sure to what end. That's my 

12 
 opinion, but again, they are already in the 

13 
 Special Exposure Cohort, so if it were 

14 invalid, then we just couldn't use it at all. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So I've got a 

16 
 question. I mean, not being a mathematician 

17 
 or anything, is when you do a very simple 

18 
 statistical analysis, this five percent, how 

19 
 much would that have an impact on dose 

20 
 reconstruction, a dose reconstruction, someone 

21 
 did not qualify under an SEC and needed a 

22 partial dose reconstruction done? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

36 

1 
 DR. NETON: This is Jim again. As 

2 
 I tried to point out earlier, 24 of the 30 

3 
 problems that were found were a data that were 

4 
 in the logbooks but did not make their way 

5 
 into the database. 

6 
 Unless you have some knowledge that 

7 
 they intentionally threw away high results, 

8 
 then one would make the logical assumption 

9 
 that there was no differential bias in the 

10 
 numbers. In other words, the values that are 

11 
 missing would fall on either side of say the 

12 
 50th percentile or could be just all null, 

13 null values. 

14 
 So I don't think it would have much 

15 
 effect at all, if that were the case, on the 

16 
 50th percentile and the ascribed uncertainty 

17 
 distribution that we used, because you are 

18 
 only talking about five percent of the 

19 samples. 

20 
 If 95 percent of the samples are 

21 
 valid, then a 5 percent missing number of 

22 
 values is not going to affect substantially 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

37 

1 
 the overall models unless they were like huge, 

2 
 huge sample results that would drive the 95th 

3 
 percentile much higher. But again, we have no 

4 
 knowledge that that was the case here. 

5 
 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: I would like to 

6 
 put this out to the rest of the Work Group. 

7 
 It seems like most of it is covered in an SEC, 

8 
 that -- kind of let this go at this point, 

9 
 unless we have reason to come back to it and 

10 
 find something that would really throw this in 

11 
 question, just because of the time and cost 

12 and everything. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think Jim 

14 
 makes a good point, that from a pragmatic 

15 
 standpoint, this is a legacy SEC site so that 

16 
 you know, who is in and who is not is not 

17 
 material, I think to the SEC standpoint 

18 anyway. So that's another factor obviously. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, this is Josie 

20 and I agree with that, Phil. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, 

22 
 appreciate that, Josie. Well, I think that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

38 

1 
 closes up unless anybody else has anything 

2 
 they want to bring up at this point? 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I mean that's 

4 
 all the issues that were highlighted in the 

5 
 Paducah review, and what you got back. I 

6 
 think on 17, we have some commitment to 

7 
 include additional discussion. This is the 

8 
 question that you raised, Josie, and the Work 

9 
 Group won't see that discussion until the TBD 

10 
 is reissued, but you know, certainly it's the 

11 
 right approach, from our standpoint. So it's 

12 
 up to the Work Group on how you want to 

13 disposition these issues. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, they're all in 

15 
 abeyance right now, so I guess that would be 

16 up to you Phil to formally close them. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we'll 

18 
 go ahead and formally close them, with the 

19 
 caveat that 17, we come back and take a look 

20 
 at it. 

21 Otherwise I don't have a problem 

22 
 closing those. Anybody else have an opinion 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

39 

1 
 here? I'd appreciate it. 

2 
 MR. NELSON: What are you wanting 

3 
 to look at, I mean do you just want to look at 

4 
 the procedures, or -- I wasn't quite sure why 

5 
 you wanted to look at 17. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Excuse me, did 

7 
 I talk over somebody here? 

8 
 MR. NELSON: No, I mean, I can 

9 
 specifically read out the steps if that's 

10 helpful right now. I mean --

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie again. 

12 
 Is that not going to change with the closure 

13 of these findings or these items? 

14 
 MR. NELSON: No, this document is 

15 not going to change. It's issued. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, then I 

17 
 would recommend we just go ahead and close it 

18 
 at this point, unless somebody else has a 

19 valid reason for wanting to keep it open. 

20 
 If there's no more discussion, why 

21 
 don't we move on to Portsmouth here? We have 

22 
 items open on one, three, seven, eight and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

40 

1 
 nine and I think we'll have Chuck take the 

2 
 lead on this one. 

3 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, issue number 1 

4 
 for Portsmouth. In issue number 1, SC&A felt 

5 
 that the technetium 99 intake values for 

6 
 coworker intakes were too low, and in our last 

7 
 Working Group meeting that we had, we agreed 

8 
 that we think there are some problems with 

9 
 those values, and we also said we'd like to 

10 
 look at the recycled uranium contaminants, the 

11 
 transuranics as well as, you know, the fission 

12 product technetium. 

13 
 So what we did is we looked at the 

14 
 existing values in the TBD and we compared 

15 
 them against the maximum values in the 

16 
 Portsmouth recycled mass balance report, and 

17 
 we did a direct comparison as to what our --

18 our numbers -- how they compared. 

19 
 And what we found out is that some 

20 
 of the default concentrations in the current 

21 
 TBD in some cases were in fact smaller than 

22 
 what we found the maximum concentrations to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

41 

1 
 in the K-25 recycled uranium mass balance 

2 
 report. 

3 
 So we felt the claimant-favorable 

4 
 thing to do, since we are making a lot of 

5 
 changes in this TBD and you know, it's -- we 

6 
 would just adopt these higher values out of 

7 
 the mass balance report, and put those in the 

8 
 TBD. 

9 
 We also found a document, it's 

10 
 titled Control of Technetium 99 at Portsmouth, 

11 
 that had even some higher numbers for 

12 
 technetium and we adopted those values for 

13 technetium. 

14 
 They were -- just like SC&A, we 

15 
 felt they were a couple of orders of magnitude 

16 higher than what we had in the current TBD. 

17 
 So in effect we ended up adopting 

18 
 these higher values and we are going to 

19 
 incorporate those into the internal TBD. 

20 
 That's all I have on that unless you want me 

21 to expand on any of that. 

22 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No, does SC&A 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

42 

1 
 have any comments on that? 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I mean, 

3 
 clearly the issue was it was a CIP/CUP period 

4 
 where you had these evaluations, and you know 

5 
 we were looking for some treatment of that, 

6 
 and certainly this would provide very specific 

7 
 of the question of the elevation, the elevated 

8 
 dose. No, we're fine. 

9 
 MR. NELSON: Anybody else on issue 

10 1? 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I guess 

12 
 we'll go on to the next one unless, Josie, do 

13 you have any comment? 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't. I'm 

15 fine with that. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

17 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, issue 3 was very 

18 
 similar to issue 1, except for SC&A stated we 

19 
 were using some of the 93 to 99 air sample 

20 
 data. They did some characterization data in 

21 
 a bunch of the buildings and they came up with 

22 
 some activity concentrations for the recycled 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

43 

1 
 uranium contaminants. 

2 
 And in the TBD, like I stated 

3 
 earlier, we had some values in there and we 

4 
 actually found higher values. So these two 

5 
 findings are related. They are basically the 

6 
 same results. We went with the uranium --

7 
 recycled uranium mass balance report, the 

8 
 highest values in that, and we adopted those 

9 
 higher numbers. So 3 and 1 are essentially 

10 
 one and the same, the results are anyways, 

11 what we did. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And again, Phil, 

13 
 we are fine with that. It reflects the issues 

14 we were raising. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Then 

16 
 let's go on to the next one. We are moving 

17 right along here. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, number 7 is the 

19 
 next one I have open. It's marked as in 

20 
 abeyance. And in our last Work Group meeting 

21 
 there was -- the open issue was what is the 

22 
 LOD for the shallow dose component of the film 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

44 

1 
 badge, and we had said 30 before, then I know 

2 
 our ORAU team, we had thought that they had a 

3 
 four-element dosimeter that they were using 

4 
 starting in I believe it was 1960, so we knew 

5 
 there were some concerns about that and we 

6 
 needed to go back and take a look at that to 

7 
 see if we needed to raise the LOD. 

8 
 And upon further review, we found 

9 
 out that Portsmouth continued to use the two10 
 element film badge all the way until 1980 and 

11 
 in 1980, then they went to the multi-element 

12 TLD. 

13 
 We dug in our references, which was 

14 
 a gap film badge procedure, written in 1963, 

15 
 and it made reference to a limit of detection 

16 
 of 30 millirem. 

17 
 We also went and looked at Oak 

18 
 Ridge National Labs, what they had in their 

19 
 procedures for the same type of two-element 

20 
 film badge, and our conclusion from that is 

21 that an LOD of 30 millirem as well. 

22 
 So what we have in our references 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

45 

1 
 shows an LOD of 30. We don't have anything to 

2 
 support anything greater than 30. We do know 

3 
 that there were some facilities like -- an 

4 
 example I was given the other day when I 

5 
 talked to one of our NIOSH experts on external 

6 
 dosimetry, he said there were times at which 

7 
 Nevada Test Site used a lead filter in their 

8 
 badges, and it was just to shield out some 

9 
 intermediate neutrons and it would lead to 

10 possibly higher LODs of 40 millirem. 

11 
 But he was quite certain that the 

12 
 limit of detection for Portsmouth was 30 or 

13 
 less. So that is our position on the limit of 

14 detection issue. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And we thought the 

16 
 comparison with the ORNL dosimeter, the same 

17 
 dosimeter with the same value, was helpful so 

18 
 that reconfirmed that 30 would work, and 30 

19 
 has been used. 

20 MR. NELSON: Okay. Anybody else? 

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie, so 

22 
 essentially this won't change. You just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

46 

1 
 reconfirmed your position. Did I get that 

2 
 right? 

3 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, you're right. We 

4 
 kind of thought we were going to have to raise 

5 
 it, then I know when Matt Smith dug in a 

6 
 little further, he verified that they saved 

7 
 the two-element film badge and all this 

8 
 research turned up nothing greater than 30 

9 
 millirem. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, then I 

11 think we can move on to the next item. 

12 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, what I have on 

13 
 the next two items, 8 and 9, they are both --

14 
 the open item was technetium 99, and it's the 

15 
 same issue as what we had for Portsmouth, I 

16 
 mean, make that Paducah, where we felt like we 

17 
 needed to evaluate tech 99. 

18 
 So we submitted that NIOSH report, 

19 
 0059, titled External Exposure to Technetium 

20 
 99 at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. That was 

21 
 written in February 2012 and I think Matt 

22 
 Smith will verify that it's up on the website. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

47 

1 
 MR. SMITH: Yes, that's correct. 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Just one 

3 
 question. This is Phil Schofield here. What 

4 
 kind of exposures are we talking about to the 

5 
 extremity of the stuff? Would these be -- are 

6 
 we looking at very high exposures, or moderate 

7 
 or low exposures? 

8 
 MR. NELSON: We're not talking very 

9 
 high exposures, Phil. Let me pull up my 

10 
 references here and I can kind of give you an 

11 
 idea. Going from -- I'm not good from memory, 

12 so here, I think I have found my cheat sheet. 

13 
 If an individual -- what we are 

14 
 looking at is, the time when you can assign 

15 
 dose to an individual is based on where they 

16 
 worked, the potential to come into contact 

17 
 with technetium, so it's work location and job 

18 function. 

19 
 But another criteria is you have to 

20 
 have an extremity cancer, a hand cancer. In 

21 
 other words, the technetium beta does not 

22 
 travel very far at all. It travels a maximum 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

48 

1 
 of 24 inches due to its low energy. 

2 
 So the one criteria is you have to 

3 
 have cancer on your hand, and if you do, then 

4 
 we are going to assign 8 millirem in one year. 

5 
 So it's not very high. 

6 
 The other one is if you have a 

7 
 documented contamination incident to your bare 

8 
 skin, it will be 20 millirem per event. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I just 

10 
 don't think 8 millirem is going to make much 

11 
 difference anyway, you know, PoC, unless I am 

12 wrong, and please correct me. 

13 
 MR. NELSON: You're correct, but we 

14 
 do have a mechanism here and if you have 

15 
 somebody that had a really strange thing that 

16 
 happened, if you go into this report that we 

17 
 have written, it provides some direct 

18 
 correlation to contamination levels and you 

19 can correlate dose rates from that. 

20 
 So if you had a really funky thing 

21 
 that this guy tore into a technetium trap and 

22 
 he got contaminated all over his face and we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

49 

1 
 had, you know the levels and the resident time 

2 
 that it sat on his skin, we could document the 

3 
 amount of exposure to his skin, and we have 

4 
 lots of tools for that and those are actually 

5 
 in the procedure, what tools to use. When I 

6 
 say procedure, I am talking about the external 

7 
 dose TBDs. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Joe or 

9 
 Josie, do either one of you have any comments 

10 on that? 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think we 

12 
 talked about this relative to Paducah, and it 

13 
 of course addresses all three plants. It does 

14 
 address the skin contamination issue we 

15 
 raised, which was you know, more information, 

16 
 more guidance, and in this case, something 

17 
 specific on technetium 99. So we are 

18 satisfied. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: And I don't have 

20 anything either. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, so 

22 
 unless DCAS has anything, I'd say we'll close 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

50 

1 
 out that issue too, and move on to K-25, 

2 
 consider that issue closed. Yes? 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, if we close 

4 
 it, how soon will the new TBD be issued? Do 

5 
 you have a --

6 
 MR. NELSON: Right now, we -- and 

7 
 I'm going to get to this in a little while --

8 
 the open issue that we have for Portsmouth and 

9 
 K-25 is going to be neutrons for areas where 

10 
 you have hold-up of enriched uranium, and I'm 

11 going to talk about that when we get to K-25. 

12 
 So the external TBD is being held 

13 
 up right now because of that, and so there's a 

14 
 lot of changes, but I'll tell you what we have 

15 
 been doing, is we have been drafting these 

16 
 procedures and getting them in pretty good 

17 
 shape and actually doing some internal review, 

18 
 you know, not -- they're not ready to go but 

19 they're getting there. 

20 
 So we have been working this whole 

21 time, believe it or not, and making progress. 

22 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I also might 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

51 

1 
 add, Chuck circulated -- this goes back a ways 

2 
 -- but results of the meeting that ATL had 

3 
 with Portsmouth, United Steelworker members, 

4 
 and they had some pretty significant feedback, 

5 
 I think, on a number of issues, including 

6 
 contamination past a point in time that was 

7 
 reflected in a TBD, and I know that is all 

8 
 going to be addressed in this Site Profile 

9 
 review or revision, but I thought, you know, 

10 
 some of those were fairly important pieces of 

11 
 information or feedback that would certainly 

12 be addressed. 

13 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, and you know, 

14 
 many of them parallel the issues that are in 

15 
 here, so those changes we were already making. 

16 
 Yes, in fact, based on that discussion, we 

17 
 talked with Herman Potter some, and we have 

18 
 actually been extracting a lot of documents 

19 
 out of Portsmouth. We've been working on 

20 neutrons for quite a while. 

21 
 And what we are finding is that --

22 
 are finding some what they call rascal 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

52 

1 
 readings where they did some dose rates, or 

2 
 some neutron exposure monitoring, I guess I 

3 
 should say, around these cascades, where there 

4 
 was some holdup material. But we are not 

5 
 finding paired gamma data with it so it's hard 

6 
 to come up with a neutron to photon ratio. 

7 
 So we are finding data, but -- and 

8 
 it's a lot to pick through, but it's not 

9 
 resulting in a whole lot of good information, 

10 I should say. 

11 
 It's helpful for our neutron to 

12 
 photon ratio, although we have a basis in this 

13 
 report and we are working through that right 

14 
 now, and we still have -- we just got another 

15 
 batch in that we are going to be collecting 

16 from Portsmouth as well. 

17 
 So we are still actively working 

18 
 the neutron issue. But I can talk -- well, 

19 
 I've talked about it quite a bit, but I'll 

20 
 touch on that during the K-25 review because 

21 we actually capture it during that one. 

22 
 MR. FITZGERALD: So you did find 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

53 

1 
 some usable paired data for K-25? 

2 
 MR. NELSON: No, to be honest with 

3 
 you, not really. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay, this 

5 
 might be a generic thing. 

6 
 MR. NELSON: We have some 

7 
 references in the past -- you can correct me 

8 
 if I'm wrong Matt, I know Matt has been 

9 
 working on this quite a bit -- but it seems 

10 
 that's what we are kind of lacking, is a large 

11 
 volume. We have some and we have some 

12 
 theoretical numbers, and so that's what we are 

13 working through. 

14 
 MR. SMITH: Yes, it is jumping 

15 
 ahead a little bit, but since this report 

16 
 wound up being used for both TBDs, the data 

17 
 captures that we have done since the meeting 

18 with Mr. Potter, have been useful. 

19 
 We describe procedures that, again, 

20 
 we think of those as holdup measurements. 

21 
 Nondestructive assay, these are folks that 

22 
 have done that kind of work or been involved 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

54 

1 
 in that type of work. 

2 
 So in other words, it's operational 

3 
 measurements that were done, not necessarily 

4 
 measurements done by the health and safety 

5 
 team. 

6 
 He describes some measurements they 

7 
 would take and we certainly have captured the 

8 
 documents that describe the procedure for how 

9 
 to do it, and even show the blank forms that 

10 are part of this survey work to be completed. 

11 
 So what we have done is gone back 

12 
 for another data capture to get our hands on 

13 
 those forms that we think will give us paired 

14 
 neutron and gamma count rate data, and that's 

15 
 where we are at right now. We just, as Chuck 

16 
 mentioned, got a listing and an index turned 

17 
 in that we are going to right now to then go 

18 
 have them pull some more documents and 

19 
 hopefully within that capture, after we have 

20 
 defined these operational measurements that 

21 
 were taken, and once we have those count 

22 
 rates, we can then work on that data and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

55 

1 
 convert it to dose value that we can take a 

2 
 look at. 

3 
 And again, this would be for worst 

4 
 case situations where products have actually 

5 
 accumulated in the cascade, you know, to a 

6 
 high degree. 

7 
 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

8 
 reporter. Who was just speaking? 

9 
 MR. SMITH: For the court reporter, 

10 this was Matt Smith, ORAU team. 

11 
 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: This is Phil 

12 
 Schofield. I've got a question. When we are 

13 
 talking about these neutron levels, are we 

14 
 talking a few millirem per hour, 100, 200, 300 

15 
 millirem per hour? What kind of levels are we 

16 talking about here? 

17 
 MR. SMITH: I would estimate it 

18 
 down in the millirem per hour range, as in 

19 
 likely -- nowhere near the 100 millirem per 

20 
 hour. The values that we have seen so far for 

21 
 highly enriched product, again, maybe top end 

22 
 of five millirem per hour, for the small 5A 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

56 

1 
 cylinders. 

2 
 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: So we are not 

3 
 looking at real significant doses for the 

4 
 majority of the people, as far as neutrons go? 

5 
 MR. SMITH: Correct, and you know, 

6 
 that was kind of a historical, how do you want 

7 
 to say it, opinion of the health and safety 

8 
 team through the years. NIOSH actually did a 

9 
 visit in the mid-'90s and took a look at 

10 neutron exposures. 

11 
 You know, at that time, and I am 

12 
 just pulling a number off the top of my head 

13 
 so if I quote it wrong, I apologize. But you 

14 
 know, maybe basically a total committed 

15 
 effective dose, they were estimating maybe 12 

16 percent of it would have been from neutrons. 

17 
 And that would be for workers that 

18 were in the process areas. 

19 
 MR. NELSON: But what we intend on 

20 
 doing, Phil, is that -- you know, if an 

21 
 individual has a higher gamma dose and they 

22 
 are in an particular area where they should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

57 

1 
 assigned neutrons, we will assign them a 

2 
 ratio. So the number is really going to be 

3 
 variable to what their deep gamma dose is. 

4 
 DR. NETON: This is Jim again. Up 

5 
 until now, we have not assigned any neutron 

6 
 dose to people in the process areas, I don't 

7 
 think. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: And for the most part 

9 
 it's just been in the depleted storage area. 

10 
 DR. NETON: Storage area, so this 

11 
 would be, even though it's small, it's 

12 
 something that we had not included in the dose 

13 
 reconstruction prior to this latest data 

14 
 capture and review effort and discussion with 

15 Herman Potter. 

16 
 MR. NELSON: But really we were 

17 
 going there before we talked to Herman Potter, 

18 
 because if you -- when we get the K-25, you'll 

19 
 see that we said -- I made the statement that 

20 
 I'm seeing some inconsistencies, and I think 

21 we need to dig further. 

22 
 And this is a result of that, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

58 

1 
 Herman Potter was really a side meeting, that 

2 
 he wanted to meet with us and he had this 

3 
 issue about slow cookers and it really just 

4 
 kind of dovetailed into what we were already 

5 
 doing. But it gave us a good avenue to tap 

6 
 into some references. 

7 
 MS. ALGUTIFAN: This is Elizabeth 

8 
 Algutifan. I just wanted to add that we have 

9 
 selectively assigned neutron doses in the past 

10 
 based on a smaller neutron to photon ratio 

11 
 that's more in tune with Paducah numbers, 

12 value that they were already using. 

13 
 So that's all being reevaluated as 

14 part of this report that Matt is working on. 

15 
 MR. NELSON: And like I say, I 

16 
 guess when we get to that item, K-25, we are 

17 
 going to be pretty much done with it. But 

18 
 that's good, because this is pertinent to 

19 Portsmouth. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, Phil this is 

21 
 -- these are issues 7, 9 and 11 that the Work 

22 
 Group consolidate as neutron, and the strategy 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

59 

1 
 was to use the paired gamma neutron values and 

2 
 this all goes into the results of, I guess the 

3 
 Potter interviews and so that's still in 

4 
 process, and I guess, would there be some kind 

5 
 of either White Paper or guidance document, 

6 
 OTIB or something, on the subject? 

7 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, there's going to 

8 
 be a report come out and it's going to -- when 

9 
 we get done, it's going to provide some 

10 
 neutron to photon ratios to be applied, 

11 likely, at Portsmouth and K-25. 

12 
 I think we've got it. And that's 

13 
 still being determined. I think we have a 

14 
 pretty good basis right now for Paducah, but 

15 
 there may be some changes, but at this point, 

16 I won't commit to any at Paducah. 

17 
 As you all know, they didn't handle 

18 
 the higher-enriched uranium at Paducah like 

19 
 they did at Portsmouth and K-25. Are you 

20 ready to move on to K-25? 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Everybody's 

22 ready. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: We're on K-25 and 

2 
 I was going to suggest we might as well finish 

3 
 up the neutron issue, the 7, 9 and 11. 

4 
 Did Potter -- I know there were 

5 
 some questions about the locations of 

6 
 exposures. I think the cylinder yard came up 

7 
 as a source. 

8 
 Was that -- was that defined a 

9 
 little better based on his feedback? 

10 
 MR. NELSON: I'm not sure. Can you 

11 
 expand on the issue? What are you referring 

12 to? 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it was 

14 
 some question about where the -- if you want 

15 
 to call it bounding exposure, where these 

16 
 neutron -- the sources of neutron exposure be 

17 most significant. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, well that's 

19 
 going to be around the highly enriched uranium 

20 and that's being worked on. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

22 
 MR. NELSON: So yes, we certainly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

61 

1 
 are not ready to close out that issue, 7, 9 

2 
 and 11, but that's essentially where we are. 

3 
 It's a work in progress, but I think you've 

4 
 got some good background of what we have done 

5 
 so far and where we are going. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So this is an 

7 
 issue I think we are going to have to leave 

8 
 open for all three facilities until it's 

9 
 fleshed out to your guys' satisfaction. 

10 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, I don't know that 

11 
 for Paducah, in my opinion, right now it's not 

12 
 for Paducah. But for Portsmouth and K-25, we 

13 
 are at the higher-enriched uranium, that's 

14 
 fair. I'm not saying that this report is going 

15 
 to define it all. It's going to -- you know 

16 
 we already issued -- and we have issue the 

17 procedures for Paducah. 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I guess I 

19 
 didn't quite understand and I -- excuse me, I 

20 
 just didn't recall the name of the individual 

21 
 talking about, maybe it was the K-25 lead for 

22 ORAU team. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

62 

1 
 But she was saying something about 

2 
 using the Paducah values for K-25 in terms of 

3 
 

4 
 MR. NELSON: I think what she was 

5 
 saying is that in the past, we have used a 

6 
 neutron to photon ratio of what we used for 

7 
 Paducah at K-25 because they did a painting 

8 
 project at Paducah and it was quite detailed, 

9 
 the assessment they did on the neutrons and 

10 
 the photons, and they -- we were able to come 

11 
 up with a neutron to photon ratio that was 

12 pretty defendable. 

13 
 And so in the past, we have used 

14 
 those numbers, I think is what she was saying, 

15 in some of the other cylinder yards. 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, that's sort 

17 
 of a unique project, what you're saying. 

18 
 There's really no high-end enrichment 

19 
 situation at Paducah as there were at the 

20 
 other two sites and therefore, you know, it 

21 
 wouldn't be as much of a neutron exposure 

22 field issue. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

63 

1 
 But you are saying this was a 

2 
 specific painting? 

3 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, it involved many, 

4 
 many cylinders and there was some data 

5 
 gathered from them. So that was really one of 

6 
 the better references we have had to come up 

7 
 with neutron to photon ratios. 

8 
 And we are using that also, that 

9 
 information, to feed into this report. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess I'm just 

11 
 trying to square what you were saying with no 

12 
 real, significant neutron dose issues at 

13 
 Paducah because of the lack of high-enriched, 

14 there certainly were cylinders. 

15 
 MR. NELSON: No, we still have that 

16 
 value. There are neutron issues at Paducah and 

17 we do assign neutrons at Paducah. 

18 
 So the issue of neutrons is at 

19 
 Paducah. Now the question that I heard was 

20 
 somebody wanted to open an item in Paducah. I 

21 
 don't know if that's necessary or not. That's 

22 up to the Work Group, I think. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64 

1 
 That's the only thing I was getting 

2 
 at. 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Does 

4 
 that go back to Phil's comment that all three 

5 
 are still open for neutrons? Is that where 

6 
 that question just came from? 

7 
 MR. NELSON: The neutron issue for 

8 
 Paducah has been closed. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

10 
 DR. NETON: So Chuck, what you are 

11 
 saying -- this is Jim -- is that you feel we 

12 
 have a bounding approach to reconstruction of 

13 neutron dosimetry? 

14 
 MR. NELSON: Based on right now, 

15 
 now we may do further research and uncover 

16 
 something else, in which case we would 

17 certainly incorporate Paducah. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So we can go 

19 
 ahead at this point, if I understand right, 

20 
 safely close it on Paducah but leave this 

21 question open on Portsmouth and K-25? 

22 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You have a 

2 
 problem with that, Josie? 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: No, no. Not at all. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Then --

5 
 MR. NELSON: I guess what we could 

6 
 do though is create an issue in Paducah, and 

7 
 you guys can word it how you want, and we will 

8 
 when we're done --

9 
 DR. NETON: We're not going to --

10 
 MR. NELSON: Oh, you're not. Okay. 

11 
 I thought you said you wanted to have an 

12 
 issue. Jim was waving me off that I was 

13 misunderstanding you. Sorry. Sorry, Josie. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No, we're just 

15 
 -- the global question really is, more than 

16 
 anything else, how it's going to be handled 

17 
 with the two facilities and based on my 

18 
 understanding, is that you'll probably have to 

19 
 come up with a procedure that quantifies both 

20 facilities, unless I'm --

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And I think he 

22 
 also indicated that if perchance, it does --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

66 

1 
 some issues do arise that have implications 

2 
 for Paducah, he'll come back to the Work 

3 
 Group. So I think, yes, I think that handles 

4 
 it. 

5 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, definitely we 

6 
 are not going to ignore Paducah -- because we 

7 
 -- that is what we were looking for. I mean, 

8 
 I think we are all -- have the same goals 

9 
 here, we want to get consistency between these 

10 
 GDPs and we want them to be bounding, and 

11 that's been our focus, our honest focus. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Phil that is 7, 9 

13 
 and 11, we are sort of starting at the end. 

14 
 But I would propose that maybe we could go 

15 
 start the -- go back to item 3 or issue 3, and 

16 
 perhaps Chuck can walk us through, starting 

17 with 3. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Unless 

19 
 somebody has objections, that's what we'll do, 

20 
 is we'll go back to number 3 on K-25, which is 

21 
 in abeyance, and let's talk about the isotopic 

22 distribution. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

67 

1 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, just like the 

2 
 issue we had in Portsmouth, there were 

3 
 questions about transuranics and fission 

4 
 products that reflect old uranium 

5 
 constituents. 

6 
 And in the last Work Group meeting, 

7 
 just like for Portsmouth, we agreed we need to 

8 
 look at this closer. And similar to 

9 
 Portsmouth, when we dug into the K-25 mass 

10 
 balance report, we found that there were some 

11 
 higher concentrations in that mass balance 

12 
 report and therefore like Ports, we are 

13 
 adjusting those values in the TBD and then 

14 
 applying those max values to K-25 as well, so 

15 very similar to item 1 and 3 in Portsmouth. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You got an 

17 input there, Joe? 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, it's the 

19 
 same issue as we closed at the other site. So 

20 yes, we are on board on that one. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The only 

22 
 question I have got, and this one, somebody 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

68 

1 
 with a lot more knowledge than me, give an 

2 
 answer for me. We covered the, you know, 

3 
 different isotopic forms of plutonium. But 

4 
 given the in-growths, I would have thought 

5 
 americium would be in there somewhere. 

6 
 MR. NELSON: Americium is. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. I 

8 
 guess I missed that somewhere. So --

9 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, I was saying, I 

10 
 was saying transuranics. That implies 

11 neptunium, plutonium, americium. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That 

13 
 was my only question. Then why don't we move 

14 
 on to question 4 unless somebody else has -- I 

15 mean item 4. 

16 
 MR. NELSON: Okay. Item 4, SC&A 

17 
 had some issues with some of our tables being 

18 
 incomplete. They were in fact busy, we agree 

19 with that, and confusing. 

20 
 So what we did is we went in and we 

21 
 modified some of the tables. Remember the 

22 
 table 5-4 in the current procedure, and it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

69 

1 
 went on for pages and pages, and it was 

2 
 facility by facility, part per billion, part 

3 
 per million concentrations of the different 

4 
 recycled uranium components, neptunium, 

5 
 technetium, plutonium, and that simply wasn't 

6 
 being used by the DRs. 

7 
 So the comments that SC&A made on 

8 
 that because they felt some of the buildings 

9 
 were missing, we ended up pulling that table 

10 
 out because we actually use a different table 

11 in the TBD to assign dose. 

12 
 And that TBD -- and that table that 

13 
 we do use is related to issue number 3 because 

14 
 we have upped those values in that table. So 

15 table 5-4 has been deleted. 

16 
 The other table that SC&A made a 

17 
 comment on was table 5-2, and that was a list 

18 
 of principal radionuclides found at uranium 

19 facilities and gaseous diffusion plants. 

20 
 So it was kind of a broad title. 

21 
 We re-titled it, "Principal radionuclides at 

22 
 K-25," because what somebody did is they took 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

70 

1 
 at table from somewhere else, like maybe a --

2 
 I'm not sure where it was -- and they stuck it 

3 
 in the TBD and they included things like 

4 
 curium-242 and -244, which we talked about in 

5 
 the last Work Group. We couldn't find anything 

6 
 to substantiate its existence at K-25 at any 

7 
 level that would warrant any concern or 

8 
 listing in any table. 

9 
 So we reworked that table, and 

10 deleted those out, curium-244 and -242. 

11 
 And also, what we did is we added a 

12 
 table and it lists the buildings and support 

13 
 facilities that involve uranium operations, 

14 
 and it's been put in the internal TBD, that 

15 
 draft one that I told you guys we were working 

16 
 on. We have it drafted out, and it also has a 

17 
 more comprehensive list of buildings and 

18 
 support facilities being added to the site 

19 description TBD. 

20 
 And realizing that K-25 had over 

21 
 400 buildings, we obviously couldn't list them 

22 
 all, so we listed what we though were the most 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

71 

1 
 important. But it was more comprehensive than 

2 
 what we have had in the past. 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. 

4 
 Sounds like you have done a lot of the work on 

5 
 the draft TBD. Can we get a look at that by 

6 
 any chance? 

7 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, you can. I guess 

8 
 my question -- I'd have to ask Jim -- is if it 

9 
 had to be through our review cycle prior to 

10 
 you all looking at it, and that really depends 

11 
 on where we are with some of that. I know 

12 
 like the external TBD, that particular one we 

13 
 are still working on with the neutrons. But 

14 do you see any problems with that, Jim? 

15 
 DR. NETON: No, but we normally 

16 
 don't release pretty, you know, unapproved 

17 
 documents like that. I mean, I guess we could 

18 
 do pieces and parts of it to show, you know, 

19 
 what we have done. But I'm kind of reluctant 

20 
 to release a draft document. 

21 
 MR. NELSON: What I could do, 

22 
 Josie, if you want, is I can read some of this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

72 

1 
 stuff or however you would want to do it. 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: No, that's okay. I 

3 
 just -- I know there's the big picture and I 

4 
 understand if you would rather wait until it's 

5 
 done. I just wasn't sure if we could review 

6 
 some of it before the neutron, because it 

7 
 sounds like that may take a little while 

8 
 longer. 

9 
 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: But that's fine. 

11 
 MR. NELSON: You know, I guess 

12 
 there's a possibility we could approve some of 

13 
 those other documents prior to the external 

14 
 TBD being done. I don't know if that's 

15 
 feasible or if they want to do them all at 

16 
 once. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Well, we'll just 

18 
 leave that to your best judgment. It would be 

19 nice to take a look at it, but --

20 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: Understand if we 

22 can't, so. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

73 

1 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody else 

2 
 have any comments on that? Then let's move on 

3 
 to item 5. 

4 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, item 5, there 

5 
 were some issues -- let me see -- the crux of 

6 
 the conversation was a lack of information 

7 
 regarding incidents. And we had actually a 

8 
 pretty good discussion in our Work Group 

9 
 meeting last time. So what we did is, we made 

10 
 an attempt to get a more complete set of 

11 
 incidences. I don't know if I said that 

12 right. Incidents. 

13 
 So we are adding basically a 

14 
 description of significant incidents with 

15 
 internal dose potential, and we are going to 

16 
 locate that in the K-25 site description, and 

17 also in an internal dose TBD. 

18 
 And I think one of our best 

19 
 references was Chem. Res. 1999, which was 

20 
 titled: "Uranium Releases from Oak Ridge 

21 Restorations." 

22 
 And so we used that document as one 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

74 

1 
 of the primary sources of information. So we 

2 
 made an attempt to increase the discussion of 

3 
 incidents in the internal TBD as well as the 

4 
 site description. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Did K-45 keep 

6 
 a, you know, something like a 5000-3-A, 5000-

7 
 3-B or something log of incidents like skin 

8 
 contaminations, internal contaminations? Was 

9 
 this a centralized thing or was this kind of a 

10 hit and miss over the years? 

11 
 MR. NELSON: I do not have a good 

12 
 feel for that, Phil. Michalene are you 

13 familiar with that? 

14 
 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I did do some 

15 
 research on what kind of logs that they kept 

16 
 at K-25, and I did not really find anything of 

17 significance. 

18 
 What I did find, though, is that 

19 
 reference that you were referring to, the 

20 
 Buddenbaum 1999, they seem to have found a lot 

21 
 of air release documents and how they were 

22 related to a building, the amount released. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

75 

1 
 And so they seem to have captured a 

2 
 great deal of information from the start all 

3 
 the way to the late 1980s. That's what I used 

4 
 when I was looking at the incidents section 

5 
 there. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So, basically 

7 
 these would be incidents that would be 

8 
 reported to ERDA, DOE, AEC, somewhere like 

9 
 that, rather than individual incidents of just 

10 
 one or two people receiving the small internal 

11 dose or skin contamination? Is that --

12 
 MR. NELSON: Phil, you would hope 

13 
 to find those in the individual monitoring 

14 
 records that we would have in NOCTS. That 

15 
 should be in their own personal dosimetry 

16 file. 

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: But whether there was 

19 
 a site-wide record of that, I'm not familiar 

20 
 with that. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. Okay. 

22 Josie, you got any comments there? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't. 

2 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Joe, you have 

3 
 any comments? 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think it's 

5 
 similar to the last one where the draft 

6 
 revision will be augmented by addition of 

7 
 these incidents, and that's kind of where we 

8 
 were coming from. That last version seemed to 

9 
 lack treatment of that. So I guess, you know, 

10 
 when that revision is available, you can 

11 certainly see the additional --

12 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, then I 

13 
 would suggest, with the concurrence of the 

14 
 Work Group, that we leave that in abeyance 

15 until the TBD has been revised. 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that, 

17 Phil. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, then 

19 let's move on to item number 6. 

20 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, item number 6 we 

21 
 discussed in the last Working Group as well, 

22 
 pretty well, but I think what happened, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

77 

1 
 agreed there was a few issues that we may have 

2 
 not identified very clearly in the matrix and 

3 
 we didn't really seem to fully answer them. I 

4 
 know we tried to extract them out of the large 

5 
 document and I don't -- I think our conclusion 

6 
 was, we didn't do a very good job in the Work 

7 
 Group of identifying and answering the issues. 

8 
 So fortunately, we went back and looked at 

9 
 this closer, and Joe also provided us with 

10 
 parts A, B, C and D, which are more of a focus 

11 of what the issues are. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this was 

13 
 originally a rather broad coworker finding in 

14 
 the Site Profile review, but it just had a 

15 
 number of sub-issues that were embedded. It 

16 
 was a little bit convoluted, so I think what 

17 
 we tried to do is simplify it, combine some 

18 
 issues where they should be combined, and just 

19 make it a little more clear. 

20 
 That's kind of where we're at. So 

21 
 we did discuss this, but I think this will 

22 
 maybe enable the Work Group to follow this a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

78 

1 
 little better. 

2 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, it definitely 

3 
 will, and it really helped us too, I think. 

4 
 Anyways, what I did, is I put parts 

5 
 A and C together, because they are really 

6 
 related. The question here is assignment of 

7 
 coworker intakes for 1945 through '47. 

8 
 We have lots of data, bioassay 

9 
 samples from 1948 to 1988. We developed this 

10 
 coworker model. And that coworker model, in 

11 
 our current procedure, we wanted -- because 

12 
 everything was very consistent and constant, 

13 
 we felt in that revision that we could apply 

14 
 those back to '45 and '47, and upon further 

15 
 review, we felt like it would be prudent to 

16 
 revise the internal coworker document, and 

17 
 from 1945 to '47, expanded our coworker 

18 
 guidance and we are allowing the assignment of 

19 
 the 95th percentile uranium intake as a 

20 constant distribution. 

21 
 And those would be for individuals 

22 
 that had no monitoring data, maybe didn't know 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

79 

1 
 what kind of work environment they worked in, 

2 
 and they could have been routinely exposed to 

3 
 airborne radioactivity. 

4 
 So we put some qualifiers on it, 

5 
 but like, if you didn't have data back in 

6 
 those days and there were some unknowns, like 

7 
 part C talks about solubility issues, you 

8 
 know, how can you necessarily bound those? 

9 
 So what we felt is that we 

10 
 tightened up that part of the coworker OTIB, 

11 
 which incidentally will be in the external 

12 
 TBD. We have merged those two documents, so 

13 
 you don't have to go to both documents. It 

14 
 will be an appendix or an attachment to the 

15 external TBD, the coworker model will be. 

16 
 And now, we will allow the 

17 
 assignment of the 95th percentile. That's 

18 parts A and C. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And Phil, while we 

20 
 are on this subject, I think that is 

21 
 particularly responsive to our concern that 

22 
 perhaps, you know, with the lack of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

80 

1 
 information in some cases, the other 

2 
 distributions would not be sufficient. 

3 
 And this is similar to the other 

4 
 circumstance I think Jim Neton talked to, that 

5 
 this gives the dose reconstructor another 

6 
 option when faced with a situation where the 

7 
 data may be lacking. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, we really 

9 
 struggled with it because the intake rates 

10 
 were so constant and consistent that we really 

11 
 felt like it was probably okay, but then we 

12 
 thought, well, there's going to be the 

13 
 possibility of those instances, those earlier 

14 
 years when they were just starting production, 

15 
 and you know, things are always worse when you 

16 
 start. 

17 So that was kind of what gave us an 

18 
 uneasiness and we felt like, well, we should 

19 do that. It would be prudent to do that. 

20 
 So should we go by each sub-part or 

21 
 -- I think it would be better to group them 

22 
 that way. That way, if anybody has got issues 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

81 

1 
 with another part, we can -- so I grouped A 

2 
 and C together because they are essentially 

3 
 the same thing: can you apply coworker intakes 

4 
 from '48 to '88 to the early years, '45 to 

5 
 '47? And we are now saying we are going to 

6 
 use those but we are going to give them the 

7 
 95th percentile, so they'll get a higher 

8 
 intake rate for those individuals that have 

9 
 that potential to be exposed. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: How old is the 

11 
 characterization of the material in the '45 to 

12 '47 time frame? 

13 
 MR. NELSON: Well, I'm not sure if 

14 
 I understand your question, but one of the 

15 
 things we thought about looking at was, you 

16 
 know, what was the production rate of material 

17 
 and how much work was going on, and for the 

18 
 most part we felt like there was less work 

19 going on during that period of time. 

20 
 So that was another thing that kind 

21 
 of supported using the later coworker data. 

22 
 But there's some other uncertainties as to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

82 

1 
 why, and it's obviously going to be a pretty 

2 
 small population of why we felt, you know, 

3 
 let's go ahead and allow -- assign them the 

4 
 95th, and you are always going to have an 

5 
 individual that you are going to really think 

6 
 about and say, okay, this guy worked directly 

7 
 with material during this time, he left before 

8 
 1948, we don't have any other bioassay data on 

9 
 him, and we've got some uncertainties about 

10 
 this guy. And this is the kind of guy you want 

11 to give the 95th percentile to. 

12 
 A vendor went in there and he 

13 
 worked for two days. It would be not real 

14 
 reasonable to assign him the 95th for a year 

15 or something like that. 

16 
 MS. RODRIGUEZ: This is Michalene. 

17 
 I would also like to mention, in that time 

18 
 frame there were only two Class K buildings on 

19 
 line. It was K-25, and I believe K-27 was 

20 
 online, starting in '46. Plus there were also 

21 
 a lot of buildings that were, you know, up and 

22 
 coming, being constructed, and yes, I would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

83 

1 
 probably agree that the exposure potential 

2 
 during that time frame is probably less than 

3 
 what you would find in their earlier 

4 
 production years, starting in the late '40s, 

5 
 early '50s. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Joe or 

7 
 anybody, you got any input on that? It seems 

8 
 like a reasonable approach at this point. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, like he said, 

10 
 I think we were concerned about the back11 
 extrapolation of the later periods for that 

12 
 very earliest period, without any 

13 
 qualification. I think this is the reasonable 

14 
 way to address what may be some exceptions to 

15 the distribution. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Josie? 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't have 

18 anything. I'm good. Thank you. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I'm 

20 
 good on that too at this point, so we'll wait 

21 for those revisions. 

22 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, part B, this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

84 

1 
 issue, the question essentially was: can we 

2 
 assign -- can we use the chronic intake and 

3 
 assign that as a coworker dose for an 

4 
 unmonitored worker, when there were likely 

5 
 some acute intakes? 

6 
 And like I mentioned earlier, the 

7 
 urine concentrations at K-25 are relatively 

8 
 constant. If you look at the internal 

9 
 coworker TIB, it evaluates that and it runs it 

10 
 through several models and different 

11 
 solubilities, and it's a pretty constant 

12 
 chronic intake. It actually is a very good 

13 
 model when you don't know a whole lot about an 

14 
 individual, and he might have had, you know, a 

15 
 few acute intakes here and there, it actually 

16 will over-predict. 

17 
 So most of our DCAS coworker models 

18 
 were developed and applied under this 

19 
 assumption of constant chronic intake. So our 

20 
 opinion is it's adequate and it's kind of how 

21 
 our program is written. So the kind of thing, 

22 
 it's a global model -- a global issue, so if 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

85 

1 
 there's an issue with the use of a chronic 

2 
 constant intake, then we kind of feel like 

3 
 it's outside of this Gaseous Diffusion Working 

4 
 Group. 

5 
 DR. NETON: This is Jim. This is 

6 
 something we have talked about in the past 

7 
 quite a bit, the adequacy of the chronic model 

8 
 in light of what may have been some acute 

9 
 incidents. 

10 And I think we have come to 

11 
 agreement that the chronic model in general 

12 
 will over-predict an intake rather than -- for 

13 
 a person who had an occasional acute intake, 

14 
 because you are assigning this chronic intake 

15 over a very extended period of time. 

16 
 I would argue that the person had a 

17 
 series of many acute intakes and that probably 

18 
 borders on the chronic exposure scenario 

19 anyway. 

20 
 So these are the kind of 

21 
 discussions we have had in the past, and as 

22 
 Chuck said, this is sort of part and parcel of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

86 

1 
 our program, these chronic explicative models 

2 
 and I don't think there's anything special or 

3 
 unique about K-25 that would invalidate that 

4 
 approach. 

5 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, Phil, we are 

6 
 okay. I mean, this is I think a four- or 

7 
 five-year-old finding. So to some extent --

8 
 DR. NETON: That's what I was 

9 
 thinking. 

10 MR. NELSON: -- we kind of have 

11 
 caught up with this particular question in a 

12 
 number of discussions and I don't think 

13 there's any disagreement. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I have no 

15 
 problem moving on then, at this point, We will 

16 
 come back and see that when the TBDs are 

17 revised and what you guys come out with. 

18 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, the last part of 

19 
 item 6 is part D, and it was regarding the use 

20 
 of the ICRP 23 daily urine excretions versus 

21 
 ICRP 89. This is again another programmatic 

22 
 issue. It's not generic to the gaseous 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

87 

1 
 diffusion plants. It's what our program is, 

2 
 and it's outside of this Working Group, I 

3 
 believe. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, well I 

5 
 guess that shuts that door. Anybody have any 

6 
 input there? 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think it was 

8 
 just again for the reviewers doing the Site 

9 
 Profile, there was an awareness that there was 

10 
 another ICRP model, but you know, again, I 

11 
 think, as a broader question I don't disagree 

12 
 that that's not specific to this Site Profile. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, then I 

14 
 would suggest we move on to issues 7, 9 and 

15 
 11. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we already 

17 addressed those. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, but I 

19 
 just wanted to make sure we are still closed 

20 
 on those. Well, not closed in a sense, but 

21 
 there's nothing else for anybody to add, those 

22 we started off with. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 

1 
 MR. NELSON: I think we are going 

2 
 to -- awaiting a NIOSH report focused on 

3 
 Portsmouth and K-25. 

4 
 DR. NETON: That's correct. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I wrote it down 

6 
 as a work in progress on NIOSH's side. So we 

7 
 still have 10 and 12. 

8 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, 10 and 12 are the 

9 
 same technetium-99 issue. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

11 
 MR. NELSON: And we've talked about 

12 that. So I think that's our final issue. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And we felt the 

14 
 OTIB addressed, or -- I guess it's report 59, 

15 
 addressed the issue that we were looking at. 

16 
 That's a generic item that closes out issues 

17 related to GDPs. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I think 

19 
 we've got them all closed then for today, with 

20 
 the items that we still have to -- the TBD 

21 
 revisions. 

22 MR. NELSON: Right. I will talk to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

89 

1 
 our management and we'll get them as soon as 

2 
 we can to you. Like I said, we are still 

3 
 working on the neutron issue. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. That 

5 
 sounds good, Chuck. Can you, as well as -- I 

6 
 know you'll do this as soon as you can, but at 

7 
 whatever point you can sort of give a rough 

8 
 estimate for when this will be done, will you 

9 
 let us know? That will help us with 

10 scheduling. 

11 
 MR. NELSON: Okay, I sure will. 

12 
 I'll update our Work Group coordination 

13 document. How's that, Ted? 

14 
 MR. KATZ: That sounds great. And 

15 
 then a question for the Work Group, for Phil 

16 
 and Josie. So you have essentially -- you have 

17 
 closed out Paducah. You can't really report 

18 
 out -- I mean, you can report out in your Work 

19 
 Group report that you closed out the issues 

20 
 there, but you can't really report out on that 

21 
 closing for this upcoming Board meeting. You 

22 don't really have time to prepare. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 

1 
 But the question is: do you want to 

2 
 aim for reporting out on this at the March 

3 
 Board meeting, or would you prefer to report 

4 
 out on all three -- I mean, there are some 

5 
 similarities and then there are differences --

6 
 report out on all three together when you have 

7 
 them all wrapped up? 

8 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think March 

9 
 would be a good time frame. Hopefully by then 

10 
 we will be able to wrap up all three. That 

11 
 might be a little over-optimistic but that 

12 
 would be depending on the Work Group 

13 
 coordination that, you know, how much work 

14 DCAS has and SC&A has on their plates. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Ted --

17 
 MR. KATZ: Go ahead. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I 

19 
 think it would be less confusing to report out 

20 
 on all of them when they are completed, 

21 whether that's March or the next meeting. 

22 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's what I was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

91 

1 
 asking. So, depending on what we hear from 

2 
 DCAS in terms of when they'll have the neutron 

3 
 stuff sorted out, we'll plan accordingly. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds reasonable. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Anybody 

6 
 else got any input? 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I know that this 

8 
 is a work in progress as far as the TBD 

9 
 revision. Is that a next year item or the 

10 
 year after? I mean, is there a rough sense of 

11 
 when that might happen? 

12 
 MR. NELSON: Definitely next year. I 

13 
 mean we are in, what, the beginning -- the 

14 
 first week in December, it's definitely next 

15 
 year. When in next year? I will say that we 

16 
 have a lot of these drafted and they are 

17 
 almost ready to roll. But there's some fine 

18 
 details that still have to be worked out and 

19 
 they have to go through the review process and 

20 
 

21 
 DR. NETON: I think that the HEU 

22 
 neutron issue is a long-running issue right 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

92 

1 
 now, and I think until we look at the data 

2 
 that we just got in and see if there's 

3 
 anything useful in there, it's hard to tell 

4 
 when that will be wrapped up. 

5 
 But I'm hopeful that, you know --

6 
 MR. NELSON: In fact, we haven't 

7 
 got that data yet. We are just checking --

8 
 well, we're interested in this next box. 

9 
 DR. NETON: I would hope somewhere 

10 
 in the first quarter or end of first quarter, 

11 
 maybe going into second quarter at the latest. 

12 
 But I can't -- it's hard to predict. We'll 

13 get an estimate as soon as we can out there. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think that 

15 puts March a little over-optimistic. 

16 
 DR. NETON: Well, I was going to 

17 
 say that. I think March may be a little over18 
 optimistic. But, you know, that would include 

19 
 getting a report done, through the review 

20 
 cycle, ADC issues, that would be a lot to 

21 
 accomplish by the -- and then have the Work 

22 Group meet and SC&A have time to review it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

93 

1 
 MR. NELSON: Yes, we've done a lot 

2 
 of upfront work on these other procedures, but 

3 
 like the external TBDs, we haven't looked at 

4 
 that on the DCAS side yet. So there's a whole 

5 
 review process that starts at ORAU and goes 

6 
 through us and ADC and all that. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, anybody 

8 
 else have any input? Ted? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: I think we're good, 

10 
 then. I think you can adjourn. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, well, 

12 
 thanks, everybody. Appreciate your input today 

13 
 and we'll --

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: See you next week. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thanks a 

16 
 lot. 

17 
 (Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the above-entitled 

18 
 matter was concluded.) 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

94 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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