This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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 PINELLAS

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 13, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Toronto Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

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

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR, Member*
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU Team

DONNA HAND*

JEFFREY KOTSCH, DOL*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JAMES NETON, DCAS

ARIS PAPADOPOULOS, SC&A

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU*

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Page

WELCOME: 

Phillip Schofield, Chairman .......... 4 

REVISED SITE DESCRIPTION TBD SUMMARY: 

Pete Darnell ......................... 5 

Questions/Comments: .................. 6 

REVISED EXTERNAL DOSE TBD SUMMARY: 

Pete Darnell ........................ 47

Questions/Comments: ................. 49

REVISED INTERNAL DOSE TBD SUMMARY: 

Pete Darnell ........................ 59

Questions/Comments: ................. 67

REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE TBD SUMMARY: 

Pete Darnell ........................ 87

Brian Gleckler ...................... 87

Questions/Comments: ................. 88

MEDICAL DOSE TBD SUMMARY (IN REVISION): 

Elyse Thomas ........................ 92

Brian Geckler ....................... 96

Pete Darnell ........................ 97

Questions/Comments: ................. 98

ACTION ITEMS/PLANS: 

Ted Katz ........................... 117

ADJOURN: 

Ted Katz ........................... 119
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:02 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: The agenda for the 

4 meeting is posted on the DCAS website. And let 

5 me just remind everyone who is on the line to 

6 please mute your phone except when you are 

7 speaking to the group. Use *6 if you don't 

8 have a mute button to put yourself on mute and 

9 then press *6 again if you want to come off of 

10 mute. And please don't put the phone on hold 

11 at any point, but hang up and dial back in if 

12 you need to leave for a piece of the meeting. 

13 Thank you. Phil, it's your agenda.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We 

15 will start off with the Site Description from 

16 the TBD, since it's a total rewrite.

17 There is a number of concerns that 

18 have been raised that we would like to get 

19 addressed today. One, the location of where 

20 the different materials are and types and the 

21 buildings.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 How we are going to address the 

2 issues of tritium exposures, problems.

3 And then some of the incidents 

4 that have happened at the facility in 

5 particular. There have been concerns raised 

6 about those, too, of potential unmonitored 

7 exposures.

8 So I guess we will turn it over to 

9 you guys, since you did the total rewrite.

10 MR. DARNELL: Okay. This is Pete 

11 Darnell. In general, there was a rather large 

12 change that affected all of the TBDs. I'll 

13 cover that one first.

14 We touched upon it in the last 

15 meeting. Also, there were some General 

16 Electric X-Ray Divisions or GEXM documents 

17 that were interspersed with Pinellas Plant 

18 documents. And the original revisions have 

19 Technical Basis Documents, those documents 

20 made it in to our reference documents and 

21 information was incorporated in the Technical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Basis Document and it has since been removed 

2 and they replaced it and identified it. So 

3 that's a general comment on all of the 

4 Technical Basis Document sections.

5 Site Description TBD. The biggest 

6 addition to the TBD was the D&D information 

7 from '94 to '97 was added to the Technical 

8 Basis Document. We also added a bunch of 

9 information on nickel-63, carbon-14, depleted 

10 uranium, metal tritides and some of these were 

11 issues that were left over from the last 

12 meeting also.

13 A number of changes were done in 

14 the description to organize the information. 

15 And that's pretty much the major changes in 

16 the document.

17 Comments, questions?

18 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

19 Stiver. Getting back to, you know, the 

20 Technical Basis one, we had, I think it was, 

21 Finding 1 Matrix. We were concerned about the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lack of data pre-1980 and this issue about 

2 back extrapolation.

3 And in reading the transcript from 

4 almost two and a half years ago, they said --

5 and also your update, too, in the national 

6 document here in the first table, you have put 

7 in what about 604 new documents.

8 And in principle, it looks like 

9 you're covering the waterfront on that. 

10 However, before SC&A could feel comfortable 

11 signing off on that, we would like to have the 

12 opportunity to look at those documents and 

13 see, you know, how well or how representative 

14 they are of the various time periods 

15 concerned.

16 And so that's our thing. So we --

17 this is going to be kind of a continuing theme 

18 throughout this discussion. We agree in 

19 principle with a lot of things that you guys 

20 have done. However, we would like to have the 

21 opportunity to review some of the source 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 documentation and data sets that underlie the 

2 new assumptions and methods and so forth.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. And I think we 

4 can take care of that in tasking this meeting.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

6 MR. KATZ: So SC&A can go forward 

7 with that.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes.

9 MR. GLECKLER: Something that --

10 this is Brian Gleckler. Something in general 

11 that we may want -- I just want to bring to 

12 everyone's attention, with the revisions of 

13 these TBDs, it's like what you just touched on 

14 -- we have acquired or captured, I guess, I 

15 know it was over 400 and it gets to counts 

16 over 600 new documents since these TBDs - 

17 since some of these TBDs were last revised.

18 So we have added a whole lot of 

19 new information on that and it's like another 

20 thing was reorganize virtually every one of 

21 the TBDs and hopefully they will flow a little 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 better and be a little more readable with the 

2 new formatting and stuff that was done with 

3 them. So that has been done with every one of 

4 them.

5 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver 

6 again. We also had an issue about -- related 

7 to Issue No. 6, which was the decommissioning, 

8 D&D period from '94 to '97. And I believe at 

9 the last meeting you guys, NIOSH, indicated 

10 that, you know, if you had the time and the 

11 resources, you would look into this.

12 And we saw that there is a brief 

13 description in Section 2.3.4. However, we are 

14 still a little concerned in that there is 

15 really no discussion of source-terms, 

16 exposures, differences because of the tearing 

17 down of some of these engineered barriers and 

18 things, glove boxes and ductwork and that sort 

19 of thing.

20 And what the -- so what may have 

21 been a contained source in the past, may not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

1 be during the D&D period. And so we have some 

2 reservations and would like to see some more 

3 granularity regarding potential D&D exposures.

4 MR. DARNELL: We would need your 

5 comments.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's just it. 

7 I mean, we would have to, you know, review and 

8 provide some, you know, White Paper or a memo.

9 MR. GLECKLER: I'm not really sure 

10 what else we can go into. I mean, the 

11 analyses on tritium was basically the only 

12 contamination source or dispersible source of 

13 contamination at the site. So during the D&D 

14 activities, it would just be tritium 

15 contamination that they would encounter and 

16 get tritium bioassay like they --

17 MR. STIVER: Yes.

18 MR. GLECKLER: -- with their past 

19 practices. There wasn't any indication that 

20 they changed their practices. The contractors 

21 stayed the same when they transitioned to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 decommissioning era. There is no indication 

2 that they modified it or changed how they did 

3 business in the radiologic control program.

4 So it should be pretty 

5 straightforward.

6 MR. STIVER: I realized that, you 

7 know, the RadCon Program really didn't change. 

8 What I'm really more concerned about, you 

9 know, is the potential for larger exposures or 

10 exposures to the groups of personnel that may 

11 not have been adequately monitored.

12 It kind of gets back to another 

13 issue that is going to be coming up is the --

14 MR. DARNELL: Before you move on 

15 from that --

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

17 MR. DARNELL: If you don't mind, 

18 the personnel that were unmonitored is covered 

19 in that --

20 MR. STIVER: Oh, I understand, 

21 right, yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: -- the Tech Basis 

Document and it's covered at the 95th 2 

3 percentile. This is an issue that we have 

4 gone over a couple of times in previous 

5 meetings.

6 And while I understand that you 

7 may be looking for something specific to D&D, 

8 when you have got a site that has a large 

9 population of monitored workers and -- or 

10 excuse me, a small population of monitored 

11 workers at the highest dose and then everybody 

12 else that was monitored at or near zero, the 

13 only recourse you really have is to find a 

single dose that represents the 95th 14 

15 percentile and that's what we did.

16 So from operations through D&D, if 

17 it's the unmonitored worker, they are getting 

18 a combination of internal and external dose 

19 and a couple hundred millirem and I don't know 

20 what else we could give you looking for other 

21 unmonitored exposures.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Well, I guess that's 

2 the kind of thing that we really haven't 

3 flushed out the exact details on this, other 

4 than that there is some concern that because 

5 of the different types of activities there may 

6 have been the potential for releases of some 

7 of these, well, we have, you know, your 

8 carbon-14 and your nickel-63, some DU, 

9 plutonium, which 

10 MR. DARNELL: It's not an issue at 

11 all.

12 MR. STIVER: I know. You may have 

13 a weight of evidence in this argument that 

14 those really aren't sources of the exposure, 

15 but say, for example, that there could have 

16 been some breaching of one of these previously 

17 contained sources or you might have had some 

18 contaminants inside and, to not work in that 

19 kind of thing, that could have become airborne 

20 and been a course of exposure, too.

21 MR. DARNELL: Are you familiar 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with the RTGs how they were filled?

2 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. The RTGs - 

3 MR. DARNELL: And controlled?

4 MR. STIVER: -- we aren't too 

5 concerned about the RTGs. But we will get 

6 into that as we go. There are some other 

7 issues that we need to bring in and they are 

8 all kind of interrelated, I know, at this 

9 point right now, but I just want to put that 

10 out there that that is a concern of ours 

11 regarding the D&D period. So we could write a 

12 memo about it and see what's the best way to

13 address this.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Hello?

15 MR. KATZ: Hello?

16 MEMBER POSTON: This is John 

17 Poston. I'm sorry to be late. I have been on 

18 travel and we also had a power outage here.

19 MR. KATZ: We're glad to have you, 

20 John. Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concern there, just let me address one thing 

2 that John said, was in D&D you always have to 

3 look all the way back to the history of that 

4 building. Whether the materials may have been 

5 at that building or may or may not have been.

6 You almost have to go through and 

7 exclude certain materials and say well, during 

8 the D&D we know these weren't ever in that 

9 building. Otherwise, and I would say this for 

10 any facility that has ever existed, do the 

11 spills, accidents, whatever it was, unplanned 

12 releases, a lot of that stuff gets up in the 

13 nook and crannies that, when you do a decon of 

14 a room or something, doesn't get cleaned up.

15 So there at D&D, that is potential 

16 for some of those residual contamination for 

17 exposures always exist during D&D. And that's 

18 something that it's hard to say well, you 

19 know, they only said tritium here. 

20 We do know they had stuff in glass 

21 tubes that were broke, dropped for various 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reasons that allowed rooms to get 

2 contaminated.

3 MR. DARNELL: And that, in the 

4 end, was tritium.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, but what 

6 -- some of the bad news, some of those tubes 

7 were coated.

8 MR. DARNELL: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And then you 

10 have that potential to spread to other parts 

11 of that building behind --

12 MR. DARNELL: You're talking about 

13 the tritide issue.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. And 

15 this is something that people need to -- I 

16 mean, the fact that, like I said, it's during 

17 the D&D this -- it may not have been so much 

18 an issue for the last 5, 10 years of the 

19 facility operating as it also comes back in 

20 play during the D&D just because -- I don't 

21 care how careful you are, decon and stuff, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's always the little nooks and crannies 

2 in there that you don't get clean.

3 MR. DARNELL: One thing you have 

4 to remember about the tritide issue is that 

5 this -- the Pinellas Plant tritide issue, 

6 basically, was the surface barrier, that's 

7 where the tritides would have formed.

8 Okay. To get an exposure, you 

9 would have to be at the point that the surface 

10 barrier was breached and somehow have 

11 volatized that surface barrier. Okay. And I 

12 cannot foresee any way at all, and there is no 

13 record of it at all, of one of those two 

14 somehow getting volatized, so that there could 

15 be an exposure to the tritide.

16 We are giving credit for exposure 

17 to the tritide through those personnel that 

18 are monitored for tritium exposure, because 

19 there is no way to separate out that 

20 population, but this wasn't a general exposure 

21 hazard. It wasn't a hazard that would get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 spread.

2 There is no nook and cranny that 

3 would have gotten glass, when they had the 

4 glass tubes, and then later went to stainless 

5 steel tubes, in it that had a tritide on it 

6 that you would then get an exposure from.

7 You have to remember what Pinellas 

8 actually was. It's not your regular DOE site.

9 It's not a huge facility where tritium was 

10 spread everywhere. It localized operations 

11 within the site, RTGs, triple encapsulated, 

12 it's just not a high-exposure potential site, 

13 especially for external/internal. You had to 

14 be in the right place at the right time.

15 Unfortunately, Pinellas did muddy 

16 the waters a bit with their visitor and 

17 unmonitored worker practices, because they 

18 walked through areas while they were being --

19 while operations were going on.

20 Other than that, while I 

21 understand your concern about spread for D&D, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I just don't see it in this site, because of 

2 the way the operations were done and because 

3 of what -- the site mission was.

4 So there is a D&D section that I 

5 think we are just going to have to find a way 

6 to come to terms with the actual operations at 

7 the site, so we can see what the ramifications 

8 are.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, I think we need 

10 to wait until we hear the comments from the 

11 senior on this. And take a quick course in 

12 credible arguments that makes sense, we need 

13 to look at them.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

15 Stiver again. You know, there's some good 

16 arguments here. You know, you have process 

17 knowledge, but what we would like to see, I 

18 mean, is some confirmatory measurements during 

19 the D&D period, where there are swipe samples

20 taken or there are any type of after-action 

21 reports that would show that, indeed, these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assumptions or not really assumptions, I 

2 guess, but the lack of the concern for 

3 exposure potential or the lack thereof could 

4 definitely be verified at some sort of setdown 

5 monitoring measurements.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Pete, this is 

7 Brad Clawson speaking. We have heard numerous 

8 times that the plausibility of this happening 

9 was little to none and then we come to find 

10 out that a lot of things have played into it. 

11 All these sites we have come to find out 

12 intertwined with one another and a product 

13 goes back and forth that little tasks or want 

14 to see this and let's see what this works like 

15 and like we have said earlier, we will have 

16 SC&A go through this and look through this.

17 This is kind of some of our 

18 concerns, because --

19 MR. DARNELL: Sure.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- we know there 

21 is no way that could happen. Then a little 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bit later, well, it actually did happen. And 

2 these sites were unique. You know, you look 

3 at over the years of what we have learned, you 

4 know, coming through and how the processes 

5 have evolved and there has usually been a real 

6 good reason for why they have evolved, glove 

7 boxes and so forth like that.

8 So it's not that we are 

9 questioning it, it's just from our past 

10 knowledge of sites whenever something -- there 

11 is no way we -- it's usually a question 

12 because something has happened.

13 MR. DARNELL: I understand your 

14 point of view and actually very much agree 

15 with you, but I just want to make sure that we 

16 keep into account that Pinellas is not like 

17 the other DOE sites. You know, it is one of 

18 the three that I know of that actually were in 

19 a very clean place to work as far as exposure 

20 to radioactive materials.

21 Kansas City and Iowa being the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

1 other two.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Did they have 

3 -- I mean, this is a question I haven't found 

4 in any of the documents. Did they have 

5 anything like floor traps, anything like that 

6 to cut -- floor traps that you know of through 

7 the facility?

8 MR. GLECKLER: Specifically that, 

9 I'm not sure, but they did have clean room 

10 setups, you know, not for the radioactivity, 

11 but to keep, you know, the product clean.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

13 MR. GLECKLER: You know, for those 

14 types of reasons, not for the production 

15 process and so on. I'm assuming that they 

16 probably had things like that to help.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And my thing 

18 is if you broke a tube, you know, you might 

19 get the bigger piece, but some of the fall --

20 pieces might fall in that penetration floor 

21 trap or something like this. Those are always 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some places where you start looking or like 

2 the framework for holding the glove boxes down 

3 around the footing of them.

4 These little tiny nook and 

5 crannies where material can get into that when 

6 you are doing a decon you don't necessarily 

7 get.

8 DR. NETON: But remember, we do 

9 have bioassay data for these people. You 

10 know, that will -- can be used to bound their 

11 exposure.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And you feel 

13 comfortable with that for any of these 

14 incidents that occurred?

15 DR. NETON: I think the bioassay--

16 we have gone through this many, many times and 

17 the bioassay data would assign the chronic 

18 exposure scenario bounds of any incidents that 

19 occurred. Eventually, if you get enough 

20 incidents, it becomes a chronic exposure. I 

21 mean, we have been through this many times.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: And the other thing 

2 you have to remember is what is the exposure 

3 pathway. Okay. If you break a tube, some 

4 how, you have got to get that, because we are 

5 talking about tritium, off the surface of the 

6 tube or the material either on your skin or in 

7 your body.

8 Okay. You have to ingest it 

9 somehow and I don't particularly see these 

10 guys eating glass. And that's what we would 

11 really be talking about or breathing glass, 

12 that's what you would really be talking about 

13 for the tritide exposure.

14 For the tritium exposure, we, 

15 again, fall back on the monitoring. And the 

16 workers that were assigned to tritium duties 

17 were pretty much invariably, correct me if I'm 

18 wrong, Brian, assigned to the bioassay 

19 program, which is where we get our population 

20 for exposure to tritides also.

21 DR. NETON: You know, we could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talk all day about this, but I think it would 

2 be good if SC&A goes back and tries to, at 

3 least, provide some concrete examples. I 

4 mean, if it's one thing, you know, if it's 

5 hard for us to deal with, prove that this 

6 didn't happen. This happens often in these 

7 issues where how do you know with 100 percent 

8 certainty that something didn't happen. And 

9 that's just not a possible -- you know, that's 

10 just not doable for us.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is 

12 Brad. On the other hand, you can't prove that 

13 it didn't, you know.

14 DR. NETON: I know, but there has 

15 to be some credible scenario. I mean, if we 

16 have evidence that they monitored the people, 

17 there is no record of anything, some incident, 

18 someone would have to demonstrate, at least to 

19 me, that there were incidents that were 

20 unrecorded through either worker testimony, 

21 interview, that sort of thing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

2 DR. NETON: And even the 

3 incidents, I maintain, that we have -- if we 

4 can verify that the highest exposed workers 

5 were monitored. We use that as a coworker 

6 model. W bound -- we can bound the exposures 

7 for tritium at least. There are tritides 

8 entry using the coworker model.

9 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian 

10 Gleckler again. I would like to offer --

11 present one more clarification on this. What 

12 Pete was discussing was specific to the 

13 neutron tubes to where there is very little 

14 potential for exposure with those, given the 

15 design of the tube and the fact that it's a 

16 plated metal on that.

17 However, tritide exposures were a 

18 little more possible and probably did occur 

19 during the earlier era when they used the --

20 for the storage beds on that. They were glass 

21 storage beds.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Right, right.

2 MR. GLECKLER: And they contained 

3 a titanium tritide on that and so that was 

4 like the, I guess, equivalent of a talc-like 

5 powder, the titanium in there. And those did 

6 break periodically, that's why they replaced 

7 them with the stainless steel beds that 

8 contained uranium powder.

9 And we know that the stainless --

10 there is nothing that indicates that the 

11 stainless steel beds ever were jeopardized or 

12 broken it looks like. And being that uranium 

13 is part of the fire, it's like that would be a 

14 major incident. And you would have a big 

15 uranium fire incident on that, so there is --

16 I think we are pretty safe in saying that no 

17 one was ever exposed to uranium tritide.

18 But there are -- there was a 

19 potential and I believe some occurrences where 

20 people were exposed to the titanium tritide, 

21 which is one of the more soluble tritide 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 compounds.

2 MR. STIVER: It's titanium 

3 tritide. Yes, we don't have any problem with 

4 your methods for determining tritium and 

5 tritide doses, other than characterizing the 

6 source-term, which we alluded to. But, yes, 

7 my main concern was that, you know, the 

8 process knowledge arguments are very good.

9 We would sort of like to see, if 

10 possible, some confirmatory measurements on 

11 D&D close out reports. Anything like that 

12 that might indicate that there could possibly 

13 have been undocumented incidents. You just 

14 never know things that occurred or may not be 

15 reported.

16 You see it at a lot of the other 

17 sites. You know, I ran this as a clean site 

18 for the most part. It's probably very 

19 unlikely, but some confirmatory measures, I'm 

20 sure, will go a long way.

21 MR. GLECKLER: The only thing that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I recall in the captured data that we have is 

2 pretty much every room has like a final 

3 analysis or a final report for the 

4 decommissioning efforts and, basically, just 

5 documenting that it is below levels of 

6 concern. It doesn't discuss anything that it 

7 encountered -- that they encountered when they 

8 first started deconing the room.

9 And so I'm not sure if we have any 

10 real information that shows what the 

11 contamination levels were specifically.

12 DR. NETON: What was the time 

13 frame of this decon?

14 MR. STIVER: '94 to '97.

15 DR. NETON: '94 to '97.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes.

17 DR. NETON: So this is the 835 

18 era. So they should have had a fairly

19 well --

20 MR. STIVER: I would think it 

21 would have had a good program.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: A well-described 

2 program at some point.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

4 Clawson again. Pete, you started out in your 

5 conversation you were talking about GEXM. And 

6 you called it out pretty good in here. GEXM 

7 was the pilot plant to Pinellas?

8 MR. DARNELL: You know, I'm not 

9 really familiar with it, because I never went 

10 there.

11 MR. GLECKLER: It's basically --

12 yes, it was the -- it's better described in 

13 the Site Description. Or more thoroughly 

14 described. But it -- basically, they are the 

15 ones that developed the neutron generators and 

16 they pretty much ran out of the space that 

17 they needed to expand. They needed to expand 

18 to meet DOE or AEC's needs and that's for 

19 production.

20 And so they were looking at other 

21 sites and it involved to where they picked the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Pinellas Plant. So, basically, it was a pilot 

2 plant. And it has been referred to as a pilot 

3 plant. And it's like, initially, it's like 

4 GEXM had, you know, dictated most of the rad 

5 control stuff.

6 But as -- once Pinellas started up 

7 and everything, they kind of took over the rad 

8 control functions for both of them. It's like 

9 you can see they are analyzing the bioassay 

10 data on the dosimeters on that for the GEXM 

11 site.

12 And the only reason -- one of the 

13 main reasons that I have added it to the Site 

14 Description TBD and that part of the history 

15 and the relationship is we get a lot of -- it 

16 is a separately covered site.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

18 MR. GLECKLER: And that --

19 however, in the record for employment for a 

20 our NOCTS system, it's like a lot of times we 

21 will have Pinellas Plant employment that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 predates the Pinellas Plant startup. And when 

2 you go look at the dosimetry records, these 

3 are GEXM records. They are GEXM. And we 

4 can't assess those records. We don't have --

5 there is no TBD for the GEXM site. And 

6 sometimes -- but because the Pinellas Plant, 

7 you know, the similarities between the 

8 programs, we can use the Pinellas Plant TBD to 

9 assess the GEXM doses.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I was just 

11 trying to clarify how it started up into that 

12 and if it did actually itself have --

13 classified as a different site.

14 MR. GLECKLER: Correct.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: But as we have 

16 seen at a lot of these sites, Pantex is a 

17 prime example, Burlington and so forth. And 

18 went to Pantex and the records actually 

19 predate Pantex.

20 MR. GLECKLER: Yes.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: So I just wanted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to clarify.

2 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. I found one 

3 of the newly captured documents that was 

4 fairly -- that was captured about a year ago 

5 was the previous plant operator. He was 

6 responsible for the selection process for the 

7 Pinellas Plant and initially worked for the 

8 GEXM site and everything to where it is -- I 

9 use that -- there is a great deal of 

10 information that I didn't use, because it goes 

11 -- it's just kind of interesting how the site 

12 selection process works and how they 

13 ultimately selected the site.

14 But that reference in that is in 

15 the Site Description where if anyone is 

16 interested, it's actually a really interesting 

17 read and I wrote it back in 1977, but it gives 

18 you a pretty detailed history of what took 

19 place and how that relationship was. And we 

20 see that relationship continue in the records 

21 and stuff.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I 

2 appreciate that.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Who controls 

4 them and actually has physical control of the 

5 exposure records?

6 MR. GLECKLER: As far as where --

7 MR. DARNELL: We've got copies 

8 that we have received from different parts of 

9 DOE.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. So we 

11 know one repository that has all records. All 

12 the records are say after 1975, '77 or some 

13 reside at a certain facility.

14 MR. DARNELL: A lot of the sites 

15 have off-site repositories where they keep 

16 things now. Dose records from projects 

17 without site maybe might wind up at another 

18 site. So pretty much when you start looking 

19 for records, you ask the site that you are 

20 concerned with, in this case Pinellas, which 

21 is defunct, we had to go to Los Alamos and we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got indicators there might be stuff in Oak 

2 Ridge, so we go to Oak Ridge.

3 Any place we had an indicator, we 

4 went looking for the records. And it just 

5 kind of balloons out from there. We know 

6 there was a relationship between Pinellas and 

7 Mound, so we look at Mound. You know, there 

8 is no real single place DOE holds any records.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Pinellas 

10 scavenger hunt.

11 MR. DARNELL: Yes, it's a 

12 scavenger hunt, which is why our friends at 

13 SC&A can always say well, are you sure you've 

14 got all the records?

15 DR. NETON: The bioassay records 

16 must have come from a central location.

17 MR. GLECKLER: No. There is like 

18 four or five locations that they checked. 

19 It's like it's in each of the DOE response 

20 files. It's like they will say exactly where. 

21 I forget all the different places that they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 check, but it -- but they do check like four 

2 or five locations.

3 MR. DARNELL: You would think the 

4 bioassay would be in one place.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, you would think. 

6 So with that, I guess, we will put together a 

7 memo to that effect articulating what we would 

8 like to see and follow that up.

9 MR. DARNELL: As far as plants to 

10 that, if you don't mind me asking a question? 

11 We have got this 50 page matrix. Are we 

12 going to move away from that and go to a new 

13 document completely or are we going to update 

14 the matrix and go from there?

15 MR. STIVER: The latest version of 

16 the matrix, I think, is the one you guys 

17 updated back in February. You provided a lot 

18 of the -- neither one went into the new TBDs 

19 in there.

20 You know, given that it has been 

21 about two and a half years and, you know, we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 try to change our approach, we don't usually 

2 look at the secondary issues so much that are 

3 typically wrapped up in the larger issues.

4 In this particular case, yes, we--

5 I would say let's just go ahead and update the 

6 matrix. And, you know, I think this was -- 

7 MR. DARNELL: The last edition 

8 matrix was in June of 2009.

9 MR. STIVER: Right. But we have--

10 we found a version that you guys had prepared. 

11 It was updated as of, I believe it was, 

12 February 2011. And that's what we kind of 

13 worked off the last couple of days.

14 MR. DARNELL: Are you sure? I 

15 don't really remember --

16 MR. STIVER: It was on the O: 

17 drive and it had a lot of additional text 

18 where you guys put in there about what you 

19 were going to do and, basically, verbatim as 

20 to what went into the -- any TBD. A lot of 

21 time in the last few days going to review 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that.

2 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because the 

3 copy that I got is the '09 version.

4 MR. STIVER: The last was to draft 

5 Pinellas issues matrix, PA reviewed, uploaded.

6 MR. DARNELL: That came in 

7 February 2011. I was in Europe.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

9 MR. DARNELL: Brian would have 

10 been the author.

11 MR. STIVER: Hang on. It may very 

12 well be an older one that was just updated. 

13 It might have a different date stamp.

14 MR. DARNELL: Yes, that has 

15 happened before.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's exactly 

17 what it was, because it would have been in 

18 December of '09.

19 MR. GLECKLER: Actually --

20 DR. NETON: Yes, this was written 

21 May 5, 2008. Well, but that's a draft 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 preliminary assessment.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, the draft -- our 

3 assessment was in the -- we have this --

4 DR. NETON: But there is no 

5 indication --

6 MR. GLECKLER: There should be a 

7 date in the footnote on that for the document. 

8 Check the footnote, because that wouldn't get 

9 updated, unless someone updated it.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is just the 

11 -- this footnote isn't -- this is the SC&A 

12 version and then we have, I'll show you the 

13 title of the document here.

14 DR. NETON: The document that's on 

15 the O: drive.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, it's the one on 

17 the O: drive. It's NIOSH Response to Draft 

18 Analysis and Matrix Review.

19 DR. NETON: This is draft analysis 

20 and preliminary SC&A assessment.

21 MR. STIVER: Let me see if I can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 get on to the O: drive here. 

2 DR. NETON: See this has not been 

3 updated. It's listed as NIOSH Response, but 

4 if you look at that document, it really is the 

5 2008 matrix.

6 MR. STIVER: Ours is --

7 DR. NETON: Well, I know there is 

8 no number. That was the update. This one is 

9 just the draft preliminary SC&A assessment.

10 MR. STIVER: We have the update 

11 right here.

12 DR. NETON: Let's see, NIOSH 

13 Response.

14 MR. GLECKLER: I know a lot of the 

15 text that we put in there, as far as what we 

16 are proposing, as far as our proposed changes 

17 to the TBD, some of that has changed on how we 

18 are going to deal with that. And so we will 

19 need to change those.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, it's very 

21 similar to what actually went in.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Was this ever formally 

2 transmitted?

3 MR. STIVER: What's the latest 

4 one?

5 MR. DARNELL: As far as I know, 

6 June 2009, the one that Chick put together.

7 DR. NETON: Well, there is 

8 additional information talking about draft 

9 changes in there, but none of the dates were 

10 changed on the document in any location that I 

11 can locate or identify. It's listed as May 

12 2008, but I think it has been updated. I just 

13 wonder if this wasn't something that --

14 MR. DARNELL: And one we passed 

15 back and forth in process information.

16 DR. NETON: Yes. See this might 

17 have been formally transmitted or discussed, 

18 that's what I'm thinking.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Are you guys 

20 looking at the OAD document review Pinellas?

21 MR. DARNELL: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: NIOSH Response --

2 MR. DARNELL: Yes.

3 MR. STIVER: -- dated 9/12/08? 

4 That date modified 2/10/2011.

5 DR. NETON: Wait a minute. Well, 

6 yes, it says modified, but that just means it 

7 has probably been accessed. 

8 MR. STIVER: No, if says, you 

9 know, it was uploaded on 9/12, okay. I don't 

10 know how you do this. It would be December 

11 2009.

12 DR. NETON: 2010, 2011 date 

13 modified.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. But if you open 

15 that, you will see that there are a lot of --

16 DR. NETON: Yes, there is a lot of 

17 them -- changes in there.

18 DR. NETON: Changes.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

20 DR. NETON: Site changes.

21 MR. KATZ: As long as you guys 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have the same version.

2 MR. STIVER: As long as we are 

3 working from the same version.

4 MR. GLECKLER: Because there is a 

5 June '09 version.

6 DR. NETON: There is a June '09 

7 version that we have been working from.

8 MR. GLECKLER: Right.

9 DR. NETON: Because this one is--

10 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, we will 

11 need to get your -- the '09 version and see 

12 what the differences are.

13 DR. NETON: Well, it's your 

14 version, not ours.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, this 

16 looks to be the most recently updated though.

17 DR. NETON: Well, the latest 

18 response we have from SC&A is June 2009 sent 

19 through formal channels. If you search the 

20 documents you sent to us, the last one we 

21 received from you is June 2009. It's like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

June 5th 1 , I think.

 MR. DARNELL: June 2nd 2 . 

 DR. NETON: June 2nd 3 of 2009.

4 MR. DARNELL: I have a copy of it 

5 here.

6 DR. NETON: Okay. It came through 

7 the normal channel.

8 MR. STIVER: Through Nancy.

9 DR. NETON: Nancy.

10 MR. KATZ: Nancy Johnson.

11 DR. NETON: Yes.

12 MR. DARNELL: But it has been 

13 through review, so that document and 

14 everything --

15 DR. NETON: Oh, yes.

16 MR. STIVER: This version has like 

17 your update here on page 4, which is on 1.3. 

18 This is the new table that went into TBD-1. 

19 It's slightly different than what's actually 

20 in there in terms of the number of files that 

21 were uploaded.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. GLECKLER: And you are going 

2 to encounter that for most of those changes, 

3 because what we have actually gone ahead and -

4 - you know, we have captured a lot more 

5 information since we drafted up those.

6 MR. STIVER: Sure.

7 MR. GLECKLER: In some cases, we 

8 have taken a very different direction. The 

9 fact that a lot of these blue changes, these 

10 blue font changes were very similar to what 

11 was in the TBD, would mean this was your 

12 latest response.

13 MR. DARNELL: Somebody may have 

14 got in the document in February of 2011 that I 

15 don't personally recall and I don't think 

16 Brian sent anything through that channel to 

17 you guys.

18 MR. KATZ: So it was posted, but 

19 it wasn't actually issued.

20 MR. DARNELL: Well, it probably 

21 had something to do with, you know, Chick 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 being ill. We were working together and then 

2 things kind of stopped.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's kind of 

4 where the disconnect happened. Chick handed 

5 this off to John and then a two and a half 

year gap. The version that -- the June 2nd 6 

7 version, you guys have not updated?

8 MR. GLECKLER: Correct.

9 MR. STIVER: At this point. Okay. 

10 Well, that's interesting.

11 DR. NETON: Actually, since the 

12 last meeting, all the issues in that matrix 

13 have been resolved except for three.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes.

15 DR. NETON: I mean, there is a 

16 long discussion that there is three issues 

17 and, in principle, at least John Mauro, at 

18 that time, indicated that you were in 

19 agreement with our proposed additions and that 

20 you can go back and look at the Site Profile 

21 when they are issued and verify that they were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's really 

3 where we are on this.

4 DR. NETON: Right.

5 MR. STIVER: So we need to review 

6 these things. You know, we're kind of getting 

7 into the discussion. Mainly, it has been, you 

8 know, two and a half years and --

9 DR. NETON: Yes, that's fine.

10 MR. STIVER: -- the disconnect 

11 there with Chick passing and so forth.

12 DR. NETON: Sure. But I read all 

13 the transcripts from the last meeting, and 

14 it's pretty clear that there were three issues 

15 and, in principle, they seemed to be well on 

16 their way to being resolved.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes. We went through 

18 the same thing and we talked to John about his 

19 recollection of it. And we really are. I 

20 guess everybody else -- we are, you know, in 

21 principle, very close, I think, to where we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 need to be. It's a matter of reviewing some 

2 of the source documentation.

3 So I guess we can move on. I'll 

4 check with Nancy on this and I guess we can go 

5 ahead and --

6 DR. NETON: I can send you a copy 

7 if you want.

8 MR. STIVER: Well, that's fine. 

9 I've got it right here. In any case, we will 

10 have to start from that point and move forward 

11 on that particular matrix.

12 MR. DARNELL: Okay. Next on the 

13 agenda is the external dose. Anybody else 

14 have any questions or comments before we - 

15 MR. STIVER: Do you want to do 

16 occupational medical or we want to cite TBD?

17 MR. KATZ: Well, we just started 

18 with Site Description.

19 MR. DARNELL: And we did a lot of 

20 extraneous stuff to the Site Description

21 that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 MR. DARNELL: -- the next thing on 

3 the agenda is the external.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

5 MR. DARNELL: Okay. If you look 

6 in the summary, it's like the second to the 

7 last page, I believe. The occupational 

8 journal does TBD with the summary changes 

9 would have been in relation to the different 

10 issues. So this picks up at Issue 4 where we 

11 added information to Section 6 of the TBD to 

12 address that issue.

13 Issue 5, the dosimetry technology 

14 and missed dose sections were added -- were 

15 updated and information added to address the 

16 issues.

17 The secondary Issue 7, we actually 

18 put in the monitored dose section and 

19 Attachment B were added to address this, the 

20 basis for the unmonitored dose assignment, 

21 which is a runoff of the White Paper that was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 done in the past on this is -- was put into 

2 Attachment B.

3 The secondary issue No. 8, which 

4 is also a missed dose was revised. The 

5 approach to how Pinellas calculated neutron 

6 doses was replaced with an approach that is 

7 more consistent and used for other sites.

8 So what is going to happen now is 

9 dose reconstructions where you have higher 

10 neutron doses for the years '57 to '69 and 

11 lower neutron doses for '69 to '97. The 

12 methodology changed.

13 For the RTG areas, measured photon 

14 doses for the years '79 to '81 are higher, 

15 because of change in correction factor. This 

16 is applied for signal bating. And the missed 

17 photon for '79 to '87 would be higher because 

18 of that correction factor and a higher limit 

19 of detection. 

20 There is also a more claimant 

21 favorable neutron energy distribution for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 RTG work areas. Distribution is 50 percent, 

2 .1 to 2 MeV and 50 percent 2 to 20 MeV 

3 neutrons. The LD values were also modified in 

4 that section.

5 External electron doses from the 

6 krypton-85 exposures were increased by a 

7 factor of 3.5 per year, '63 to '85. And then 

8 a number of other changes from a, basically, 

9 reorganize present the information better and 

10 get the flow a lot smoother.

11 One of the things we just were 

12 very happy about in receiving, the plug for 

13 ORAU there, but these were some of the best 

14 reading TBDs we have seen in a while.

15 So questions, comments?

16 MR. STIVER: I can say that in 

17 looking through the revisions, they look very 

18 good. A lot of things that we asked for have 

19 been put in there. 

20 The only kind of outstanding 

21 concern we have really is that, again, we want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to -- the Issue 4 was really about whether you 

2 are capturing the most highly exposed group of 

3 workers or whether it was cohort badging.

4 And based on the transcript, I was 

5 talking to John about this, I remembered, you 

6 know, signing off on that, but he couldn't 

7 remember why. We'll make mistakes. But there 

8 is such a disconnect as far as getting back to 

9 what analysis was done with this.

10 MR. DARNELL: I actually remember 

11 that conversation. There were previous 

12 conversations to the -- than what is called 

13 the transcripts, that the basis of that coming 

14 to grips with the dosimetry issues and how the 

15 work force was monitored had more to do with 

16 the site operations and taking that into 

17 account.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes.

19 MR. DARNELL: You have to remember 

20 the radiation at the site was on or it was 

21 off. Okay. It was only on very briefly. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you can see in the dosimetry records you will 

2 have 9.9 millirem, which was a test shot, a 

3 test. And then months later, another 9.9 

4 millirem.

5 And in Unit 2, there is radiation 

6 exposure.

7 MR. STIVER: It's an all or 

8 nothing.

9 MR. DARNELL: Right. And it's 

10 just the way you --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes.

12 MR. DARNELL: Yes, the RTG it was 

13 different, obviously, and so were the tritium 

14 workers that have had exposures between then. 

15 But for the radiation exposure, you had 

16 clumps.

17 And then within the clumps you had 

18 people that were monitored, so what I'm 

19 assuming were ancillary personnel to the test 

20 personnel. They were monitored in at or near 

21 zero. Okay. And then you have this group 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is like a huge exposure change that were 

2 85, 95 percent of them were at right around 

3 100 millirem.

4 And then you had a few outliers. 

5 And I think the highest personnel exposure, 

6 lifetime exposure, at Pinellas is 3 rem. The 

7 highest single year, I think, was somewhere 

8 around the order of 1.71 millirem. So you are 

9 -- the dose distribution is pretty wiped out. 

10 And you kind of have to look at -- look past 

11 this huge group at zero to the next group 

12 where everybody's percentile is right around 

13 100.

14 And in taking that into account is 

15 how we got to the idea that Issue 4 was 

16 resolved.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, it certainly 

18 sounds like that. You know, you have a pretty 

19 clear cut understanding of who had the 

20 potential for exposure. It is not like you 

21 have cohorts where you just pick different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 types of individuals and have them represent 

2 whatever group. And in case you might have a 

3 high likelihood of missing some of the higher 

4 doses.

5 I would say the only thing that 

6 SC&A would like to do would be to go back and 

7 look at the dosimetry data and also the Issue 

8 5 regarding the performance characteristics of 

9 the dosimeters throughout time. We would like 

10 to take a look at that data.

11 MR. DARNELL: Sure.

12 MR. STIVER: And review that. 

13 This would be our only concern.

14 MR. KATZ: Just consider yourself 

15 tasked.

16 MR. STIVER: Consider ourselves 

17 tasked. You got something to say?

18 MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Do we need a 

19 White Paper on this or a couple of --

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, this may rise to

21 the level of a White Paper. At least a memo 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from around there.

2 MR. GLECKLER: Is it worth noting 

3 regarding the unmonitored dose assignment for 

the Pinellas Plant? Is that 95th 4 percentile 

5 dose, that was calculated, based on whole body 

6 doses?

7 MR. STIVER: Yes.

8 MR. GLECKLER: Which includes 

9 tritium? And excludes external photon, 

10 external neutron and internal tritium dose? 

11 And for some years, we were able to have -- we 

12 had them broken down, but for a significant 

13 number of years, we couldn't break out, you 

14 know, the various dose types. And so we just 

15 used -- since the doses were relatively low 

16 anyhow, so if we use this stuff -- by 

17 assigning that, we are actually accounting for 

18 internal as well for unmonitored, even though 

19 we are only taking personnel --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 And some of the highest doses that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Pete was talking about are actually tritium 

2 doses. I have not been able to verify those 

3 things.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Those RTGs, 

5 did you ever find anything that they used to 

6 verify these or were they basically the one 

7 size?

8 MR. GLECKLER: As far as the Pu 

9 sources, there were two different sizes. And 

10 I forget how many, but I think 8 and 10 grams. 

11 I'm not positive on that, but it does -- that 

12 information is not on the Site Description.

13 MR. STIVER: It was 8 to 10 grams.

14 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. Does that 

15 sound right?

16 MR. DARNELL: Yes, all the sources 

17 they used were relatively small hand. You 

18 could carry them in your hands.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I know they 

20 had much bigger ones.

21 MR. GLECKLER: But Pu-Be source, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they had a couple, one or two Pu-Be sources 

2 and those might have been bigger. I'm not --

3 those were for calibration purposes.

4 MR. STIVER: That was back in the 

5 early '56/57 time frame.

6 MR. GLECKLER: That's when they 

7 got them and I'm not sure when those left the 

8 site. I don't recall it.

9 DR. NETON: I'm just going through 

10 just to go back to this confusion on what 

11 document is which. It appears to me that the 

12 document that was issued by SC&A on June 2, 

13 2009 contains your responses to the NIOSH 

14 responses that are in that document that says 

15 2011.

16 So somehow that document got 

17 uploaded. That's the modified date, but you 

18 know how they -- so I looked through at least 

19 the first 20 pages, it's identical. The only 

20 exception, the only difference is that you 

21 have comments in red responding to our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments.

2 It's identical, except you have 

3 already responded to all of those comments.

4 MR. DARNELL: NIOSH would be happy 

5 to provide to SC&A their own documents.

6 DR. NETON: For some reason that 

7 modified date, sometimes if you just open the 

8 file and you close it, it will list it as 

9 modified.

10 MR. KATZ: But that's it, it's 

11 nice to get that cleared up.

12 MR. STIVER: We were having 

13 scrambling over the weekend to get things 

14 together for this, so --

15 DR. NETON: Yes. No, and you --

16 there is clearly items listed in red here that 

17 are responses to those comments from that 

18 file.

19 MR. DARNELL: Okay.

20 DR. NETON: All right. I'll get 

21 you a copy of that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: While we are 

2 taking jabs at each other, I would like --

3 well, it's kind of a little bit of a jab, but 

4 I would like to compliment you on the new TBD, 

5 because I thought it was a great change from 

6 what it was previously and the level of detail 

7 that you have gone in, I would just like to 

8 compliment you on it. It was a fine job. It 

9 really was.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's a 

11 level of detail, that's got to raise some 

12 flags.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe a little 

14 nervous.

15 MR. DARNELL: Well, I hope nervous 

16 in a good way. It's like they got it right.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, it wasn't 

18 that.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We're not 

20 talking firing squad level. It's a little 

21 below that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I really do 

2 want to commend you, because the level of 

3 detail that you went into and stuff, picking 

4 out the differences in the sites and how they 

5 went in, I really wanted to compliment you, 

6 because it makes it a lot easier, especially 

7 somebody that isn't familiar with the facility 

8 and seeing these different terms, you really 

9 did a good job. I would just like to 

10 compliment you.

11 MR. DARNELL: That was mainly 

12 Brian. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Kudos to both 

14 of you.

15 MR. DARNELL: Any more on the 

16 external?

17 MR. STIVER: Nothing for us.

18 MR. DARNELL: Let's see, I think 

19 the internal section is on the previous page 

20 of the summary that we handed out.

21 And this again begins with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issues. Issue 2 Resolution, potential high 

2 exposures to insoluble tritium. Do we want to 

3 talk about tritium now or are we going to wait 

4 until --

5 MR. STIVER: We can talk about 

6 that.

7 MR. DARNELL: I think we actually 

8 have gone a step further than what we agreed 

9 to. In the previous transcripts, we were 

10 talking about a Class M exposure. And we --

11 between the last meeting and now, we have 

12 found out that there was a Class S. So the 

13 tritides were going to be applied to the 

14 monitored work force, the tritium monitored 

15 work force. Everybody in it gets tritide 

16 exposure.

17 MR. STIVER: At the Class S level?

18 MR. DARNELL: At the Class S 

19 level. As long as that provides a hair 

20 exposure.

21 MR. GLECKLER: Well, we assess it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at both.

2 MR. STIVER: Assess at both.

3 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. Whichever is 

4 more claimant favorable, because some are 

5 more.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, the lung does, 

7 obviously, would be.

8 MR. DARNELL: It makes the tritium 

9 issue very simple. Everybody that was exposed 

10 to tritium and monitored for tritium gets the 

11 tritide exposure.

12 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. And we have 

13 also taken a whole different direction on it. 

14 Because if I remember right, I think at that 

15 meeting, we were geared towards going the 

16 OTIB-66 route. And I did some missed dose 

17 calcs not using the OTIB-66 approach, the 

18 missed dose is for like the long one. We are 

19 going to be like over 300 rem per one year of 

20 exposure.

21 MR. DARNELL: Right. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. GLECKLER: And it's like this 

2 can't be. This isn't realistic at all. And 

3 so we have gone to using contaminant -- the 

4 highest contamination levels in the plant, 

5 which include soluble tritium and insoluble. 

6 And the biggest thing, too, is rather than 

7 address just metal tritides, we have changed 

8 the terminology in the TBD to insoluble forms 

9 of tritium, because that same approach will 

10 deal with the organically bound tritium 

11 compounds as well.

12 MR. STIVER: I guess we kind of, 

13 at this point, are withholding judgment on the 

14 tritides issue. I know there is -- this is 

15 kind of common with Mound and I believe, Jim, 

16 you are preparing a paper on that methodology.

17 DR. NETON: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: Swipe samples.

19 DR. NETON: It's exactly the same 

20 methodology. 

21 MR. STIVER: Exactly the same 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 methodology.

2 DR. NETON: We have gone through 

3 and characterized the swipe contamination 

4 levels and then applied a fairly conservative 

5 resuspension factor and demonstrated that 

6 those would get bounded very nicely in a 

7 reasonable manner.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. Our only 

9 concern there is the swipe samples provided a 

10 representative and complete set of data. And 

11 so that's -- really, we have no problem with 

12 the -- you know, your approach for assessing 

13 the doses once that source-term - 

14 MR. GLECKLER: For the Pinellas 

15 Plant we didn't use a representative swipe 

16 sample. We used the highest reported one we 

17 found.

18 MR. STIVER: The highest reported?

19 MR. DARNELL: It's conservative on 

20 top of conservatism.

21 MR. STIVER: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: In Pinellas, 

2 did they swipe samples? Did they actually 

3 break it down as to what it was or just 

4 basically the --

5 MR. GLECKLER: Just tritium. Yes, 

6 the swipes would have been just for gross 

7 tritium. They wouldn't have been able to tell 

8 whether it was metal tritide or more soluble 

9 forms of tritium. And so it's like the 

10 majority of the contamination incidents and 

11 the bulk of the material that was causing the 

12 contamination was soluble tritium in the from 

13 of HTO and HT, so it's like that's a huge 

14 level of conservatism in the approach that we 

15 are taking.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, my point is that 

17 99% of it was the HTO.

18 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because we are 

19 assuming that 100 percent of that 

20 contamination was insoluble tritium. 

21 Actually, the vast majority of it was more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 likely soluble forms.

2 MR. STIVER: You know, we would 

3 like to -- Jim, do you have any idea about 

4 when that paper might be available?

5 DR. NETON: The Mound paper?

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 DR. NETON: I think it's 

8 undergoing ADC review right now.

9 MR. STIVER: ADC review.

10 DR. NETON: So it will be as soon 

11 as it gets out of that. I reviewed it and 

12 it's at DOE right now.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay.

14 DR. NETON: But I was surprised it 

15 didn't come out yesterday when the radon paper 

16 came out on Mound. I thought they would come 

17 out simultaneously. We sent them for ADC 

18 review at the same time.

19 MR. STIVER: Cause we have -- it 

20 would have been an anticipated effort. So 

21 that just came out. We had a similar response 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and it's kind of overarching.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. So you will 

3 apply whatever you considered for Mound - 

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. NETON: I agree. I think 

6 that's reasonable. It's a matter of 

7 demonstrating that the sample, the swipe 

8 samples that you have --

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: -- adequately 

11 characterize the contamination levels. I 

12 totally agree.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's really 

14 our main concern - 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's part 

16 of the reason we have had such a lot of delay 

17 at this facility, because if you have answered 

18 the problem at Mound, you answered the problem 

19 with Pinellas on the tritium issue, so you 

20 only have to tackle one line at a time.

21 MR. STIVER: Sounds good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: Okay. Issue 3 

2 Resolution. Well, was there something else?

3 MR. STIVER: No. Let's go ahead 

4 with Issue 3. It's - 

5 MR. DARNELL: Issue 3 Resolution, 

6 that's certainly information that was added, 

7 updated in the instructions and justifications 

8 and how to use it were placed into the TBD. 

9 We also kept some information on plutonium 

10 uncertainties, even though that's no longer a 

11 real part of the TBDs.

12 Issue 7, Section 5.7.2 was added 

13 to TBD. There are the unmonitored exposures 

14 and it now addresses nickel-63 and carbon-14. 

15 The secondary issue 5 resolution, the 

16 Pinellas basis for rejecting positive 

17 plutonium bioassay results, again, replaced 

18 with a new approach. This was discussed in 

19 the last meeting.

20 Secondary issue 6, plutonium 

21 solubility statements. You know, this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information is, basically, modified heavily 

2 from the last revision. And I don't know if 

3 you guys have looked at that yet, have you?

4 MR. STIVER: We have done a 

5 cursory review.

6 MR. DARNELL: So we will just 

7 leave it at plutonium sections that changed.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

9 MR. DARNELL: Cables for MDCs 

10 reporting levels for tritium were revised. In 

11 general, the MDCs prior to 1975 increased, a 

12 bit more dose there.

13 And again, organization, how it is 

14 being presented was all updated in the 

15 internal decision.

16 DR. NETON: It's in that document?

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

18 DR. NETON: So it's in your CDC 

19 address. I didn't have your --

20 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

21 MR. DARNELL: Questions, comments?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: It was actually more 

2 of a philosophical issue with No. 3. For the 

3 plutonium, which, you know, the RTGs are 

4 always triple encapsulated, according to TBD, 

5 you know, there is some contamination found on 

6 some of the batteries that were decontaminated 

7 in hoods and that sort of thing.

8 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

9 MR. STIVER: So you have -- when 

10 you look at these weight of evidence 

11 arguments, you really have got to have three 

12 criteria, if you will. You have the process 

13 knowledge, which you clearly have here. You 

14 have the confirmatory measurements. You have 

15 your bioassay data and in most cases it was 

16 pre-employment, but I guess there is some data 

17 as well for --

18 MR. DARNELL: Yes, there is 

19 something like 20 samples.

20 MR. STIVER: About 20 samples. 

21 Are you talking total or --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: That would be --

3 MR. DARNELL: There is more than 

4 20 total for this. Probably about 20 or more 

5 per year.

6 MR. STIVER: Pre-employment?

7 MR. GLECKLER: The bulk of the 

8 pre-employment for like in '75 -- it's like 

9 mostly operational with as new people come on 

10 to that particular activity, at the site there

11 is -- they get like a pre-employment or 

12 baseline -- so some of them -- some of that 

13 data will contain a baseline here and there. 

14 And then it will be operational after that 

15 typically.

16 MR. STIVER: All right. So you do 

17 have -- certainly, not enlarge the data, so if 

18 you have occupational data, confirmatory data 

19 as well, you also have, you know, just the 

20 modeling calculations that demonstrate the 

21 level of exposure potential. So you have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those three items here that form a pretty good 

2 basis for this weight of evidence argument.

3 But then you go on to say if we do 

4 find a positive bioassay result, we are going 

5 to go ahead and evaluate it this way and then 

6 we are going to do a dose reconstruction using 

7 Liz Brackett's - TIB-60, I believe.

8 And so you can't really have it 

9 both ways in our minds. I mean, either you 

10 have no exposure potential and if you find 

11 that you do have some positive exposure, 

12 you've got a problem. You've got -- there has 

13 been an intake, there has been a leak of some 

14 kind and so this whole weight of evidence 

15 argument goes out the window.

16 MR. DARNELL: Well, I understand 

17 your point, but the entire idea of having it, 

18 in case we find it, was to satisfy SC&A's 

19 comments from last time, you know. Because we 

20 wanted it taken out, but if there is no need 

21 for it, it would only be addressed in there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 except in the external standpoint and the 

2 surveys to be complete. So the idea that we 

3 will do something and base it on the best 

4 available information that we have through 60 

5 was from you guys.

6 MR. STIVER: Well, I would say 

7 that the best way to deal with that would be 

8 to not say that you would look at them on an 

9 individual basis, because it really changes 

10 the whole paradigm. You now have --

11 DR. NETON: Yes, I can understand 

12 your point. If evidence does arise that 

13 plutonium had been breached, we would --

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 DR. NETON: Okay. All right. I 

16 understand what you are saying.

17 MR. GLECKLER: So does that mean 

18 we can take out the plutonium?

19 MR. DARNELL: And the 

20 uncertainties?

21 MR. STIVER: Well, yes. That's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some kind of -- you know, that would be 

2 triggered by the situation we actually have.

3 MR. DARNELL: That's it.

4 MR. STIVER: If you don't have 

5 plutonium, you don't have to worry about any 

6 of that other stuff. And I think the same 

7 thing holds for the DU tritium beds, too. You 

8 know, I believe in the last meeting there was 

9 some discussion that there may have actually 

10 been some cutting, but it turns out that was 

11 GEXM data that wasn't really related to 

12 Pinellas.

13 But again, if -- you know, you 

14 have got a good argument there, except you 

15 don't have a lot of confirmatory monitoring 

16 data. We would like to see if there is any 

17 available that would show that, indeed,

18 there --

19 MR. DARNELL: I think what we have 

20 was presented pretty much.

21 MR. STIVER: Everything that you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have is out there.

2 MR. DARNELL: Yes. There is a 

3 White Paper on it, too, I believe. The data 

4 that we have is presented in it and it's just 

5 not much.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, it looks like 

7 there is no exposure potential, as far as we 

8 can tell.

9 MR. DARNELL: Yes. 

10 MR. STIVER: But to really, you 

11 know, tie up the loose ends on that, you know, 

12 if there is monitoring data out there that 

13 would confirm that we would like to see it.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't see 

15 it anywhere, but did they ever do any 

16 destructive testing? The RTGs that you know 

17 of, like QA sampling?

18 MR. DARNELL: I don't know of any.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, they did. 

20 They had to. We saw that coming out in 

21 Pantex.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Well, right, but I 

2 don't know if they did. 

3 I think there was destructive 

4 testing done at places like Los Alamos.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I didn't see 

6 anything, but I could have overlooked it, 

7 where they did this at Pinellas, too, because 

8 that would increase the odds of someone being 

9 able to pick up a --

10 MR. GLECKLER: I'm pretty sure 

11 they have done destructive testing on the 

12 RTGs, but whether or not the plutonium sources 

13 were present in those units when they did the 

14 destructive testing, you know.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: If they were 

16 not, then it's really kind of a moot point.

17 MR. GLECKLER: They could have put 

18 in a, you know, surrogate for -- in the same 

19 encapsulation, not just for the destructive 

20 testing purposes. They don't need that 

21 plutonium present.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, I was 

2 referred to ones that actually had plutonium 

3 present.

4 DR. NETON: I know they did that 

5 at Los Alamos for sure.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, cause 

7 just to do it on a mock-up on this, I mean, 

8 you are not going to get anything there.

9 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, I haven't 

10 encountered any information in the case that 

11 they did any destructive testings with the Pu 

12 sources present.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I 

14 didn't, but I just wanted to make sure I 

15 hadn't missed something.

16 MR. GLECKLER: And oh, one of the 

17 things that I just recall with the Pu, one of 

18 the other reasons we left it in there was the 

19 one and only potential exposure scenario for 

20 plutonium is the receipt surveys. It's a very 

21 small potential site, because, you know, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sources, the receipts -- upon receipt, they 

2 would inspect the sources and that's before 

3 they would release them into the plant. That 

4 was all done in a the hood.

5 So a really small group of 

6 individuals involved with that had that 

7 potential, because they did find somewhat 

8 contamination. They didn't find any -- they 

9 have never -- there is no indication that they 

10 ever had to ship any back to the manufacturer, 

11 which would mean that they would have exceeded 

12 200 dpm per source.

13 And we have done -- I have done 

14 some calculations a while back, prior to the 

15 previous Working Group meeting, to where they 

16 would have had -- it was -- they processed a 

17 ridiculous number of Pu sources to get a lung 

18 dose, so --

19 MR. DARNELL: 11,000 in one day.

20 MR. GLECKLER: Yes.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. GLECKLER: Well, that was part 

2 of the reason, I think that, why SC&A wanted 

3 us to keep that in there on that, in the event 

4 that --

5 MR. DARNELL: It does bolster the 

6 argument that it is not really --

7 DR. NETON: Well, I think the same 

8 logic applies. I mean, if we do find that 

9 there was evidence of extensive or episodic 

10 exposure to plutonium. You know, we could 

11 certainly revise the higher approach.

12 MR. STIVER: Some of the incidents 

13 that were not documented.

14 DR. NETON: I mean, that's sort of 

15 almost --

16 MR. DARNELL: That's pretty much a 

17 given.

18 MR. STIVER: That's almost a given 

19 in anything we do.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: If they did a 

21 document during the D&D. They had to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 taking swipes of stuff, that's where it would 

2 jump.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

4 again. Where do these sources come from, the 

5 Pu sources? Who is the manufacturer for them?

6 MR. GLECKLER: I believe Mound. 

7 It was kind of -- there is some information in 

8 the initial version of the TBD that indicated 

9 that they come from LANL and there is some 

10 disagreeing documents.

11 I'm pretty sure it was Mound, but 

12 it's like I couldn't prove that. And it's 

13 like so I don't -- I think I took that out 

14 altogether where -- because it really wasn't 

15 needed for the TBD, but that's either Mound or 

16 LANL.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

18 MR. GLECKLER: One of those two.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was just 

20 wondering in researching some Pantex documents 

21 just watching the history of where a lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this came from. And now we have -- that's 

2 where all these sites interact with one 

3 another, a little bit interesting. I was just 

4 wondering if they had one strict facility that 

5 these were produced from.

6 MR. GLECKLER: And part of that 

7 confusion could be because they might have 

8 received them from both, that either one of 

9 those documents would indicate, but that's one 

10 of the reasons why they wanted to use it in 

11 the Mound dosimeters is because Mound was 

12 working with the same material.

13 Mound did produce RTG sources and 

14 I believe LANL did, too.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, LANL 

16 did, I can vouch for that.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think that's 

18 what we get down to now is my point that I was 

19 getting at. I have seen this source 

20 production at Mound and I haven't been 

21 involved that much with the LANL, but I've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just seen different documentation, especially 

2 through Pantex and so forth. I was just 

3 curious.

4 MR. GLECKLER: Cause it seems like 

5 I recall there might be one other thing out 

6 there that indicated that they were produced 

7 at Mound and might have went to LANL for some 

8 reason before they went to Pinellas. But it's 

9 just interesting information as far as how the 

10 -- all the sites were interrelated. But it 

11 didn't really serve much purpose for the site, 

12 so I took, I believe, that information out of 

13 the TBD, since I couldn't determine exactly 

14 where. I didn't have any conclusive 

15 information.

16 MR. KATZ: So, John, is there any 

17 follow-up on this?

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think the 

19 follow-up for us would be to look at the 

20 plutonium bioassay data and the swipe data 

21 just to kind of confirm that we agree or that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're on the same page as NIOSH.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 MR. STIVER: And then you guys are 

4 going to revise the wording with respect to 

5 the plutonium?

6 MR. GLECKLER: So you want to go 

7 ahead and take those, basically, just take out 

8 the plutonium?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, take out the 

10 discussion.

11 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

12 MR. STIVER: A short paragraph 

13 that indicates that it's positive. Bring it 

14 down and then we will pursue it.

15 MR. DARNELL: What I would like to 

16 do is probably do some in-process work with 

17 you.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

19 MR. DARNELL: Just do the changes, 

20 send them over to you.

21 MR. STIVER: Sure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: Make sure we are on 

2 the same page. Phil, we will let you guys 

3 know the results after the decision?

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't 

5 really have a problem with that. Do you have 

6 a problem with that?

7 MR. STIVER: That's fine.

8 MR. DARNELL: Okay. Now, the 

9 actual change in the TBD may take a while.

10 MR. STIVER: Sure, yes. As long 

11 as there is a commitment to make the change, 

12 that's fine.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now, didn't 

14 they have a few for calibration purposes, 239 

15 sources, also?

16 MR. GLECKLER: Oh, it was part --

17 yes, they had some other Pu sources. Like I 

18 know they had at least one Pu-Be source 

19 possibly, maybe two Pu-Be sources arrived 

20 there in like 1957 time frame. And I'm not 

21 sure when it left the site. I think I had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come across something on that with the GE 

2 Evendale site, because that's where it ended 

3 up.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Correct me if 

5 I'm wrong, but my understanding was those 

6 sources they had for calibration purposes were 

7 also encapsulated?

8 MR. GLECKLER: Correct. They were 

9 either the smaller plated sources for, you 

10 know, calibrating the alpha contamination 

11 survey instruments, those would have been, you 

12 know, plated and considered a sealed source 

13 for all intents and purposes.

14 And then the Pu-Be sources were 

15 encapsulated.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's only 

17 the encapsulated ones.

18 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. They didn't 

19 have any unencapsulated Pu at the site.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: They didn't 

21 have any unencapsulated Pu.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I mean, an 

2 electroplated source, electro-deposit source 

3 is for all intents and purposes is bound to 

4 the metal. I mean, it couldn't be 

5 encapsulated and be effective to calibrate 

6 source contamination monitors.

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, that's 

8 what I mean, electroplated is another --

9 DR. NETON: Yes. But that's 

10 common at almost every site you have these 

11 manufacturer sources that have plutonium on 

12 the surface.

13 MR. GLECKLER: I guess the better 

14 way to say it, there wasn't any dispersible 

15 forms of Pu at the site.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's really 

17 it.

18 MR. GLECKLER: That's more --

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That is a 

20 little better stated than I was --

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Starting with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 AEC, they had to be swiped, you know, to make 

2 sure that they weren't leaking.

3 MR. STIVER: Find your TBD - I 

4 received a 7 gram 239 Pu source in January '57 

5 for calibrating health physics 

6 instrumentation, based on information that was 

7 sourced in the issues. It was most like 

8 encapsulated Pu-Be source.

9 DR. NETON: 7 grams?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes. Okay. Well, I 

11 guess we can move on.

12 MR. DARNELL: That closes out 

13 internal. Environmental TBD. Okay. 

14 Secondary issue was taken care of for bad 

15 tritium air monitoring results, provided in 

16 Section 4 of the TBD.

17 Brian, if you don't mind, would 

18 you give the discussion on No. 2 there? You 

19 are more familiar with all the ins and outs of 

20 that.

21 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. The problem 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we ran into is, unfortunately, that we didn't 

2 have the documentation and the calculations 

3 that were originally done for the 

4 environmental TBD. And we needed to, you 

5 know, adjust and -- well, we needed those 

6 dispersion calculations as our starting point 

7 to figure out, you know, what the predicted 

8 air concentrations were at the air monitoring 

9 location, so we could do what SC&A had 

10 requested.

11 We found well, we can't do that. 

12 We have got to reconstruct those calculations. 

13 And so we just completely redid them. They 

14 are pretty comparable as far as the average 

15 air concentrations that we were calculating 

16 for each calendar year prior to the intakes 

17 and so it's like there are just some, you 

18 know, differences.

19 Let me see, because I think there 

20 are --

21 MR. STIVER: We have induction of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the stack in '81 because of higher doses.

2 MR. GLECKLER: That was factored 

3 in, but it's something -- but they did 

4 different with their calcs than what we did. 

5 But we didn't -- couldn't figure out what they 

6 did, the original authors did with their 

7 calcs. So it's kind of hard to explain why 

8 that change occurred at that point.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, we were running 

10 across that - 

11 MR. GLECKLER: So hopefully it is 

12 a lot -- it's better documented now, is the 

13 intent, and as far as, you know, what went 

14 into those calculations and all the details of 

15 those calculations, so if we need to revisit 

16 anything in the future, that will be much more 

17 easier. We won't have to reconstruct 

18 anything.

19 MR. STIVER: So Attachment A 

20 provides the complete discussion of the 

21 calculations and assumptions. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. And in 

2 general, the -- when we predicted use for 

3 dispersion calculations to predict what the 

4 average air concentrations were at the air 

5 monitoring locations and compared to the 

6 actual measured data, that was -- we were 

7 underestimating within about -- it's a factor 

8 of 2 point something was the highest on 

9 average that we were underestimating, but we 

10 deemed that reasonable, because we weren't 

11 factoring in that the -- a lot of their air 

12 concentration results were less than detect on 

13 that. And so if we factored those in, it's 

14 like -- and dealt with that in a more 

15 reasonable manner, it's like that ratio would 

16 be closer to a 1:1 ratio. So we were pretty 

17 confident that what -- that the dispersion 

18 calculations that we are doing will generate 

19 a realistic estimate of the air concentrations 

20 for those intakes.

21 And then also, it's like with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- I did a bounding environmental internal 

2 dose estimate as part of the TBD, because --

3 and we used -- you know, what we estimated 

4 based on stack emissions and also the areas of 

5 the -- I forget what pond, one of the pond 

6 area sources. And our calc, you know, we have 

7 intake rates for the stack, due to the stack 

8 emissions intake rates attributed to the pond 

9 releases, you know, from resuspension and 

10 such. And then also, the air concentrations. 

11 And when you -- so we are factoring using the 

12 air concentrations on top of that, even though 

13 a good chunk of that is due to the stack 

14 emissions and already - 

15 MR. STIVER: And double count 

16 that.

17 MR. GLECKLER: And even when we 

18 double count that, it's like those -- the 

19 worst case dose, you know, for a worker that 

20 was there from the entire history of the 

21 plant, 1957 through 1997, the worst case dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is less than 1 millirem total. And so it's 

2 considered a negligible dose from our 

3 perspective.

4 MR. STIVER: I thought that you 

5 guys did a good job on it. I have no issues. 

6 Is there anything you wanted to bring up 

7 about this?

8 MR. PAPADOPOULOS: No, no. There 

9 is no issues left.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The point 

11 where the state comes and required monitoring 

12 for the staff, is there any data from that?

13 MR. GLECKLER: From when the state 

14 came in?

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. My 

16 understanding is, at least on some of these, 

17 that they had to also give some of this data 

18 to the State of Florida, at one point, while 

19 there were still operations. I might have 

20 misread that information.

21 MR. DARNELL: Florida, the State 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

1 of Florida itself has a rather robust program. 

2 They may have asked for or done their own 

3 monitoring.

4 MR. GLECKLER: Usually a state 

5 won't do their own monitoring on a stack. 

6 They might do environmental monitoring.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. GLECKLER: The site would be 

9 the one to take the stack samples and report 

10 those results to the state in most situations. 

11 Well, at least the states that I have been 

12 involved with. But I haven't encountered 

13 anything where the state was involved with 

14 some monitoring.

15 MR. DARNELL: Yes. The thing is 

16 the way this stuff works in the environment 

17 how the site really operated had there been 

18 something released, it would have stuck out 

19 like a sore thumb in the data records. 

20 Something that would have been caught. 

21 Unfortunately, this is just one of those sites 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that you don't see it. You don't find it. 

2 There is no record of it. So you may want to 

3 think could it have happened, it seems 

4 unlikely, the best way to explain it.

5 MR. GLECKLER: They did put out a 

6 decent amount of tritium, but it doesn't 

7 amount to much dose.

8 MR. DARNELL: Right.

9 MR. GLECKLER: That's the nice 

10 thing about tritium.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

12 MR. DARNELL: Any more questions, 

13 comments on environmental?

14 MR. STIVER: No, not really.

15 MR. DARNELL: All right. That 

16 moves us on to the medical TBD. And, Elyse, 

17 are you still on the line?

18 MS. THOMAS: Yes, I am.

19 MR. DARNELL: I hate to impose, 

20 but would you mind going over the changes of 

21 the medical dose TBD, please?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. THOMAS: No, that would be 

2 fine.

3 MR. DARNELL: Okay.

4 MR. GLECKLER: And hopefully I 

5 captured the reasoning correctly, Elyse. I 

6 just had to put this summary together pretty 

7 quickly. I didn't have a chance to run it 

8 past you, so I hope it's accurate.

9 MS. THOMAS: Yes.

10 MR. GLECKLER: If not --

11 MS. THOMAS: Yes, it's fine.

12 MR. GLECKLER: -- you can correct 

13 me.

14 MS. THOMAS: Yes, SC&A had made a 

15 comment about, you know, the equipment and the 

16 techniques not being, you know, maybe fully17 documented in the TBD or fully-documented as 

18 they could be. And so we tried to improve 

19 that, you know, with a little bit better 

20 description of the equipment, the dates that 

21 we know certain equipment was used.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 All of the pre-1972 X-ray doses 

2 are still based on information from ORAU OTIB3 6, because we don't have any information 

4 about, site-specific information, the X-ray 

5 equipment at Pinellas before 1972.

6 The changes to the PFG doses were 

7 simply a result of a slight change in the 

8 doses from PFG in ORAU OTIB-6. So I think 

9 that's it on the equipment.

10 The next issue, I think, SC&A had 

11 had to do with the frequencies of the 

12 screening examination. And, of course, now, 

13 we have a lot more information in the claim 

14 file records and it's very clear that Pinellas 

15 did use, they called it, a KUB, a Kidney 

16 Ureter Bladder, which is an AP projection of, 

17 essentially, the abdomen.

18 They are similar to an AP lumbar 

19 spine. They used that in conjunction with a 

20 chest X-ray as a screening examination, 

21 because it appears that almost -- or in very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 many of the claim records. And so we included 

2 the doses and just strengthened that section 

3 of the TBD to make it clear to the dose 

4 reconstructors that they should include the 

5 dose from those procedures, because they were, 

6 you know, clearly performed for screening on 

7 the Pinellas workers.

8 So I think that's pretty much the 

9 frequency section.

10 The uncertainty section it's, 

11 essentially, the same as the one that we have 

12 in ORAU OTIB-6 where we list the various 

13 sources of uncertainty that we have considered 

14 and then come up with a, you know, total 

15 standard propagated uncertainty.

16 Let's see, a couple of other 

17 things on the summary there. The time period 

18 for PFG just changed slightly just to reduce 

19 confusion on the part of dose reconstructors. 

20 In other words, PFG is to be assigned through 

21 1959, as opposed to up to 1960. I know that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sounds like a very small change, but it helped 

2 to reduce the confusion on the part of the 

3 dose reconstructors.

4 We took out the lateral abdomen 

5 exposures or KUB exposures, that's not 

6 typically done for that exam. As a matter of 

7 fact, I should say it is rarely done for that 

8 exam.

9 We added skin doses for all of the 

10 various skin locations as calculated or 

11 described in ORAU OTIB-6. And then did some 

12 organizational changes to make it a little bit 

13 more readable and more clear.

14 So I think that kind of summarizes 

15 the changes that were made to the medical 

16 section. It just was -- it just is about to 

17 be published, so I realize SC&A hasn't had a 

18 chance to look at it yet.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, from what I have 

20 read of your descriptions here, it sounds like 

21 you have answered most of our concerns. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would reserve judgment until we actually have 

2 a chance to review the TBD and also we would 

3 like to look at the site-specific data to 

4 verify in our minds that it, indeed, covers a 

5 lot of ground for dose reconstruction as 

6 opposed to any need to invoke TIB-6 during 

7 that period.

8 MS. THOMAS: Yes, sure.

9 MR. STIVER: And so other than 

10 that, that's really all we have to say, at 

11 this point.

12 MS. THOMAS: Okay. 

13 MR. GLECKLER: Something worth 

14 noting regarding the Pinellas Plant medical 

15 records is, that's probably a little bit 

16 different than other sites, that what becomes 

17 clear after looking at a lot of these records 

18 is it looks like one of the benefits that the 

19 plant offered their employees is the use of 

20 the site doctors as their personal doctors. 

21 So there are a lot of diagnostic medical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records, not just X-ray records, but other 

2 diagnostic, you know, things regarding, you 

3 know, cancer diagnoses and other ailments and 

4 stuff.

5 And so plus that there is a lot of 

6 diagnostic X-ray records, and that's just 

7 something that's worth being aware of --

8 MR. STIVER: That is an 

9 interesting difference.

10 MR. DARNELL: One advantage the 

11 site has is the plant nurse who was still 

12 around and we did interview her. She went way 

13 back in the program, so was able to tell us 

14 what was going on very early in the medical 

15 program.

16 MR. STIVER: Wow. You rarely have 

17 that kind of - 

18 MR. DARNELL: Yes.

19 MR. STIVER: -- access.

20 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do we want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 take a break here temporarily?

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, it looks like a 

3 good time to take a coffee break.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Coffee 

5 break.

6 MR. KATZ: Ten minutes. Do you 

7 want 10 minutes?

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, 10 

9 minutes is fine.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. So about 20 till 

11 we will start back up for folks on the phone. 

12 I'm just putting the phone on mute. Thanks.

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 matter went off the record at 10:30 a.m. and 

15 resumed at 10:42 a.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. We're back after 

17 a short break. Pinellas Work Group. Where 

18 are we? We have gone through the agenda.

19 MR. DARNELL: We've finished the 

20 agenda.

21 MR. KATZ: We are down to action 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 items and plans.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, unless 

3 we have more technical discussion.

4 MR. STIVER: I think we have 

5 pretty well covered it on this side of what we 

6 can do at this point.

7 MR. KATZ: Same for Work Group 

8 Members? Any other questions before we move 

9 on to plans?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I did have one 

11 question. In the beginning of this, and I 

12 want to make sure I understood, on the beds or 

13 in the glass state, was that depleted uranium 

14 in those?

15 MR. DARNELL: Titanium.

16 MR. STIVER: You're talking about 

17 the hydrides?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, those.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I just saw 

21 the depleted uranium and then I saw uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I wanted to make -- because my 

2 understanding was they actually had some of 

3 the uranium beds.

4 MR. GLECKLER: The initial beds, 

5 storage beds that they used at the Pinellas 

6 Plant were the glass beds that contained 

7 titanium hydride. And because of the breakage 

8 problems with the glass beds, they replaced 

9 them with the stainless steel beds with 

10 uranium tritide. And so there is -- in the 

11 1960s time frame, around '66 or '62 or '66 

12 time frame, was when that transition occurred.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: So was it 

14 actually uranium? When I saw uranium, it 

15 wasn't depleted uranium in the uranium beds?

16 MR. GLECKLER: I believe I have 

17 got it -- the way I wrote it in there is we 

18 believe it is either -- from depleted uranium.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I --

20 MR. GLECKLER: It's not --

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- just wondered, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because when I read in it, it talked earlier 

2 about depleted uranium beds. And then later 

3 on it says uranium beds and I wanted to make 

4 sure they were the depleted.

5 MR. DARNELL: It's supposed to be 

6 DU.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So I just 

9 wanted to clarify that and make sure that I 

10 understood that maybe some had changed in that 

11 time frame.

12 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, the only 

13 instances of non-depleted or of other types of 

14 uranium that was natural uranium and that was 

15 in the borosilicate glass. But any other 

16 reference to uranium in that TBD should be 

17 referring to the depleted in the uranium 

18 storage beds.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Because 

20 the other side we dealt with is that they were 

21 actually uranium beds. And I just wanted to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure that something hadn't changed that I 

2 hadn't been following through the TBD. Thank 

3 you.

4 MR. KATZ: Any other questions? 

5 How about Dr. Poston, John?

6 MEMBER POSTON: No.

7 MR. KATZ: No questions?

8 MEMBER POSTON: Nope.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody on 

11 the phone have any questions?

12 MR. KATZ: Anyone else on the 

13 phone with questions?

14 MS. HAND: Yes. Can you hear me? 

15 This is Donna.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, we hear you, 

17 Donna.

18 MS. HAND: Okay. The -- how come 

19 they did not use the baseline 1997 report from 

20 Lockheed Martin and also of DOE as a reference 

21 material in the new Technical Basis Document? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because it's not mentioned anywhere.

2 MR. DARNELL: This is Pete 

3 Darnell. Donna, what report are you referring 

4 to? Can we have the full title, please?

5 MS. HAND: Yes. The Pinellas 

6 Plant Technical Basis Document, the 

7 Environmental Baseline, the report from 

8 Lockheed Martin and DOE 1997. You used the 

9 1995 as a reference, but you have completely 

10 ignored the 1997.

11 And back in the June meeting, I 

12 even brought that up.

13 MR. GLECKLER: There isn't any 

14 significant information that is different, I 

15 think that's probably why we didn't bother 

16 using that one.

17 MS. HAND: But in that report, in 

18 that baseline report, it mentions the uranium. 

19 It mentions all four of them. In fact, the 

20 EPA says there was krypton, uranium and 

21 tritium, enough for residual contamination 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concerns.

2 So why is it not important? And 

3 that was your decontamination/decommissioning 

4 period.

5 MR. DARNELL: We will take a look 

6 at the report. We'll have to get back to you.

7 MS. HAND: And then how come you 

8 did not include the destructive testing of 

9 both the neutron generator in building 200 and 

10 as well as the plutonium, the RTGs? They did 

11 do destructive testing of those.

12 In fact, I have a client that 

13 specifically said that on the RTGs they would 

14 -- if something went wrong, they had to 

15 physically open it up and they had used 

16 asbestos gloves to open it up, because it was 

17 so warm, to find out they would probably fill 

18 it back in.

19 MR. DARNELL: As far as the RTG 

20 goes, we have no documentation that shows that 

21 destructive testing was done.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The battery itself is triple 

2 encapsulated source, as we have discussed 

3 earlier, so there is no contamination exposure 

4 potential there.

5 The asbestos gloves, it's not 

6 really germane to whether there was a 

7 radiation exposure or not.

8 MS. HAND: Well --

9 MR. DARNELL: So do you have any 

10 documentation that there was destructive 

11 testing that included --

12 MS. HAND: Yes, I can get an --

13 MR. DARNELL: -- the plutonium 

14 battery?

15 MS. HAND: -- affidavit from the 

16 worker himself, yes.

17 MR. DARNELL: And it included the 

18 plutonium battery?

19 MS. HAND: Yes.

20 MR. GLECKLER: Some of those 

21 destructive tests involved actually using an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 explosive to blow up the device. And that 

2 would explain the use of asbestos gloves, 

3 because the device would possibly still be hot 

4 from the explosion.

5 MR. DARNELL: But we have -- see 

6 it doesn't matter if you blow up an RTG that 

7 doesn't contain the plutonium battery. Okay. 

8 That's like blowing up your car. It's not a 

9 radiation exposure issue.

10 And like I said, we have nothing 

11 that shows that the plutonium battery was ever 

12 destroyed on that site in any regard.

13 MS. HAND: I take a different view 

14 because these workers are telling me that 

15 there -- you know, if you are blowing it up, 

16 you have to have some type of radiation that 

17 is coming from there. But that's a different

18 issue altogether.

19 I will get the affidavit from the 

20 worker for you guys and send it to you. 

21 Also, DOL has stipulated that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there was a plutonium fire in 1972/1973. So 

2 you are telling me let's take the plutonium 

3 out completely when there was an actual fire?

4 MR. DARNELL: We have never 

5 encountered any --

6 MS. HAND: It doesn't --

7 MR. DARNELL: -- information on 

8 that.

9 MS. HAND: -- make sense to me 

10 either.

11 MR. DARNELL: We have no record of 

12 a plutonium fire, so --

13 MS. HAND: Well, DOL does. And it 

14 came from DOE, so that doesn't make sense.

15 MR. DARNELL: Supply the document, 

16 please, because we have no record of it, no 

17 documentation of it. As you can see in the 

18 Technical Basis Documents, we have an 

19 extensive list of the incidents that did 

20 occur.

21 MS. HAND: Sure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: We are not seeing --

2 MS. HAND: Yes. And this is an 

3 extensive list. You find that there is a 

4 whole area for contaminated with tritium. 

5 Everything -- but yet, you know, you are 

6 limiting that tritium to, you know, such 

7 certain things.

8 MR. DARNELL: The tritium is not 

9 being limited - 

10 MS. HAND: And they did a bioassay 

11 on plutonium.

12 MR. DARNELL: Tritium is not being 

13 limited to anything. There is an exposed 

14 worker population that has been identified by 

15 monitoring. The unexposed or the unmonitored 

16 worker has an exposure potential that is 

17 recognized in the unmonitored worker dose. So 

18 there is nothing that is being left out from 

19 tritium monitoring, tritium exposure and the 

20 dose reconstruction for it.

21 So if you have something that you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think is being left out, please, be specific.

2 MS. HAND: Oh, I will be. I'll go 

3 ahead and let you go on with your meeting. 

4 But there is a lot of information that 

5 happened in the June meeting and that was --

6 is not addressed and is taken out. And 

7 assuming that you have, you know, now you 

8 have, a new Technical Basis Document, you did 

9 a lot of work, you did a lot of good, as far 

10 as the history goes, but there was still 

11 things that you are ignoring --

12 MR. DARNELL: Could you, please --

13 MS. HAND: -- that were --

14 MR. DARNELL: -- be specific?

15 MS. HAND: -- documented in the 

16 June hearing, as well as the GE/Milwaukee 

17 Group X-Ray Group, they only handled the 

18 paperwork up until 1966.

19 In 1966 and '67, they moved, 

20 physically moved, to the plant. So all the 

21 records from the GE X-Ray Plant either for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- for that group was physically in Pinellas 

2 Plant. They have a room there established for 

3 them.

4 MR. DARNELL: We retrieved all the 

5 records that we could from Pinellas. We have

6 also retrieved the records from the GEXM, GE 

7 X-Ray Division. You know, this is -- this 

8 issue has been vetted several times, as far as 

9 looking for documentation.

10 The process that we have is if 

11 more documentation is discovered, we add that 

12 information. We --

13 MS. HAND: But --

14 MR. DARNELL: -- have proven --

15 MS. HAND: -- my concern is is 

16 that you got through saying that the GEX 

17 Milwaukee stuff is a separate thing.

18 MR. DARNELL: There is --

19 MS. HAND: You know, but they --

20 MR. DARNELL: -- information

21 from --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. HAND: -- actually moved in 

2 there and they took handbooks from day one, 

3 all they handled was the paperwork. 

4 Everything from 1956 when they decided to move 

5 it, to build it at Pinellas Plant, that 

6 division was charged with it, but all they did 

7 was handle the paperwork and then did the 

8 drawings, et cetera, and then physically moved 

9 to Pinellas in '66.

10 So if you are having to get this 

11 from the GEXM and -- but you said you are not 

12 going to use those, you withdrew those records 

13 because it was the GEXM, how can you if the 

14 records -- after 1966 -- they were physically 

15 there.

16 MR. DARNELL: Okay. You 

17 misunderstood what we are saying. There were 

18 GE --

19 MS. HAND: Okay. Then, please, 

20 clarify.

21 MR. DARNELL: There were GEXM 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 documents that were removed from the Pinellas 

2 TBD that had to do with other operations at 

3 GE. The GE X-Ray site did a lot of other 

4 things that was not part of the Pinellas 

5 operations and not part of the pilot program 

6 that was started at GEXM and then moved to 

7 Pinellas. 

8 So there were personnel at GEXM 

9 that are included in the Pinellas TBD. So I 

10 don't understand where you have a problem with 

11 us capturing them and moving them to Pinellas, 

12 but at the same time removing documents that 

13 had nothing to do with Pinellas.

14 MS. HAND: Well, the thing is, you 

15 know, I was going to do a Freedom of 

16 Information Act and look at those documents, 

17 because Pinellas did a lot of things. The 

18 main thing was, as you know, with the neutron 

19 trigger.

20 However, they did a lot of other 

21 stuff and that had radioactive material in it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as well. And then to the internal dose to put 

2 it for the ones that got monitored for tritium 

3 is the only ones you are going to do for metal 

4 tritide, that metal tritide, from my 

5 understanding, went around where anybody met 

6 with the neutron generator, they touched the 

7 metal tritide.

8 MR. DARNELL: No, ma'am, that's 

9 completely inaccurate and incorrect. The

10 only - 

11 MS. HAND: Oh, for someone --

12 MR. DARNELL: -- exposure 

13 potential for that tritide is to the workers 

14 that were handling either the tubes or spilt 

15 materials and the folks that worked with the 

16 tritium day-to-day. Those were the only 

17 exposure potentials.

18 You did not have a volatile 

19 component to the tritides to spread it 

20 throughout the plant. In the early days when 

21 the glass tubes broke, it's a very local 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure potential. This is not something 

2 that was spread out to where you would have to 

3 include an unmonitored worker who is not 

4 expected to be exposed to tritium, much less 

5 the tritide, so that you can separate them 

6 because of the difference in work 

7 requirements.

8 MS. HAND: Well, that is strange 

9 because the workers themselves say absolutely 

10 opposite and you said absolutely opposite in 

11 the transcript of the -- in 2009.

12 MR. DARNELL: Can you, please, 

13 reference the page? I've got the transcripts 

14 right here in front of me. Where was that 

15 said?

16 MS. HAND: Well, that was said 

17 because you said you cannot use the same --

18 MR. DARNELL: No, you are 

19 misunderstanding me.

20 MS. HAND: -- material because 

21 Pinellas Plant workers were exposed to it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more.

2 MR. DARNELL: Okay. I'm looking 

3 at the tritium section where we discussed 

4 tritides in the transcripts from the last 

5 meeting. Okay. Can you, please, point out 

6 where the opposite was said?

7 MS. HAND: Not at this time, 

8 because my computer just froze.

9 MR. DARNELL: Oh, okay. All 

10 right. As far as what this document says, 

11 okay, and looking through it, the discussion 

12 from two years ago is the same as the 

13 discussion now.

14 The tritides were going to be 

15 applied to the workers that were monitored, an 

16 unmonitored dose of tritium is applied to the 

17 unmonitored workers. There is no change in 

18 what we are doing with the exception that 

19 instead of Class M, we are using Class S, 

20 because there could have been a Class S 

21 tritide present.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. HAND: Okay. And then you 

2 also are going by the DOE -- are you also 

3 fulfilling the DOE handbook to where it says--

4 MR. DARNELL: DOE handbook is not 

5 a requirement --

6 MS. HAND: -- you can't say --

7 MR. DARNELL: -- for us.

8 MS. HAND: -- why as far as 

9 dispersement goes, because the tritium will 

10 continue going out.

11 MR. DARNELL: The DOE handbook is 

12 not a requirement for us.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I have a 

14 question for you. You are saying people 

15 needed to use asbestos gloves. Do you have 

16 the size of the plutonium batteries or the 

17 RTG, the size of that or its power level? 

18 That would have a huge bearing on that.

19 MS. HAND: I do know that they did 

20 have two different sizes. One size that they 

21 could touch with their fingers to make sure it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was heated and another size was the size of an 

2 orange juice can or something that they had to 

3 use the asbestos gloves with.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: A what sized 

5 can?

6 MR. KATZ: Orange juice can.

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

8 Thanks.

9 MR. KATZ: Donna, this is Ted 

10 Katz. I think it would be helpful if you 

11 would -- for example, you mentioned the 

12 affidavit.

13 MS. HAND: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: And you mentioned the 

15 plutonium fire and now you have also discussed 

16 transcript discussion. If you would just go 

17 ahead and actually specify those in writing 

18 and submit them, then everybody can see 

19 exactly what you are addressing. And at the 

20 next Work Group meeting, they can respond to 

21 that, exactly what you are concerned about.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. HAND: Yes, I will, because 

2 it's depleted uranium with a depleted uranium 

3 bed and that was from the very beginning. And 

4 they had to replenish that depleted uranium. 

5 Again, a worker informed me of that.

6 So you, for example, have EPA 

7 saying that there was concern of residual 

8 contamination of uranium and that, you know, 

9 it has to be a high concern as well.

10 MR. KATZ: So if you will just --

11 MS. HAND: But I will put this in 

12 points. Thank you very much.

13 MR. KATZ: That's great. That 

14 will be very helpful. Thank you, Donna. And 

15 you can send those to DCAS and those will get 

16 distributed to the Work Group through them, so 

17 we will make sure that everybody, including 

18 SC&A, gets the exact documents or page numbers 

19 of documents that you are referring to with 

20 these comments.

21 MS. HAND: Will do. Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That would be great. 

2 Thanks. Any other comments or questions? In 

3 terms of actions, SC&A has run through a set 

4 of tasks. I've got them. You've got them. 

5 If you want to report on them, you can, but 

6 you don't need to, I think, we are pretty 

7 clear on the taskings.

8 MR. STIVER: Make sure we have 

9 everything captured.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: You will send a 

11 copy of the - 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll send it out 

13 afterwards. An action plan.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Appreciate that 

15 for the Work Group.

16 MR. KATZ: That would be great. 

17 And then I think DCAS only had --

18 MR. DARNELL: I had two things 

19 written down.

20 MR. KATZ: Two items, yes.

21 MR. DARNELL: To find the swipe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data during D&D and remove the plutonium 

2 information.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, the language or 

4 develop language.

5 MR. STIVER: Pete and I will 

6 coordinate on that.

7 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

8 DR. NETON: Works for me.

9 MR. KATZ: Excellent.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody else 

11 have anything else?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, thank you, 

13 everyone, for a productive meeting. Thank

14 you --

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Thank you 

16 very much.

17 MR. KATZ: -- John, for hanging in 

18 on the phone and the other staff as well and 

19 Donna, thank you for attending. And we are 

20 adjourned.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We are
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pinellas Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 adjourned.

2 MEMBER POSTON: All right. So 

3 long, everybody.

4 MR. KATZ: Take care.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Bye.

6 (Whereupon, the Work Group meeting 

7 was concluded at 11:00 a.m.)

8 

9 

10 

11