NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

MOUND WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

APRIL 10, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Brussels Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Josie Beach, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

JOSIE BEACH, Chair

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

TERRIE BARRIE*

ROBERT BARTON, SC&A*

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A*

MEL CHEW, ORAU

SAM CHU, ORAU

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

DEB JERISON*

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU*

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOE PROVECCHIO, SC&A*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

BRANT ULSH, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

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

Welcome and Introductions 4 

Work Group Discussion

Tritides 7 

Adequacy/Completeness of

Internal Dosimetry 94

Radon 196

Action Items/Plans 273
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

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

2 (9:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning everyone 

4 in the room and on the call. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

6 Mound Workgroup. Let's get going with roll 

7 call. And we're speaking about a site so 

8 please speak to conflict of interest as well 

9 when you register.

10 (Roll Call)

11 MR. KATZ: Very good, that runs 

12 through out list. There's an agenda for the 

13 meeting. For folks on the phone you can find 

14 it on the NIOSH website under the Board 

15 section under meetings. And there are also 

16 some papers associated with this meeting. 

17 Most of them should be posted and some are 

18 probably in the process of being posted, but 

19 they should be up there very shortly, if 

20 they're not already.

21 Josie, it's your meeting.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thanks, Ted. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 Good morning, everybody. We do have an agenda 

2 posted, as Ted said. I'm going to just 

3 briefly go through it.

4 We're going to start with tritides 

5 this morning. Tritides, we're going to go 

6 ahead and have NIOSH present on them. I know 

7 SC&A had a paper ready, but the tritides 

8 approach has changed considerably, so SC&A's 

9 paper, I'm sure they're going to redo that 

10 paper.

11 So we'll have NIOSH go through, 

12 explain this new approach so that we're all 

13 understanding what's happening, Brant, on your 

14 side. And then we can ask clarifying 

15 questions. I think we are going to have to 

16 come back on tritides on a later date but 

17 we'll get as much information as we can today.

18 Then we're going to go into data 

19 adequacy and completeness, the internal 

20 issues, with radon following. I didn't put it 

21 on the agenda, but I do want to give the 

22 workers a chance to comment after radon, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 before we get into Work Group recommendations. 

2 And then of course we'll schedule another 

3 meeting, because I would like to tie this up 

4 before the June meeting if at all possible.

5 I'm going to go ahead and schedule 

6 breaks at 10:30 and then lunch from 12:30 to 

7 1:30. We'll try to stick to that schedule as 

8 close as possible so you can all kind of 

9 follow.

10 And then the last item will be 

11 Action Plans, and of course that's where the 

12 schedule will come in. So if you think of 

13 that and towards the end of the day that we 

14 can get scheduled before June it would be 

15 helpful.

16 MR. KATZ: Let me just remind, 

17 folks on the phone, I didn't say anything this 

18 time but I should. We have a number of people 

19 on the phone. Please mute your phones except 

20 when you're addressing the group. If you 

21 don't have a mute button then press *6 to mute 

22 your phone and then you can press *6 again to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 take your phone off of mute. Thanks.

2 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So, Brant if 

3 you want to go ahead and start on the Tritides 

4 White Paper that came out recently.

5 DR. ULSH: All right.

6 CHAIR BEACH: March 30th I 

7 believe.

8 DR. ULSH: Sounds right. This is 

9 a long-running issue, like all of the ones 

10 that remain. We've been discussing it for 

11 months, if not years. The specific issue that 

12 is being discussed here is tritides, which is 

13 a bit of an unusual form of tritium. We're 

14 most commonly familiar with tritium in the 

15 form of tritiated water, which is very mobile, 

16 goes anywhere in the body. Behaves just like 

17 water.

18 Tritides are a bit different. 

19 It's tritium bound to a metal molecule and to 

20 varying degrees it is less soluble than 

21 tritiated water. And it's also less mobile. 

22 And it comes in a particulate form rather than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 a water vapor form. And that implies that 

2 there are some very significant differences 

3 between the two forms of tritium.

4 For one thing, we're kind of 

5 concerned about the most limiting case, the 

6 worst case, which is the least soluble form of 

7 a tritide. So what happens there is if a 

8 person were to inhale some of this it would 

9 stay pretty much in the lung. And the concern 

10 has been can you detect it with a urinalysis 

11 that you might use for a typical tritium 

12 program.

13 So that's the issue in a nutshell 

14 that we've been discussing for quite some 

15 time. NIOSH's initial position, and it's our 

16 current position, is for this particular 

17 tritide that we're concerned about the 

18 insoluble tritium. We know, from interviews 

19 with workers, we know who has been involved 

20 with working with this compound. It was a 

21 very small program.

22 I've got my visual aid here on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 table, but I'm not going to go into it in any 

2 detail. Those who were present at the 

3 meetings that we had in Germantown and in 

4 Livermore know how to interpret that. And I'm 

5 not going to say anything more about it.

6 We have had discussions about the 

7 scale of this program, or the activities with 

8 this compound at Mound. It was very, very 

9 small. It involved ten to 15 workers, we've 

10 provided a list of the workers involved. Now, 

11 that list of names was provided to us by the 

12 workers who were directly involved in the 

13 program.

14 However, the Working Group 

15 expressed some concern about people who were 

16 not on the list. People who might have come 

17 in to change the trash, service the equipment, 

18 do maintenance. Those kinds of activities.

19 So in response to that, and in 

20 response to a specific request from the 

21 Working Group, NIOSH examined swipe data. And 

22 the purpose of this analysis was to address 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 that concern about, well not necessarily for 

2 the people directly involved, the people that 

3 are in the list of ten or 15 workers, whatever 

4 it is. But these other people, maintenance 

5 people, technicians, whatever, what is their 

6 exposure potential.

7 And that is what this swipe 

8 analysis is meant to address. We presented an 

9 initial version of this at the Germantown 

10 meeting of this on January 6th. And in that 

11 paper I think we didn't capture all of the 

12 locations at Mound where work with tritides 

13 was conducted. And I think we also did not 

14 capture the D&D years.

15 So the Working Group requested 

16 that we expand that paper and make those two 

17 changes. We've done that. We've delivered it 

18 to SC&A and the Working Group, I think March 

19 30th was the date that you said there.

20 The conclusion is that the doses 

21 are, they're trivial. They're in fact 

22 fraction of a millirem range, which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 basically what we heard in the interviews that 

2 we conducted with the workers. And by we I 

3 mean the Working Group and SC&A and us jointly 

4 interviewed the workers that were involved in 

5 this program.

6 And our analysis backs that up. 

7 This is a program where people were working 

8 with tritium, they were monitored for tritium. 

9 There are some challenges interpreting 

10 bioassay when this compound is possible.

11 But we've been told over and over 

12 and over again that this compound was never 

13 deliberately handled in the open environment. 

14 It was always handled inside double 

15 containment.

16 And it's a particulate tritium, it 

17 doesn't go everywhere like you might be 

18 thinking if you're thinking of a typical 

19 tritium gas or tritiated water compound. One 

20 of the workers involved was kind of 

21 incredulous when we asked this. And said 

22 you're asking me how much, basically how much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 dust can get out of a tritium-tight glove box.

2 And it just doesn't make sense, 

3 because these particles are bigger and less 

4 mobile than tritium gas. So if you're working 

5 in a facility to try to prevent tritium gas 

6 from spreading all around it's really overkill 

7 for this kind of a compound.

8 So we've presented our analysis. 

9 Just a few minutes ago Joe sent out a piece 

10 from Bob Barton at SC&A raising some concerns 

11 about our paper. There might be a couple of 

12 mistakes, I don't know, I haven't had time to 

13 investigate that.

14 But that's where we are, NIOSH and 

15 ORAU, with the tritide issue.

16 CHAIR BEACH: I have a couple of 

17 questions. Just on this new paper I noticed 

18 that you did three interviews with health 

19 physics professionals?

20 DR. ULSH: Yes.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Are those new 

22 interviews for this particular paper?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. ULSH: Yes, the discussions 

2 themselves are new, but they're people that 

3 we've talked to in the past. And the notes 

4 from these interviews are in the SRDB, right, 

5 Mel?

6 DR. CHEW: Yes, they are.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Is there a number 

8 for this? Normally you list it in your paper.

9 DR. ULSH: Okay so what you're 

10 saying is that the SRDB number for the 

11 interview notes is not in the paper?

12 CHAIR BEACH: Well I was just 

13 curious if you had the SRBD number so we could 

14 go look at those.

15 DR. ULSH: If I don't I'll get it 

16 for you.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

18 DR. ULSH: But they are people, I 

19 mean obviously we can't talk about names here 

20 for Privacy Act reasons.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, I know that.

22 DR. ULSH: But they are people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 that, they're certainly people that we've 

2 talked to before. I think they're people 

3 you've talked to before as well.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I suspect there's 

5 an overlap.

6 DR. ULSH: Yes.

7 CHAIR BEACH: It just wasn't clear 

8 from your paper if these were new or existing, 

9 that's why I was questioning.

10 DR. ULSH: Yes, the discussions 

11 themselves are new. As we went through this 

12 paper we had some questions, so we went to 

13 talk to those people again.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Work Group 

15 Members, any other questions for Brant at this 

16 time?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, when you did 

18 these interviews did you ever think to call us 

19 in there? That we'd like to be a part of 

20 these, because we have tried over the years to 

21 be able to, so that we're not pounding on 

22 these people, everybody doing different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 things. And so that all of us are hearing the 

2 same thing. I was kind of taken back and 

3 surprised because I hadn't heard anything 

4 about this.

5 DR. ULSH: Well they weren't 

6 official interviews. They were basically, 

7 since we've talked to them so often, we have 

8 working relations that we just picked up the 

9 phone and called them and asked them. I think 

10 you guys have talked to them in a similar 

11 capacity, maybe not.

12 So no, I mean we didn't. These 

13 people are known to you. If you want to check 

14 after you look at the interview notes, if you 

15 want to check with them feel free. Call them.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: No it's. I'm not 

17 going to ask them a total different thing, 

18 Brant, I'm looking at so many times people 

19 just ask if we could all come in at the same 

20 time so they're not having to go through --

21 Because I didn't know who, I've got a good 

22 idea who they were with. It's just this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 several different sites this has happened for 

2 and I was just wondering.

3 MR. STIVER: Brant, I have a 

4 question for you. I noticed the first 

5 analysis you guys did seems to be more of a 

6 bounding demonstration. It was not really 

7 intended to be coworker model.

8 But just given the assuming 100 

9 percent tritides in the swipes the highest 

10 possible factors contributing to dose in the 

11 model you were able to demonstrate in your 

12 paper, your claim was that these doses are 

13 less than a couple hundred millirem.

14 And the new model seems to be a 

15 more of a best estimate type approach. And I 

16 was wondering are you planning to use this as 

17 a coworker model now as opposed to a 

18 demonstration? Or is that still the intent?

19 DR. ULSH: The reason it changed 

20 approach, and you're right it did change, is 

21 because I explicitly asked the ORAU Team to do 

22 a best estimate rather than a huge bounding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 over estimate.

2 As you know, it's kind of 

3 analogous to be over estimating strategy that 

4 we follow with the dose reconstructions. 

5 We'll start out, we'll overestimate it, we'll 

6 throw the kitchen sink at it. But that gives 

7 you a PoC greater than 50. Well you need to 

8 do a more precise and more best estimate.

9 And that was the situation here. 

10 I didn't want to get into a situation where we 

11 were using unrealistically high overestimates 

12 and then walk in with a dose of a few rem 

13 because that doesn't tell us anything.

14 So I instructed specifically, the 

15 ORAU Team to back off on some of these wild 

16 overestimates and make them more best

17 estimates.

18 Now in terms of your question, 

19 will we use this for a coworker model. I 

20 don't know. That's more of a TBD issue that 

21 we'll have to talk about. My initial reaction 

22 is this was meant as a demonstration project 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 to give a best estimate of what the exposure 

2 potential to these tertiary people would be.

3 If we came out with a very 

4 significant dose estimate we would have a 

5 problem. That's not what we're seeing here. 

6 We're seeing fractions of a millirem. Or if 

7 Bob Barton is correct and we've made a couple 

8 of mistakes we're talking a few millirem.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. You know, 

10 obviously we're just beginning to review this. 

11 So just the types of questions you'll 

12 probably hear from us today are more regarding 

13 clarification.

14 And one that seemed to really be a 

15 driver was a reduction and resuspension 

16 factor. The previous was three to the minus 

17 three per meter. And you went down to five 

18 times ten to the minus fifth.

19 DR. ULSH: Yes in the first 

20 revision we used three to the minus three, 

21 because we wanted to use the absolute highest 

22 resuspension factor, because we didn't want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 sit here and argue about what the resuspension 

2 factor should be. It's directly proportional, 

3 the doses that we estimate are directly 

4 proportional.

5 If you don't like the negative 

6 five number that we've used in the current 

7 White Paper, which we've provided the 

8 reference for. It's out of OTIB-70 I believe.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, it was out of 

10 TIB-70.

11 DR. ULSH: TIB-70, yes. If you 

12 like a negative four number, multiply by ten.

13 You're still talking a few tens of millirem.

14 DR. MAURO: Brant, this is John 

15 Mauro. I see you're using five minus five, 

16 regarding the resuspension factor, and I was 

17 originally the reviewer of the RF portion. 

18 So, I mean, I'm just looking at it purely as a 

19 resuspension factor. The only observation, I 

20 guess I have two observations and they're 

21 fairly simple.

22 You may want to consider that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 resuspension factor literature, that is the 

2 underpinning of your five times ten to the 

3 minus five, and I like the five times ten to 

4 the minus five number, when you're using it 

5 for total activity on the surface.

6 In this case, and this is just a 

7 thought to consider, what you're really 

8 working with is not the total activity on the 

9 surface but what you have to observe, as a 

10 swipe.

11 So you're really only looking at 

12 the removable portion of the activity on the 

13 surface. And, as a rule of thumb, as you 

14 probably know from Reg Guide 1.86, they make a 

15 distinction about a factor of five between 

16 when you're dealing total activity versus the 

17 removable material.

18 Just a thought, you may want to 

19 increase that five minus five per meter by a 

20 factor of five. And that would be compatible 

21 with the difference between total deposited 

22 activity and removable. One quick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 observation.

2 The other one is a little 

3 discussion, here's where I'm a bit at a loss 

4 is all the literature on resuspension factors 

5 goes toward, I actually made a list of them, 

6 it must have been about 20 papers, going to 

7 the source documents in our White Paper.

8 And there is that enormous range 

9 that you correctly point out. And your three 

10 minus three was certainly at the upper end of 

11 that range. Well when you look at the data 

12 it's largely either plutonium, maybe uranium. 

13 There are some experimental work where they 

14 actually use some type of dust, where they 

15 were working with milligrams per square meter 

16 and per cubic meter.

17 Any thought to whether there's 

18 anything about a tritide, like a hafnium 

19 tritide, that is chemically unusual, I have no 

20 reason to believe it is or is not, where, for 

21 some reason, the literature that does not, of 

22 course, include tritides on resuspension 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 factor or anything about the chemistry and the 

2 particle size distributions, all of which I 

3 understand are areas that we can't go into.

4 But that's another thought that 

5 came to mind when I was thinking about your 

6 resuspension factor and the degree to which 

7 the literature itself, upon which your five 

8 minus five is based, is reasonably applicable 

9 to this particular chemical form of tritium, a 

10 hafnium tritide.

11 Those are my real, quite frankly, 

12 you know I read through your material and 

13 those are the two things that hit me right 

14 away. And you may want to give some thought 

15 to that.

16 DR. ULSH: Okay. Thank you, John. 

17 I appreciate your comments. With regard to 

18 the factor of five, you know, we could 

19 entertain, I'm not committing that we would 

20 increase it by a factor of five. But I assume 

21 that SC&A will be making comments. And we'll 

22 certainly give that due consideration.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 I would point out though that even 

2 a factor of five doesn't increase the doses 

3 that we estimate to a level that I think would 

4 be of concern. And I guess it kind of depends 

5 on where we go from here.

6 At the end of the day, when the 

7 Working Group makes its recommendations, I 

8 don't know if you're going to ask for more 

9 work from us on this or if you're going to 

10 make a decision to move forward.

11 Well, certainly, if it's the 

12 Working Group's desire I guess we would look 

13 at whatever response SC&A wants to provide.

14 Now in terms of the second 

15 question, do tritides behave like whatever 

16 materials were used to generate the literature 

17 value of the resuspension factors? It's not 

18 an issue that we explicitly considered. It's 

19 not an issue that we explicitly consider in 

20 any other situation either. I don't know.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, Brant, the only 

22 reason I bring it up is I think in every other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 situation where we were using resuspension 

2 factors, I think it was plutonium, thorium and 

3 perhaps uranium oxides, and a lot of the 

4 literature itself is based on that. 

5 So the source documents that are 

6 the basis for, for example, OTIB-70 numbers, 

7 where they're largely used at AWE facilities. 

8 You know we see that all the time so we know 

9 that the literature is in fact directly 

10 applicable to the circumstances we're dealing 

11 with.

12 Here we have a circumstance that 

13 is, as you pointed out correctly, is a little 

14 unusual. And quite frankly I'm thinking just 

15 about a metal tritide.

16 And for all intents and purposes, 

17 you know, if you're talking about halfnium or 

18 some of the other metals, if you just think 

19 about it as a metal, as a finely separated 

20 metal at a very small particle size, you know, 

21 five micron distribution or whatever, you 

22 know, intuitively one would say well why would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 it behave any differently.

2 But I have to say I just don't 

3 know. And the degree to which we could be at 

4 least thinking about that might be helpful.

5 DR. ULSH: I'm with you, John. I 

6 just don't know if these compounds, these 

7 tritides are salt. That's what they are, 

8 they're salts. A metal combined with 

9 hydrogen. So I don't know if that means 

10 anything.

11 DR. MAURO: Exactly. And I 

12 understand what you're saying. So one could 

13 say, well it's just like any other metal. 

14 Yes. I'm not sure. I just don't know. Well 

15 the tritide is not, I'm maybe asking a 

16 question I shouldn't ask, it's not a hydrated 

17 thing like a hydrate. It's a hydrogen on the 

18 metal.

19 In other words the tritium itself 

20 is not HTO. It's T that's tied to the metal? 

21 Or you cannot answer that question.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's not HTO.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 CHAIR BEACH: I think Paul had a 

2 comment, John.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well the tritium 

4 in a sense, in this case, for particle size 

5 considerations is trivial. So if you're 

6 talking about let's say iron oxide particles 

7 or halfnium, or any other metal, it seems to

8 me it's the metal, it's going to behave like 

9 whatever that metal is. The presence of the 

10 tritium I can't see that that would change how 

11 the particles would behave in terms of 

12 resuspension.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, Paul, my 

14 intuition goes in the same direction as yours 

15 on that. But I hate to just jump to that 

16 conclusion.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I do have a 

18 separate question if I might raise it. My 

19 understanding is that the swipe samples, at 

20 the time that they are taken and even now, 

21 were understood to be just tritium wipes, not 

22 tritides, is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. ULSH: Yes, and that's really, 

2 it's an accurate assumption. And that was one 

3 thing that I was going to point out here.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: That you're 

5 assuming, in your model, as kind of a worst 

6 case, that the swipes are actually tritides, 

7 is that correct?

8 DR. ULSH: We're assuming that all 

9 of the activity detected from the swipes are 

10 100 percent insoluble tritides. And that is a 

11 huge --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. In reality 

13 it's almost the other end of the spectrum.

14 DR. ULSH: Yes.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's probably all, 

16 or close to all --

17 DR. ULSH: Darn close to it.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But that raises 

19 the other question. Do you have some level of 

20 confidence that a swipe made of tritide versus 

21 that of normal formed tritium, which is just 

22 contaminated surface, would they look 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 different to a PC-3, or I guess it was a PC-5, 

2 or a scintillation counter.

3 I know that in the scintillation 

4 counter, and probably in the PC-3, you're 

5 still looking at, for the tritide, just the 

6 surface. And you had some discussion, which I 

7 didn't fully follow on how the counts 

8 represent the true activity.

9 DR. ULSH: Yes, exactly. You're 

10 talking about self-absorption really.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

12 DR. ULSH: That is a topic that we 

13 were specifically asked to address at the 

14 Germantown meeting. So you did have a 

15 discussion of that in the paper here. 

16 Basically what happens is with tritiated water 

17 self absorption is simply not an issue. What 

18 you see is what you get.

19 With tritides, if the particles 

20 are big enough, there's a potential for some 

21 of the beta activity from the tritium, from 

22 the interior of the particle, to never make it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 out of the particle and not be detected in a 

2 liquid scintillation cocktail.

3 So the question would be then, 

4 well how much of the activity are you missing? 

5 Turns out it doesn't matter. It simply 

6 doesn't matter. What is important is in the 

7 liquid scintillation cocktail, if you want to 

8 call it the apparent activity instead of the 

9 true activity, the apparent activity is what 

10 is important from a dosimetric standpoint, 

11 because if the tritium decay is at the 

12 interior of a particle and no radiation, no 

13 energy ever makes it out of the particle, well 

14 it's true it won't be counted in the liquid 

15 scintillation cocktail.

16 But it also won't escape to 

17 irradiate the lung. So it's not 

18 dosimetrically important. What we need to 

19 focus on is the apparent activity. And that 

20 is stated explicitly in the Mound Technical 

21 Basis Document. Not the one that NIOSH wrote, 

22 the one that Mound wrote, for stable tritiated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 particulates. It's the apparent activity that 

2 is dosimetrically important. Did I answer 

3 your question?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. That's what 

5 I thought you did. But I just wanted to make 

6 sure that we understood why that was done that 

7 way. And that the actual swipes were probably 

8 not tritides or if there were tritides it 

9 would be very small. I mean these things were 

10 opened inside the glove boxes, right?

11 DR. ULSH: Absolutely. Now it 

12 could have been a tritide, it could have been 

13 iron. It could have been rust. I mean 

14 there's a lot of metal equipment. But we're 

15 not terribly concerned about the rust, it's 

16 not one of the highly insoluble tritides. The 

17 highly insoluble tritides were handled inside 

18 double containment, inside glove boxes.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I guess a 

20 couple of comments since there's a lull here.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to expand a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 little bit. The reason we're still talking 

2 about this, just going off your comment, Paul, 

3 is that in the interviews it became apparent 

4 there were, you know, as there are with 

5 handling tritium in glove boxes, there was a 

6 history of releases and that was acknowledged 

7 and not surprising either.

8 And that was where the concern 

9 over perhaps tritides being released with the 

10 tritium in this leakage and whether that would 

11 have been an exposure source. Not so much for 

12 the operator, since they of course were on 

13 bioassay, but for the support workers who many 

14 have been in the labs. That's where, sort of 

15 this has gone.

16 I guess my other clarifying 

17 question. We looked at sort of the previous 

18 version of the assessment and this latest 

19 version. I think you've clarified a little 

20 bit but I just want to make sure I understand.

21 The last version was a maximizing 

22 dose estimate. And, well, all the assumptions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 were maximizing in terms of coming up with the 

2 significance, demonstrating the significance 

3 of the exposure source. This is also 

4 demonstrating significance of the exposure 

5 source. This is a best estimate.

6 So really it's the context of the 

7 review. I mean what in fact, what assumptions 

8 are selected and how one goes about that. But 

9 I mean the purpose is still the same. You're 

10 trying to demonstrate the dose significance, 

11 potential dose significance or exposure 

12 significance of the insoluble tritides, with 

13 these assumptions.

14 And I think you pointed out, and 

15 this is where I was trying to follow from 

16 before, that the resulting level would, at 

17 best, be millirem. And now you're saying 

18 actually with the best estimate it would be 

19 fraction of millirem. And it would have to be 

20 a higher level to be of consequence or 

21 significance.

22 I guess my question is what level 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 would it have to be if it were to be something 

2 that would be of consequence in this program. 

3 I'm just trying to figure out if it's not a 

4 few millirem or a fraction of millirem at what 

5 point, I mean, I think at the last meeting 

6 maybe Jim said this, if it were tens of rem, 

7 hundreds of rem, then we would have to address 

8 it. I remember that comment.

9 But now we're sort of in the 

10 minuscule range, but I'm just trying to figure 

11 out where would that have to be to be of 

12 exposure significance?

13 DR. ULSH: Yes, it's a tough 

14 question and I --

15 DR. NETON: Well I guess I might 

16 be able to kind of answer it. I think when I 

17 referring to this tens of rem or hundreds of 

18 rem issue had more to do with the significance 

19 of the overestimate. If you do an 

20 overestimate you get into the tens or hundreds 

21 of rems and you kind of have to like sharpen 

22 your pencil, so to speak, because you just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 can't get away and say okay we can bound it 

2 and it's really high.

3 The extreme bounding estimate came 

4 out I think it was like 100 millirem or 200 

5 millirem and so that didn't rise, at least in 

6 my mind, to a level of concern that we have a 

7 huge issue here. 

8 As far as levels significant to 

9 where we'd include things in dose 

10 reconstructions I think we've drawn the line 

11 at a millirem. I mean anything a millirem or 

12 higher is going to go into a dose 

13 reconstruction.

14 So clearly if they get into the 

15 millirem ranges we would be including the 

16 potential exposure in a dose reconstruction.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Now we're talking 

18 about the two analyses, one was a maximizing, 

19 maybe a bounding approach. And this is a best 

20 estimate approach.

21 DR. ULSH: Let me clarify that, 

22 because I know you're going off what I said so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 it's really kind of my --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Well I'm just 

3 saying the two papers have struck me, that was 

4 the context.

5 DR. ULSH: Perhaps I misspoke a 

6 little bit earlier. This is still an 

7 overestimate. It's just not as overestimating 

8 as the first one that we did. We backed off 

9 on the resuspension factor, as has been 

10 pointed out.

11 But as Paul pointed out we've 

12 still included some overestimating assumptions 

13 here. First and foremost, all the activity on 

14 the swipe is insoluble tritide. That's a huge 

15 overestimate. Especially when we know the 

16 operating history where this material was 

17 contained.

18 There are some other 

19 overestimating assumptions that are in here in 

20 terms of what percentile was picked. It's 

21 just that this is not quite as enormous an 

22 overestimate as the first one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess that's my 

2 point. Are we sort of in this scaling process 

3 where I could put a different group of HPs in 

4 the room and say I want a conservative 

5 construct on this, and by virtue of picking 

6 certain assumptions, because you really don't 

7 have any real data, so what you're doing is 

8 you're using these very conservative 

9 assumptions to try this.

10 So you're selecting these, whether 

11 it's ten to the minus fifth or fourth, you 

12 know, you're picking a number. And these 

13 numbers are cumulative, you know, when you add 

14 these assumptions together they'll give you a 

15 result.

16 And what, I guess just off the 

17 top, concerns me and this goes back to your 

18 answer, is that there's in a sense there's 

19 almost a target level of what would be 

20 considered de minimis in this program. And I 

21 think you're saying it's about a millirem.

22 And if we are simply playing a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 numbers game where it depends on what 

2 assumptions you pick, and if you change those 

3 assumptions, and I think we had a, I don't 

4 know, couple hundred millirems CEDE to lung 

5 that probably equated to several millirem 

6 whole body, that would probably, that might 

7 actually fall in on what would be considered 

8 not a negligible exposure in EEOICPA. Here 

9 we've rejiggered the numbers and now it comes 

10 in slightly below a millirem, perhaps.

11 But do you see what I'm getting 

12 at? It sort of becomes this calculational 

13 effort. And the issue becomes one of whether 

14 one falls below or above a millirem as far as 

15 whether it's a dose reconstructable exposure. 

16 I think that's not a good place for the 

17 program to be when you're talking about 

18 something as significant as an exposure 

19 cohort.

20 So that's where I'm a little 

21 concerned about we're operating in an arena, 

22 we've had many discussions about this, where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 we lack quantifiable data and site 

2 characterization data. So we're employing 

3 assumptions. And in this case trying to 

4 demonstrate the significance of an exposure 

5 potential.

6 But the implication of doing so is 

7 that we're trying to make a judgement as to 

8 whether that exposure potential is something 

9 that should be dose reconstructable under the 

10 program.

11 And my concern is that seeing the 

12 two, and these are two worthwhile efforts and 

13 actually I think I even told Brant I thought 

14 this latest analysis was a stronger analysis.

15 But nonetheless, it sort of brings 

16 me back to we could have a number of analyses 

17 that would give you a spectrum of assumptions 

18 that would be as bounding, I shouldn't use 

19 that word, as maximizing as the first one we 

20 looked at a month or two ago.

21 And perhaps with this one as the 

22 other bookend, and maybe with others in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 between, but the implication is that perhaps 

2 some of them would make this dose 

3 reconstructable under EEOICPA, some would not. 

4 And I guess my question for the Work Group is 

5 it's sort of a policy question almost.

6 I know the one millirem has been 

7 used as a benchmark. But when it gets into a 

8 province where you lack real site data and 

9 you're employing assumptions, then my concern 

10 is whether those assumptions end up driving 

11 the consideration rather than the site12 specific data which I think is the essence of 

13 the Act, that the site-specific data should be 

14 employed.

15 DR. NETON: Well where you're 

16 going though, Joe, is really how are we going 

17 to do a dose reconstruction, is what you're 

18 going to say.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. Not even 

20 that far. I'm before that. I'm just saying 

21 where do you have an exposure potential for 

22 which a dose reconstruction would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 warranted?

2 DR. ULSH: Okay. Let me clarify a 

3 few things. First of all I can't answer the 

4 how significant is significant. It's kind of 

5 like defining pornography. I know it when I 

6 see it. And I'm going to leave that question 

7 to the policy makers and the Advisory Board to 

8 deal with.

9 I don't consider fractions of a 

10 millirem significant. If you do, do something 

11 different than I would do. And it's not 

12 accurate to say we don't have site-specific 

13 data.

14 This analysis is based on swipe 

15 data from the site. It is based on 

16 resuspension factors from the literature. We 

17 know what material was there. There was a 

18 number of site-specific parameters that we 

19 have used here.

20 So we can talk about generalities 

21 all we want, but this is a specific situation 

22 at Mound and what we've shown you is that even 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 under the conservative assumptions that we've 

2 used here you're still talking fractions of a 

3 millirem. If you think that's significant and 

4 that's the basis for an SEC then you know what 

5 you need to do. I say it's not.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I would tell the 

7 Work Group that that's not the issue. It's 

8 not the result that I'm dwelling on, because 

9 like I said I can get a number of HPs in a 

10 room, give them the task and we could come up 

11 with a number of results, which I think any 

12 one of which, including your own, you could 

13 substantiate. You could justify. You could 

14 argue that these were subjective but well 

15 thought out assumptions.

16 But what I'm saying is when you 

17 get into an arena where you're taking those 

18 assumptions to come up with a level of 

19 significance, as far as what is going to be 

20 considered in or out, because that's 

21 essentially what you're talking about. Is it 

22 a exposure that's going to be addressed or not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 under the program?

2 Then I'm a little more nervous 

3 that the Act was written to deal with

4 circumstances where, you know, your records 

5 aren't available. Your monitoring information 

6 is lacking. And even your surrogate 

7 information is lacking.

8 And I understand what you're 

9 saying, I don't want to bring the Work Group 

10 back through two years worth of debate on what 

11 site-specific information is.

12 But in this particular case we 

13 don't have the monitoring information. We 

14 happen to have tritium information but we 

15 don't have the ratios and what have you.

16 DR. ULSH: We do have monitoring 

17 information. We've got tritium bioassay and 

18 we've got --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me finish, 

20 Brant. So really what I'm saying is if you 

21 had a result that gave you your several 

22 millirem, as the first assessment from January 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 did, where would that leave you? And that's 

2 what I'm concerned about.

3 If you had two assessments, one a 

4 little more maximizing than the other, just be 

5 perhaps more best estimate, and you had a 

6 range of values in between, where does it 

7 leave you in terms of making that decision on 

8 what to accept and what is the de minimis 

9 level? Is it in fact one millirem, de facto 

10 one millirem?

11 If it is then I think I would 

12 defer to the Board to say, okay, we have 

13 different ways to apply your assumptions and I 

14 think the calculational methods that Brant has 

15 laid out are fairly solid. But if we use 

16 different assumptions I think SC&A will 

17 provide analysis on those assumptions and the 

18 numbers changed, are we talking about that 

19 clean a threshold.

20 Is there that much confidence in 

21 these assumptions that you would deny or 

22 accept based on the difference between a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 millirem or three millirem or five millirem?

2 DR. NETON: That's yet to be seen 

3 based on SC&A's analysis. I mean we're happy 

4 to look at the analysis you guys come up with 

5 and if it shows that there's a plausible upper 

6 bound of ten millirem, or whatever it comes 

7 out to be, we're happy to deal with that.

8 And I would suggest at that point 

9 the discussion points to the fact that it may 

10 be that high, we would include it in dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well now it's 

13 ten. See I --

14 DR. NETON: I'm not saying it's 

15 ten. I'm saying whatever you say.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I know but one 

17 millirem --

18 DR. NETON: One millirem will be 

19 included in a dose reconstruction, I can 

20 guarantee that. Anything over one millirem.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: One millirem?

22 DR. NETON: Yes, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd 

2 like to jump in a little bit here. As I 

3 understand it the one millirem is a number 

4 that has come up simply because as a practical 

5 matter when you run your calculations and 

6 you're doing your dose reconstruction, per 

7 given year, and you find a dose of that 

8 particular internal or external exposure is 

9 less than one when I look at input it rounds 

10 off to zero.

11 So it's not that everyone agrees 

12 that one is the right threshold of no 

13 significance, it just turns out to be from a 

14 practical manner that's what happens.

15 And when I do my reviews of a case 

16 I will do the calculations and I'll see your 

17 zeros, a whole string of zeros. I'll check a 

18 number and say do I come in under one millirem 

19 and if I do I say okay, I agree.

20 I think that the more important 

21 question is, what I see here, is you have come 

22 up with a method to place a plausible upper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 bound on the exposures to people from 

2 tritides. And if I was reviewing a case right 

3 now, with this methodology, what I would look 

4 at is two very important issues.

5 One is, I probably would not use 

6 your resuspension factor. I'd probably 

7 increase it by a factor of five and see what 

8 happens. And then I would make sure that 

9 whatever swipe data you have, that you're 

10 using, applied to the particular, had 

11 sufficient data that you could say I could, 

12 for the scenario, what kind of work the worker 

13 might have been doing over the course of a 

14 given year.

15 And if there's sufficient swipe 

16 data there and that it covers just about the 

17 full range of things that worker might have 

18 been involved in.

19 And in my mind, if you have that 

20 swipe data and it covered the range and 

21 perhaps you picked the upper 93rd percentile 

22 of that data, and that data did include all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 the activities that he might have been 

2 involved in, and you use this what I would 

3 call a little bit more elevated resuspension 

4 factor, I would probably walk away saying this 

5 is -- and wherever the number came in, I would 

6 argue, this is just me speaking now, yes 

7 that's probably a reasonable upper bound.

8 Especially given the point that 

9 Paul just made that in reality the swipe data 

10 is probably not all tritides. It's probably, 

11 maybe dominated by tritium itself, tritiated 

12 water, we don't know.

13 But even if it were all halfium 

14 tritide I have to say, as a reviewer, of a 

15 dose reconstruction I would be less concerned 

16 if you came in less than one. I would say is 

17 this a plausible scenario and did you place a 

18 reasonable upper bound on the guy's dose given

19 his work involvement.

20 And these are the two places I 

21 would look. One, the resuspension factor. 

22 And two, do you have adequate swipe data to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 capture the full range of activities he might 

2 have been involved in?

3 MR. FITZGERALD: And, John, I 

4 would also add that some sense of the 

5 uncertainty, because if you're really trying, 

6 you know, there's been some terms here. 

7 Maximizing, best estimate and now we're using 

8 upper bound.

9 But since upper bound's the normal 

10 parlance, certainly the upper bound would need

11 to consider the ranges and the uncertainties 

12 involved so that they could be accommodated in 

13 the upper bound. That's something that --

14 DR. NETON: Well that's one thing 

15 I was going to mention. Is we've been talking 

16 about bounding analyses here but honestly many 

17 times in dose reconstructions we will put a 

18 distribution in there for the dose. It will 

19 be the best estimate with some uncertain 

20 distribution about it. I mean that's often 

21 the technique that's used for internal dose in 

22 particular. But we haven't gotten that far 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 yet, that's something.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: No, this is a 

3 threshold question, really.

4 DR. ULSH: And I think it's worth 

5 pointing out here the context of what we're 

6 talking about. First of all everyone that 

7 we're talking about, all work with tritides 

8 was done in tritium areas at Mound. So any 

9 worker who would have been in these areas was 

10 already on tritium bioassay.

11 And you can argue about the 

12 interpretation of that, but we used 69,000 

13 swipe data, these are site-specific from 

14 Mound. We're using tritium urinalysis data 

15 from Mound. We're here using site-specific 

16 data. Now the situation that we're talking 

17 about here is we already have an SEC for 

18 anyone who had any tritium urinalysis data up 

19 through 1980.

20 That covers the bulk of the time 

21 period that we're talking about. It doesn't 

22 cover D&D, but it covers certainly the time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 period when active work was being done with 

2 insoluble tritide at Mound. So what you're 

3 talking about here, I mean if you decide that 

4 this is insufficiently accurate or for 

5 whatever unacceptable, what you're talking 

6 about is talking tritide doses away from 

7 people for which they would already be covered 

8 under an SEC.

9 CHAIR BEACH: That doesn't relieve 

10 us of the responsibility of --

11 DR. ULSH: No it doesn't, but -- 

12 CHAIR BEACH: -- sorting this out.

13 DR. ULSH: I think it certainly 

14 comes into play here because this is an SEC 

15 question. And what I'm saying is the SEC 

16 question for this particular group of people 

17 has already been answered. I say let us 

18 calculate the tritide doses for people who are 

19 not going to qualify for whatever SEC you 

20 designate.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have another 

22 lull, Joe, if you want it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. FITZGERALD: You want me to 

3 fill this one too?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're pondering.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think again 

6 I don't dispute what Jim said. There's 

7 different flexibilities reported in the dose 

8 reconstruction process. But this is an 

9 interesting issue in the sense that what's 

10 being postulated is a threshold for even 

11 considering something for dose reconstruction. 

12 I mean it's almost not a dose 

13 reconstructability issue in a normal SEC 

14 sense.

15 It's sort of saying is this a 

16 exposure that rises to a level of significance 

17 such that we would even deal with dose 

18 reconstructability and the question of who to 

19 assign the dose to.

20 And right now, you know, I spent 

21 some time with the previous White Paper, I 

22 might add it actually came out about Thursday 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 last week. And it was sort of like, oh, okay I 

2 guess we're going to have to rewrite that.

3 But nonetheless having looked at 

4 it I think this is a stronger assessment. But 

5 nonetheless that issue remains that whereas 

6 that first White Paper one would have come up 

7 with, I guess, several millirem whole body or 

8 pick a number whatever it is. This one

9 happens to have a more conservative 

10 assumption. It comes in fractions of 

11 millirem.

12 And that sort of got me thinking. 

13 So well, it's all in the calculations and 

14 what assumptions you employ, what 

15 uncertainties you include. And you can come 

16 up with almost any value depending on what 

17 kind of assumptions you take. And the 

18 question is which one is bounding.

19 Well I think that's a real good 

20 question for the Work Group because I think 

21 that would be kind of where we would have to 

22 come from in our analysis to say, okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 stepping back from all of this in the end it's 

2 sort of, you know, we're doing a 

3 demonstration. We're not doing a dose 

4 reconstruction but a demonstration of what 

5 would be the bounding assessment.

6 Not necessarily maximize, but 

7 something that would reflect the uncertainties 

8 involved. And is that somehow going to fall 

9 above one millirem. I mean I think we haven't 

10 really broached this question of de minimis 

11 before. But I think this is where this comes 

12 from.

13 So from our standpoint that's kind 

14 of where we would go back and take a look at 

15 the numbers. And I sent you that response 

16 from Bob Barton just because that's sort of a 

17 late breaking, real-time reaction. But we're 

18 looking at some of these assumptions from the 

19 standpoint of the basis for the assumptions, 

20 the numbers. And we're trying to understand 

21 them better.

22 And we'll look at maybe what the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 uncertainties that would be inherent in each 

2 one. But you know I think what we would come 

3 back with is some kind of validation as to 

4 whether or not in our view a bounding 

5 assessment of that results in a number 

6 fractions of millirem or something above a 

7 millirem.

8 But it still makes me a little 

9 nervous that really we're kind of playing in 

10 that field. That really we're not to a dose 

11 reconstructibility test, we're still looking 

12 at whether something is going to be in the 

13 game or not as far as exposure. So that's 

14 pretty much all we can go back an look at it.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's more of a 

16 generic question than it is a decided, it's a 

17 policy question in part. And it, in a sense, 

18 is one you theoretically could face at any 

19 site where you have assumptions on what to 

20 include or what's trivial. I mean we have it 

21 at some other sites.

22 Some things that you say, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 know, the incremental addition of that to this 

2 total is so minuscule that it's not worth our 

3 time in doing it. And I don't know if it's 

4 always a millirem.

5 But you could in most cases you 

6 could take a millirem and put it in the IREP 

7 model, a year in time, and see what it does to 

8 the PoC if it effects it in the third or 

9 fourth decimal place, which I still object to 

10 even showing in some cases, you know they 

11 should round it off at least to whole numbers 

12 and maybe even fives. But that's --

13 MR. KATZ: I think the principle 

14 that the Board's been operating on and the 

15 program has been operating on since the 

16 beginning has been that if you're in a 

17 minuscule, I won't say what that range is, but 

18 a minuscule dosage range that it still would 

19 be accommodated by the conservatisms, because 

20 you're not ignoring any dose, even if you're 

21 not explicitly, you don't have a model or you 

22 don't have representation for that particular 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 dose.

2 But if you're talking about one 

3 millirem for something that you didn't 

4 actually calculate and you've already more 

5 than covered that by your dose estimate 

6 process in general then you're not spending 

7 the time taking it up. I think the program's 

8 done that in dose reconstructions.

9 DR. NETON: Yes I was going to say 

10 it's very common in the residual contamination 

11 group.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, and Ted, this is 

13 John. What you explain is exactly what I'd 

14 run into where NIOSH in a dose reconstruction 

15 would say that we've checked these numbers, 

16 they're coming out less than one millirem and 

17 that's the end of the story.

18 I've seen places where they've 

19 actually run the numbers, came in at less and 

20 put zeros in, the IREP input and the 

21 attachment Appendix A. But I've also seen 

22 circumstances, which I've found favorable, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 where they say we did the calculations, we 

2 came in at less than one and we were ignoring 

3 it. I've seen both.

4 And I would check both and in each 

5 case I'd left that as not a binding, in other 

6 words yes, I agree and the fact that you did 

7 not explicitly address it and put zeros in, 

8 the IREP input, I did not have a finding on 

9 that. I just simply concurred, yes that the 

10 number was less than zero.

11 And I seen circumstances where 

12 they've came in at 1.5 millirem or three or 

13 four. Checked the numbers and they're in 

14 there. And they're in the run. So what I 

15 think we have here is we're talking about a 

16 coworker model right now and whether or not we 

17 think one can be constructed.

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're only using 

20 this --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: It's a 

22 demonstration.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, we talked about 

2 that earlier.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Well I may 

4 be jumping the gun. But I'm trying to see 

5 that we have a coworker model that in my sense 

6 I feel comfortable with. If that's not the 

7 conversation we're having then I may be off 

8 base here.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: No. I think you 

10 do, I think Paul might have touched on it. I 

11 think it's a policy issue as well as a 

12 technical issue. I mean, again, we can spend 

13 some time looking at the assumptions but I 

14 think there may be some policy implications.

15 And working at some of the other 

16 sites the issue does come up. And I think 

17 different tests have been used to determine 

18 whether or not the exposure is significant or 

19 not, I guess is the best way to put it. And 

20 that consistency of a policy application is 

21 something I guess it's the Board's province. 

22 And we won't go there obviously but we'll go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 and look at the technical assumptions and come 

2 back with our best take on that.

3 But I still think there's another 

4 question and that's something the Board will 

5 have to deal with.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Well, Ted, I'm going 

7 to direct this to you. Joe brings up a good 

8 point on a policy issue where it's not just 

9 this Work Group, there are other Work Groups 

10 dealing with this exact thing. Is this 

11 something that we would transfer maybe to SEC 

12 Work Group to look at as a policy question or 

13 just take it out to the full Board to discuss 

14 during a meeting?

15 MR. KATZ: Well and I'm not sure 

16 whether it's so much an SEC issue as a dose 

17 reconstruction issue, in which case it might 

18 go to the Procedures Subcommittee, because if 

19 you are at this range you're not really having 

20 a debate about whether you're sufficiently 

21 accurate if you're capping it within, you 

22 know, whether it's one millirem or a fraction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 of a millirem, you're not going to make a 

2 claim that this is not insufficiently accurate 

3 at that point, which is the SEC issue then.

4 I mean you're more, it's an issue 

5 of how are you handling it in the dose 

6 reconstruction. Like I said, I mean, I 

7 thought the way it was it was just basically 

8 these minor doses are assumed to be more than 

9 handled by other conservatisms. But anyway 

10 that's a policy issue and so the Procedure 

11 Subcommittee is one place to take it up.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: If I can expand 

13 on that though. I think the threshold value 

14 is one issue. But the other issue is the 

15 level of uncertainty involved in getting 

16 there. Because if you had a lot of 

17 quantitative data, and you are on solid 

18 quantitative ground, and you got to one 

19 millirem that would be one thing.

20 But if you are bereft of typical 

21 monitoring data or site characterization data 

22 that you would want to use, you would have to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 use simplifying assumptions and whatever. 

2 That's a different issue, because the 

3 uncertainty range would make the one millirem 

4 less certain. And if that were the decision 

5 point one could argue that it may not be 

6 something you could hang your hat on as well.

7 So there's a judgement call I 

8 think that comes into play. It's not just 

9 looking at the one millirem procedurally but 

10 looking at what's the basis for deriving a 

11 value that would be compared to that one 

12 millirem.

13 And that's where I'm having some 

14 concern here, because I think in this 

15 particular case we really do lack a lot of the 

16 hard data. And I understand what Brant's 

17 saying, but I think this, in a relative way, 

18 we have less hard data on the tritides than we 

19 normally would some other source terms.

20 MR. KATZ: All I was saying is 

21 that if the uncertainty range though is a 

22 range that's from fractions of a millirem to a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 couple millirem, that's a different 

2 circumstance than if the uncertainty range is 

3 fractions of a millirem up to tens of rem, 

4 then you're in this wild world of what's 

5 sufficiently accurate.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be 

7 useful for the Board to discuss, because I 

8 think it is going to be a common issue, or has 

9 been a common issue. You know, looking at Los 

10 Alamos with mixed activation products, I mean 

11 we're talking about short lived, you know, 

12 you'd probably be fairly small for a lot of 

13 workers and that was a SEC, or still is an SEC 

14 discussion.

15 And what level of significance

16 would you even consider MAT's to be something 

17 you'd want to dose reconstruct? Well, you 

18 know, so we're going to hit that in a lot of 

19 places.

20 MR. KATZ: So in another way it's 

21 sort of rubber hits the road, which relates to 

22 what I was just saying about where the range 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 is is health endangerment. If you're beyond 

2 certainty range keeps you within in the 

3 millirem and below you can't make the case for 

4 health endangerment, which is an element of 

5 the SEC.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Well that's a new 

7 element.

8 MR. KATZ: No it's an original.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: A new 

10 implication. I'm just saying that I 

11 understood the one millirem to be more of a 

12 structural issue as far as what IREP can 

13 process it's not a health effects based. I 

14 mean if it was health effects it would be way 

15 up the scale from one millirem.

16 DR. NETON: It's not health 

17 effects. It's practical.

18 MR. KATZ: Right, I'm not 

19 questioning that.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. This 

21 endangerment question has sort of been 

22 plaguing us for a very long time and I know it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 is something that we really can't go to. I 

2 don't think we can resolve that. Quite 

3 frankly we've seen it too many times.

4 And I think in this case, you 

5 know, if that's where this is headed I don't 

6 think we're going to get to the end. In my 

7 opinion once you engage that question, we'd 

8 love to be able to engage that question to ask 

9 the second part. But you know we can't go, 

10 it's just not going to happen.

11 At the one millirem it just turns 

12 out to be, like you said, Joe, a mechanistic 

13 issue. The mechanics. And no one is troubled 

14 by that, the one millirem cutoff on IMBA. So 

15 really what I'm hearing is listen we don't 

16 know how much tritides are out there. We 

17 could make all of these assumptions without 

18 any real measurements whatsoever, of tritide 

19 levels anywhere.

20 And what's been done is almost 

21 like a think piece, what NIOSH did. It is a 

22 think piece here, let's just walk through this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 and make this assumption, this assumption, 

2 assuming we've got thousands and thousands of 

3 swipe data under every possible circumstance, 

4 take the upper 95th percentile of that data.

5 And let's say if everyone agrees, 

6 yes, listen at 95 percentile there's no 

7 circumstances you could envision where anyone 

8 could have ever possibly been exposed at the 

9 95th percentile all year long. You know, DPM 

10 per centimeter squared.

11 And then on top of that use an 

12 average annual resuspension factor that 

13 everyone agrees certainly on the upper end, 

14 what we have is conceptually. Conceptually 

15 approach that one side of the house could 

16 argue, well listen that's a health physicist 

17 thing. I have no problem with that.

18 On the other side of the house is 

19 hold the presses. You have no data. You 

20 know, we don't have one measurement of one 

21 tritide anywhere that we could even talk 

22 about. And that becomes the policy issue in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 my mind. And there's a dilemma.

2 As a health physicist the logic 

3 sequence that you folks have gone through, 

4 Brant, I have to say I like. You know, with 

5 the caveats that I brought up earlier.

6 But the policy issue that you're 

7 doing all this without any measurements 

8 anywhere of any tritides, I can understand 

9 that also being what do you do about that 

10 within the context of this statute that we're 

11 working?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, John, I 

13 think you have to say if there were tritides 

14 in the workplace then the swipes capture them. 

15 You can't say there's no tritide. We don't 

16 know that it's -- I mean they're assuming it 

17 all is, but if there's some there then it's 

18 there.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh yes, I believe 

20 there is some there. But none were measured. 

21 I mean that's why I'm saying this is really 

22 not a scientific question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: They all were 

2 measured.

3 DR. MAURO: This is a question, 

4 you know, we have no data on what the levels 

5 were anywhere. Of tritides.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, John, the 

7 problem is that there were tritides there it's 

8 just the uncertainty can range anywhere from 

9 zero to 100 percent.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay, that's the same 

11 thing as saying we have no data.

12 DR. NETON: I don't know why this 

13 is any different than the Class WYS --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I assume it's all 

15 the same.

16 DR. NETON: No we always pick the 

17 most insoluble material to maximize the dose. 

18 And we've been doing this consistently for 

19 ten years. So it's an insoluble form of 

20 tritium it's sort of like it's an X, you know.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well I guess we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 could pontificate as well.

2 (Laughter.)

3 CHAIR BEACH: So I want to ask 

4 Brant, would it be helpful for Bob Barton to 

5 go over his paper that he sent out this 

6 morning just for clarification?

7 DR. ULSH: It might.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: It's not even a 

9 paper, apologies to Bob, I'm sure he didn't 

10 realize I was going to do that. I think it 

11 would just be helpful if we were to talk about 

12 it, that Brant had it in front of him. I sent 

13 it out this morning.

14 DR. ULSH: We can at least get a 

15 head start on it, responding to it.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, Bob got the 

17 spreadsheets Friday and he's had a couple days 

18 to look at it.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: We're talking 

20 real time. I sent it to Brant, I got it this 

21 morning.

22 DR. NETON: I don't think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 Board --

2 DR. ULSH: No, Josie sent it 

3 directly to me.

4 CHAIR BEACH: I have a copy of it.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I sent a brand 

6 new copy to Josie, but literally I got it this 

7 morning about 8:30. So this is --

8 MR. STIVER: Yes it basically 

9 looks how the swipe data were used to 

10 calculate the annual doses. In some instances 

11 there was only about 167 hours worth of swipe 

12 data, basically one month, which was used for 

13 the entire year. So it's a matter of whether 

14 the doses really represent an entire year of 

15 exposure.

16 And, Bob, why don't you go ahead 

17 and take over here and just kind of give 

18 everybody and overview of what we've found so 

19 far.

20 MR. BARTON: Sure, thanks, John. 

21 As you just said, the issue that we found is 

22 in some instances the annual doses were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 calculated based on less than a full year of 

2 exposure time. And just to kind of explain 

3 what I mean.

4 The original approach taken was to 

5 kind of separate these swipe samples into 

6 months so that you could take each individual 

7 month, put it to a distribution, calculate the 

8 mean and the 95th percentile and from that you 

9 could apply a breathing rate and an exposure 

10 time and you essentially get a total intake 

11 for that month.

12 And then you sum each intake for 

13 each individual month and you get an annual 

14 dose based on 12 months of intake. The 

15 problem came when you didn't have data for 

16 each month. For instance in a lot of cases 

17 they would combine three or four months just 

18 to be able to get enough data to fit the 

19 distributions of that.

20 The problem is they would combine 

21 three or four months, come up with an air 

22 concentration, apply a breathing rate. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 then apply only a month's worth of exposure 

2 duration. So a lot of times you would have, 

3 for a given year, maybe they would break it up 

4 into, well let's say quarters.

5 So every three months we're going 

6 to combine all the data, come up with an air 

7 concentration and then calculate an intake 

8 based on that. Unfortunately with the way the 

9 spreadsheet was set up it didn't take into 

10 account that now you have three months worth 

11 of data instead of one month.

12 Now this becomes especially 

13 problematic if you only calculate, you know, 

14 the 95th air concentration for an entire 

15 year's worth of data. Then essentially you're 

16 only applying an exposure times one month to 

17 the entire year.

18 And this was actually the case for 

19 the two most recently added rooms. There were 

20 two originally and two more were added in the 

21 most recent report. And the data that was 

22 found there again in a similar distribution 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 and the 95th percentile air concentration was 

2 calculated but were only applying 167 hours of 

3 exposure potential.

4 And basically what that does is if 

5 you were to scale it to a full year of 

6 exposure you're multiplying those derived 

7 doses by essentially 12, because you're 

8 extrapolating that one intake to a full year.

9 So essentially what we did was we 

10 took a look at NIOSH's most recent report and 

11 what they do is they set up sort of a case 

12 study in which they have a worker who's 

13 exposed two years. They assume the 

14 concentration they're exposed to are the two 

15 highest years that they have data for. And 

16 then they assume ten years after that two year 

17 exposure let's see what the doses are at that 

18 point.

19 And that's where sort of a 

20 fraction of a millirem came out of. So what 

21 we did is we went and we used the exact same 

22 methods. The same resuspension factor that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 NIOSH used and we came up, and again, the 

2 dosage for, especially, the two new rooms 

3 increased by a factor of 12.

4 So essentially what the effect is 

5 is your bounding dose in this case study 

6 increases to about 3.7 millirem for one of the 

7 rooms. And I believe it was like 0.95 

8 millirem when you consider the best estimate 

9 case. So that's really, and in this sort of 

10 systemic error in the spreadsheet calc it 

11 applies to both the most recent analysis and 

12 the one before that.

13 It's just a question of it was 

14 never taken into account if you're going to 

15 combine data for multiple months or say you 

16 only have data for one month, extrapolating 

17 that to what a full year of exposure would 

18 have been.

19 And also there's a second page to 

20 what was sent out. And that simply is in 

21 NIOSH's proposed case study, like I said they 

22 would use the air concentration for the two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 highest years, when we went and looked at the 

2 spreadsheet we found that for a couple of 

3 rooms the highest years didn't seem to be 

4 correct.

5 So again, we mimicked what NIOSH 

6 proposed as their case study. Pulled out the 

7 data for the year that we found had the 

8 highest air concentrations, derived air 

9 concentrations that is, because this is based 

10 on swipe data.

11 And another factor to that was for 

12 a couple of the rooms the doses increased on 

13 them. But really the bounding scenario did 

14 not change.

15 So that's essentially what we 

16 found. Again, kind of a first crack at all of 

17 this. But that effect in the bounding cases 

18 that were identified you're essentially going 

19 to go by a factor of 12 if you extend it to a 

20 full year.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. Thanks a lot, 

22 Bob.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. ULSH: Yes. Obviously we 

2 can't respond to this right now, but thank you 

3 for the heads up and we'll take a look. If we 

4 have questions I think the spreadsheets that 

5 you're talking about I think Sam is the one 

6 who constructed those. So if it's agreeable 

7 to you if Sam has questions figuring out what 

8 Bob did we'll just communicate with Bob --

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. STIVER: If the Board's okay 

11 with that then you and Bob can work this out.

12 DR. ULSH: Sure, we'll copy both 

13 of us and Joe so that everyone's in the loop. 

14 Josie, if you want to be involved we'll copy 

15 you too.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Sure. All right, 

17 any other clarifying questions or anything 

18 else?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've just got 

20 one, because Brant made a comment earlier 

21 about that everybody was monitored on this. 

22 How many different people were on the tritium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 bioassay?

2 DR. ULSH: Thousands. I don't 

3 know.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thousands of 

5 people were on, thousands of different people 

6 were on the tritium bioassay?

7 DR. ULSH: Yes, because we went 

8 through the tritium urinalysis logbooks and 

9 counted, well we tabulated every name of any 

10 person who had left a urinalysis result. We 

11 did that in support of the radon class. It's 

12 thousands, tens of, well let's just stick with 

13 thousands. I can't say more specifically than 

14 that.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

16 each one of us draw from our own specialities 

17 and stuff like that. And one of the things 

18 that struck me kind of interesting about the 

19 people that you interviewed here is that they 

20 are all health physicists.

21 You realize that going to people 

22 like that and asking them a question, they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 not going to say, gee, yes I really screwed 

2 up. We've found this is really a bad problem 

3 and go from there.

4 But the point I'm trying to get to 

5 is this. Earlier on you said that there was 

6 ten people that were involved. 

7 CHAIR BEACH: Fifteen.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Fifteen people 

9 that were involved and they were monitored. I 

10 can tell you from my experiences that that 

11 usually is not all the people that had access 

12 into there.

13 DR. ULSH: And I'm not saying that 

14 it is, Brad. The ten to 15 people, well as 

15 you recall because I think you were in the 

16 interview.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: We were involved 

18 in the interviews.

19 DR. ULSH: Yes. So that's the 

20 list of names that were given to us by the 

21 workers. And they were not all health 

22 physicists, one was. But we had production 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 chemists. I think, I want to say I think one 

2 of them was a rad tech but I can't say that 

3 for sure. But they were not all health 

4 physicists, they were production people.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well I was just 

6 trying to say there's a lot more personnel 

7 that come into this picture, but they're not 

8 looked at the big picture. And to paint this 

9 picture that Mound was this robust and 

10 wonderful health physics program would be 

11 totally different than any other site that 

12 we've dealt with.

13 We were learning in this process. 

14 We were learning different things as we were 

15 coming into it. And I think there's probably 

16 a lot more involvement into it than what we 

17 figure.

18 But I've just watched some of the 

19 interviews that they're talking about in here. 

20 And in your conclusion of work practices, 

21 procedures and health physics program used at 

22 Mound protected against insoluble tritides and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 the process in which it was encountered.

2 I can tell you today, even in 

3 today's we're still finding stuff that we 

4 never even figured. And what worries me 

5 partially in the D&D era is we've heard from 

6 numerous workers that it was just spot-checked 

7 people. Certain people had dosimetry, certain 

8 other ones didn't. Others were on the 

9 bioassay program. And they all weren't.

10 I just question how really covered 

11 they were, especially in the D&D era, and in 

12 the earlier years. It's just --

13 DR. MAURO: This is John. Brad's 

14 question, it brought to mind another issue 

15 that I just remembered that goes along with 

16 what Brad just brought up. When you use the 

17 resuspension factor approach it's always been 

18 my experience that what we're really with are, 

19 okay, these are the exposures from the stuff 

20 that's been deposited.

21 It's not apparent, from what I can 

22 tell, what do you do for people who were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 involved on the operations period, where the 

2 exposure is a combination of material that 

3 might have become airborne due to direct 

4 leakage from whatever, a glove box or however 

5 it might get out, and in addition to what may 

6 have accumulated on surfaces.

7 It seems that the intent of a 

8 resuspension factor has always been mainly 

9 from the stuff that's resuspended and not as a 

10 way to come to grips to what exposures might 

11 be from this material that's directly injected 

12 into the air from a leaking source.

13 Is it your contention that somehow 

14 the approach that you've laid out captures 

15 both exposure scenarios?

16 DR. ULSH: I don't know. I'm 

17 thinking on the fly here, John, in response to 

18 your question. I can tell you that we know of 

19 a couple of specific incidents where 

20 particular individuals were exposed. And 

21 those were identified by Mound dosimetry 

22 personnel going back to look over the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 urinalysis results for specific patterns that 

2 indicate exposure to insoluble tritides.

3 That's described in the McConville 

4 and Woods Fusion Technology paper and the 

5 doses are reconstructed for those accident 

6 type scenarios. All of the people that are on 

7 the list of ten to 15, were on tritium 

8 urinalysis.

9 I guess if one of those people 

10 were to become a claimant and file a claim we 

11 would interpret their tritium urinalysis data 

12 just like we do in any other situation, in the 

13 way that's the most claimant favorable.

14 So if they come in with a lung 

15 cancer we would calculate their lung dose 

16 based on their tritium urinalysis data as if 

17 it were insoluble tritides. If they come in 

18 with a prostate cancer we'll assume it's 

19 tritiated water, because that's what gives you 

20 the highest organ dose.

21 In terms of the support people 

22 that Brad mentioned and people that were,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 perhaps, had access to these areas during the 

2 operational period, they would also be on 

3 tritium urinalysis. So I don't know.

4 DR. MAURO: I think you bring up 

5 an important dimension to the way you're 

6 looking at the problem. And that is you feel 

7 that you can parse people now. That where in 

8 some cases you are actually going to use the 

9 bioassay results for certain people where you 

10 believe that they might have been exposed to 

11 direct airborne activity that may have leaked 

12 out, and separate them from the people that 

13 you feel confident, no they only way they 

14 could have been exposed is from resuspension 

15 of deposited activity.

16 And that's a dimension of analysis 

17 that wasn't apparent from looking at your 

18 White Paper, if that's the strategy you're 

19 envisioning.

20 DR. ULSH: I think so. The White 

21 Paper was a specific response to a specific 

22 question. And that is, for those people not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 known to be directly involved in working with 

2 this program, because remember even in terms 

3 of tritides the insoluble tritides at Mound 

4 that we're talking about, the one in 

5 particular, makes up a very tiny fraction of 

6 the total tritides that were handled at Mound.

7 And the tritides themselves make 

8 up a small fraction of the total tritium 

9 inventory at Mound.

10 DR. MAURO: Right. Oh no, I fully 

11 understand that. But what the interesting 

12 dilemma is, would that sub-population of 

13 people that you say okay, this group we're 

14 going to use the bioassay data. We know 

15 what's going to happen there, even if you 

16 assume the MDL.

17 Let's say here's a group of 

18 people. We have lots of great bioassay urine 

19 sample data on them, we're going to assume 

20 they were exposed to halfnium tritides and 

21 we're going to use one half the MDL for 

22 tritium and urine and you're going to come up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 with this big whopping dose for the 

2 respiratory tract, we all know that.

3 And on the other hand those 

4 workers that were not involved in that but are 

5 going to be assumed to only have been exposed 

6 to the resuspended material, we know that 

7 they're going to come in really low. Perhaps 

8 below one millirem a year, depending on 

9 whatever.

10 But if that's the conceptual model 

11 of how you attack this problem I think it's 

12 important that we all understand it, if that 

13 is your strategy.

14 DR. ULSH: You put me on the spot 

15 and I'm going to roll the dice. I'm going to 

16 say that's it.

17 (Laughter.)

18 DR. ULSH: I reserve the right to 

19 change my opinion if I get caught in a bind.

20 MR. STIVER: And John Stiver. I 

21 might come to Brant's rescue here. I don't 

22 typically do this. But at our last meeting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 there was a long discussion about this very 

2 issue. And the point being is that you 

3 certainly wouldn't use the bioassay data to 

4 model a stable tritides exposure, just for the 

5 reasons you've cited.

6 And that was part of the reason, 

7 at least my interpretation, as to why you 

8 chose a high resuspension factor on that first 

9 model was to potentially cover these 

10 situations during a period of time when there 

11 were direct injections or even fugitive 

12 injections that would not have been detected 

13 necessarily, as opposed to accident scenarios.

14 And I guess that was one of the 

15 questions I had about the new resuspension 

16 factor whether that really could be considered 

17 to be bounding for all, not just resuspension, 

18 but also potential maybe missed direct 

19 injection and what the basis for that might 

20 be.

21 Again, it'll be something that 

22 comes out in our analysis in the paper. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 it's something that kind of concerned me.

2 DR. ULSH: Yes, I think we 

3 specified in our latest White Paper what the 

4 basis for the resuspension factor is. Pulled 

5 out of OTIB-70 and I think you can look in 

6 OTIB-70 and see what situation that particular 

7 value applied to.

8 MR. STIVER: It's incorporated by 

9 reference in those?

10 DR. ULSH: Yes, yes. But if it's 

11 not clear let us know.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay. It'll be 

13 something, if it becomes an issue we'll bring 

14 it up.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess I have 

16 just one comment. One thing I had a little 

17 trouble with in the paper, and maybe Mel or 

18 Karin can jump in on this. I have to confess 

19 the Department's treatment of tritides was 

20 just as I was leaving. I don't recall really 

21 dealing with that issue. I should have been 

22 dealing with it but I didn't deal with it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 And it just strikes me, when I 

2 read the paper where it's talking, I think 

3 Brad mentioned this, about the very good 

4 practices that were being applied. And I kept 

5 looking at the dates and, you know, the dates 

6 and relevance pre-dated, correct me if I'm 

7 wrong on this, predated the Mound TBD on 

8 tritides. You know, tritide management I 

9 think, which was in the 90s I believe. Mid10 90s.

11 And certainly predated the 

12 Department's which was 2003 I think. So it 

13 was a late breaking recognition. And actually 

14 the Defense Board was mostly responsible for 

15 the Department coming up with its TBD in 2003 

16 because they came up with a recommendation 

17 that this was a big issue.

18 And I don't have an answer today 

19 but I think I almost have to run this down. 

20 If, under this particular scenario, which is a 

21 pretty extreme scenario when you're 

22 considering all the contamination to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 tritide on a swipe. And you're talking 

2 fractions of millirem it almost begs the 

3 question so what was the big deal if in fact 

4 the site, the Department and the Defense Board 

5 all three felt this was such a compelling 

6 issue in terms of monitoring and dose 

7 implications.

8 So help me out on this. When you 

9 make the statement that Mound had it together 

10 in terms of its health physics management, 

11 this particular issue in the '80s, I just have 

12 trouble with that just because it looked like 

13 the recognition and the actual procedural 

14 response and everything else, the health 

15 physics response was in the mid-'90s and 

16 beyond.

17 And there was seemingly a sense of 

18 this was a big deal. And this conclusion not 

19 only wasn't it a big deal, it's hardly even 

20 worth dose reconstructing and also Mound had 

21 it all together ten years before everybody 

22 else, including itself, since it didn't issue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 its own TBD until the mid-'90s.

2 So I'm just looking at this 

3 timeframe and trying to figure out these 

4 statements and how they jive with that 

5 history, operational history.

6 DR. ULSH: I can jump in a little 

7 bit and then let Mel and Karin correct 

8 whatever I say that's wrong. The actual date 

9 of the Mound Technical Basis Document for 

10 Stable Tritiated Particulates was January 

11 24th, 2000. And I think that formed the basis 

12 for the later Department-wide, like 2003 or 

13 something like that?

14 DR. CHEW: Yes, 2003, 2004, 

15 somewhere in there.

16 DR. ULSH: Okay. My understanding 

17 is that the genesis of this when people 

18 started talking about these tritide issues was 

19 the 100 millirem per year monitoring 

20 requirement.

21 People realized that with these 

22 highly insoluble tritides if we based it on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 tritium analysis we're not going to be able to 

2 detect 100 millirem per year tritium dose. 

3 That's highly unusual. I think that's the

4 understanding that came in and resulted that 

5 regulatory requirement.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: 835.

7 DR. ULSH: Yes. Does that sound 

8 right?

9 DR. CHEW: Yes.

10 DR. ULSH: Therefore they started 

11 talking about estimating the doses or bounding 

12 the doses, I don't know if they used that 

13 term. But using not necessarily the tritium 

14 urinalysis data but on top of that we're going 

15 to do the lapel air sampling and we're going 

16 to do the swipe sampling because that give you 

17 the lower missed dose, for lack of a better 

18 term.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: So in a sense 

20 that statement that's in the White Paper is 

21 somewhat qualified for that recognition that 

22 more stringent controls were applied, if for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 no other reason than to get below 100 

2 millirem.

3 But I just have maybe some 

4 difficulty understanding the claim about the 

5 practice back when it was actually happening 

6 versus when all of these steps were being 

7 taken to make it more stringent. And I agree 

8 that was a main driver.

9 So yes they did have practices 

10 that controlled, they knew tritides were 

11 there. But the degree to which they 

12 controlled them perhaps wasn't nearly as much 

13 as they did ten, 15 years later when it became 

14 an issue of, administratively, they had to be 

15 able to measure more precisely.

16 And that's where the breathing 

17 zone samples, lapel samplers, I mean all of 

18 that came into being too. I'm just trying to 

19 understand that, rationalize it.

20 DR. CHEW: Joe, I want to answer, 

21 just to know your timeframe here. The program 

22 had a lot to do with this particular issue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 too. I think without getting into the details 

2 the purpose of this particular tritide being 

3 formulated, compounded, it was important to 

4 follow-on programs into the system.

5 And we see that now at other 

6 places like Savannah River, Los Alamos. And 

7 at times early on, to go back, a little 

8 history, the only really metal tritide issue 

9 was with accelerator targets.

10 And we know what those in 

11 particular were. But this particular program, 

12 as everybody knows in interviews that you were 

13 also involved in, was very specialized and was 

14 for a specific need for part of the program 

15 itself.

16 And so when that introduction came 

17 into the program and the laboratories 

18 themselves realized that they're going to be 

19 using this at a greater extent then that's why 

20 they're much more conscientious of the issue 

21 here. And that's what the Defense Board 

22 wanted to do. And I think you knew that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I do. And I 

2 still think there's a timeframe issue that 

3 we'll treat gingerly, but nonetheless probably 

4 treat to some extent in our analysis, because 

5 we have addressed it way back when but then we 

6 sort of went of into more esoteric things like 

7 dose calculations and haven't really gone back 

8 to the operational perspective. But at any 

9 rate I just get your reaction to that.

10 CHAIR BEACH: It's important to do 

11 that. So what I have for action items is 

12 NIOSH is going to provide the interview notes 

13 or the SRDB number. Of course Brant's not in 

14 here, but I'm sure Mel will help him out 

15 there.

16 And SC&A to review the White Paper 

17 and provide a report to the Work Group. And I 

18 think it's important for the Work Group 

19 members too to think about that policy 

20 question and if we want to go forward or make 

21 that part of our discussion when we report to 

22 the Board. So, something to ponder.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 So let's go ahead and take our 

2 break now, between this and data adequacy. 

3 Take 15 minutes, Ted? Quarter to 11:00, that 

4 work for everybody?

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I'm just 

6 putting the phone on mute.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 10:26 a.m. and 

9 resumed at 10:42 a.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. We're back. 

11 Mound Work Group.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, so we're going 

13 to go ahead and get into the internal issues, 

14 adequacy and completeness. It's kind of a 

15 three part discussion.

16 We're going to start with the 

17 thorium White Paper that NIOSH recently sent 

18 out. And then we'll move into an SC&A memo.

19 And that'll tie up some of the 

20 loose ends with action items that we discussed 

21 at our last meeting in November of last year. 

22 So we can kind of come to some closure on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 internal issues and the path forward.

2 So I guess, Brant, we'll let you 

3 take it away with the thorium paper.

4 DR. ULSH: All right. The last 

5 time NIOSH weighed in on data adequacy issues, 

6 we had been discussing a number of them over 

7 the years, I think it was in August of last 

8 year when we issued our report, and that 

9 report went through SC&A's report on the same 

10 topic, point by point, and responded to it.

11 The one exception was several 

12 comments related to thorium-232. And for 

13 those, we reserved opinion on that. We said, 

14 you know, we're working on a comprehensive 

15 position and we'll address it in a subsequent 

16 document.

17 So the document that I sent out, 

18 retrospective dose reconstruction for 

19 thorium-232 activities at Mound Lab is meant 

20 to address those thorium comments where we had 

21 reserved opinion.

22 To try to make this a short story, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 I started with MJW's pre-1989 Dose 

2 Reconstruction Report.

3 And they, in the appendix of that 

4 report, identified by name workers who had 

5 been monitored for various radionuclides 

6 including polonium-210, plutonium-238, 

7 tritium, actinium-227, and also thorium-232.

8 So I went through their report and 

9 made a list of all of them that had been 

10 exposed to thorium or had been monitored for 

11 thorium-232 and then I bounced that list 

12 against NOCTS to see if any of those people 

13 were claimants, because if they were, then I 

14 had their dosimetry results.

15 And I found 20 people, 20 

16 claimants who had been monitored to 

17 thorium-232. I then asked ORAU to conduct 

18 partial internal dose reconstructions for 

19 thorium based on monitoring results that were 

20 in their dosimetry file.

21 So what this paper that I've just 

22 sent to you describes is the dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 reconstructions for those 20 people, 

2 basically, as a demonstration methodology, 

3 using the techniques that we used.

4 So I wanted to focus on the real 

5 situation, not abstract generalities that make 

6 implausible assumptions piled upon implausible 

7 assumptions.

8 I wanted to say: this is how we do 

9 it, and what are the results? Just to give 

10 you some background, Mound, in 1954, in 

11 December, received trainloads of monazite sand 

12 extracts.

13 This was in support of the 

14 upcoming breeder reactor program where they 

15 were going to irradiate thorium-232 and 

16 generate uranium-233.

17 So Mound was slated to operate a 

18 thorium-232 refinery. They were going to go 

19 through and pull out the thorium-232 from 

20 these monazite extracts.

21 Well, Mound received, like I said, 

22 trainloads of this stuff in 55 gallon drums. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 And right after they got it in the summer of 

2 '55, the thorium refinery project was 

3 cancelled.

4 So Mound is left sitting with 

5 these thousands of thorium drums, well 

6 monazite sand drums. And unfortunately, some 

7 of the extracts were caustic and corrosive. 

8 So they ate through the drums and the material 

9 had to be redrummed several times between '55 

10 and the mid '60s, I think 1965ish.

11 At that time, they got tired of 

12 doing that. So they built Building 21, and 

13 that's the name of the building. The name of 

14 it, Building 21, and in actuality, it's an 

15 underground storage silo.

16 The roof is basically at ground 

17 level. It's in a remote part of the Mound 

18 site in the back hill.

19 And they got tired of redrumming 

20 this material, so they dumped it into Building 

21 21 where it sat until 1974 when they sold the 

22 material to General Atomics. General Atomics 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 came to the site, packaged it up and took it 

2 away.

3 So in a nutshell, that's the 

4 thorium activities at Mound. Mound never 

5 operated the refinery, they never did any 

6 significant work with the thorium other than 

7 redrumming the extracts.

8 So if you look at the thorium 

9 urinalysis results, in the past, we've had a 

10 bad opinion of thorium urinalysis, I guess. 

11 But when I looked at it, I saw about 350 or so 

12 urinalysis results for thorium, one third of 

13 which were positive.

14 Now, the reason that's significant 

15 is because of the knock on thorium urinalysis 

16 has been that it's so insensitive that you can 

17 get a really high missed dose. In other 

18 words, you could get a negative result and 

19 still have a significant intake.

20 So the fact that you have one 

21 third of these samples that are positive, I 

22 think, speaks to this argument about it being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 implausibly high. If they're positive, they 

2 are what they are. They're not implausible.

3 It's hard to say that the missed 

4 doses are implausibly high when a third of 

5 them are positive.

6 So we reconstructed the doses for 

7 thorium for these 20 people. We compared it 

8 to what's more widely recognized as more 

9 significant radionuclides, polonium-210 and 

10 plutonium-238.

11 We also looked at different 

12 organs. We looked at lung, bone, and then a 

13 non-systemic organ. I used prostate just to 

14 represent that.

15 And what we found was that the 

16 thorium doses that we calculated were of a 

17 similar magnitude to the doses that we 

18 calculated for polonium-210 and for 

19 plutonium-238.

20 And for those, no one's talking 

21 about those being implausibly high. So the 

22 goal of this was to compare it to these other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 two radionuclides and see, you know, if 

2 thorium's 100 times higher than these, then 

3 this is a problem.

4 So don't ask me exactly what the 

5 number is because I don't know. But the fact 

6 that they're of similar magnitude and we seem 

7 to have opined that plutonium-238 and 

8 polonium-210 are not implausibly high, I would 

9 make the argument that neither is thorium-232.

10 They're not trivial. We do have 

11 to include them in dose reconstruction. They 

12 are significant.

13 But I think the point of this 

14 White Paper is that these doses are not 

15 implausibly high, and it's not a valid basis 

16 for an SEC because of that. So that's the 

17 thorium White Paper.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, of course 

19 we've had it for about a week. And Ron 

20 Buchanan's on the phone. I had Ron take a 

21 look at -- is that on?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's on.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I had Ron 

2 certainly scan it and see if --

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, whoa. Who was 

4 that? It was muted.

5 DR. ULSH: Don't make me repeat all 

6 that.

7 MR. KATZ: Holy mackerel.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: He's probably read 

9 it.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, but we have 

11 Phil on the line that didn't hear any of that.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Phil?

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: It came back on 

14 just now.

15 MR. KATZ: Phil, how long were you 

16 muted for?

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Oh, about five 

18 minutes.

19 MR. KATZ: That's about how long 

20 Brant was talking.

21 CHAIR BEACH: All right, Brant. 

22 Let's see if you can do it again.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. KATZ: Brant, take two.

2 DR. ULSH: Well, let me see if I 

3 can make the short story even shorter. Phil, 

4 we're talking about the thorium White Paper 

5 that I sent out, week, week and a half ago, 

6 whatever.

7 This White Paper was meant to 

8 address the remaining issues that we didn't 

9 address in our previous internal data adequacy 

10 response.

11 We had kind of left thorium 

12 hanging out there. So the purpose of this 

13 paper that I just sent out was to take a look 

14 at the workers, the claimants from Mound who 

15 were monitored for thorium-232, actually do 

16 internal dose reconstructions for them. 

17 Compare the doses to polonium-210 and 

18 plutonium-238.

19 The long and short of it is what 

20 we found is the thorium doses are of a similar 

21 magnitude to those other two. So the point of 

22 our paper is that these thorium doses are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 significant. They have to be included in dose 

2 reconstruction. But they're not implausibly 

3 high, by the same reasoning that plutonium-238 

4 and polonium-210 are not.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: And I guess what 

6 I was going to say is, you know, given the 

7 fact we got the report last week, I asked Ron 

8 Buchanan to take a look at it.

9 See if we would have the 

10 opportunity today to ask some clarifying 

11 questions, something that would help us 

12 develop, you know, our review of this latest 

13 paper.

14 And he's on the phone. So, Ron, 

15 could you highlight some of the questions that 

16 perhaps Brant and his folks can answer? 

17 Hello?

18 MR. KATZ: Ron, are you on the 

19 phone?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Are you on mute? 

21 Ron Buchanan?

22 MR. KATZ: Phil, are you still on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 the phone?

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I am.

3 MR. KATZ: It's still live. Ron 

4 Buchanan, are you on the line? Are you on 

5 mute, perhaps? Someone want to call Ron?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he was on 

7 when we started this morning.

8 MR. KATZ: Maybe he hung up and is 

9 dialing back in.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Because he thought 

11 he cut off, yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Because he thought he 

13 was cut off. Maybe.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Well, I have a 

15 question, Brant, while we're waiting.

16 DR. ULSH: Fire away.

17 CHAIR BEACH: How do you know it 

18 was just those 20 people that did the 

19 redrumming?

20 DR. ULSH: Because we reviewed the 

21 health physics progress reports for the time 

22 periods that we have them. There's also, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 think, an interview in the SRDB where we 

2 interview a guy who was involved with this.

3 And he told us about how many 

4 people were involved, and this is consistent 

5 with it.

6 The health physics progress 

7 reports told us how many people had been 

8 bioassayed for thorium-232.

9 I compared that and we had pretty 

10 good agreement. So all of those things 

11 together tell me. And if you think about the 

12 scale of this, it seems to be about the right 

13 number.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

15 DR. ULSH: So bottom line is, if 

16 you wanted to argue that other people could 

17 have been exposed, then I guess I would come 

18 back with, well, we have the data sufficient 

19 to do a coworker model if we needed to.

20 CHAIR BEACH: How many urinalysis 

21 reports do you have for those 20 individuals?

22 DR. ULSH: How many what?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 CHAIR BEACH: How many urinalysis 

2 reports?

3 DR. ULSH: Well, I can tell you 

4 that there were 300 total thorium urinalysis 

5 results.

6 CHAIR BEACH: From '55 to '75?

7 DR. ULSH: That sounds about 

8 right. I would have to look for sure, Josie, 

9 but it's over the time period of the thorium 

10 redrumming.

11 CHAIR BEACH: And have you sent 

12 that access, those results to SC&A? Or have 

13 they asked for those?

14 DR. ULSH: Well, they haven't 

15 asked for it, I think.

16 MR. STIVER: I think we would 

17 definitely like to see those.

18 DR. NETON: Brant, I thought when 

19 you put out the report, or maybe that was just 

20 to me, you sent references to locations where 

21 that original --

22 DR. ULSH: Yes, that's on the HPT.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. NETON: Okay, that wouldn't be 

2 acceptable to them?

3 DR. ULSH: Right. As you might 

4 imagine, when we do dose reconstructions, 

5 there are a number of support files that go 

6 with each one. Those are available and I'll 

7 make them available to you.

8 DR. NETON: Okay, thank you.

9 DR. ULSH: I mean, these aren't 

10 full dose reconstructions. They're just 

11 partial internal. But we'll have the IMBA 

12 runs and the, you know.

13 MR. STIVER: You guys even know the 

14 raw data, the results --

15 DR. ULSH: Yes, they'll be in 

16 there.

17 MR. STIVER: The methodology's all 

18 laid out in your paper.

19 DR. ULSH: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: I don't think it will 

21 transmit that well. I don't know why he can't 

22 get in.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: He had no problem 

2 until just now. And then he couldn't get back 

3 on after the break.

4 MR. KATZ: And we don't have 

5 enough people to be clogging the line, not 

6 even close. Is he trying again?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he's trying.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay.

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, I had to 

10 dial back in to get anything.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, it sounds like 

12 Ron's having a similar issue. But the code's 

13 not working for him for some reason.

14 DR. NETON: Maybe he tried and 

15 couldn't get in because it was on mute.

16 MR. KATZ: Didn't realize he was in 

17 -- but he would still know he was joining the 

18 party because you get a message saying --

19 DR. NETON: Nothing, silence, 

20 right?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. But I think he's 

22 trying right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. NETON: Yes, he's trying again.

2 MR. STIVER: Brant, you said the 

3 redrumming --

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I have his 

6 question set anyway.

7 DR. ULSH: More or less.

8 MR. STIVER: More or less?

9 DR. ULSH: The material arrived in 

10 the winter of '54, in December. I think they 

11 started redrumming in the summer of '55. I 

12 might be wrong on that.

13 There might be a couple-year 

14 delay. And by 1965, they had emptied it into 

15 building 21.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 DR. ULSH: So between those years.

18 MR. STIVER: Do you have any 

19 information on how many redrummings took 

20 place?

21 DR. ULSH: Those numbers, I think, 

22 are available in the health physics progress 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 reports, because that's where I pulled them 

2 from.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay, they're in the 

4 progress reports?

5 DR. ULSH: But, the health physics 

6 progress reports are only available up through 

7 1960, I think.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. So you have 

9 some evidence near your time period, but not 

10 necessarily later.

11 DR. ULSH: Well, between '60 and 

12 '65 I don't have progress reports that 

13 describe that redrumming effort in detail. 

14 They were doing it during the summer months 

15 because it was outside.

16 MR. STIVER: It was a continuing 

17 effort?

18 DR. ULSH: Yes.

19 MR. STIVER: Due to the corrosive 

20 nature.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I have Ron's 

22 question set. And I will just go through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 them. And, you know, certainly it's too bad 

2 he can't participate. But I assume Ron, 

3 you're not on?

4 MR. KATZ: It's mysterious.

5 DR. CHEW: I just emailed some of 

6 the other people that they can hear us.

7 MR. KATZ: So everyone else is 

8 getting on.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. If Ron 

10 were here, what he would ask, and pardon me if 

11 I read these, I don't want to miss any --

12 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- of his 

14 nuances. In addition to the drum material 

15 from ULC, Mound also received thorium 

16 containment materials from the St. Louis 

17 Airport, according to Page 15 of the TBD.

18 And the quote from the TBD was, 

19 this is the Cotter concentrate issue. SW 

20 building was used in the Cotter concentrate, 

21 i.e., St. Louis Airport case starting in the 

22 early '70s and terminated late in that decade, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 late in the '70s.

2 Pile and plant operations in SW 

3 were to recover thorium-230 and palladium-231. 

4 The Cotter concentrate contained 99.9 grams 

5 per drum of thorium-232, and 11.1 grams per 

6 drum of thorium-230, according to Page 16 of 

7 the TBD.

8 Additionally, thorium was used in 

9 other areas of Mound as stated on Page 12 of 

10 TBD. And the quote from TBD, again, was --

11 and I'll give you a copy of this.

12 DR. ULSH: Yes, I can't copy it 

13 all down.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right. 

15 No, I'll give you a copy, don't worry about 

16 that. But this is the quote from the TBD.

17 "Thorium-232 was often substituted 

18 for plutonium-238 compound for modeling 

19 purposes and research development because this 

20 isotope was less expensive, less hazardous and 

21 had physical characteristics similar to 

22 plutonium-238.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 "It is possible, therefore, to 

2 find thorium-232 compounds identical to the 

3 238 compounds." That's, again, a quote from 

4 the TBD. His concern, he didn't see that 

5 treated specifically in the White Paper.

6 Sort of one activity for thorium 

7 and just was wondering if that was intentional 

8 or?

9 DR. ULSH: Yes, it was intentional 

10 because this was the biggest, most significant 

11 activity with thorium-232. You know, Joe, you 

12 were around for the Rocky Flats, when we were 

13 talking about thorium-232 there.

14 And the same kind of situation 

15 existed there where they would use thorium as 

16 sort of a almost, non-radioactive substitute 

17 for plutonium.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

19 DR. ULSH: The same kind of thing 

20 here. Mound wasn't involved with metallurgy 

21 or grinding or polishing these thorium parts.

22 And in addition, in our previous 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 response on the data adequacy thing, issue, we 

2 talked about how Mound monitored for the 

3 controlling radionuclides.

4 So if you've got small amounts of 

5 thorium-232, from a radioactive standpoint, 

6 and I'm thinking of the Cotter concentrate 

7 now, and larger amounts of other 

8 radionuclides, they did a gross alpha 

9 procedure.

10 And that's described here, in 

11 fact, in this White Paper. And we attribute 

12 it to the most limiting of the radionuclide 

13 mixtures.

14 So certainly, for the Cotter 

15 concentrate program, that's the strategy that 

16 we would employ there.

17 Sure, we would consider 

18 thorium-232 in the mix, I guess, for the 

19 possible interpretation of gross alpha 

20 results.

21 But I can tell you that's not 

22 going to be the one that's going to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 controlling in that situation.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so it was 

3 with some forethought. This was, in a sense, 

4 I don't want to use the word boundary. This 

5 was sort of the activity that presented as the 

6 highest potential exposure.

7 DR. ULSH: Yes, well, I didn't 

8 approach it exactly in those terms. But yes, 

9 I guess I would agree with that. I approached 

10 it as they had trainloads of this stuff.

11 If I'm going to be looking at 

12 situations where people could have been 

13 exposed to thorium-232, this is the one I'm 

14 going to look at. Not, well, we've got this 

15 little part here that's thorium instead of 

16 plutonium.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: This would be the 

18 most significant source term --

19 DR. ULSH: Exactly.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: -- in terms of 

21 quantity and treatment. Okay, that was sort 

22 of off the top, we haven't gone through it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 I'll give you this to look at, but 

2 heck, I can't even read it.

3 CHAIR BEACH: He's younger.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay. I 

5 would need reading glasses. But this is why I 

6 actually printed it before I left. I realized 

7 that there's no way.

8 DR. ULSH: Oh, he used small font.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he used 

10 small font. Josie actually came up with a 

11 larger font, so I'm using her copy. Anyway, 

12 the second comment or question is: I'll read 

13 this.

14 NIOSH is assuming that the 

15 statement on Page 18 of the TBD, and this is 

16 the quote -- oh no, I'm sorry. This is from 

17 the White Paper.

18 "Fortunately, Mound had a 

19 comprehensive radiation protection program, 

20 including effective bioassay techniques for 

21 detecting intakes of all three radionuclides. 

22 Therefore, internal organ doses can be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 calculated."

2 And his comment is: it is correct 

3 for 1954 through the clean-up period of '75 

4 and beyond for any residual field buildings or 

5 other sources of thorium.

6 And his concern is: however, other 

7 DOE sites such as Weldon Spring, he's been 

8 working on Weldon Spring, did not have thorium 

9 monitoring during the '50s and '60s.

10 And likewise, Los Alamos was not 

11 able to provide them with much guidance 

12 concerning how to, in fact, evaluate thorium 

13 intakes and Y-12, as another example, did not 

14 use their mobile thorium counting unit at 

15 Weldon until '66.

16 So he was just reflecting on the 

17 fact that it didn't seem like it was a whole 

18 lot of, if not knowledge, application in terms 

19 of monitoring for thorium in the '50s and the 

20 early '60s.

21 And was just wondering if that 

22 statement of having the so-called rigorous 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 practice applied across the history of the 

2 thorium-232 handling, because it doesn't seem 

3 to be consistent with other sites when they 

4 tangled with thorium-232 and their ability to 

5 monitor it.

6 So even though there's a, I think, 

7 a very detailed bioassay procedure listed 

8 there that was, I guess, available, whatever, 

9 that's his concern from other sites. Why 

10 would, you know, Mound stand out?

11 DR. ULSH: I can tell you that 

12 this procedure, this gross alpha procedure 

13 that Mound actually developed, they used it 

14 for a number of different radionuclides, the 

15 gross alpha part of it was the same.

16 And then they used sequential 

17 stripping off of the columns for first the 

18 radium and second for thorium.

19 That was developed at Mound. Why 

20 it wasn't used at Weldon Spring or LANL I have 

21 no idea, because I haven't been involved with 

22 those sites.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 All I can tell you is I know 

2 exactly what the procedure is for Mound, and I 

3 know they used it, that's recorded here.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Again, as a 

5 reflection, when he went through that detail, 

6 I don't think he was familiar with Mound's 

7 particular approach to thorium but found it 

8 different than the other sites.

9 So, you know again, I'll go 

10 through this. The next question, and this 

11 actually has to do with the protocol.

12 The procedure listed in the 

13 paper's relatively lengthy chemical procedure 

14 would require considerable time to perform, 

15 especially on routine urine samples.

16 According to Page 13 of the paper, 

17 this is the White Paper, both urinalysis 

18 results for the 20 workers included in this 

19 study were prepared in accordance with the 

20 procedures described above. These results 

21 were entered into the, I guess it's CADW tool, 

22 the lung tool.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 DR. ULSH: Yes.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: To calculate 

3 intakes of organ-specific doses for the lung, 

4 bone and prostate.

5 And the question is did each of 

6 the 20 cases have routine or special work 

7 assignment urinalyses preformed using this 

8 procedure and recorded in accordance with a 

9 written sampling procedure?

10 Or was there just spot checking of 

11 urine samples for thorium? You know, in other 

12 words, what was the actual implementation? Is 

13 there any knowledge of that?

14 CHAIR BEACH: And before you 

15 answer, I just emailed that to you, Brant, on 

16 your CDC email.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay, thank you. I got 

18 a little buzz from my BlackBerry, that's 

19 probably what it was. I'm not quite sure how 

20 to interpret Ron's question, but I'll take a 

21 crack at it.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: It might be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 easier just to read it. I mean, there's a lot 

2 there, but I think his concern is the actual 

3 implementation of the protocol itself and how 

4 it was used for the 20 workers.

5 DR. ULSH: Well, the protocol 

6 itself, if I understand what you're talking 

7 about is the actually gross alpha procedure 

8 followed first the radium stripping and then 

9 the thorium stripping.

10 Yes, it is a lengthy procedure, 

11 but they used the gross alpha technique 

12 extensively, not just for thorium.

13 Thorium-232 was certainly not one 

14 of the main radionuclides at Mound. Those 

15 were plutonium-238, polonium-210 and tritium.

16 But the fact that they had those 

17 gross alpha procedures that they could add on 

18 to detect thorium and its radium daughters 

19 meant that they had a technique available to 

20 use as needed, and they used it for the people 

21 in this thorium-232 program. I don't think 

22 that everyone at Mound would be on a routine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 thorium-232 urinalysis program because it 

2 wasn't one of the main radionuclides.

3 They just used it for this 

4 program, and a few others as appropriate. I 

5 mean, they used the same technique for the 

6 ionium program, thorium-230, because 

7 chemically it would pull off the ionium.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: But Joe, were they 

10 asking, you used the word "spot check." Was 

11 he asking if they just did spot checks in this 

12 series?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he was 

14 reflecting --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or were they 

16 routinely doing thorium as part of this group?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: He was reflecting 

18 the fact that it seemed like a pretty detailed 

19 and lengthy procedure, and for the time, it 

20 would have been, again, I think he's looking 

21 at it not with a lot of intimate knowledge of 

22 the Meyer program as it existed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 But was wondering, you know, was 

2 this routinely applied for all of the workers 

3 potentially exposed to thorium? Or did they 

4 use it more of a spot check, you know, taking 

5 a sample of the workers that would have been 

6 involved in the program?

7 The implementation, in other 

8 words, the actual monitoring program for 

9 thorium as opposed to the actual procedure, 

10 versus the procedure.

11 DR. ULSH: I understand now, I 

12 think, what you're saying. I have seen no 

13 description anywhere that this was done only 

14 on a spot basis for thorium.

15 The way Meyer described it, and 

16 that's referenced in the White Paper, I don't 

17 know if he was talking -- well, he actually 

18 does have a specific section on the 

19 thorium-232 program and urinalysis.

20 I guess I would refer Ron to that 

21 to see if that provides the details that would 

22 answer his question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound 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

1 My impression is certainly that 

2 they, just like with the other urinalysis 

3 programs at Mound, they applied it to the 

4 workers who were involved.

5 That's the language that Meyer 

6 uses. He doesn't say that they just did a 

7 spot check for thorium. I mean, it's --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think when 

9 he was looking at the 20, then the 60 which 

10 the 20 was drawn from, you know, I guess there 

11 was 60 that had results. And there was 20 for 

12 which you had --

13 DR. ULSH: Well --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: -- actual 

15 claimant information, is that --

16 DR. ULSH: There were, I can't 

17 remember the number that MJW identified in 

18 their pre-1989 Dose Reconstruction Report. 

19 But in the appendix, it goes through and lists 

20 them by name and tells what their thorium 

21 doses were and elevated nuclides as well.

22 I went through and pulled out the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

126

1 names of any that had thorium-232. And I 

2 can't remember exactly what that number is. 

3 It's in the White Paper somewhere.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

5 DR. ULSH: I bounced that larger 

6 list against NOCTS to see how many of them 

7 were claimants and identify 20 individuals. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

9 number was 60 that 20 was drawn from.

10 DR. ULSH: Could be, yes.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: So that was the 

12 source of his question, trying to figure out, 

13 you know, it's just that procedure was cited 

14 in there. Was that routinely applied to the 

15 60?

16 Based on what you saw on the 20, 

17 did it look like they had, you know, a fairly 

18 complete set of results in terms of analysis?

19 DR. ULSH: Well, they didn't have 

20 huge numbers of thorium urinalysis results. 

21 But that kind of goes along with what you 

22 might expect from an episodic program.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

127

1 And this was clearly an episodic 

2 program because since it was outside, they 

3 were only doing it in the summer months.

4 And so we see generally, you know, 

5 a couple of samples from these people right 

6 around the time that they were doing the 

7 redrumming efforts.

8 So then they would take a break 

9 over the colder months and we don't see 

10 thorium results there.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, I think you 

12 in the paper note that the actual raw data, 

13 the monitoring data and individual data is on 

14 the SRDB, is available.

15 I mean, we can get to it. I think 

16 that would probably answer some of these 

17 questions.

18 DR. ULSH: If it's not, I'll get 

19 it to you. Jim and I were just talking, since 

20 I asked ORAU to do partial internal dose 

21 reconstructions for thorium.

22 And keep in mind, this list of 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

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

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

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

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

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

128

1 people, some of them have already been 

2 compensated based on dose reconstruction or 

3 based on SEC. But I just wanted to show, 

4 here's the 20 people and we can do it in every 

5 case. That's why we did it.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

7 DR. ULSH: And I can make those 

8 support files available to SC&A. And they're 

9 going to contain the typical things that you 

10 would see in one of our internal dose 

11 reconstructions, have the urinalysis results 

12 and, you know, all the different IMBA 

13 calculations and what not.

14 So that might answer some of these 

15 questions.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I think so. 

17 Again, this was just his initial reading of 

18 the paper over the weekend.

19 So I mean, I think these are 

20 initial, you know, questions about the data 

21 itself. Now I think there's sort of a 

22 additional question that you can read there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

129

1 Was any of the air data in table 

2 three of the White Papers on Page 22, or other 

3 air data employed in the dose reconstructions? 

4 Or was it just strictly urinalysis?

5 DR. ULSH: I'm getting to Page 23, 

6 but I can tell you that it was urinalysis.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

8 DR. ULSH: The reason I put that 

9 in, the air data in this report was simply to 

10 show, oh yes, there it is, Table 3, that Mound

11 was monitoring not just with urinalysis but 

12 also with air monitoring.

13 They were monitoring for thorium14 232 and they were also monitoring for short 

15 lived daughter products.

16 And if you look at the number of 

17 samples that they had, just for instance from 

18 Meyer's 1955 report, I think that's one of the 

19 health physics progress reports.

20 April to May of '55, they took --

21 well, just in the WD low risk they took 56 

22 sampling days. It records the maximum and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

130

1 average air concentrations.

2 This data was simply shown here to 

3 illustrate that Mound was monitoring for this. 

4 They recognized that there was a 

5 radiological, you know, situation with it that 

6 they had to monitor for, and they did it.

7 I didn't take these air samples 

8 and then go ahead and calculate a dose 

9 reconstruction. I used the urinalysis data 

10 for that.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

12 DR. ULSH: I suspect, now this is 

13 a hunch, that if you have a person where he 

14 has only urinalysis data and they're all 

15 negative, and I were to make some assumptions 

16 and calculate a missed dose from the air data, 

17 it will probably be lower.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: So the air data's 

19 available if it had to go that far?

20 DR. ULSH: Yes.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, if you 

22 didn't have urinalysis data?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

131

1 DR. ULSH: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: These are general area 

3 air samples?

4 DR. ULSH: Yes.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. The next 

6 question was: was access to and working with 

7 the thorium containment materials controlled 

8 by physical barriers and/or procedural 

9 requirements? Sort of an operational 

10 question.

11 DR. ULSH: I know that they would 

12 have had an exclusion zone. I think I'm 

13 recalling that from the interviews, when we 

14 talked to the worker that was involved.

15 He did tell me that they had 

16 respirators, but you know, they weren't real 

17 rigorous about using them, especially on hot 

18 days.

19 I don't know about physical 

20 barriers, that we discussed. But keep in 

21 mind, this was done in a remote area of the 

22 site. It wasn't done in the front parking lot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

132

1 where everyone would walk past it on the way 

2 in.

3 This was a destination. If you 

4 wanted to go to the back hill where --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: That's where this 

6 question was headed. Just, you know, could 

7 you reasonably identify the cohort, the group 

8 that would have been potentially exposed to 

9 the thorium.

10 And, you know, was there any way 

11 to demarcate that? So what you're suggesting 

12 here on this activity was, you know, you 

13 didn't just wander by or wander in.

14 It was, you know, you were there 

15 for a specific task and it was --

16 DR. ULSH: Well, yes. I don't 

17 want to state it too rigorously. I mean, if 

18 you wanted to talk to Fred, and he was working 

19 on it, you drove back to 21 and talked to 

20 Fred.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Well, and if you've 

22 ever worked on a DOE site, everybody comes to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

133

1 look when there's something happening. So you 

2 tend to have three workers and 20 people 

3 watching. Every day.

4 DR. ULSH: Okay. Can't say. This 

5 was 1955. That's a lot of time we're talking 

6 about.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Probably wouldn't be 

8 much different than today.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, I think this 

10 goes to the, you know, I think there's the 60 

11 workers that showed up with some positive 

12 indications in the MJW database for exposure, 

13 which you picked the 20 that had the actual 

14 claims, I think, from that 60.

15 Would there be, you know, a worker 

16 group with potential exposures higher than the 

17 60? I mean, the 60 is just what you can 

18 actually pick out from the database.

19 And this goes back to the MJW, you 

20 know, how they actually put that database 

21 together.

22 And I guess the question is: is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

134

1 the presumption that that MJW review actually 

2 parsed out who would have been potentially 

3 exposed in addition to who actually had?

4 You know, one thing is to look at 

5 the database and say who had actual thorium6 232 indications in their exposure record? The 

7 other is to figure out who is potentially 

8 exposed. And I think that's where he's coming 

9 from with that.

10 DR. ULSH: The MJW, the table that 

11 I looked at in the back of the MJW report, and 

12 in fact, MJW's report focused on the workers 

13 who had greater than 20 rem committed 

14 effective dose equivalent.

15 So these are the highest exposed 

16 workers of the Mound cohort.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

18 DR. ULSH: Now not all of them 

19 have those high doses from thorium. In fact, 

20 most don't. There's a number of them from 

21 polonium-210 and a number of them from 

22 plutonium-238.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

135

1 But the 60 in there certainly have 

2 non-zero thorium doses. So in general, these 

3 are the highest-exposed workers. And that's 

4 really about as specific as I can get.

5 I have no reason to think that the 

6 people who showed up, first of all, the people 

7 who were monitored for thorium-232, as you 

8 noted, it was a, you know, labor intensive 

9 procedure.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

11 DR. ULSH: They're going to do it 

12 for the people that are involved with the 

13 work. I have no reason to think that people 

14 who were not involved with the work would have 

15 had a higher exposure potential.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: So perhaps the 

17 strategy is once you can demonstrate there's a 

18 way to use the data to dose reconstruct, if 

19 somebody comes in, perhaps on a CATI interview 

20 or whatever and identifies possible thorium 

21 work, even if they didn't show up in this, you 

22 know, this MJW database, then there's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

136

1 pathway.

2 Although, I guess you would have 

3 to use a coworker distribution of some sort.

4 DR. ULSH: I guess we would, yes. 

5 I mean, it's the same as any other situation 

6 where if someone identifies in the CATI that 

7 they worked with a particular radionuclide, 

8 and we have no indication of it in their 

9 dosimetry file, we generally approach that 

10 with a coworker file, right Jim?

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and in 

12 particular in this case as to the MJW 

13 threshold, what, 20 rem?

14 DR. ULSH: Yes.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, so it is 

16 certainly possible you have, you know, some 

17 workers who didn't quite get to that level but 

18 would have raised their hand and said yes, I 

19 did this or that with the drums, but did not 

20 certainly get exposed as much.

21 DR. ULSH: I will tell you that 

22 the thorium-232 urinalysis results were in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

137

1 dosimetry files.

2 So if we have a worker, a claimant 

3 show up with thorium-232 urinalysis result and 

4 it's not listed in MJW's report or in our 

5 paper here, we would do a dose reconstruction 

6 on them for thorium-232.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there's 

8 really three groups that you have the group 

9 that's included, the highest-exposed thorium 

10 workers.

11 And what you're saying is that you 

12 have workers that were, in fact, bioassayed 

13 but did not rise to the level that they would 

14 have picked up in MJW's screen.

15 DR. ULSH: Yes.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: And then you have 

17 workers that presumably weren't bioassayed for 

18 thorium-232 but would be self-identifying or 

19 perhaps would indicate that they might have 

20 had some contact.

21 DR. ULSH: Yes. Sure.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: So I guess it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

138

1 the last one where a coworker model would have 

2 to come into play somehow.

3 DR. ULSH: Yes, I mean, the 

4 purpose of my White Paper was not to say these 

5 are the only people who were exposed to 

6 thorium.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

8 DR. ULSH: It was simply to say 

9 here's the guys that we have dosimetry files 

10 on hand so we can actually do it. And we can 

11 do dose reconstruction in all 20 cases to 

12 demonstrate that we can do it.

13 Now, I'm not saying that there 

14 aren't other people, other claimants, future 

15 claimants that --

16 CHAIR BEACH: Well, I'm just 

17 curious, Brant. What level of detail did you 

18 have on those 20 individuals? Did you have 

19 craft-specific for their HPTs or the guys 

20 actually redrumming, or do you have that 

21 level?

22 DR. ULSH: The raw urinalysis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

139

1 records are included in the thorium-232 

2 redrumming log book. That's described by 

3 Meyer.

4 So if they've got a urinalysis 

5 result in the thorium-232 redrumming log book, 

6 it stands to reason that that's what they were 

7 involved with.

8 We've got the same level of detail 

9 on these people as we do for any claimant. I 

10 mean, you know when they worked and in some 

11 cases, what their job titles were.

12 In fact, I think, oh, I'm trying 

13 to remember. I wrote this a while ago and I 

14 think I put in the White Paper kind of the 

15 range on employment, how many years of 

16 employment they had.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, you did. Got 

18 that. And it was six to 45. It was quite a 

19 large range.

20 DR. ULSH: Yes, I have that 

21 information available for each of the 20 

22 people. But I didn't want to put it in here 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

140

1 for fear of Privacy Act.

2 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, no, no.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, MJW 

4 database, I think, it's been a while since --

5 DR. ULSH: Well, the MJW reports 

6 are in the SRDB.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

8 DR. ULSH: I think that's in 

9 reference to your --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily 

11 the database itself.

12 DR. ULSH: Well, what do you mean?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I mean the 

14 actual --

15 DR. ULSH: -- the electronic 

16 database?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. The actual 

18 1,500, whatever it was that had the 20 rem 

19 threshold.

20 DR. ULSH: No, those are listed in 

21 the table.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

141

1 listed actually, okay.

2 DR. ULSH: Yes. That's where I 

3 got them.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So the 

5 only thing that's not up there is, I think, 

6 the 20 specific claims, from what you're 

7 saying.

8 DR. ULSH: Right. The support 

9 files for our dose reconstruction.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

11 Everything else that the MJW report, I guess 

12 the Meyer's bioassay, you know, that reference 

13 is there. So there's only that one piece 

14 that, and you can make that available in case 

15 we need to go through that. Okay.

16 Just going down to the next 

17 question, I think you can see that --

18 CHAIR BEACH: Maybe.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe. I think 

20 you may have actually touched on this already. 

21 What situation or procedure triggered the need 

22 to obtain the particular urinalysis sample, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

142

1 you know, the gross alpha and have them 

2 analyzed for thorium, and the actual recording 

3 of the results themselves?

4 I think you said earlier that they 

5 knew who was actually involved with the 

6 thorium work. And those would have been the 

7 ones that would have been earmarked for that 

8 kind of sampling.

9 DR. ULSH: Yes.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

11 DR. ULSH: Yes, worked with 

12 thorium-232.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. It would 

14 have been a judgment call by the HP or 

15 whomever at --

16 DR. ULSH: It always is.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: -- at that point 

18 in time. Next one. The paper does a good job 

19 in demonstrating that thorium is an important 

20 consideration for some Mound works.

21 I think the question is operations 

22 again. However, there are still some issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

143

1 concerning who was monitored and had their 

2 samples analyzed for thorium, and how often. 

3 We've covered a lot of that.

4 And I think what he's saying is 

5 that the evaluation we would do at this point 

6 is looking at the selection of the workers for 

7 bioassay and the monitoring and the procedures 

8 of dose reconstruction cases in detail which 

9 is what, you know, with the addition of the 20 

10 cases, I think we'll have enough to go over.

11 DR. ULSH: All right.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Would you be the 

13 point of contact if there's anything that 

14 comes up? I think we would like to go ahead 

15 and just package this thing.

16 DR. ULSH: That would be me, I 

17 wrote this.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Sorry, 

19 Ron. That must be frustrating. He was on 

20 most of the morning and couldn't dial back in. 

21 Okay, I think that, yes, I think this is fine.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

144

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Like I said, that 

2 will help us get started on that.

3 CHAIR BEACH: All right. So Work 

4 Group Members, any more questions on thorium,

5 clarifying?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not a question, 

7 but just a comment. This is a general comment 

8 just for this particular paper. But it shows 

9 up here and it has before.

10 It would be helpful if everyone 

11 who does White Papers put the date of the 

12 paper on the paper.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know it shows up 

15 in the file name, but sometimes when we file 

16 these, we file them in a separate way.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay. Will do.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's always 

19 helpful. Or the paper's connected with an 

20 email that's dated, but they become separate. 

21 And just a reminder to do that, that's very 

22 helpful.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

145

1 DR. ULSH: All right, will do. 

2 Thanks, Paul.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Any other comments 

4 on thorium? Phil, how are you doing? Any 

5 questions, comments?

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Doing okay 

7 here, so far. I'm hearing most of it.

8 CHAIR BEACH: So just to recap on 

9 thorium, I sent you Ron's questions, so that's 

10 done.

11 And the only other action item I 

12 have was for NIOSH to make available the raw 

13 data support files to SC&A. Anything else? 

14 Did I miss anything else?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I mean I 

16 think we'll now try to look at the information 

17 and come back with a response on thorium.

18 MR. KATZ: Joe, if you would just 

19 email me Ron's questions, too, then I could 

20 send it to the court reporter, just to make 

21 sure.

22 CHAIR BEACH: I will do that right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

146

1 now.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think she 

3 answered that one.

4 MR. STIVER: And send those to me 

5 too, Joe, if you would please?

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, and so then 

7 we're onto, if you have it, Joe's or SC&A's 

8 paper dated January 12th, 2012.

9 It's subject: adequacy and 

10 completeness of Mound internal dosimetry. 

11 We'll go ahead and let Joe start that.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I think at 

13 the last Work Group --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's the date on 

15 that?

16 MR. FITZGERALD: January 12th.

17 CHAIR BEACH: 12th.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. The last 

20 Work Group meeting, you know, I think Brant 

21 walked through the NIOSH response to a 

22 proposal or actually an action that we took a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

147

1 year before. This has a lengthy history.

2 I hesitate to go through it. 

3 Maybe I will. But at the time, I said that, 

4 you know, I think we had squeezed as much as 

5 one could squeeze out of this issue, and I 

6 felt that we're, on a technical level, sort of 

7 reaching diminishing returns. We're at a bit 

8 of an impasse.

9 And so I wanted to use this 

10 opportunity, rather than continue to exchange 

11 White Papers, just to kind of step back and 

12 sort of do an overview of the issue and come 

13 to some kind of a closure recommendation for 

14 the Work Group.

15 So that was the purpose of the 

16 memo. And also to identify any loose ends 

17 that, given the history of this thing, that we 

18 may not have covered in any detail.

19 And that was the attachment that 

20 we talked about earlier. Just a little bit of 

21 background, because this does have a bit of 

22 history.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

148

1 I mean, this sort of originated 

2 from a number of specific, radionuclide3 specific issues that were raised in the Site 

4 Profile and carried forward into the 

5 Evaluation Report Review that SC&A conducted 

6 anywhere from, you know, singling out issues 

7 with neptunium and curium to some issues on 

8 plutonium and uranium.

9 But there was a number of 

10 questions involved with that. And there was 

11 also issues that were broached by the Work 

12 Group that, as usual, asked SC&A to look at 

13 data adequacy completeness, both for external 

14 and internal sources. And we essentially have 

15 done that, as well.

16 At some point, I believe it was in 

17 2010, the Work Group decided just to 

18 consolidate the issues.

19 To take the data adequacy and 

20 completeness issues for internal and also 

21 these very specific, radionuclide-specific 

22 questions, since a lot of them really got into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

149

1 adequacy, to treat them as one issue. That's 

2 how that evolved.

3 And also, at about the same time, 

4 I think there was a request that Josie had to, 

5 when we did that, to look at these various 

6 White Papers. Just make sure we weren't 

7 losing anything in the process of 

8 consolidating this thing into one issue.

9 And that was the origins of this 

10 matrix, which I've attached to this January 

11 memo. But it also is the same matrix that I 

12 think was included in a paper about a year and 

13 a half ago that SC&A presented on status. So 

14 that's been around for a while.

15 In terms of background, we raised 

16 a number of these issues about whether, in 

17 fact, given the lack of apparent bioassay data 

18 for a number of nuclides, in particular these 

19 so called other nuclides or exotics, whether 

20 in fact there was a dose reconstruction 

21 approach that would enable one to address 

22 these other nuclides in the absence of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

150

1 data.

2 We talked about the gross alpha 

3 counting technique at Mound, whether in fact 

4 that, since this was, I think, the first time 

5 we actually looked at that particular 

6 procedure, whether or nor you could strip out 

7 the alphas and still come up with a 

8 sufficiently accurate representation of the 

9 number of the specific nuclides involved. 

10 And that question came up as well.

11 In response to a number of 

12 questions that the Work Group raised and we 

13 raised, I think that was the beginning of, you 

14 know, the review of what was, I think, called 

15 for short the road map.

16 And that was certainly presented 

17 by NIOSH to identify each of these processes 

18 and to show, you know, whether or not there 

19 was a bioassay method for each nuclide.

20 And we spent some time looking at 

21 the road map, and we'll go through all that. I 

22 think most are familiar with it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

151

1 And a lot of it got down to 

2 whether or not the road map and the King 

3 report with the Meyer report within the two 

4 bases, I guess, for the road map, whether they 

5 could be interpreted to abide a sense of 

6 exposure potential, or whether they, in fact, 

7 just connoted that the radionuclide may have 

8 been present but certainly did not carry that 

9 implication that it could have been exposure.

10 And I think we spent a lot of 

11 time, it sort of reminded me of, you know, if 

12 one could find Mr. King or Dr. King, it would 

13 have been useful. But we never were able to 

14 find him.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Not for lack of 

16 trying.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we definitely 

18 tried. But nonetheless, the interpretation of 

19 how to apply the King report and the road map 

20 and everything, I think was a lot of the 

21 effort that this Work Group addressed.

22 So anyway, in this memo, I wanted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

152

1 to boil down, we essentially had two 

2 questions.

3 You know, can the lack of bioassay 

4 data for radionuclides being used at Mound be 

5 rationalized on the basis that either 

6 radionuclide form or handling precluded any 

7 exposure potential, therefore making any such 

8 monitoring unnecessary?

9 Or that operations were limited 

10 during these time periods to intermittent 

11 campaigns for which event-driven bioassay 

12 coverage would have been sufficient?

13 And I think that was maybe a 

14 lengthy way of just saying that, you know, 

15 could you explain the lack of bioassay, 

16 routine bioassay based upon the fact that the 

17 site, the health physicist and the operations 

18 did not recognize any exposure potential, so 

19 therefore there would not have been any 

20 bioassay, routine bioassay, therefore no 

21 bioassay records for these things?

22 And the second one, of course, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

153

1 the use of gross alpha as a surrogate for 

2 radionuclide-specific bioassay, and that was 

3 the analysis we did.

4 And we spent a great deal of time, 

5 certainly, on the first one. But I, you know, 

6 haven't looked over the record for this. I 

7 haven't sat at this table for two or three 

8 years, I think, on the issue of the King 

9 Report.

10 I don't think there's a clear way 

11 to resolve that. And I think there was very 

12 legitimate considerations on both sides.

13 But I think what I came to the 

14 conclusion was that yes, in the King report by 

15 itself, given the ambiguity of the context of 

16 that report, and again the words can be 

17 interpreted different ways, I think one could 

18 argue you would need to have something beyond 

19 just the King report to corroborate the 

20 exposure potential.

21 I mean, I think that's something 

22 that, in the end, one comes up with that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

154

1 Obviously I can come up with that conclusion.

2 And with that, you know, the 

3 attempts that we've gone through to, you know, 

4 to determine exposure potential in other ways, 

5 I think with the lack of actual data, it just 

6 becomes a bit of a futile exercise, I think, 

7 in the end. Trying to demonstrate the exposure 

8 potential without having much in the way of 

9 monitoring or operational data, I think in the 

10 end there wasn't a way to actually resolve 

11 that question objectively.

12 So, but we attempted to. I think 

13 it was a way to see if that could be a means 

14 to get around this impasse.

15 So anyway, I think that's where we 

16 came out. That literally, even though we went 

17 through almost 100 examples -- no, it was 

18 like, I guess 20 or 30 examples with 100 

19 comments coming back, I don't think there's a 

20 way to resolve this objectively.

21 I understand where the finding 

22 was. There was no obvious exposure, or if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

155

1 there was an exposure, you have an event 

2 specific bioassay, so what's the issue?

3 So, you know, I think that's about 

4 we're as far as we can take it. But saying 

5 that, I guess there's a residual frustration 

6 in the sense that we get into trying to 

7 demonstrate exposure potential in the absence 

8 of, you know, specific information for some of 

9 these nuclides.

10 And I don't see how there's any 

11 way to do that. I mean, I think I threw out, 

12 personally myself threw out let's go look at 

13 some examples and use incidents and what not 

14 to see if that might shed some light. 

15 And I don't think that really shed 

16 too much light. I think it was, maybe at some 

17 point, a frustration just trying to go 

18 forward, find some way out of this.

19 So I think we're still left with 

20 this concern that, you know, where you're 

21 looking for a quantitative basis to indicate 

22 that you have exposure potential to nuclides 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

156

1 that are cited as being in these at the site 

2 sort of time frames.

3 But there's no bioassay records, 

4 and how you square that, and you know, on what 

5 basis beside the program itself. That, you 

6 know, Meyer ran a good program and had 

7 techniques, procedures available.

8 You know, I think the road maps 

9 certainly suggest that. There were procedures 

10 available. But were they effective, applied 

11 or not?

12 What are their effects on 

13 exposures, I don't think there's any way to 

14 really underscore that.

15 And as a parting shot I'd say 

16 it's just interesting in contrast to look at 

17 Mound. This is the question earlier about, 

18 you know, the techniques that were used for 

19 gross alpha.

20 Did Mound, in fact, have a health 

21 physics monitoring program in the '50s and 

22 '60s that stood apart from other AEC 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

157

1 laboratories such that there was an ability to 

2 monitor for a number of these nuclides that 

3 apparently other labs did not possess.

4 And I think there's a bit of a

5 struggle between exposure potential. There 

6 was no exposure potential because it just 

7 turned out that all the forms of the nuclides 

8 that were present did not lead to exposure.

9 Or, you know, the techniques to 

10 monitor were such that any exposure would have 

11 been picked up? So it still left me with a 

12 sense that we didn't quite get to a hard 

13 resolution.

14 But again, I think our 

15 recommendation is that there's not much more 

16 that can be gleaned on this topic. And that 

17 was the inclusion that we're forwarding to the 

18 workers.

19 That, you know, I think we've done 

20 about as much as can be done on the subject. 

21 And there's just nothing else that would shed 

22 any light on whether or not these figures are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

158

1 real and whether or not dose reconstruction 

2 could be done with sufficient accuracy.

3 Now, with that, as Josie was 

4 pointing out, there was two issues that came 

5 out of the last NIOSH White Paper. One was 

6 thorium, we just talked about that.

7 The other was the early years of, 

8 I guess, the polonium process. This was the 

9 February '49 to September of '49.

10 And I think there was a 

11 recognition that there wasn't any obvious 

12 issues with including those. But I'll leave 

13 that to you all. And the other one was the 

14 thorium.

15 And then Table 1, which was the 

16 attachment, is just again, a old rack up, this 

17 goes back to 2010 of pretty much the White 

18 Papers SC&A submitted to the Work Group.

19 And which ones, and this is my 

20 estimation, more recent estimation, which ones 

21 are open and which ones are closed. And you 

22 know, I would defer to NIOSH if that is your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

159

1 understanding of some of these issues or not.

2 I could not find any actions or 

3 any responses to certain specific items which 

4 are listed here.

5 CHAIR BEACH: So, and I think Joe, 

6 you took these from the 100 or 96 comments 

7 that SC&A put out, NIOSH commented on, of last 

8 year prior to November?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, these are 

10 everything prior to November.

11 CHAIR BEACH: So you've taken 

12 everything from that and just correlated it. I 

13 just want to make sure everybody was on the 

14 same page of where all this came from because 

15 --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. For 

17 example, thorium was cited, but obviously 

18 that's being addressed. So even though it's 

19 thorium, it's listed as being reviewed by 

20 NIOSH. That was as of January.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: So that's moving 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

160

1 forward.

2 CHAIR BEACH: And we did ask for 

3 information from NIOSH on these. So I guess 

4 I'll let you go ahead and take over, Brant?

5 DR. ULSH: Just one administrative 

6 clarification. For those of you who are 

7 gluttons for punishment and want to go plow on 

8 back through here to see where everything came 

9 from.

10 The hundred or whatever it was 

11 comments, they weren't actually formatted by 

12 SC&A as a hundred comments.

13 It was SC&A's report, and I took 

14 that report and cut it up piece by piece into 

15 a hundred-plus comments and issued a response 

16 to each one. So don't be confused about where 

17 that came from.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Thank you.

19 DR. ULSH: To be honest with you, 

20 I looked at the recommendation on Page 5 of 8, 

21 where basically SC&A recommends closing these 

22 issues, just a couple of exceptions, thorium, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

161

1 polonium in 1949, and tritides.

2 And this issue has been so 

3 contentious and I was so anxious to get it in 

4 the rearview mirror that I stopped there. Oh 

5 my God, we're done.

6 But I'll go through and look in 

7 more detail and attach more. I don't want to 

8 plow back through the history of all of this 

9 if we're close to agreement.

10 So I guess I'll just talk 

11 specifically about the polonium one in 1949 to 

12 remind everyone what the issue is.

13 We have an SEC for Monsanto. I 

14 can't remember how far forward in time that is 

15 off the top of my head.

16 And then we have an SEC for Mound 

17 for all workers that picks up in September of 

18 1949. And I think that leaves a gap at the 

19 beginning of 1949.

20 CHAIR BEACH: February 1st, 1949 

21 to September 30th, 1949.

22 DR. ULSH: Okay, so that's kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

162

1 the gap period that we're talking about. I 

2 have no real objection to filling in that gap 

3 somehow, making it kind of a continuous SEC.

4 We're going to have to think about 

5 how to do it, because the basis of the current 

6 Mound SEC is the radium, actinium, thorium 

7 separations activities.

8 And that material did not arrive 

9 on site at Mound until September of 1949. So 

10 I don't know how we would go back and extend 

11 that earlier when the material wasn't even on 

12 site.

13 But maybe there's a way that we 

14 can extend the Monsanto SEC forward. I don't 

15 know, I'm just thinking out loud here. That 

16 might be more technically justifiable.

17 I mean, to be honest with you, at 

18 the time, Monsanto was transitioning to the 

19 Mound site. It was Unit 5 of the Monsanto 

20 Project. Before that time, Monsanto had 

21 several different operating units, Units 1 

22 through 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

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

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

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

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

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

163

1 One at Bonebrake Seminary, one at 

2 Runnymead Playhouse. There were a couple of 

3 others, but I can't recall off the top of my 

4 head. But they were scattered around the 

5 Dayton area.

6 And in 1949, all those activities 

7 were sort of consolidated at the Mound site. 

8 So I think administratively, I'm going to have 

9 to put my head together with Jim and maybe 

10 Jenny or whoever if there are legal issues 

11 about how to do this.

12 But, you know, people are going to 

13 be going back and forth between Monsanto and 

14 Mound, when they're trying to open the 

15 facility. I'm not going to try to tell you 

16 that there's a bright line distinction between 

17 the two sites.

18 So I really have no objection to 

19 filling in that gap somehow. It's just a 

20 question of how we do it.

21 CHAIR BEACH: So is that 

22 something, because I know --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

164

1 (Laughter.)

2 CHAIR BEACH: That's where it was 

3 left last year. So is this something --

4 DR. NETON: Yes, there's something 

5 else going on with Mound, though, the early 

6 years of Mound is becoming --

7 DR. ULSH: No, well, we're doing 

8 an 83.14, I think, to address those gaps in 

9 the tritium log books for the radon.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, radon.

11 DR. NETON: No, the Mound, the DOE 

12 --

13 DR. ULSH: Oh, yes.

14 DR. NETON: -- on that paper has 

15 reclassified the Mound site in the very early 

16 years.

17 DR. ULSH: Mound, or --

18 DR. NETON: It was Monsanto.

19 DR. ULSH: Monsanto.

20 DR. NETON: Monsanto is going to 

21 become a DOE facility.

22 DR. ULSH: So I don't know what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

165

1 the implications of that are at all.

2 DR. NETON: We're issuing an 

3 83.14, I think, no, it can't be an 83.14, I 

4 think it's an 83.14. Since it's changed, and, 

5 Jenny, you might know more about this than I 

6 do, but since it's changed facility 

7 designation, since it's already an SEC class 

8 for the AWE portion, then it becomes a DOE 

9 facility.

10 That opens the door for 

11 contractors to become eligible. So that's 

12 currently ongoing behind the scenes now, 

13 trying to, I think, develop an 83.14 case for 

14 the new DOE facility that it made.

15 CHAIR BEACH: I thought maybe you 

16 hinted at that a little bit at the last --

17 DR. NETON: Yes, I did, I did.

18 CHAIR BEACH: So --

19 DR. NETON: And that's become 

20 official. It's going to be a DOE facility, 

21 reclassified as a DOE facility.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, would that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

166

1 make this moot? I don't know.

2 DR. NETON: I don't know.

3 CHAIR BEACH: It depends on what 

4 time frame.

5 DR. NETON: It depends on, yes, 

6 the years.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

8 DR. ULSH: Yes, I don't know about 

9 the policy, procedural intricacies of how to 

10 do this. But it seems to me that if you've 

11 got an SEC at Monsanto that covers all 

12 workers, then you've got this nine month gap, 

13 and then you got a Mound SEC that covers all 

14 workers --

15 CHAIR BEACH: And that's the gap 

16 we were trying to fill.

17 DR. ULSH: Yes, I'm not going to 

18 defend that gap.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

20 DR. NETON: I think I said this 

21 last time. I'll take this back.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

167

1 DR. NETON: I mean, this all sort 

2 of came about the same time as the 

3 redesignation of the Monsanto facility.

4 It wasn't clear to me what, 

5 normally when I bring this up, I think of the 

6 context of new designation, but this is

7 different from that. This is the gap 

8 designation.

9 CHAIR BEACH: Right. Well, and it 

10 was Joe's recommendation that left me with 

11 some thoughts and considerations. So I took 

12 some time and kind of thought about closing it 

13 and where the Work Group fits into that.

14 And I just, so I wouldn't miss 

15 anything I wrote down some of the concerns or 

16 thoughts that I have. And I'm going to go 

17 ahead and go through those. And of course, 

18 other Work Group Members, please jump in.

19 So first, on the internal concern: 

20 how does this Work Group judge exposure 

21 potential where no quantitative monitoring 

22 data or source term data exists, okay?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

168

1 Originally this issue was raised 

2 for a number of radionuclide sources for which 

3 adequate bioassay data and source term 

4 characterization was lacking.

5 And I know some of this is 

6 paraphrasing where Joe's paper took off. Some 

7 of the things that I wanted to highlight, the 

8 road map was developed as a response.

9 NIOSH has stated numerous times, 

10 and I'll emphasize numerous because Brant has 

11 on many occasions, that their interpretation 

12 is that the road map provided a useful guide 

13 in D&D efforts to determine what radionuclides 

14 should be considered for monitoring workers.

15 SC&A did disagree with this 

16 interpretation. And I honestly disagree with

17 that interpretation as well, based on 

18 discussions years ago and how that was 

19 actually brought to the Work Group.

20 Can NIOSH explain how Mound's 

21 laboratory internal dosimetry program 

22 technologically and recordkeeping could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

169

1 stood above the other labs in the '50s and 

2 '60s?

3 And that goes back to Joe's 

4 report, just kind of categorizing. Los Alamos 

5 has an SEC from '43 to '75. Livermore, Ames, 

6 Brookhaven, Sandia, all those labs all have 

7 SECs during that time period.

8 So the question remains, and I 

9 know Joe stated this, but how does Mount stand 

10 up above?

11 The other question, this exact 

12 question came up in Randy Rabinowitz's ten 

13 year review.

14 In it, Randy points out uniformity 

15 issues among different sites, a difference in 

16 results across SECs when the petition requires 

17 NIOSH to bound internal exposure to 

18 radionuclides other than uranium.

19 Seventeen SECs have been granted. 

20 And I'm just taking a snapshot of Randy's 

21 report, which I'm sure you've all read.

22 NIOSH could not bound internal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

170

1 thorium or other exotic exposures, yet in at 

2 least three instances, NIOSH has concluded 

3 that it could use internal uranium doses to 

4 bound thorium doses.

5 Mound was listed as one of those 

6 three examples. So the question for the Work 

7 Group is: do we accept the recommendation to 

8 close this?

9 And I guess I'd throw that out 

10 because those are my concerns on this issue. 

11 And there's a lot of years they're looking at.

12 DR. ULSH: Do I get a chance to 

13 respond to that?

14 CHAIR BEACH: Sure.

15 DR. ULSH: Basically, I'll give 

16 you my position as the SEC person on Mound 

17 because I was not involved with LANL or Sandia 

18 or any of the other sites.

19 CHAIR BEACH: I understand.

20 DR. ULSH: And I was not tasked 

21 with responding to Randy's report, either. 

22 I'll leave that to Jim. My position is Mound 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

171

1 was a pretty good site in terms of the 

2 radiation protection program.

3 But I take issue with the premise 

4 that it's head and shoulders above the other 

5 facilities.

6 I think they were, by and large, 

7 all pretty good. It depends on the site, it 

8 depends on the data that you have there, what 

9 kind of activities were being done.

10 At Mound, for example, with 

11 thorium, they had a urinalysis procedure and 

12 they applied it in a scale that seems to me to 

13 be commensurate with the activities that were 

14 there.

15 Like I said, I haven't been 

16 involved with those other sites. If there was 

17 the exact same situation at LANL and had I 

18 been in charge, maybe I would have argued it 

19 the same way, I don't know. I don't know what 

20 the particulars are at those other sites.

21 But all I can tell you is, from 

22 the specific situation at Mound, the specific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

172

1 data that's available there and the specific 

2 materials that are available there, we have 

3 laid out technical approaches for how to do 

4 dose reconstruction.

5 So I won't talk about Randy's 

6 report. That's not something that I've dealt 

7 with. You know, Jim, I don't know if you want 

8 to make any comments either.

9 DR. NETON: Not at this time.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Well, and I guess 

11 the Work Group needs to make a decision. We 

12 do have some open items, we have some expected 

13 items back from NIOSH.

14 And SC&A is going to give us 

15 something on the thorium paper. So I guess my 

16 recommendation would be, we are going to 

17 schedule another meeting, is to hold those 

18 open for the next meeting.

19 But then I would suggest not 

20 closing the issues and taking them before the 

21 full Board. That's my recommendation. Other 

22 people may have different ideas on the Work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

173

1 Group.

2 But I just wanted to get what my 

3 thoughts were thrown out before the very last 

4 meeting, hopefully. Before June's full Board.

5 DR. NETON: That very last 

6 meeting, I've been saying that for half a 

7 year.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Is there a sense 

9 when this last meeting is roughed in?

10 CHAIR BEACH: Well, I think right 

11 before break we were talking about the end of 

12 May, first of June.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Early June?

14 CHAIR BEACH: But we're going to 

15 try to shoot for the end of May, right? Is 

16 that --

17 MR. KATZ: End of May or early 

18 June depending on when SC&A and if there are 

19 deliverables from DCAS by the end of this 

20 meeting, as to when you can deliver those so 

21 that we have plenty of time in advance and no 

22 one's dealing with having had a paper only for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

174

1 a week.

2 CHAIR BEACH: Right. The key is 

3 to have a time to answer those White Papers as 

4 they come out, so we're not left where we are 

5 at this point.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: A couple of 

8 comments. One, indirectly I guess, speaks to 

9 Randy's comment. I think suggesting that 

10 there would or should be uniformity across the 

11 sites is simply not the case.

12 In fact, one of the things we saw 

13 in the Tiger Teams was lack of uniformity 

14 across the sites in virtually everything. 

15 Part of it's a not invented here syndrome or 

16 something.

17 Sites like to do their own kind of 

18 dosimetry for many years, their own 

19 instruments, built them and used them. There 

20 was almost competition between the sites on 

21 how you should do things.

22 So I wouldn't accept that because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

175

1 some site did or didn't have a particular 

2 program, another site would or wouldn't have 

3 that. I think there was a lot of differences 

4 in sites.

5 So I know that Randy kind of 

6 implied that there might be this uniformity, 

7 but I'm not sure there is. There was a lot of 

8 sharing.

9 I know they've had groups that 

10 shared how they did things, and often went 

11 back and, you know, protected why theirs were 

12 better.

13 CHAIR BEACH: I guess, help me 

14 out, Randy's report wasn't really speaking to 

15 what was done at the sites, but how NIOSH does 

16 their reconstruction.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh.

18 CHAIR BEACH: That's kind of where 

19 I was getting at, I think.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think the 

21 implication was if they couldn't do thorium 

22 here, they shouldn't be able to do it there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

176

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I understand.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: But what I'm saying 

3 is: I don't think that necessarily follows, 

4 the fact that these sites weren't doing 

5 thorium in a certain way that this one 

6 couldn't.

7 And so, but I don't want to push 

8 that any further than to say I don't think it 

9 follows that that would necessarily be the 

10 case.

11 I'm trying to understand the 

12 suggestion on filling in the gap and how that 

13 fits in with the rest of the opening and 

14 closing of items here.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Well, that gap's 

16 been discussed for several --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I think NIOSH 

18 is saying let's go ahead and deal with that.

19 DR. ULSH: Well, we had talked 

20 about, we're going to have to address the 

21 situation with the radon class for the years 

22 where we don't have the log books. We're also 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

177

1 going to have to address this gap period.

2 And layered on top of this is 

3 whatever the Working Group finally decides. I 

4 mean, if you guys, I don't even want to 

5 speculate. But there are actions that you 

6 could take that would preempt a lot of that.

7 And if you wind up doing it, 

8 there's no sense in having these discussions. 

9 So we're kind of, I don't want to say that 

10 we're waiting to see where the dust settles, 

11 because that's not really true.

12 But I think we are talking about 

13 going ahead with this radon class adjustment. 

14 At least, we've proposed to do it.

15 DR. NETON: Well, just for the 

16 years.

17 DR. ULSH: For the years where we 

18 don't have, and I just don't know how we're 

19 going to fill that gap. I don't know what the 

20 procedures are for the '49 issue.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Well, and that's the 

22 topic because be brought it up a year ago and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

178

1 we were left with the same sense that NIOSH 

2 was going to look at that and would report 

3 back now. So it's just kind of in the 

4 balance.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And then 

6 as I understand it, Joe, on the big adequacy 

7 issues, you're okay with the second one on the 

8 use of the gross alpha.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the other one 

11 has to do with documenting the decision on 

12 when or when not to do the bioassays, I guess. 

13 Is it mainly --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I, like 

15 Brant, hesitate to dive into that pool.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. I don't 

17 want to re-discuss it. But there's kind of an 

18 understanding that this is how you would do 

19 it. But was it actually done? Is there any 

20 way to --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: We've been 

22 grappling with the legitimate question, which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

179

1 is, you know, in the absence of routine 

2 bioassay information --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: -- how do you 

5 demonstrate exposure potential? And very 

6 early on, the King report was a nice 

7 convenient ring to grab. But it turned out 

8 there were some questions about its intent.

9 Did it really identify these 

10 nuclides by room? Just for the sake of sort 

11 of signaling to D&D folks that, just watch out 

12 for these nuclides. Or did it actually 

13 connote some recognition of potential exposure 

14 in those rooms?

15 And, you know, stepping back from 

16 it, there wasn't any good way to resolve that. 

17 You know, just looking at the words and trying 

18 to figure out, you know, what the words meant 

19 without having, you know?

20 And we did interview various 

21 people and we got sort of, you know, we did 

22 get input back.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

180

1 But in the end, you know, my sense 

2 was, given the stakes involved, because you're 

3 talking about a fair number of years in terms 

4 of an SEC, I can accept the fact that, you 

5 know, having some corroborating information 

6 that would be hard information would be 

7 something that --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: As to why you did 

9 or didn't?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And you 

11 know, but without any operational information, 

12 the frustration is it's very hard to come up 

13 with corroboration over as long as two 

14 decades.

15 And that sort of raises this 

16 question that remains. That, you know, okay, 

17 we couldn't find the smoking gun in the way of 

18 actual there was exposure here that should 

19 have been routinely monitored but was not.

20 But on the other hand, you know, 

21 certainly EEOICPA was always directed toward 

22 trying to address gaps in recordkeeping and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

181

1 dosimetry. And so that would suggest the 

2 struggles.

3 I mean, you know, we need to have 

4 something hard to explain away these years. 

5 And, you know, I think it was a legitimate 

6 debate on that. I mean, it was a lengthy 

7 debate, a frustrating debate.

8 But it was a legitimate debate how 

9 you do that when you don't have good 

10 quantitative information.

11 And in the end, I think, we sort 

12 of paint ourselves in a corner where yes, I 

13 think we could continue to do this give and 

14 take, but actually without some good site 

15 specific quantitative data to corroborate what 

16 the King report might have been suggesting, it 

17 just wasn't going to lead to a conclusion.

18 And I think we owed the process 

19 some conclusion that, you know, if we can't do 

20 that, then let's just close it out. But you 

21 know, it is a tough one. It is a tough one to 

22 actually deal with exposure potential. I mean 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

182

1 --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, and I guess 

3 I'm asking what does closing it out mean in 

4 this particular case?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I think my 

6 recommendation was you know, there wasn't any 

7 technical solution or pathway for this issue. 

8 And we've just about tried everything we could 

9 try.

10 And I'm willing to accept that the 

11 corroborating evidence that we were seeking 

12 just didn't seem to be available and 

13 therefore, recommend to the Work Group that we 

14 close the issue out. And that's pretty much 

15 what this memo says.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But the 

17 result in closing that is what in terms of 

18 SEC?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Accept the 

20 Evaluation Report as written.

21 CHAIR BEACH: For all internal.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: For internal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

183

1 dosimetry.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: To accept the ER 

3 and not this.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I wanted to 

6 make sure I understood that.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

8 CHAIR BEACH: With the exception 

9 of what we're working on. Tritides, thorium.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, thorium, 

11 tritides --

12 CHAIR BEACH: Polonium.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- polonium in 

14 the early years. And again, there's some 

15 specific issues attached from these previous 

16 data adequacy ones.

17 But again, that's almost more in 

18 the line of a matrix of, you know, are these 

19 loose ends tied? Less fundamental questions, 

20 but more of just making sure those are real.

21 So really, it's tritides, polonium 

22 in the early years, and thorium which are the, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

184

1 sort of, remaining issues.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would just like 

4 to add a comment on Paul's earlier comment 

5 about that it was not unusual to be able to 

6 see different sites having different 

7 monitoring programs.

8 And I think this is really the 

9 root of the whole issue. And this is why they 

10 went with one site wide in the later years, 

11 RadCon manual, because you look at the places 

12 like Hanford, basically they worried about 

13 plutonium.

14 But they could have cared less 

15 about uranium. And I think this is kind of 

16 what has got us into this issue.

17 And because I somewhat, and no 

18 disrespect, Brant, I chuckle when I hear the 

19 terms robust monitoring programs and stuff, 

20 but we didn't monitor for this whole broad 

21 radionuclides that we had.

22 So in that context, I just, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

185

1 would have to agree somewhat with Randy on 

2 this. I think yes, it's not unusual to see 

3 this, but this is in the context of when we go 

4 back to monitor or redo for them.

5 I see a whole different way of 

6 doing things. I see different things and I 

7 think really with what you've said is true, 

8 this is why we are where we're at here, 

9 because they didn't have a routine program.

10 So I think that's kind of part of 

11 the issue is that.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Well, I have an 

13 issue because there were gaps in the data. 

14 Most of the stuff that we have is after 1990.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I know 

16 today's -- but we still have gaps in the 

17 programs today. And we're still trying to 

18 work them out even today.

19 And so to be able to say that we 

20 can go back, I really, really have a hard time 

21 with that.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of course, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

186

1 keep in mind that none of this information was 

2 collected for the purpose for which we're 

3 using it anyway.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, Paul, 

5 that is really part of the problem is a lot of 

6 this is, and don't ever think that I'm saying 

7 that the health businesses didn't do a good 

8 job.

9 You know, I look at how come the 

10 health physicist program got started, and 

11 really it's because of all these DOE sites 

12 that slowly got connected together and 

13 actually sharing the information that they're 

14 learning from some of the sites that was 

15 classified and everything else.

16 But it was in a forum where they 

17 could. But as any of us know, you put in a 

18 room a scientist or a health physicist, it 

19 doesn't matter, and you're going to have a lot 

20 of different ideas of how it's going to go.

21 And I never want anybody to think 

22 that I'm degrading that they did a brilliant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

187

1 job. They did the best job that they could 

2 with the information that they had at that 

3 time.

4 You look over the last few years 

5 of what they had learned of the daughter 

6 products and everything else and how it really 

7 affected a lot of people, and I think that 

8 they were doing the best job.

9 I've been criticized that I'm 

10 knocking them. And I'm not in any way. But 

11 really the information that was pulled for 

12 this that we're using right now was really not 

13 designed to be able to do what we're doing 

14 right now.

15 So we're making a lot of judgments 

16 and assessments and assumptions. And we've 

17 got a saying, but I hear you can't say it 

18 about assumptions, because they make fools out 

19 of a lot of us sometimes.

20 So I do believe this is why we're 

21 at the program. And I don't know what else 

22 more we can do with that. But I don't want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

188

1 see it closed. So I think that's part of the 

2 root of the issue.

3 MR. KATZ: I guess another 

4 perspective to take in terms of Joe's issue of 

5 corroborating, lacking corroborating 

6 information for some of these other 

7 radionuclides and very particular situations 

8 is down the road, I mean, if people come 

9 forward and say I was involved in this 

10 operation involving X, Y, or Z, that might be 

11 the time when you get corroborating 

12 information that in fact, there was an 

13 operation that wasn't monitored for these 

14 items that right now, you only know as 

15 possibly having had exposure potential.

16 But so, you may see an 83.13 or 

17 83.14 down the road on one of these items that 

18 you don't have information on right now.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, any other 

20 comments? So I'll just leave it with the 

21 action items. I will go forward with the memo 

22 answering the open items.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

189

1 A brief memo is what we talked 

2 about last year on this attachment to Joe's 

3 report. And that includes if you know 

4 something about the polonium. I know you 

5 don't have any idea when DOL's going to come 

6 out with that. And for us to do something in 

7 advance of that --

8 DR. NETON: It's out. I just 

9 checked the website and --

10 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, it is.

11 DR. NETON: -- it's listed as a 

12 DOE facility.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Does it give the 

14 years?

15 DR. NETON: Yes. I'm assuming 

16 we're talking about the Dayton Project, right? 

17 Early years. It says '43 to '50, it was a 

18 DOE facility.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Oh. So that covers 

20 the time period we're addressing. Okay, so --

21 DR. ULSH: Well, it does, but what 

22 if you have someone who shows Mound employment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

190

1 and --

2 DR. NETON: See, Mound was covered 

3 from '47 to present.

4 DR. ULSH: Well, it's a covered 

5 facility. The SEC doesn't start until 

6 September of '49.

7 DR. NETON: '49.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, right. And 

9 then '59 to '80 for the radon. So the 

10 actinium and thorium and radium.

11 DR. NETON: Are you talking about 

12 someone who would have worked --

13 CHAIR BEACH: February 1st, 1949 

14 to September 30th at Mound.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: At Mound versus -

16 - 

17 DR. NETON: It's almost an 

18 employment identification issue bundled up 

19 within this. I would have to go back and 

20 restudy this in light of this new DOE class 

21 and what it means.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Because of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

191

1 change, maybe if, I'm not saying this next 

2 Board meeting, you can give us an update on 

3 that.

4 DR. NETON: Yes, I can certainly 

5 give you an update of where the 83.14 is. But 

6 I'm wondering if this is not the time to do 

7 something. As long as we're doing an 83.14 

8 for the, let's say the Mound issue, not --

9 CHAIR BEACH: Well, there's an SEC 

10 at Monsanto that covers the individuals from 

11 there. That's just that time period between 

12 when Mound took over that operation is what I 

13 remember. So that was just those people fell 

14 through that gap there.

15 DR. NETON: Mound's current Mound 

16 SEC starts in '50, is that right?

17 CHAIR BEACH: No, '49.

18 DR. NETON: '49.

19 DR. ULSH: September of '49.

20 DR. NETON: Right. And the basis 

21 for the polonium program.

22 DR. ULSH: No, the basis for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

192

1 Mound was the radium, actinium, thorium 

2 separation.

3 DR. NETON: Right, that's correct.

4 CHAIR BEACH: And this was for the 

5 fission activation products associated with 

6 polonium process at Mound during both of the 

7 extended -- excluded period, which is what was 

8 written up in Joe's paper.

9 It's something Kathy brought up a 

10 couple years ago.

11 DR. NETON: Yes, I remember. It's 

12 just I keep --

13 CHAIR BEACH: I remember her 

14 kicking it around.

15 DR. NETON: -- having to relearn 

16 it because I think about it and then the ball 

17 gets dropped.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, so we took it 

19 up as an action, I think, at our last meeting.

20 DR. NETON: Well, we're going to 

21 have to go back and, let's see if I can get 

22 there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

193

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, so that one --

2 DR. NETON: That one's considered 

3 open.

4 CHAIR BEACH: -- we'll hold you to 

5 it this time.

6 DR. NETON: Yes, hold me to it 

7 next time. And we'll accommodate this.

8 CHAIR BEACH: And then there's 

9 just a couple in the attachments. Some of 

10 these are addressed by the thorium or the 

11 tritium. I think there might be a couple that 

12 --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I updated it as 

14 of January, but obviously thorium is now --

15 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. So I don't 

16 know if you would want to update this or just 

17 work on this.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I think, you 

19 know, thorium may be the one that was a little 

20 outdated. But you know, I would just say take 

21 a look at it and see if it's --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: On you tables, are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

194

1 you talking about the tables?

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. There's an 

3 attachment.

4 CHAIR BEACH: The attachment.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: And that came 

6 from actually an earlier report, SC&A 2010, 

7 which is referenced. And I just updated that 

8 original table. It's now outdated again, of 

9 course, it's three months ago.

10 CHAIR BEACH: And I know you got 

11 to the recommendation and wanted to quit, but 

12 I wanted to drag a little more out of you.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Could put it in 

14 the body of the report.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, anything else? 

16 Shall we start our lunch break early before we 

17 get into radon? Does anybody have any 

18 objections to that?

19 DR. NETON: No.

20 CHAIR BEACH: All right. I don't. 

21 So an hour? Get back at --

22 MR. KATZ: So 1:15?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

195

1 CHAIR BEACH: Well, let's just 

2 make it 12:30, since that's what we had stated 

3 earlier. 1:30.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, 1:30.

5 CHAIR BEACH: 1:30.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks everyone on the 

7 phone. We'll reconnect after lunch. Bye.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

9 matter went off the record at 12:15 p.m. and 

10 resumed at 1:29 p.m.)

11 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. We're 

12 reconvening the Mound Work Group after lunch 

13 break. Phil, can I check, are you still 

14 there?

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I am.

16 MR. KATZ: Are you back again, I 

17 should say. Great. I think you can get 

18 started. 

19 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. I'll go ahead 

20 and kind of give you a brief of what's 

21 happening the rest of the day while we wait 

22 for Mel to get back in since he's the one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

196

1 that's going to lead this discussion.

2 We're going to talk about radon. 

3 We're going to start with Mel, who wrote the -

4 - well, no, Samuel, excuse me, Samuel, latest 

5 White Paper for NIOSH. We will then talk 

6 about the interview notes and open it up for 

7 Work Group discussions at that point.

8 After radon, we'll go ahead and if 

9 there's any workers on the line that would 

10 like to make comments, other than the Work 

11 Group Members, we'll go ahead and have some 

12 time for that.

13 So, Mel, are you, or Sam, going to 

14 start?

15 MR. KATZ: Brant.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Brant, you're going 

17 to. Thank you. Okay. Excuse me.

18 DR. ULSH: Yes. It's me again.

19 MR. STIVER: He's going to be the 

20 choo-choo train master of ceremonies today.

21 MS. LIN: That's actually really 

22 funny.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

197

1 DR. CHEW: That's good? You're 

2 the only one that caught it.

3 DR. ULSH: All right. So the 

4 radon issue. This has been going on for, oh 

5 geez, four years now, and basically it started 

6 with an interview that SC&A conducted a number 

7 of years ago with a few people, and based on 

8 that, there was some concern on SC&A's part 

9 about where the tunnel underneath SW-19 ran, 

10 whether or not it went on into R Building and, 

11 therefore, posed a potential exposure pathway 

12 for people in R Building or not.

13 We've gone through a number of 

14 iterations on this. First of all, we looked 

15 at the interview notes, since this was before 

16 the time that we did joint interviews, and we 

17 followed up with one of the interviewees and 

18 got a number of clarifications about where the 

19 concern that the tunnel might have gone into R 

20 Building came from.

21 He didn't say explicitly that it 

22 had, but it was just kind of an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

198

1 interpretation. Then I talked to a former 

2 worker who had actually been in the tunnels 

3 for a particular project that he was involved 

4 with, and he indicated to me that the tunnel 

5 did not go into R Building.

6 And then we went over to the Mound 

7 Museum collection of drawings and pulled out 

8 original blueprints for both R and SW Building 

9 that showed that, in fact, the tunnel did not 

10 go into R Building.

11 So I thought we were done, but 

12 then the concern evolved into, well, could 

13 radon have leaked from the tunnel and been 

14 picked up by the building ventilation system 

15 and circulated throughout R and SW Building 

16 that way?

17 So then we went back to the Mound 

18 Museum drawings collection and pulled out 

19 ventilation drawings. And we gave those to 

20 the Working Group in Germantown on January 

21 6th, and some concern was expressed at that 

22 time that perhaps the ventilation systems for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

199

1 the two buildings may have been interconnected 

2 and could have presented an exposure pathway.

3 So what has happened between 

4 January 6th and now is that I asked Sam Chu, 

5 who is a licensed mechanical engineer, to sit 

6 down with the ventilation drawings and 

7 determine to what degree that's a plausible 

8 scenario.

9 Well, long and short of it is, and 

10 really, this is kind of common sense with how 

11 you design a building where you're going to be 

12 conducting radioactive operations, you really 

13 don't want a system that's going to take air 

14 from one laboratory where you might have an 

15 accident, a contamination incident that 

16 introduces radioactive contamination into the 

17 room air, and then a ventilation system that 

18 would suck air out of that room and spread it 

19 all around the building.

20 That kind of defies common sense. 

21 That's not what you would really hope for. 

22 Instead, you would want the exhaust system to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

200

1 run that room exhaust air out of the building 

2 so that any contamination is not spread around 

3 the building. Of course, you'd run it through 

4 filter banks to remove contamination.

5 And in fact, what we saw at Mound 

6 is exactly what the workers have told us, and 

7 that is that the individual laboratories or 

8 rooms were kept at negative pressure compared 

9 to the hallways, and the hallways were kept at 

10 negative pressure to the outside.

11 So the whole building was kept at 

12 negative pressure so that any contamination 

13 incidents wouldn't push contamination out of 

14 the rooms into the hallways and out into the 

15 environment; rather, air would be sucked in 

16 from outside and vented through filters 

17 through the exhaust system.

18 So the long of short of it is, Sam 

19 looked at the different pressure differentials 

20 across the various areas of the R and SW 

21 Building, the tritium complex, and found that 

22 it's just not plausible that the ventilation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

201

1 system would have served as a route of 

2 circulating radon from the tunnel and under 

3 SW-19 throughout the building.

4 So that's kind of where we are 

5 with that report. Now I'd like to draw an 

6 analogy just so we can all be clear on what 

7 we're talking about here because I know you 

8 all are considering whether or not the Class 

9 needs to be expanded.

10 Can anybody smell anything? Like, 

11 vinegar? You know, that's kind of my point 

12 because when I came in this morning --

13 Mr. KATZ: It was a trick 

14 question.

15 DR. ULSH: It was a trick 

16 question. I brought in a little jar of 

17 vinegar, which, if you're sitting here, you 

18 can smell it now, and I had it sitting in my 

19 lunch box with it cracked open.

20 Now, like any analogy, this is 

21 going to be limited. I mean, there's going to 

22 be differences, but let me kind of draw a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

202

1 picture for you.

2 What we know is that a particular 

3 individual was sitting in SW-19, which is an 

4 access-controlled area. People don't just 

5 wander in here, even the interview that you 

6 conducted last week said that, and at his 

7 desk, he was sitting there, and he showed up 

8 with a strange whole body count.

9 And that's how they discovered 

10 that they might have a radon problem. They 

11 did some investigations. They tracked it back 

12 to SW-19, where his desk was, and right by his 

13 desk was some cracks in the floor, and that's 

14 how they discovered the tunnel. 

15 Since the room was at negative 

16 pressure, it was drawing radon into the room, 

17 and that's how he got exposed to radon.

18 So the question is, well, how do 

19 we place people in SW-19? Well, we can't do 

20 that. We can't tell you exactly who was in 

21 that room and who wasn't, but what we can tell 

22 you is that that was an area that was part of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

203

1 the tritium complex in SW Building.

2 And anyone who would have been in 

3 there would have been on tritium bioassay. 

4 The problem with that Definition is that it 

5 captures a lot of people who were never in 

6 that building -- or never in that room, 

7 rather. We just have to accept that. We 

8 can't draw the net any tighter than that.

9 So I think the only remaining 

10 question is how adequate is that Class 

11 Definition to capture people who might have 

12 been exposed?

13 Well, let me give you, like I 

14 said, an analogy. This is the radon source. 

15 I can't get to a tunnel underneath the floor 

16 so I had to use my lunch box, but if I'm 

17 sitting here, I can smell it now. I don't 

18 know if you guys can.

19 But if you were to go out in that 

20 hallway, you wouldn't be able to smell it. 

21 Why? Well, because of dilution and because 

22 the ventilation system would be sucking it out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

204

1 and sending it outside. It wouldn't be 

2 spreading it all around the hotel.

3 Well, this is also, sort of, an 

4 access-controlled room. If you tried to get 

5 in here after lunch, it was locked. At Mound, 

6 SW-19 was locked. You didn't just wander in 

7 there, and you certainly didn't do it unless 

8 you were on tritium bioassay.

9 We've already designated a Class 

10 that includes this entire hotel. What you're 

11 talking about is expanding it to include the 

12 Hampton Inn next door and the Comfort Inn next 

13 to that, from this. It doesn't make any 

14 sense.

15 We've already given a very 

16 generous Class Definition, and the reason that 

17 I crafted the Class Definition in this way is 

18 because I didn't want to spend three or four 

19 years fighting about whether we've captured 

20 everybody.

21 Well, you can see that that 

22 strategy was kind of an abject failure because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

205

1 here we are today. But I simply don't see any 

2 basis for expanding the Class beyond what it 

3 already is.

4 And I'm going to put this away 

5 because it stinks.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: If I can 

7 interject, I mean, this might be a good 

8 question. We originally addressed this issue. 

9 We noted the interviews that pointed out the 

10 -- and it was an anecdotal reference to the 

11 radon going into, I guess it was, room R-128, 

12 as I recall. No dispute there.

13 And this Work Group discussed it 

14 and pretty much concluded that, yes, there was 

15 a source that implicated SW, particularly, SW16 19, so no argument there either, and with a 

17 possibility of it getting into R Building on 

18 that one side.

19 And I think it was NIOSH that came 

20 back at about that point in the discussion 

21 and, by virtue of the isotopic mix, you know, 

22 the radon, thoron, and actinon, and the fact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

206

1 that it was fairly prodigious in quantity. I 

2 mean, a lot of thoron in the tunnel, and what 

3 have you, and it's all in the transcripts.

4 And that was when the SEC Class 

5 was first proposed. And I went back and 

6 looked at some of that discussion because it's 

7 been awhile. And, you know, we were pretty 

8 clear that we thought it was SW and R, we've 

9 never changed that. We just that, you know, 

10 the two buildings were implicated, quite apart 

11 from, you know, exactly where the tunnels 

12 went, but we thought the two buildings were 

13 implicated. And it was made pretty clear at 

14 the time, and I think Brant is correct. I 

15 think there were some misgivings that it was 

16 SW-19 that figured most prominently in the 

17 measurements that were taken in terms of 

18 potential exposure, but I think Brant raised 

19 this back in January 2010, but Labor couldn't 

20 construct the Class Definition on one room.

21 And as Brant pointed out, it had 

22 to include anybody who, you know, might have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

207

1 had access who could, I guess the way to put 

2 it, they didn't know who frequented the room, 

3 who went in and who went out. So it was sort 

4 of left that people that would have access 

5 would be included, and it was left at that. 

6 At the time, we were concerned, I'm just 

7 trying to recreate this, we were concerned 

8 that somebody would raise their hand.

9 I remember having this discussion, 

10 maybe a clerical support worker or a 

11 maintenance person or somebody who wasn't a 

12 hands-on tritium operator that, you know, 

13 might not have tritium bioassay in R and SW.

14 And at that time, I guess there 

15 was an individual who was interviewed who made 

16 it very clear, that person had pretty good 

17 knowledge of the tritium operations, that 

18 nobody could enter the buildings without 

19 having a tritium bioassay.

20 And so that, you know, that aspect 

21 of trying to have a safety net to capture 

22 anybody who might not have a tritium bioassay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

208

1 but was in R and SW, that got dropped. And I 

2 think it went forward as just being those on 

3 the tritium bioassay log.

4 And that was fine. You know, I 

5 think that was the premise where we were 

6 coming from and that seemed to address it. So 

7 when this thing came back and it turned out 

8 that, in fact, there may be individuals in, in 

9 this case, R building who did not get a 

10 tritium bioassay, that's precipitated this 

11 whole discussion.

12 I mean, certainly, it wasn't on 

13 our volition, but certainly on NIOSH's part, 

14 this question's been raised. And, you know, 

15 there's two elements to it. You know, 

16 clearly, one issue is can we somehow clarify, 

17 you know, this question of radon exposure in 

18 terms of ventilation?

19 And that was the paper that Sam 

20 put together, and before that, actually, in 

21 October, I guess the original paper was 

22 October, that was issued and this latest paper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

209

1 is more on the maintenance and ventilation. 

2 It addresses that issue.

3 And at the time, we indicated that 

4 it would probably be useful to interview 

5 workers who would have some knowledge of 

6 whether people from the clean side of R 

7 Building could, in fact, have free access of R 

8 and SW as well. That was the flipside of the 

9 issue.

10 You know, one was, can radon get 

11 to the clean side of R Building, on one hand, 

12 and can the individuals on the clean side of 

13 the R Building get to SW-19, say? So those 

14 are the two issues.

15 And I think we've been looking at 

16 the analyses on the ventilation, and in fact, 

17 interviewed ‘identifying information redacted’

18 to get, sort of, a person-on-the-floor 

19 perspective on that issue as well.

20 And we have specific questions 

21 about the Chu paper, but I'm not sure, in 

22 general, we have any very big objections to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

210

1 the fact that, you know, examples aside, radon 

2 would have easily gotten all the way over to 

3 the clean side of R Building.

4 So we can have that discussion, 

5 and I think we need to go through some of the 

6 mechanics, and that was never an assertion 

7 that we had. We just said there was a source 

8 of radon, apparently in R-128 got into R 

9 Building, and that was the genesis of, I 

10 think, including R Building as part of the 

11 Class Definition.

12 So, you know, that's as far as 

13 we've gotten. So we have some comments on the 

14 ventilation report, and I don't know, who's on 

15 the phone? Is Bob? Who's going to handle 

16 that? Joe Provecchio? Anybody?

17 MR. STIVER: I asked Joe 

18 Provecchio to call in, and I haven't gotten a 

19 response from him.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I didn't 

21 hear his name though.

22 CHAIR BEACH: I don't think we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

211

1 asked who was on the phone first thing, did 

2 we?

3 MR. KATZ: We asked earlier today, 

4 but not since lunch.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: We may need to 

6 call him.

7 MR. KATZ: I'm sure they would 

8 have responded if they -- where is that coming 

9 from?

10 DR. CHEW: I'm going to mute that.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Can you call him? 

12 I know he had --

13 MR. KATZ: So, Joe Provecchio, are 

14 you on the line?

15 DR. MAURO: Hi. This is John. I 

16 just tried to call Joe, and I left a message 

17 for him to call in. I don't know if he's on 

18 the line.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. John Stiver sent 

20 him an email, too.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. I just called 

22 him about three minutes ago.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

212

1 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: You know, if I can 

3 help. I did spend some time with Joe going 

4 over the drawings and the material. Joe 

5 Fitzgerald, did you have a chance to talk to 

6 Joe directly about all these matters?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, we have 

8 his comment, but I just wanted to, you know, 

9 as with Ron, I was hoping that he would have 

10 the opportunity to interact directly. We're 

11 not having much luck today.

12 DR. MAURO: Oh, sorry. Then 

13 you've got more than I have. Okay.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Well, while 

15 we're waiting. I mean, we did have an 

16 opportunity to interview some people, and one 

17 person was a maintenance manager who did work 

18 at Mound in the '80s and '90s and was 

19 responsible for maintaining the HVAC systems, 

20 not only in R and SW, but other buildings at 

21 Mound.

22 And what we were hoping to do is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

213

1 supplement what we got from Sam Chu's paper by 

2 just getting some sort of perspective of his 

3 experience since he dealt directly with those 

4 systems. And does everyone have a copy of the 

5 notes?

6 MR. KATZ: That should have been 

7 circulated.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Yes. And 

9 I just want to go over those because we were 

10 going to cover that in any case, and this gets 

11 into some of the issues that I think both 

12 support and, probably, corroborate some of 

13 what Sam Chu did.

14 MS. LIN: Joe, before you go on.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

16 MS. LIN: I didn't have a chance 

17 to review this document for PA purposes, so 

18 just refrain from divulging individual --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Individuals, 

20 okay.

21 MS. LIN: -- information, not just 

22 the names, but specific --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

214

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Any identifying 

2 information.

3 MS. LIN: Thank you.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So anyway, 

5 we were talking about the kinds of activities 

6 and he was involved with different aspects of 

7 HVAC maintenance and the ventilation systems. 

8 And we asked him, basically, were both R and 

9 SW Buildings maintained at negative pressure 

10 to the outside?

11 And his answer was yes. And in 

12 terms of the actual lab space, the lab space 

13 was maintained at negative to the corridors, 

14 with some exceptions. I think the note was 

15 that, in some cases, you could adjust the 

16 relative pressure so that it would flow, 

17 actually, out to the corridor if it were the 

18 type of operation that required that.

19 So there was some adjustment 

20 needed, but the picture he painted for us was 

21 a pretty strong recognition of the status of 

22 pressure within the facility and within the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

215

1 actual lab space. And if there was any 

2 aberrations in that pressure, anything that 

3 was off-normal activities, would be shut down 

4 immediately.

5 And this is pretty much standard, 

6 I think, in a lot of different DOE and AEC 

7 labs. So this was no different. So there was 

8 assurance from his standpoint that, you know, 

9 you didn't have any anomalies or any off10 normals that would have led to a pressure 

11 gradient that would have given you a different 

12 in terms of flow.

13 The other questions, you know, was 

14 the reports on the differential pressure made 

15 every day or was this done weekly? He claimed 

16 it was done weekly but that they were checked 

17 daily. So there was a lot rigorous controls 

18 on that.

19 And were the R and SW Buildings 

20 isolated? No. They were isolated from each 

21 other. They were independent with their own 

22 exhaust systems and, basically, they were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

216

1 monitored that way.

2 And we went through and, 

3 literally, there were airtight doors, but not 

4 the traditional two-door airlocks. And all 

5 these are laid out in the notes.

6 So, in general, I think the 

7 picture he painted was that you had a 

8 ventilation system that would have likely 

9 exhausted radon across the facility such that 

10 it would have been less likely that you would 

11 have seen demonstrable radon levels on the, 

12 was it the west side? The side away from SW.

13 DR. ULSH: That's the east side.

14 MR. STIVER: The east side.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: East side. And 

16 so he kind of presented this picture that you 

17 had a number of corridors that had exhaust 

18 points, and you had monitored pressure, but 

19 that the way it was managed, understandably 

20 so, was that the cold side, which was the east 

21 side, would have been less likely to see air

22 that was flowing from the west side.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

217

1 So I think that was very helpful, 

2 and I think that perspective helped us 

3 understand that, you know, the ventilation 

4 system was well thought out and controlled, 

5 and that's pretty much the configuration that 

6 he was familiar with.

7 Now we also raised the flipside of 

8 the question, which is, okay, you know, that 

9 was in terms of the radon getting to the cold 

10 side of the R Building, what about this issue 

11 of workers from the cold side being able to 

12 move through R Building and actually move into 

13 SW Building. Is that something that was an 

14 issue?

15 And his answer was, yes, that, 

16 basically, you could do that. You had to don 

17 smocks and shoe covers if you did enter, I 

18 don't want to say the hot side, but the 

19 hotter, you know, the tritium or radiological 

20 side of R Building.

21 And since everybody there was 

22 already wearing smocks and shoe covers, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

218

1 mean, you would obviously stand out if you did 

2 not, but you, in fact, had a supply of those 

3 items at the point, the juncture, where you 

4 went to radiological areas and were expected 

5 to don those, and you could enter.

6 But, basically, his claim was 

7 there was no restriction. You could certainly 

8 do that and he, in fact, did that. We also 

9 posed that same question to another 

10 individual, who I will not name, just as an 

11 aside, just to corroborate whether or not that 

12 was the case.

13 And that individual confirmed 

14 that, in fact, that was the case, that really, 

15 it was the, you know, standard practice to don 

16 these smocks and shoe covers in order to move 

17 about R and SW from the cold side.

18 The rest of it's in the notes, but 

19 we did pose some of the questions. Some of 

20 these questions, I think, Brant, you've had 

21 identified, and we're still waiting for some 

22 written responses, but certainly, by the time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

219

1 this individual was working, this was in the 

2 '80s, it appeared that SW-19 was pretty well 

3 locked down.

4 I mean, it was not being used for 

5 something, but it was definitely locked down. 

6 He couldn't speak about the time period that 

7 we're talking about since he wasn't actually 

8 working at that time, although, you know, he 

9 expected it to be somewhat similar that you 

10 could, in fact, be able to move around.

11 CHAIR BEACH: But the other 

12 individual was there during that time period, 

13 wasn't he?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but we did 

15 not do a formal interview.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: So there's 

18 probably issues that could be raised. So I 

19 guess, in sum, I mean, the rest of it's in the 

20 notes, but in sum, I thought the discussion 

21 with some of the folks that actually worked 

22 here, former workers, was corroborative on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

220

1 ventilation issues.

2 That it appeared that the 

3 likelihood of a radon movement to the cold 

4 side was minimal, or small, but that the 

5 likelihood of workers being able to move about 

6 from the cold side seemed to be there as far 

7 as, you know, it was certainly feasible, it 

8 was done, and that's about where we left it.

9 I mean, there's no indications of 

10 how often and how many, but you could, in 

11 fact, make that movement. And we were going 

12 to interview to get that feedback, so that's 

13 about where it stands now.

14 DR. ULSH: Okay. Well, no one 

15 from NIOSH or ORAU participated in that 

16 interview on Thursday. I assume it was just 

17 an honest mistake we didn't the call-in 

18 information.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you were 

20 invited.

21 DR. ULSH: We were invited, but I 

22 sent an email beforehand because I hadn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

221

1 received the call-in information, so I can't -

2 - that's not meant as a criticism, it's just 

3 to point out that we weren't involved, so I 

4 can't say how the questions were asked or how 

5 they were answered and what kind of 

6 interpretations were given.

7 I don't really know. What I can 

8 tell you is that we, together with you in many 

9 cases, have interviewed four different 

10 individuals who worked pre-1980, and I've got 

11 nine individuals who worked post-1980, many of 

12 whom currently work for NIOSH or ORAU, and 

13 they formerly worked at Mound, and none of 

14 them have said that you simply walked into the 

15 tritium areas without leaving tritium 

16 bioassay.

17 All of them have said there were 

18 change rooms between the two areas where the 

19 shoe covers and smocks were, and you were 

20 expected to leave a tritium urinalysis. I 

21 asked specifically was there anyone that was 

22 standing there, a guard, making you do that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

222

1 No, there wasn't. It was an honor

2 system. That's consistent with what we heard 

3 from all the people that we talked to, and 

4 furthermore, I asked could you have been in 

5 these tritium areas for 250 days, which is 

6 what you need to qualify for an SEC, and not 

7 have ever left a single tritium urinalysis?

8 And to a person, all 13 of these 

9 people said, no, that's really not plausible. 

10 So like I said, I don't know how the 

11 information in these notes came to be. I 

12 don't know how to interpret it, but it's not 

13 consistent with what I've heard from 13 other 

14 workers.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that last 

16 question wasn't really asked about the 250 

17 days, the individual -- because Josie and I 

18 were listening. Basically, the question was 

19 asked could an individual enter that area 

20 without, basically, being logged in and 

21 without leaving a urine sample?

22 And the answer was, basically, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

223

1 was an honor system, as you described. He 

2 described the possibility that someone might 

3 go there on a break to be with a colleague, 

4 into the break room. He specifically talked 

5 about that would be an example, that they 

6 would, in fact, don the smock and the shoe 

7 covers, and perhaps go to a break room.

8 But the same question occurred to 

9 me that, yes, but would the individual do that 

10 frequently enough to qualify for an SEC 

11 category? You'd have to do it, not only 250 

12 days, I think, you have to -- a break's like 

13 15 minutes, so I don't know what constitutes a 

14 day, legally, in this case.

15 But the question about frequency 

16 and could a person, sort of, be there 250 days 

17 without being part of that working group, I 

18 don't think that was asked. It was more, 

19 could a person enter the area. That's how it 

20 sounded to me, wasn't it?

21 Could you enter the area without 

22 leaving a urine sample, and the answer was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

224

1 yes.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you could 

3 enter the area and, you know --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think he 

5 said people did.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

7 DR. ULSH: And, you know, that's 

8 consistent with what we heard from the three 

9 people that we interviewed at the federal 

10 building in Cincinnati that, you know, many 

11 people around the table were involved with.

12 If you were going to go deliver a 

13 letter, yes, you could do that. You weren't 

14 supposed to, but you couldn't do it 250 days 

15 and not leave a single urinalysis sample.

16 One of the people that I talked 

17 to, who works for us now, said, well, yes, I 

18 mean, physically, could you do it and get away 

19 with it one time? Yes, maybe, but really, the 

20 culture was, what you would do is, if you 

21 worked in the cold side of R Building and you 

22 needed to meet someone from the hot side of SW 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

225

1 Building, the tritium areas, you didn't just 

2 walk over and see them.

3 What you did is, you picked up the 

4 phone, and you called them, and you said, hey, 

5 meet me at the change room, and I'll hand you 

6 whatever the report or letter is.

7 So, yes, you could pop in for a 

8 break, like you said, I think that's 

9 consistent. We're getting a consistent story. 

10 The question that we have to keep focusing on 

11 though is could you be in SW-19 for 250 days 

12 without a single urinalysis sample? And I've

13 heard nothing that indicates that you could.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the problem 

15 I have with that is, you know, when this was 

16 originally -- I'm trying to square this with 

17 the original discussion on the Class 

18 Definition of two years ago.

19 And, you know, you have 

20 individuals in R Building, just on the other 

21 side of the wall probably, you know, just on 

22 the tritium side of R Building, who, likewise, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

226

1 may or may not be exposed 250 days, and they 

2 just happen to get tritium bioassay.

3 I mean, the exposure to the radon 

4 is founded on the tritium bioassay as a 

5 surrogate, the tritium bioassay was the 

6 original trigger because that placed you in R 

7 and SW Building.

8 DR. ULSH: Not necessarily.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, not 

10 necessarily now, but it was the reason why 

11 that was the trigger because it identified all 

12 those who might have been in R and SW because 

13 the premise was, you couldn't be in R and SW 

14 without a tritium bioassay.

15 DR. ULSH: Right. You're talking 

16 about the mistake that I made and --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, but I'm 

18 just trying to go back to the reasoning as to 

19 why the tritium bioassay figures in this.

20 DR. ULSH: It was at the Niagara 

21 Falls meeting when we decided that there 

22 needed to be a radon Class.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

227

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

2 DR. ULSH: There were a couple of 

3 iterations of the Class Definition, and at 

4 that time, Josie in particular and the Working 

5 Group in general expressed a concern about, 

6 well, would this capture everyone in the R 

7 Building?

8 And at that time, I said, yes, it 

9 would, based on what I had heard from former 

10 workers.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

12 DR. ULSH: After that, a member of 

13 the public pointed out that, hey, in fact, 

14 there's this cold side of R Building and you 

15 didn't have to be on a tritium bioassay to be 

16 in there.

17 Now we committed at the Niagara 

18 Board meeting that if any information was 

19 presented to us that indicated that we need to 

20 reexamine the Class Definition, that we would 

21 do that. And that was the genesis of our 

22 October 2011 report.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

228

1 After the Class Definition was 

2 set, information came to us from members of 

3 the public saying, hey, wait a minute, it's 

4 not the situation that everybody in R and SW 

5 Building are on tritium urinalysis, so now we 

6 have to revisit the Class Definition, and 

7 that's what we did in the October report.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm 

9 certainly familiar with that.

10 DR. ULSH: When I said, not 

11 necessarily, what I meant, Joe, was, you could 

12 be in T Building and be on tritium bioassay.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

14 DR. ULSH: It doesn't necessarily 

15 mean you were in --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right. 

17 And I, sort of, understand that, but what I'm 

18 trying to understand though is that, 

19 originally, and we talked about using the 

20 tritium bioassay as a trigger, we didn't talk 

21 about, you know, would these workers who were 

22 not in SW-19, would they have been exposed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

229

1 radon for 250 days or not. No, probably not.

2 DR. ULSH: No.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, that 

4 would not even factor into it. In fact, if 

5 you go through the transcripts, that didn't 

6 even come up. It was just the recognition 

7 that even though SW-19 was probably the only 

8 place that you could be pretty darn clear 

9 you'd have 250 days of radon exposure, it 

10 wasn't possible.

11 Labor didn't see it as feasible 

12 to, in fact, classify a room, even though it 

13 was the only place that one could be clear it 

14 was 250 days of radon exposure in an SEC 

15 Class.

16 And I think you put it well in 

17 that particular meeting, it was indeterminate 

18 who could have possibly come in or out of SW19 19 at that time, and therefore, anybody who 

20 could have had access, would have been 

21 included and it wouldn't have come down to 250 

22 days.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

230

1 It's just this indeterminate 

2 circumstance of who had access to SW-19. 

3 Labor basically said, we can't take one room, 

4 even though that's the room where you're more 

5 than likely to have the radon exposure, and 

6 classify it as SEC.

7 You have to take into 

8 consideration all the workers who may have had 

9 access to that room and could have been 

10 exposed. It wasn't 250 days of exposure, just 

11 could have had access in and out.

12 DR. ULSH: Wait a minute, Labor 

13 never said anything about the 250 days.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: No, they did not.

15 DR. ULSH: That's part of the law. 

16 You have to have 250 days of exposure to 

17 qualify for the SEC. There was no need to 

18 talk about it in that context. It was never 

19 the -- Labor's position, as I understand it, 

20 and it was certainly never our position, that 

21 anyone who spent a single second in SW-219 

22 should be in the SEC Class.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

231

1 MR. FITZGERALD: SW-19.

2 DR. ULSH: I'm sorry. SW-19.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

4 DR. ULSH: But, yes, that was 

5 never our position. What I'm saying is, the 

6 Definition that we grew, based on tritium 

7 bioassay, certainly captures anyone who could 

8 have spent 250 days in SW-19. It also 

9 captures many people who were nowhere near it, 

10 but we can't do anything about that.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

12 DR. ULSH: If we could draw a 

13 tighter net, we would, but we simply can't. 

14 But it was never the case that we were saying, 

15 if you spent any time at all, 250 days or not, 

16 that would put you in the SEC.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But I think you 

18 just made my point though.

19 DR. ULSH: Did I?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, you're 

21 saying, yes, by virtue of using the tritium 

22 bioassay as the trigger, you would, obviously, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

232

1 sweep in both people that had a pretty good 

2 likelihood of 250 days exposure to radon as 

3 well as, probably, the vast majority would not 

4 have gotten 250 days exposure simply because, 

5 you know, they weren't going to SW-19 that 

6 frequently.

7 I mean, you'd have a mix. You 

8 couldn't possibly have everybody who had 250 

9 days potential included in that Definition 

10 using the tritium bioassay as the trigger. 

11 You're going to sweep in a lot of other people 

12 who, you know, obviously, by characterization, 

13 could not have 250 days of radon exposure.

14 DR. ULSH: I think we're 

15 vociferously in agreement on that.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

17 DR. ULSH: There are many people 

18 who may not have 250 days that are currently 

19 in the SEC Class.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And the 

21 presumption at the time was that the tritium 

22 bioassay would encompass all of R, all of SW, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

233

1 and I agree with you, you know, T Building has 

2 nothing to do with this issue, but using that 

3 trigger, T Building as well.

4 Now, in this instance, and going 

5 back and revisiting this whole thing, and as 

6 you know, I've always said, R Building, in 

7 toto, should be included, that was way back 

8 when.

9 Now, we've gone back and 

10 reassessed the ventilation patterns to say, 

11 well, maybe that was too far reaching and 

12 perhaps the original trigger is okay if we can 

13 go back and show that, in the final analysis, 

14 the radon couldn't get to the workers, or the 

15 workers couldn't get to the radon, I have less 

16 of a problem with the first.

17 You know, talking to this 

18 individual we interviewed and looking at the 

19 analysis that Mr. Chu has done, not you, but 

20 Mr. Chu over there, you know, I can appreciate 

21 that and I can see the logic in that, however, 

22 I'm having more of a problem with --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

234

1 MR. KATZ: Someone on the line, 

2 you're not muted. We're hearing you. Go 

3 ahead.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I have more of a 

5 problem with the other notion, which is also a 

6 premise for the other Class Definition that 

7 somehow these workers who are on the clean 

8 side of R Building who, you know, just didn't 

9 get tritium bioassay, have to meet a 250-day 

10 test when that wasn't a test for the workers 

11 that were swept in in the T Building and, 

12 certainly, the rest of R Building.

13 Maybe I'm missing something.

14 DR. ULSH: Yes, you are. They 

15 don't have to meet the 250-day test, except 

16 for they have to be employed for that long.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

18 DR. ULSH: They have to meet the 

19 test of having a single tritium urinalysis, 

20 just like everybody else. That's it. If you 

21 went in one day and you left your tritium 

22 urinalysis, you're in the Class. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

235

1 exceedingly generous.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: But if you had --

3 MS. LIN: Wait, hold on just a 

4 sec, Joe, I'm trying to understand your point 

5 here, are you trying to make an equity 

6 argument because the Class is too over7 inclusive for a population of people that 

8 shouldn't be included in the Class, then we 

9 have to do the same for the people who didn't 

10 have radon exposure in the cold side of R 

11 Building. Is this a equity argument that 

12 you're making here?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, not 

14 equity argument, just the discussion where 

15 this is hinging on whether individuals who 

16 were thought to have been tritium bioassay, 

17 but as it turns out, were not, are now 

18 ineligible for the Class that was defined 

19 because they could not have been exposed to 

20 the radon in a way that is consistent with the 

21 individuals elsewhere in R and SW Building.

22 And I'm just saying that if one is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

236

1 looking at whether radon got to them or they 

2 got to the radon, I think in terms of access, 

3 they certainly have access. I'm just trying 

4 to figure out, what's the distinction?

5 MS. LIN: So actually, it's a 

6 question about whether the Class Definition 

7 wrongfully excluded people who should be in 

8 the Class. And it seems that hearing from 

9 NIOSH and the interview that that's not the 

10 case because the radon stopped where it 

11 stopped, right?

12 So under the regs there are two 

13 types of exposure, one is chronic, 250 days, 

14 which is the Class Definition here, versus 

15 one's acute, at a high level, criticality 

16 level, okay? Like, critical incident level. 

17 So that's not that Class here, right?

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Jenny, but the 

19 exposure, and we've talked about this, 

20 exposure is not just simply being in an 

21 environment and the, in this case, the source 

22 term, the radon, reaches you and presents the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

237

1 hazard. If you --

2 MS. LIN: Right, visit it --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- can, in fact, 

4 and this is the point that, I think, Labor 

5 made, if you have free access to SW-19, and 

6 you're not restricted, and this was one of the 

7 premises. You know, we had an original 

8 premise that you couldn't even get in R and SW 

9 without a tritium bioassay.

10 That proved to be wrong, okay? We 

11 have another premise here that the people on 

12 the clean side of R Building couldn't enter 

13 the hotter side of the tritium areas at R and 

14 SW without a tritium bioassay, okay?

15 We demonstrated that, you know, 

16 they can, in fact, enter and, you know, if 

17 they were to judge themselves to be in the 

18 vicinity long enough, they would be on their 

19 honor to leave a tritium bioassay, but I think 

20 that's, again, a judgmental thing. I think 

21 it's not something that the program provides 

22 for.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

238

1 DR. NETON: Joe, I think that same 

2 argument applies to the original Class, 

3 whether you put that bioassay station at the 

4 door of SW or the door of R Building, it's 

5 still, we've all known all along it's on an 

6 honor system. No one ever said that this was 

7 a guarded, you know, station where people, 

8 mandatorily, had to do it.

9 That's been known from the 

10 beginning.

11 DR. ULSH: Yes. There's people 

12 from PP Building --

13 DR. NETON: I mean, so really, the 

14 only difference I see is, where's the location 

15 of the tritium monitoring station? Is it the 

16 door of the R Building or the door of the SW 

17 Building? That's the only thing that's 

18 changed.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, and I 

20 think, retrospectively, we're trying to go 

21 back and redo the analysis to show that -- and 

22 we didn't go through the R Building analysis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

239

1 because at the time it was felt that the 

2 original Class took care of it.

3 I'm just concerned that when we go 

4 back that, you know, before we draw a line 

5 that says, you know, people just did not 

6 mingle and there was no issue, and we said we 

7 would, in fact, interview workers to ascertain 

8 that, that that is a factor in looking at 

9 exposure retention.

10 Were these people able to move 

11 about R and SW or not without a tritium 

12 bioassay? Now I think that's somewhat open at 

13 this point.

14 DR. ULSH: Well, I think I've 

15 stated our position pretty clearly. It's 

16 simply not plausible that someone who should 

17 have been exposed in the Class, 250-day is not 

18 part of the Class Definition, it's simply part 

19 of the SEC Regulation.

20 Someone who could have been 

21 exposed to the radon in SW-19 --

22 MR. KATZ: It is part of the Class 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

240

1 Definition, wasn't it?

2 DR. ULSH: Pardon?

3 MR. KATZ: It is part of the Class 

4 Definition.

5 DR. ULSH: My mistake. I'm 

6 starting to speak --

7 MR. KATZ: It's integral to the 

8 Class Definition.

9 DR. ULSH: All right.

10 MS. LIN: I'm sorry, the 250 day 

11 is.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 MS. LIN: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: It's integral to the 

15 Class Definition. Go ahead.

16 MS. LIN: Sorry. Go ahead.

17 DR. ULSH: So we all agree that 

18 there are people currently in the Class who 

19 probably don't, definitely don't meet 250 days 

20 of exposure to radon. We know that, and we're 

21 in agreement on that. I'm saying, that's 

22 okay. That's the best we could do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

241

1 The real question is are there 

2 people who are not currently in the Class who 

3 should be, and that means they had 250 days of 

4 exposure to radon. I'm saying, if they did 

5 not leave a single tritium urinalysis sample, 

6 it is simply not plausible for them to meet 

7 the conditions of the Class. It's simply not.

8 Is it physically impossible? No, 

9 of course not. They could have -- each and 

10 every day for 250 days they could have snuck 

11 in, pressed their nose up against the crack in 

12 the floor in SW-19. There's nothing 

13 physically --

14 CHAIR BEACH: They didn't have to 

15 sneak in though. They could have just 

16 wondered in and out based on our interview.

17 MS. LIN: Well, okay, I mean, I 

18 think that's fine, but I'm just wondering, 

19 have we actually located a claimant who was, 

20 like, how you guys described, and wasn't added 

21 to the SEC?

22 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I think we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

242

1 have.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well you would add 

3 everybody on the other side of the wall. See, 

4 to me, unfortunately, this looks an awful lot 

5 like a couple of other cases. One is General 

6 Electric in Cincinnati, and another is the Oak 

7 Ridge Hospital where we end up like -- see, my 

8 problem with it is exactly what you say, the 

9 250 days.

10 At GE, is it likely that someone 

11 in the other side of the plant would go into 

12 the one building where they had the material 

13 and spend 250 days there? No, but Labor says 

14 we can't administer that.

15 And you may recall, I said to the 

16 Labor people, why don't you require the 

17 claimant to give an affidavit? You've got a 

18 guy that says I went there every day for 250 

19 days, make him give an affidavit to that 

20 effect, and we'll believe it.

21 Labor won't do that. Do you know 

22 why? They said everybody lies. She said that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

243

1 in the public meeting.

2 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, she did.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: She said it in the 

4 public meeting, to get $150,000, all of the 

5 claimants will lie.

6 DR. ULSH: I am staying miles away 

7 from that one.

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 DR. NETON: Well, Paul, this is a 

10 little different in the sense that we have at 

11 least a requirement that they leave a bioassay 

12 sample to be on the record if they were in the 

13 --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know, but we 

15 also had people that say you can go in there 

16 without that.

17 DR. NETON: But not for 250 days 

18 though.

19 MS. LIN: But, Dr. Ziemer, as of 

20 now, there's a Class been established, that 

21 has been in effect, and the DOL has said that 

22 they could administer this Class as it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

244

1 written.

2 DR. NETON: They have been 

3 administering it as it's written.

4 MS. LIN: Right. So then if 

5 there's another claimant or another --

6 CHAIR BEACH: There's actually a 

7 group of claimants that fall through.

8 MS. LIN: Okay. And I think then, 

9 you know, that that's a separate question 

10 then, because that means we have an existing 

11 SEC Class that needs to be --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or you mean, if 

13 someone from the other side says that they --

14 CHAIR BEACH: They worked there 

15 and didn't have a tritium bioassay.

16 MS. LIN: That's right. Then does 

17 that merit another SEC petition from this 

18 group of people?

19 CHAIR BEACH: The iron workers.

20 DR. NETON: What's that?

21 CHAIR BEACH: The iron workers.

22 DR. NETON: The iron workers?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

245

1 DR. ULSH: All right. Does this 

2 go back to the MESH report? Because that's a 

3 different question entirely.

4 DR. NETON: Because according to 

5 this last person that was interviewed, I 

6 thought he said that if you were doing work in 

7 there, like construction-type work, you would 

8 definitely be on an RWP and required to leave 

9 bioassay --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, work permit, 

11 right.

12 CHAIR BEACH: He did say that if 

13 you were on a work permit.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: If you're on a 

15 work permit.

16 CHAIR BEACH: But he also stated 

17 you could go in and out, and people did, 

18 without leaving a bioassay.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to meet 

20 people in break rooms, and have lunch, and 

21 stuff like that.

22 DR. NETON: Well, agreed, but for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

246

1 an entire work year, I side with Brant on this 

2 one, I find it hard to believe that for an 

3 entire work year, when there's a requirement 

4 in place like that, you would have to, 

5 essentially, be stationed there for a work 

6 year without --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that's kind 

8 of why I went back to the transcripts because 

9 when this came up, that would have been the 

10 rationale for the first SEC Class Definition.

11 But I think going back to what 

12 Paul was saying, and it's on Page 335 and 336 

13 of the January 5th, 2010 transcripts, Brant 

14 came back and said Labor would not allow it to 

15 be defined this way because it's indeterminate 

16 who would be in and out for how long.

17 It was just framed in a way which 

18 suggests that it couldn't be restricted that 

19 way. And I'm just saying I'm not sure if we 

20 need to ask Labor again.

21 DR. ULSH: What I mean, well, 

22 since I'm the one who apparently made the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

247

1 statement.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

3 DR. ULSH: What I meant when I 

4 said it was, if we sent a Class Definition 

5 over to Labor saying, SW-19, Labor would kick 

6 it right back to us and say, we can't do this 

7 --

8 DR. NETON: For exactly the same 

9 reasons GE and --

10 DR. ULSH: So we crafted a 

11 Definition with Jeff Kotsch in the hallway 

12 outside of the, I ran this by him in the 

13 hallway outside of the Niagara Board meeting. 

14 I said, okay, well, what if we make it, and 

15 whatever the current Class Definition says, 

16 250 days, one tritium urinalysis, and they 

17 haven't had a problem with administering that 

18 one. That's why we went with it.

19 DR. NETON: See, to me, the 

20 precedent is set. I mean, a Class has already 

21 been added based on that criteria. That's 

22 already been approved by the Secretary. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

248

1 question is whether or not there was potential 

2 exposure to radon in the R Building that is 

3 now uncovered exposure, okay?

4 And I think that issue has been 

5 addressed. And I hear SC&A --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but I guess 

7 my question, maybe this is more for Labor and 

8 maybe this gets to what Jenny is pointing out 

9 that, you know, this is sort of a construct of 

10 what they would accept.

11 You know, either this is 

12 indeterminate in terms of access and you can't 

13 get into test as to whether, you know, not 

14 only did they have access, but did they have 

15 enough access to warrant, you know, inclusion, 

16 around 250 days, I mean, this is sort of what 

17 you were saying with GE.

18 DR. NETON: But see, Labor has no 

19 say in the 250-day requirement. That's not 

20 part of their --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess I 

22 misunderstood you in what you were saying.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

249

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think I 

2 would suggest --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: You were positing 

4 that.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was saying, 

6 Labor, if you have someone that says I 

7 wandered into this building, have them give 

8 you some kind of an affidavit saying that, you 

9 know, if they did it one time, that's no big 

10 deal, but maybe if they did it every day for 

11 250 days, and spent a lot of time there, or 

12 even weight it by hours if you want.

13 But, you know, if I went into that 

14 building every day for the ten years I worked 

15 there, that's very different.

16 MS. LIN: Can I just say that, 

17 from what I'm hearing, no one has a problem 

18 with the radon Class as it's written now, but 

19 SC&A, and it seems like some of the Board 

20 Members, are concerned about a group of worker 

21 who may have potential exposure to radon who 

22 are excluded from the Class.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

250

1 What I'm saying is, there needs to 

2 be another solution, maybe, if the Board 

3 Member wanted to go down that path, but this 

4 radon Class stands, okay?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: It exists, yes.

6 MS. LIN: Does that make sense? 

7 It exists, and it is here now. We obviously 

8 have to follow through with the regulations to 

9 find another solution if there really, indeed, 

10 is a problem.

11 CHAIR BEACH: So the reason this 

12 is open is because NIOSH is proposing to 

13 expand the Definition to include all Mound 

14 workers from September 1st, 1972 through 

15 December 31st, 1972 and for January 1st, 1975 

16 through December 31st, 1976.

17 That is why we're discussing this 

18 within the Work Group again.

19 MS. LIN: I'm sorry, I don't --

20 DR. ULSH: Yes, that's accurate.

21 CHAIR BEACH: This is the White 

22 Paper that started all -- so this is what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

251

1 started all this discussion, Jen, and got us 

2 into the ventilation again.

3 DR. NETON: Well, no, no, Jen, 

4 what started the discussion was the fact that 

5 people who worked in the R Building were not 

6 monitored for tritium. That's what started 

7 this whole issue.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Well, they were 

9 using the log books, and there were people 

10 that were missing. There was two log books.

11 DR. NETON: No, no, no, two 

12 separate issues there.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

14 DR. NETON: The first issue that 

15 started was, we became aware that there were 

16 claimants who worked in the R Building that 

17 never left a bioassay sample, that came 

18 through, I mean, I saw the dose 

19 reconstructions, and it's true.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Was this previous to 

21 the SEC?

22 DR. NETON: Once the SEC was in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

252

1 place, we became very much aware that there 

2 were people who worked in the R Building that 

3 never left a tritium sample, so how can that 

4 be? They were all supposed to leave tritium 

5 samples?

6 On our subsequent investigation it 

7 was determined that people in the R Building 

8 were not required to leave tritium samples.

9 DR. ULSH: Well, people in the 

10 cold side.

11 DR. NETON: In the cold side, yes. 

12 And so that started this. At about the same 

13 time, though, this issue of the missing year, 

14 or so, of the log books surfaced, but that's a 

15 totally independent issue. We would have to 

16 address that either way.

17 I mean, we don't have the full log 

18 books. We don't. I thought we did. So that 

19 needs to be fixed. The R Building issue is a 

20 separate issue. And, again, the question in 

21 my mind was, if the Class stands, the only 

22 remaining question then is, was radon present 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

253

1 in the R Building that would expose these 

2 people and should they be in the Class, and if 

3 so, then the Class needs to be re --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I thought I 

5 understood this until he started talking about 

6 -- you know, the Class is what it is. It 

7 stands now. And so, you know, 

8 administratively, you know, we raised this to 

9 Stu Hinnefeld before, we're not quite sure 

10 what we're doing.

11 But I can almost understand what 

12 Jenny is saying that, certainly, one avenue is 

13 to, you know, have those people petition since 

14 it appears that there's a segment excluded 

15 from the Class after all, I mean, that would 

16 be another avenue, I suppose, as opposed to 

17 going back and actually trying to re-jigger 

18 the basis for the standing Class.

19 MS. LIN: No. We wouldn't be able 

20 to do that anyway.

21 DR. NETON: No, the standing 

22 Class, I think, is done.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

254

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Is done.

2 MS. LIN: So we're on the same 

3 page.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. NETON: Anyone who left a 

6 tritium sample is in the Class.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: One thing I like 

8 about the current situation is this, that, 

9 originally, we thought the Class would be in 

10 that room for the radon, and Labor couldn't do 

11 that, so we expanded that, even though we're 

12 saying, they really can't get radon exposure 

13 out here in the break room.

14 Now, if we go in the direction we, 

15 sort of, were heading, now we're putting the 

16 person in a break room and saying they're 

17 entitled to be in the Class for radon 

18 exposure, which we don't believe is even there 

19 --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: But, you know, 

21 I'm more comfortable, you know, if this was a 

22 framing issue that we, originally, were very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

255

1 uncomfortable about, trying to figure out what 

2 the heck this means for the Work Group, and it 

3 almost sounds like it would be better to treat 

4 it separately from the existing Class and make 

5 your determination and let the chips fall 

6 where they may.

7 I mean, it just sounds like it'd 

8 be cleaner than trying to go back in and 

9 revisit this because I just have a problem 

10 with the questions of indeterminate access 

11 and, you know, applying a 250-day to that, and 

12 I understand the counter-arguments.

13 DR. NETON: But that was part and 

14 parcel to the original discussion in this 

15 whole Class though. I mean, that was 

16 discussed. I mean, and the Class was voted in 

17 as it was based on that knowledge.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes, and I 

19 think the original Class is fine except that 

20 it turns out that a key premise turned out not 

21 to be -- you know, it didn't hold as far as 

22 access and bioassay, but it affects a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

256

1 relatively small, I don't know what the 

2 numbers are, but I would think a relatively 

3 small number of workers

4 DR. ULSH: What numbers are you 

5 asking about?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- on the cold 

7 side of R Building, number of workers that 

8 would be affected. I don't know. I don't 

9 have the number.

10 DR. ULSH: I don't know how I 

11 would sort them out from anyone in any of the 

12 other buildings.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: But I guess, why 

14 couldn't you --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know of 

16 any that would --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Why couldn't you 

18 deal with that as a separate -- I mean, you 

19 know, 83.14, I don't know how you would deal 

20 with it. I guess you would have to --

21 DR. NETON: Well, you could either 

22 get an 83.13 petition --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

257

1 MS. LIN: Yes, I think because the 

2 agency's position is quite clear, and the 

3 Secretary signed off on it, and if SC&A and 

4 the Board Members are challenging the premise, 

5 and I think there is another way to --

6 DR. NETON: Yes, I think the clear 

7 thing, and in my opinion, the whole issue 

8 centered around, could radon have permeated 

9 from the SW Building into the R Building? If 

10 that were true, then I think we would be

11 sitting here saying, we need to probably 

12 entertain an 83.14 because we've not covered 

13 everybody that was potentially exposed to 

14 radon.

15 But all I've heard today in this 

16 discussion is that we have. It was confined, 

17 essentially, to the SW Building, and so the 

18 Class, as it was added, was okay.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: So it really, and 

20 since you've taken that position, it would 

21 really fall to a petitioner, perhaps --

22 DR. NETON: Exactly.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

258

1 MR. FITZGERALD: -- to actually 

2 take that position.

3 DR. NETON: Right.

4 MS. LIN: I would agree.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: That sounds like 

6 a much more straightforward way than this was 

7 originally crafted because it, you know --

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So two 

9 separate issues here? Because I want to know 

10 the recommendation and the conclusion on those 

11 years I just described, what are we going to 

12 do with those?

13 MR. KATZ: The missing log book 

14 years. Are you talking about the missing log 

15 book years?

16 CHAIR BEACH: Because at one point 

17 last year when we discussed it, it was not 

18 going to be an 83.14.

19 DR. NETON: Well, no, I think if 

20 we can't find the log books and we can't 

21 document who left urine samples in those 

22 years, then that has to be an 83.14.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

259

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. It just 

2 wasn't part of our discussion the last time 

3 when we discussed this paper.

4 DR. NETON: I don't recall, but I 

5 think it was always our intent that if the log 

6 book couldn't be found and we couldn't 

7 document -- Brant, am I missing something 

8 here?

9 DR. ULSH: No, you're not. You're 

10 great.

11 DR. NETON: I'm very certain that, 

12 at least internally, our position was going to 

13 be, if you can't find the log books, then 

14 you've got to add those years to the SEC.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, because this 

16 is that expanded Definition to include all 

17 employment.

18 MR. KATZ: For those years.

19 CHAIR BEACH: So I just want to 

20 make sure I'm --

21 MS. LIN: Josie, even though we 

22 say expanded, it doesn't mean that we can just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

260

1 go in and change the Class Definition. We 

2 need to do an 83.14.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

4 MS. LIN: It would require --

5 CHAIR BEACH: I understand, but 

6 I'm pretty sure I specifically asked if it was 

7 going to be an 83.14 and was told no. So this 

8 is just trying to make sure, because why we 

9 didn't settle this the last go around and why 

10 we brought it forward to today was because of 

11 that issue, I believe.

12 DR. NETON: And to expand it to 

13 all employees, I think that's true because you 

14 don't know who went in there then. So it 

15 would not just be people who worked in the R 

16 and SW -- or SW area, it's anybody who was on 

17 site because we don't know who went in there. 

18 You know, so that's the thing that we need to 

19 expand --

20 CHAIR BEACH: For those years.

21 DR. NETON: -- for those two 

22 years.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

261

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So has that 

2 been pursued? Is that moving forward to an 

3 83.14 then?

4 DR. NETON: I'm not sure where 

5 it's at, to be honest with you, I mean, that's 

6 our intent.

7 DR. ULSH: I don't think we've 

8 initiated it yet. We're kind of waiting to 

9 see what you all do, but we can stop waiting 

10 and go ahead with that.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Why would you 

12 wait? You know, Jenny said this has already 

13 been done. You know, part of the problem is 

14 that if you take a look at this, what spurred 

15 all of this was clear back very beginning that 

16 there was a clear line back there.

17 Nobody could cross it. You 

18 couldn't do all these things. So this is 

19 really what's got us into the ventilation 

20 system. I was kind of taken by surprise by 

21 this because, I'll be honest, I thought they 

22 were just adding on to this system with these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

262

1 years.

2 But I do want to make one thing 

3 clear, you were talking about this wonderful 

4 ventilation system.

5 DR. ULSH: I don't think I used 

6 the word wonderful.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. What did 

8 you call it? Robust?

9 DR. ULSH: No, I don't think I 

10 used that one either.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: You're talking 

12 about a negative system. I have a facility 

13 right now that, within ten minutes, if we 

14 don't have ventilation, we're on alarm because 

15 of the radon in our facility.

16 The point that I'm trying to bring 

17 up is if this ventilation system was built 

18 years ago, they actually took the ventilation 

19 system and made this into a negative system. 

20 They negative pressures that you're talking 

21 about here are minimal.

22 They are very, very small. My 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

263

1 alarm is at 1. You know, it's hard to really 

2 stay up on this, the whole part of what got us 

3 to this point, especially with the ventilation 

4 and everything else like that, but it's when 

5 we made a comment that nobody could come into 

6 this area without leaving a tritium bioassay.

7 And that, in my opinion, was not 

8 correct. They could come through there, and 

9 we see this all the time. People that work 

10 continuously and so forth like that, it could 

11 be, but, you know what, people still come in 

12 there, and if you're not assigned to that 

13 building, but you're working in there, you 

14 could still not have to leave one.

15 DR. ULSH: All that's required to 

16 be in this Class is one single tritium 

17 urinalysis and 250 days, really, of exposure.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Exposure or work 

19 --

20 DR. NETON: No, just of 

21 employment.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

264

1 DR. ULSH: That's right.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is something 

3 I wanted to clear up because I was --

4 DR. NETON: No, it's just, you 

5 know, one sample and 250 days of employment.

6 DR. ULSH: That's right. You're 

7 absolutely right.

8 DR. NETON: During the covered --

9 during the SEC period.

10 DR. ULSH: We have known since we 

11 conducted the interview, at least since we 

12 conducted the interview at the federal 

13 building in Cincinnati, the story we got at 

14 that time is the story that we're hearing 

15 today.

16 If you wanted to pop in and 

17 deliver a letter, you might do that without a 

18 tritium urinalysis. If you wanted to, well, 

19 now, I guess another scenario is, on your 

20 break, go meet with your friend, you could do 

21 that. That has not changed.

22 Yes, we all know, we've all talked 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

265

1 about the mistake that was made in terms of, 

2 could you be somewhere in the R Building 

3 without tritium urinalysis? We know that that 

4 was not correct.

5 My point is it's irrelevant 

6 because you didn't have exposure potential 

7 when you were in those areas and you can't go 

8 in for 250 days and get exposed to radon, and 

9 not leave a single tritium urinalysis. It's 

10 simply not plausible.

11 No one has shown me an example of 

12 someone who did it. We're speculating here, 

13 and I've got 13 workers that say it's really 

14 not plausible. Even the guy that you talked 

15 to on Thursday didn't say that --

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'll tell you 

17 what, Brant, if I can get 15 people to say 

18 that they could, can we just play the game 

19 that way?

20 MS. LIN: Brad, I don't think the 

21 issue here is that. You know, I think it 

22 seems like the Work Group has a path forward, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

266

1 which is to find a claimant who fall outside 

2 of that Class but should be included in an SEC 

3 Class from Mound.

4 And so I think an 83.13 would be a 

5 very clean --

6 CHAIR BEACH: 83.14, oh, got you.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: 13, yes.

8 MS. LIN: -- would be a clean 

9 solution. So I think we can go forward on 

10 that.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. How are we 

12 doing? All right. So action items. The only 

13 one I can see out of the radon issue at this 

14 point is an 83.14 for those two periods in '72 

15 and '75 for this issue.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are those the log 

17 book periods?

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. And, Paul, if 

19 you need the dates, they're right here.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got it.

21 CHAIR BEACH: So I guess, you know 

22 my normal question is, how soon are we going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

267

1 to have an answer for that?

2 DR. NETON: Well, it may take a 

3 while to find the litmus case. I mean, to do 

4 an 83.14 we can't just do it ourselves. We 

5 have to find the claimant who is in that 

6 period with a covered cancer, well, covered 

7 cancer is better to do it with, and then move 

8 forward.

9 And so I'll communicate this when 

10 I get back and we'll start the process. As 

11 soon as we get a litmus case, we'll write up 

12 the 83.14 and move it forward.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: It shouldn't be that 

15 hard to do because you have lots of people, 

16 even if they've already been covered by the 

17 Class, you have lots of people that fit this.

18 DR. NETON: I'm trying to think. 

19 Originally I thought it might be difficult, 

20 but you're right, I don't see why. It should 

21 be anyone who worked in those years at Mound 

22 that has a covered cancer --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

268

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 DR. NETON: -- is eligible.

3 CHAIR BEACH: So then we'll just 

4 hear from you at the next gathering of the 

5 Work Group just to see how we're --

6 DR. NETON: Yes.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess the only 

9 other thing is, is there a mechanism, like the 

10 Ombudsman, just to let, I guess, some of the 

11 claimants who expressed some concern about 

12 being left out that, you know, this will be 

13 the recourse? I mean, they're sort of in the 

14 dark right now.

15 CHAIR BEACH: That's a good point 

16 because I think that's where some workers came 

17 to my attention was through the Ombudsman, I 

18 believe.

19 DR. NETON: I'm not sure.

20 MS. LIN: So it seems like you 

21 guys already know some people, do you?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it seems a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

269

1 little fuzzy about how you actually would just 

2 make sure they are aware of what happened in 

3 terms of these proceedings.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wouldn't they have 

5 made a claim?

6 MS. LIN: Yes.

7 CHAIR BEACH: There was an issue 

8 that -- this issue has been going back and 

9 forth for several years, and I'm sure, Jim, 

10 you're way more up on it than I am because, 

11 well, at least for the last year before it 

12 came back and this paper was written, it was 

13 because of those missing log books, and I 

14 believe that was because claimants came 

15 forward that weren't covered, but I don't know 

16 the details and the history.

17 DR. ULSH: Not exactly. It's even 

18 more complicated than Jim described before. 

19 We've got another issue that we haven't even 

20 talked about. The first issue was the log 

21 books and the gaps in the log book records. 

22 That's one issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

270

1 The second issue is the one that 

2 we've been hashing about here for the past 

3 hour. The third issue was the interpretation 

4 of the MESH dosimetry report.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, yes. That was 

6 the --

7 DR. ULSH: And that was the iron 

8 workers, I think, Josie, if my recollection is 

9 correct.

10 CHAIR BEACH: I think you're 

11 absolutely right. I believe you're right.

12 DR. NETON: Yes, good point, 

13 Brant. I forgot about that part.

14 DR. ULSH: Yes. And so since I 

15 was writing our October 2011 report anyway, I 

16 took that opportunity to explain the 

17 interpretation of the MESH dosimetry report. 

18 Some people were interpreting some zero 

19 entries in a particular column to mean that 

20 they were tritium bioassayed, and, in fact --

21 DR. NETON: These were annual 

22 employee exposure summaries that were mailed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

271

1 to workers.

2 DR. ULSH: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: And they would say, 

4 tritium zero, and what that meant was, your 

5 external dose from tritium was zero and then 

6 you had no -- well, it could mean either.

7 DR. ULSH: I'm going to stick with 

8 the explanation that's in the paper because 

9 I'll probably mangle it, but it's 

10 indeterminate. That particular report is 

11 indeterminate about whether or not you were 

12 tritium bioassayed.

13 CHAIR BEACH: And I did see that 

14 report. Yes. It's very clear.

15 DR. NETON: And that's a good 

16 point. I had forgotten about that.

17 DR. ULSH: So, like I said, since 

18 I was writing that October paper anyway, I 

19 took the opportunity to address a number of 

20 issues that had popped up since the Class 

21 Definition at the Niagara meeting. I put it 

22 all into that one report.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

272

1 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, which you did 

2 that. So the log book issue is being covered 

3 under an 83.14. The MESH has been -- it's an 

4 interpretation issue?

5 DR. NETON: We've communicated 

6 that to the Department of Labor a number of 

7 times. They're aware of how to interpret it 

8 and they've communicated that back to 

9 claimants who proffer that as evidence that 

10 they were exposed to tritium.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And then the 

12 access issue would be another petition, an 

13 83.13.

14 DR. NETON: Right.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So any other 

16 issues for radon? Okay.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Did Joe 

18 Provecchio ever get on?

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, actually he did 

20 email me. He's on, but we kind of passed --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

273

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So right now, 

2 let me go over the action items, and then 

3 we'll give anybody on the phone a chance to 

4 speak if they'd like to. So action items 

5 under tritides for NIOSH to provide the SRDB 

6 number for the interview notes for the 

7 thorium, or I'm sorry, for the tritium.

8 SC&A review NIOSH's White Paper 

9 and then, of course, we're still going to 

10 ponder the policy question.

11 Under the internal, we asked NIOSH 

12 to make available the raw data and support 

13 data. Review comments on the open items from 

14 the January 12th SC&A's paper. There's three 

15 or four items there. And then report on the 

16 polonium issue.

17 And then radon is just the 83.14. 

18 Did anybody have anything else besides that?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Just the 

20 Ombudsman thing or is that a 13 issue?

21 CHAIR BEACH: That's 83.13, yes.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: So the mechanism 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

274

1 for just letting everybody --

2 DR. NETON: Yes. That's a good 

3 question. I'd like to think about how we do 

4 that. An 83.13 goes out and we don't have a 

5 good mechanism for -- if it gets awarded, the 

6 Department of Labor typically goes to the 

7 location and does a worker outreach visit to 

8 communicate the Class and who's eligible and 

9 that sort of thing. We typically go to those 

10 meetings to answer questions about it.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

12 DR. NETON: So that's one thing 

13 they do. And there would be a public notice 

14 of that meeting and all that sort of stuff.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So that's one 

16 we'll put on your shoulders again for that.

17 DR. NETON: That's if an 83.13 

18 actually gets awarded.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

20 DR. NETON: But to recruit --

21 MR. KATZ: You can't recruit an 

22 83.13.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

275

1 CHAIR BEACH: No, you cannot.

2 MR. KATZ: The agency can't 

3 recruit an 83.13. I mean, I would do an 83.14 

4 if it had the basis for one.

5 DR. NETON: Right, exactly. I 

6 mean, if we receive any 83.13s, of course, we 

7 process it exactly like you would any other 

8 petition.

9 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it's just 

11 more of a communications thing. Just, you 

12 know, this is what happened at the Work Group 

13 just so you're aware of --

14 DR. NETON: Yes, and that will 

15 certainly come out at the Board meeting. I 

16 mean, we discussed it.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: True.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Yes, I didn't 

19 suggest anything more than what Joe was 

20 talking about is letting an Ombudsman know so 

21 that the word can get put out.

22 DR. NETON: Yes, we certainly will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

276

1 communicate this to the Department of Labor in 

2 our biweekly phone calls, and we can ask that 

3 they let the Ombudsman, DOE Ombudsman know.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: The DOL Ombudsman?

6 DR. NETON: What?

7 MR. KATZ: The DOL Ombudsman?

8 DR. NETON: The DOL Ombudsman, I'm 

9 sorry.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And then are 

11 there any petitioners, or anyone on the phone, 

12 that would, workers, public, like to comment 

13 or have questions?

14 DR. NETON: Anybody on the line?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Phil, are you on 

16 the line?

17 MR. PROVECCHIO: Yes, Joe 

18 Provecchio is on the line.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Joe, we're just 

21 about to start.

22 DR. ULSH: I'm not going back and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

277

1 repeating everything.

2 CHAIR BEACH: So I guess if 

3 there's no one on the line then we should 

4 probably look at scheduling for the next Work 

5 Group meeting. Ted, I guess that's on you if 

6 you --

7 MR. KATZ: Sure. Well, we need a 

8 sense of how much time people need and then 

9 we'll send out -- we don't need to do it here 

10 and now, although we could do it here and now 

11 actually.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. It would be 

13 nice, since everything's filling up, if we 

14 could.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. So first, people 

16 need to have a sense --

17 MS. LIN: Well, my family is

18 coming to visit on May 15th through 18th so I 

19 would appreciate we schedule something in that 

20 time period.

21 CHAIR BEACH: It might be a little 

22 early, Jen, sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

278

1 MR. KATZ: That's on the record 

2 now.

3 MS. LIN: Oh, crap.

4 DR. NETON: I'm going to copy it 

5 and send it to your family.

6 MS. LIN: Thanks.

7 DR. NETON: I will be away during 

8 that entire week.

9 MR. KATZ: So we're looking at 

10 late May, early June?

11 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. And I'm 

12 wondering if we shouldn't just shoot for the 

13 first week of June; Tuesday, Wednesday, 

14 Thursday.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, let me see what's 

16 available.

17 DR. NETON: Usually the week 

18 before a Board meeting is fairly open until 

19 Work Groups get scheduled.

20 MR. KATZ: I have to see what I 

21 have on the books.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Well, that gives us 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

279

1 another additional week if we go in that first 

2 week before the Board meeting. So I think the 

3 first week of June is probably the latest we 

4 should try to schedule it.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I can do the 

6 first week in June; 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th, 

7 would be best.

8 DR. ULSH: I'm going to be on 

9 vacation in the beginning of June, but I don't 

10 know if it's the first week. I mean, I guess 

11 you really can't go without me, can you?

12 DR. NETON: No. You won't get off 

13 that easy.

14 MR. STIVER: You can call in, 

15 right?

16 DR. ULSH: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Brant, did 

18 you say you're on vacation when?

19 DR. ULSH: I know the 12th, 13th, 

20 that week, but I don't know if we're leaving 

21 on the 5th or not. I think we are.

22 CHAIR BEACH: So you're leaving on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

280

1 the 5th?

2 DR. ULSH: Well, I think we're --

3 why don't we go ahead and, if you want to 

4 schedule in the first week of June, and I'll 

5 just let you know if I have a conflict and 

6 we'll have to reschedule it.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: You're saying the 

8 latter part of May is out? You're out?

9 CHAIR BEACH: I'm scheduled up.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm out, too.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. And, Paul, 

12 you're out the last week in May?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, I 

14 could call in, but I wouldn't be able to be 

15 here.

16 MR. KATZ: What's wrong with June 

17 4th, for example?

18 CHAIR BEACH: Well, just traveling 

19 on a Sunday, and I'm going to be out of town. 

20 So that's why I said the 5th.

21 MR. KATZ: Or June 5th.

22 CHAIR BEACH: The fifth is fine.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

281

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: How about the 

3 6th?

4 MR. KATZ: Well, I'm already 

5 messed up because my son's birthday is on the 

6 7th, and I already booked a DR Subcommittee 

7 for the 7th, so I'm not going to be gone on 

8 the 6th.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: You're already in 

10 trouble.

11 MR. KATZ: Because I'm already 

12 missing most of his birthday.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes, I 

14 thought that's when we bid for the --

15 MR. KATZ: We did, and I had his 

16 birthday wrong.

17 CHAIR BEACH: So does the 5th work 

18 for you?

19 MR. KATZ: So the 5th works for 

20 me.

21 CHAIR BEACH: So we can shoot for 

22 the 5th as a first choice and the 4th if --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

282

1 and I'll travel on Sunday if I have to.

2 MR. KATZ: Wait, so does the 5th 

3 not work for anyone?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, Brant was 

5 thinking maybe --

6 MR. STIVER: Brant may be going on 

7 vacation at that point.

8 DR. ULSH: I'll let you know.

9 MR. KATZ: Oh.

10 DR. ULSH: Tickets were already 

11 bought.

12 MR. KATZ: Phil, are you still on 

13 the line?

14 MR. PROVECCHIO: Yes, sir.

15 MR. KATZ: So, Phil, does -- that 

16 didn't sound like Phil.

17 DR. NETON: That's Joe.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: That's Joe 

19 Provecchio.

20 MR. KATZ: Phil? Phil Schofield, 

21 are you still on the line?

22 CHAIR BEACH: Should we go offline 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Mound Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Mound Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

283

1 and try to finish this up?

2 MR. KATZ: So anyway, let's try 

3 for the 5th, everybody pencil that in, I'll 

4 send it around, and if we get some nays, we'll 

5 rethink, but June 5th?

6 DR. NETON: All right.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Thank you, everyone. 

8 Good meeting.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter was concluded at 2:43 p.m.)

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22