1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

PANTEX PLANT WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

AUGUST 4, 2016

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened 

telephonically, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, 

Bradley P. Clawson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JIM NETON, DCAS

MARK ROLFES, DCAS 

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

DALE THOMAS, ORAU Team
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents 

Contents ......................................... 3

Welcome and Roll Call ............................ 4

Status of Site Profile Issues: 2014 TBD Matrix, Last 

WG Meeting, Recent TBD Interviews ................ 5

Site Profile Issue No. 1 Discussion .............. 6

Site Profile Issue No. 2 Discussion ............. 15

Discussion of Remaining Issues .................. 43
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:31 a.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: This is an Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health. It's the Pantex Work 

6 Group. We haven't met in quite a while and we're 

7 trying to wrap up from Site Profile issues post the 

8 SEC work that the Work Group did, and the Board.

9 The materials for this meeting are 

10 posted on the NIOSH website under the Board 

11 section, under scheduled meetings, today's date so 

12 you can look at -- you can see there the agenda, 

13 which is composed of just a few items, and the 

14 materials related to the agenda, they're available 

15 for public scrutiny. So, you can pull up those 

16 papers and kind of read alongside the Work Group.

17 So, the roll call now. 

18 (Roll call.)

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. I'll just 

20 remind everyone to mute your phones except when 

21 you're speaking to the group.

22 And then, Brad, it's your meeting.
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Status of Site Profile Issues: 2014 TBD Matrix, Last 

2 WG Meeting, Recent TBD Interviews

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, I 

4 appreciate that.

5 I'd like to welcome you all here today. 

6 And, Joe, I would like to thank you and say happy 

7 birthday for all you've done there.

8 I wanted to just kind of step back a 

9 little bit. This matrix has been out for a long 

10 time. We've taken care of the SEC issues, and 

11 these are just Site Profile issues that we're 

12 trying to come to grips on.

13 And the last Work Group meeting was 

14 September 4th, 2015. So it has been a while, so 

15 I would go into these issues. Sometimes, we may 

16 need a little bit of a background on it. And, so, 

17 just to kind of bring us back up to speed and so 

18 we don't confuse it with other sites, too.

19 So, I guess I'd go to Issue Number 1, 

20 which is internal -- well, the external dosimetry 

21 data. And, Joe, or SC&A gave a review and then 

22 NIOSH responded to that. So I believe it's the 

23 SC&A's -- in SC&A's hands.
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, and these 

2 external issues were primarily Ron Buchanan's 

3 focal area on the TBD, so I'll turn to him.

4 But just to clarify, if you look at the 

5 matrix that was provided, there's four items on it, 

6 but yet only the first two are reflected in the 

7 agenda.

8 The last two items, I think, we've 

9 reconciled over the last year or so and we don't 

10 have any remaining issues on those two. So, just 

11 to clarify that.

12 So, what's here is what has not been 

13 fully dispositioned and for which we had the most 

14 recent exchange probably over the last several 

15 months.

16 So, Ron?

17 Site Profile Issue No. 1 Discussion

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, good morning, this 

19 is Ron.

20 Issue Number 1 was interpretation of 

21 the external dose data. And this has several 

22 aspects to it.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this is simply the main issue was 

2 how you interpret the zeros, the blanks, dashes, 

3 hash marks and other markings in the dosimetry 

4 record. Did this mean they weren't monitored or 

5 were monitored and there wasn't any -- there was 

6 no results or zero results or what?

7 And so this was addressed back and forth 

8 over the last several years. And it was also 

9 addressed in OTIB-86, which is the Pantex coworker 

10 model, and we'll be talking some about that today.

11 And, so, essentially, we have worked 

12 all this out, except for our response, most recent 

13 response, and it's in the matrix there. You can 

14 see, yes, that we agree with NIOSH except for where 

15 they did not specifically include the word zero in 

16 there. In other words, if there's hash marks, 

17 dashes or blanks, how do you treat this data from 

18 1976 to 1988?

19 And, so, the word zero was not in there 

20 when you considered how you were to address this. 

21 In other words, if there was hash marks, dashes and 

22 such, what NIOSH says, okay, they will consider the 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 person's workstation and determine whether that 

2 should be assigned an LOD over two, a missed dose, 

3 coworker dose or ambient dose.

4 And the word -- if the zeros were in 

5 there, that wasn't included in the wording. And 

6 I wanted to ask NIOSH, you know, that's where we 

7 stand right now. We'd like to see the word zero 

8 included in there.

9 MR. ROLFES: Okay, Ron, this is Mark.

10 And I know Dale Thomas, who was on the phone, had 

11 looked into the issue.

12 As far as I'm aware, it's been a couple 

13 of years since I've looked into the reporting of 

14 external doses in the DoRMS database, but I don't 

15 believe they would have been inserted a zero into 

16 the DoRMS database for a person who was not 

17 monitored.

18 And, Dale, do you call when you looked 

19 into this issue what the reporting practice was 

20 for, you know, whether an unmonitored person would 

21 have had a zero inserted into the external 

22 dosimetry records?
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THOMAS: It doesn't appear that 

2 they would have. If you look at the DoRMS 

3 database, there's clear instances where multiple 

4 cycles are missing for individuals. And my 

5 understanding of what's going on is they weren't 

6 monitored for those periods.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: So are you saying that 

8 -- if there's a zero there, how will you handle 

9 that?

10 MR. THOMAS: If there's a zero, we're 

11 going to assume that that was the -- the person was 

12 monitored, but the dosimeter result was less than 

13 the LOD.

14 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

16 MR. ROLFES: Does that answer your 

17 question, Ron?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, I believe it does. 

19 That was -- because the word zero wasn't addressed; 

20 you know, you addressed the hash marks, the blanks 

21 and dashes and stuff, but it did not say how a zero 

22 would be addressed.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So you're saying that the zero would be 

2 addressed as a missed dose?

3 MR. ROLFES: That's correct.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay, the next 

5 issue was the year 1988 or --

6 MEMBER POSTON: Hold on a second. I 

7 want to make sure I understand.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

9 MEMBER POSTON: You used the word 

10 "missed dose." If it's a zero, doesn't it mean 

11 that they didn't have a dose, they wore a dosimeter 

12 and didn't have a dose?

13 MR. ROLFES: Dr. Poston, this is Mark.

14 That's correct. And, so, when we interpret the 

15 dosimetry records, we would assume that they 

16 received a dose less than the limit of detection. 

17 And our typical approach is the limit of detection 

18 divided by two times the number of badge exchange 

19 cycles when that occurred.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. Well, that's 

21 different than a missed dose? I mean, is that what 

22 you call a missed dose?
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, if a person has a 

2 zero in their dosimeter record, or in their 

3 dosimetry records, we would assume that they could 

4 have received some dose below the limit of 

5 detection and it would be assigned as a missed dose.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. It just seems 

7 that's a strange way to say that. I mean, to me, 

8 a missed dose means they didn't -- you didn't 

9 monitor it.

10 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, but we refer to that 

11 as an unmonitored dose instead.

12 MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Well, beyond that --

14 this is Josie -- is that common knowledge? Do all 

15 the dose reconstructors know that? Shouldn't that 

16 -- or that is common?

17 MR. ROLFES: That is, Josie. It's in 

18 our implementation guidelines, our external 

19 dosimetry --

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, it's not a 

21 professional judgment, it is a --

22 MR. ROLFES: Not at all.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: -- an actual way you do 

2 business. Perfect, thank you.

3 MR. ROLFES: One of the first approved 

4 documents on the project --

5 MEMBER POSTON: Josie, I guess the only 

6 people don't know that are you and me.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. But then I'm not 

8 a dose reconstructor, so that's okay.

9 MEMBER POSTON: Thank you.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, okay, that's what 

11 I wanted to clarify. Yeah, a missed dose is 

12 counted as when a person's monitored and have a 

13 zero, but I wanted to clarify that.

14 The next issue was 1988 or 1989. NIOSH's 

15 response said that before '88, not everybody was 

16 monitored. And '88 and after, everyone that was 

17 in a radiation field was monitored.

18 And what my question is, the TBD used 

19 the year 1989. And, so, I wanted to clarify, is 

20 it '88 and '89? And whichever year it is, it should 

21 be consistent in OTIB-83 and TBD-6.

22 MR. ROLFES: Ron, this is Mark. And I 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did speak with Dale about this yesterday. Dale, 

2 I'll let you answer, if you don't mind, because I'm 

3 not quite as familiar with this.

4 I thought it was '89 that the majority 

5 of the workers -- I know, as far as access controls, 

6 things were different in 1989, but I don't know as 

7 far as monitoring whether it was '88 or '89 off the 

8 top of my head.

9 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, it's the lower. It 

10 is '89 and the matrix design invariantly put '88 

11 in that second paragraph. So that should be for 

12 1989 and later years all personnel who enter the 

13 operational areas of the plant were required to 

14 have a dosimeter.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. 1989, okay. 

16 Now, we should check with TBD and OTIB-86 and make 

17 sure that they all agree with that, or if it's just 

18 -- do you know if this is just on the matrix that 

19 this is on or was --

20 MR. THOMAS: I double-checked the TBD 

21 yesterday and it does say it. It was just my error 

22 on the matrix.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

2 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. Does that answer 

3 the question?

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that's what I 

5 wanted to clarify.

6 MR. THOMAS: All right.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, that was Issue 

8 Number 1 which is external dosimetry 

9 interpretation of the data. And, I had no further 

10 issues on that. So, that's up to the Work Group 

11 at this point.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. So, 

13 this has satisfied, Ron, this has satisfied what 

14 your concern was with it?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, it was minor 

16 details.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So, I guess I'd ask 

18 the rest of the Work Group Members, I have no more 

19 problems with it and we can go ahead and close this. 

20 How do the other Work Group Members feel?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Brad, this is Josie. I'm 

22 in agreement with that.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

2 MEMBER POSTON: Fine with me.

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Fine with me.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sounds good. That 

5 being done, we'll proceed on to Item Number 2.

6 Site Profile Issue No. 2 Discussion

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Item Number 2 is 

8 the neutron dose. And this has shifted back and 

9 forth between using NTA film. And, of course, they 

10 used NTA film up until about '73 or '74 and they 

11 shifted to TLDs.

12 And this says it went through quite a 

13 few processes over the years of working this out 

14 and it has boiled down to, in the NTA era, before 

15 1974, say, was going to use NTA film. Then they 

16 wanted to use the N over P ratio.

17 And then the reason they came back to 

18 using NTA film, and the two -- one minor issue is 

19 when did they switch, '73 or '74? And the TBD has 

20 one date and then I think OTIB-86 has a different 

21 date. NIOSH's recent response said it was changed 

22 between '73 and '74.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, we just need to be consistent in 

2 that and the wording consistent. And that would 

3 be in the revised OTIB-86 and TBD-6.

4 And this is not really an issue. The 

5 main issue is the NTA film corrections.

6 So, in the TBD-6, they said, okay, we're 

7 going to use the NTA film data for the early years 

8 and it's going to be applied according to OTIB-86.

9 And, so, I guess we're kind of a gray 

10 area. I don't know if we address this in the TBD 

11 section for Pantex or the procedure section for 

12 OTIB-86.

13 We don't really have a problem with 

14 doing that, it's just the neutron boils down to the 

15 neutron correction factors, the energy correction 

16 factors, the angular distribution and fading.

17 And, so, I guess I'd like to ask the Work 

18 Group, at this point, do we discuss that today or 

19 do we discuss that when we discuss OTIB-86?

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Actually, I guess 

21 I'm up to suggestions on that. I'd like to be able 

22 to close these, but I don't know how to be able to 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 also track that, too, just in the OTIB-86.

2 MR. SMITH: Sorry to interrupt, this is 

3 Matt Smith with ORAU Team. I can give some 

4 background information and give some mile posts or 

5 guide posts discussion.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I'm sorry?

7 MR. SMITH: In the existing OTIB-86 

8 that's the current revision on the website, if 

9 going to Attachment B, you'll find the write-up 

10 that's the supporting information for the 2.9 NTA 

11 correction factor.

12 And when you get to the very last page, 

13 24.24, in the conclusions and in the paragraph 

14 right above it, the authors there are putting forth 

15 their justification for the 2.9 factor.

16 They took a look at the results from a 

17 workshop way back in 1969 with -- that was hosted 

18 by Vallario and came up with some justification for 

19 the factor there.

20 They also, in the paragraph above, 

21 mention that because fading was taken into account 

22 during the processing of the NTA film, they thought 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the sub-factor of 1.56 for fading was 

2 claimant-favorable.

3 Just for reference, the -- I don't have 

4 SRDB number for the Vallario report in front of me. 

5 But it is in the reference section of OTIB-86.

6 A little bit of background on that, as 

7 they look at the Vallario report, they found 

8 information from the folks at Savannah River. 

9 They were working on the -- what we call the belly 

10 dosimeter for doing neutron dose. And they were 

11 seeing a 25 to 50 percent on under-response.

12 They also took a look at the 50 percent 

13 under-response and folded in the angular 

14 correction as well and came up with an estimate of 

15 2.7.

16 I took another look at some data that 

17 was not looked at by those original authors. I dug 

18 into the Hanford TBD and found a reference to some 

19 data that was taken in 1972. So, this is that era 

20 when they were switching over at Hanford from NTA 

21 to TLD.

22 And they did some side-by-side 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comparisons, and the SRDB number for that is 13698. 

2 If you go to -- later on, if you go to page 13 of 

3 33 in that reference, you'll find some data from 

4 the Plutonium Finishing Plant.

5 So, there, you know, I'm trying to take 

6 a look at a source term that's similar to what we're 

7 dealing with at Pantex.

8 And in looking at some data, there's 

9 three data points there where they did some 

10 long-term exposures between 2 and 72 hours, placing 

11 TLD and film to looking at the fast neutron results. 

12 They came up with factors between 1.85 and 2.

13 So, that's, you know, straight on, you 

14 know, no angular response, no fading folded in. 

15 But in terms of energy under-response, they were 

16 getting values, as I just said, between 1.85 and 

17 2.

18 It seems like the 2.9 is likely a good 

19 value to be using. Another site that does take 

20 this approach is Idaho. And I know there's a lot 

21 of work going on with Idaho, but for the document 

22 that's on the street, the factor there at Idaho for 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correcting NTA film ranges between 1.25 and 2.3.

2 So, you know, we feel that the 2.9 has 

3 a good pedigree to it.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Ron, do you have 

5 anything to comment on that?

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, of course, this 

7 authority is a constant issue on the NTA film at 

8 any site.

9 We had talked some in the -- well, Mound 

10 had been used somewhat for Pantex. And in Mound, 

11 they used -- NIOSH used a different fading factor 

12 and knew that the NTA film was calibrated in the 

13 middle of the cycle.

14 And, so, I don't know what Pantex's 

15 calibration cycle was. I don't believe it was 

16 stated. But if it appeared that Mound data there 

17 showed two possibilities: a 9 percent fading factor 

18 and a 33 percent fading factor.

19 And, so, the larger was assigned in 

20 Mound and the lesser was assigned at Pantex. And, 

21 so, this is what I had the problem with.

22 Also, there's three main factors. 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There's the energy response, there's the angular 

2 response and there's fading factor.

3 And the energy response, according to 

4 NIOSH's response, they said they modeled for Mound 

5 their standard room for so much moderation so that 

6 the NTA film responded so much -- didn't see some 

7 of the lowering of the neutrons and compensated for 

8 that. That was part of this overall factor.

9 And then another part was the angular 

10 response and then tracking the fading factor, which 

11 was just discussed briefly.

12 And those three issues, what we found 

13 when we read the response, was that the modeling 

14 done for Pantex appeared to be the exact same as 

15 Mound. There was no difference in that 

16 arrangement, that we could see.

17 And it did not include any PA 

18 arrangement. That's the main thing, using Mound 

19 modeling for Pantex, they have to consider that 

20 there could be PA neutron source. The way I 

21 understand it, they had maybe modeled for sources 

22 around and it could be irradiated from the back, 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whereas Mound was irradiated directly from the 

2 front, and assume AP geometry.

3 And that also impacts the angular 

4 response, not only the energy level but the 

5 angular.

6 And the third thing was the fading 

7 factor at Mound, it was calibrated in the middle 

8 the cycle, and they used the larger fading factor.

9 And, so, these were the three questions 

10 that we brought out.

11 Number one was the modeling for the 

12 lower energy test was for Mound, not Pantex. The 

13 PA neutron exposure was not considered. And the 

14 same thing for the angular response. And the track 

15 fading, the lesser amount was chosen.

16 And, so, these were our three issues 

17 with this using the new approach.

18 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark, Ron.

19 As far as the geometry issue, the 

20 majority of the dose received by an individual, if 

21 they're working in an assembly cell, the majority 

22 of the dose that the individual would be receiving 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be that with which, you know, if they're 

2 working with a component sitting in front of them, 

3 a foot away from them and in front of them, hands-on 

4 work, that's what's going to be delivering the dose 

5 and not, you know, multiple components in the back 

6 of them.

7 And there's typically going to be six 

8 or more feet of separation between them and the 

9 components in staging behind them around the 

10 parameter of a cell.

11 The doses, you know, even if the dose 

12 in front of them, if something's getting a dose rate 

13 of 10 millirem per hour in front of them, that's 

14 likely to be the culprit in giving them a recordable 

15 dose on their badge versus, you know, the 

16 components that are eight feet away that are 

17 reading, you know, close to background.

18 Just, you know, as you know, distance 

19 from the source of radiation, if the distance 

20 doubles, the dose rate's going to decrease by, you 

21 know, a factor of 4. So when you get out to 8 feet, 

22 you're, you know, at a 10th of a millirem per hour, 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about. That's not going to be a significant 

2 contributor to the dose that an individual 

3 receives.

4 Now, that being said, that's not the 

5 only, you know, issue. There's other geometry 

6 issues, such as people doing vault work, for 

7 example, at the, you know, end of the month, the 

8 recorder taking inventory.

9 But from my understanding, the angular 

10 response that we have, the factor of 1.33, was based 

11 upon a study that was done by Ron Kathren back in 

12 1965, and it does incorporate rotational movement 

13 of the badge and accounts for interior to posterior 

14 and posterior to interior and lateral exposures. 

15 And that 1.33 value is a composite of basically all 

16 those movements and different exposure angles.

17 Let's see, as far as the corrections for 

18 neutron energies, we've chosen the correction 

19 factor that is the higher of the two potential ones.

20 When individuals are working in the 

21 cells, they have to work with another individual. 

22 And it might be one individual working on a weapon 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and on a components and another individual either 

2 reading instructions or just observing the work 

3 that's conducted in the cell. And the neutron 

4 energies are going to be lower for the individual 

5 who was further away from the radioactive 

6 materials.

7 And, so, we've chosen the factor for the 

8 observer position because it'll result in a higher 

9 amount of lower energy neutrons and it'll increase 

10 the correction factor that we use to essentially 

11 multiply or add neutron dose back to that 

12 individual.

13 As far as track fading, I can't speak 

14 directly to that, but I think we've laid it out 

15 originally back in the 2011. I don't have anything 

16 to add on that issue.

17 And I wanted to point out the one other 

18 thing that Matt had identified, the Vallario, 

19 Hankins and Unruh reference, that AEC Workshop on 

20 Personnel Neutron Dosimetry. He mentioned the 

21 SRDB number, that's SRDB 11096. I just wanted to 

22 point that out since Matt didn't have that in front 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of him.

2 Anyway, if you have further questions.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Mark, this is Josie. I 

4 just have one more on that fading. So, you've laid 

5 out the 9 percent and why you chose 9 percent. Or 

6 there's some room in there?

7 MR. ROLFES: Let's see here.

8 MEMBER BEACH: And I guess that's not 

9 a very good way to answer. Could 9 percent and 33 

10 percent, that's quite a bit of a difference between 

11 the two. I guess I'm a little stuck on that answer 

12 you gave on that one.

13 MR. ROLFES: Let's see, track fading 

14 was studied by the Mound staff in '67 and '68 and 

15 the Mound report was issued. And I think this was 

16 also published in the Health Physics Journal as 

17 well.

18 Let's see, 33 percent of the tracks 

19 faded after a week, exactly 56 percent faded after 

20 two weeks. Now, I believe Mound was aware of the 

21 issue and accounted for track fading.

22 As far as Pantex, Pantex did not do the 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- they did not read the neutron badges in-house. 

2 That was conducted by Landauer.

3 I didn't specifically -- I did speak 

4 with someone at Landauer, but it was related to 

5 another issue, about the time when -- because we 

6 had originally believed that Landauer had a 

7 contract with Pantex to supply neutron badges up 

8 through '76 or '77. It turned out that the 

9 contract for personnel neutron dosimetry with 

10 Landauer was terminated in 1973. And they 

11 transitioned in 1974 over to TLDs that were 

12 in-house by Pantex staff. And that sort of 

13 transitioned into another issue, about the 1975 

14 neutron dose.

15 But maybe if Matt Smith might be able 

16 to help me with why we chose a particular correction 

17 factor for track fading versus another.

18 I don't have a better answer at this 

19 time. This was the one of the three issues that 

20 I didn't follow up too closely on because I didn't 

21 think this would be the bigger issue.

22 MR. SMITH: Yeah, again, the 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference is from, you know, the original authors 

2 -- and, again, Attachment B was originally a White 

3 Paper that was kind of on its own that's since been 

4 folded into OTIB-86 and then, ultimately, into the 

5 TBD.

6 And, basically, again, they're stating 

7 there on page 24 that, because fading track 

8 corrections were incorporated into the process and 

9 protocol, the recommendation to apply a fading 

10 correction of 1.56 is favorable to the claimant.

11 I wasn't working on Pantex things in 

12 2011, so I did not talk with the original authors 

13 on this back then, and not all of them are available 

14 right now.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. So, 

16 I'm trying to follow what you're saying on this. 

17 What you're telling me, what I'm getting from this 

18 is that, at Mound, they knew that there was fading 

19 and that they made a correction factor for that.

20 But we don't know, at Pantex, if they 

21 used a correction factor. Is that correct?

22 MR. ROLFES: Well, this is Mark. And 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Mound was aware of this 1965 and published in Health 

2 Physics Journal. Although we haven't 

3 specifically asked Landauer if they were aware of 

4 track fading in 1965, one would believe, because 

5 of the, you know, exchange of information, that it 

6 was likely something they were aware of as a large 

7 vendor of dosimetry for the Department of Energy.

8 We haven't specifically asked them or 

9 Pantex if they were aware of this. But, you know, 

10 we haven't specifically, in the past -- it's been 

11 five years since we really discussed this.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I know, and I -- but 

13 we're -- it's hard and I realize that. I'm just 

14 -- I'm trying to follow this and we're making some 

15 assumptions here that I'm not feeling too sure 

16 about.

17 Because each one of these, as we've seen 

18 in all of these sites, each one of these sites has 

19 done something a little bit different. Just 

20 because one site knew that I'm not taking it that 

21 all sites performed that way.

22 So I'm trying to figure a path forward 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for this, and I guess I've kind of asked Ron what 

2 -- Ron or Joe, what their feelings on the path 

3 forward for this. Because I'm just going to say 

4 my personal feeling is I don't feel too good about 

5 this right now.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, let me ask a few 

7 questions here. Do you know when the calibration 

8 cycle was done at Pantex? They were sending to 

9 Landauer, they read them, do you know if they did 

10 a calibration in the middle, beginning or end of 

11 the cycle?

12 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark. Off the top 

13 of my head, I couldn't answer that question.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And, you know, 

15 there was some talk about, you know, they put the 

16 main source six to eight feet from anybody else and 

17 radiation and stuff.

18 Now, I believe that Ron's book or paper 

19 in '63 on the angular response, I don't believe it 

20 included any PA radiation, if I recall correctly. 

21 It was frontal and angle out to like 270 degrees 

22 or something or-- I mean 180 or less, not 270 or 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 360. Anyway, I just want to put that in. I don't 

2 believe it was.

3 And on the Mound calculations, using 

4 this at Pantex, and you said you used the worst case 

5 scenario for the observer. But there was no 

6 looking at to see if that fit Pantex's arrangement 

7 of the average worker in their work area. Was this 

8 just going to just blot over and said, okay, this 

9 covers the maximum situation? Or was there any 

10 adjustment or looked at to see if this fit Pantex?

11 MR. ROLFES: For the observer position 

12 versus the individual doing the assembly, that was 

13 Pantex-specific. It's a little bit different than 

14 at Mound.

15 This was all modeled, you know, 

16 basically inside of a round room and inside of a 

17 Gravel Gertie. I think we've laid out the details 

18 of how we did the modeling.

19 And I'm referring back to a report from 

20 2011, which parts of were taken and put in as an 

21 attachment to OTIB-86. But the paper that I'm 

22 referring back to where we've discussed our 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correction factors is the "Pantex NTA film issues 

2 and dose assignments to monitored and unmonitored 

3 workers."

4 And that describes some of the 

5 correction factors that we've developed for 

6 neutron energy, angular response and track fading.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Which paper is this that

8 you're referring to? Are you talking about 86?

9 MR. ROLFES: This is information from 

10 OTIB-86, the attachment was collected from a White 

11 Paper dated April 18, 2011. And it's the "Pantex 

12 NTA film issues and dose assignments to monitored 

13 and unmonitored workers."

14 DR. BUCHANAN: What was the date on 

15 that?

16 MR. ROLFES: April 18th, 2011. The 

17 approach, the technical approach and details are 

18 discussed, and the bases for choosing each of the 

19 correction factors, in this White Paper.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Mark, this is Phil. 

21 I've got a question. On the use of the Mound, where 

22 they're going to use four inches of moderation, it 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seems like, to me, when we were there in the -- I 

2 didn't see -- there was a lot of areas that were 

3 not shielded by a four inch of whatever, water or 

4 whatever they wanted to use, plastic or Plexiglas, 

5 whatever. So I don't see how you can use four 

6 inches of moderation for all of the response.

7 MR. ROLFES: Got you. Assuming that 

8 there is some moderation present would increase the 

9 number of low energy neutrons that person would be 

10 exposed to, and thereby increase the correction 

11 factor that we apply.

12 So if we assume that there is no 

13 moderation, the correction factor that we would 

14 apply for missed low energy neutrons would be very 

15 low and not as claimant-favorable than to assume 

16 that there is moderation present.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim. I've 

19 been taking all these technical issues in and it 

20 seems to me that we're trying to fine-tune some of 

21 this stuff that we probably will never be able to 

22 definitively figure out. And there's been a lot 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of speculation involved as to where the workers 

2 were and that sort of thing.

3 And I'd just like to remind everybody 

4 that this site is already an SEC for its entire 

5 operational history, save the first few years.

6 And if you look at the coworker model 

7 in OTIB-86, the geometric mean dose starting in 

8 1963 is 63 millirem, and it goes down to 52 millirem 

9 in 1973 or 1974. So these are small doses we're 

10 talking about here that apply to nonpresumtive 

11 cancers.

12 I'm not sure how much extra effort to 

13 engage in speculation on what, you know, some of 

14 these, what I call, fine-tuned issues are is 

15 warranted.

16 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

17 ORAU Team.

18 That brings up one more point I wanted 

19 to make in that, looking at Table 7-2, which is the 

20 coworker neutron data, if you look at the cut-off 

21 line, and again, the OTIB that's on the street, we 

22 use the 2.9 factor after 1977. That's going to 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 change with the revision. It'll end in -- at the 

2 end of 1973.

3 But, again, as Jim pointed out, if you 

4 look at the geometric mean, that's probably in the 

5 95th percentile values, we see those higher values 

6 in the pre- or during the NTA era. When you look 

7 at the dividing line when it's switched over to TLD, 

8 you don't see any radical jump in the dose numbers 

9 that are there. That would seem to indicate, to 

10 me, that the 2.9 factor is, in fact, doing the job. 

11 I know there are a lot of different 

12 campaigns with different things going on within the 

13 Pantex plant over the eras. Certainly, we don't 

14 see that radical jump that one can look at if you 

15 look at Hanford data pre- and post-1972 without a 

16 correction factor involved.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Ron, did you have 

18 anything more to add to this? And, Jim, thanks for 

19 weighing in on that. That's something important 

20 to keep in mind, too.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Just had one question. 

22 On page 21 of OTIB-86, I did not gather out of that 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that they had modeled this specifically for Pantex. 

2 It refers to Los Alamos National Lab 2003, and 

3 that's just the Monte Carlo program. I didn't see 

4 that it had anything to do with modeling for amount 

5 or Pantex.

6 Are you saying that in your energy 

7 lowering of your response model, you modeled that 

8 for the Gerties and stuff at Mound and you modified 

9 -- I mean, at Pantex you modified Mound to represent 

10 Pantex and recalculated it?

11 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, this is Mark. And 

12 the input parameters for the MCNP run for -- or 

13 correction factors following assumptions were 

14 applied. And we used weapons grade plutonium 

15 metal with a spontaneous fission neutron spectrum, 

16 average energy of about 1.9. And maybe we used an 

17 RDX moderator with various thicknesses, from zero 

18 to four inches, symmetrical three meter tall 

19 concrete silo with 12-inch thick walls, 12-inch 

20 thick ceiling and floor. And we assumed that there 

21 was a point source located one meter above the 

22 floor. There were operator and observer distances 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of 60 centimeters and 240 centimeters.

2 So, yes, it was specifically modeled 

3 for Pantex neutron exposures.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, this sounds very 

5 similar to the Mound one.

6 MR. ROLFES: I wouldn't be aware of any 

7 -- yeah, it would be similar but there shouldn't 

8 be any RDX present at the Mound in such an area. 

9 But, okay. So, yeah, it is very similar.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, I guess, 

11 at this point, I guess it's up to the Board, the 

12 Work Group, if they want to hash this out in finer 

13 detail or, you know, leave it as it is. That's up 

14 to you.

15 I think that there is some fine-tuning 

16 that could be done on it. But I don't know, you 

17 know, how much results it'd bring. If you could 

18 give us some guidance on that, whether you want us 

19 to spend more time on this or not.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

21 guess on working with the other Board Members of 

22 what they want to do. And the possibility that 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we've already spent a couple of years on the neutron 

2 issues. So, I guess I'm looking for the path 

3 forward of what would they like to see.

4 I think we're -- but I will say, as Mark 

5 has pointed out, and Jim, that we're looking at a 

6 very small dose.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Brad, this is Phil.

8 That correction factor on the neutron seems like, 

9 to me, it's quite claimant-favorable. I'm not 

10 sure how well you can really fine-tune it without 

11 knowing exactly where everybody was, you know, was 

12 this particular device being moderated by the four 

13 inches or did they not have any there, whether a 

14 cage?

15 And by using that factor seems like that 

16 it'd actually boost the amount of neutron exposure 

17 people are credited with.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: John, what do you 

19 have to say?

20 MEMBER POSTON: Brad?

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yeah?

22 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. I agree 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with Jim. I think we've done about all you can do. 

2 You know, there are questions that we may never be 

3 able to answer precisely. And I don't believe that 

4 that's really the intent on what we're supposed to 

5 be doing.

6 So I think we just need to agree or agree 

7 to disagree that this will never be solved and leave 

8 it as it is. Fine-tuning and deciding -- those 

9 three sites are different as can be. I've looked 

10 at them in the past in my own research going all 

11 the way back when I was at ORNL, and I don't see 

12 exactly how you can tie those three together where 

13 you can take data from one and use it at the other. 

14 So I think we're doing about the best we can do.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Josie?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I guess the only 

17 thing we're not in total agreement on is the second 

18 item. Correct? The other ones, we've come to an 

19 agreement with?

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. And, Joe, I 

21 was going to have you run over the other four items 

22 that were in that matrix that we kind of resolved 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just to bring us back up to it, if you have that 

2 available.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I have it.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But, anyway, Josie, 

5 yes, that's where we're at.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, I guess I'm a 

7 little bit on the fence. I'd like to see closure 

8 on all these items that SC&A -- in the second area. 

9 But I'm --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you know, 

11 there's maybe another course. I think Ron was 

12 indicating he had not had a chance to look at the 

13 paper that Mark had referenced a little earlier.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Correct.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: And we could take a 

16 look at that, make it a relatively brief look, and 

17 maybe get back to the Work Group in the context of 

18 the discussions we've had about diminishing 

19 returns, whether we believe it would make any, you 

20 know, significant difference technically.

21 And if not, then we would, I think, 

22 defer to the Work Group. And, certainly, the 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 direction seems to be, unless it makes, you know, 

2 makes a difference, then let's just let this 

3 particular issue go.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, I think I'd be 

5 more comfortable with that path, Brad, that Joe 

6 just lined out.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, well --

8 MEMBER POSTON: That's fine with me if 

9 that's the way you want to go.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yeah, let's do 

11 that, Joe. We'll just expect a White Paper or 

12 something?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, not even that. 

14 I would think a memo or a note to the Work Group, 

15 copied to NIOSH, that just says, you know, Mark and 

16 his folks have identified additional references 

17 which we had not factored in that would be pretty 

18 informative to what we're doing.

19 But understanding the larger context and doses 

20 involved, where does that leave us?

21 And basically to provide that feedback 

22 to the Work Group that, you know, with this 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 additional, does it make a difference, not make a 

2 difference? And if it doesn't make a difference, 

3 then we would probably recommend closure on that.

4 MR. KATZ: And, Joe, and at least Brad, 

5 if I could just suggest that we spare us having to 

6 have a teleconference for something that's really 

7 not worth have a teleconference for. I mean, if 

8 Joe recommends, if SC&A recommends that we're 

9 talking about trivial dose here and it's not worth 

10 more work and it can be closed, if the Work Group 

11 wants to agree with that advisement to close it, 

12 we could agree to that now, we wouldn't have to meet 

13 just to do that.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's a good 

15 point, Ted. And I agree with you and I'll put this 

16 out to the other Board Members.

17 If we can, as they've put out there, if 

18 there isn't a significant path forward or a big --

19 if SC&A recommends that we close it, that this 

20 Number 2 go ahead and be closed. Is that alright 

21 with the rest of the Board Members?

22 MEMBER BEACH: Brad, this is Josie. 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That would be perfectly acceptable to me.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Phil?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Brad, this is Phil. 

4 I have no problems with that to closing it.

5 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. I have 

6 no problems closing it.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, that sounds 

8 good.

9 Discussion of Remaining Issues

10 That being said, we have four other 

11 items and I was just -- and they've kind of come 

12 to a closure on that. And I was just wondering if 

13 I could have Joe go over those just a little bit 

14 to just kind of refresh us where we're at on them 

15 and how we came to closure.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Before we go into that, 

17 can I ask that whoever gave that reference, if 

18 they'd send it to my CDC email so that I make sure 

19 I'm looking at the right reference? On the 18th 

20 of April, 2011, Pantex dosimetry document, if you'd 

21 send that to my CDC email, that way I'll know for 

22 sure I'm looking at the right one.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I think that was Mark 

2 that gave that reference.

3 MR. ROLFES: Oops, sorry, I was on mute 

4 there. Yes, Ron, it was Mark that provided the 

5 reference. I will send that out to you. Keep in 

6 mind, though, that the tables that contain the dose 

7 values in there aren't going to be used. It's just 

8 the technical discussion for the three different 

9 correction factors that I was referring to.

10 And this is largely what's in the 

11 Appendix of OTIB-86. But I will send that to your 

12 email address after we are finished with the Work 

13 Group meeting here.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And the second 

15 item was we were going to look at if the 1975 neutron 

16 doses end times are greater than the others.

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes, and I'd be happy to 

18 answer that for you now. I had alluded to that 

19 earlier, and, basically, when we completed our 

20 initial work, we had believed that we had a contract 

21 -- or Pantex had a contract with Landauer for 

22 personnel neutron dosimetry up until 1976 or 1977.
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, I spoke with the vice 

2 president of Landauer a couple of months back, I 

3 believe it was, and he was able to check into the 

4 Landauer records that they had for Pantex, and he 

5 was able to determine that the contract with Pantex 

6 ended in 1973 for personnel neutron dosimetry.

7 So that means that Pantex was either, 

8 you know, obtaining dosimetry services from 

9 another contractor or they were doing neutron 

10 dosimetry in-house.

11 And during the 1974 and 1975 time 

12 period, I found a number of communications between 

13 the Pantex radiation safety manager and other 

14 radiation safety employees at Rocky Flats, at 

15 Hanford, and there possibly was one other. But it 

16 was during this time period that Pantex was 

17 comparing their neutron dosimetry measured by TLDs 

18 to neutron doses recorded on Battelle dosimeters 

19 and on Rocky Flats dosimeters.

20 And, so, this is another piece of 

21 information that indicates to me that, you know, 

22 Pantex was trying to fine-tune their algorithm for 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutron doses, trying to, you know, do some round 

2 robin studies, essentially, to compare their doses 

3 to other DOE site doses.

4 And that is likely the largest 

5 contributor, the largest -- you know, the reason 

6 why the doses are probably a factor of ten times 

7 higher during this late 1974 and 1975 time period, 

8 because that was the year that Pantex was 

9 essentially doing neutron dosimetry in-house. 

10 And they're probably fine-tuning things, learning 

11 how to adjust for, you know, mixed fields, and they 

12 were using a relatively simple dosimeter, I 

13 believe, at that time period.

14 Some of the other reasons that we looked 

15 into, but couldn't find any information to, you 

16 know, explain why neutron doses might have been 

17 higher in that year, you know, I had speculated that 

18 it could have been, you know, additional, you know, 

19 quantities of fissile material coming in from the 

20 Iowa Ordinance Plant, which closed down in 1974 and 

21 1975.

22 I've speculated maybe it was, you know, 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a large amount of time spent on inventorying 

2 materials sent into the Pantex Plant, because 

3 Pantex became the only site in the United States 

4 at that time that was responsible for the assembly 

5 and disassembly of nuclear weapons after the Iowa 

6 Ordinance Plant had closed down.

7 So, that was one issue that I thought 

8 might have been the reason. But you'd think that, 

9 you know, that wouldn't account for a factor of ten. 

10 That would only, you know, maybe a factor of two 

11 or something if they received a bunch of materials.

12 Other issues, you know, I thought maybe 

13 the production rates had increased. But couldn't 

14 find anything to support that.

15 Let's see, there were, you know, I 

16 looked into issues pertaining to, you know, any 

17 anomalous issues with particular programs that 

18 were being handled then. That was not an issue.

19 I'm trying to find my email that I had 

20 originally sent, because I did speak with 

21 individuals down at the Pantex Plant concerning 

22 this issue on more than once occasion, and then 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 spoke with people at DOE Headquarters at NNSA. I 

2 wasn't able to obtain any information that 

3 supported some of my theories.

4 And, so, I think, at the end of the day, 

5 this factor of ten is really due to the switching 

6 over from NTA film to TLDs and is probably a 

7 function of the algorithm used to interpret the 

8 exposures to the TLD. And also a function of the 

9 over-response to thermal neutrons by the TLDs that 

10 were used by Pantex in-house in that time period.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Now, they didn't 

12 include any of the calibration when constructing 

13 this table. That would be strictly workers' 

14 badges. That wouldn't include any of their 

15 calibration badges, would it?

16 MR. ROLFES: Calibration badges for --

17 no, unfortunately, we don't have any of the 

18 calibration information during this time period. 

19 That's one of the, you know, we have bits and pieces 

20 of information similar to what I mentioned earlier. 

21 We don't have any detailed information on the 

22 calibration of this TLD that was used in the 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1974/1975 time period.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, and those -- what 

3 I'm saying is, the data used for that table had 

4 workers' names associated with it. It wouldn't 

5 have included any of their calibration badges in 

6 that to make it retie. I'm just throwing out a 

7 theory there.

8 MR. ROLFES: The data that we have 

9 available to us is identified with individuals’

10 names, but calibration data is not included in 

11 that.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, that was my 

13 question.

14 Well, in the long run, whatever the 

15 reason is, it's claimant-favorable, you know, it's 

16 high instead of low. And so it's not going to, you 

17 know, shortchange anybody when assigning neutron 

18 dose. In fact, it'll assign probably excessive 

19 neutron dose.

20 I just wanted to see if there was a 

21 problem that needed to be identified there. And, 

22 so, it sounds like you have, you know, checked it 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out pretty thoroughly, so I have no further issue 

2 with it.

3 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, I think if you, you 

4 know, look at the over-response of this badge, you 

5 know, you can say up to a factor of five times 

6 over-response to thermal neutrons.

7 And then if we've got a TLD that's 

8 over-responding to thermal neutrons, and on top of 

9 it we had previously applied that correction 

10 factor, because we believed that these doses were 

11 recorded by NTA film, so we applied that correction 

12 factor of 2.9.

13 So when we look at those two factors 

14 combined, that can bring us up close to ten. And 

15 some of the other, you know, issues that I had 

16 mentioned earlier could have contributed.

17 So, if those factors were to be removed 

18 and the over response was corrected, it would 

19 probably get us back to the correct value, or close 

20 to it.

21 But, yeah, that would not be as 

22 claimant-favorable. If we did, you know, dig into 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this, it would likely result in a significant drop 

2 in the actual doses that we would be assigning to 

3 the Pantex workers.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, I had no further 

5 issue with that section.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Brad?

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes?

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I can, I think, polish 

9 off the last two for the Work Group.

10 Item 3, that was held in abeyance from 

11 the Work Group meeting of almost two years ago. 

12 And that was essentially a discussion where I think 

13 SC&A had suggested that additional language be 

14 included in the site description and elsewhere that 

15 just kind of highlighted the dose reconstructor 

16 that Pantex was one of the sites where they had a 

17 number of technical experts that had spent time at 

18 the Nevada Test Site, spent time at Sandia and other 

19 locations, just because of their expertise on the 

20 assembly, weapons assembly.

21 And we felt that wasn't given much, you 

22 know, note in those descriptions. And I don't 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think there was any disagreement in our discussions 

2 with Mark and with the Work Group.

3 So that was just a matter of, perhaps, 

4 adding that language in, which we have found it has 

5 been added. So we would certainly recommend 

6 closure at this point for that item.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Is there any 

8 discussion on that for the Work Group? If not, 

9 we'll proceed on with that and close it.

10 I do have one question for Mark, and 

11 this is just dealing with the TBD. When we started 

12 into this many years ago, we collected numerous 

13 changes that were going to be made to the TBD.

14 Have those -- and what I'm asking, Mark, 

15 is the last time I spoke with you, we had 

16 accumulated many of these but we were going to do 

17 this in one great big change, is that correct?

18 MR. ROLFES: Yes. And I think we've 

19 incorporated the majority of these into our 

20 revisions which were published last year, in 2015.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. So we have 

22 gone ahead and changed. We don't have that many 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of them lingering out there, correct? I thought 

2 we had changed some to the TBD, but are we looking 

3 at that we're going to need any more changes?

4 MR. ROLFES: I don't know, ultimately, 

5 if we'll take OTIB-86 once we're in agreement with 

6 the neutron dose reconstruction approach. We may, 

7 ultimately, take that OTIB and incorporate it into 

8 the external dose TBD for Pantex. But that would 

9 be the only revision that I can think of at this 

10 time.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: And, Brad, just 

13 stepping back a little bit, we certainly had the 

14 same question, and we did sort of scrub all the Work 

15 Group transcripts and did go back and basically 

16 walk down all the TBD issues. And that was the 

17 basis for, I think, the TBD matrix of a year or two 

18 ago, and we've been working on that. So I think I 

19 would agree, I think it's pretty complete.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Yeah, I 

21 remember going through that, but I didn't know for 

22 sure if we had some that were lingering out there. 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I just wanted to make sure because, actually, 

2 when we get Ron's response on Number 2, this will 

3 actually close out Pantex.

4 So I just wanted to make sure that we 

5 didn't have anything that was floating out there 

6 that the Work Group needed to address or push 

7 forward with.

8 Other than that, I don't have anything 

9 more to go over. Is there anything that any of the 

10 other Board Members --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there's one 

12 final item on the matrix.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: The fourth one, we 

15 didn't include it on the agenda because, primarily, 

16 it was a clarification question. And it has to do 

17 with the way tritium was cited in the internal TBD.

18 And I just want to highlight for the 

19 Work Group that clarification has been provided. 

20 The language has been changed. It was just one of 

21 these tweaks where I think, the way it was worded, 

22 it didn't appear that the 1989 tritium release was 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 given as much consideration as it needed be in terms 

2 of maximizing tritium dose.

3 And so that language was changed to 

4 clarify it, and there is really no issue at this 

5 point. It's pretty clear that the timeframes, as 

6 well as that particular event, have been addressed.

7 So just to kind of cross the T, those 

8 were the four items that were on the matrix. The 

9 last two we felt were addressed in the revisions, 

10 and we would recommend closure of those last two 

11 items. The first two were the ones that were on 

12 the agenda that we discussed on neutrons.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, thank you. I 

14 guess this comes to the Work Group. I have no 

15 problems with closing them, but I want to make sure 

16 the other Work Group Members are satisfied.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Brad, I have problem 

18 closing that either.

19 MEMBER POSTON: No problems for me.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No problems for me, 

21 either. 

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I have 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nothing more to be able to discuss. I'd like to 

2 tell everybody I appreciate all the years of work 

3 that we've done on this. And I feel good about the 

4 end results that we have. I know we've had 

5 numerous discussions on everything, but I'd like 

6 to tell everybody how much I appreciate their 

7 assistance and their help in completing what we 

8 have completed.

9 So, with that, I have nothing more, and 

10 I think we can adjourn.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

12 went off the record at 11:39 a.m.)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

2