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

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

JANUARY 19, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Bradley P. 

Clawson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, 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

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

ROBERT BISTLINE, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

LAURENCE FUORTES

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JIM NETON, DCAS

KATHY ROBERTSON-DEMERS, SC&A

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS
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

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

2 (11:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So this is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health Pantex 

5 Work Group, and let me take roll call 

6 beginning with Board Members, and please 

7 speak to your conflict of interest -- of 

8 interest situation with respect to Pantex 

9 when you -- when you note your attendance 

10 today. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, this is 

12 Brad -- this is Brad Clawson, Work Group 

13 Chair for the Pantex, no conflict. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, no 

15 conflict with Pantex. 

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield, 

17 no conflict with Pantex. 

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob Presley, no 

19 conflict. 

20 MR. KATZ: Very good. Any other 

21 Board Members? Okay. Moving on then to -- so,

22 Mark Griffon, are you not on the line yet? 
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 Okay. Moving on to the NIOSH-ORAU team. 

2 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes, 

3 health physicist with NIOSH. I have no 

4 conflict of interest. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford, 

6 health physicist, NIOSH. No conflict with 

7 Pantex. 

8 MR. KATZ: Very good. SC&A team? 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is Joe 

10 Fitzgerald. I have no conflict with Pantex. 

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

12 Kathy Robertson-DeMers. I have no conflict. 

13 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

14 Buchanan with SC&A. No conflict. 

15 DR. BISTLINE: This is Bob 

16 Bistline, SC&A. No conflict. 

17 MR. KATZ: Thanks, SC&A. And for 

18 the court reporter, that's Ron Buchanan and 

19 Bob Bistline. They trampled each other a 

20 little bit, but -- 

21 DR. NETON: Hey, Ted, this is Jim 

22 Neton. I just got on, I don't know if you 
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 went through --

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, but thank you, 

3 Jim. That's --

4 DR. NETON: I have no conflict 

5 with Pantex. 

6 MR. KATZ: -- Jim Neton, he's also 

7 NIOSH. Okay, any other NIOSH or ORAU, NIOSH 

8 ORAU or SC&A folks? Okay, moving on. Other, 

9 whether it's NIOSH, HHS, or federal officials

10 or contractors to the feds. 

11 MS. LIN: This is Jenny with OGC. 

12 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS 

13 OGC. MR. KATZ: Do we have anyone 

14 attending from DOE? 

15 DR. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. And last but not 

17 least, do we have any members of the public, 

18 whether they're petitioners or other, that 

19 would like to identify themselves as 

20 listening to the call--

21 DR. FUORTES: Thank you, this is 

22 Laurence Fuortes in Iowa City. Sarah Ray will
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 try and get on in about an hour. 

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Laurence,

3 welcome. 

4 DR. FUORTES: Thank you. 

5 MR. KATZ: All right, that does 

6 for roll call. Then let me just ask everyone 

7 on the call except when you're addressing the

8 group please mute your phone. If you don't 

9 have a mute button, pressing * and 6 will 

10 mute your phone. Press * and 6 again and it 

11 will unmute your phone. And also please do 

12 not at any point put the call on hold but 

13 hang up and dial back in if you need to leave

14 the -- leave the call for some period. And, 

15 Brad, it is -- it's your agenda, maybe if you

16 could just give people just sort of a 

17 thousand foot agenda idea before we get 

18 started, that'll -- that'll help the 

19 petitioners and anyone else who doesn't have 

20 Joe's memo just get a sense of what and when. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, well, 

22 first of all this is the -- I want to make 
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 sure that everybody got a copy of -- I sent 

2 this out back in December. I know that Mark 

3 Rolfes and -- sent out that they had received

4 it like I asked, but I just wanted to make 

5 sure that everybody has this paper, 

6 especially NIOSH and so forth. 

7 Jim, you've got it and 

8 everything, all right? 

9 DR. NETON: Are you talking to me, 

10 Brad? 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, I was. I 

12 just wanted to make sure that you got the 

13 paper and so forth that we were working to --

14 DR. NETON: I definitely have it. 

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, that 

16 sounds good. One of the things we're going to

17 -- we're going to start out is make sure what

18 our expectations are as our last Work Group 

19 meeting. We had several issues that we've 

20 given to NIOSH, and we were -- this is

21 basically to figure out kind of where we're 

22 at on it. 
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 One of the big, big ones was 

2 internal dosimetry that we had -- we'd had 

3 some questions on and were waiting for a 

4 response back on that. You know, how I mapped

5 this, where everybody's got this paper, I 

6 wanted to make sure if there was any issues 

7 with it, Mark or Jim, that, that you saw. 

8 Any -- was there any problems, or 

9 any questions on any of it of what we were 

10 asking? 

11 MR. ROLFES: Well, to be honest, 

12 Brad, I haven't looked through this in its 

13 entirety. This is Mark Rolfes. I didn't know 

14 that this was the basis for our Working Group

15 meeting today honestly, so. 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, okay, well 

17 I, I guess that's -- I guess that's why we 

18 sent that out so that we could make sure that

19 we were all on the same page of it. Okay, so 

20 --

21 DR. NETON: Brad? Brad, this is 

22 Jim. You know, I looked through it, and one 
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 thing that, you know, I understand where Joe 

2 was coming from with the emphasis on the 

3 internal dosimetry, but I guess what I was --

4 what I was missing there was, you know, we 

5 had done a formal response at the last May 

6 Working Group meeting to SC&A's review, and I

7 don't think we've ever received written 

8 comments from them on those, on those 

9 responses unless this is in lieu of that, I 

10 don't know. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, actually 

12 in the last Work Group meeting Stu Hinnefeld 

13 mentioned to us that -- we told him that we 

14 needed more clarification on that, it wasn't 

15 very good, and he promised that he would get 

16 it back to us. And so maybe that's where the 

17 misunderstanding is at if -- because we could

18 not understand how they were doing what they 

19 were doing, and Stu promised that he was 

20 going to come back with us, and maybe that's 

21 why you haven't got formal responses because 

22 we haven't gotten anything, and, you know, 
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 reviewing the transcripts and all this is 

2 what came out of it. And I guess this is part

3 of the reason why we're having this Work 

4 Group call like this is to make sure that 

5 everybody's on board with what their response

6 was and what their responsibility was to 

7 respond to it. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Let -- this is 

9 Joe. Can I interject at this point? 

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sure. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. What we did 

12 we got a, you know, we got the written 

13 response, Jim, and, you know, we didn't have 

14 a length of time to come up with a detailed 

15 response, but really it wouldn't have 

16 mattered form a timing standpoint because the

17 response was more qualitative -- is that the 

18 best way to put it, meaning it reiterated, I 

19 think, some of the premises, the assumptions 

20 that were laid out in the ER and our original

21 issues from the matrix raised some questions 

22 about the lack of substantiation of those 
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 very fundamental assumptions and the need for

2 more justification beyond looking to rad 

3 controls and looking to some of the what I 

4 would call more of the programmatic bases for

5 making those assumptions.

6 And we had a discussion during 

7 the May Work Group meeting where we made it 

8 kind of clear that this -- this had not yet 

9 gotten to a substantive technical exchange 

10 because we frankly didn't have what I would 

11 consider an evaluative basis for those 

12 assumptions meaning that something that could

13 be truly evaluated on a -- from a technical 

14 standpoint.

15 You know, the -- and that concern 

16 was, I think, pretty well articulated during 

17 the meeting, and there was agreement at the 

18 table, and that's one reason I think it's 

19 helpful for everybody to go back through the 

20 transcripts. I think there was general 

21 agreement at the table from everybody there 

22 that, yes, in order to have a meaningful 
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 technical exchange we needed a clearer and, I

2 say evaluative, meaning something that truly 

3 could be evaluated on a technical basis, 

4 something that goes back to, you know, actual

5 records, data, whatever, and that was the --

6 and that was the agreement on I think the 

7 bigger issues on internal anyway was that 

8 further justification and that was the word 

9 that was used at the table and agreed to, 

10 would be forthcoming on these questions of 

11 back extrapolation, some of the assumptions 

12 on the state of contamination, you know, the 

13 same issues that I think we've been pointing 

14 at now for several years.

15 And to move the ball forward, 

16 okay, from where it is now it was pretty 

17 clear at the Work Group meeting that we truly

18 needed that more defined bases for the 

19 assumptions that NIOSH was hinging its SEC 

20 recommendation and ER on, or otherwise I 

21 think we would continue talking past each 

22 other, at least be sort of in one of these 
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 subjective analyses that could not be brought

2 to resolution and so the -- so I think the 

3 important take home message from May was that

4 the Work Group needed that clear and more 

5 defined bases. I think Mark Griffon who is 

6 participating he even pointed to you know, 

7 can you even highlight the specific 

8 interviews that are the strongest part of 

9 your argument, something that the Work Group 

10 would be able to review, evaluate, come to 

11 some kind of a conclusion. Where it was 

12 left before that and where it is left in the 

13 ER is not -- is not sufficient, and I think 

14 that was the conclusion. So, you know, that 

15 is not something that -- an SC&A response 

16 would have helped. I mean, we gave, I think, 

17 our response at the table which was that 

18 there wasn't sufficient information or 

19 substantiation that would enable us to 

20 evaluate and provide feedback to this Work 

21 Group. 

22 And that's still our conclusion, 
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 and we needed more information back from 

2 NIOSH, and that's -- and that was agreed to. 

3 So we're still in that mode at this point. 

4 DR. NETON: Well, I understand 

5 what you're saying. I don't exactly remember 

6 it being that hard and fast, but I guess I'd 

7 have to go back and read the transcripts, but

8 we made a lot of other points in those 

9 responses that went above and beyond the 

10 internal dosimetry issue, and it's sort of 

11 unusual -- it's an unusual practice for us to

12 put a response out and then get nothing in 

13 writing back rather than just do over. That's

14 sort of what I'm hearing. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I don't 

16 disagree that it is unusual, but I think the 

17 ER position for Pantex is unusual, and I 

18 think that's where the Work Group, based on 

19 the discussions we had, made it clear that 

20 that wasn't adequate at this point in time, 

21 or at that point in time. So I think this is 

22 an unusual place, and I don't find, and I 
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 don't think the Work Group found, the basis 

2 that was provided in toto, I mean, in the ER 

3 and in the response in May, to be sufficient 

4 to enable any kind of conclusion to be 

5 reached or any evaluation to be done. So I 

6 think that is unusual. 

7 DR. NETON: I remember, you know, 

8 SC&A got that review document a couple days 

9 -- response like a couple days before, and I 

10 don't really recall it being, you know, a 

11 done deal, it was more like well we just got 

12 this, here's our sort of initial response 

13 based on reviewing it. Anyway, I fully agree 

14 with you that the internal dosimetry issue is

15 sort of the overarching issue at this point, 

16 though, I'll definitely --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 

18 this is a little alarming, at least from our 

19 standpoint, because the Work Group findings, 

20 the conclusions, and the commitments made at 

21 the table by NIOSH in May were unequivocal, 

22 that it was an acknowledgment that further 
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 justification was warranted and that further 

2 justification would be provided that was --

3 up to and including Stu who was present as 

4 well, so I don't think there was any 

5 ambiguity, and the transcripts are very clear

6 so I, you know, that's kind of one reason I 

7 wanted to go back in this -- summary to set 

8 the stage because I think this kind of --

9 this kind of typifies the situation that I 

10 think Pantex has been under now for some time

11 that we're not -- the Work Group isn't --

12 MR. KATZ: Joe, I'm sorry, Joe, 

13 Joe, I hate to interrupt, but somebody has 

14 joined the call who is not on mute, and 

15 there's a lot -- I don't know if anyone else 

16 is hearing this, but there's a lot of either 

17 beating or static coming from someone's line 

18 who's joined this call recently. Please, 

19 everyone, mute your phones or use *6 if you 

20 don't have a mute button. That'll mute your 

21 phone so that we can have a clear hearing of 

22 the proceedings. Thank you. 
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 MR. FITZGERALD: At any rate I 

2 think, again, if you read the transcripts you

3 will see that it is very clear what the 

4 pathway was defined back in May. We've been 

5 working on issues of data adequacy and 

6 completeness as we do at most sites and are 

7 almost completed with that as well as the 

8 neutron issue. But for the internal issue 

9 which I think is the real sticking point as 

10 you note, that, you know, that is something 

11 that still resides with NIOSH. 

12 We're not able to do anything 

13 with that without any further substantiation 

14 or justification back from NIOSH on what it's

15 provided, so we made that clear at the table,

16 we could not go further than that and there, 

17 you know, there isn't anything at this point,

18 so I think that's something the Work Group is

19 going to have to wrestle with because, you 

20 know, if we're eight months further along and

21 really have no further information on the 

22 internal, I think the Board has to deal with 
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 that. We can't. 

2 DR. NETON: Right, well, okay, I 

3 think we can move forward with this internal 

4 issue, I mean, that seems to be the central 

5 subject, and I agree with that. Part of my 

6 problem or situation is that I thought there 

7 was some other than additional meeting that 

8 was held at the Pantex facility in the 

9 intervening time period, and you know, I -- 

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That would have 

11 been -- I think -- believe you were referring

12 to our tour that we had. 

13 DR. NETON: Right, and I don't 

14 know if that shed any additional light on 

15 this issue or not -- that's neither here nor 

16 there. I guess what we can do is Mark -- and 

17 I know there's been a couple email 

18 transmittals by Mark to Brad and the Working 

19 Group as to what needs done since the May 

20 meeting, and maybe Mark can speak to that and

21 work from there. 

22 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I certainly 
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 will, Jim, I tried to chime in a little bit 

2 earlier, and --

3 DR. NETON: Sorry, I didn't mean 

4 to cut you off. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Wanted to make sure 

6 everyone was able to get their say in before 

7 I chimed in here. I just wanted to follow up 

8 on our responses following the Working Group 

9 meeting that we had last year. I'd sent out 

10 an email saying that we had planned to 

11 consolidate the bioassay results for the 

12 Pantex employees into one centralized 

13 location under the Advisory Board's document 

14 review folder for Pantex to add information 

15 regarding the potential for historical 

16 internal exposures. 

17 And also to consolidate worker 

18 and subject matter expert interviews, and 

19 then the third thing we had also agreed to 

20 provide a reference. We haven't provided that

21 third reference. I also did ask for any 

22 individual spots on any of the topics which I
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 may not have addressed in that email. 

2 Let's see -- as -- let's see --

3 on July 9th of last year I sent out an email 

4 to let the Advisory Board Working Group 

5 Members know that we had placed all of the 

6 bioassay data that we had in electronic files

7 and as well as the subject matter expert 

8 interviews out onto the Advisory Board's 

9 review folder, and looking back at the number

10 of bioassay files, we put 102 PDFs of 

11 bioassay data out on the O: drive for the 

12 Advisory Board's review and also put a little

13 under 50 documented interviews with subject 

14 matter experts and also worker outreach 

15 information, information that we had 

16 collected over several years of having worker

17 outreaches for both the Special Exposure 

18 Cohort evaluation process as well as from the

19 Site Profile. And, let's see, I believe we 

20 had also put several references out regarding

21 the types of air monitors that were used 

22 historically at Pantex. 
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 So I guess we've put out what we 

2 felt provided the additional justification to

3 show, you know, historical exposure potential

4 and also some of the historical, you know, 

5 monitoring methods, et cetera. And I don't 

6 know if you've had an opportunity to look at 

7 the documentation that we put out, but I know

8 there's been concerns about, you know, for 

9 example, the adequacy of internal dosimetry 

10 records and our current basis on -- in our 

11 Site Profile that we have for the Pantex 

12 plant, is relying upon more recent bioassay 

13 data to basically estimate intakes 

14 historically, and we've provided 

15 justification as to why we feel that's a 

16 sound basis and have also looked at some of 

17 the historical air monitoring data as well to

18 compare to our intakes, and we've essentially

19 validated our bioassay-derived intakes as 

20 being rather claimant-favorable compared to 

21 the actual air monitoring data that we've 

22 collected from the site. 
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 This was something that we did 

2 during the SEC evaluation process back in 

3 October of 2008, and I know there's always 

4 uncertainties in our evaluations, and I 

5 believe that we've used those uncertainties 

6 to the benefit of the doubt of the claimants 

7 for whose dose we're reconstructing. 

8 If there's, I understand, you 

9 know, it's difficult for us to discuss 

10 specific concerns without having, you know, a

11 specific review of of our work product, I 

12 guess, is where I'm coming from, and, I mean,

13 I can address any questions that there might 

14 be if you would like to go through some of 

15 these issues still, and if we don't have a 

16 response right now, we'll certainly be able 

17 to get back to you in writing with a more 

18 detailed response. 

19 But I don't know if anybody has 

20 anything else to add before we go through 

21 these topics in more detail. 

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, this is 
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 Brad. So in your Evaluation Report you want 

2 to take 1992 data and back extrapolate it to 

3 the `40s, and you know as well as I do that 

4 air monitoring data is really pretty lacking,

5 and as we saw at our tour down there, where 

6 they place the air monitoring data back in 

7 those days the only thing they were going to 

8 pick up anything was catastrophic, and that's

9 what they did, and so -- and you know, there 

10 was, this was part of a thing we was supposed

11 to come out of this was how are you going to 

12 be able to do this because as we showed on 

13 there, there was many weapons that came into 

14 production and left production that you don't

15 have any data on, period. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Okay, let me clarify 

17 a little bit. Pantex wasn't operational as a 

18 covered DOE facility during the 1940s. It 

19 didn't become operational until 1951. And it 

20 was approximately 1957, `58 time period when 

21 fissile materials began to be handled at 

22 Pantex, and that also coincided with the 
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 construction of the Gravel Gerties on site, 

2 and that's also when air monitoring began 

3 being conducted within those cells. 

4 We're not using air monitoring 

5 data to back extrapolate. We're using the 

6 urinalysis data that was collected as a 

7 result of a large incident that occurred in 

8 late 18 -- or, 1989. There was a large 

9 population of workers that were involved in 

10 this specific program and had been exposed to

11 some uranium oxide contamination, and we're -

12 - we have looked at that data as a method for

13 bounding earlier internal doses. 

14 Because of the number of 

15 disassemblies and assemblies that took place,

16 it was during disassembly where the greatest 

17 potential for intake occurred, and we're 

18 using data collected from essentially a very 

19 large incident, as you heard, as was 

20 described to us during the tour, this was a 

21 really significant incident that occurred in 

22 1989 and resulted in a shutdown of the 
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 operations at the site. 

2 So what we've done is taken all 

3 that bioassay data that we have collected and

4 used that to essentially assign uranium 

5 intakes back to 1980, and subsequent to that 

6 we also looked at the number of disassemblies

7 which were occurring in the 1970s and 1980s 

8 and felt that the approach that we have used 

9 for the later time period based on uranium 

10 bioassay was claimant-favorable in comparison

11 to the observed air concentrations at the 

12 site. 

13 And to make the comparison we 

14 actually looked at about 4500 alpha air 

15 samples that were collected during the 1970s 

16 and `80s, and our intakes that we're 

17 currently assigning in our Site Profile for 

18 Pantex are roughly 1000 times the intakes 

19 that would be assigned based on the air 

20 monitoring data. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Mark, this is 

22 Joe. Can I stop you right there because I 
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 think this is perhaps a sample issue of the 

2 overall concern on the `89 back extrapolation

3 as we said at the table back in May. Yes, you

4 have a lot of sample and, you know, in terms 

5 of the n value, that's something that is 

6 attractive because it gives you a number of -

7 - the data is large. 

8 But the basis for back 

9 extrapolation has to hinge on whether or not 

10 operations can be normalized, and your 

11 sampling is in fact equivalent or can be 

12 adjusted. And all we were asking for was a 

13 basis beyond the fact that you had this data 

14 in `89 and that based on -- this is where we 

15 have problems, based on your reading of 

16 program management operational controls and 

17 what not for the plant you felt there -- and 

18 just number of dissassmblies, you felt you 

19 could back extrapolate. 

20 But it was all subjective. 

21 There's nothing hard in terms of a 

22 understanding of the operations over that 
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 time frame where it could be normalized so 

2 that you could in fact do that legitimately, 

3 and that, you know, you're talking about the 

4 same kind of sampling regime even though the 

5 sampling regime in the early years would have

6 fallen before the major upgrade that took 

7 place at Pantex in `90, `91, where we know 

8 they overhauled the entire health physics 

9 program including the dosimetry program.

10 So the Work Group, and this is 

11 just one example of many, back in May, said 

12 that, you know, we know what you're 

13 proposing, but you have not provided -- you 

14 haven't let the other shoe drop which is the 

15 basis for arguing that you can back 

16 extrapolate over the earlier years because 

17 you can normalize against the usual changes 

18 that take place in operations programs and 

19 monitoring over that time frame. 

20 And without repeating all the 

21 discussion that took place last spring, that 

22 was where the Work Group came out, asking for
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 something that would substantiate that aspect

2 of the basis that has to be provided that 

3 isn't clear in the ER, hasn't been made clear

4 in your responses back in May which is about 

5 the only thing we can evaluate. 

6 I mean I can look at the number 

7 of samples that were in `89, but the rest of 

8 it is -- I have to -- I have to take on faith

9 that the, you know, that, you know, that that

10 would be representative of the earlier years. 

11 DR. NETON: Joe, this is Jim. I 

12 guess I'm a little bit confused as to what 

13 you're saying. Are you saying that you don't 

14 believe the air sampling values that were 

15 used for comparison are adequate, they are 

16 not representative of the --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think 

18 that they're necessarily bounding until one 

19 can show that the samples that were taken 

20 earlier -- you know, there's missing samples.

21 The reason we're using `89 is there's no data

22 --
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 DR. NETON: I understand that, but 

2 there were air samples that Mark was talking 

3 about, he went back in the earlier period, 

4 and I heard a number, something like 4000, 

5 where calculated air concentration values and

6 then determined that if we assign intake 

7 based on what was measured in the air the 

8 values we're using from the `89 incident are 

9 substantially larger than what was actually 

10 measured in the air in these cells. You know,

11 I --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I have a number 

13 of problems. One, I think it's pretty well 

14 established from interviews that the sampling

15 that was done in the cells was not 

16 necessarily representative. That was 

17 something that came out pretty strongly --

18 DR. NETON: Okay, that's what I've 

19 not seen in writing anywhere from SC&A. We 

20 need to have an evaluation is that approach 

21 invalid and why, and, you know, if it's 

22 interview material, that's great, but I'd 
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 like some technical justification as to why 

2 these air samples are invalid. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, let's go 

4 back; 1989, you're taking 1989 samples from 

5 an incident --

6 DR. NETON: Incident? 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: And -- right. And 

8 the claim is that those are going to be more 

9 conservative based on air samples that were 

10 taken many years before because the air 

11 samples that were taken years before seemed 

12 to be relatively lower than what's 

13 represented by the measurements in `89, 

14 right? 

15 DR. NETON: Right. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, I'm saying 

17 that those air samples that were taken in the

18 cells have been largely undercut by a number 

19 of interviews of workers working in those 

20 cells as well as the rad techs who are still 

21 around, by the way, where the monitors were 

22 positioned in ways that would have missed 
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 much of the contamination, so it certainly --

2 a lot of questions regarding the 

3 representativeness of those air samples to 

4 begin with. 

5 And then going back to the 1989 

6 set -- sample set, the justification as Mark 

7 has laid out, you know, this was the period 

8 of quote, you know, high disassembly, 

9 therefore this would be subjectively bounding

10 because of the number of disassemblies, and I

11 think one thing we pointed out in May was 

12 that starting in the early `80s there was a 

13 large series of disassemblies that started 

14 taking place because the earlier generation 

15 of weapons being recycled and going out of 

16 the stockpile. So even though, yes, 

17 because of the end of the Cold War you 

18 started seeing a spike beginning in `89, just

19 basing it on a lot of disassemblies quote 

20 unquote in `89 I thought was pretty 

21 subjective. So, you know, what we're coming 

22 back down to is if one is going to back 
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 extrapolate, I think there's got to be some 

2 kind of discussion, substantiation of how you

3 would normalize against sort of the usual 

4 operational changes that take place during 

5 that -- we've done this at other SEC sites. 

6 How do you normalize across the time span so 

7 that you know, you know, the `89 sample is 

8 representative enough and that if you're, you

9 know, if you're comparing it against any 

10 other samples that those samples in fact are 

11 either representative or seen as relatively 

12 accurate so you can make that conclusion. 

13 DR. NETON: Right. Well, one thing 

14 that SC&A didn't comment on that was in the 

15 Site Profile was that there are bioassay 

16 samples that exist back through, back to 

17 1959. There aren't a lot, but --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: -- not conflate, 

19 the Site Profile points out the status -- of 

20 the data, our data accuracy piece that will 

21 be forthcoming in the next four or five weeks

22 once we get through DOE we'll go through this
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 in more detail. But we're hinging on the dose

2 estimation approach which is in the ER which 

3 came after our Site Profile review that says,

4 okay, given the circumstance and what data 

5 does exist, here's how we're going to apply 

6 that --

7 DR. NETON: Right, but what I'm 

8 saying is the -- the Site Profile actually 

9 commented that there were bioassay samples 

10 that existed prior to 1989, and if you look 

11 at those samples they are in the -- in the 

12 right range or similar range as those that we

13 would use for 1989. 

14 In fact there's about 115 or so 

15 bioassay samples that were incident based 

16 prior to `89, and they, again, they go all 

17 the way back to `59. I think those values 

18 need to be looked at and compared as well. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that may 

20 be, but, Jim -- that would be, that would be 

21 a very legitimate start for further 

22 justification, but the ER, as it reads, and 
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 that's the only thing we can go by, makes 

2 it's case for back extrapolation on a very 

3 subjective base, that's the best way I can 

4 put it --

5 DR. NETON: I -- in your writeup, 

6 Joe, though, that you said that the matrix 

7 was largely based on your review of the Site 

8 Profile. You know, and I can read from you 

9 where it says that. I mean --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: That was the 

11 starting point --

12 DR. NETON: Right, and that --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: That was the 

14 starting point but -- we're not -- we're not 

15 back three years ago, we're -- we have now 

16 gone so far as to have a review of the ER and

17 have a Work Group meeting, and it was made 

18 clear that the one of the central issues is 

19 the need to have more -- more specificity on 

20 the bases for these back extrapolation 

21 claims. MR. ROLFES: Joe, this is 

22 Mark, once again, and I don't feel that we've
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 produced a subjective evaluation of our 

2 approach. I feel that we've actually done a 

3 pretty decent job of evaluating the air 

4 sampling data and comparing the intakes from 

5 air sampling data to those that we've 

6 defaulted to based upon our urinalysis 

7 coworker study. And that's my concern, you 

8 know, if there's some specific issues with 

9 the approach that we've adopted there that's 

10 probably the best place to focus your efforts

11 on looking. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, but, Mark, 

13 you know, we have covered this ground, okay, 

14 we have covered this ground in May, and it 

15 was made clear at the table, explicitly 

16 clear, it's on the transcripts, what these 

17 concerns meant, and there was ample 

18 opportunity for NIOSH to respond that in fact

19 there was further justification, maybe it 

20 wasn't explicit in the ER but there was 

21 further justification available and certainly

22 it was there. 
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 No, I think we went through this 

2 discussion, and I'm frankly, you know, I 

3 don't see any value in repeating the 

4 discussion we had at the Work Group meeting. 

5 We spent a whole day on this, and it was 

6 agreed at the table with the Work Group with 

7 NIOSH present that, yes, there was a need for

8 clearer justification on some of these points

9 that wasn't available in the ER and was not 

10 available in the response that the Work Group

11 received in April right before the meeting. 

12 And there may in fact be some 

13 bioassay samples that could be shown to be 

14 within the range of the `89, for example, 

15 data, but we don't have that analysis. That 

16 hasn't been provided.

17 All we have is what's in the ER 

18 and what's in the response, and I'll remind 

19 you the response we got, what the Work Group 

20 got, basically almost on every issue with 

21 internal points to a preamble that 

22 reiterates, you know, the overriding 
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 assumptions that guides this ER which is, you

2 know, a very comprehensive rad-control 

3 program that would have enabled, you know, a 

4 adequate, very adequate event-driven bioassay

5 program with very little chronic 

6 contamination and, you know, so forth and so 

7 on, very absolute, and we're saying okay, if 

8 that's the case, then I think it's incumbent 

9 on NIOSH to demonstrate that beyond how good 

10 the program might have been and what the 

11 level of surety could have been, but actually

12 substantially that these conditions existed. 

13 And I, you know, I don't see anything yet 

14 that does that. 

15 MR. ROLFES: Well, I don't 

16 honestly know what else we can do besides 

17 take all the scientific data we've had and 

18 collected and analyze that and compare them. 

19 I -- that's why I'm hoping that we would 

20 receive something in writing where we can 

21 focus our efforts because I think we've done 

22 really a pretty good job. We've been pretty 
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 active with the Pantex Site. I know I've been

2 down there several times in the past probably

3 five years collecting information, collecting

4 records, speaking with workers, and, you 

5 know, we've given every record that we've 

6 collected and generated to the Advisory Board

7 and used all those in our consideration. 

8 Many of the issues, we've 

9 certainly listened to the concerns that we 

10 had from workers, and many of the issues that

11 we heard from the work force and the Advisory

12 Board just recently heard on the tour, those 

13 have been incorporated into our Site Profile 

14 revisions, and, you know, we've done our 

15 homework, and so I'm sort of at a loss as to 

16 what additional information we need to 

17 consider or what additional validations we 

18 should complete. 

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, this is 

20 Brad --Jim, let me jump in here because, 

21 Mark, you brought up a very good point to us 

22 about the tour, and I hope that you remember 
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 this. Do you remember where the placement of 

2 the heads was for the cells? 

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct. 

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Where? 

5 MR. ROLFES: There, within the 

6 cells there is a air sampler at about 6, 7 

7 feet high on the wall. 

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, they're out 

9 in the hallway. 

10 MR. ROLFES: That's not true. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: In the early 

12 years, yes, they were. 

13 MR. ROLFES: In the bay --

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- this is one 

15 of the questions because one of the things 

16 that came out of this is this was also right 

17 where the supply -- the draft fan was going 

18 out, and as the RadCon told us down there, 

19 yes, we've learned through the years of our 

20 placement of these, of our air monitoring 

21 data that this was insufficient, that this 

22 did catch the Cell 1 incident. 
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 So, you know, the thing, too, is 

2 we have been asking for this robust health 

3 physics program that Pantex had. With all 

4 three of the RadCon, three and for a time 

5 there there was only two during all of this 

6 work period. The -- this to me is just --

7 it's -- to me it's incredible to tell you the

8 truth because they even admitted it 

9 themselves when Cell 1 happened they didn't 

10 even know what they were dealing with.

11 They didn't even have an idea. 

12 They had to call somebody else in because 

13 they didn't know what or how to even handle 

14 it. And then when it gets to the point when 

15 in 1989 where they actually have to shut the 

16 program down because they're not abiding to 

17 the new regulations and they've increased --

18 I -- some -- they have increased so high on 

19 their RadCon because they were not able to

20 monitor. 

21 They were doing the best job they 

22 could, but they even admitted themselves that
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 they didn't know what they were dealing with,

2 nor did they have the manpower. 

3 DR. NETON: Right. Hey, Brad, this 

4 is Jim. I, you know, I would point out that 

5 in 1989 that the threshold for monitoring 

6 really went way down to where you had to be 

7 able to demonstrate that you could see 100 

8 millirem internal dose which is a pretty low 

9 bar for measuring inhalation of actinide type

10 materials. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Jim, this is Mark. 

12 And what Brad's referring to was a 1989 

13 tritium release, and air monitoring data 

14 isn't our basis for --

15 DR. NETON: Let me go back to 

16 where I was going to mention with the -- this

17 justification issue. I know -- depleted 

18 uranium seems to be -- one of the key issues 

19 here, and I've gone back recently just in 

20 preparation for this meeting and looked at 

21 the bioassay data that we do have prior to 

22 `89, and in fact the numbers are very low, a 
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 matter of fact a majority of them I believe 

2 are nondetectable measurements of depleted 

3 uranium, and these were incident based driven

4 samples. 

5 That in my mind confirms that the 

6 potential exposure appeared to be fairly low.

7 Now maybe we need to go back, and maybe this 

8 is a little late in the game, but -- and look

9 at those samples, and, Mark, do we have any 

10 additional samples in claimant bioassay, 

11 claimants records or not? 

12 MR. ROLFES: Yes, well, if I, what 

13 we have done with all the documentation that 

14 we've collected and added into our Site 

15 Research Database, we've SPEDELite linked, if

16 an individual's name popped up, we SPEDELite 

17 link that to the individual's claim, and so 

18 if there's a document in the Site Research 

19 Database --

20 DR. NETON: Well, there aren't a 

21 lot of data out there, but, again, these are 

22 these incident-driven samples that -- they're
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 not all nondetectable, there are a few 

2 positive ones sprinkled about here and there,

3 but having worked at a uranium facility in 

4 the past, they're not alarmingly high value, 

5 they're not like we think you couldn't bound 

6 these types of exposure scenarios, which are 

7 sort of consistent with what Mark is seeing 

8 in the air sampling program, which is 

9 somewhat consistent that was seen in 1989. 

10 I think -- I think what's not 

11 happened here is to put together a 

12 comprehensive picture of this --

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, Jim, 

14 that's a good point because this is one of 

15 the questions that we had, too, was what is 

16 an event, what is there, is there a limit 

17 that considers it an event driven, or what 

18 triggers the bioassay program? And there's 

19 nothing, and it's not even -- it's not even 

20 clear of who -- how you determine what an 

21 event was.

22 And in talking with the people 
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 down there and talking with the RadCon, I 

2 asked them I says so what established an 

3 event that you would have to bioassay? Their 

4 comment was if we couldn't get it cleaned up 

5 before the end of shift. And the comment 

6 about relatively clean coming in. 

7 When we went into the weighing 

8 and so forth area I asked them because the 

9 surveys aren't being done by RadCon, they're 

10 being done by operators and so forth. And I 

11 asked them what kind of levels that they had,

12 and he says when they come in or when they 

13 leave, and I says well what do you mean, and 

14 he says there's always a little bit of 

15 leaching to them. 

16 You always wipe the pits down 

17 before you ever handle them and work with 

18 them. Because it's always going to be a 

19 little bit of leaching. 

20 DR. NETON: Right. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this 

22 whole thing --
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 DR. NETON: The thing to remember, 

2 Brad, is when you take bioassay samples 

3 they're long term integrators. So if there 

4 are samples of workers that were taken and 

5 I've seen these, `49, `63, `65, `67, `73, and

6 they're nondetectable and those workers have 

7 been consistently working in those areas and 

8 there's nothing coming out in their urine and 

9 we establish a threshold like we do typically

10 to cap the output at the detection limit for 

11 a chronic exposure scenario, that has a way 

12 of bounding those people's exposures using 

13 that technique. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So what you're 

15 telling me is that you've got substantial 

16 bioassay for the workforce --

17 DR. NETON: I'm not saying 

18 substantial, but what I'm saying is if you 

19 take a bioassay sample on a person in `65, 

20 that is an integrator of all the exposure to 

21 uranium that occurred before that time. And, 

22 you know, if you can establish what the 
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 maximum concentration the person could have 

2 breathed in on a chronic basis and not been 

3 above the detection limit, you can bound that

4 person's intake. We do this very regularly at

5 a number of sites. 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

7 that's one of the things that has kind of 

8 come out was -- that we've been -- that I've 

9 been looking at is is the premise that the 

10 highest exposed people were the ones that did

11 the bioassay. And that's not correct. 

12 DR. NETON: Well, it seems if 

13 they're incident driven, you would expect 

14 that they would be among the higher exposed 

15 people, otherwise they weren't incident 

16 driven which -- I don't know what they were. 

17 I mean, I thought we --

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's kind of 

19 what we've been looking at ourselves. 

20 DR. NETON: Right. I thought it 

21 was generally agreed that it was an incident 

22 driven program meaning that they only sampled
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 when there were off normal conditions, that 

2 is some type of contamination was either 

3 observed or measured or that sort of thing. 

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And what we 

5 kind of also found out was that when they 

6 sampled, it was kind of a broader spectrum of

7 people, too, because they wanted to have 

8 someone to compare to, but, you know, this is

9 kind of our -- this is my hangup and my 

10 problem with this is for one thing there 

11 isn't that much data out there. There's so 

12 many different events there is no procedures 

13 to tell us what was your limits to be able to

14 -- for an event. What did you guys consider 

15 as an event. There's nothing clear. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Brad, this is Mark. 

17 And dating back to 1959 they had standard 

18 operating procedures. The report number was 

19 321. It was in the 321 series, and they do 

20 have essentially what's considered a minor 

21 event versus a major event document to --

22 back as early as that, and one of the bases 
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 when sealed pits came on site, one of the 

2 occurrences or incidents, you know, was the 

3 dropping of a component, and so that was one 

4 of the early things that was considered to be

5 an incident. 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: A dropping. 

7 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That was an 

9 event. So it wasn't a release; it was a 

10 dropping. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Well, the concern was 

12 that if something was dropped it could have, 

13 you know, cracked or broken or released 

14 contamination, and so in those events or in 

15 those earlier time periods that was 

16 considered to be an event. 

17 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Can I say 

18 something here because I don't want this 

19 misconception that early bioassay data were 

20 always associated with incidents. In fact we 

21 looked at a lot of those -- of the incident 

22 reports and how they correlated to how 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 bioassay correlated to the incidents, and in 

2 fact most of the bioassay were not taken as a

3 result of an incident. 

4 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Did you produce 

5 a report to share with us on this --

6 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: It is on 

7 its way. 

8 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

9 MR. KATZ: For the court reporter, 

10 and I guess we all could just be careful 

11 about this, that was Kathy DeMers from SC&A. 

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

13 I kind of have a deja vu because this is the 

14 same thing we went over back in the Work 

15 Group meeting, so I guess, Joe --

16 DR. NETON: Brad, this is Jim. 

17 Could I ask Kathy a question? What is this 

18 report that we're going to be receiving? 

19 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: It is the 

20 data adequacy and completeness report. It's 

21 going in for review to Pantex today. Once we 

22 get it back we'll ship it out. 
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 DR. NETON: And that, as you said, 

2 incorporates a review of the early bioassay 

3 samples? 

4 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Yes. 

5 DR. NETON: The ones that are out 

6 there on the O: drive now? 

7 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Right. 

8 DR. NETON: Well that would be --

9 that's very important for us to know, I mean 

10 -- 

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes, this is what 

12 we're going to need, I think, to move forward

13 on something, so. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well I object to 

15 that to some extent. You know, there were 

16 specific deliverables that came out of the 

17 Work Group. I went ahead and, you know, put 

18 them down at the very end of this status 

19 thing I sent to the Work Group in December. 

20 And we had four deliverables, and -- one of 

21 which was the data adequacy and completeness 

22 which you know, we've been working on since 
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 last fall but been held up by Pantex a couple

2 times. But that about ready to pop. Sent the 

3 neutron paper, and these were all taskings 

4 from the Work Group. Sent the neutron paper 

5 in in December after we've got further 

6 information on the Mound neutron approach. 

7 And we're going back to do data 

8 capture at the site once they make 

9 arrangements to get us back on site so we can

10 get a little bit more additional information 

11 on source terms. That was something the Work 

12 Group was interested in. And we also have 

13 site interview summaries which are going 

14 through classification review and hopefully, 

15 Kathy, are those almost available? 

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: The status 

17 of our interview summaries is -- and that 

18 DOE-RL was to ship them to Pantex for review,

19 and they were to complete that review by 

20 January 14th. This morning I found out that 

21 Pantex never received those interviews for 

22 review, so we are in the process of trying to
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 find out what the holdup is with Richland. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: So they're with 

3 DOE, but those summaries are something that, 

4 you know, Jim, we were saying as far as some 

5 of this feedback, those interview summaries 

6 are something that would be useful as well. 

7 Those are the four deliverables that came out

8 of the Work Group meeting as far as taskings,

9 and on the NIOSH side, the -- there were 

10 basically two. One was the additional 

11 justification on the internal dose 

12 reconstruction approach, and the other was 

13 more from a Site Profile standpoint loose 

14 ends that came out of the -- this was the 

15 Hans Behling discussion on external, and I 

16 think it was agreed there were some loose 

17 ends on that issue, but they looked like they

18 were tracking toward a Site Profile, and it's

19 all in the transcripts.

20 So as far as work products, paper 

21 products, they're either delivered or in DOE 

22 screening at this point. But as far as what 
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 we can look at, we frankly need to look at 

2 the internal dose approach, and that hasn't 

3 changed. 

4 MR. ROLFES: Joe, this is Mark. I 

5 did want to let you know that we did in fact 

6 receive the review of our neutron dose 

7 reconstruction methodology, and we're working

8 on preparing responses to that. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. Now going 

10 back to internal, I know it's a tough one. We

11 had the same discussion as far as what the 

12 need was and what the -- the problem was back

13 in May, and I don't -- I guess I'm at odds as

14 to what -- what more can we say at this point

15 to put you in a position to provide the 

16 additional justification that we can then 

17 evaluate. You know, I -- looking at the 

18 response that we got back in May to the Work 

19 Group, there's not, there's nothing here in 

20 most cases that we can really deal with other

21 than some programmatic information as far as 

22 the way the program is managed, the level of 
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 contamination and things like that. 

2 DR. NETON: Well, it seems to me 

3 that there's two things here. One is that 

4 there seems -- there's some debate concerning

5 the value of the air sampling program as it 

6 existed in the early years. I mean, I've 

7 heard Mark say that these were at basically 

8 breathing zone heights in the cells, and I've

9 also heard Brad say that workers were saying 

10 that they were in the hallway. There's a big 

11 disconnect there. Somehow we need to get to 

12 the bottom of that and determine, you know, 

13 why there is that disconnect and which is 

14 what it is, you know, what is the real value 

15 of these samples. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Jim, this is Mark. 

17 And there's two different sampling locations,

18 and one is within the cell, and the second is

19 a series of bays where there are air samplers

20 set up just outside of the bay on the wall. 

21 DR. NETON: Right. So it seems to 

22 me that we need to somehow communicate better
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 what we're actually using and why we do 

2 believe that these are representative of the 

3 work activities that were ongoing in the 

4 early years. I mean, you know, if those air 

5 samples are truly invalid, then I fully agree

6 there's a problem here with this -- one of 

7 the pieces of this analysis. 

8 MR. ROLFES: And to further 

9 elaborate on what Brad was related --

10 relaying earlier on the Cell 1 incident that 

11 occurred, that was a tritium release, and I 

12 just wanted to discuss that. The tritium 

13 monitoring program, they had routinely 

14 sampled workers for tritium exposures since 

15 the early 1970s and then had also selectively

16 analyzed some samples prior to that in the 

17 `60s for tritium. And so the workers 

18 that were involved in this incident would 

19 have been in a tritium sampling program in 

20 the first place, and we wouldn't be using the

21 air monitoring data from that release in 1989

22 to be estimating their intakes. We'd use 
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 their actual urinalysis results. 

2 DR. NETON: Okay, but this `89 

3 incident we're talking about earlier was the 

4 uranium incident. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Well, yes, there was 

6 also an incident in 1989 involving uranium as

7 well, and as a result of that incident that 

8 occurred there were some workers that had 

9 basically exited the area that had some 

10 visible contamination on them. Some of it 

11 contained uranium. And as a result of that 

12 incident they shut down the operation that 

13 was ongoing there and essentially shut down 

14 that operation completely until they could 

15 survey the area and document how much 

16 contamination was on the workers, how much 

17 contamination was in the work area, et

18 cetera. 

19 And then following that they also 

20 went back and found approximately 300 workers

21 that had been involved in working on that 

22 specific program over the past several years 
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 and took Helgeson lung counts of those 

2 individuals, and they believed that there was

3 a positive bias to the lung burdens that they

4 measured so they -- that prompted a second 

5 check by using urinalyses which were analyzed

6 by -- Y-12. And so it was that large 

7 population of bioassay data which would have 

8 been collected from anybody who had been 

9 working on that program and potentially could

10 have been chronically exposed over the past 

11 several years. 

12 DR. NETON: Right, I got that 

13 part. Mark, this air sampler validation, is 

14 that written up anywhere? I mean, have we 

15 provided that? 

16 MR. ROLFES: We, as part of our 

17 Evaluation Report we did an analysis of the 

18 4500 air sample results that we analyzed, and

19 I can -- it was actually part of the 

20 Evaluation Report which we produced for 

21 Pantex. 

22 DR. NETON: I had forgotten that 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 part, and somehow I've not heard anybody 

2 criticize this other than the fact that no 

3 one's actually come out and said these were 

4 invalid --

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, that's not 

6 true, Jim, because I questioned, I said where

7 was the air sampling, where were the air 

8 sampler heads, and we were not able to take 

9 care of that until we got down to Pantex and 

10 actually saw the cells and how the cells were

11 set up. And if you remember right, Mark, as 

12 Scott was telling us, there wasn't anything 

13 in the cells, it was all in the hallways 

14 because all of those doors opened up into 

15 that one hallway, and their theory was that 

16 any of the contamination that would come out 

17 of any of those cells would be going towards 

18 a large exhaust fans that was now a brick 

19 wall there. 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Brad, this is

21 LaVon, and I do have to disagree. There was -

22 - I know of at least one cell that we went 
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into that there was clearly a sample head up 

2 there.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay now which 

4 -- which cell though? 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can't remember 

6 the numbers or which one, you know, exactly, 

7 but I clearly remember that there being a 

8 sampler, a sample head in the cell and one in

9 the hall, in the bay. 

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, okay, 

11 and --

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, wait a 

13 minute, are these -- are these older cells or

14 were these the --

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: These are the 

16 newer cells, LaVon --

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: The newer cells 

18 would not be representative anyway. 

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, and this 

20 is the point that I'm trying to bring out is 

21 that you have to in the later years actually 

22 if you would have listened to what Scott said
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they went through basically three generations

2 of air sampling data, and in the later years,

3 as you saw the cell, this is what prompted 

4 them to be able to put them where that they 

5 did do that. Another thing if you might 

6 remember, LaVon, is that the air is actually 

7 recirculated inside of this cell, it never 

8 pulls out of the newer cells.

9 This was different in the earlier 

10 years because in that hallway that we were 

11 standing in that we were looking inside to 

12 the cells the ones that had the big pits in 

13 the -- the big holes in the floors that had 

14 the big rad symbols all over them and stuff, 

15 they had a fan in the hallway. It looked like

16 a big doorway with new brick right there, and

17 that's where the fan was that, and it pulled 

18 air out and -- out of the building. The air 

19 sampler heads were in the hallway because 

20 they never had to go into the cells to change

21 any of the papers.

22 So you are correct that later 
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years they have, but in the earlier years 

2 they were all in the hall because that was 

3 one of my questions at the very beginning of 

4 this was where was the positioning of these 

5 heads, where -- was it a good representative 

6 sample. You're using this air sampling data, 

7 but you can't even tell me where the heads 

8 are at. And this is what part of the 

9 importance of this tour was. 

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

11 Kathy DeMers. Can I ask a clarification about

12 some of the data in the ER? Can you guys tell

13 me what you defined as cell air? 

14 MR. ROLFES: Kathy, I'm not sure 

15 of the question. This is Mark Rolfes. 

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, in 

17 the ER, when you go back to the table in the 

18 back where it lists the availability of 

19 surveillance data, air sampling data and 

20 other data, you have, I believe, high volume 

21 cell air, and lapel. What are you defining as

22 cell air? Is that the RAMS? 
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Well, it was called 

2 the RAMS in the more recent time period, but,

3 yes, it was cell air being basically 

4 collected. They had, let's see here, dig it 

5 up more formal. Let's see, they had a 

6 continuous air sampler within the cells, and 

7 I believe it operated essentially for the 

8 entire week, and they'd be changed out 

9 weekly. 

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, so 

11 that -- what that is is what we saw, what --

12 what, say, LaVon is talking about what we saw

13 on the wall of the cell?

14 MR. ROLFES: Well, we didn't go 

15 into an operational cell. 

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: No, we 

17 didn't, but we went into other cells. 

18 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

19 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: And he was 

20 talking about seeing a monitoring system on 

21 the wall in the cell. 

22 MR. ROLFES: There -- I tried to 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 clarify this earlier. There's been air 

2 samplers within the cells since the cells 

3 were basically put into operation, and also 

4 in addition to that there were the air 

5 samplers outside the bays as well. 

6 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, and 

7 this is opposed to putting a general air 

8 sample right next to the individual or a 

9 lapel sample on them. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes, lapel sampling 

11 was done in the `90s, not routinely done in 

12 the earlier time periods. There were some 

13 occurrences when there were some incidents 

14 where they had set up some not necessarily --

15 they were more -- they were still, I guess, 

16 general area air monitors, but, yes, lapel 

17 sampling wasn't done until much more 

18 recently. MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: 

19 Okay, and a majority of the air sampling 

20 you're talking about is cell air, is in that 

21 category? 

22 MR. ROLFES: That would be 45 --
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 4500 samples that we've analyzed.

2 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Right. 

3 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

4 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay. I 

5 actually kind of on a different note had two 

6 other questions for you from earlier 

7 statements you made. You said that there's 50

8 interviews out there under the Advisory Board

9 folder. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes, interviews and 

11 worker outreach minutes. 

12 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay. Which 

13 specific interviews did you draw from in your

14 response to a that was issued, I believe, in 

15 February of last year? 

16 MR. ROLFES: Well, the entire 

17 interview process we've considered, you know,

18 every interview that we've conducted and 

19 every worker outreach meeting that we've 

20 held, we've considered -- you know, I've 

21 provided every piece of information that 

22 we've gathered because this isn't something 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that you know, we've seen, you know, the 

2 Evaluation Report as being the culmination of

3 all of our work. However you can't take that 

4 independently of all the other information 

5 that we've collected and used to develop the 

6 Site Profile, and the Site Profile alone 

7 can't be used independent by itself without 

8 also considering the worker's own exposure 

9 monitoring data and bioassay data. 

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: So if I 

11 want to go back and you're talking about 

12 interviews with workers in your response, I'm

13 going to need to review all 50? 

14 MR. ROLFES: Yes, essentially. I 

15 mean you can't really take things piecemeal, 

16 you got to consider everything as a whole to 

17 make a good understanding of operations and 

18 exposure potentials. 

19 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, and 

20 one other question. You said that you went 

21 back and you were able to look at the number 

22 of disassemblies per year? 
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: We looked, you know, 

2 historically the disassemblies certainly 

3 ramped up. There weren't really too many done

4 in the earlier years, and then in the more 

5 recent time period they've certainly ramped 

6 up, and surprisingly enough if you look at 

7 our analysis that we've completed, the actual

8 alpha air concentrations within the cells 

9 appears to be correlated to the number of 

10 disassembles which took place in the `70s 

11 versus the `80s. So if you take a look at the

12 alpha air concentrations in the 1980s they're

13 slightly higher than the air concentrations 

14 from the 1970s. 

15 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, so 

16 you have the numbers of dissassmblies by 

17 year? 

18 MR. ROLFES: Yes, it's published. 

19 It's published by the Department of Energy 

20 for the more recent time period, up until a 

21 certain date. I don't recall what it is, 

22 though. 
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Can you 

2 either provide us with the specific reference

3 of that information, or provide us with some 

4 compilation of what you -- 

5 MR. ROLFES: I believe you've 

6 already accessed that information during your

7 last -- I believe Joe had indicated that you 

8 reviewed the same documentation that I have 

9 at -- I don't recall, was it at OSTI, 

10 perhaps? 

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, well 

12 I am aware of a document that we reviewed at 

13 OSTI. Really can't get into the contents of 

14 it, but that would indicate that there were 

15 other peaks. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Okay, well also keep 

17 in mind, you know, this document would report

18 for facilities other than just the Pantex 

19 plant. It would also account for other 

20 facilities that were doing similar work. 

21 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: So we don't 

22 have specific numbers for Pantex? 
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: No, it was just a 

2 general, just a --

3 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: The number, 

4 the specific number of disassemblies and 

5 let's throw in there retrofit modifications 

6 and surveillance units and JTAs, we don't 

7 have that data for Pantex by year. 

8 MR. ROLFES: It's not -- it's not 

9 really needed for, you know, just a 

10 generalized analysis of the air sampling data

11 though. We're just using the number of 

12 diassessmblies, we're just showing a trend in

13 the air monitoring data, that's all. 

14 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Well, that 

15 seems to be one of your, your key arguments 

16 for back extrapolation is that the number of 

17 disassmeblies went up. And that's why I'm 

18 kind of asking for this data. 

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay, well we can 

20 look into it if you want specific numbers of 

21 diassemblies by year in order to, you know, 

22 feel better about the analysis that we've 
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 done, we can certainly request that from the 

2 Department of Energy. 

3 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: And what --

4 what we would look be looking for is actually

5 for Pantex, not for Iowa, not for Medina, not

6 for Clarksville. And also while I have got a 

7 captive audience I wanted to let you guys 

8 know that I just had a conversation with 

9 Pantex before this call, and our tour 

10 notebooks, all but Phil's and mine, have been

11 shipped out as of last Friday or Monday of 

12 this week. And that's helpful in all of this 

13 analysis and discussion that we're talking 

14 about. 

15 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Brad, this is 

17 Joe. What I would recommend at this point, I 

18 mean clearly what we're trying to do is find 

19 a way to stage a meaningful Work Group 

20 discussion for this -- for the second Work 

21 Group meeting and to have enough information 

22 hard information that would enable the Work 
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group to reach some closure on some of these 

2 questions and come up with a recommendation 

3 for the full Board. 

4 It seems like we're gravitating 

5 to, you know, I went ahead and based on the 

6 transcripts from the last meeting and some of

7 the discussions, wrote down what I thought 

8 were -- and I call them threshold questions, 

9 but ones that the Work Group clearly has to 

10 come to some closure on, ones that we've kind

11 of talked about. 

12 And some of these -- some of the, 

13 you know, pass forwards that Jim Neton 

14 mentioned for depleted uranium and Kathy and 

15 Mark were just talking about regarding, you 

16 know, diassemblies which is sort of 

17 operational status and even discussion that I

18 think Jim had with you, Brad, on air 

19 sampling, I mean, these all come down to 

20 these, I guess, essentially, let's see, four 

21 questions. The first one has two parts, but 

22 four basic questions. 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Is there any way we can just 

2 reach agreement that for purposes of the 

3 actual Work Group meeting, face to face 

4 meeting, that NIOSH as we laid out back in 

5 May could come back with -- this goes back to

6 our discussion at Santa Fe, Jim, a 

7 quantitative, you know, quantitative 

8 response, something that sort of goes to 

9 source term evaluation but sort of stays on 

10 the quantitative side in terms of providing a

11 basis for the approach. 

12 And the first one is, you know, 

13 to substantiate with, you know, whether it's 

14 air samples or whatever, you know, the --

15 where one is back extrapolating, you know, 

16 1990s or `89 data -- making use of that data,

17 what gives NIOSH confidence that that 

18 represents an upper bound and -- from a 

19 quantitative basis, you know, whatever you 

20 got. 

21 And that has two parts but really 

22 gets down to representativeness without 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relying on, you know, sort of an opinion 

2 about the radiological control practices 

3 because I think that's dangerous ground 

4 sometimes. And what -- where the confidence 

5 for normalizing operations which gets to 

6 things like disassemblies and the condition 

7 of the facilities, changes in monitoring 

8 practices, just basically normalizing 

9 operations, that would be number one. 

10 Number two gets to the issue, I 

11 think, that Jim and Brad talked about which 

12 is, you know, the confidence on the air 

13 sampling itself and the placement of 

14 monitoring, what have you, and I agree, I 

15 think one has to get to some facts as to the 

16 earlier days, not in the current regime but 

17 in the earlier days was there an issue 

18 revolving around the placement and 

19 representativeness of the air samples 

20 themselves. 

21 Because if they're not 

22 representative, I agree with Jim, it really 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 undercuts the back extrapolation as a whole. 

2 The third thing is, you know, and we had this

3 discussion at Santa Fe about exposure 

4 potential, and it sort of crosses the ground,

5 you know, where in fact the exposure 

6 potential can be demonstrated and for those 

7 that were present is there a quantitative 

8 basis for saying that they can be neglected, 

9 or negligible or not. And we had some issues 

10 revolving around contamination of pits. 

11 And I think again some 

12 assumptions were made about that. And the 

13 final thing is what we're hoping to deliver 

14 shortly which is the completeness and 

15 adequacy of the internal and external dose 

16 records themselves, and that's something that

17 I think we need for the actual Work Group 

18 meeting as well, so just to bring the 

19 internal discussion to the, or move it 

20 forward and get some closure on it, I think 

21 those four elements, if we can provide a 

22 quantitative, you know, fact-based response 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to bring to the table first three I think --

2 well we would share a little bit on the on 

3 the third one as far as exposure potential 

4 but certainly the first two would be NIOSH 

5 the fourth would be ours, and certainly on 

6 the exposure potential we're still 

7 investigating onsite help tests of data 

8 capture that would help bring that to 

9 closure. 

10 But I think that's the path 

11 forward, if we can agree those four questions

12 need to be answered and need to be answered 

13 using a quantitative approach without 

14 reliance on you know, assumptions on program 

15 status and how well the program was managed, 

16 that kind of thing. That would help, that 

17 would help get us there. 

18 DR. NETON: Joe, this is Jim. I 

19 wrote down before you spoke what I thought 

20 was the path forward and I am remarkably in 

21 agreement here. 

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, well, you 
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, I had thought about this over the 

2 holidays I hate to confess that but I think 

3 those are the tracks and I don't, you know, I

4 don't want to presume that there isn't a way 

5 using the data that we happen to have, 

6 there's not a lot of data but there is data 

7 and bring it back and it would be something 

8 that we could evaluate and you certainly 

9 could evaluate the neutron paper, the data 

10 completeness paper and I think then we're 

11 talking about some ability to close on this, 

12 that we haven't had before. 

13 DR. NETON: Yes, to me, me it 

14 hinges upon the justification the air 

15 sampling program, the robustness of it, tied 

16 in with the bioassay that we do have and in 

17 light of the data adequacy that you've done 

18 on which I guess apparently on that bioassay 

19 data that already there we'd like to see that

20 be able to pull that in at the same time 

21 rather than you know, have to go back and 

22 relook at it. 
76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: No, certainly 

2 agree with that. I think for purposes of an 

3 actual Work Group meeting in the near term we 

4 want to get that in your hands within weeks, 

5 it just has to go through DOE clearance so 

6 that should be fairly forthcoming but I think

7 going back to where we left it in May it 

8 would be very useful to have a quantitative 

9 approach just kind of dispelling this 

10 question that, you know, sort of lingering 

11 questions on back extrapolation which is 

12 used, you know, across the board pretty much 

13 on all these nuclides you know, in fact it 

14 may be that it will -- one can justify an 

15 upper bound if you look at some of this data 

16 and that would be useful just to for Work 

17 Groups just to you know, get beyond that, we 

18 seem to be stuck and I think that's the way 

19 to get past it. Does that sound reasonable, 

20 Brad? 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, I guess 

22 just so we make sure that everybody's on 
77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 board with what we're requesting and apply, 

2 you know, because I'm going to be brutally 

3 honest, Joe, I thought this was kind of what 

4 we had gone over in the last Work Group 

5 meeting I kind of, it's kind of like we're of

6 the same position and I guess I just want to 

7 make sure that and again you know, Jim you 

8 brought up something very good too that we 

9 need to -- every one of these air sampling 

10 data heads should have had an ID number. If 

11 you're using these air sampling datas then 

12 there's going to be a placement for it and I 

13 realize that in the later years and I'm not 

14 worried about it, I'm worried about the pre15 `90 of where these placement heads were at 

16 and I've got my feeling of before where they 

17 were at and so forth so we need to make sure 

18 that that this air sampling data and we 

19 brought this up numerous times was 

20 sufficient, now we've got to see the 

21 generations of samples and how they've 

22 evolved and all the marvelous things that 
78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they've got in all of these new cells and so 

2 forth like that, because they've learned from

3 the past that the issues that they did have 

4 with their sampling program and so I, you 

5 know, that's one thing and I know that Joe's 

6 covered this but I want to make sure that the

7 if we're going to be using those air sampling

8 data that it is validated that it was 

9 representative. 

10 DR. NETON: I 100 percent agree 

11 with you Brad. 

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well then what I 

14 would say is that we can work off these 

15 threshold questions as the action items and 

16 Brad can circulate that and I would only add 

17 maybe some emphasis on the need for a 

18 quantitative approach which would you know, I

19 think be consistent what we just talked 

20 about, you know, if it's number of 

21 disassemblies, if it's actually placement of 

22 air samples and validity or reliability of 
79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 air samples, I think that's that's what we're

2 talking about. 

3 MR. KATZ: Joe and Jim, this is 

4 Ted. Why don't you two trade notes on your, 

5 on the action items so that they're fully and

6 completely worded and then get out to the 

7 Work Group a final list that's definitive and

8 unambiguous, just to be certain we don't have

9 any disconnect about what's meant about any 

10 of the items.

11 DR. NETON: Could I suggest that 

12 maybe Mark take on that for our side and I'll

13 be happy to look at it before it goes out. 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm sorry, I 

15 didn't, Jim, I didn't mean anyone 

16 particularly whether it's you or Mark but 

17 just in other words Joe and someone from DCAS

18 just work on putting it together. 

19 DR. NETON: Sounds good, I think I 

20 elect Mark to that task.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I was 

22 going to say my certainly my starting point 
80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is in that status piece I would only provide 

2 a little bit more emphasis on the 

3 quantitativeness of the justification. And I 

4 think it's important given the given the lag 

5 that, you know, we're experiencing with the 

6 proceedings to, you know, this is the Work 

7 Group's call but as far as the aiming point 

8 which is one reason for the call that would 

9 be something that would be helpful to 

10 understand also I know you know, looking at 

11 this, you're going to you know, figure out 

12 resource-wise where this puts us but I would 

13 think certainly we would like to be able to 

14 discuss this sometime in April or somewhere 

15 in that time frame. 

16 MR. KATZ: So--this is Ted, again17 -Joe, and that's something I guess we don't 

18 need to deal with online but afterwards I 

19 mean integral to doing this will be at least 

20 one then meeting, secure meeting for the 

21 documentation that you discussed that needs 

22 to be looked at and so on--
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Here's a secure 

2 meeting but as part of the resource loading 

3 of compiling these questions and figuring out

4 what one has to do to answer the questions, 

5 and some of these questions also involve us. 

6 That would be something to coordinate with 

7 you and Brad and just figure out then you 

8 know, is there a window that we should get 

9 back together as a Work Group and that's--

10 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I 

11 understand what you're saying there, what I, 

12 what I my point I was trying to make is that 

13 it seems like that secure meeting needs to be

14 scheduled and that's an element in the timing

15 of this face to face Work Group meeting. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think 

17 they'll track together and I actually won't 

18 be too inconsistent because I think we have a

19 little, well, I don't want to say that 

20 either, because it's, you know, let's see how

21 quickly the DOE can transfer stuff but I'm 

22 hopeful that as soon as we can, you know, 
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consolidate the records we can certainly go 

2 to Germantown with Mark. 

3 Okay so we will trade you know, 

4 versions of this thing and you certainly have

5 our starting proposition from this this memo.

6 Mark. 

7 MR. ROLFES: All right, yes, I 

8 just wanted to make sure that these are the 

9 four issues that we need to address and we'll

10 sort out exactly what the details are and 

11 move forward from there. That's, is that 

12 correct? 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, right, and I 

14 I think the fourth one clearly, as Kathy 

15 noted has been completed and just has to go 

16 through clearance you will have that 

17 available for your review as well. 

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, this is Ted 

19 again. I just want to be clear because there 

20 are four that you and Jim spoke of but then 

21 you also mentioned that I mean you've 

22 delivered the neutron report, that also gets 
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 knocked or not? 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, these are 

3 the four items that are listed under internal

4 only. We have we haven't gotten to the 

5 external or neutron pieces of the Pantex 

6 discussion. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay and you're not in 

8 something for the neutron one to also be 

9 addressed at that face to face? 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we would be, 

11 we would address it, I'm just saying that 

12 we've been focusing on internal for the last 

13 hour because I think that's the, that's the 

14 area where clearly we needed to agree what 

15 needed to be done. 

16 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, neutron I 

18 think is we have a pretty good path on that, 

19 I you know, we can get into that now but that

20 one I think both sides understand where 

21 that's headed. We certainly have some 

22 questions for clarification, some issues, but
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH as Mark indicated is visibly looking at

2 that, responding to it, so I don't think 

3 that's a question of organization. I think 

4 the internal one is troublesome because we 

5 we're having some communication issues 

6 obviously. 

7 MR. KATZ: No, I understand, Joe, 

8 I just wanted to make certain we weren't 

9 banking on that being ready to be put to bed 

10 at this next--

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I think these 

12 should be available for exposure at the next 

13 Work Group meeting. Assuming that NIOSH has 

14 had a chance to review it and develop the 

15 response and we have the chance to look at 

16 that response before the meeting. I would you

17 know, I would hope that we can you know, 

18 pretty much dispatch that, as we have with 

19 Mound, along the same lines. There's some 

20 questions, some issues of clarification but 

21 that's on, to me, that's on a different track

22 than some of the questions we have for 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: So, yes, we would 

4 hope to have that one the table and hopefully

5 for Work Group closure depending on how 

6 things go could be NIOSH response. 

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Now, Jim, 

8 you've--or, I'm sorry, Joe--you've sent out 

9 the neutron paper to NIOSH, correct? 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, so 

12 they're going to, they're going be working on

13 that because I was just looking through the 

14 paperwork and listening to what you guys were

15 saying and that, will you, we're just waiting

16 for something --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes, I mean 

18 certainly there's two major pieces of paper, 

19 that was the first on neutron, the second 

20 one's going to be on data completeness for 

21 external and internal. And both of those will

22 be available for discussion at next Work 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group meeting. 

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I 

3 guess before my phone goes dead let me plug 

4 into another one. I guess my -- we've got a 

5 path forward on where we're going here and I,

6 as Ted has said we've -- I just want to make 

7 sure, how can I politely, that we're all on 

8 the same page is what's being requested from 

9 each other so there's no misunderstanding and

10 you and Mark are going to exchange papers on 

11 -- you're going to exchange what each one's 

12 responsibility is, is this correct? What 

13 we're looking for? 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, we're gonna 

15 reiterate what was agreed to in last May and 

16 put it in writing and be very explicit about 

17 the nature of the response that would be most

18 helpful, some of which we discussed today, 

19 that would be most helpful to to the ten some

20 of these assumptions for example, back 

21 extrapolation on whatever data's available 

22 that would show that that would be a 
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conservative approach and a bounding one. 

2 And, you know, where we have 

3 issues like placement of representatives of 

4 air sampling, you know, I think both we and 

5 NIOSH need to do further homework to try to 

6 one way or another resolve the question if 

7 there's a you know, if there's a disagreement

8 then by all means we're going to have to try 

9 and resolve that but you know, I think right 

10 now the ER is saying one thing and we're 

11 getting feedback from workers from the 

12 earlier era suggesting something else. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, well, 

14 and okay, I -- and now, we had some questions

15 on the burning ground, and I'm trying to 

16 remember, we do we have any air sampling data

17 for the burial ground--or, burning grounds? 

18 MR. ROLFES: There--this is Mark, 

19 and there is some limited alpha air 

20 concentration monitoring results for the 

21 burning grounds. There's also some bioassay 

22 data for some of the individuals that were 
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there as well. 

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, because--

3 MR. ROLFES: Not--it's not much, I 

4 want to make sure we're-- 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I 

6 understand that and when we were after the 

7 burning grounds because this got into the 

8 placement of the heads and so forth, that was

9 actually I believe on the boundary of the 

10 site so I want to make sure because that's a 

11 great distance and so that's wanted to make 

12 sure that we made sure we knew where the 

13 placement of that was too because this is a 

14 critical thing, you know, we've learned a lot

15 of things over the years and Pantex is a 

16 prime example of this, because if you look at

17 the first generatiosn themselves to what the 

18 new generation of cells are they're totally 

19 different and as Scott said down there, 

20 they've made a lot of improvements through 

21 the years and they've learned a lot. 

22 And so I just I want to make sure 
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we don't confuse the new cells with the 

2 old cells. But I guess Joe, I guess reading 

3 through on your paper I guess my question is 

4 is do we have anything more to go over? 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: No, that was my 

6 original concern back in May that you know, 

7 we would need something more definitive, 

8 more quantitative to provide a recommendation

9 to the Work Group and I think if we can agree

10 on these explicit questions that threshold 

11 questions that need to be answered and using 

12 quantitative means then you know, I think we 

13 can reach resolution, one way or the other, 

14 let the chips fall where they may and may 

15 turn out there's enough to give the Work 

16 Group confidence to make a recommendation 

17 that no, you know, there's no SEC issue but I

18 don't think the Work Group is there right 

19 now. 

20 So, no, there's nothing more I 

21 don't think that we can discuss on the 

22 internal until we have this additional 
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 justification. 

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Did we 

3 want to discuss anything with the external 

4 dose, or? 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, let's just, 

6 again, a high level of, we had we had Hans 

7 Behling on the phone if you may recall last 

8 year and there were a number of questions 

9 that came out of the Site Profile but it was 

10 his opinion that the Work Group tended to 

11 agree with him that none of these did not 

12 seem insurmountable as far as being able to 

13 come up with adjustments or what have you and

14 the agreement was that NIOSH would simply, 

15 you know, pursue the issues as they're 

16 described and justified in the Site Profile 

17 to come to some kind of closure to bring back

18 to the Work Group, basically indicating how 

19 they would be addressed. Ron, I don't know, 

20 do you have anything more to offer on that? 

21 DR. BUCHANAN: No, as far as the 

22 external dose, like you say Hans worked 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mostly with that on the low energy issue, 60 

2 keV is low and as far as I can tell from the 

3 transcripts and the past papers is if that 

4 was to be treated as SEC issue it would be 

5 taken off -- I mean as a Site Profile it 

6 would be taken off the SEC issue slate if we 

7 can show it's been corrected. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: This, and this 

9 had more to do with how the calibration and 

10 processing was handled with different vendors

11 and I think there was some response to NIOSH 

12 on that that explained how that was done and 

13 skin contamination, how that was addressed in

14 terms of methodology. So we went through all 

15 that, and certainly Hans agreed as well that 

16 this was tilting toward a Site Profile issue 

17 and that's how we left it and that NIOSH 

18 would basically close out some of the 

19 questions or at least provide some of those 

20 clarifications to the Work Group you know, 

21 how they would be addressed either through 

22 OTIBs, existing OTIBs or whatever. More of a 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 housekeeping question or issue.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, yes 

3 because Joe one of the ones that was 

4 bothering me on it, this is mainly form the 

5 petitioners, the validation of the highest 

6 exposed worker being badged because earlier 

7 years they all weren't badged, and there was 

8 some issue on that of you know, if they were 

9 or if they weren't and how they determined 

10 you know, they had a lot of different 

11 bioassay, or dosimetry but I sure didn't see 

12 how the highest exposed workers were the only

13 ones that were badged. Matter of fact the 

14 guards are actually out of their dosimetry 

15 program but that's later years, so. Okay, so16 - 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I, you know, I 

18 would defer to Mark but I think we did have 

19 that discussion last year. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. I guess 

21 that, Mark, that was just one of the 

22 questions because it is tilting towards the 
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Site Profile issue but that to me was one of 

2 the questions, the mechanics express that or 

3 prove that, then that to me was an issue. 

4 MR. ROLFES: Okay I can take a 

5 look back in the Evaluation Report to see 

6 what we did to address that, if we want to 

7 carry on with something else I can come back 

8 to this. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. Okay, 

10 well--

11 MR. ROLFES: In our Site Profile 

12 also we've also got the doses received by 

13 year for employees and if an individual was 

14 unmonitored and was a rad worker doing hands15 on work and had a potential for exposure then

16 we would, we could assign a coworker external

17 dose to that individual. 

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well one of the 

19 things that came out and this was from the 

20 petitioners and so forth like that in the 

21 earlier years there really wasn't a rhyme or 

22 reason to who had badges and who didn't, it 
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was you know, just kind of take a spot check,

2 is what I remember them expressing to me 

3 because there was numerous workers, you know,

4 the, and the badge was not even really -- a 

5 lot of it was left on their coat on a table 

6 someplace, there wasn't a real badge program. 

7 And this is something that I've 

8 found interesting and I, you know, it's an 

9 issue that we need to kind of put to bed on 

10 this, figure out how we're going to do it 

11 because I know that you guys have stated that

12 this is the highest exposed, according to 

13 Pantex the highest exposed people were the 

14 ones that were badged, that -- there was a 

15 lot of issues with how the badges were 

16 because you only have badges in certain areas

17 but you went out to the burning grounds you 

18 didn't have any badge there and so forth so 

19 this is kind of I just wanted to try to 

20 figure out how they determined who was going 

21 to be badged, who wasn't going to be badged, 

22 and if it was actually carried out.
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: The individuals 

2 that would have had the highest potential for

3 exposure would have been those that were 

4 doing hands on routine work in the cells with

5 the cell materials and/or the individuals in 

6 the earlier years who were doing radiography 

7 operations. And it was those first few years 

8 of operation that the individuals who were

9 doing the radiography operations they were 

10 the ones who had the highest potential for 

11 exposure very early on. 

12 And, then subsequent to that were 

13 those who were routinely handling the 

14 materials--

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Not all the 

16 people that were handling the materials were 

17 badged. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie, can 

19 I interject also? We also heard form several 

20 of the guards and they were in the cells they

21 were also in the hallways and I don't believe

22 they were badged either. 
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well Josie if 

2 you remember right, too, they were the ones 

3 that received all of the pits they actually 

4 had to go into the trucks and had to do a 

5 serial number check and a seal check before 

6 because they were actually the ones that 

7 would receive the materials. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: That is, well 

9 that's why I brought that up--

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, I'm 

11 sorry. MEMBER BEACH: They 

12 should have been considered highly exposed 

13 and I don't believe they are. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right and this 

15 was one of our questions that came out on 

16 this, was there's some gaps there, so. 

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Brad, this is Ron. 

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

19 DR. BUCHANAN: In the data 

20 accuracy and completeness paper we just 

21 completed, in that it does shed some light on

22 your question when was people badged 
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 significantly and so it does show that, you 

2 know, there was spot badging to begin with 

3 and it increased in 1979 before it really 

4 look like they badged a large percent and the

5 case, of course this is just a sampling, but 

6 the three guard cases I looked at going all 

7 the way back to the fifties, the guards were 

8 never badged. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

10 DR. BUCHANAN: On the three cases, 

11 three guards I looked at were not badged. So,

12 anyway, that'll shed a little light on it, I 

13 know it doesn't really answer the question 

14 were the most exposed badged, but it does 

15 show when badging, how the badging progressed

16 through the years. 

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well and 

18 like I say it sounds like a lot is going to 

19 be hinging on you guys' paper that's coming 

20 out and Mark that may help you in part of my 

21 question that I had there. 

22 MR. ROLFES: Well Brad I would say 
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we certainly can, as Ron pointed out, 

2 address the the accuracy of the data, the 

3 completeness and certainly there's a 

4 petitioner issue about, you know, too few 

5 workers monitored for valid dose 

6 reconstruction that was another issue. 

7 Whether the most highly exposed worker was 

8 badged I would think is something that maybe 

9 Mark can go back and provide -- go back to 

10 the ER and the basis for the ER may provide 

11 an answer. 

12 Certainly that was part of the 

13 petition but we did not have from an SC&A 

14 standpoint an issue on that for a Site 

15 Profile. 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

17 Joe, I guess I'm going to refer to you. Is 

18 there any other thing on, anything else that 

19 we need to get clarification on this for a 

20 path forward? 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well I think 

22 again on the external issue we're doing data 
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 completeness and accuracy, that's going to 

2 address some of the petitioner issues 

3 explicitly from our standpoint. The issues

4 that we have raised in the matrix though I 

5 think need a NIOSH response as far as -- I 

6 call it housekeeping but certainly some of 

7 these issues are fairly old, three or four 

8 years old from the Site Profile. Some of them

9 have been addressed in OTIBs and what have 

10 you, and the way it was left at the last Work

11 Group meeting was, even though this is 

12 tilting towards Site Profile, NIOSH would 

13 provide a response to these matrix items as 

14 far as how they would be addressed and 

15 resolved from their standpoint. 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be, 

18 that would be something that would be 

19 highlighted in any action piece that would go

20 out but again I think we want to make sure 

21 that the context is clear, you know, we're 

22 not saying that this is looking like a bigger
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and bigger SEC issue. In fact it's going the 

2 other way. 

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

4 Joe, is there anything else that we need--

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, beyond that 

6 you know, I don't want to take up a lot of 

7 time on the neutron issue. We did spend time 

8 in May talking about that in some detail, 

9 it's in the transcripts. NIOSH now has, as 

10 does the Work Group, the paper that we 

11 generated, and in short, you know, NIOSH has 

12 adopted a new approach different that what 

13 was in the ER making use of actual data 

14 rather than the neutron proton ratios using 

15 MCMP and the coworker model and we had 

16 examined that overall approach as part of the

17 Mound SEC so that gave us a leg up on this 

18 thing and we also have the benefit of the 

19 latest response to our response on the MCMP 

20 issue from Mound that came in early December 

21 so we looked at that as part of Ron's 

22 treatment of this thing he authored the White
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Paper that went out the end of December so I 

2 know Mark is in the throes of going through 

3 that paper and I think we're certainly 

4 interested in that response when it's ready. 

5 But I think that certainly is on track to 

6 some closure. 

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Mark do 

8 you have any kind of a time frame that we'd 

9 be looking at for the response for that? 

10 MR. ROLFES: I'm saying it should 

11 be probably about a month before we receive 

12 it, you know, give or take a couple of weeks 

13 including the review if necessary et cetera 

14 by DOE so hopefully by the end of February we

15 should have something out. 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, we'll be 

17 looking. Okay, do we have any other issues 

18 that need to come before the Work Group, Joe 

19 or Mark, that we need clarification on? 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think, I 

21 think the justifications that the Work Group 

22 wanted and we're trying to be more definitive
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about it is where we still are and I think if

2 we can somehow get those together and have 

3 that discussion in the next few months that 

4 should that should be enough.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You're talking 

6 the classified? 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, some of the 

8 discussions that are facility specific or 

9 source specific will have to be at a secure 

10 location. That combined with our open 

11 discussion I think would help put these to 

12 rest. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. And I 

14 think you're -- Jim you said that you had 

15 read Joe's response here and after today's 

16 call here, are there any other questions or 

17 question of direction that you may have had? 

18 I know that Mark hasn't had a chance to read 

19 this in entirety and that's why I'm directing

20 it towards you, Jim.

21 DR. NETON: No, Brad, I think 

22 we've covered the issues okay by my opinion. 
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, okay, I 

2 just wanted to make sure that we didn't have 

3 any outstanding issues that needed a little 

4 bit more clarification on. Mark, is there any

5 question of the direction and the -- what the

6 Work Group and SC&A is looking for as 

7 further, I guess, justification or--

8 MR. ROLFES: I don't think I have 

9 any questions at the time but I might have 

10 something once we receive the email you know,

11 with the update on these four threshold 

12 questions from SC&A and if there's a question

13 at the time I'll relay it in my emails. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

15 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I'm sure it 

17 will all go from there. Well is there 

18 anything else that needs to be brought before

19 this Work Group at this time? Does anybody 

20 have anything that--

21 DR. FUORTES: Are the petitioners 

22 allowed to speak?
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I, yes, I'm 

2 sure that we're, yes, you do. 

3 DR. FUORTES: Thank you. This is 

4 Dr. Fuortes, and thank you, I have to run to 

5 a clinic in just a couple minutes but I do 

6 have several things I would like to address. 

7 You've all probably heard of our frustration 

8 as petitioners and the issue that five years 

9 of getting this discussed seems to be 

10 excessive when we have people dying from the 

11 early years of this facility about 100 a year

12 and people are getting disenfranchised 

13 because of the delays. 

14 I find it disturbing that SC&A 

15 says we are four years waiting for responses 

16 from NIOSH and I find it disturbing that 

17 there is a give and take, as an audience 

18 member, between SC&A and NIOSH which is 

19 almost denial, it did happen, it didn't 

20 happen. The important thing from my 

21 perspective that you guys can address as a 

22 Board is that there is a different focus 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 obvious to me by NIOSH and SC&A than the 

2 petitioners and what we are seeing is that 

3 NIOSH is focusing on finding as much 

4 information as they can from recent years and

5 trying to by analogy make judgments about 

6 exposures and risks in eras when there was 

7 not available exposure information or risk 

8 information.

9 Given that, the SEC process 

10 hinges on what information is not available, 

11 I do not want to quote Rumsfeld but the issue

12 is that from a petitioner standpoint our only

13 case is on the basis of lack of personal 

14 exposure information from which rapid 

15 scientifically valid dose reconstructions can

16 be performed. Given that, I have asked 

17 repeatedly NIOSH and the Board to please look

18 at the precedent set by the Iowa Army 

19 Ammunition Plant and consider if you could 

20 not through an 8314 process or whatever 

21 process you can perhaps dividing up the SEC 

22 petition over years, make judgments that 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 affect those people from the earliest years 

2 for whom you know there is not sufficient 

3 exposure information to come up with valid 

4 rapid personally based dose reconstruction. 

5 Another issue I'd like to say is 

6 that when you talk about exposure monitoring 

7 being event driven, that doesn't take into 

8 account events that were described to us by 

9 workers, for example, workers telling us we 

10 had exposures to tritium leaks for which 

11 there is no information in the medical report

12 for people in their medical charts, but 

13 people tell us a consistent story of being 

14 sent to the doctors -- the medical office for

15 prescriptions. 

16 So, it does appear that there is 

17 a, I think, overwhelming evidence of lack of 

18 data from pre-1975, `85, or `90, whichever 

19 date you wish to pick, but I would think that

20 that's something that the petitioners would 

21 really appreciate you guys looking at instead

22 of arguing over the eras for which you have 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data, determine those eras for which you do 

2 not have data and assess the SEC process I 

3 believe as it was designed to be to be done. 

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

5 Laurence, I appreciate that and I'm--

6 DR. FUORTES: It was a mouthful. 

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, no, and I 

8 understand exactly what you're saying and 

9 I've had similar questions myself and this 

10 falls into NIOSH's hands and because they're 

11 the ones that establish the 8314s and so 

12 forth but we appreciate your comments and 

13 we'll take them into heart and we'll proceed 

14 forward with what we can do. 

15 DR. FUORTES: Thank you guys very 

16 much. 

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Appreciate you, 

18 Lars.

19 DR. FUORTES: Thanks, okay, I got 

20 to run. Thanks a lot, okay, goodbye. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: There's--

22 MEMBER BEACH: This, this is 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Josie. CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: I just wanted to 

3 bring up the, the draft that Joe sent out on 

4 the Pantex event, the description of the 

5 dates of you know, how the whole petition has

gone from September 8th 6 2006 until now and I 

7 hadn't heard any comments on it today so I 

8 was just wondering if everybody had received 

9 that, that kind of goes back to what Lars was

10 talking about. And how long this has taken. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I've I 

12 believe everybody's got the time line, the 

13 chronological Pantex Site Profile. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Was that just an 

15 information piece? 

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That was that 

17 was actually done for me because of questions

18 that had come up earlier of when things had 

19 been issued and brought out and so this was 

20 put together for my personal use but as Joe 

21 said, you know, it's just for everybody to be

22 able to know where the time line was at and 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we had some emails that went out the time 

2 lines were a little bit off but I agree with 

3 Lars we're getting out there into an awful 

4 lot of years. We can do what we can do, we're

5 proceeding forward and I hope that after this

6 Work Group that we'll be able to make a 

7 better path forward and go from there. So I 

8 guess--

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: Hey Brad? 

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob Presley, I 

12 got a question. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: We're hearing a 

15 whole lot of talk on this thing about people 

16 not being badged, we did the same thing at 

17 NTS. Is anybody looking to see if the people 

18 that aren't badged if we got any records on 

19 them whatsoever? 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That actually 

21 falls into NIOSH but I think I think Kathy on

22 this data adequacy did we did we cover this 
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 portion of it?

2 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I think 

3 that Ron could better answer that question on

4 the external. 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Ron? 

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well when I 

7 looked at the, I went through like 24 claims 

8 to see who with titles that were -- indicate 

9 you know, they could have been exposed and 

10 potential for exposure and looked at the 

11 number of people that were badged and as I 

12 stated earlier and I did some plots in there 

13 and it showed that as time increased, the 

14 badging became more prevalent. And so the 

15 people that were not badged and had potential

16 for exposure in that case you know, you 

17 really couldn't tell what degree of exposure 

18 they had but they was like operators and 

19 assemblers that sort of thing that would 

20 indicate they could have been exposed. So you

21 know, the question of how the badging was 

22 done, it appears in the early days it was 
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 done on more of a spot or cohort-type basis 

2 and then into the 70s they started doing it 

3 more thoroughly and it was about `79 that 

4 they started badging like 90 percent of those

5 that would indicated they was in a potential 

6 area and get before the, the early `60 and 

7 50's you had you know, some -- none of the 22

8 cases were badged. 

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: My question is 

10 somebody looked into see if we have any 

11 badging information on any of these people? 

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, I guess 

13 that'd be a question for you. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Yes, you know, we've 

15 we've heard similar issues about badging and 

16 individuals not being monitored and that is 

17 something that we have looked into in the 

18 past, usually in the dose reconstruction 

19 process we've actually heard that on a number

20 of cases for some of the individuals. Some 

21 individuals have said you know, that they had

22 been working in a certain job for several 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years and expressed some concerns and were 

2 given a badge and then received some 

3 measurable external doses, and you know, we 

4 certainly acknowledge that that could have 

5 happened and so what we've done in those 

6 cases is used either coworker data or data 

7 from the more recent time period when they 

8 were not badged, or when they were badged to 

9 assign you know, unmonitored doses for the 

10 earlier years. So yes, it has been 

11 stated certainly and that's something that is

12 considered during the dose reconstruction 

13 process. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well Mark let 

15 me ask you this and this question from Mr. 

16 Presley there is how does the dose 

17 reconstructor know to be able to use coworker

18 or whatever? You know, a lot of these name 

19 changes and we've found this in Site 

20 Profiles we found this at other sites that 

21 jobs change names and so forth don't, you 

22 know, don't trigger anything. How do you, how
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 does the dose reconstructor know if there's 

2 no data there how does he know to use -- what

3 coworker model does he use to know? 

4 MR. ROLFES: If there are no data 

5 in the earlier years but there are data you 

6 know, if there suddenly becomes data in the 

7 subsequent years, then the individuals doing 

8 the same job working in the same area, et 

9 cetera, then in those cases you know -- it's 

10 very similar to other sites if an individual 

11 is monitored for several years and then not 

12 monitored for a couple of years or you know, 

13 for a couple of cycles within a year, we can 

14 use data surrounding that time period to 

15 bound potential doses or estimate with 

16 reasonable, you know, within a reasonable 

17 estimate, the dose that they could have 

18 received when they weren't monitored and in 

19 addition to their monitored doses we also 

20 assign missed doses for the time period when 

21 they were wearing their badge but did not 

22 receive any recorded doses. 
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: Well because one 

2 of the questions that came up with -- one of 

3 the people that we had on the tour was this 

4 was the accountability people that had to go 

5 out there and they weren't monitored and I'm 

6 just wondering, you know, we've got some 

7 later years data but nothing earlier. 

8 DR. NETON: Brad, this Jim. There, 

9 in reality there are usually only a few job 

10 categories that we look at, one is very 

highly exposed, they'd be assigned a 95th 11 

12 percentile. People who were, you know, 

13 moderately exposed, they were in and out of 

the workplace would be like the middle, 50th 14 

15 percentile and then someone who really didn't

16 work in radiological areas would be given 

17 environmental exposures. And those broad, 

18 those are very broad categories. And so 

19 depending on, usually depending upon a 

20 person's job category that comes about 

21 through their their application to the 

22 program or either through their CATI, it's 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 usually fairly well known what type of work 

2 they did, you know, and if there was a doubt 

3 we would always assign the higher coworker 

4 model than a lower one. 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well and you 

6 know, I I guess, yes, I understand what 

7 you're saying there but one of the ones that 

8 came out into it was the pipefitters and I 

9 saw one dose reconstruction and they had that

10 you know, he wasn't around the radiation but 

11 he actually had to go into all of these 

12 buildings and so I guess that does kind of 

13 bring up the question. 

14 But, Bob, what were you looking 

15 for a, exact, because in the Site Profile it 

16 said that in earlier years that they did spot

17 badging and then it increased over the years 

18 but does this answer your question, or? 

19 MEMBER PRESLEY: No, this question 

20 came up at NTS, okay, explaining that we 

21 don't have badges, we don't have badges, we 

22 went back checked on the stuff, probably 99% 
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of these people did have a badge on the day 

2 they said they didn't. 

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: All right but 

4 if you remember what pushed NTS over the edge

5 was what we were basing our data on, then we 

6 got it knocked out from under us later on and

7 I understand your question on NTS but bottom 

8 line with Pantex, I don't see in the earlier 

9 years that they had meant that a good 

10 majority of them weren't badged. 

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay. 

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Brad, this is 

13 Phil. I've got a question that's kind of 

14 geared towards Kathy and she was looking for 

15 some records that are supposed to exist of 

16 shipments to and from Pantex but turns out 

17 they had loose contamination in some of those

18 shipments, I wondering if she managed to find

19 those records. 

20 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Those 

21 records are still at Y-12 undergoing 

22 classification review. But yes we did see 
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some shipping records. We looked for shipping

2 records for Medina, Clarksville, and Pantex 

3 and at least for some components there was 

4 some level of contamination on containers 

5 being shipped out of Y-12. If that helps, 

6 that answers your question. 

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, it does. 

8 Thanks.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Any other 

10 questions? If not hearing any, I'll be 

11 expecting to see the emails between Mark and 

12 Joe and we'll proceed on and we'll go from 

13 there. Anything else that needs to be taken 

14 care of, Ted? Is the tasking all good, or--

15 MR. KATZ: No, Brad, I think it's 

16 all quite clear and we'll have marching 

17 orders out from Joe and Mark very quickly I'm

18 sure. I I just want to thank everyone on this

19 call for the great civility of tone et cetera

20 in the discussion because I know you know, I 

21 know some of this discussion was difficult in

22 trying to get everybody on the same page and 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think everybody really carried on a very 

2 nice discussion to get to where we needed to 

3 get to on this call so again I thank you all 

4 for that. 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. On Joe 

6 and Mark I guess we'll be waiting to hear 

7 from you on the meeting in Germantown and the

8 more heads up we can have it would be 

9 appreciated. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Yes, I, as far 

11 as that's gone I actually just received an 

12 email here from Greg Lewis on that and need 

13 to follow up with him. I expect that we 

14 should be able to do something in February, 

15 probably later February it all depends on the

16 number of records that need to be sent form 

17 Livermore over to Germantown to support that 

18 meeting, and I got to check on, we're 

19 basically waiting to check to see what number

20 of records there are for Pantex that are out 

21 at Livermore for us and once we identify how 

22 many there are we'll go ahead and have those 
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transferred up to Germantown, and I guess the

2 same thing is going to occur with SC&A--

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you might, 

4 just to close the loop we're going to talk to

5 Greg but you might mention that to Greg as 

6 well that he needs to also close with Kathy 

7 about some of the material at Hanford. Yes, 

8 just so he knows the complete picture is your

9 whole thing's at Livermore and we have 

10 probably a lot fewer items at Hanford but 

11 that's what needs to transferred. 

12 MR. ROLFES: I suspect I suspect 

13 we probably have the exact same records in 

14 our holdings even though we haven't 

15 independently looked at each others. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you know I 

17 think part is just trying to figure out what 

18 exactly is there which will be helpful to do,

19 too. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Kathy, this is21 -don't you have a list of documents that we 

22 have that you have at Hanford, there? 
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I have in 

2 my office a list of most of the documents I 

3 have there, DOE-RL reserved the right to keep

4 part of that list with my collection. So I 

5 suppose I can--

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well I just 

7 didn't want to have to send a double batch of

8 the same records to Germantown if they're 

9 already coming in, is what I was thinking, or

10 vice versa. I just wanted to make sure that 

11 we're not duplicating these things. 

12 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: If you want 

13 I can compile a list and it would have to go 

14 down to the Pantex to be checked out. 

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I don't, 

17 you know, it's up to you, Mark, whether that 

18 would be something that's helpful. I can give

19 you the titles that I already have that they 

20 released, I just have to put them in a 

21 spreadsheet and send them, but there's other 

22 titles that they would not release to me. 
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: As far as I'm 

2 concerned it doesn't matter if you would 

3 prefer to do that, that's fine, and the other

4 option is just to send what you have, I mean,

5 that's the majority of the records that we 

6 have I think I had sort of expressed what we 

7 had in our holdings, the majority of the 

8 records we've asked if there's any health 

9 physics information we would need for dose 

10 reconstruction for an incident, for example, 

11 that DOE removed any sensitive information 

12 from that and release the health physics data

13 to us. And then you know, more than 99 

14 percent of the reports we've encountered 

15 that's been the case, there's just bits and 

16 pieces of things that I know that the Board 

17 Members have wanted to look at to, you know, 

18 make sure our assumptions are valid, et 

19 cetera, and so that's, you know, those are 

20 the remaining you know, few it's much less 

21 than 1 percent of the records that we've 

22 collected that remains in storage with DOE. 
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well I'll 

2 be staying in touch with you Mark and Joe on 

3 that meeting. If there's nothing further, I 

4 guess we'll call this Work Group to a close. 

5 I appreciate you all participating. 

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.)

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22