This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

JULY 6, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

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

Chairman, presiding.

 

PRESENT: 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official*

ELIZABETH ALGUTIFAN, ORAU*

JOSEPH FITZGERALD, SC&A

TOM LABONE, ORAU*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JAMES NETON, DCAS

CHUCK NELSON, DCAS

JODIE PHILLIPS, ORAU*

BRYCE RICH, ORAU*

MICHALENE RODRIGUEZ, ORAU*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU*

*Participating via telephone

 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Page

Welcome and roll-call/Introductions ....... 4

Work Group Discussion

Paducah Issues Resolution ........... 5

Work Group Discussion

Portsmouth Issues Resolution ....... 108

 K-25 Issues Resolution ............. 144

Meeting adjourned ........................ 207
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:00 a.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Let's get started then. 

4 This is Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official 

5 of the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health, the Portsmouth, 

7 Paducah, K-25 Work Group.

8 Roll call beginning with Board 

9 members in the room, and please speak to 

10 conflict of interest as well.

11 (Roll call.)

12 MR. KATZ: Very good. Just let me 

13 note there is an agenda for this meeting on 

14 the Board's page, on the Board's webpage, but 

15 we're actually going to do things in a 

16 different order.

17 I think we're going to begin with 

18 Paducah, and it's your agenda, Phil. Take it 

19 away.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Chuck. 

21 Since you've been working on this so hard, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we'll let you lead off.

2 MR. NELSON: Okay. All right, Joe, 

3 how do you want to do this? Do you want to 

4 lead off with a comment, or do you want me to, 

5 or how do you want to do this?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I think on Paducah 

7 and K-25, we provided comments. And I think 

8 you've actually responded.

9 MR. NELSON: Yes.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: So, why don't we 

11 just do it that way.

12 MR. NELSON: Okay.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: You can go ahead 

14 and tee it off, and then I can respond.

15 MR. NELSON: Okay. Yes, in the 

16 first meeting that we had was in December of 

17 2010, we went over the Paducah site.

18 And while several actions were 

19 closed out or items were closed out of the 

20 matrix, there were some that required further 

21 actions.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, what we did is we provided 

2 a response. And SC&A came back on June 16th, 

3 2011, that would be the date at the bottom of 

4 this matrix, and they provided comment to what 

5 we provided as we felt was a good resolution.

6 So, those that are closed out, I 

7 don't intend on going over. But the ones that 

8 required some NIOSH action which may or may 

9 not be closed out right now, I'll go over each 

10 of those.

11 The first item would be Item 

12 Number 5. And that one there was a NIOSH 

13 action. And they were asked to review the 

14 available references regarding the estimation 

15 of external dose to the - to skin 

16 contamination.

17 And what we did is we reworded the 

18 response, and we wanted to better describe the 

19 process and documents used to estimate skin 

20 and extremity dose.

21 And, you know, these documents 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 already existed, but what we wanted to do was 

2 put them in the TBD so that the DR has a clear 

3 direction to where they can assign skin and 

4 extremity dose.

5 And what we did in our response, 

6 we talked about the modeling programs; 

7 VARSKIN, Microshield and ATILLA. Those all 

8 can be used to calculate skin dose, including 

9 dose to the extremities.

10 And what we say in our response is 

11 the TBD will be updated to include those 

12 references to assist with the calculations of 

13 dose to the skin and extremities. And it's 

14 also going to include OCAS TIB-10 and 13.

15 TIB-10 is a best estimate for 

16 glovebox workers, but it also talks about some 

17 - how to deal with geometry issues.

18 And then OCAS TIB-13 is a TIB 

19 that's titled "Selected Geometric Exposure 

20 Scenario Consideration for External Dosimetry 

21 at Uranium Facilities." So, that could be a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 helpful TIB as well, and also OTIB-17 which is 

2 "Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

3 Assignment of Shallow Dose." Those will all 

4 be referenced in the TBD so we had a clear 

5 path.

6 Then SC&A had a response to that 

7 which they provided on June 16th.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think 

9 we were satisfied that the references that 

10 would be added, would make this a little more 

11 complete in terms of that particular item.

12 The one issue that we're going to 

13 come back to, I think, in all the gaseous 

14 diffusion plants, though, is how skin and 

15 extremity doses are addressed and what is the 

16 context of technetium, or just in general.

17 I think that's an issue, you know. 

18 I went back and really looked at the Site 

19 Profiles and also the review comments that we 

20 provided in our original review, and I think 

21 there's just a discomfort - excuse me one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 second.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Sorry. Sorry.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: A discomfort about 

4 how the skin doses - potential skin doses, 

5 that pathway, and extremity doses are 

6 addressed at the three gaseous - this is more 

7 of a generic issue.

8 And, you know, certainly the SOP 

9 for not just these sites, but all sites, you 

10 have the VARSKIN and you have different models 

11 that you apply based on the CATI interviews 

12 and, you know, maybe incident records so that, 

13 you know, the dose reconstructors can apply 

14 those models and estimate a dose.

15 I think what I'm reading - and, 

16 again, I wasn't involved in all three of these 

17 reviews, but what I'm reading is a concern 

18 that in some cases depending on the particular 

19 work that the worker might have done at one of 

20 these gaseous diffusion plants, it would have 

21 been a relatively routine exposure potential 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to - whether technetium or other elements that 

2 would have given you an elevated skin dose, in 

3 some cases a fairly hefty elevated skin dose, 

4 and it's not clear that's really an episodic 

5 in nature in all cases, that in some cases, it 

6 actually strikes me as more of a routine 

7 exposure that the worker would have had to 

8 deal with.

9 And if they weren't particularly 

10 careful about deconning, you know, sort of 

11 religiously, they probably would have picked 

12 up a fairly steady, you know, skin dose over 

13 time.

14 And so I just - I want to open up 

15 just the discussion on behalf of the Work 

16 Group on, you know, certainly in the TBDs, the 

17 approach is to provide what I would call 

18 illustrative examples of, you know, here's how 

19 somebody might have been exposed and here's 

20 what could be done in terms of modeling and 

21 exposure, and I think I understand that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That's just to certainly guide a 

2 dose reconstructor. Here's several different 

3 ways you can deal with that, if that is an 

4 issue that comes up.

5 But I think the concern that 

6 underlies the comments that were made in all 

7 three Site Profile Reviews is - and I'll treat 

8 them, deal with this in a broader sense 

9 because we pick it up for technetium, pick it 

10 up for this issue, and each of the Site 

11 Profile Reviews has the same sort of 

12 commentary.

13 And one issue is just simply 

14 providing more background, which is I think 

15 what you've done. You've identified more 

16 references and given more guideposts to the 

17 dose reconstructor.

18 But in a broader sense, the 

19 question is, is this truly leaning more toward 

20 episodic where, you know, you can look at the 

21 CATI interviews, you can look at, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the incident reports and decide whether or not 

2 to go through this process -- this is the dose 

3 reconstructor now -- to decide to assign a 

4 skin dose or maybe an extremity dose, or do 

5 you have a situation, which is kind of what 

6 I'm reading through in terms of the operation 

7 descriptions, where certain job categories 

8 that would have likely been part of the job.

9 There would have been an exposure 

10 potential that the worker would have 

11 confronted almost every day in some way or 

12 another, and the issue being that there wasn't 

13 a good way from a dosimetry standpoint to 

14 measure what that dose might have been.

15 I'm not saying it's an SEC issue. 

16 I'm just saying that there's a certain 

17 question of how one would attribute the skin 

18 dose and beta dose to workers, particularly if 

19 there wasn't any dosimetry, when you knew in 

20 fact that there's certain operations -- and we 

21 kind of know what those operations are, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, like certain parts of the cascade --

2 where you do get technetium, you do get some 

3 of these elements.

4 How would you actually, you know, 

5 guide the dose reconstructor to say, you know, 

6 not only does this person, you know, have an 

7 exposure potential, but perhaps that person 

8 should get credit for a skin dose that wasn't 

9 measured, but would likely have been received?

10 And that's what I'm picking up 

11 more, you know, there's referencing issues as 

12 far as providing enough information to the 

13 dose reconstructor, but I think there's also a 

14 question of whether or not we have worker 

15 categories where you do have, you know, more 

16 exposure potential of a chronic nature versus 

17 an episodic.

18 I just want to open that up. I

19 know we have some of the authors of the TBDs 

20 on the phone as well.

21 This is really for all three. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This is not just one of them.

2 MR. NELSON: Yes, we're talking 

3 about a broad subject here. So, maybe we 

4 ought to narrow down what the issues are.

5 Because when you say that we're 

6 talking about skin dose, I mean, they had film 

7 badges. They monitored shallow dose.

8 So, if you're talking a 

9 protactinium which is your major dose that 

10 you're going to get from a shallow dose from 

11 uranium, that's a pretty high-energy beta.

12 You can see it certainly on a 

13 dosimeter. And if it gets to a person's whole 

14 body, it's going to be on their dosimeter.

15 So, they did record shallow dose 

16 on dosimetry. And so, we have a method for 

17 that.

18 And then if you have an individual 

19 with extremity cancers, then we have 

20 methodology for assigning dose to extremities 

21 based on those film badges using geometric, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, depending on the geometry or 

2 location on the skin. And that's what we make 

3 reference directly to those procedures and how 

4 to calculate that.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there's two 

6 issues here.

7 MR. NELSON: Right.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to 

9 make sure I - 

10 MR. NELSON: I want to know which 

11 issue you want to talk about.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Let's talk 

13 about both issues.

14 One issue is the source term. And 

15 let's use technetium, because that's certainly 

16 a bit of a bad actor at the three gaseous 

17 diffusion plants.

18 And in the site description of 

19 Portsmouth, I'm sure it's in all three, 

20 actually, you're dealing with also not just 

21 the nuclide, but the chemical compound.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this is a quote from the site 

2 description for Portsmouth, but probably would 

3 apply to all three.

4 Technetium - I'm not sure if I'll 

5 say this right - pertechnetate, that's the 

6 technetium 04 as the compound -- is also 

7 difficult to remove from the skin and can, 

8 therefore, cause significant skin dose from 

9 contamination.

10 And this shows up in a number of 

11 cases. It showed up as well from some of the 

12 Health Hazard Evaluations.

13 The particular chemical compounds 

14 adhere to the skin very well. Let's put it 

15 that way. And unless you're careful to, you 

16 know, to really scrub this off after you're 

17 exposed, you're going to get a fairly hefty 

18 skin dose just because it is adhering to the 

19 skin. I'm talking about the extremities, arms 

20 and whatnot.

21 I don't know how you can use some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the modeling techniques to really figure 

2 out what that may give you. And that's why 

3 I'm just trying to find out based on the 

4 approach in the TBDs, it suggests certainly 

5 there's models where you can do that.

6 I don't know how you would 

7 approach something where you would get 

8 something that would be a chemical compound 

9 that would be adhering to the skin. Not just 

10 loose contamination, but - 

11 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, I mean, 

12 we're specifically not talking about skin 

13 contamination, I guess. Not shallow dose from 

14 external radiation.

15 So when we talk about external 

16 contamination, certainly if our skin is 

17 capable of handling a dose calculation to 

18 tech-99 on the skin, which is a fairly low19 energy beta emitter -- at 300 Emax, you 

20 average about -- so, it takes a lot of 

21 contamination to give you any kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 significant skin dose.

2 But this is not unlike any other 

3 site where unless we have some confirmed 

4 evidence of an incident that occurred with 

5 some numbers, there's no way we can calculate 

6 a skin dose.

7 I mean, we can't go and speculate 

8 that everyone had X thousand dpm per hundred 

9 square centimeters on their skin, and assign 

10 all work crews that kind of dose. I mean, we 

11 would have to have some knowledge that an 

12 incident did occur.

13 But if it occurred, there is no 

14 technical reason why we couldn't calculate a 

15 dose to the skin.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I guess 

17 that's part of the issue on technetium. I 

18 think in general that at the gaseous diffusion

19 plants, skin exposure was in fact a fairly 

20 significant exposure pathway.

21 And, you know, even the Site 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Profiles acknowledge that, you know, by 

2 operation and also by certain levels where you 

3 had the, you know, rem per hour exposure. So, 

4 it was a fairly hefty - 

5 DR. NETON: Well, let's 

6 differentiate between shallow dose to the skin 

7 from an external beta source, which you can 

8 get high skin doses.

9 And as Chuck said, they had 

10 dosimeters that can measure the low-energy 

11 betas to the skin. The dose to the skin. The 

12 shallow dose. So, I mean, that's okay.

13 But, again, skin contamination, if 

14 we have evidence there was an incident, we 

15 would calculate it using the VARSKIN code.

16 The only other issue out there 

17 then is this sort of geometrical issue which 

18 is, you know, where are your hands in 

19 relationship to the badge that's on your 

20 lapel? And then if we know the geometrical 

21 relationship, it's an easily calculable value.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess I 

2 still question - 

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: It's not an 

4 episode.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess I 

6 just question whether or not one can write off 

7 skin dose as being -- outside of some 

8 demonstrable incidents, as being not 

9 noteworthy at the gaseous diffusion plants. I 

10 think there is enough record.

11 And again, you know, it's hard to 

12 -- and I agree it's hard to pinpoint exposure 

13 that happens every day for a particular 

14 operator, but even in the TBDs it notes that 

15 you have technetium plating out in various 

16 parts of the operation.

17 Anyone that was cleaning out the 

18 cascades or involved in CIP/CUP would have 

19 been more than likely exposed quite 

20 significantly to skin exposure.

21 And what my concern is, is I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 disagree that, you know, you have a modeling 

2 process. I just am concerned that we're 

3 treating it as an episodic exposure where I 

4 think if you brought any workers in, it's 

5 certainly not episodic.

6 Although, the dilemma is at the 

7 gaseous diffusion plants because you're 

8 dealing with this day in and day out unless 

9 there was a release of some sort that was 

10 above and beyond the normal, it would have 

11 been reported as an incident.

12 So, you sort of have that dilemma 

13 where you are getting exposure. But what 

14 you're saying is that, well, unless it's 

15 reported and flagged, it won't count as a 

16 potential dose.

17 I'm just trying to understand from 

18 a Site Profile standpoint, how do the workers 

19 get addressed from the standpoint of this 

20 routine chronic contamination to what I would 

21 think would be lower levels which are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 characterized as such in the Site Profile and 

2 other reviews.

3 I mean, it's not something that no 

4 one says, look, it happened. It's just I 

5 don't quite understand, you know, why there 

6 isn't any consideration by job categories or 

7 worker operations as to, you know, what is a 

8 bounding, you know, dose from - 

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Would that have 

10 been proportionate with all if it's an ongoing 

11 day in and day out thing, to the external 

12 measurements?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, I don't 

15 know.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I understand the 

17 concept that, you know, you have weak betas in 

18 your clothing, in your gloves or whatever 

19 you're wearing.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably going to get you - that's going to 

2 deal with that issue. And you have your 

3 stronger betas and you have your dosimetry 

4 that would record that no question.

5 But it's not clear to me how you 

6 deal with skin exposure where you're not going 

7 to have any response unless it's so heightened 

8 that it's dealt with as an unusual event or an 

9 incident by the site.

10 And that would be a pretty high 

11 level given the kinds of contamination you had 

12 at the gaseous diffusion plants.

13 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver.

14 It sounds like what you have here 

15 is an unmonitored exposure potential here 

16 that's poorly characterized in terms of who 

17 may have been on the receiving end of this.

18 But it does sound based on the 

19 information that Joe's provided that, you 

20 know, you have a chemical form that adheres to 

21 the skin, you have a lot of this material, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's certain groups of workers, the CIP/CUP 

2 workers in particular, that could have been 

3 chronically exposed to skin contamination. 

4 That's not something that would necessarily 

5 register on a dosimeter.

6 You have the techniques, you have 

7 the models in place to address it, it's just 

8 how would you go about trying to - 

9 DR. NETON: Well, how would you do 

10 it?

11 MR. STIVER: I just put it out 

12 there to talk about it.

13 DR. NETON: I understand you're 

14 trying to ask us to prove a negative that the 

15 skin contaminants didn't occur.

16 If we have evidence that they were 

17 there - 

18 MR. STIVER: Well, maybe it's - 

19 MR. NELSON: It's an exposure issue 

20 to the skin. You have contamination. You're 

21 going to see that recorded in their medical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records if you have skin contamination, and 

2 they're going to do things about it.

3 I mean, they can measure that with 

4 a beta/gamma dosimeter - I mean, with a 

5 frisker.

6 If you're seeing people being 

7 contaminated, you're not going to let that 

8 continue to be a chronic issue. You're going 

9 to deal with it.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: But here's the 

11 issue I have, you know. I'm trying to 

12 reconcile an acknowledgment in the TBDs, and I 

13 am going through the site description and 

14 everything. I think it's acknowledged that 

15 you have these exposure pathways and they're 

16 in chemical compounds which afford close 

17 proximity to skin, adhere to skin.

18 In fact, it goes on further to 

19 say, you know, you really have to go through 

20 some trouble to get it off your skin.

21 And the notion that one can deal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with it as an incident-based exposure 

2 potential, it doesn't -- to me, it just 

3 doesn't quite come together.

4 DR. NETON: I get the impression as 

5 workers are out there, bare skin with open 

6 hands in a contamination area with no gloves 

7 on, short-sleeved shirts. I mean, I just 

8 don't see that scenario, Joe.

9 I mean, where does that happen? 

10 Even in - 

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 DR. NETON: Well, I'm talking about 

13 working with material. Okay, your clothing, 

14 your anti-c could get contaminated.

15 And unless you're sticking your 

16 head in there, you know, you could get some 

17 incidental. But again, I think that would 

18 show up as an incident on some frisker at some 

19 point.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I got a 

21 problem there as that - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I don't know how - 

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- with people 

3 who have this chronic exposure to the 

4 extremities, is that I can't find any place 

5 where they wore wrist dosimeters or dosimeter 

6 retainer rings or anything and, you know, I 

7 don't find a good description of the equipment 

8 with respect to this.

9 Did they work behind some kind of 

10 shielding to protect extremities? So if 

11 that's the case, your badge isn't going to 

12 pick up as much as you would hope it to - 

13 DR. NETON: That's true.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- from the 

15 extremities exposure standpoint.

16 MR. NELSON: That's why you have to 

17 deal with it on a case-by-case basis. I mean, 

18 you don't calculate extremity dose to an 

19 individual that has some contamination.

20 (Off-record comments.)

21 MR. NELSON: You know, one thing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that might help you, there is a Reference ID. 

2 It's 13683. And this is an evaluation that 

3 was done in March of 2004 by Paducah.

4 And they went through these 

5 scenarios you're talking about. And they used 

6 some smear data. And they took worst case 

7 data and they did some analyses for 

8 individuals.

9 And they evaluated what the 

10 exposure potential would be for those 

11 individuals, you know, and they made some 

12 assumptions. And that might be something that 

13 would help shed light on all this.

14 MR. STIVER: So, it sounds like 

15 this has been looked at, at some point in the 

16 past.

17 MR. NELSON: Yes, they did. They 

18 looked at - 

19 MR. STIVER: At least have some 

20 kind of a proof of principle as to what the 

21 maximum doses could have been or worst case 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scenario.

2 MR. NELSON: Right. And, I mean, I 

3 can go through the - I have it right here. I 

4 mean, we can maybe write a White Paper on it.

5 I don't know if we're going to --

6 if you want to mention that, Jim, or --

7 DR. NETON: Yes.

8 MR. NELSON: I don't know to what 

9 extent you want to go to that. I don't know, 

10 but it may be worth reviewing that.

11 DR. NETON: But it sounds like what 

12 we're talking about here is some - I won't 

13 call it a justification, but some discussion 

14 of why our approach to doing incident-based 

15 assignment skin doses is appropriate here and 

16 sort of bracket what the doses are.

17 I'm looking at the average shallow 

18 recorded dose that any worker might get here, 

19 and they're all pretty consistently 500, 600, 

20 700 millirem per year. With maximum doses, it 

21 goes hugely high. There's 11, 10, eight rem 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 depending if some of those workers that were 

2 working with this material, with big GSDs, two 

3 to three -- GSD of three.

4 So, it was recorded. You have the 

5 shallow dose measurement. You have the 

6 information to say what was the shallow dose 

7 exposure of these workers.

8 Then the issue then is what is 

9 different about their exposure from the lapel 

10 monitors and what they're doing with their 

11 hands?

12 And secondly, what, if any, 

13 potential for skin contaminations are there 

14 that the badge wouldn't record? That's what 

15 we're talking about.

16 And Chuck - I don't know about 

17 this document that Chuck just referred to that 

18 talks about surveys. But I could tell you 

19 from my experience at other sites, skin 

20 contamination on the surface, unless it's 

21 huge, does not give you much dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For uranium, you know, normal 

2 uranium, you're talking nine millirem per hour 

3 for 10,000 dpm per hundred square centimeters 

4 or something like that continuous. Tech-99, 

5 it takes a lot more. It's a very low-energy 

6 beta.

7 So, you know, unless the skin 

8 contamination grows to the level where they 

9 were fairly significant which it would be 

10 picked up as incident-based issues, we're not 

11 talking about much dose here.

12 I'm not sure we want to have a 

13 program that goes and starts assigning some 

14 hypothetical skin contamination to all workers 

15 at all times.

16 MR. STIVER: Well, because then 

17 you're on the hook for - 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I'm just 

19 simply saying let's reconcile the statements 

20 in the current NIOSH TBDs with what you've 

21 just said.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because again, let me just go back 

2 to the TBD. This is the site description on 

3 Page 11 of 38 in Portsmouth. Technetium, and 

4 I've named the compound, is difficult to 

5 remove from skin and, therefore, cause 

6 significant skin dose from contamination.

7 And then later in the tables, 

8 there's facility-specific tables, and I can't 

9 remember which gaseous diffusion supports it, 

10 but facility-specific tables identify the 

11 exposure potentials by nuclides and by 

12 facility.

13 And technetium, again, is listed 

14 as -- by facility as a significant 

15 radionuclide of concern from the skin. And, 

16 again, the organ of interest is the skin.

17 So, the TBDs characterize it as a 

18 radionuclide significance as a significant 

19 skin dose potential.

20 And -- but when you go back and 

21 actually look at the, you know, the guidance 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the dose reconstructor, it does kind of 

2 point to an episodic context.

3 And now you go back to the 

4 operational descriptions, and very clearly in 

5 the operational descriptions, NIOSH has 

6 characterized specific operations as involving 

7 -- I hate to go back to technetium, but that's 

8 the one that's easy - involving exposure 

9 potential to technetium here, there, you know, 

10 specific instances. And I'm just trying to 

11 reconcile that, okay.

12 If it is an exposure potential 

13 that's an apparently routine one, and by the 

14 operational descriptions it appears to be, and 

15 it would be a significant skin dose potential 

16 as described in the site description, then I'm 

17 wondering, is it enough to simply say go, you 

18 know, check the CATI interviews and see if 

19 there's any incident reports.

20 Because it does -- it strikes me 

21 as it's characterized as more of an ongoing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 routine exposure potential of significance, 

2 rather than something that happens 

3 occasionally.

4 It doesn't seem like it's 

5 consistent.

6 DR. NETON: This tech-99 is an 

7 issue that comes up in another location. I'm 

8 not sure it's relevant for this particular - 

9 although, I'm confused now because SC&A has 

10 recommended closure of this item.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: For the 

12 references, but I want to make sure we don't 

13 lose the context because this - 

14 DR. NETON: Well, I think this will 

15 come up again in another - 

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But in one 

18 respect, I mean, what I want to say is what 

19 was their criteria there for a reportable 

20 incident?

21 Was it you had to have a certain 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 level of, say, skin contamination before it's 

2 reportable? Did you have to have positive 

3 nasal smear to be reportable, or, you know, 

4 what was their criteria as a reportable 

5 incident?

6 DR. NETON: Well, certainly in the 

7 later years there would be friskers in and out 

8 of the area.

9 We'd have to go back and look at 

10 the early years, what they are - 

11 MR. SMITH: I've got some 

12 information on that. This is Matthew Smith 

13 with ORAU team.

14 The Paducah section in the 

15 external TBD is 6.5.2. The title is 

16 "Estimating Missed and Unmonitored Shallow 

17 Dose."

18 DR. NETON: Okay.

19 MR. SMITH: And as you go through 

20 this, it kind of gives you the rundown of how 

21 VARSKIN is -- can be used or is used to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 estimate the technetium-99 dose.

2 The specific question that action 

3 level is 25,000 dpm per hundred square 

4 centimeters as you go through that section, 

5 you can see how a calculation was worked out 

6 for situations where the dose reconstructor 

7 might expect that the claimant was exposed to 

8 technetium-99, but maybe there's nothing 

9 specific in the record. But there's a big, 

10 like you say, a description of the work they 

11 did.

12 So, everything is laid out here on 

13 how to calculate that dose and apply that dose 

14 in the IREP. And this is also I know in the 

15 K-25 TBD as well.

16 DR. NETON: But I think, Matt - 

17 MR. SMITH: It's pretty well 

18 addressed, I think, in the section for Paducah 

19 and also for K-25.

20 DR. NETON: I agree the methodology 

21 is laid out, but I guess the question is what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was the site's action levels early on for 

2 identifying skin contamination as being --

3 MR. SMITH: It looks like it's 

4 quoted here as 25,000 dpm.

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: How was that 

6 found?

7 DR. NETON: Do you have a date for 

8 that number though, or - 

9 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

10 Could I just step in with a couple thoughts I 

11 had?

12 I understand the problem. In 

13 fact, very often I'll raise this issue at 

14 sites that have airborne uranium, you know, at 

15 these AWE facilities, and of course the 

16 gaseous diffusion plants.

17 Jim, I think I understand the 

18 problem is that - well, let's assume for a 

19 moment that a person does have a cancer 

20 whether it's on the skin of his hand, or on 

21 the neck, his face, ear. We run into that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very often.

2 And I understand that the way in 

3 which you do your dose reconstruction is to 

4 base it on the open-window film badge reading 

5 as if the non-penetrating exposure is 

6 basically something at some distance, not this 

7 little particle that just happened to land on 

8 the person's hand or neck.

9 And the trouble is, and I totally 

10 agree, well, what are we going to assume? And 

11 of course the argument could be made, well, 

12 that would be picked up during his exit survey 

13 scan, and he'll be decontaminated.

14 But I think we do have a lot of 

15 feedback from folks who live in this world on 

16 the Board that, well, you know, you don't 

17 always survey the person that might be 

18 leaving. Especially in the early years.

19 And there are these sites that 

20 have this problem. So, well, then, how do you 

21 get a handle on this? And I was listening to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the conversation and someone mentioned to me 

2 that there might be a lot of data.

3 I'm visualizing a site where you 

4 do get these particles becoming airborne, and 

5 then settling down on surfaces.

6 So, in a way if you want to start 

7 at least to say, well, what potential 

8 magnitude of the kind of exposures - and, Jim, 

9 you pointed out if it's technetium or it's 

10 uranium, you know, the actual dose that - the 

11 point that skin underneath that particle is, 

12 you know, you have to make a lot of 

13 assumptions. What's the size of the particle? 

14 Was this specific activity? That sort of 

15 thing, but I think you might actually have a 

16 handle on that from two sources.

17 One would be I'm sure if and when 

18 those types of things happen, that is little 

19 particles are airborne and they settle, that 

20 on occasion they will settle on the film 

21 badge, the open-window film badge itself. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The probabilities are small, but, 

2 you know, we'll say out of the thousands and 

3 thousands of people that wear film badges, on 

4 occasion they must have seen some hot spots or 

5 some spots on the film.

6 Second, they do perform surveys of 

7 surfaces, you know, whatever it is, wherever 

8 the surface is, to get what is the dpm per 

9 hundred centimeter squared level of 

10 contamination.

11 So, what I'm getting at is through 

12 the back door, there's probably a way to start 

13 to get a sense of the potential magnitude, 

14 let's say, of the specific activity of the 

15 particles or of the surface contamination that 

16 might have occurred at a site like this where 

17 you could start to say, well, we -- if it did 

18 occur, it's unlikely that the exposure to the 

19 - that location on the skin could have been 

20 greater than some number.

21 The number, the hook for that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number would be either something that you 

2 could get from the surveys that are performed, 

3 the open-window surveys that are taken close 

4 to surfaces, and also any film badge that may 

5 have experienced one of these small, I guess, 

6 clusters or stars that you would see on a film 

7 badge from a particle that deposited.

8 I'm just trying to find a way to 

9 come at a problem that is almost impossible to 

10 solve.

11 MR. STIVER: In general?

12 DR. MAURO: I don't know what Jim 

13 and you folks did. Do you think that this 

14 strategy for starting to explore ways of 

15 getting a handle on this is worth pursuing, or 

16 is it really if we did chase it down, it may 

17 be a dead end?

18 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

19 Could I say something here?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: This SRDB 13683 that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Chuck mentions, they used swipe samples from 

2 the sites with the highest values, and then 

3 modeled that.

4 And also, I see that looking at 

5 the TBD on Page 22, they have some numbers 

6 that were modeled using VARSKIN. And the 

7 shallow skin dose rate from uniform tech-99 

8 skin contamination is 0.0016 mrem per hour per 

9 dpm per square centimeter.

10 So, you know, if you have an 

11 estimate of what the concentration of the 

12 stuff would be, the aerial concentration, 

13 which it sounds like there may be, then it 

14 would be possible to integrate this over a 

15 period of time.

16 So, you know, this is a point 

17 estimate. This is a, you know, an mR per 

18 hour. But, you know, over a period of time we 

19 could estimate this -- they show right here 

20 that the resident's half time of one-and-a21 half days assuming a shower would be effective 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in removing that, you'd get about 0.081 mrem 

2 per dpm per square centimeter.

3 So, the potential is there for big 

4 doses. And it looks like we have some of the 

5 information that would allow us to bound this.

6 It may have already been done. 

7 It's just maybe a matter of tracking down some 

8 of these proof of principle calculations that 

9 were done earlier.

10 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know. I 

11 think you sort of get in this area of 

12 sufficient accuracy on these things.

13 I mean, you know, you're making up 

14 a number to put a number on there, and anybody 

15 could have been exposed to any concentration 

16 just like Joe described, you know. You touch 

17 some kettle, it's got a million dpm per, you 

18 know, a hundred square centimeters tech-99.

19 I mean, these numbers, although 

20 interesting, I'm not sure how they really 

21 depict reality.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: I understand what 

2 you're saying.

3 DR. NETON: These people are 

4 wearing anti-c's for the most part. You got 

5 a scan on your neck, or your face, or your, 

6 you know, I don't know where you're not 

7 wearing anti-c's.

8 It would be hard - I think it's 

9 hard to come up with any kind of - 

10 MR. STIVER: We spent a lot of time 

11 working on this with the Atomic Veterans 

12 because then you have fresh fallout.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, and that's a 

14 little --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. STIVER: -- doses, but here 

17 you've got very low-energy betas. You still 

18 have that - where you really get the dose is 

19 the integration over time, you know.

20 We spent a lot of time working on 

21 what's the effective removal from showering 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and so forth.

2 DR. NETON: Well, right. I mean, 

3 everybody is taking showers after a shift 

4 presumably.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, and then in this 

6 particular case, you have a chemical form 

7 that may be resistant to removal.

8 So, I see how it could be a 

9 potential unmonitored dose that's kind of - 

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: But we probably 

11 need some written justification.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Again, I think 

13 just making - maybe making it clear in the 

14 Site Profile, you know, where one does make 

15 the statements that, you know, one is a fairly 

16 substantial skin dose potential that it, you 

17 know, exists in a number of operations as a 

18 potential, and then in the methodology 

19 section, you know, it sort of strikes the note 

20 that, you know, if in fact it's established 

21 that there was an incident, then, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one would have different tools available.

2 And I think the references help. 

3 I just want to make sure the context is that 

4 there still is discomfort over having it 

5 described in that context, and then having the 

6 methodology guidance, the dose reconstructor 

7 in the context of, you know, episodic 

8 exposures. It just doesn't seem like it's as 

9 consistent.

10 Maybe there's an explanation 

11 that's missing that says, yes, you do have 

12 these high potentials and it could be a 

13 significant dose, but, you know, we don't 

14 believe it's a chronic issue because - 

15 DR. NETON: Maybe we need to go 

16 back to what Matt Smith wanted to. There 

17 seems to be a lot more description in the TBD 

18 than I remember about how you deal with it and 

19 how we would assign someone even if there were 

20 no records of incidents, some skin dose, some 

21 - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. NELSON: Yes, it tells you how 

2 you can make some assumptions.

3 DR. NETON: Right. And maybe we 

4 can describe that a little better and maybe 

5 provide an example of a case where we've done 

6 that, you know.

7 MR. NELSON: One of the facilities 

8 does provide an example.

9 Matt, do you know which one it is? 

10 I don't know if it's Paducah or K-25, but one 

11 of them gives a scenario. We can make some 

12 assumptions.

13 MR. SMITH: It's really kind of 

14 laid out in the section that we're talking 

15 about, the 6.5.2 in the Paducah. And it shows 

16 up as 6.7.2 in K-25, but it really does kind 

17 of lay it out for this unknown situation. It 

18 bottom lines it at about 240 millirem for the 

19 year.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: What would trigger 

21 the - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SMITH: And that's kind of a 

2 monthly - they give the example of assuming a 

3 monthly event that maybe was not captured in 

4 contamination reports because, again, it's 

5 tech-99.

6 But they're assuming in this 

7 calculation, again, using the action limit of 

8 25,000 dpm which, you know, kind of provides 

9 the basis or the floor for this calculation.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: But that would be 

11 - 

12 MR. SMITH: The DR is still free to 

13 kind of adjust this either downward or upward 

14 depending on what they're seeing for work 

15 activity.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess that's my 

17 question. What would trigger - I mean, this 

18 is a - again, this is a tool that could be 

19 applied, but what would trigger the use of 

20 that tool by a dose reconstructor?

21 MR. SMITH: Well, again, they're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to be looking for, you know, what their 

2 described work history is in a CATI, you know.

3 Jodi and company if you want to 

4 chime in on that as well, because you three 

5 are working these claims all the time.

6 MS. ALGUTIFAN: This is Elizabeth. 

7 Portsmouth.

8 There's a nice writeup beginning 

9 on Page 40 of the external TBD regarding how 

10 to treat skin contamination.

11 Now, I will admit I have had some 

12 questions from dose reconstructors over the 

13 last - well, fairly recent weeks, in fact, 

14 about, you know, one DR had a situation where 

15 he had somebody working with magnesium traps 

16 and said that they were contaminated, but 

17 there were no incident reports to indicate 

18 that.

19 So he said, well, you know, I've 

20 got this section in the TBD. I'm going to try 

21 that, because we honestly don't have a lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cases where we've used this section.

2 And I think perhaps it's not 

3 clearly enough spelled out in the section as 

4 to what job categories and what locations this 

5 should be honed in on. So, that's what I'm 

6 thinking in my TBD revision that I'll go into 

7 more detail about how this should be applied 

8 and where.

9 DR. NETON: Okay. I'm looking 

10 here. I think this action limit needs to be 

11 fleshed out a little better. It's 25,000 dpm 

12 per hundred square centimeters for tech-99.

13 That was the actual limit for work 

14 surfaces and hand tools. So, I don't know. 

15 It seems like maybe we ought to go back and 

16 sort of shore this up a little bit as to how 

17 this is applied. That seems to be the crux of 

18 the issue here.

19 I don't disagree, you know, with 

20 this approach. Short of applying it to 

21 everyone, though, I don't know what else we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would do.

2 And I guess the concern here is 

3 that how equitable it is across the board.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: And I understand that.

6 MR. NELSON: And was it a chronic 

7 issue for most people? I don't think so.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: No, and I don't 

9 think it was either. I think - 

10 MR. NELSON: Technetium was a 

11 contaminant in recycled uranium which 

12 constituted a small percentage of the material 

13 processed.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: There was only two 

15 spots.

16 MR. NELSON: And it went into 

17 certain areas and concentrated in certain 

18 areas. So, we're not talking about everybody 

19 on the site.

20 MR. STIVER: No, it's going to be a 

21 distinct category.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. NELSON: We're talking about a 

2 distinct population.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: No, but I think, 

4 you know, I think she touched it a little bit, 

5 you know. It's a bridge between, yes, it was 

6 in fact a potential that, you know, if you did 

7 certain things on the cascade, you would have 

8 been exposed not just episodically. You 

9 probably just would have exposed as, you know, 

10 doing the job, whether it's dismantling the 

11 cascade, CIP/CUP, or something like that.

12 And in those cases, I could see 

13 applying these tools routinely and saying, you 

14 know, we don't know, but, you know, you're 

15 likely to have been exposed, and come up with 

16 some kind of estimate.

17 And it doesn't strike me as that 

18 much different than probably what we're going 

19 through on recycled uranium as well that, you 

20 know, trying to figure out, you know, certain 

21 processes, certain campaigns, certain years 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 involved, you know, transuranic contamination.

2 But you wouldn't do it for all 

3 years, you wouldn't do it for all operations, 

4 and possibly only certain workers in those 

5 cases.

6 I think in this case, we're 

7 focusing on technetium, but I think that would 

8 bridge the acknowledgment that you do have 

9 that potential and it could be significant.

10 And the fact that you could narrow 

11 it down to aid the dose reconstructor, you 

12 have certain operations, certain worker 

13 categories would have likely been exposed, 

14 that kind of thing.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, and that's pretty 

16 similar to the approach taken in the latest --

17 recycled uranium in the White Paper for 

18 Fernald.

19 So, like at certain periods of 

20 time when the - those highly contaminated 

21 materials came through, those different sets 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of defaults were for those periods and certain 

2 categories of workers for others.

3 MEMBER BEACH: So, it sounds like 

4 NIOSH has the action here to clarify this. 

5 And then do we - should we go ahead and leave 

6 this in abeyance?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: No, not this 

8 issue.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Not this one?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't disagree 

11 with Jim. I just wanted to make sure, though, 

12 that it wasn't - 

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: The discrepancy 

14 we just - 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: It wasn't an issue 

16 of just simply better references. I think 

17 that was one issue, but the probably weightier 

18 issue is this: the references help, but the 

19 context of having the tools, but not telling 

20 you how to -- when to and how to apply the 

21 tools is more important, actually.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I think the tools are better 

2 described. So, this can be closed, Mr. 

3 Chairman.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: But I was afraid, 

6 you know, we would lose that thought. And 

7 this will take care of the issue when we come 

8 up to it later. So, we won't have to - 

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: If it happens 

10 again.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. So, the 

12 question of the references, I think, is 

13 closed.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: Chuck, are you taking 

17 notes here on these?

18 MR. NELSON: I'm hoping the TBD 

19 owners are taking notes.

20 DR. NETON: It really revolves 

21 around - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Laughter.)

2 MEMBER BEACH: Someone needs to be 

3 taking notes.

4 DR. NETON: It really revolves 

5 around the discussion of what we're doing in 

6 6.5.2 of that TBD and discussing how we 

7 actually equitably capture people who could 

8 have been exposed to skin contamination, 

9 particularly tech-99, and how we would do 

10 that.

11 MR. NELSON: I don't know what it 

12 would apply to besides tech-99.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't either. I 

14 think tech is the one that comes to mind.

15 MR. NELSON: So, Issue 5 is closed.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Six is closed. 

17 Seven is closed. Eight is closed. Nine.

18 MR. NELSON: Okay. Number 9. That 

19 one was marked as in abeyance and we were 

20 asked to verify maximum source term values.

21 And we went into the - this was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 maximum source term that I used for 

2 technetium-99, neptunium-237 and plutonium.

3 And we went directly to the 

4 references, the PACE document, Table 7.9 on 

5 Page 88, and verified that the max values were 

6 in the current table in the TBD.

7 And we also went to Bechtel 

8 Jacobs' 2001 report on Page 30 and 31, Table 

9 2.4.1, that's the recycled uranium mass 

10 balance report, and made sure that we were 

11 using the max values and they agreed with the 

12 TBD. And SC&A actually agreed to our action.

13 Any discussion on that one?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's fine.

15 MR. NELSON: So, that one everybody 

16 agreed is closed?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

18 MR. NELSON: All right. Number 10. 

19 This one has to do with particle size and we 

20 were given in abeyance. And we were - it says 

21 NIOSH to verify particle size assumption.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, what we use is the current 

2 ICRP 1994. We assume five micron AMAD. And 

3 SC&A's question was, is -- I guess there was 

4 mention in some of the other documents of 

5 smaller particle sizes.

6 And SC&A wants to know that -- how 

7 is that reconciled with the statement that no 

8 particle size study was located for Paducah? 

9 The issue is whether any data exists that 

10 would obviate the use of default particle size 

11 of five micron.

12 And our response to that is that 

13 we don't know of any adequate particle size 

14 study that was done at the site. So, we're 

15 using what the ICRP recommendation is of five 

16 micron, which has a distribution that Jim 

17 could probably talk about more, but we think 

18 that's an adequate depiction and the right 

19 thing to use.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think there 

21 - our question there was simply - and this was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the original Site Profile Reviews that 

2 there's a reference to fume size particulates 

3 and a 1-micron size, I think.

4 I'm looking for the reference. 

5 And it was - that study is actually, I think, 

6 in the SRDB.

7 So, we had a question about 

8 reconciling that reference with using the 

9 ICRP.

10 And what I'm hearing you say I 

11 guess in a sense, is that that would not be 

12 seen as an actual particle size study.

13 DR. NETON: Right. And I don't 

14 think there was actually any particle size 

15 study done at Paducah itself.

16 MR. NELSON: Right. If you go to 

17 the PACE document, which was an evaluation 

18 performed by the union and University of Utah, 

19 they made the statement no actual particle - 

20 this is a quote: No actual particle size 

21 study - I'm saying quote, but I'm not using 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the right words.

2 The quote is: no actual study of 

3 particle sizes at Paducah gaseous diffusion 

4 plant, and that included the location of 

5 measurements, measurement methodologies and 

6 the result of measurements has been located.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: So, even if there 

8 was a measurement, that wouldn't be considered 

9 a study for purposes not defaulting to ICRP.

10 I think it's a matter of 

11 threshold.

12 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, there may 

13 be indeed some operations that have slightly 

14 different particle size distributions in the 

15 default ICRP.

16 But on balance, we feel using five 

17 with the geometric standard deviation of 2.5, 

18 it's not a monodisperse aerosol, it covers 

19 adequately the waterfront of those operations 

20 lacking any definitive particle size studies 

21 that were conducted at that site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: This is John.

2 In one case, I do recall - I 

3 forget what site it was. It may have been 

4 Bethlehem Steel -- where you had knowledge 

5 that there might have been fumes because they 

6 were using a torch to cut things.

7 And when that occurs, you're 

8 generating fumes which have particle sizes 

9 which are below one micron. I think you 

10 actually assume 0.1 micron in that case.

11 So, all I'm pointing out is that 

12 when there is affirmative evidence that there 

13 might have been circumstances or operations 

14 where the default five-micron AMAD median 

15 value may not apply, it seems that, you know, 

16 you have in the past.

17 And now, if we have a circumstance 

18 here where there's some evidence where there 

19 might be indication from studies, site 

20 studies, that that distribution may not always 

21 hold up here because of certain types of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operations, that seems to be the strategy that 

2 was used before, and it seems to be one that 

3 could be applied here.

4 DR. NETON: Well, I don't think 

5 there are any site studies here. I mean, 

6 there are a lot of different operations, and I 

7 would agree that five microns does not cover 

8 all operations. But on balance, I think it 

9 does.

10 You know, you've got typically a 

11 lot of operations that have larger particle 

12 sizes than five microns.

13 And you've got to be careful when 

14 you talk about 1-micron atmospheres. If 

15 you're talking AMAD, uranium being heavy is 

16 going to be much larger than - a 1-micron mass 

17 median diameter aerosol is much larger when 

18 you talk about uranium as an aerodynamic mass 

19 median diameter.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think, you 

21 know, what John's pointing out is kind of our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 situation is that we actually have a 

2 referenced measurement of an operation 

3 involved fumes where you had -- I'm looking 

4 for the actual citation, but I think you 

5 already have it.

6 DR. NETON: I don't know that it 

7 was at Paducah though, was it?

8 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think there was 

9 a discussion in Baker --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: It's Paducah --

11 oh, Baker. I'm sorry.

12 MR. NELSON: 1987.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And I 

14 guess this gets down to maybe a broader policy 

15 question which I think you touched on earlier, 

16 what is the threshold by which one would 

17 accept for a particular operation, a 

18 documented measurement that is different than 

19 the five.

20 And I think in this case, the 

21 Baker study did identify fume level 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particulate size.

2 MR. NELSON: Well, I meant the 

3 Baker study. First of all, the Baker study 

4 was a study of recycled uranium.

5 So, it was focused on that. It's 

6 not the entire site. But he made some 

7 statements about -- and, you know, I don't 

8 know where he's getting his information from, 

9 but he made some statements.

10 I don't know if it by itself is 

11 adequate to say that, you know, that it was --

12 how true it is. Let's put it that way.

13 Not that it's a lie or anything, 

14 but, anyways, he said that the U03 powder 

15 handling had an AMD of about 10 micron. The 

16 Green Salt Plant C-420 dust was approximately 

17 10 micron.

18 He said the fluorination towers, 

19 and I think this is what Joe was referring to,

20 it says the -- I don't know if we had it 

21 written it down here -- U02 F-fume of about --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 AMAD of about one micron. And then it said 

2 airborne clean-out 3.5 to seven micron.

3 And he said, however, his 

4 conclusion to all that was he was going to 

5 assume an AMAD of four micron for all of his 

6 calculations for that area.

7 DR. NETON: So, you sort of have a 

8 weighted average type approach. You got a 

9 bunch of operations with 10 micron, we're 

10 using five, I mean, do we go and now start 

11 saying, well, that operation is five, the 

12 other one is five, this one is ten?

13 I think five is a fairly good --

14 recommended by the ICRP as sort of a default. 

15 I don't know.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, the 

17 concern would be if it was a lot finer.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I'm just 

19 saying --

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, once you 

21 get --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, the 

3 likelihood, I mean, five is -- makes it all 

4 respirable.

5 DR. NETON: It wouldn't make a 

6 difference in the dose.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

8 DR. NETON: I mean, you know, some 

9 calculable difference in the internal 

10 exposure.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: As far as NIOSH 

12 policy then as far as applying the default of 

13 five, if you do have countervailing site14 specific evidence, and I guess I'll put 

15 evidence in quotations, I'm not sure how that 

16 would be, you know, what evidence would in 

17 fact be persuasive.

18 And I'm not saying the Baker --

19 you know, the Baker report is what it is. So, 

20 you know, if that doesn't rise to a point 

21 where it would be used as a site-specific data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for a particular part of the operation --

2 DR. NETON: Well, you have a couple 

3 things to weigh in here. One is that I think 

4 -- I'm trying to remember Bethlehem Steel. I 

5 think John is right.

6 I don't know it was 1.1 micron 

7 aerosol, but we had a specific operation where 

8 a person was cutting uranium with a torch. 

9 And that was the only person that did that.

10 So, here you have a job class 

11 where their only potential exposure there --

12 and we did change the default to a small 

13 particle size to accommodate that operation.

14 Here, where you have various 

15 operations around the plant, and by that 

16 report that Chuck just read, you have a 

17 variety of different particle sizes all within 

18 the same operation, unless you get some guy 

19 that is just doing that constantly, I don't 

20 know how else you would, you know -- it 

21 doesn't seem correct then to assume that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everybody in the entire facility breathe 1-

2 micron particles for their entire career, 

3 which is where we would be driven to in that 

4 situation.

5 MR. STIVER: No, you have to have 

6 the granularity that you can show us 

7 particular job type, particular exposure.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think this 

9 is just a question of when one defaults and 

10 when one doesn't, under what conditions.

11 Because in our review -- let's 

12 make it easier. This is straight from our 

13 review.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Are you looking at 

15 Page 56 there, Joe?

16 MR. FITZGERALD: 54 of the --

17 MEMBER BEACH: 54.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: -- Paducah review 

19 that will reference particle size.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: And we talk about
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 two reports. The Baker is one, and then 

2 there's the Bruner 1960. And there, it's a 

3 broader review.

4 MR. STIVER: Page 94, the 

5 references here is a neptunium-237 

6 contamination problem, Paducah, Kentucky. 

7 That was in the SRDB.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and again 

9 it's just sort of reconciling those findings, 

10 site-specific findings with default.

11 Now, the Bruner one actually is a 

12 little bit more of a concern. I guess --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Because that goes 

14 down to 0.5.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it says 0.5 

16 for general dust particles at Paducah. But 

17 again, one has to judge the, you know, how the 

18 study was done and whether one wants to treat 

19 that with sufficient scientific credibility 

20 that it would, you know, again contradict the 

21 five micron.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But it does sort of raise the 

2 question of on what basis does one default 

3 when you have site-specific particle size 

4 reviews?

5 MR. STIVER: Well, Jim's point is a 

6 good one. I mean, you have a whole 

7 distribution of particle sizes. And this 

8 particular paper may have concentrated on one 

9 operation or, you know, who knows what the 

10 basis for that is.

11 I mean, you know, you can be 

12 fairly confident when you factor in all your 

13 uncertainties if you're using five as kind of 

14 a median value, that you're going to probably 

15 bracket most exposure potential.

16 DR. NETON: Like I say, it's got a 

17 GSD of two -- I think it's 2.5 is the size. 

18 So, it's not monodisperse aerosol.

19 And then I don't know what these 

20 studies have done and what the distribution of 

21 those particles are versus, you know, versus a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2.5 GSD default.

2 I mean, there's a lot of 

3 additional uncertainty and --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, okay. Just 

5 not to beat this to death, just the response 

6 to the issue was no specific particle size 

7 study was located at Paducah.

8 Now, I guess I'm not -- I'm a 

9 little confused that these don't -- I guess, 

10 if these don't count as studies for whatever 

11 reason, because they weren't done in a way 

12 that would be considered a credible or 

13 technical approach or not applicable enough or 

14 something, that would be the basis for ruling 

15 them out. But if they do represent site16 specific studies, then I guess you could make 

17 that statement. But you might, like you were 

18 just saying, saying, well, but five is okay 

19 because looking at these studies, it's a 

20 reasonable distribution.

21 So, the response is what I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 trying to --

2 DR. NETON: Yes, I understand what 

3 you're saying. We probably need to go back 

4 and -- based on what I'm reading here in your 

5 report, it seems like there were some studies 

6 done.

7 I mean, I'm a little bit confused 

8 as to why we came out saying that there were 

9 no studies.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Wasn't there 

11 an analysis? I assume they had the in-house 

12 chem department where they would have -- part 

13 of their analysis would be particle size, 

14 wouldn't it?

15 DR. NETON: Well, if these were 

16 done at Paducah, I'm sure there are data 

17 there. You know, you don't just take an 

18 aerosol and say the particle size is exactly 

19 three micron.

20 I mean, you come out with some 

21 kind of a distribution on a cascade and --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, they've got a 

2 cascade factor, and then look at the - 

3 DR. NETON: And you look at the 

4 different stages and so forth. I think we 

5 need to go back and look at that a little 

6 closer.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I was going to say 

8 that technology existed even back in the '60s.

9 DR. NETON: Oh, yes.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: So, I don't think 

11 that would have been too mysterious.

12 DR. NETON: No.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: And then likely 

14 to have recorded it. So --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I'm just 

16 saying, you know, I'm sure the study -- if 

17 there's any documentation behind the study, it 

18 would show the distribution.

19 MR. NELSON: So, what study are we 

20 talking about that we have?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there's two 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 studies. The Baker and the Bruner.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Right. They're on -

3 - 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the two 

5 that --

6 MR. NELSON: I don't think, though, 

7 that you could classify Baker as a particle 

8 size study.

9 MR. STIVER: It's sort of an 

10 ancillary comment within the paper, really.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: That was the first 

12 question I raised. I mean, what you're saying 

13 is these don't really count as studies. You 

14 know, that answers part of this question.

15 If they do count, then, you know, 

16 why aren't they sufficient to be treated as 

17 site-specific, you know, data? That's really 

18 the other part of the question.

19 So, does it count as a study under 

20 the way you handle the default?

21 DR. NETON: Yes, maybe we ought to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 go back to the study and all take a look at it 

2 and describe more in detail why it's not a 

3 study.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's NIOSH -

5 - going to be a NIOSH action item.

6 MEMBER BEACH: So, both Baker and 

7 Bruner?

8 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, Bruner, 

9 you know, there's sort of a passing statement 

10 that dust particles are about 0.5.

11 Well, I wouldn't disagree, you 

12 know. Dust particles are by definition, a 

13 small particulate. I mean, but they're in a 

14 milieu of what?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, that goes back 

16 to what's in here as that there's chronic dust 

17 exposure. So, I think that's how that ties 

18 in.

19 DR. NETON: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

21 DR. NETON: But then dust of what? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean, is it uranium dust? Is it dirt? I 

2 mean, there's a lot of different things here.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: The particles that 

5 we're concerned with there.

6 MR. NELSON: So, we'll look at 

7 Baker and Bruner and we'll give you a better 

8 response.

9 DR. NETON: Look at it a little 

10 closer as to why they are or not all right.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Seems 

12 like there should be in-house records of that 

13 analysis.

14 DR. NETON: Well, I think we've got 

15 the study. I mean --

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

18 studies are captured.

19 DR. NETON: I think what's going to 

20 happen is they're going to reference other 

21 studies.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Do you have the SRDB number on 

2 that?

3 MR. FITZGERALD: You had the 

4 records section on the --

5 MR. STIVER: Hang on just a second. 

6 Let me pull that up.

7 It's here. It has the NIOSH OCAS 

8 file NP contained 1960.PDF. So, it gives a 

9 file name.

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 DR. NETON: Well, I don't want to 

12 hold up the --

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, we don't need to 

14 do that.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you have 

16 the number for Baker?

17 MR. NELSON: I don't have it right 

18 here. It's easy enough to get.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's fine.

20 MR. NELSON: In fact, we might cite 

21 it somewhere else.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Then 

2 we'll go on to Number 11.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: That's fine. 

4 We'll move on.

5 MR. NELSON: Number 11 was marked 

6 in abeyance. And our action was NIOSH to 

7 verify maximum source term values reflected. 

8 And this is similar to Item Number 9 whereas 

9 we went to the PACE report and the uranium 

10 recycled report and we verified that maximum 

11 values were used in the tables. And SC&A 

12 agreed with our conclusion.

13 Okay, ready to move on?

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Ready to move. 

15 We're calling that one closed.

16 MR. NELSON: Okay, Item Number 15. 

17 This one has to do with day of sample 

18 collection for urinalysis, and we had a NIOSH 

19 action.

20 NIOSH need to evaluate scope and 

21 significance of issue at Paducah -- let me 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure I say this right.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Implementing, is 

3 that what you --

4 MR. NELSON: Implications to the 

5 coworker model to the dose estimate.

6 Anyways, what we did is we looked 

7 at all the urine samples that were done 

8 through 1977, then 1977 through 1978, and we 

9 looked at what day of the week were those 

10 urines done. Because the focus was that, you 

11 know, they were done on Monday morning 

12 sampling.

13 And the distribution that we came 

14 up with is that Sunday two percent of the 

15 urines were done, Monday 30 percent were done, 

16 Tuesday 18 percent were done, and Wednesday 26 

17 percent, Thursday 13 percent, Friday 11 

18 percent and Saturday one percent.

19 So, SC&A came back and said that 

20 we still have questions. They're not clear 

21 how a 30 percent fraction on Mondays with 44 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percent the following two days, does not 

2 represent a significant increase in sampling 

3 frequency in the context of this issue.

4 While it's acknowledged that this 

5 issue resolves itself for individual dose 

6 reconstructions, it is less clear how it 

7 resolved this in the coworker model.

8 And they go on to say we agree 

9 this is a common issue, but how does it 

10 resolve for other sites such as Y-12?

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think, you 

12 know, this is not an issue specific to the 

13 gaseous diffusion plants. I remember it 

14 coming up at the Y-12 as well that, you know, 

15 this whole notion of taking samples after a 

16 weekend.

17 But I guess the table is helpful, 

18 but it sort of leaves me still a little 

19 question of whether or not you're actually 

20 seeing what we were talking about, a fairly 

21 high number of --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Well, Tom LaBone I 

2 think can talk a little more about this, but 

3 we've looked at this in some detail because 

4 you're right. This affects several sites, Y5 12 and most recently Santa Susana, where there 

6 were Monday morning samples.

7 You have to look in the context of 

8 how we model. And this would only really 

9 affect the chronic exposure coworker model.

10 The idea is if someone is - works 

11 five days and leaves a sample on Monday, 

12 they've been off work for two days. So, they 

13 had time to clear.

14 And then if a person only left 

15 Monday morning samples and they were off those 

16 two days, then some correction would be needed 

17 and affect is of course most severe or the 

18 more soluble material like that.

19 But the reality is that we've done 

20 some analyses on this that, if it's anything 

21 other than a Monday morning sample, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 opposite would happen. For Tuesday through 

2 Friday samples, the model actually 

3 overpredicts what they would have been exposed 

4 to.

5 So, when you start putting those 

6 all in the mix -- because what we do is we 

7 assume a seven-day-a-week chronic exposure. 

8 And what happens, you sort of catch up after 

9 that on Monday.

10 If you leave a Tuesday sample, 

11 it's the exact opposite and it only really 

12 affects on that Monday morning.

13 So, if you take the whole mixture 

14 into place, on balance, the model is not 

15 underreporting what these intakes are.

16 Tom, I don't know if you want to 

17 correct anything I said there or fill it in or 

18 state a little --

19 MR. LaBONE: No, that's correct. 

20 It's just that it sort of averages it out if 

21 you have the samples spread throughout the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 week, is basically what it does.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: So, this 

3 distribution would tend to validate what 

4 you're saying because you actually do have 44 

5 percent as I indicated in our response on 

6 Tuesday and Wednesday, and 30 percent, a third 

7 almost, on Monday.

8 DR. NETON: Well, for anything 

9 except a Monday sample, the model is claimant10 favorable. It would be claimant-favorable 

11 using those values.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: So, I guess if --

13 well, just to close this thing out, if your 

14 distribution happened to show 50 percent on a 

15 Monday and a lot less on the rest of the week, 

16 then you might say that maybe the distribution 

17 is skewed a little bit.

18 I mean, in this case you have 30 

19 followed by 44 percent on Tuesday and 

20 Wednesday. So, I think that distribution 

21 would tend to offset --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: It is true it's a case2 by-case analysis. But I think even with Santa 

3 Susana where almost all the samples were left 

4 on Monday, our models still ended up being --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Really?

6 DR. NETON: -- okay, yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John.

8 We did address this once before, 

9 and the only thing that came up was those 

10 samples that were collected on Tuesday and 

11 Wednesday and Thursday, were they after two 

12 days of a person being off?

13 In other words, sometimes the --

14 sometimes the sample is taken after the two15 day hiatus. But you're saying that, no, when 

16 they're taken on Tuesday, the guy worked on 

17 Monday. When it's taken on Wednesday, no, the 

18 guy worked on Monday and Tuesday.

19 DR. NETON: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I just 

21 wanted to confirm that because there was some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussion regarding that when this last came 

2 up.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know --

4 well, this analysis would assume then of 

5 course, then, with working a regular five-day 

6 Monday-through-Friday workweek.

7 DR. MAURO: Right. And if that 

8 being the case, I think your arguments are 

9 compelling.

10 DR. NETON: Right. I really 

11 strongly suspect that it's true. I don't know 

12 that everybody worked what I call these swing 

13 shifts that much way back when.

14 In other words, you would have a 

15 lot -- you'd have a variety of shifts working 

16 various workweeks. It just doesn't seem to me 

17 to be a reasonable thing.

18 Although, I suppose we can go back 

19 and verify that somehow.

20 MR. STIVER: Jim, as just kind of a 

21 practical Site Profile issue, how much of an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 under-representation does the model predict 

2 for Monday morning?

3 It seems like it's something that 

4 could be adjusted.

5 DR. NETON: Oh, it could be.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 DR. NETON: I mean, if it was a 

8 Monday morning sample and it's Type F, fast 

9 clearance, it could be a factor of two or 

10 three different.

11 MR. STIVER: Factor of two or 

12 three.

13 DR. NETON: Right. But as soon as 

14 you start taking Tuesday morning samples, your 

15 model is over-predictive by 20 percent, at 

16 least in the last analysis I saw.

17 DR. MAURO And, Jim, if you recall, 

18 Joyce did a similar work-up and you all came 

19 to the same conclusion.

20 DR. NETON: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: So, I mean, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're all on the same page. It just has to do 

2 with this matter of this sliding weekend, so 

3 to speak.

4 DR. NETON: So our opinion, unless 

5 all the samples are taken on Monday, which a 

6 correction could be made -- could be made --

7 MR. STIVER: It sounds like we have 

8 a technique in place to --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it's the 

10 coworker. Chronic coworker. So, you know, it 

11 takes care of itself then.

12 DR. NETON: We've got this seven13 day-a-week, you know, exposure model. That 

14 sort of masks some of these different --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 DR. NETON: Because you're having 

17 the person exposed --

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, we're talking the 

19 coworker model only here anyway.

20 DR. NETON: Yes, and this is only 

21 applied to people, by the way, who have no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitoring data.

2 MR. STIVER: Right.

3 DR. NETON: We would use their 

4 actual monitoring data as it was.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think that 

6 response would be satisfactory. When the 

7 table came out, I thought it just basically 

8 validated what we were saying. It looked like 

9 a third were on Monday, and that's what we 

10 were concerned about.

11 But you --

12 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: So, I guess I 

14 would recommend closure based on that --

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You'd call 

16 that one closed?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: On that 

18 assessment, yes.

19 MR. NELSON: Okay. Next item is 

20 Number 16. This one is marked as in abeyance. 

21 And we were given -- actually, SC&A was given 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the task, but we did the same thing, is to 

2 compare the PACE 2001 incident list with Table 

3 5-8 in the TBD listing.

4 And NIOSH did compare the incident 

5 list in the TBD, the Table 5-8 with PACE Page 

6 31. It says Page 51 to 52. It's actually PDF 

7 Pages 66 through 69 on PACE.

8 And our response also says Bechtel 

9 Jacobs Pages 5 and 7. That's PDF Pages 12 and 

10 14, if there's any confusion there. And we 

11 found that they were agreeable.

12 And we also went on to say that 

13 when we update the TBD, we'll make a note to 

14 Table 5-8 to say that additional information 

15 may be found in the PACE report in the Bechtel 

16 Jacobs report, and provide those references in 

17 the TBD.

18 SC&A went on to say they agree, 

19 but thought this should be discussed in the 

20 Work Group at the next meeting. Otherwise, 

21 they would recommend closure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, we 

2 went and compared the charts and they looked 

3 like they were similar. So, maybe there isn't 

4 much discussion.

5 I think it's comparable. I think 

6 the key thing was to make sure that the 

7 reference lists are added in.

8 MR. NELSON: Yes.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that was 

10 the real emphasis on that.

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, and we have a 

12 schedule right now for updating the TBDs. In 

13 fact, the TBD owners are getting started with 

14 this. As we come to some agreements here, 

15 they are updating the TBDs to better represent 

16 themselves. So, that's in progress.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we'll

18 call that one closed then.

19 Number 17.

20 MR. NELSON: Okay. Number 17 is 

21 marked in abeyance. Our action was NIOSH to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provide reference for evaluating job title and 

2 worker category and coworker application.

3 And the issue here was in the 

4 coworker model, workers are not classified by 

5 the jobs or by buildings that -- where they 

6 performed their work and no validation is 

7 provided as there could be a low probability 

8 that an unmonitored worker could have a higher 

9 exposure than the monitored workers taken as a 

10 group.

11 We went on to have some discussion 

12 about OTIB-14. What OTIB-14 is for, is an 

13 environmental TBD TIB. And I think SC&A was 

14 actually correct in saying they disagree that 

15 OTIB-14 satisfies the need for site-specific 

16 information regarding job categories or 

17 buildings where workers perform work.

18 They agree that it's good for 

19 environmental dose. But for workplace dose, 

20 it wouldn't really cover that. And I have to 

21 agree with that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, we'd like to -- OTIB-60, 

2 that's the internal dose reconstruction TIB. 

3 And we can update the TBD to show how we can 

4 apply coworker to individuals where they 

5 perform their work. Not necessarily 

6 environmental, but those that were workplace 

7 doses.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think that, 

9 you know, we went and looked at TIB-14, and 

10 that's kind of where we came out.

11 MR. NELSON: I just think we didn't 

12 give you a great reference. A better 

13 reference would have been OTIB-60.

14 DR. NETON: Well, I've used this 

15 OTIB-14 in the past, though, as evidence of 

16 how we would go about picking people with some 

17 exposure.

18 I mean, I agree it's an 

19 environmental TIB, but, you know, it clearly 

20 says, you know, there's one -- the top group -

21 - I'm remembering it now -- says almost no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure. I think you're talking about 

2 administrative-type people who worked in clean 

3 areas and never frequented the plant. That's 

4 kind of a no-brainer.

5 Then in the middle categories, 

6 people with some potential for exposure. And 

7 I think clearly that middle category, in my 

8 opinion, would relate to not environmental 

9 exposure, but would get 50th percentile of the 

10 internal dose model.

11 Then there's an upper category 

12 which is people that definitely have potential 

13 for exposure that could have had significant 

14 exposures. And I think it's in -- I'm not 

15 sure in this particular case, those who get 

16 the 95th percentile. You're talking about 

17 people like chemical operators, you know, 

18 people working in very contaminated areas and 

19 doing things that have potential grinding, 

20 cutting, welding operations.

21 That's sort of the way the triage 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 works. I don't disagree with Chuck that we 

2 probably need to have a better example put in 

3 the internal TIB. I think that would 

4 strengthen our argument.

5 But I think TIB-14 does sort of 

6 lay out the - sort of the triage approach as 

7 to who gets what dose even though it is an 

8 environmental TIB.

9 MR. NELSON: I think it would 

10 strengthen if we put in OTIB-60 as well.

11 DR. NETON: Yes. And we have to 

12 keep in mind these are examples. I mean, I 

13 brought this up to the Board I think a meeting 

14 or two ago, and I immediately got some 

15 grouching going on.

16 Well, you know, the clerks over in 

17 this plant always went in the area where, you 

18 know, very heavily exposed and I acknowledge, 

19 you know, these are general guidelines, but 

20 you've got to have site-specific, you know, 

21 evaluations done.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But otherwise, I don't know how 

2 you start. And of course we're always going 

3 to err on the side -- try to err always on the 

4 side of the claimant-favorable if we can.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I don't 

6 disagree. I think what, you know, OTIB-14 is 

7 a starting point. It's a general description. 

8 And I think if you want to go one level down 

9 that's more specific to the site, that would 

10 point you in the right direction. And that's 

11 all we're saying here.

12 DR. NETON: Yes, I think a better

13 documentation essentially sort of put in 

14 writing what we're actually doing, how we're 

15 triaging these cases is a good idea. I don't 

16 disagree with that.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So, where does OTIB18 31 come into it? SC&A talked about OTIB-31 in 

19 -- Table 2 serves to illustrate the most 

20 highly exposed, because what I'm hearing so 

21 far is 14 and 60.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. FITZGERALD: 31 is -- I think 

4 that is probably in the wrong place. It has 

5 to do with whether the most exposed individual 

6 is badged.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, that 

8 shouldn't be there?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: That might just be 

10 misplaced.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I was just wondering 

12 about that.

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think that came 

15 out in the last meeting.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

17 MR. NELSON: I think if you went to 

18 the SC&A, the entire three-page comments, then 

19 there was some discussion about external. I 

20 think they were closing the loop on that.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. NELSON: That kind of threw me 

2 off at first.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Just strike 31 

4 then?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, no. I 

6 think he's right. There's been so many cites 

7 in this.

8 That was a very lengthy finding in 

9 the Site Profile Review and it did get into 

10 the question of addressing external exposures, 

11 but that was meant to close that loop on that 

12 particular item.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, TIB-31 is the 

14 external coworker model.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

16 MR. NELSON: Right.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: So, the internal 

18 coworker, external coworker. So, the context 

19 though is what points the dose reconstructor 

20 in the right direction as applying the 

21 coworker model.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And we're saying the job 

2 categories if one could be a little bit more 

3 specific, site-specific, that would be more 

4 meaningful as a guide.

5 So, we've held that in abeyance 

6 and, you know, I think with further feedback 

7 from the Work Group, that would be -- I think 

8 it's both methods as Jim is pointing out, as 

9 well as maybe a little more explicitness about 

10 the job categories with the site.

11 I think illustrative examples are 

12 a starting point, but not -- it would be 

13 helpful to have one layer down.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So, maybe just 

15 a better description of job categories.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it's both 

17 how you would apply and --

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, how you 

19 apply it and --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the point 

21 here is you're not going to be so precise that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're going to have every job category and 

2 all that.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. In 

4 generality.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: But for a site6 specific approach, you might have more 

7 specificity for Paducah that would be more 

8 helpful for the dose reconstructor to apply in 

9 the coworker model.

10 MEMBER BEACH: 20 is listed in 

11 abeyance, but I have it down as closed after 

12 our last meeting.

13 MR. NELSON: Well, I think we got a 

14 good response for that one.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

16 MR. NELSON: I think SC&A was happy 

17 with that.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we're fine.

19 MR. NELSON: Do we need to discuss 

20 it in detail?

21 Basically, the question was about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker -- how do you apply coworker to -- or 

2 external coworker dose to the individuals. 

3 And we made reference to OTIB-20 in -- where 

4 it talks about evaluating job title, worker 

5 category, select the proper coworker 

6 percentile value, be it 50th or 95th 

7 percentile. And OTIB-31, that's the coworker 

8 TIB.

9 So, we're going to add a reference 

10 to OTIB-20 to the external coworker TIB. And 

11 SC&A was okay with that.

12 And there was another issue about 

13 the data trend, you know, what about prior to 

14 1960. And we had some discussion there and 

15 provided a table that showed that, you know, 

16 the most highly exposed workers were indeed 

17 monitored prior to 1960.

18 So, we think our coworker model 

19 holds. And SC&A agreed with that and 

20 recommended closing.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Closed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

3 MR. NELSON: Okay. Item 22 was 

4 regarding x-rays. And there was a long 

5 response for that, but it was using site6 specific technique factors and conservative 

7 air kerma values for applying those Paducah 

8 TBD from OTIB-6.

9 And one thing that we're doing, 

10 actually OTIB-6 has been revised. And OTIB-6 

11 will be directly referenced in the Paducah 

12 medical TBD.

13 And it also has revisions on and 

14 more detail how we apply substitute DCS for 

15 certain organs.

16 That was some of the discussion

17 that was brought up. And SC&A was in 

18 agreement with our response.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: With this 

20 discussion, I mean, it's a good discussion. 

21 Is this going to be added? I think you were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying --

2 MR. NELSON: Well, we're going to 

3 make -- I mean, the tables that we have in the 

4 TBD for assigning medical x-ray dose, they are 

5 -- for Paducah, they are accurate.

6 We use substitute DCS, but OTIB-6 

7 didn't do a very good discussion on discussing 

8 assigned substitute DCS. So, it has been 

9 revised. It now has a nice discussion of 

10 that.

11 I don't know if Elyse is on the 

12 phone or not to discussing of that, but --

13 Elyse Thomas? Is she out there?

14 MS. THOMAS: Yes, hi, Chuck. This 

15 is Elyse Thomas with the ORAU team. And I 

16 think the response is pretty clear.

17 The comment had to do with the 

18 dose impacts of less than optimal use of 

19 technology. In other words, if they used 

20 screens or film that weren't as, you know, the 

21 fastest that were available.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But the point of the response was 

2 that, since we used site-specific technique 

3 factors, those technique factors would have 

4 accommodated the level of the technology that 

5 they were using. And so, it becomes kind of a 

6 moot point.

7 So, in other words, even if they 

8 weren't using suboptimal technology, because 

9 we are using site-specific technique factors 

10 to develop the entrance kerma values, we have 

11 included that in our dose estimates.

12 So, I hope that helps explain our 

13 response to SC&A's comment.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we're 

15 fine. Even the opportunity to provide a 

16 little bit more background, a few sentences, 

17 that might even be helpful.

18 MS. THOMAS: Yes, we'd be happy to 

19 do that when we revise, you know, this TBD.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I'd recommend 

21 closure on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

2 MR. NELSON: Yes, these are 

3 secondary issues.

4 DR. NETON: That's why they have an 

5 S next to it. That's what the S stands for.

6 MR. NELSON: 23s, okay. That's the 

7 next one. It says NIOSH will follow up. This 

8 was the provided equations for estimating 24-

9 hour excretion on the basis of spot urine 

10 sample was incorrectly written.

11 We agree that it was, but we never 

12 used the equation and it was deleted from the 

13 TBD, and is not the current version. So, I'm 

14 not quite sure -- you may ask for a commitment 

15 to delete or change this equation, but we no 

16 longer even have that equation in the TBD.

17 So, I don't know that there's any 

18 issues here.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Probably 

20 Number 23, I think. There's not a real issue.

21 MR. NELSON: SC&A agree?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

2 MR. NELSON: All right. Probably

3 the next one that's going to have some 

4 discussion on it.

5 Okay. 24s, use of unverified 

6 bioassay data. The database for internal dose 

7 data 1952 to '56, was not verified by DOE for 

8 completeness and accuracy. It's not clear if 

9 NIOSH has done so.

10 And our action was to verify the 

11 pedigree or database and determine -- or 

12 database, and determine if it's been verified 

13 and validated.

14 Basically, there is a database 

15 from 1952 to 1976. And when we had gotten it 

16 over to us, it said unverified. But what it 

17 is, it's a listing of all the urinalysis for 

18 that period of time. So, that's tens of 

19 thousands of records.

20 And we understand it hasn't been 

21 through a V&V through DOE, but we took it as a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 record from DOE and used the data to develop 

2 coworker data.

3 Here's our understanding. In 1991 

4 and 1993, a HIT was made by Paducah health 

5 physics dosimetry to make electronic files of 

6 in vivo records and the urine cards.

7 In 1993 in July of that year, they 

8 no longer contracted. That company was LMUS. 

9 And so, we don't think a complete validation 

10 was done of those -- of that access database. 

11 We don't know that it's been through a V&V 

12 process.

13 So, the question comes down to how 

14 big of an undertaking would we want to do from 

15 our standpoint to verify that this database is

16 accurate?

17 We have the individual records. 

18 In their files, it shows all the urine cards. 

19 This would be for a coworker issue.

20 So, you get all this coworker data 

21 that was based on this data that was not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 necessarily verified.

2 So the question is, is what do we 

3 need to do? I think Jim was going to --

4 DR. NETON: Yes, I think there's no 

5 question we need to do something here. I 

6 mean, we can't accept -- it's been our routine 

7 method to do some type of validation on these 

8 databases. It even says so somewhere in one 

9 of our procedures, I think.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: How would you do 

11 it?

12 DR. NETON: Well, you know, I can 

13 think of what we've done in the past, and 

14 there's a couple things we can do.

15 One is we can spot check and 

16 verify that the data that we do have from hard 

17 copy records in the claimant files matches on 

18 a sampling-level basis.

19 It's something that we've done at 

20 other places. And Mark Griffon was a big 

21 proponent of this, was to go find -- a lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 times you'll find these summary health physics 

2 reports. It will say in 1995, we took 4,000 

3 urine samples and blah, blah, blah and this 

4 many and just go and say, okay, do we have --

5 they took 4,000 samples; let's make sure we 

6 have 4,000 samples, you know, so we feel like 

7 we've got the right volume. We're not missing 

8 something.

9 And I think if we do those two 

10 things, we can do those two things, it will at 

11 least give us some sense that we have a 

12 complete data set and, you know, we don't have 

13 claimant data that's not showing up in that 

14 database as well looking at the original data. 

15 And that would be a sampling effort as well.

16 It would, you know, nothing is 

17 perfect, but I think that would go a long way 

18 to at least give folks some comfort that we at 

19 least feel like we've got the complete --

20 MR. STIVER: Sounds like identical 

21 to what you guys did for the Fernald - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Yes, it was similar.

2 MR. STIVER: So, you've definitely 

3 been down that road before.

4 DR. NETON: Yes, this would be a 

5 sampling effort. We can't do it all, but we 

6 can spot check the cards against -- the 

7 claimants against the database, and also to 

8 somehow validate that the numbers we have make 

9 sense in light of what we knew they were 

10 doing.

11 And usually in a place like 

12 Paducah, there's got to be reports that say 

13 the health physics program took 5,000 samples 

14 this year or 2,000 urine and, you know, look 

15 at that.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I just, you 

17 know, I think that would help because I think 

18 I'd be concerned that the vendor didn't care 

19 about money.

20 And we might have half of them or 

21 half the samples were recorded or something 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 like that, and I think a macro approach would 

2 at least validate that much.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I would assume 

4 that those records and nothing else, the DOE 

5 should have them whether they're from AEC, 

6 ERDA.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, well --

8 MR. NELSON: What it was is 

9 somebody went through all these tens --

10 hundreds of thousands of urine cards and they 

11 entered them into this electronic database.

12 So, they didn't complete the task 

13 of verifying that they got them all. So, when 

14 they sent the database over to us, they put 

15 this little thing that said, unverified. 

16 Which thanks to --

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Best we could do. 

19 Good luck.

20 MR. NELSON: So, they spent two 

21 years on it and didn't complete it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: We'll do an effort, 

2 basically try to do what I just described.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. So, 

4 you're going to go back in and look at it and 

5 then do the sampling.

6 DR. NETON: Yes, sampling strategy. 

7 Nothing --

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

9 DR. NETON: Nothing extensive -- I 

10 mean, it will be extensive, but not --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. How 

13 about 25s?

14 MR. NELSON: Okay. 25s was -- the 

15 issue was incorrect selection of distinct time 

16 period.

17 What it was is we -- this is the 

18 coworker TIB for internal. And we assigned 

19 dose for two distinct periods. And SC&A said, 

20 well, we think there's three distinct periods.

21 And we took their periods and kind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looked at them closely and basically said 

2 their first and second period, which is our 

3 first period, we don't feel there's a big 

4 difference between the two and threw some 

5 statistic numbers behind them. And SC&A 

6 agreed with us that there was little 

7 difference between those two periods, and 

8 recommended closure.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You haven't 

10 changed your mind, have you?

11 MR. FITZGERALD: No. I mean, I 

12 think that was the question whether there was 

13 any real distinction there. There's nothing 

14 to add to the question.

15 MEMBER BEACH: So, that means we're 

16 done with Paducah.

17 So, is anybody ready for a quick 

18 break?

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think so.

20 MEMBER BEACH: All right. So, 

21 those of you on the phone, we're going to go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ahead and take a ten-minute break. I'm going 

2 to put the phone on hold, and we'll be back at 

3 10:42 or shortly thereafter.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 10:32 a.m. and 

6 resumed at 10:44 a.m.)

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. We're back 

8 online.

9 Ted, do we have you back?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, we do.

11 Are we moving on to Portsmouth 

12 then?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

15 MR. NELSON: All right. The 

16 Portsmouth, these comments were sent to SC&A. 

17 And they made response to them on April 22nd, 

18 2011.

19 And NIOSH came back on the 14th of 

20 June and provided a response based on SC&A's 

21 response.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, what you'll see if you're 

2 looking at these set of -- this matrix -- I 

3 went ahead and passed them out at the meeting 

4 here. The red line versions are the track 

5 changes.

6 So, you'll see the changes that we 

7 made to our response based on SC&A's response. 

8 So, at this point they're at -- SC&A has 

9 them. We've given our latest and greatest 

10 response.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, what's on the 

12 bottom is that we submitted our response April 

13 22nd. And we got a markup, basically, on June 

14 14th. So, this has been moving fairly 

15 quickly.

16 On this issue of technetium-99, 

17 this is just I think more of a factual 

18 accuracy issue. I mean, there's no 

19 disagreement that there's an error in one of 

20 the tables and I think this certainly 

21 addresses it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 My only question would be in the 

2 meantime, I think the comments made that, you 

3 know, the dose reconstructor wouldn't be using 

4 these values, you say are typically not used.

5 Hopefully, not used at all because 

6 it's a pretty big error, I guess several 

7 orders of magnitude.

8 Is that the case? I mean, maybe 

9 we can ask the dose reconstructors. You know, 

10 it's not being used, the actual value itself, 

11 right?

12 MS. ALGUTIFAN: This is Elizabeth 

13 Algutifan.

14 No, we don't use that table.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Just wanted 

16 to put a punctuation point on that.

17 So really, by making the 

18 correction on the table next edition, that 

19 should take care of it then.

20 MR. NELSON: The one that we do 

21 make is that regarding recycled uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contaminants, we're actually reviewing that at 

2 this time. And we're going to be revising --

3 or possibly revising some of these tables if 

4 we find out that the values that we have 

5 aren't claimant-favorable or if they need to 

6 be revised for some reason.

7 So, recycled uranium at Portsmouth 

8 is being reviewed.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Which is sort of a 

10 broader arena.

11 MR. NELSON: Yes.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, this would 

13 fall into --

14 MR. NELSON: Correct.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

16 MR. NELSON: That's just one of the 

17 recycled uranium contaminants, tech-99.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: So, I would 

19 recommend closure based on the fact it's not 

20 being used in dose reconstruction and there's 

21 going to be a revision made in the next 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 edition.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: With the 

3 caveat that they'll take a look at it.

4 MR. NELSON: Do you want to go on, 

5 Joe?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I guess 

7 we're on Three, which is where we had -- I'm 

8 trying to read this thing here.

9 This has to do with recycled 

10 uranium contaminants as well. And I think 

11 your response is the same as it was on the 

12 previous one that, you know, you're going 

13 through and actually reviewing this.

14 And, you know, our comment before 

15 that was that we felt there would need to be 

16 more -- something more specific in terms of 

17 response to the recycled uranium issue.

18 And I think what they're saying is 

19 they are going through and doing something 

20 very specific on that issue. So, I'd keep it 

21 in abeyance and just wait for the recycled 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium review.

2 What shape is that going to take 

3 relative to -- I know you've looked at it for 

4 Fernald. How's that going -- what shape is 

5 that going to take as far as the gaseous 

6 diffusion plants?

7 Is that going to be some standard 

8 language that's going to go in all three or --

9 MR. NELSON: I'm not sure yet. I 

10 mean, we're just in the early stages. Finally 

11 have some resources to dedicate to it. So, I 

12 don't think we know yet.

13 Bryce Rich is out there. Bryce, 

14 do you have any comment on that yet?

15 MR. RICH: Nothing more than you 

16 have indicated, Chuck. Thank you.

17 MR. NELSON: Okay.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. Well, 

19 I think we can just keep it in abeyance and 

20 wait for the response.

21 That brings us to Number 4. And I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think this has to do with the gross alpha 

2 urinalysis results. And our question was the 

3 need for more information, are gross alpha 

4 bioassay results adequate for dose 

5 reconstruction such that they can substitute 

6 for the application of generic default value 

7 at 3.5 percent?

8 And I think the explanation is 

9 fine. I think I've actually heard this one 

10 before, but I think it's useful to revisit 

11 this occasionally because I always, you know, 

12 I think that at face value, I had a problem. 

13 But then I read the explanation and then it 

14 always goes away on gross alpha.

15 The response, gross alpha 

16 urinalysis results eliminate the need to know 

17 actual enrichment of the uranium and is 

18 calculated from activity rather than mass. 

19 So, I think we're fine, with that reminder.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That one is 

21 closed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: And the last one, 

2 Number 5, was, you know -- well, we weren't 

3 being flip. We just wanted to make sure it 

4 was clear that there was actually a change 

5 that was being committed to. And I think that 

6 was clarified and we're fine with that.

7 So, Number 6 is -- I'm trying to 

8 follow your response to our response. This 

9 had to do with the in vivo rad monitoring lab 

10 chest counts for detecting uranium and the 

11 question of limitations, uncertainties with 

12 that process.

13 And I think, Chuck, your response 

14 on this one was that you were going to add the 

15 background on how the whole body counting was 

16 done.

17 MR. NELSON: Yes, we were going to 

18 basically put in there the limitations --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

20 MR. NELSON: -- of use of the 

21 whole body -- of a chest count. But by the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same note, there's no cases in which we use 

2 only the chest counts by themselves.

3 But we would talk about U-238 and, 

4 you know, it's limited detection for that. 

5 And as well as the transuranics and so forth.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And so, yes, the 

7 question that we had, you would respond in the 

8 affirmative, will NIOSH revise current wording 

9 in the TBD to indicate that only the U-235 

10 data from the whole body counting, the MIVRML, 

11 should be relied upon?

12 I mean, is that --

13 MR. NELSON: Yes.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

15 MR. NELSON: We'll update the TBD 

16 to clarify that.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

18 DR. NETON: Are we going to look at 

19 the 235? I mean, if there was a big bird at 

20 238, you could see it.

21 MR. NELSON: Well, we say that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're just going to clarify in the TBD that --

2 let me find out where the response is here.

3 We're just going to note that the 

4 MDA is quite large.

5 DR. NETON: Right.

6 MR. NELSON: And just say that 

7 there are some limitations to it. And it's of 

8 a limited usefulness, but it can be used.

9 DR. NETON: For an enrichment 

10 plant, I guess that's true. I mean, in places 

11 like, you know, natural uranium facilities 

12 where you've got U two thirty -- it's 5.2 

13 millirems was the detection limit of the 

14 system, I recall. About 5.2 millirems of 

15 natural uranium.

16 But if you have an enriched 

17 uranium, you're right. 235 is the correct way 

18 to go.

19 I think this in vivo system is 

20 really just sort of a piece of the puzzle. 

21 It's sort of confirmatory that, you know, your 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay results aren't consistent with your 

2 in vivo, and vice versa.

3 You just want to make sure you got 

4 a complete -- if you got the data, you've got 

5 to compare them to make sure you got a good 

6 copy.

7 MR. NELSON: I think SC&A's point 

8 was there is limitations, and we say we'll 

9 make note of those limitations.

10 MR. STIVER: We'll identify them in 

11 the TBD.

12 DR. NETON: This thing had like an 

13 11 -- an 11 by four inch sodium iodide 

14 detector. It was a big --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think we'd 

16 be fine. I think it was just a question of 

17 adding those qualifying statements, and I 

18 think these are fine.

19 So moving on to Seven, that was 

20 again just trying to be very clear that the 

21 revision was --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: So, before we go to 

2 Seven, did we abeyance Six or close Six?

3 MR. FITZGERALD: No, Six could be 

4 closed.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Six is closed.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Just wanted 

7 to --

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: With that 

9 caveat that they're going to make that 

10 notation.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. Sorry 

12 for --

13 MR. NELSON: So, if you look at our 

14 changes, I think I went through there and 

15 green-highlighted this, which might be 

16 confusing.

17 I think those were my notes and --

18 well, you didn't get those. Okay.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: This language that 

20 you provided, I think, is the language we were 

21 looking for as far as the qualifying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 statements.

2 MR. NELSON: Okay.

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. FITZGERALD: On Seven, again, 

5 we were just looking for an affirmation which 

6 I think --

7 MR. NELSON: Well, I think I'll 

8 chime in on Seven here, because we start 

9 looking closer at the LOD --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

11 MR. NELSON: -- for the two12 element film badge. And I think we were going 

13 to have to raise the -- it's listed as 30 

14 millirem as an LOD. And I guess it's the 

15 Hanford two-element film badge.

16 And the film badges that we use 

17 later, the four-element with the security 

18 credential, Matt Smith looked into that some. 

19 And I don't know if he wants to add any 

20 notes, but we think we were going to have to 

21 increase the LOD for that. So, we don't want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

126 

NEAL 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 close that issue yet.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, yes. 

3 There's two parts on this. One is the 

4 technical support information.

5 MR. NELSON: Right.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And the other is 

7 the question of claimant-favorability.

8 MR. NELSON: Right. There was a 

9 table in there and it said we used the two10 element film from beginning until I think it 

11 was 1980.

12 Well, it ended up in July 1960, 

13 they went with this combination security 

14 dosimeter which was four-element, and we 

15 didn't put that distinction in the TBD in that 

16 table.

17 So, we want to add the verbiage to 

18 say, you know, this is when it came into 

19 affect.

20 But in looking at it closer, like 

21 you said, the other part of the issue was the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 LOD of 30 that we had in there. And we think 

2 -- we know that we're going to have to raise 

3 that. So, there's going to need to be a 

4 change.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: At what point 

6 in time are you going to go with the 40?

7 MR. NELSON: Matt, do you want to 

8 speak to that?

9 MR. SMITH: Probably for that whole 

10 early year. If you -- when we look at OTIB11 17, Hanford is running with a 50 millirem LOD 

12 for that entire early period with that element 

13 dosimeter. That continues onward a little 

14 bit, too, until they get into multi-element.

15 So, it's still something we're 

16 looking at. It looks to be around 40 right 

17 now, but still kind of going through some of 

18 those SRDB documents.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So, you're 

20 looking for a date.

21 MR. NELSON: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

128 

NEAL 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. SMITH: And the credentials 

2 provide some -- there's some material there in 

3 front of the actual element that's -- that 

4 we've got to consider.

5 MR. NELSON: So, that's something 

6 we're working on right now. And we're pretty 

7 sure there will be a change to the TBD and it 

8 will affect some cases. So, that item is 

9 still open.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: You have that, 

11 Phil?

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 

13 we're ready to go with that.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So, that 

15 would we be in abeyance.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 8, this is 

18 part of what we got into early on, which was 

19 the shallow dose -- coworker shallow dose and 

20 some of the concerns over the, you know, the 

21 -- whether or not the Table 8-2 reflected the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker doses that were received, and whether 

2 or not the number of zeroes was actually an 

3 indication of a problem.

4 And I think your response was that 

5 -- well, certainly your response to technetium 

6 wasn't an issue, but we went through that 

7 already.

8 And on shallow dose, can you go 

9 through that a bit one more time?

10 MR. NELSON: I'll let Matt do it.

11 Matt, will you mind going over the 

12 shallow dose LOD issue or the missed-dose 

13 issue and how the null values from the 

14 traction make it appear that you don't have 

15 any shallow dose?

16 MR. SMITH: Sure. There's a 

17 subtraction routine going on with respect to 

18 how the site's processing the data. So, it is 

19 called out in the coworker OTIB why those null 

20 values do appear.

21 The other thing to consider is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

130 

NEAL 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 go ahead and do then is add in missed 

2 dose.

3 So, even though you've got null 

4 values apparently there, we're adding in a 

5 component of missed dose, which essentially 

6 makes it a pretty claimant-favorable approach.

7 MR. NELSON: Yes, if you go to 

8 OTIB-40 and you look at step -- on Page 8 of 

9 10, Step 4, then the bottom of the page on 

10 Step 5, it discusses these null values and why 

11 you would get zeroes for those non-penetrating 

12 doses.

13 Because essentially, you're 

14 assigning that dose that's penetrating and 

15 it's actually for a 30 to 250 keV photons. 

16 It's more claimant -- favorable to the 

17 claimant to assign them as 30 to 250 keV 

18 photons, rather than greater than 15 keV 

19 electrons.

20 So, even though it appears that 

21 there's no shallow dose or no beta dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigned, it actually is rolled into the deep 

2 dose.

3 And there's a pretty good 

4 explanation on OTIB-40. Although, I must 

5 admit it is somewhat confusing.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And OTIB-40, when 

7 was that issued?

8 MR. NELSON: 7/29/05.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So, that 

10 definitely was accompanying the Site Profile.

11 MR. NELSON: Right.

12 I mean, the confusion is if you 

13 look on Table 8-2 for the non-penetrating 

14 doses, they look pretty low.

15 But those values are incorporated 

16 into the 95th -- or into the gamma dose, be it 

17 it the 50th or the 95th percentile.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that's 

19 where some of the confusion was.

20 MR. NELSON: Right.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: So, you're saying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

132 

NEAL 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 dose to the skin is entered into IREP as 

2 30-250 keV photons.

3 MR. NELSON: Right. Where you see

4 those zero values, they're actually 

5 incorporated into the gamma component.

6 MR. STIVER: But you assign a 

7 missed dose at that energy level which --

8 MR. NELSON: Right.

9 MR. STIVER: -- it ends up being 

10 claimant-favorable.

11 MR. NELSON: Right.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: So, I think that 

14 that's responsive. It wasn't clear, I think, 

15 in the beginning.

16 So, I would recommend closure 

17 based on that.

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, the first 

20 part on technetium obviously has a different 

21 issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Nine, I think we agreed with that 

2 one except where -- with the exception on the 

3 skin dose discussion we had earlier, I think.

4 We're indicating it's a broader 

5 issue than just Portsmouth. Obviously, it 

6 applies.

7 I think whatever, as I recall, the 

8 commitment to go back and just take a look at 

9 that more specifically would be -- so, I would 

10 hold that in abeyance and just wait for the 

11 response on the skin issue.

12 MR. NELSON: Tech-99 for both 

13 Number 8 and Number 9?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. I 

15 mean, it's sort of -- it finds its way into 

16 Eight a little bit. It's certainly in Nine, 

17 yes. So, it would be Eight and Nine would 

18 have -- that component on skin would be held 

19 in abeyance.

20 MR. NELSON: For technetium only, 

21 correct?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

134 

NEAL 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: Using technetium, 

2 yes. I can't think of anything else that is 

3 as common as technetium at the gaseous 

4 diffusion plants.

5 So, that would be Eight and Nine 

6 on that issue --

7 MR. NELSON: Yes.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that will be 

9 held in abeyance.

10 Ten on neutron, the slow cooker.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Change that.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I actually went 

14 back to the NIOSH health evaluation that was 

15 done to take a look at where the slow cooker, 

16 you know, this is one where it's difficult to 

17 pin down exactly what the heck you're dealing 

18 with as a source term.

19 I mean, the problem is the 

20 phenomena probably existed, but there's no way 

21 of knowing to what extent the accumulation was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 such that you would have, you know, a 

2 significant neutron exposure.

3 So on one hand, yes, it probably 

4 happened and there might have been some 

5 neutron exposure. On the other hand, I don't 

6 think there's any way to figure out, you know, 

7 where the source term would have provided an 

8 exposure.

9 So, it's a very non-quantitative 

10 issue based on looking at the -- looking at 

11 the evaluation.

12 I wanted to go back to the source 

13 document. I hadn't looked at that in a long 

14 time.

15 I went back and looked at it and I 

16 guess our conclusion is that, even though it's 

17 a point, it's not one that can be addressed 

18 from a dose reconstruction standpoint given 

19 the information.

20 Even, I think, the hazard 

21 evaluation sort of pointed out that, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a maybe type of thing.

2 So, I guess we would back off and 

3 say that, you know, is it something that could 

4 be quantitatively addressed in dose 

5 reconstruction, and just close it.

6 DR. NETON: I was ready for a nice 

7 rousing discussion.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: What's the 

9 impact?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I mean, the 

11 impact is --

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, it's easy 

13 to do because we can't --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, in the 

15 cascade process, you would have -- okay. The 

16 cascade process, you have this opportunity for 

17 accumulation of uranium to the point where you 

18 would get some subcritical release of neutrons 

19 and the fields might end up -- might end up 

20 being more significant not if you had enough.

21 But no measurements, apparently, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were taken to benchmark how much and where and 

2 when. So it's one of these, you know, sort of 

3 an acknowledgment of phenomena that likely 

4 existed but nobody went in to actually figure 

5 out to what extent it was a problem and 

6 actually did any measurements. So, no, 

7 there's no data.

8 DR. NETON: It's purely based on 

9 conjecture.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, but is it 

11 a reasonable assumption that it would have 

12 happened?

13 DR. NETON: We don't think that it 

14 could have happened for any sustained period 

15 of time. For it to go be subcritical for that 

16 many years and never have a criticality event 

17 seems to us to be implausible.

18 You know, once you get into enough 

19 neutrons there for it to just sort of sit 

20 there and yo-yo without ever going critical, 

21 it would have to have some very unique 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 situations.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: You wouldn't have 

3 noticed it.

4 DR. NETON: And, in fact, I don't 

5 think enough material actually accumulated in 

6 these traps to get this sort of critical mass 

7 that's needed based on even their SAR 

8 calculations, I don't think.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: This is the only 

10 place, I mean, you know, having done the Tiger 

11 Team at Portsmouth, you know, this would have

12 kind of surfaced at some point.

13 But this came from a -- certainly, 

14 union representatives at Portsmouth in the 

15 '90s were concerned about neutron exposures 

16 and went to NIOSH and, you know, requested an 

17 evaluation.

18 This was the evaluation that was 

19 done by characterizing the neutron exposures 

20 and this is where it surfaces. And I haven't 

21 really seen it anywhere else.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But it was identified as more of a 

2 phenomena that could take place, but not one 

3 that in fact did take place and verified with 

4 data.

5 So, after going back in and trying 

6 to reconcile the comment that was in the 

7 original Site Profile Review, and I didn't do 

8 that review, with, you know, with what was in 

9 the NIOSH health evaluation that was done in 

10 '96 or something -- '97, it just seemed more 

11 subjective.

12 So, you know, I think you have 

13 situations where you don't have any basis for 

14 --

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, that's 

16 helpful. You know, we need it not just to 

17 say, well, we can't do it. And, therefore, 

18 it's -- you'll ignore it.

19 I mean, I think it sounds 

20 reasonable that --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually, I would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 encourage --

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, it's a 

3 hypothetical.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I encourage anyone 

5 on the Work Group to take a look at that 

6 health evaluation. It's actually on the 

7 internet and you can Google it up and read it, 

8 because it's useful to get it in context, you 

9 know.

10 DR. NETON: No one's ever measured 

11 these before. I mean, and no one's really 

12 talked about them other than the NIOSH 

13 evaluation. And they actually did some 

14 dosimetry and failed to see anything.

15 Well, they caution the reader in 

16 their own report, though, this is a very brief 

17 study and who knows, you know.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, that's always 

19 the caveat.

20 DR. NETON: It's theoretically 

21 possible. But in our opinion, is it really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plausible over such a long, extended period of 

2 time? We don't think so.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Wouldn't they 

4 have also tried to limit that possibility 

5 through the geometry of the --

6 DR. NETON: Oh, yes, there's all 

7 kinds of analyses.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I mean, the 

9 design would have --

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what I 

11 mean. The design geometry I would think would 

12 --

13 DR. NETON: Well, there's different 

14 uses of the term slow cooker. I mean, if you 

15 read their Safety Analysis Report when they 

16 talk about slow cooker, they talk about 

17 something that goes, you know, low 

18 criticality. It actually had some 

19 criticalities, and then backs off.

20 Whereas Cardarelli, who was the 

21 author of the NIOSH report, talks about a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcritical thing where the neutrons just sort 

2 of increased a certain amount and then back 

3 off.

4 And for that to happen on a, like 

5 I say, a yo-yo basis like that - 

6 MR. STIVER: You'd have to have 

7 just a really unique configuration.

8 DR. NETON: A very unique 

9 situation. I mean, moderate and go away, 

10 moderate. And I'm not sure how that could 

11 happen.

12 We also have a fairly claimant13 favorable neutron/photon ratio in here. I 

14 think the balance of the plant was 0.125. And 

15 then we ended up using the values that were 

16 measured in the facility yards at 0.2 for 

17 everyone.

18 And so, there is some safety 

19 conservatism built into that calculation.

20 MR. NELSON: If you go into the 

21 Safety Analysis Report, their accident they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluated was a compressor. And it required 

2 about 1100 pounds of buildup in the 

3 compressor. And that provided the best 

4 geometry since it was kind of round.

5 And the numbers that we saw and 

6 the discussion that SC&A had was in the 30, 

7 40, 50 pounds of buildup, you know. So, it 

8 nowhere approaches what would be a critical 

9 mass for that geometry in that type of form 

10 that the material would have been in.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: It's interesting 

12 because I haven't really seen that issue at 

13 least anywhere else. And I --

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, it's a 

15 curious --

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, not even 

18 academic, because I think part of the concern 

19 was that it didn't really monitor neutrons.

20 So, you know, if you had a source 

21 that was prominent, you know, you could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 definitely have a problem.

2 And I think everyone was conscious 

3 of facility yards and some of the storage 

4 areas, but this was sort of in the operating 

5 part of the plant.

6 But, again, it was somewhat 

7 speculative to --

8 DR. NETON: I think part of the 

9 logic was based on the fact that the 

10 criticality alarms went off periodically, and 

11 they were writing them off as false alarms.

12 But having been responsible for 

13 the maintenance of a criticality monitoring 

14 program at another facility, I can tell you 

15 those things are very sensitive to fluctuating 

16 gamma background.

17 You set your gamma detectors at a 

18 very low level. Then a truck drives by the 

19 plant with some storage material on it. Next 

20 thing you know, you've got a criticality 

21 alarm.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

145 

NEAL 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 mean, so there's all kinds of 

2 ways criticality alarms can go off without 

3 having criticality, because they're usually 

4 set to a fairly low threshold.

5 And, again, that would have been a 

6 criticality because the criticality alarms 

7 measure photons.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: They don't measure in 

10 neutrons.

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

12 DR. NETON: And Cardarelli's 

13 example was these neutrons that generated that 

14 never really went to --

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Not quite.

16 DR. NETON: You know, so, I don't 

17 know. It's an interesting analysis, but 

18 nothing we can really do with it.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Enough said on 

20 slow cooking neutrons.

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: I just don't want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 us to get caught by somebody saying, oh, you 

2 just blew it off.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: I was trying to 

4 figure out if there was anything hard that 

5 sort of provided a basis, but I don't think --

6 there certainly wasn't in the Cardarelli 

7 report, but --

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We'll call 

9 that one closed?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 11, this 

13 had to do with SC&A disagreeing with the 

14 assumption in the TBD that there were not 

15 significant environmental releases at PORTS 

16 that would advise to radiation dose rates 

17 above natural background.

18 Chuck, I'm just trying to follow 

19 the bouncing ball here.

20 MR. NELSON: Right.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 original response was to provide more 

2 background in terms of the environmental 

3 values that were being used, a maximizing dose 

4 of 0.452 in particular. And you explain where 

5 that's derived.

6 And I think we indicated more 

7 information needed. And we agreed 

8 conceptually that we -- I was -- we were 

9 looking for the 0.452 number. And I think you 

10 just in your response provide the derivation 

11 of that.

12 MR. NELSON: Right. It was in the 

13 -- if you go over to PROC-0060, that's 

14 occupational onsite ambient dose 

15 reconstruction for DOE sites. And it provides 

16 what the maximizing ambient dose values are 

17 for Portsmouth. And it provides the basis.

18 And, essentially, I know you guys 

19 had followed the value of -- what was the 

20 previous value? It was like 260-something, I 

21 think.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

148 

NEAL 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: Right.

2 MR. NELSON: 267. And it was just 

3 suggested for 2600 hours and an uncertainty of 

4 1.3, and it gave you the value of .452.

5 So, we provided you the link with 

6 that and where we got it from.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. That's 

8 fine. I think what we were saying there, we 

9 agree with the approach. We just couldn't 

10 find the actual number. And I think this 

11 derivation helps on that. And 60 is 

12 referenced.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So, Number 11 

14 is now closed?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 12.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, this is the 

18 267 ambient environmental dose. Yes, we 

19 agreed with that.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: 13 is closed 

21 as well?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

149 

NEAL 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: 13, let's see. 13 

2 is closed as well. I think that was just a 

3 question of -- this had to do with the ambient 

4 environmental doses confined to deep dose that 

5 may significantly underestimate potential 

6 shallow dose in skin.

7 I think -- the response says, due 

8 to the nature of non-penetrating dose, it 

9 would not be expected to see elevated levels 

10 compared to the penetrating doses to areas 

11 where environmental doses apply.

12 And ORAUT-OTIB-17 is cited as the 

13 basis, and we agree with that.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that was a 

16 clarifying question, actually, more than 

17 anything else.

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The last one. 

19 14.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: 14, the time 

21 period for PFG, the photo fluorogenic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 procedures on medical x-rays is restricted to 

2 1954 to '57 despite statements in the TBD 

3 verifying extended use beyond -- well, from

4 '54 through '60, and just a consistency issue.

5 MR. NELSON: Yes, it wasn't very 

6 clear in the TBD. And it says we revised it.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: So, it's just a 

8 matter of getting the dates consistent. And I 

9 think NIOSH is saying they'll revise it and 

10 make clearer what the dates are. And we're 

11 fine with that.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Closed, or 

13 abeyance?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I would say 

15 closed with the understanding that those dates 

16 will be, you know, clarified in the later 

17 edition.

18 I think the last time the Work 

19 Group discussed this, there was some agreement 

20 that we would close things with the 

21 expectation that there would be follow-through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

151 

NEAL 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 the next revision.

2 MR. NELSON: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Josie, I lied. 

4 We are going to get to K-25 today. Moving 

5 right along here.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Must have been the 

7 holiday.

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Everybody is 

9 all happy and relaxed.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, there's a 

11 couple of open ones on this yet.

12 MR. NELSON: Yes, the LOD issue, 

13 and the tech-99 issue.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

15 MR. NELSON: Okay. This is the one 

16 we have response from SC&A on June 16th, 2011. 

17 We sent SC&A some responses, and they came 

18 back a couple weeks ago and gave us responses 

19 to our responses. And I guess we'll start 

20 with Number 1.

21 It says more guidance was needed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on appropriate enrichment. It says more 

2 guidance is needed regarding appropriate 

3 enrichment to assume when interpreting uranium 

4 bioassay mass concentration and the enrichment 

5 assumed for the default isotopic distribution 

6 may not be appropriate.

7 And I think essentially the 

8 response here is that whenever we reconstruct 

9 doses, we use gross alpha measurements. So, 

10 we don't necessarily have to know what the --

11 we don't have to know the uranium enrichment 

12 at all. We just assume gross alpha.

13 Didn't really understand SC&A's 

14 follow-up question with that. They agreed 

15 with our response, but I didn't really 

16 understand their follow-up question.

17 I think if I do, the answer is 

18 simply no.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think in 

20 terms of recycle, it would be -- it wouldn't 

21 matter even if it was a higher enrichment in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recycle.

2 MR. NELSON: So, our response is, 

3 no, since gross alpha is used when 

4 reconstructing the internal dose.

5 And we can put those instructions 

6 in the next revision of the internal TBD to 

7 clarify that.

8 DR. NETON: This is talking about 

9 reprocessed fuel, this material. So, is that 

10 recycled? Is that what they're talking about?

11 MR. NELSON: Well, the entire issue 

12 wasn't based on recycled uranium. That was 

13 just a point they had brought up, what about 

14 this. And I don't think that affects it at 

15 all the fact that it was --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we were 

17 talking about the enrichment level. And I 

18 think the response is that even though 

19 there's, you know, some issue about what 

20 enrichment was involved, it wouldn't matter 

21 for this particular issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Right. Similar to that 

2 last one we discussed in the --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

4 So, I would recommend closure on 

5 that clarification, Phil.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: But you're going 

8 to add some additional language just to kind 

9 of --

10 MR. NELSON: Yes.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: -- lay it out.

12 MR. NELSON: In fact, what we'll do 

13 is we'll provide you some responses. I can 

14 read you exactly what we have right here. 

15 I got, since the gross alpha 

16 activity is used when reconstructing the 

17 internal dose, dose reconstructors have been 

18 given instructions to only use the gross alpha 

19 activity when both uranium mass and gross 

20 alpha activity are available. These 

21 instructions will be incorporated into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 next revision of the K-25 occupational 

2 internal TBD.

3 So, we didn't get a chance to 

4 respond to your response to clarify that, 

5 because we got these a couple weeks ago.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

7 MR. NELSON: So, this is -- we

8 haven't prepared for this meeting.

9 Okay. Issue Number 2 was no 

10 default solubility classes for intakes. And 

11 specifically they're looking for, I think, a 

12 super Class S for -- of uranium.

13 And we have no literature to 

14 support there's any super-type S class 

15 uranium. So if you guys have any, we'll be 

16 glad to take the information. But we don't 

17 have any indications that there's any super18 type S class uranium.

19 DR. NETON: I think there's two 

20 parts to this question. One is no default. 

21 And actually our response was that you default 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the most conservative and claimant2 favorable solubility.

3 MR. STIVER: That's what I've seen.

4 DR. NETON: Right.

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 DR. NETON: That answers that 

7 question.

8 And Chuck's right, the second part 

9 appears to be talking about some form of Super 

10 S uranium which I'm not familiar with. I 

11 mean, there is evidence certainly of Super S. 

12 And the ICRP just came out with some 

13 description of a model for other forms of 

14 highly insoluble cobalt and gold, I think.

15 MR. STIVER: Highly insoluble 

16 oxides. And I guess there's no evidence that 

17 those existed in --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: So, your position 

19 is basically you have no evidence of its 

20 existence.

21 DR. NETON: Particularly, I mean, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particularly for at K-25. I mean, this is a 

2 very -- I mean, people tend to get confused. 

3 There are more insoluble forms of uranium than 

4 the old Class Y, you know, that was, I 

5 believe, half life of about years or 500 days 

6 or something like that where Super S is much, 

7 much more insoluble than Y.

8 That covers the waterfront on the 

9 uranium that I've seen particularly in a 

10 gaseous diffusion plant. I've seen no 

11 evidence at K-25 that there is this form of 

12 uranium.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Where did it come 

14 from?

15 DR. NETON: Super S plutonium is 

16 just a very high-fired form of plutonium that 

17 just doesn't move out of the lung. It's been 

18 documented in a number of cases, particularly 

19 at Rocky Flats and Hanford.

20 Yes, we modeled that, actually, 

21 and then we provided the Rocky Flats data to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

158 

NEAL 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 ICRP at their request. And they used that 

2 in their latest draft revisions to handle 

3 insoluble forms of plutonium.

4 But I have not encountered at this 

5 point real Super S-type uranium.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, when you're 

7 dealing with high-temperature processes, 

8 that's where you would --

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Form that.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: -- where you would 

11 have some potential. So, there's a question 

12 of whether or not that was encountered in the 

13 gas diffusion plants, and apparently not.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, I learned 

15 something new today.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: So on that basis, 

17 I would say, yes.

18 MEMBER BEACH: So, closed?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. Just one 

21 quick question, Jim.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

159 

NEAL 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 is -- I know there's been 

2 some discussion before about the concept of 

3 high-fired issues with uranium. It's 

4 important because what you're saying is really 

5 there is no evidence that there is this 

6 special form of uranium that actually behaves 

7 in an even more -- a less transportable way 

8 than Type S.

9 I might have missed it. I was 

10 listening and --

11 DR. NETON: Well, I'm not seeing 

12 any, and I would couch it though right now and 

13 say specifically at K-25. Let's draw the line 

14 there.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Okay.

16 DR. NETON: There are more 

17 insoluble forms, but I think that you would 

18 find that S might bound them.

19 I mean, I don't know. I don't 

20 want to categorically say that it doesn't 

21 exist.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

160 

NEAL 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. MAURO: Okay. The only reason 

2 I did jump in is because we have on other 

3 occasions made mention of high-fired uranium. 

4 And, you know, if it turns out that this is 

5 really not in the same category as the high6 fired plutonium, that you don't have the same 

7 path of evidence, that there really is such a 

8 thing and that it's of concern at some 

9 facilities.

10 So, basically what you're saying 

11 is really at this facility, you don't see any 

12 reason to think there might have been an 

13 issue, but there might be an issue at other 

14 facilities.

15 DR. NETON: Well, you know, I'm 

16 skeptical. Let's put it that way. But I 

17 don't want to close the door.

18 I've learned, you know, through 

19 the years not to be sort of categorical up 

20 front.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

161 

NEAL 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 I'm willing to look 

2 at it. I did notice, for example, that the 

3 ICRP report that came out in 2010 had a little 

4 table, and for some reason, they included what 

5 if there were highly-insoluble S, what it 

6 would do dosimetrically.

7 So, they provide no evidence that 

8 it ever existed, but they use it as an 

9 example.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. Very good. No, 

11 I appreciate that. Thank you.

12 DR. NETON: And so, you know, I 

13 would leave the door open. I would say at K14 25, I'm not seeing any evidence of that, but 

15 it's something that we need to keep our eyes 

16 open for, I think.

17 DR. MAURO: That's great. Thank 

18 you.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, John, we 

20 raised this because it certainly was implicit 

21 in the TBDs that it wasn't an issue, but just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wanted to be, you know, wanted to confirm 

2 that.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, in this 

5 case, for K-25 anyway.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We can 

7 call that one closed with that caveat there?

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

9 Number 3, this is default isotopic 

10 distributions are not claimant-favorable.

11 Chuck, do you want to -- I guess 

12 we wanted to clarify that you're going to drop 

13 curium.

14 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think your 

15 issue was -- is that we want to drop curium16 242 and 244. And basically we can't just drop 

17 it without some confirmatory basis.

18 We found no evidence of this to be 

19 a concern at K-25. Michalene actually went 

20 through to try to figure out how did this get 

21 in the TBD and why did it get in there.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Michalene, do you want to cover 

2 that, or would you like me to go over that?

3 MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, I can go over 

4 it.

5 MR. NELSON: Okay. All right.

6 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I did find the 

7 document where that came from is actually SRDB 

8 14484, Table 1-1. And it is a table that 

9 lists curium-242 and 244 as principle 

10 radionuclides at uranium facilities and at 

11 gaseous diffusion plants.

12 The document also includes 

13 information regarding Y-12. It considers Y-12 

14 as the uranium facility, and then it also 

15 includes the gaseous diffusion plants. It 

16 also has information regarding X-10.

17 The document is entitled "Internal 

18 Dosimetry TBD for Bechtel Jacobs." And later 

19 on it goes on and talks about the potential 

20 exposures at the gaseous diffusion plants and 

21 the radiological hazards. And both are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radionuclides. Neither one of them were 

2 discussed in this section. Only uranium, 

3 plutonium, americium, technetium and 

4 neptunium. So, curium was no longer 

5 discussed.

6 So, I'm not really sure. It may 

7 have been part of, you know, trace elements 

8 from the Savannah River Site in -- for the 

9 transuranics, but this is the only document 

10 that I have actually found that talked about 

11 curium.

12 All other references that I 

13 reviewed for K-25 have no mention of these two 

14 radionuclides.

15 MR. NELSON: In other words, we 

16 couldn't find anything to support them to be 

17 in there other than that internal TBD and it 

18 was only by mention in a table. It wasn't 

19 called out in the radiological hazard section, 

20 which was Section 12, or Section 11, which was 

21 evaluation for exposures at K-25.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

165 

NEAL 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: Okay.

2 MR. NELSON: I know it's listed as 

3 an isotope of concern for Hanford, but I think 

4 there were certain processes that concentrated 

5 at Hanford.

6 I'm not familiar with those, but 

7 I've seen those in dose reconstructions.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I've seen it 

9 elsewhere as well. It shows up at Los Alamos. 

10 I was just wondering why it would fall out 

11 here.

12 So, it really -- you're saying 

13 that there isn't -- going back and looking at 

14 the basis documents, there doesn't seem to be 

15 a real strong argument for this being listed.

16 MR. NELSON: Exactly.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to complete, 

18 we raised a number of issues here. Various 

19 plutonium isotopes. And I think your response 

20 was that you were using Pu-239 to represent 

21 all the isotopes. And you were going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

166 

NEAL 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 that in a footnote to Table 5-6 in the 

2 next revision.

3 MR. NELSON: Correct.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Relative to the 

5 enrichment issue, the famous enrichment issue, 

6 I think we were questioning the two percent 

7 and you were going to, I guess, make it three 

8 percent?

9 MR. NELSON: Let's see.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: As far as the 

11 default enrichment, which I think was the 

12 value that was used --

13 MR. NELSON: Yes, that's correct.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: -- on the 

15 Paducah.

16 MR. NELSON: Yes, that's the same 

17 as response to Item 1.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

19 And on technetium, you're going to 

20 take another look at the default value listed 

21 in Table 5-6 for that?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

167 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Correct.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: These were all 

3 questions on one particular table that had the 

4 default isotopic distributions enclosed.

5 Phil, I'd recommend closure based 

6 on that nuclide-specific accounting.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So, it says in Table 

8 5-6, you're going to correct it.

9 MR. NELSON: Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And what will that 

11 be corrected up to? That last one. That 

12 technetium and --

13 MR. NELSON: It requires further 

14 evaluation. And correct me if I'm wrong, 

15 Michalene, but I think this is part of our 

16 evaluation that we're going to do with 

17 recycled uranium.

18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. 

19 Right.

20 We don't have a value right now, 

21 but we are working on getting some new numbers 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because we do know that the technetium value 

2 is too low. It's not bounding.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Well, I just 

4 hate to close it unless we know what that 

5 value is going to be.

6 MR. NELSON: I think that's picked 

7 up in another comment; is it not?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Is it?

9 MR. NELSON: Let me look.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Why don't you hold 

11 it in abeyance if you want to --

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, why don't we 

13 do that.

14 MR. NELSON: Right here on Number 

15 3, NIOSH agrees tech-99 default value listed 

16 in 5-6 requires further evaluation.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Which we closed 3-2, 

18 didn't we?

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we are -- it's

21 in Three. We're on Three. So, you can hold 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it in abeyance.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Any idea how long 

3 that will take?

4 MR. NELSON: My understanding, it's 

5 going to take months to do that because of the 

6 -- we've got to look at all the recycled 

7 uranium documents.

8 And when they have to -- I don't 

9 know to what level we're going to go into 

10 source documents, because -- and I know if you 

11 start going into boxes for Fernald, there were 

12 hundreds and hundreds of boxes on recycled 

13 uranium.

14 So, I think our initial focus is 

15 going to go with the summary documents, the 

16 recycled uranium mass balance report and those 

17 type of documents, the PACE document and so 

18 forth for Paducah.

19 Bryce, do you have any expansion 

20 on that?

21 MR. RICH: No, that's correct, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Chuck.

2 MR. NELSON: Okay. So, it's going 

3 to take some time to go through all that.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe in abeyance 

5 would be a better way to leave that one.

6 MR. NELSON: It's going to take 

7 some time. Months.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Otherwise, we'll 

9 forget.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: But, you know, 

11 really the focus is on the technetium and the 

12 recycled, not the other ones which I think are 

13 --

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, the last --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: The last bullet at 

16 the end.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Okay, 

18 Number 4.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 4, we were 

20 just going through Table 5-4 and 5-2 in terms 

21 of the -- these are the classic tables that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 list the nuclides by facilities.

2 And it just appeared that there 

3 were facilities that were -- that were left 

4 out, that all the key facilities may not have 

5 been accounted for.

6 And I guess it's the 16497 

7 document, that Reference ID, SRDB number, is 

8 the basis for what's listed in the TBD.

9 And we had identified some other 

10 references that listed other facilities that 

11 would contain, you know, potentially, you 

12 know, source terms that would be of equal 

13 consequence.

14 And that was of more a question of 

15 trying to reconcile the current list that's in 

16 the TBD with perhaps a somewhat broader 

17 listing that --

18 MR. NELSON: NIOSH agrees with you 

19 and we're going to update the TBD to include 

20 more information. We're going to update Table 

21 5-4 to make it more complete and it will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 include some of the other facilities as 

2 discussed.

3 The site description has a little 

4 more discussion that we could roll into there.

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: When were these 

6 first developed?

7 MR. NELSON: The TBDs, back in 2006 

8 -- well, maybe 2004. The latest version is 

9 2006.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

11 MR. NELSON: I know some of these 

12 documents were done in 2004, but they've been 

13 since revised.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

15 MR. NELSON: So, they're outdated. 

16 They're due to be updated anyways, and that's 

17 ongoing.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So, I guess 

19 hold that in abeyance and, you know, that 

20 listing will be addressed.

21 And I think the references are, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provide in the original Site Profile Review 

2 some of the other sources that were looked at.

3 Number 5 is the agree to disagree.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry about that. 

6 And of course this has to do with incident 

7 data, which is a classic issue that we always 

8 get into.

9 I think, Chuck, what you have in 

10 here is sort of an explanation. I'm pretty 

11 familiar with the description of how incident 

12 data is used. And we always push back a 

13 little bit and the notion of whether there's 

14 more incident data available.

15 MR. NELSON: I think what we agreed 

16 to do amongst ourself, is to go back and see 

17 if there's any more major incidents we could 

18 add to this table to make it more complete.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

20 observation in the original Site Profile 

21 Review is that it was apparently a fairly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 limited listing of incidents. And it appeared 

2 there was actually other references that might 

3 contain more.

4 MR. NELSON: Yes, we thought we 

5 could beef that up some.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Have you found 

7 any logbooks from the health physics people?

8 MR. NELSON: I can't say that I 

9 know offhand. I haven't been through the 

10 entire site search -- research database, but 

11 I'm not sure whether we have those logbooks or 

12 not.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, some sites 

14 were better than others. I think when they 

15 did the original Site Profile Review, they 

16 identified some files that might contain 

17 additional incident data.

18 So, they're just saying that, you 

19 know, it looks like there might be some other 

20 sources of information there.

21 MR. NELSON: Well, this is your --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's the same age-old issue. If you have an 

2 individual with an incident and he's got 

3 urinalysis, we can reconstruct his dose.

4 So, if you have the data that 

5 shows what he was internally exposed to and 

6 you have some data, we can bound his dose.

7 So, even though he may have been 

8 involved in the incident, you know, and it may 

9 or may not be in his file, we can still bound 

10 his dose.

11 So, they don't necessarily provide 

12 a lot of information, is what I'm getting to.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: This sort of just 

14 gets back to the opening discussion we had. 

15 It's sort of yin and yang, meaning that to 

16 some extent you can identify job categories 

17 where, you know, one could assume a more 

18 chronic type of exposure.

19 But then with everything else, 

20 you're sort of stuck, you know, with 

21 identifying events. And to the extent you can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 identify what somebody, you know, if they 

2 can't, you know, do a CATI interview, you 

3 know, be explicit, then the incident file 

4 might help.

5 But, you know, it's not going to 

6 be the panacea either. But my sense is that 

7 in the original Site Profiles in some cases, 

8 there was a lot that had to be done quickly. 

9 And sometimes it just wasn't possible to do as 

10 complete a job as identifying incident files. 

11 And I think this is something that can be 

12 done if there, in fact, is information.

13 It may turn out there might not be 

14 additional information, but it would be 

15 helpful to look.

16 I don't think this is disagreeing 

17 with that, right?

18 MR. NELSON: No, just what level do 

19 you want to dig in.

20 DR. NETON: Yes. Like Chuck said, 

21 we agreed we'd go back and include some more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incidents if we find them.

2 MR. NELSON: Should we go back to 

3 the site and say, give me everything you've 

4 got in the skin --

5 DR. NETON: But basically our 

6 position is, you know, for a long time there 

7 was the assignment of chronic coworker models 

8 unmonitored workers bound into incident 

9 exposures that have occurred.

10 Incident, you have spikes and they 

11 rapidly clear down. And you're giving a 

12 person a chronic exposure over their entire 

13 operating career at the facility.

14 And the way the coworker model is 

15 set up, even non-detectables are modeled in 

16 here. So, you've got an overarching excretion 

17 pattern that would include any incidents that 

18 occur.

19 People that are routinely 

20 monitored, their incidents are included in 

21 their excretion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, we feel the incidents are 

2 bounded within that chronic coworker model. 

3 This has been something we talked about over 

4 the last five or six years, you know.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, we're 

6 just leaving this open in abeyance or --

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, this one 

8 is in abeyance, I think, for right now. We'll 

9 have to look for more records.

10 MR. NELSON: I don't know that we 

11 necessarily want to agree that we're going to 

12 go to the site and say, give me all your 

13 incidents.

14 DR. NETON: We'll reevaluate what 

15 we've got in there and make sure --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at the 

17 Site Profile finding on that one, I think it 

18 provides a little context as to, you know, 

19 additional sources of information. And I 

20 don't think it said anything to the point of, 

21 you missed these, you know, all these files.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's just going to indicate that 

2 the table that's provided is fairly scant.

3 MR. NELSON: Okay. I just wanted 

4 to make sure we weren't creating a job with 

5 limited return potential.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, it seems 

7 like the health physics people would have like 

8 a record in the computer of incidents.

9 MR. NELSON: There's some 

10 descriptions or some summaries that we can 

11 pull from it. We can do a better job than 

12 what we did.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Number 

14 6.

15 DR. NETON: This is the one about 

16 using the median bioassay data to bound or to 

17 reconstruct unmonitored workers.

18 I think this is something we 

19 talked about before at another site. I think 

20 there's a little bit of misrepresentation of 

21 what we do in our response here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

180 

NEAL 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 now that I look at it, we 

2 would never -- we don't typically assign the 

3 84th percentile. We assign the 50th 

4 percentile or the 90th percentile.

5 The 84th percentile is just to get 

6 the GSD of the distribution. That's one 

7 standard deviation above 50.

8 I think what we talked about 

9 earlier, and I forget, Chuck, was it TIB-60 or 

10 61 internal --

11 MR. NELSON: Sixty.

12 DR. NETON: We were going to 

13 provide some guidance in there about which 

14 classes of workers would get the median value 

15 versus the upper value.

16 I would propose that that's our 

17 response to this issue here.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and the 

19 essence of this, this was a -- sort of a 

20 multi-part finding in the original Site 

21 Profile Review.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I think what we're saying in 

2 this response is that this addresses sort of 

3 one question, but there were other questions 

4 in that, you know.

5 This probably doesn't do justice, 

6 this little summary here, to what was covered 

7 in that particular Site Profile finding.

8 There's different facets, and this 

9 sort of identifies at least four of the items 

10 that would be useful to get a response on.

11 Chuck, I know you have only had 

12 this for a couple weeks, but if you go back to 

13 the original finding, you know, you'll find it

14 embedded in these four questions.

15 So, in addition to what Jim was 

16 talking about, these are other items that were 

17 in that finding that would be useful in 

18 getting some responses to.

19 DR. NETON: This is the first I'm 

20 seeing the use of ICRP 23 versus 89 volume 

21 parameters.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

182 

NEAL 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. NELSON: So, what individual 

2 issues do you want to --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I mean, just 

4 summarize the issues that were embedded in 

5 that finding. I'm just saying the summary 

6 that was in the matrix, I'll take 

7 responsibility for that. 

8 Probably get in touch on those as 

9 much in detail.

10 MR. NELSON: Okay.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: You've only had 

12 this for a couple weeks, but --

13 MR. NELSON: I think one of them 

14 was the coworker data went from -- let me look 

15 at my notes here. '48 to '88. They started 

16 in 1945.

17 And I think one of your issues was 

18 what about these individuals for 1945 through 

19 1947 which we don't have data on, you know, 

20 how does this coworker data represent those?

21 And Tom LaBone could probably talk 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

183 

NEAL 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 this pretty good, because I think he had 

2 to deal with this before, this particular 

3 issue.

4 So, I'll let him pipe in on that 

5 one if he doesn't mind.

6 MR. LaBONE: I'm here.

7 Typically the way that we address 

8 that is that, again, this idea that if the 

9 workers were exposed to uranium from '45 

10 through '47, and these same workers were 

11 monitored in '47, '48, '49 and so forth, is 

12 that you will build up a -- basically a 

13 systemic burden of uranium which will continue 

14 to be excreted.

15 And so if the intakes were 

16 significantly higher in the time frame where 

17 they were not monitored, then they would show 

18 up later on so it would account for that.

19 I think that's basically the logic 

20 that was used to continue to use the 1948-on 

21 coworker models for the people exposed during 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

184 

NEAL 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 period just after World War II.

2 MR. NELSON: So, that was one issue 

3 right there that was called out. You read the 

4 several pages of the SC&A finding. What else 

5 is there?

6 I don't know how that sits with 

7 you all.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think we 

9 just need to see -- this one is a little 

10 complex. I think we just need to see a 

11 written --

12 MR. NELSON: Okay.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- response.

14 MR. NELSON: We can provide a 

15 response to that. And if necessary, we can 

16 even put a White Paper on that one, but leave 

17 that up to the --

18 MEMBER BEACH: So, basically you'll 

19 just go back to the original items in the SC&A 

20 write-up and then produce a response to that?

21 MR. NELSON: Well, maybe we can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dial in on the actual finding here. Because, 

2 you know, sometimes when you try to summarize 

3 three or four pages into one sentence, it 

4 becomes difficult to nail it down.

5 MEMBER BEACH: So, do you need a 

6 clarification on that?

7 MR. NELSON: Well, I think maybe 

8 the finding ought to be clarified. Or we can 

9 just -- what we'll do is we got a response 

10 from SC&A on June 16th. So, we need to 

11 respond to that.

12 And I guess maybe in our response, 

13 we can call out those individual issues. I 

14 just don't want to miss any.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well --

16 MR. NELSON: I mean, what are the 

17 key issues here.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I think, again, 

19 we're just paraphrasing the original Site 

20 Profile issue. I'd go back to the original.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Page 38, it looks 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

186 

NEAL 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, and 39.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Page 37, 38 and 39 

3 of the K-25 review. May 2007. I would just 

4 go through that and respond to that, 

5 basically.

6 MR. NELSON: Well, my understanding 

7 is that the issue you had was using the 1945 

8 through 1947 data. Other than that and what 

9 we've responded to, we said we used ORAUT10 OTIB-60, which Jim just mentioned that was 

11 already in the response.

12 And SC&A came back and said we 

13 were unresponsive. And so, I guess we 

14 probably didn't provide adequate response for 

15 the period '45 through '47, which Tom LaBone 

16 just discussed, and we can provide that 

17 response --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Earlier 

19 operations, yes.

20 MR. NELSON: Now, the ICRP 23 

21 versus 89, I'm not -- I'm not necessarily 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ready to discuss that.

2 DR. NETON: That's something that 

3 you'll look at.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Here's the 

5 comment: NIOSH needs to assess whether acute 

6 or multiple acute intakes would provide more 

7 claimant-favorable assessments in urine 

8 bioassay data was normalized to 1400 

9 milliliters, which is from ICRP 23, currently 

10 an outdated reference updated with ICRP 89 --

11 this is from 1974, now up to 2002 is 89 --

12 that used the 1600 milliliters per 24-hour 

13 excretion volume.

14 DR. NETON: The models were based 

15 on the 1400. We need to go back and look at 

16 all the implications of those changes.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So, does SC&A need 

18 to go back and clarify for the matrix the four 

19 points?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, it's in the 

21 issue. I think what I was concerned about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 after looking at the response, I realized that 

2 it was really keying in on the brief 

3 descriptor that was under SC&A's draft 

4 finding, which I'll take responsibility for, 

5 but there were some facets that were missing 

6 in that descriptor that I think were in the 

7 original Site Profile finding.

8 So, it's less -- I don't think the 

9 -- I shouldn't say unresponsive, but there was 

10 issues that this didn't respond to that were 

11 not clarified in the -- in the -- what we're 

12 trying to do is paraphrase what's in the Site 

13 Profile Review trying to capture the essence 

14 of each issue.

15 And going back over after looking 

16 at your response, I realize there were 

17 elements that were embedded in this finding 

18 that were not addressed.

19 DR. NETON: I wonder if it wouldn't 

20 be good if SC&A would go back and redefine 

21 what the draft finding is.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

189 

NEAL 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: I'll be glad to do 

2 that, yes.

3 DR. NETON: Because otherwise the 

4 matrix will continue to have this --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, let me --

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me do that. 

8 Because, again, I think I didn't see those 

9 elements until I was looking at what Chuck had 

10 given and said, oh, that's --

11 DR. NETON: I understand what 

12 you're saying, but I'd rather have that right 

13 than --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. We'll take 

15 that action to re-summarize Item 6.

16 DR. NETON: Right.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But, again, I 

18 don't think it's going to include anything but 

19 what's --

20 DR. NETON: No, I understand that, 

21 but at least the matrix will have the right 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 description of the issue.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. Right. 

3 We'll take that action.

4 MEMBER BEACH: The whole issue.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Number 7 now.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 7, we just 

7 had a clarification question which we gave you 

8 a couple weeks ago. I don't know if that's 

9 something you're ready to --

10 MR. NELSON: Well, in looking at 

11 all this neutron issue with the slow cooker 

12 and all that, we were looking at neutrons a 

13 little closer, and we looked at how we're 

14 assigning neutrons with Portsmouth and how 

15 we're doing it at K-25, and we felt we weren't 

16 real consistent.

17 So, we are revisiting assignment 

18 of neutrons at K-25. We think we need to look 

19 at some of these other areas besides the 

20 cylinder storage yard where neutrons could 

21 have possibly been elevated due to storage of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 enriched uranium or holdup of uranium in 

2 certain areas where they may have handled or 

3 stored enriched uranium.

4 So, we think we've got some work 

5 to do on that one.

6 DR. NETON: That doesn't say that 

7 in this response.

8 MR. NELSON: No.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's a bit 

10 different.

11 MR. STIVER: I thought I was on the 

12 wrong issue.

13 MR. NELSON: Well, right, it's not 

14 there. I mean, SC&A came back and said, well, 

15 we disagree, blah, blah, blah.

16 Well, in the meantime in the last 

17 month or so, you know, you get all three 

18 gaseous diffusion plants and you start 

19 comparing one to another and you see, well, 

20 this one is inconsistent and why.

21 I mean, while we don't believe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

192 

NEAL 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 is very many areas where you can get a 

2 lot of neutron dose at gaseous diffusion 

3 plants other than the cylinder storage yards, 

4 there are some that you should evaluate. And 

5 we think we need to do that evaluation at K6 25.

7 And that's our current response, 

8 but we haven't given that yet --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: So, you have less 

10 of a problem with PORTS.

11 MR. NELSON: Well, Portsmouth we 

12 call out where we're going to assign neutron 

13 doses. And it's some other areas besides the 

14 storage yard.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And here, 

16 it's exclusively the storage yard.

17 MR. NELSON: Exactly. So, we need 

18 to look closer at K-25. So, that one is an 

19 open issue for us.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect.

21 MR. NELSON: Let's see. SC&A 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agrees with Number 8.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's right.

3 MR. NELSON: So, can we consider 

4 that closed then?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. Number 

6 8, I think we wanted to see more explanation 

7 of -- that we thought it was unclear. There 

8 was a couple statements that were included 

9 that were seemingly at odds, but I think this 

10 description is helpful.

11 And you're suggesting a more 

12 detailed description along those lines?

13 MR. NELSON: Yes, exactly. The 

14 last sentence says, upon revision to the K-25 

15 external dose TBD, will provide a more 

16 detailed description of assignment and 

17 processing of dosimeters. That way, you can 

18 better clarify site practices.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So, we'll 

20 close that.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: We're back to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutrons.

2 MR. NELSON: Yes, we're back to 

3 neutrons. Let's see. Let me make sure I 

4 understand this issue so I don't say it's the 

5 same as the answer before.

6 Let's see. A little attention was 

7 apparently paid to the possibility of neutron 

8 exposure in the early years.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually, I think 

10 this is similar.

11 MR. NELSON: It would be prudent to 

12 revisit whether some categories of workers may 

13 have been exposed to chronic low-level neutron 

14 exposure.

15 So, yes, that's similar to Issue 

16 7, and we're looking into that further.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So, we can basically 

18 combine Seven and Nine?

19 MR. NELSON: I think that would be 

20 a good recommendation.

21 MR. STIVER: During the response 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

195 

NEAL 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, you -- the last sentence there sort of 

2 establishing what operations have a potential 

3 for lower energy neutron exposure, did you 

4 mean low level?

5 We're looking at two different 

6 issues here versus the one down here.

7 MR. NELSON: That caught my eye as 

8 well.

9 MR. STIVER: Is that just a typo?

10 MR. NELSON: I was trying to see 

11 what the context is there.

12 You're talking about the SC&A 

13 response?

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, the SC&A 

15 response.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. 

17 Low-level, I think, would be the --

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. FITZGERALD: So, you can 

20 combine Seven and Nine, would be the same 

21 response.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, Seven and 

2 Nine will be combined.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: And Number 10, I 

4 think, is the technetium.

5 MR. NELSON: Technetium data.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's the 

7 technetium issues which we spent time on 

8 already.

9 So, that was the first issue we 

10 discussed.

11 DR. NETON: Yes, this is a slightly 

12 different issue here than skin contamination.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

14 DR. NETON: This has to do with the 

15 external exposure potential. And I think we 

16 can roll that into that same analysis, I 

17 think.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Under Three?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the issue 

20 was similar to what you were talking about 

21 earlier that, well, if they're wearing anti-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 c's and gloves, then the potential would have 

2 been minimal.

3 But they wore coveralls and I'm 

4 not sure what gloves, it depends on the actual 

5 activity, but that's beside the point. It 

6 sort of gets down to what we talked about.

7 DR. NETON: I think we'll roll that 

8 into the same issue. I mean, it's an external 

9 exposure and a skin contamination issue for 

10 technetium.

11 And I think we sort of made an 

12 argument that the range of the betas are small 

13 in the dose. But if you had some very big 

14 concentration of tech-99, I suppose the dose 

15 rates could be high and I'm not sure the 

16 badges would detect it.

17 An open-window badge is an open 

18 window. Whether they were accounted for, I 

19 don't know. I think we need to go back and --

20 MR. NELSON: Technetium-99 beta at 

21 max energy shouldn't travel more than two 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 feet. So, if they had limited travel 

2 distance, gloves and the clothing you had is 

3 going to help attenuate it drastically.

4 And how many people are going to 

5 spend that much time in that distance and have 

6 one single location exposed?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: As far as the skin 

8 dose/extremity dose question not, you know --

9 MR. NELSON: So, I guess we need to 

10 evaluate the potentials for that.

11 DR. NETON: Yes, and we've already 

12 talked about doing that.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it's a 

14 different facet. One is exposure potential. 

15 The other is, you know, dosimetry in terms of 

16 skin dose.

17 DR. NETON: I think this whole 

18 tech-99 issue --

19 MR. NELSON: Yes, it should be 

20 rolled up into one.

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Cuts across a lot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of them.

2 DR. NETON: We've got to do one 

3 sort of White Paper, I think, that cuts across 

4 several of the sites.

5 MR. NELSON: I think that would be 

6 the way to nail it.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: And that would be 

8 for all the gaseous diffusion plants.

9 MR. NELSON: Right.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I recall 

11 technetium being a concern for the diffusion 

12 plants trying to make sure that the 

13 maintenance on that was addressed and would be 

14 useful.

15 MR. NELSON: It may be more 

16 significant at other sites. I mean, 

17 Portsmouth didn't handle near the amount of 

18 recycled --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: No, it varied.

20 MR. NELSON: But, yes.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, a White 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

200 

NEAL 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, I think, covering all three of them 

2 would --

3 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think it's a 

4 global issue.

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 MR. FITZGERALD: It wound up in 

7 certain places and you had to be aware of 

8 that. And they were, actually.

9 So, the question is from a source10 term standpoint, were people more protected 

11 when they were handling those operations or 

12 stages, or not, you know?

13 Was there an exposure potential 

14 that was significant?

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Is there any 

16 record of those people who handled a lot of it 

17 were on a separate bioassay program?

18 MR. STIVER: Separate bioassay?

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Like the 

20 recycled uranium.

21 MR. STIVER: You have the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 granularity to identify those workers might 

2 have been --

3 MR. NELSON: I know that they 

4 monitor for technetium.

5 You're talking internal 

6 monitoring?

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, internal 

8 monitoring.

9 DR. NELSON: Yes, they did monitor 

10 for it some periods of time. You probably 

11 heard something about these upgrade processes.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, we looked at that 

13 in the Fernald RU paper. It's, from an 

14 internal standpoint, it's about a factor of --

15 three orders of magnitude lower than the 

16 uranium dose for the most highly exposed 

17 worker at the NIOSH default source. So, the 

18 scale was proportional.

19 That was, I believe, at nine parts 

20 per million. So, it's not a big internal dose 

21 issue compared to plutonium or neptunium. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

202 

NEAL 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 they were really concerned with was the 

2 contamination issue and what the --

3 MR. NELSON: Right. The external 

4 dose to your skin.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Does 11 tie in? 

6 Does that tie into Seven and Nine also, or is 

7 it --

8 MR. NELSON: I need to look at 

9 that.

10 MR. STIVER: I'm questioning the 

11 Point 2, the NG ratio.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this seems 

13 like it would be, because --

14 MR. STIVER: Neutron/photon ratios 

15 all seem to be tagged to the --

16 MR. NELSON: That's all part of --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Seems we need to 

18 look at other areas.

19 MR. STIVER: The same with Seven 

20 and Nine, I believe.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, some of these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings all sort of run -- 12, I don't think 

2 is significantly different than 10.

3 MR. NELSON: I do have one change 

4 to make on Number 11. Where it says Site 

5 Research Database 7122, that should be 8122. 

6 That's the wrong citing.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay. The 

8 second study is 8122.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Let's see. 

10 Where were we?

11 MEMBER BEACH: We're on 12.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, but what 

13 I was looking at is, do you guys just want to 

14 go on ahead, or did you guys want to break?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, let's get it 

16 done.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we're 

18 almost done.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think so,

20 too, but I'm not going to --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said 11 is the same as Seven and Nine.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I just don't 

3 want to --

4 MR. NELSON: And 12 I don't see is 

5 any different than 10.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: It's just 

7 described differently.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Would the Work 

9 Group want to -- I mean, I would volunteer to 

10 try to simplify the matrix and combine these.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I was actually going 

12 to bring that up at the end.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think so.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: This just tracks -

15 - just to avoid total chaos, this tracks the 

16 original Site Profile Reviews.

17 I didn't want to depart from that 

18 system. But, you know, now that we're this 

19 far along, we could combine them and just, you 

20 know, have an index to, you know, which one is 

21 a crosswalk to the Site Profile.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

205 

NEAL 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 think that's a good 

2 idea.

3 MEMBER BEACH: So, 12 is Three, 10 

4 and 12, right?

5 DR. NETON: I don't think it was 

6 Three, is it?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Three was 

8 combined.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this would 

10 track the technetium.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Well, probably if 

12 you did that and sent it out fairly soon, that 

13 would help NIOSH with their review, I would 

14 assume.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes, the 

16 ones that were combined are neutrons and 

17 technetium so we know where we are.

18 DR. NETON: Hopefully, you'll 

19 prepare a single response rather than copy and 

20 paste a response.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: And then argue 

3 that.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: We'll start going 

5 through the back and forth of, is everybody is 

6 satisfied that it's clear.

7 But, yes, so Three, 10 and 12 

8 would be combined.

9 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Excuse me. This is 

10 Michalene.

11 Number 3 actually has to do with 

12 the internal dose, and 10 and 12 is for 

13 external, so I would keep Three separate.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well, remember the 

15 only issue we had was with the last paragraph 

16 on Number 3.

17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Right.

18 MEMBER BEACH: The other ones were 

19 okay. So, that's why --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 technetium we're not arguing the internal. 

2 So, maybe that is -- she is correct. That's 

3 part of the recycled uranium review.

4 DR. NETON: That's internal.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Drop Three out 

6 of that.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. FITZGERALD: That's all the 

9 primary issues.

10 These are secondary issues and I'm 

11 just going ahead here. And, actually, we 

12 agree with all the responses on the secondary 

13 issues.

14 DR. NETON: Wow.

15 MR. STIVER: New record. Three 

16 sites before noon.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So, the other thing 

18 we have is Bob Alvarez's paper. And just to 

19 briefly go over that, I was assuming that you 

20 would kind of just briefly tell us what you're 

21 doing on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

208 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Well, that ties into 

2 the same issue of recycled uranium. The issue 

3 here is a -- in March of this year, SC&A sent 

4 a memo to the Work Group from Bob Alvarez 

5 regarding upgrade programs and how they were 

6 implemented at the gaseous diffusion plants 

7 from '72 to '81.

8 And, basically, he wanted to bring 

9 up the fact that we had recycled uranium 

10 components and how are we reconstructing dose.

11 Well, that's one of the issues --

12 that's one of our big issues that we're 

13 evaluating. So, that's the one I said is 

14 going to take some months to answer that.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: The added issue on 

16 that, and I talked to Bob, he was doing this 

17 at least to support the Fernald review, but, 

18 you know, the source of the tower ash at the 

19 gaseous diffusion plants.

20 And in particular, he was looking 

21 at the CIP/CUP era, and that's when they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 literally, you know, revamped all the cascade 

2 and it was a major operation to, you know, to 

3 take these out to replace components and then 

4 put them back in place.

5 So, it was a pretty major 

6 operation. They had to staff up tremendously 

7 to do all that work. And taking these things 

8 apart, obviously the contamination was a huge 

9 issue.

10 And his concern was you had a 

11 different dynamic. It's almost like a D&D 

12 activity where you had crews that were taking 

13 all this -- I always think of it like sort of 

14 junk, and some of it was being just thrown 

15 away, some of it was being cleaned out and 

16 then put back in.

17 And, you know, being particularly 

18 conscious, I think my concern would be who was 

19 this population of workers that were involved 

20 in CIP/CUP?

21 It clearly was an expanded 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workforce. It may not have been the operators 

2 that we're dealing with by and large at the 

3 diffusion plants, but it may have involved 

4 workers that were brought in for CIP/CUP to 

5 deal with the decon, deal with disposal, 

6 transport.

7 And whether or not that group of 

8 workers -- you know, came and they went, you 

9 know, type of thing and whether they were 

10 addressed sufficiently, I wouldn't call them 

11 transient workers, but they were sort of 

12 campaign workers. For the CIP/CUP campaign, 

13 they were brought in and they weren't needed 

14 after CIP/CUP was done.

15 And, you know, so how do you 

16 identify those folks and do they, you know, 

17 were they -- I would assume they were 

18 monitored by, you know, by -- I guess it was 

19 Martin Marietta back then, but, you know, or 

20 they or not.

21 So, really it was sort of a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question -- he raised it to my attention more 

2 or less, you know, he was looking at Fernald 

3 and the receipt of this material.

4 But did we sufficiently address 

5 those campaigns that lasted some years and the 

6 fact that all these additional workers were 

7 brought in specifically to do those campaigns?

8 And some of the workers -- not 

9 some, a lot of the workers weren't really 

10 operating-type workers. They were actually 

11 more of a D&D, if you may, maintenance-type 

12 people that were actually handling this stuff 

13 to clean it out and return it back to the 

14 plant.

15 And I went back and looked at the 

16 TBDs. I mean, the CIP/CUP is referenced in 

17 there, but there wasn't a whole lot of 

18 information provided.

19 And if you're a dose 

20 reconstructor, I'm not sure you'd be clear on 

21 who was involved in CIP/CUP and to what extent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

212 

NEAL 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 the information available for that or not.

2 So, that's kind of how I left this 

3 hanging that it wasn't addressed specifically 

4 in the original SC&A reviews. This sort of 

5 came up by way of Bob's involvement in 

6 Fernald.

7 It seems like a pretty legitimate 

8 issue if you're looking at revamping the Site 

9 Profiles.

10 For completeness' sake, I'd be, 

11 you know, interested in knowing, you know, 

12 this sort of additional subset of workers, you 

13 know, how they actually addressed the dose 

14 records and how were they monitored?

15 Were they, in fact, sort of like 

16 when we deal with a D&D, were they brought in 

17 just to do the campaigns more like 

18 construction workers and you'd have to sort of 

19 address them as such, or not?

20 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think it would 

21 be good to call them out. Whenever we're done 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doing our evaluation on recycled uranium, 

2 recycled uranium components are going to be 

3 assigned to the life of each facility.

4 It's not, you know, that 

5 particular campaign, that's the only time 

6 they're going to get assigned. It's going to 

7 be assigned throughout the life of it.

8 It probably would make sense then 

9 to call out those folks that did that extra 

10 work there and look at that subset. And 

11 possibly, you know, when we come up with these 

12 tables, if we need to refine them, which I 

13 would imagine we would, at least we'll work 

14 with Paducah -- not Paducah, but Portsmouth 

15 and K-25.

16 You know, those particular years 

17 during those campaigns might be the years 

18 where we call out those people, and once we do 

19 a little more research, we might know better 

20 an assigned dose for that period of time.

21 But that's all part of the work in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 progress for recycled uranium components.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

3 question of the source term exposure potential 

4 is sort of a subset of --

5 (Telephonic interference.)

6 -- operations that were actually a 

7 very specific campaign.

8 MR. STIVER: Those were some of the 

9 highest concentrations that were found in the 

10 residues that were seen at Fernald. It really 

11 was -- this all came up as we were trying to 

12 really get a better handle on really 

13 characterizing what came in at what time 

14 periods.

15 So, you know, it was really --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: It was kind of 

17 interesting.

18 MR. STIVER: -- more of a big 

19 issue to the GDPs as much as it is for - 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: If you read the 

21 sort of literature on CIP/CUP, they were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually sending components through almost 

2 like a carwash.

3 MR. NELSON: Yes.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: They were being 

5 washed. There was so much contamination, they 

6 just had to wash it off.

7 MR. STIVER: The incinerator metric 

8 tons.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I sort of worry, 

10 in that kind of scenario where you sort of had 

11 normal operations where you had the normal 

12 monitoring health physics program in place.

13 But if you're doing this over 

14 here, doing a carwash and doing this and that, 

15 I'm not sure what, you know, who was in 

16 charge, you know, what kind of controls and 

17 who was monitoring those folks.

18 So, that would be an unusual thing 

19 to do that. Sounds like it should made part 

20 of the recycled uranium.

21 MR. NELSON: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

216 

NEAL 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: Not just Fernald, 

2 but actually the diffusion plants.

3 MR. NELSON: We're focused on the 

4 gaseous diffusion plants.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I guess we're 

6 done.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I will try 

8 to revamp these tables and circulate them and 

9 make sure everybody agrees that -- what we 

10 combined, which ones to try to simplify it.

11 I guess what we can do is just 

12 sort of trade these matrices and update them 

13 so they're accurate for your sake.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good.

15 So, anybody on the phone have 

16 anything? If not, we're going to adjourn this 

17 meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: Great job everyone. You 

19 guys plowed through a lot in a hurry.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record at 12:10 p.m.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH 

AND K-25 Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the PORTSMOUTH, PADUCAH AND K-25 Work 

Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15