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

+ + + + +

ROCKY FLATS WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

FEBRUARY 9, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, David 

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chair

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

TERRIE BARRIE

BOB BARTON, SC&A

JIM BOGARD, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

BOB BURNS, ORAU Team

STEPHANIE CARROLL

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

DAN McKEEL

JIM NETON, DCAS

JUDY PADILLA

LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

DAN STEMPFLEY, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Contents 

DCAS/SC&A -- Discussion of SEC192 Rocky Flats CML ............................. 7

White Paper (issued 12/13/16) and of SC&A's ................................................ 7

Review (issued 1/24/17), followed by the Working ......................................... 7

Group's decision on closing the issue ............................................................... 7

DCAS -- Brief overview of the status of SEC ................................................ 22

Petition 192 Rocky Flats Plant ....................................................................... 22

Discussion by Working Group Members of the five ...................................... 32

issues mandated for investigation at RF by the .............................................. 32

Board (10/17/13) for the time period .............................................................. 32

after 12/31/83 .................................................................................................. 32

Petitioner's Comments .................................................................................... 53

Further WG discussion as needed of any ....................................................... 64

other issues related to the SEC Petition 192 ................................................... 64

Working Group decision on path forward and/or ........................................... 65

recommendations on SEC Petition 192 for the .............................................. 65

March ABRWH meeting ................................................................................ 65

Adjourn ........................................................................................................... 72
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:30 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: But let's continue with roll 

4 call with the NIOSH ORAU.

5 (Roll call.)

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. So let me just 

7 make a few preliminaries and then I'll turn it over 

8 to Dave - Dr. Kotelchuck. The agenda for today's 

9 meeting and most of the material for today's 

10 meeting are posted.

11 Most of these are posted under the NIOSH 

12 Board section, schedule of the meeting, today's 

13 date. 

14 However, one of the documents, the SC&A 

15 review of the main documents that NIOSH is 

16 presenting today on the CML facility, that review 

17 was errantly posted still on the NIOSH section but 

18 instead of under schedule of the meeting, today's 

19 date, it was posted under - if you go to the Rocky 

20 Flats section of the website under the discussion 

21 papers for that it was posted there. 

22 It shouldn't have been - it should have 

23 been posted there but it should also have been 
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 posted for today's meeting but it wasn't. 

2 Apologies for that. 

3 And then there is also a document that 

4 was submitted by Terrie Barrie, the co-petitioner 

5 - a memo from her and Dr. McKeel that was set for 

6 posting but it hasn't been posted yet. So that's 

7 the problems with the posting system. And it will 

8 ultimately get posted. 

9 And with that, I think that covers

10 everything. There are a number of people in the 

11 public and particular on here that may not know how 

12 this works. 

13 But for them and everyone, please mute 

14 your phones for this call. If you don't have a mute 

15 button press *6 to mute your phone for the call and 

16 you would press star six again to take your phone 

17 off of mute. 

18 Also, please do not put this call on 

19 hold at any point. This is especially important. 

20 I think it often happens with members of the public 

21 who aren't familiar with this. 

22 But putting the call on hold will cause 

23 problems for everyone else in the audio and we will 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to cut your line. So don't put it on hold. 

2 Just hang up and call back in when - if you need 

3 to leave for a piece.

4 And with that and no more, Dr. 

5 Kotelchuck, it's your meeting.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very good. 

7 And folks have the agenda and most of the materials 

8 are posted, as indicated. 

9 Just a discussion of - today's 

10 discussion or ground rules as we note, this is a 

11 meeting of the Rocky Flats Working Group. 

12 There is on the agenda room for 

13 petitioner comments with regard to the materials 

14 that were sent out earlier this week and a chance 

15 for a presentation by Ms. Barrie. 

16 And but otherwise after the 

17 presentations the discussion - all the discussion 

18 will be by the Working Group. 

19 It is not quite open in the way that the 

20 Board meeting is and anything that's said here 

21 today is recorded and if there are, if you will, 

22 rejoinders to things that are said here, what is 

23 said here is on the record and you will have a chance 
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 to discuss it when we go to the Board meeting in 

2 March or any other Board meeting. 

3 Board meetings - there is always time 

4 for comments about anything the petitioners or 

5 affected persons wish to speak about.

6 So, with that, let's go to the first 

7 items and that is the reassessment for the Critical 

8 Mass - report for the Critical Mass Laboratory by 

9 NIOSH.

10 Who would like to present for that?

11 DCAS/SC&A -- Discussion of SEC192 Rocky Flats CML

12 White Paper (issued 12/13/16) and of SC&A's

13 Review (issued 1/24/17), followed by the Working

14 Group's decision on closing the issue

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: That would be me, 

16 LaVon Rutherford.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very good, 

18 LaVon.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. I notice this 

22 presentation isn't available online either. It's 
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 supposed to be but it's not there, at least not 

2 under the Work Group.

3 I did provide a copy to Terrie this 

4 morning and she did acknowledge that she did 

5 receive it.

6 I am going to provide a summary of -

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: However, if I may 

8 say, LaVon, all of us on the Board received - all 

9 of us on the Working Group received that a while 

10 ago and all of the other materials that we need.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Yeah, so it's 

12 true. Thank you.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm going to provide 

15 a summary of NIOSH's reassessment of the internal 

16 radiation dose at Rocky Flats Critical Mass Lab. 

17 This is for SEC-192. Slide two, please.

18 The purpose of this White Paper was to 

19 reevaluate prior assumptions used to assess upper 

20 bounds on personal dose from mixed fission and 

21 activation products at the Rocky Flats CML.

22 The report was reassessed because of 

23 concerns identified by the CML lead physicist and 
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 a former radiological control supervisor. Next 

2 slide.

3 A little background - we issued our 

4 original White Paper on June 9th of 2015 and during 

5 the Work Group meeting on July 15th of that year. 

6 SC&A responded in general agreement with our 

7 findings. Next slide.

8 During that same Work Group meeting the 

9 former CML associate research scientist who's the 

10 same person as I identified as the lead physicist 

11 I mentioned earlier spoke, indicating that the 

12 neutron flux for the CML experiment could not be 

13 bounded and that the best one could say is the power 

14 level was probably less than 50 kilowatts.

15 Based on this statement, NIOSH 

16 committed to further evaluate or to further 

17 evaluate to ensure the assumptions made in the 

18 White Paper were appropriate. Next slide.

19 We did - additional interviews were 

20 conducted with the former [identifying information 

21 redacted] and with the former [identifying 

22 information redacted] who's identified by the 

23 petitioner as the person who may have information 
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 on the CML.

2 The interviews were conducted with the 

3 Work Group Members, SC&A, and petitioners online 

4 as much as possible. 

5 The former [identifying information 

6 redacted] reiterated his concern and indicated 

7 that he sent approximately 50 boxes of documents 

8 concerning CML to Los Alamos National Lab.

9 Additional concerns identified by the 

10 [identifying information redacted] was a lack of 

11 air sampling for build 886 and she also indicated 

12 that when they did start sampling that the airborne 

13 activity was high. Next slide.

14 So based on this we felt we should 

15 review the documents sent to Los Alamos National 

16 Lab to see if additional information was available 

17 that could be used to support the dose model. 

18 So in February of last year, NIOSH met 

19 and they were able to review the documents at Los 

20 Alamos National lab. 

21 A number of the documents were 

22 identified for capture. The documents were not 

23 released until summer of 2016. 
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 Additional data captures were 

2 conducted in Denver in search of air sampling data 

3 and surface contamination surveys. 

4 We did not receive all these documents 

5 until the fall of 2016. So we were able to reissue 

6 or able to issue this White Paper on November - in 

7 November 2016.

8 Next slide. So the model used in 

9 reconstructing the mixed fission and activation 

10 products did not change from our original White 

11 Paper to this new one. 

12 However, the volumes of the specific 

13 inputs did change based on the new information made 

14 available from the data captures. So I am going 

15 to go over the specific inputs used in our original 

16 calculation and how the input changed in the 

17 reassessment.

18 So power level - in our initial 

19 calculation we used 10 milliwatts for one hour 

20 duration and this was from a US DOE document. 

21 However, from the CML documents captured at LANL 

22 we found a more accurate estimate of thermal power 

23 of 3.6 milliwatts averaged over 72 in five minutes.
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 CML staff, however, reported to ERDA an 

2 average thermal power of 6.7 milliwatts over 70 in 

3 five minutes based on the same experiment.

4 So we concluded that we would use that 

5 value, the 6.7 milliwatts over 70 that was reported 

6 to ERDA in our revised calculations.

7 Next slide. Originally in our air 

8 concentration used in our model was derived using 

9 DOE surface contamination limits of 1,000 dpm for 

10 100 centimeters squared. 

11 We went back and captured data 885-886 

12 surface contamination surveys for the 1980-90 

13 period. We included some of that data in Table 3 

14 in the White Paper and specific examples in Figure 

15 225.

16 From our - from our review of the data 

17 we concluded the surveys were conducted regularly. 

18 Values in uncontrolled areas were rarely above the 

19 limit and evidence indicates spills were promptly 

20 cleaned up.

21 So use of the contamination limit in 

22 deriving the air concentration seemed to be 

23 abandoned.
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 Next slide. So as I said, use of the 

2 contamination limit and we resuspended that 

3 contamination and to promote with our airborne 

4 concentration and we determined that it would be 

5 bounding - that using our original assessment was 

6 bounding.

7 However, based on the concern that 

8 there was no air monitoring data for building the 

9 886 and the concern with elevated air 

10 concentrations brought up, we decided to request 

11 any air monitoring data for the '80-'89 period.

12 Since the only captured plant wide 

13 procedures instead of the air monitoring program 

14 for alpha particulate emissions, air sample 

15 locations for Building 875 and 886 and air sample 

16 results.

17 Next slide. We concluded that - well, 

18 based on our review we concluded Rocky Flats plant 

19 had a well-defined air monitoring program as 

20 required by procedures. 

21 Air samples for Building 886 and 875 

22 appeared to have been routinely collected and 

23 analyzed and samples were - results were evaluated 
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 against the RCG of 70 dpm per cubic meter.

2 Sample air results were also reviewed 

3 and initialed by management. Next slide.

4 So using the air sample data collected 

5 we were able to come up with a bounding air 

6 concentration. We determined the weighted 

7 average concentration by using the three recorded 

8 values in the excess of the RCG. We used them as 

9 they were. 

10 Sample between 10 and 100 percent of the 

11 RCG were 100 percent. Samples less than 10 percent 

12 of the RCG were 10 percent and no risk for 

13 detection. This results in a weighted average 

14 concentration of 19.2 percent of the RCG or 13.5 

15 dpm per cubic meter.

16 Next slide. So our concern was with 

17 potential internal exposure to mixed fission 

18 activation products from numerous spills and 

19 enriched uranyl nitrate.

20 No indication of confirmatory bioassay 

21 being performed for persons involved in this field 

22 and no indication of routine bioassay for mixed 

23 fission activation products.
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 Next slide. So as mentioned earlier, 

2 the approach used for bounding mixed fission 

3 activation the dose is the same approach used - as 

4 used in the previous White Paper.

5 The internal dose model - the maximum 

6 mixed fission activation products internal dose 

7 model we used a representative UNH experiment, 

8 average thermal power and duration, average air 

9 concentration from the CML data that we - that we 

10 got - ICRP-68 dose conversion factors. We used 

11 OTIB-54 to identify the dosimetrically 

12 significantly nuclides and ORIGEN-S code.

13 Next slide. So our bounding values, as 

14 you can see, came out significantly less than the 

15 one millirem and a couple of orders of magnitude 

16 lower than previous. 

17 Now, the biggest driver of that 

18 lowering dose was actually because of a calculation 

19 that we had in the previous calculation.

20 Also, the other factors that drove the 

21 lower dose are the reduced power levels from 10 

22 milliwatts to 6.7 and also the reduced airborne 

23 activity used in the calculation.
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 that's it. I have Jim Bogard and 

2 Bob Burns, who were critical in developing this 

3 White Paper online, to help answer any questions 

4 and provide clarifications as well.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And that -

6 the Working Group Members, are there any questions 

7 you want to ask of him before we go to the SC&A's 

8 review?

9 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. None 

10 here. It appears to me that a very good job was 

11 done parsing through this information produced. 

12 Highly technical, difficult to follow and much 

13 appreciated.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good. 

15 Further? And let's go on to SC&A's review of that 

16 committee assessment paper.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron

18 Buchanan and I did that reassessment and review of 

19 the assessment paper, and that document is 

20 available online. It's been cleared.

21 Essentially, I won't go through 

22 everything in our paper because what I did was -

23 there was a comment made it's highly technical in 
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 areas and so what I tried to do in our paper was 

2 in section two was outline what NIOSH did and go 

3 through some of the sample calculations to verify 

4 their assumptions and some of the references and 

5 some of the calculations and play it out in a form 

6 that, you know, a reader could follow it and I hope 

7 that that was what I did there.

8 And if you can look at section two that 

9 does - that it expounds on some of the calculations 

10 and some of the references, and that brings up 

11 section three, our evaluation.

12 Essentially, we went through those, 

13 verified them and we did not rerun the computer 

14 programs on simulations to determine the fission 

15 activation product inventory. 

16 But we did look at that inventory list. 

17 We also compared it to OTIB-54 and what is available 

18 for some of the reactors. And also I ran some 

19 sample IMBA programs to do the dose calculations 

20 to verify NIOSH's last table in there of the dose 

21 that would result from the intake of the fission 

22 activation products on a 50-year committed organ 

23 dose and for the type S and M solubility.
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 And essentially my conclusions and 

2 summary there in section four is that the doses 

3 would be very small. We looked at NIOSH's method 

4 and did not see any outstanding flaws or errors in 

5 them and if you did various assumptions - if you 

6 changed the parameters by a factor of five or 10 

7 one way or the other, the results would be - still 

8 be that the dose would be very small. 

9 The fission activation product 

10 inventory would be very small under the critical 

11 and subcritical experiments conducted at this 

12 facility. 

13 And so we find that the doses would not 

14 be - reach the one millirem level which would be 

15 included in dose reconstruction. 

16 So we concur with their findings and 

17 also that even if you went back and tweaked the 

18 figures they'd know it wasn't - if it was 10 times 

19 that, the dose still would not be significant.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank you. 

21 Are there any questions? Otherwise, we just -

22 let's discuss the Working Group let's - Members, 

23 let's discuss the results.
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 Wanda, you had mentioned before that 

2 the NIOSH study was a thorough study and I agree 

3 with you.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Ron seems to have 

5 substantiated that.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you for another 

8 good report, Ron.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. I - in 

10 looking over the reassessment reports from NIOSH, 

11 the - I was a participant in the telephone 

12 conversation with [identifying information 

13 redacted] and he had - well, it seemed to me a matter

14 of great concern when he raised the fact that he 

15 did not feel that the average power was reasonably 

16 - was measured and was reasonably estimated and he 

17 said - as LaVon said that all he could say was that 

18 the average power output was less than 50 

19 milliwatts.

20 I felt - the thing that impressed me 

21 most about the NIOSH report was Table 2 on that -

22 on Page 8. There were - after the work that they 

23 had done there were six criticality experiments for 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which thermal power and fission rate were estimated 

2 by - by the way, by the staff at the CML and five 

3 - well, first, one of them seemed to be in error 

4 with 25 milliwatts of - actually 25 watts. 

5 But there was - it turned out then and 

6 they were - said on the record that there was a 

7 mistake in that measurement.

8 For the other five measurements, they 

9 went from - they went from 0.92 to 6.7 milliwatts. 

10 And my feeling is that that certainly suggests that 

11 one can measure the average power. It was done. 

12 There were a number of cases in which it was done. 

13 And there was a consistency and it was first well 

14 below the 10 milliwatts that was done in the 

15 original White Paper on this from NIOSH. And, as 

16 they said, they decided to use 6.7 as the average 

17 power in the work that they did later in the 

18 assessment.

19 So that really gave me - gave me 

20 reassurance that these numbers could be measured 

21 and were measured and that it seemed to me to refute 

22 [identifying information redacted] concern that we 

23 really couldn't measure this, it was not reliable.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that reassured me and I think made 

2 me feel that the report was a good one and the other 

3 - the other aspects of it in terms of the air levels 

4 and - also was thoroughly done and vetted by SC&A.

5 So I'm satisfied with that report. And 

6 it says then that - it says - it concludes that we 

7 can - we can make individual assessments - we can 

8 make dose - individual dose reconstructions for 

9 people who worked in the CML lab.

10 Other folks have thoughts and more 

11 comments? Bill, I gather you may not be talking 

12 a lot but if you have - or Phil.

13 MEMBER FIELD: Yeah. This is Bill. I 

14 think you summarized it fairly well. I can't 

15 understand the difference, but, you know, I'm 

16 onboard with what you've just stated.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. 

18 Phil, what are you thinking?

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree with that 

20 assessment there.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. So seems to 

22 me that we have the material for closing this issue 

23 that we were asked - that we were charged with 
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 investigating back in, actually, 2013. 

2 So I'm - I would wait for a motion from 

3 someone and we close the CML issue.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I'll be glad to make that 

5 motion. It appears that, after a thorough vetting 

6 and reassessment by both NIOSH and SC&A, we have 

7 come to the conclusion that the material has been 

8 carefully covered and that we may move on and close 

9 the issue.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

11 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I'll 

12 second it.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. So 

14 let's just say in the - do we - do we all agree that 

15 that's - that that is - excuse me, want to vote? 

16 Those in favor of the motion say aye.

17 (Chorus of ayes.)

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oppose. 

19 Abstentions. Okay. So it's a unanimous 

20 agreement on that.

21 DCAS -- Brief overview of the status of SEC

22 Petition 192 Rocky Flats Plant

23 Alright. Now we need - I think we will 
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 go on to discussing the petition, SEC Petition 192, 

2 Rocky Flats Plant in general. And perhaps LaVon 

3 will give us a brief overview of the status of the 

4 petition, where we are now having closed the CML.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Well, I'll 

6 start with the cobalt-60 source. At the last Work 

7 Group meeting we discussed the petitioner's 

8 concern with the cobalt-60 source. We provided a 

9 leak check survey, an area survey for the unit and 

10 the removal work package for the - for removing the 

11 unit.

12 During that discussion, Dr. McKeel 

13 indicated that it would be better if you had more 

14 leak check surveys. We did do a number of data 

15 searches at the records center in Denver and we were 

16 not able to find any additional surveys themselves, 

17 meaning the actual surveys. 

18 But we did find a 1987 health physics 

19 audit report that indicated the leak check had been 

20 conducted and showed no leaks. 

21 We found specific requirements in health physics 

22 documents requiring leak tests be performed at 

23 six-month intervals.
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 We also found a document that indicated 

2 who the source custodian was and we were able to 

3 interview the source custodian last week. The 

4 source custodian indicated that the source was 

5 routinely checked and never found to be leaking. 

6 The person indicated this unit was rarely used

7 after 1979 until its removal in 1999. The person 

8 also indicated they had no idea where the actual 

9 surveys had went to. 

10 So after our review we concluded that 

11 the requirements did exist for leak checking the 

12 source. And based on that 1987 report and the 

13 source custodian interview and leak test that we 

14 do have from 1999, I believe, we concluded that leak 

15 test measurements were made. 

16 We also concluded that if the gamma cell 

17 had leaked it would have been seen during 

18 contamination surveys when they were prepping the 

19 unit for removal. So we find the cobalt-60 source 

20 is not an issue.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I think 

22 that that was - we discussed this at an earlier 

23 meeting and I think there was general agreement 
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 about that. 

2 I don't think we - I don't think - I am 

3 not sure if we had a vote on it but there was general 

4 agreement by the Working Group that that closed 

5 that issue.

6 And then - LaVon?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do you want me to 

8 continue on?

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, please. I'm 

10 sorry. Yeah.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Now, I do have 

12 to say during that - during our interview with the 

13 source custodian, the person indicated that they 

14 were a [identifying information redacted] and that 

15 they had other exposure concerns that they could 

16 not discuss over the phone.

17 Given the status of this petition 

18 evaluation I thought it was - you know, we - and 

19 I discussed this with both Stu and Jim and we felt 

20 it was important to conduct this interview.

21 So we are currently working on setting 

22 up a classified - or a secure interview and we would 

23 like to have a cleared Work Group Member and SC&A 
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 present for the interview as well.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. Okay. 

3 Good. I am not - well, I think two of us are 

4 cleared, if I'm not mistaken.

5 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And so one of those 

7 two you'll ask and -

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: When do you think 

10 this discussion will be held?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I am trying to 

12 expedite this to get this done as quickly as we can. 

13 I should - I would suspect we could have an estimate 

14 on completion, you know, on when the interview 

15 could be conducted within a week or so.

16 I just - I am working with our ORAU team 

17 and then we have got to work around schedules for 

18 Work Group Members and SC&A to ensure that we can 

19 get it done. The hope is to have this interview 

20 done before the March meeting.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that would be 

22 very good. So, now - go ahead.

23 MR. RUTHERFORD: Also, during the last 
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 Board meeting the petitioner indicated that she was 

2 recently given access to all the safety concerns 

3 from Rocky Flats. 

4 She indicated she knew NIOSH and SC&A 

5 went through the safety concerns in '07 and only 

6 considered 40 of the almost 5,000 safety concerns 

7 as possibly having effect on dose reconstruction. 

8 She indicated she had concerns with 

9 that and felt a number of concerns were associated 

10 with the lack of quality control of the internal 

11 and external monitoring data. She also indicated 

12 that their review identified falsified issues and 

13 other issues. 

14 So, as the petitioner noted, you know, 

15 we did look at these back in '07 and we haven't used 

16 any additional resources at the time to relook into 

17 that issue. So I just wanted to status that 

18 because it was brought up at the December meeting.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me get that. 

20 You say it's the data - the safety concerns. Okay. 

21 I was not aware that was ongoing.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. Well, it's -

23 like I mentioned, it was looked at in the previous 
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 petition under SEC-30 back in 2007, but it was 

2 brought up by the petitioner again at the December 

3 meeting and we - again, I have not - you know, we 

4 have not gone back through those safety concerns, 

5 but I wanted to bring that up because I am sure 

6 Terrie will bring it up later.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure. No, that's 

8 fine. I appreciate your raising it. Alright. 

9 Go ahead. Or is that your - are you finished?

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm finished with 

11 discussing that. You know, we have not - as I 

12 mentioned, we have not done anything with that 

13 issue at this time.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm. Mm-hm. 

15 But those are two - so those are two outstanding 

16 issues that you've raised that we still have to 

17 complete.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, yeah. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Or we may want to -

20 let's put it this way. We definitely have to 

21 complete the interview from the cobalt-60 

22 employee. The data falsification, I'm not sure. 

23 Wanda, are you about to say something?
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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I certainly am. 

2 And my first question is, do we have new information 

3 that we did not have when we closed this after 

4 considerable discussion almost a decade ago?

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't believe we do. 

7 Based on my review of the information, I don't 

8 believe we have any new information.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. My memory was 

11 that this particular item received more than 

12 considerable attention from the Work Group at the 

13 time because there were serious concerns in this 

14 regard. 

15 And, again, from memory alone, it seems 

16 to me that we spent a considerable amount of time 

17 and did a great deal of onsite work, both by NIOSH 

18 and SC&A in this regard, and came to the conclusion 

19 that we had not reason to believe that there was 

20 a serious problem we needed to pursue at that time.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

22 MEMBER MUNN: So, absent new 

23 information - if we had new data, then that's one 
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 thing. If we do not, then it has been closed, in 

2 my view.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

4 thought - I did not think that was an open issue 

5 and I wasn't here in - I wasn't on the Board in 2007. 

6 But if it - it doesn't seem to me to be an 

7 outstanding issue unless later on there will be 

8 time for petitioner comments. And if Ms. Barrie

9 or whoever wants to raise it we'll certainly talk 

10 about it further.

11 So, really, we have just the one 

12 outstanding interview, and hopefully that could be 

13 done in March.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. The 

15 remainder thing I wanted to mention was metal 

16 tritides. Another - that was brought up again by 

17 petitioner at the - actually brought up in, I 

18 believe, in June of 2015 the first time. And this 

19 issue was discussed thoroughly under SEC-30 as well 

20 and was closed in agreement. 

21 And you may - after the petitioner 

22 brought this issue back up in 2015 we had additional 

23 discussions internally and we found no new 
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 information that would - and we found no new 

2 information at that time that would support 

3 reopening the issue. And the petitioner has 

4 provided documents, and I've reviewed those 

5 documents, but I see nothing in those documents -

6 and those documents have been made available to 

7 SC&A as well and the Work Group - and I have found 

8 nothing in the documents that would support 

9 reopening that issue.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And I think 

11 the Working Group affirmed - it did not - affirm 

12 that there was nothing to reopen. It was raised 

13 and looked at and I think I see no reason to consider 

14 that anything but closed. Or, that is to say, not 

15 so much closed, but it wasn't an issue. It was 

16 brought up, looked at and it's not an issue that 

17 would raise to the level of Working Group 

18 discussion beyond what you've reported. Okay. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that's all I have.
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 Discussion by Working Group Members of the five

2 issues mandated for investigation at RF by the

3 Board (10/17/13) for the time period

4 after 12/31/83

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So I would 

6 like to - let's see. We're going to mention the 

7 five issues mandated for investigation by the Board 

8 - Item 3.

9 If you'd like, folks have it. The 

10 PowerPoint that I presented to the Board in late 

11 2015, the third slide there, Petition Overview, 

12 lists the five items that we have - that we were 

13 charged with investigating by the Board at its 

14 October 2013 meeting. 

15 And with the closure of the Critical 

16 Mass Lab, the issues were, first, the 

17 magnesium-thorium alloy at Rocky Flats, which we 

18 closed. 

19 There has been, earlier this week, a 

20 letter and materials from a FOIA investigation and 

21 those will be discussed later. But let's just say 

22 that was closed. 

23 That may be that we have the - we will 
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 listen to what the persons have to say, Terri, and 

2 then if we wish to reopen it for any reason that's 

3 in our - that's in our purview.

4 But in terms of what we have done so far, 

5 we have five issues: magnesium-thorium alloy, the 

6 neptunium exposure potential, the tritium issue, 

7 the data falsification issues.

8 All of these have had White Papers and 

9 NIOSH papers and they have been reviewed by SC&A 

10 and we closed on them, and this morning we closed 

11 on the Critical Mass Lab. 

12 So in terms of the issues that we were 

13 charged by the Board with going through, we have 

14 closed all of them, which were issues essentially 

15 to investigate in terms of whether we want to 

16 approve the - or urge the Board to approve, and the 

17 Secretary to approve, SEC-192 or not.

18 So maybe what we should do, first, I 

19 think that that close - these close the issues that 

20 we're charged with, all of them. It has taken a 

21 long time. We were charged with this, as I said, 

22 in October of 2013. This is now January - February 

23 2017. So, and I think we should be ready to come 
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 to some conclusions beyond - or some broader 

2 conclusions. 

3 But before we do, let's talk. There 

4 has been an issue, Barrie and Dr. McKeel raised the 

5 issues about mag-thorium, and if they'd like to, 

6 I would - well, before - I should say, before I 

7 introduce them and ask them if they - or if Ms. 

8 Barrie would present, I want to ask all of the 

9 Working Group Members: have you seen and had a 

10 chance to review the letter from - and the letter 

11 in the enclosure from Ms. Barrie and Dr. McKeel? 

12 Have you all seen it and had a chance to go over 

13 it?

14 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

15 certainly have.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, and I. Phil, 

17 Bill?

18 MEMBER FIELD: I looked at it last 

19 night.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yeah, this is Phil. 

22 I looked at it also.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. So, 
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 I mean, even though it's not posted because it has 

2 to go through the posting process, we all have it 

3 and I think we can talk about it.

4 So then let me ask Ms. Barrie to present 

5 on that - on her email and the enclosure.

6 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 

7 Yeah, when I - and I've only had - I didn't have 

8 this interview for a very long time. I just got 

9 it, like, last week. But I was really concerned. 

10 You know, I realize that the - everybody 

11 agreed that if there was - you know, previously that 

12 if there was magnesium-thorium alloy plates it 

13 would have been at Rocky Flats during the period 

14 of time that is already covered by the latest 

15 expansion of the SEC status.

16 However, when I read that this worker 

17 said that he - that there was radioactive material 

18 that he was not aware of in 1984 and 1986 - or 1989 

19 - that's concerning to me because I think that NIOSH 

20 and SC&A and the Board should go back through to 

21 see if they can really identify this unknown 

22 material that he's talking about.

23 You know, he's quite well aware of 
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 depleted uranium and other kinds of alloys, but 

2 this one specific alloy that he refers to is 

3 concerning to me because that would have an effect 

4 on dose reconstruction.

5 And also I'd like to point out that he 

6 admits that they weren't monitored for dose -or for 

7 radioactive materials back then and here we have 

8 depleted uranium in Building 440 and the 

9 possibility of having magnesium-thorium plates 

10 there also.

11 And is this my time to provide other 

12 comments or should I wait?

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would wait on 

14 that, if you would.

15 MS. BARRIE: Sure.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I will 

17 certainly give you a chance if we move on further 

18 issues. But for the moment, I'd like to just focus 

19 on your letter and the magnesium-thorium issue.

20 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Thank you.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And we 

22 certainly read the letter and also looked at the 

23 interview. 
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 Now, the fact of that there was a person 

2 who believes that he or she was working with - I 

3 don't know the name and it's confidential - that 

4 the person believes that they were working with 

5 magnesium-thorium.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Can I make a 

7 correction?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: That person did not 

10 indicate that they believed they were working with 

11 magnesium-thorium alloy. That person was unaware 

12 of exactly what metal was in the box. The person 

13 never stated that they - in fact, that is not the 

14 only person we interviewed that day. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: We interviewed two -

17 a few other individuals and none of those 

18 individuals could identify magnesium-thorium 

19 alloy ever being used. And, you know, that was 

20 part of those specific questions. In fact, one 

21 individual indicated that they would have known if 

22 magnesium-thorium alloy was used.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I have 
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 to say that the Working Group Members were aware 

2 that there were, I believe, five persons 

3 interviewed, only one of whom believed that he 

4 possibly was working with magnesium-thorium, and 

5 that - and this interview is what I believe - this 

6 - the fact that this was the case, that one person 

7 said that they thought they had or might have, was 

8 discussed with us really in December - let me see 

9 - in our meeting on March 17th, 2016. And in the 

10 report Joe Fitzgerald was saying, indicated that 

11 there were a number of people interviewed. 

12 First, that there was - the NIOSH and 

13 ORAU - NIOSH went through the records and could not 

14 find any objective confirmation that 

15 magnesium-thorium was actually used at the plant. 

16 However, we know that the person - that 

17 some of the workers at Dow, the Dow Company in 

18 Illinois, said that they were quite confident that 

19 they had sent it to Rocky Flats.

20 But we could not verify that, and then 

21 the interviews were done and there was one person 

22 who - we have one that says Rocky was sent it. 

23 That's on Page 38 of that transcript.
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 So, we knew about this. I certainly 

2 was aware that there was one individual. So, what 

3 - do folks want to comment on what you believe -

4 let's first ask Board Members and Working Group 

5 Members - what's your take on what was said in the 

6 letter and the report by Ms. Barrie?

7 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

8 Dan McKeel. I didn't mean to intervene but I do 

9 beg you to let me just say a word to correct the 

10 record, please.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. You were 

12 not in - by the way, you were not in on the original 

13 roll call.

14 DR. McKEEL: That's correct.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But you are here 

16 now.

17 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. That's 

18 correct. I joined.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

20 DR. McKEEL: I'll make my comments very 

21 brief.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I hope so. 

23 Good. But go right ahead.
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 DR. McKEEL: The new interview we don't 

2 believe is the same as the one in the 

3 Bogard-Stempfley paper. The new interview was one 

4 that I obtained through the FOIA process, and both 

5 Ms. Barrie and I believe that it is a worker who 

6 testified in a public comment made to the Board. 

7 He identified himself by name. I won't give it 

8 here. 

9 But, anyway, he said that he had worked 

10 specifically at the Building 440 modification 

11 center at Rocky Flats for 17 years. And we believe 

12 that that's the person that had a secure interview, 

13 and I obtained the unclassified notes from that 

14 interview and included it and sent it along to Ms. 

15 Barrie, who sent it on to the Work Group. And 

16 that's the interview that you all have. 

17 And the thing that convinces us that, 

18 with all due respect, I think the people who 

19 interviewed that gentlemen failed to ask him the 

20 right questions. And what he actually observed 

21 was metal plates that he removed from a wooden box 

22 that was marked radioactive material. 

23 And in the interview this gentleman asked his 
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 supervisor about that material, what it was, and 

2 the supervisor said, basically, don't worry about 

3 it, it's safe, it's not radioactive.

4 Well, we do know that the gentleman also 

5 said he used depleted uranium to shield railroad 

6 cars and rail cars in Building 440 in the MOD 

7 center. And so, if you think about it, the only 

8 kind of metal plates, other than just steel armor 

9 plates, would be magnesium-thorium alloy, which 

10 has only 4 percent thorium. 

11 And so although we all know that is, in 

12 fact, radioactive, you know, his supervisor may 

13 have thought, well, it's sort of like depleted 

14 uranium, it's not very radioactive.

15 But anyway, that's what he told the 

16 worker and so that's one of the main reasons the 

17 worker didn't know what was in the boxes. I think 

18 the worker was misled.

19 So what we are asking, and what I still 

20 ask, and I don't believe it's happened yet, is the 

21 four people that were interviewed and reported on 

22 by Bogard and Stempfley in the earlier paper 

23 mentioned, the worker interviews - we need somebody 
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 at Rocky Flats who actually managed the shipping 

2 manifests and in the shipping department who would 

3 know about shipments in and out of that plant. And 

4 we know exactly what building it was used in. 

5 So it shouldn't be that difficult to get 

6 the records from Building 440 and shipments that 

7 went into it and out of it, remembering that the 

8 main thing that they modified in there were huge 

9 semi-trucks and railroad cars, all of which, 

10 particularly the rail cars, have extensive 

11 identification. You know, and if they are from the 

12 Department of Energy they are called APMX cars. 

13 So we're asking that NIOSH go back and 

14 get that kind of information and see what was in 

15 those wooden boxes. And I don't think that's ever 

16 been done before. I'll say for sure it's not on 

17 the record that I am aware of. It's not in any 

18 paper that I know of. And, of course, we are at 

19 a huge disadvantage because we don't know - we can't 

20 match up exactly the man's name in the secure 

21 interview and the person that interviewed at the 

22 - before the Board. But that should be easy for 

23 you all to do.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'd like to ask two 

2 questions and then go back to a Board discussion.

3 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The first question 

5 is, you're asserting that this is one of the people 

6 that was interviewed but not the person who 

7 reported that they used the material - they used 

8 magnesium-thorium?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Can I -

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I would - I 

11 would be glad -

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: No one has ever said 

14 that they used magnesium-thorium alloy. That 

15 needs to be corrected for the record. No one ever 

16 said that.

17 DR. McKEEL: No, this gentleman that 

18 I'm talking about was named in the Bogard and 

19 Stempfley paper as his interview was a specific 

20 SRDB document and that's what I requested.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Dr. McKeel, I would 

22 like to - I wanted to hear your report but we are 

23 not having a general discussion among us all.
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. McKEEL: Alright. You said you 

2 wanted to ask me some questions.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: This is a working 

4 meeting. Oh, yes. No, I'm happy with the thing. 

5 But at this point I asked you who it was. I was 

6 going to ask for, and do ask for comment. And 

7 Grady, I believe, you were speaking.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, this is LaVon.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: LaVon - excuse me.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Actually -

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So I don't - I would 

12 like to get information from you, as a - as a Board 

13 - as a Board Member, your comments.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I want to 

15 point out that this is not a new interview, that 

16 was not as Dr. McKeel had indicated. This is an 

17 interview - one of the interviews that was 

18 conducted in support of the White Papers that we 

19 developed. 

20 And, again, there is no - and we also, 

21 during our development of that report we asked for 

22 design documents. We asked for - we went to 

23 Sandia. We went to a number of other organizations 
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 looking for additional information to look for 

2 magnesium-thorium alloy. 

3 We talked to the individuals there and 

4 we have found nothing that would support 

5 magnesium-thorium alloy being used at Rocky Flats, 

6 and we stand by that position at this time.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: LaVon, this is 

9 Schofield. I've got a quick question on that. I 

10 haven't seen anything in the way of - if they're 

11 going to be doing that, I would assume they have 

12 a casting where they would be casting this alloy 

13 into sheets or whatever particular form they want 

14 them. And I haven't seen any indication of any 

15 casting being done. Did you see any such thing?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, they didn't do any 

17 casting. They - well, I can't get into too much 

18 discussion but I will say that they did do some 

19 modifications to the - to the sheets that they used 

20 on the - on the rail car. 

21 So there was things that they had to 

22 cut, punch, or do different things to it. But 

23 there was no casting.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And there 

2 was - in the - in the material that was sent in the 

3 attachment earlier this week the indication was 

4 that they received sheets and they were punched. 

5 There was - must have been a - and there was - there 

6 was a punch and these were punched and then mounted. 

7 So the - so, LaVon, you - yeah, you'll 

8 stand by the assertion. And could I ask you, Dr. 

9 McKeel suggested that perhaps there - the manifests 

10 of what was going in and out of the building were 

11 perhaps not examined. Did you not examine those?

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can't - I can't 

13 confirm that. We looked at so many different 

14 documents to try to come up with an idea if the 

15 magnesium-thorium alloy could have come to Rocky 

16 Flats. And I know at one point manifests were 

17 looked at, at least under SEC-30. I don't know if 

18 they looked at those specific manifests 

19 associating with Building 440. I don't know for 

20 sure. It's been a while. 

21 I could - I would have to go back and 

22 actually look at our data capture request to see 

23 what the specific items -
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. I 

2 will say, I mean, the reports that you gave us in 

3 the past, the examination investigation seemed to 

4 us thorough. And at the time when we last 

5 discussed this, we agreed that it did not - given 

6 limited resources, it did not make sense for you 

7 to continue further to go, I believe it was, to LANL 

8 and look at things further. Am I correct? Is that 

9 - was that LANL?

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that's correct. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. And 

12 this certainly is one person's interview. Just 

13 now talking among Working Group Members, do we - 

14 the magnesium-thorium, there was an assertion in 

15 the letter that the RF worker interview 

16 demonstrates that workers were being deliberately 

17 misled by the supervisor. 

18 I - as a Board Member, I don't believe 

19 - it does not seem to me to be correct. That there 

20 is an issue with magnesium-thorium - it has less 

21 than, you know, 3 to 5 percent - say, roughly, 4 

22 percent thorium, and there is a question as to 

23 whether this constitutes a large dose of serious 
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 exposure to radiation, and that this is one of those 

2 borderline cases. 

3 And the letter by Dr. McKeel and Ms. 

4 Barrie says that - it notes that magnesium-thorium, 

5 in item four, certain NRC regulations exempt 

6 magnesium-thorium with less than 4 percent for use 

7 in commercial products such as lantern mantles and 

8 welding rods. 

9 And I certainly know that that is the 

10 case with lantern mantles, which I happen to have 

11 used and others may have, that that level of 

12 radiation, certainly in the mantles, is not 

13 considered a high level and therefore it's 

14 perfectly okay to let people in the general public 

15 use it. 

16 And it's noted in the interview that 

17 this is considered a cold area. That is to say, 

18 the level of radiation is presumably low enough 

19 that people are not required to wear badges and that 

20 they can work there. 

21 So this is a - this is, to me, a 

22 situation where the amount of exposure is quite 

23 small and the work that's done on the - that's 
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 reported does not suggest a high degree of 

2 machining that would involve exposure to small -

3 to dust or to materials from the machining. 

4 So it does not seem, to me, to be 

5 deliberately misleading. The person - it is, as 

6 Dr. McKeel pointed, the person there in supervisory 

7 capacity may have just said that it was not enough 

8 of a problem that people would have to worry about, 

9 and therefore, from their point of view, it was not 

10 radioactive. 

11 Of course, in terms - in absolute terms, 

12 of course, it is radioactive, and any 

13 magnesium-thorium is. But the level is low. 

14 So I don't see - I don't see that this 

15 information from one person gives me the feeling 

16 that we should overturn what - the decision that 

17 we made earlier to close this. That is to say, it 

18 doesn't - it doesn't provide enough information, 

19 in my opinion, to reopen.

20 Certainly, the person being 

21 interviewed says that the work was done from '84 

22 to '89, which is beyond the SEC period that has been 

23 granted. But that is one person among others who 
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 interviewed and among, in particular, a search for 

2 documents that came up with nothing despite 

3 extensive efforts to find something. 

4 So that's my take on it. I don't know. 

5 Others? Wanda, Phil, Bill?

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I had so 

7 much to say about this when we discussed it last 

8 time, I don't think I need to repeat all that. 

9 The one new thing that I learned from 

10 the information that's been provided to us recently 

11 is the comment from the supervisor that workers did 

12 not have a need to know.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? Workers 

14 should not have any -

15 MEMBER MUNN: Did not have a need to 

16 know.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm.

18 MEMBER MUNN: And that was - I think 

19 that's tantamount to saying this is above your pay 

20 grade, which is pretty annoying to the person who 

21 asked the question. I can testify from personal 

22 information this is true, but not necessarily at 

23 this site. But it was - that was new information 
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 to me, and from my perspective an incorrect 

2 response to an inquiry from any worker.

3 But that's neither here nor there, and 

4 it - but I see nothing new, other than that comment, 

5 which psychologically makes an impact for me, but 

6 in point of fact, for our deliberations, it does 

7 not and I don't believe should.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Other 

9 comments?

10 MEMBER FIELD: Yeah, this is Bill. 

11 LaVon, you said the verify - you indicated - I think 

12 you indicated that this person was indeed 

13 interviewed. Was that correct?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct.

15 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, and that 

17 interview was used in support of developing our 

18 White Paper.

19 MEMBER FIELD: Thanks.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Phil?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I just - my question 

22 was already answered, because I was just thinking 

23 that if there is much scrap generated and stuff, 
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 typically those are either consolidated in some 

2 form or sent back to the origin that they were 

3 received from. And personally, going through 

4 different documents, I haven't - could not find any 

5 such reference or anywhere near documents I've 

6 looked at.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. So, 

8 in my opinion, and I think I don't see that this 

9 provides information that would make us reopen the 

10 magnesium-thorium. And -

11 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

12 Dan McKeel.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. This is Dr. 

14 McKeel.

15 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. I must correct 

16 what Mr. Schofield just said. I just must correct 

17 that. 

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I mean -

19 DR. McKEEL: It's incorrect.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: There is - this is 

21 on the record. There will be, at some point, a 

22 Board meeting and you have every right to comment 

23 and critique anything that was said here. But this 
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 is - this is not - this is not a discussion. 

2 This is a discussion of the Working 

3 Group. There is, in general, no public comments 

4 unless the Working Group asks it. And we have 

5 requested you, Ms. Barrie and you asked, and we 

6 certainly agreed. But and you have - and, of 

7 course, you have things that you can write to Board. 

8 Petitioner's Comments

9 But I don't - I don't wish to open a 

10 debate between members of the public and 

11 petitioners and the Group at this point. Again, 

12 you will have an opportunity and by all means use 

13 it if you wish. 

14 So shall we - I don't know if it requires 

15 a motion. Ted, do you think it requires a motion 

16 that we do not reopen and -

17 MR. KATZ: No, it doesn't. It 

18 doesn't, because you never had a motion to reopen 

19 it.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I don't 

21 - I don't believe this requires a motion. I think 

22 that there is agreement from the Working Group. 

23 There was no indication that any of us want to 
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 reopen the issue, and therefore it remains - it will 

2 remain closed. And I'm perfectly happy to just say 

3 that.

4 And so are there - let's go to - let's 

5 go to Item 5.

6 MR. KATZ: Well, wait, Dave?

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: I just - you had - so, Terrie 

9 had sort of cut off her comments to just deal with 

10 this one issue, but it seemed like she might have 

11 had other issues beyond this that she wanted to 

12 touch on. Do you want to get those before you move 

13 on to 5? 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well -

15 MR. KATZ: It's up to you.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Terrie has 

17 other issues. I thought that we would ask her if 

18 we - if we are going to make a decision on the path 

19 forward. But we still have one outstanding 

20 interview and I don't think we will be able to -

21 well, that will be open to the Group.

22 MR. KATZ: I mean, just to speak to 

23 that, I mean, there is always more information. 
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 You can certainly take an action, make a 

2 recommendation, develop a recommendation at this 

3 Work Group meeting, and that be provisional to not 

4 having the world turned upside down by whatever 

5 comes out of this interview. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see. Okay. 

7 MR. KATZ: But you don't need to hold 

8 another Work Group meeting after that interview 

9 information if it doesn't turn up anything that's 

10 substantial.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Well, 

12 that's helpful because that's exactly - if they are 

13 - I mean, I didn't know if we could make a 

14 provisional recommendation provisional on that 

15 interview.

16 MR. KATZ: Yeah. We have done that 

17 many times.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

19 that's good to know, and thanks. In which case, 

20 since Item 5 really discusses other issues, and Ms. 

21 Barrie certainly said that she had some other 

22 issues, I would be - I would be willing to ask Ms. 

23 Barrie now to raise the other issues that she wishes 
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 to raise, if that's okay by Members of the Working 

2 Group.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I support that.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

5 Please, Ms. Barrie, go ahead, Terrie.

6 MS. BARRIE: Thank you. Thank you 

7 very much. And to just briefly touch back on the 

8 magnesium-thorium, and I appreciate Wanda's 

9 statement about, you know, the need to know. That 

10 was - that was very prevalent, you know, during the 

11 production - well, actually during the entire years 

12 of Rocky Flats' operations. 

13 So you can't just discount because - it 

14 was - it was common for the workers not to know what 

15 they were working with, and I want you to understand 

16 that and to take that into consideration.

17 Now, my other issues are, first, let's 

18 get back to the safety concerns. In my 

19 presentation to the Board on November 30th, I did 

20 reference the NIOSH and SC&A investigation into the 

21 safety concerns. 

22 But there's this one I'm going to quote: 

23 NIOSH continues its investigation of two safety 
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 concerns involving lost or invalid bioassays. 

2 They are safety concerns number 90-169 and the 

3 inadequacy of the internal and external dosimetry 

4 program 92-048.

5 And I still have not been able to find 

6 if this investigation of these two safety concerns 

7 were completed. And I'd like to have NIOSH either 

8 confirm and supply me with that investigation, or 

9 to take another look at these.

10 I appreciate that you're going to have 

11 that interview about the cobalt-60. 

12 I'm concerned about the data 

13 falsification White Paper. NIOSH is tying that 

14 only to the SDI rate and I think that's illogical. 

15 I mean, there is - I have identified falsification 

16 outside and before the SDI rate and I think that 

17 needs to be taken a look at again.

18 Let me see. Building 460 and 440. 

19 You're saying that your assumption because these 

20 were cold areas that there wasn't a need for 

21 bioassay, and I disagree with that.

22 For instance, I'm still going through 

23 the safety concerns, and I just found another one 
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 for Building 460, which was also a cold building. 

2 It's safety concern number 91-093, which states 

3 that an RCT was posted there in 1991. If it was 

4 cold, why would they need an RCT to be there?

5 I also went to - and I am not sure if 

6 this ever went to the Work Group, but LaVon and I, 

7 last June, had a discussion about depleted uranium 

8 in Building 444. And I don't want to get into all 

9 of it, but he did explain to me that depleted 

10 uranium would need a catalyst to emit neutrons. 

11 And a worker told me that beryllium would act as 

12 a catalyst, and in the other side of Building 444, 

13 which was separated by a three-foot wall, was 

14 beryllium. 

15 So we had depleted uranium on one side 

16 and Be on the other side. So LaVon said he was 

17 going to take a look at that and I'm not sure if 

18 he has or not yet.

19 The neptunium issue, I still have a 

20 problem with the Department of Energy document that 

21 says that you cannot use plutonium bioassay to 

22 reconstruct dose for neptunium, and that's what's 

23 being done here for Rocky Flats. And it's not 
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 being done for Los Alamos.

2 And the other issue I want to raise 

3 again and on the record is the documents that I 

4 filed a FOIA request for. I do not always get them 

5 because they belong to someone else. 

6 And I understand that the Board and SC&A 

7 also have access to these documents, but you are 

8 - you are involved with so many other sites I don't 

9 see how it's possible that you go through each and 

10 every - and maybe you do, I don't know - each and 

11 every document that is cited by NIOSH and SC&A. 

12 And it would just make me feel so much better if 

13 I could get those documents also just in case 

14 someone somewhere overlooked something.

15 And that's all I have for today and I 

16 will - yeah, I will, you know, obviously, be 

17 presenting, you know, at the March meeting also.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

19 MS. BARRIE: Thank you.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank you.

21 MS. BARRIE: Do you have any questions?

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't - well, 

23 personally, I have - first, Working Group Members, 
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 if you want to say something. I will say that Item 

2 3 - I'm taking notes - the data falsification and 

3 the neptunium - those have been closed. 

4 We have discussed them with you and 

5 knowing - you know, and on the record, and those 

6 were closed. And unless you bring up - you 

7 expressed, you know, concern and I respect that, 

8 and you - and nor do you need necessarily to have 

9 agreement. But those items were closed and I don't 

10 believe you raised issues that would suggest that 

11 we should reopen them, or at least, put it this way, 

12 I do not, as one Working Group Member.

13 For the FOIA request, that's Item 7, 

14 what decisions are made in terms of -

15 MEMBER MUNN: We lost you, Dave.

16 MR. KATZ: Dave, we just lost you. 

17 Hold on. I can address the FOIA thing.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Can you hear me?

19 MR. KATZ: Yeah, now we hear you again. 

20 Dave?

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

22 MR. KATZ: So, you cut out. So 

23 whatever you were trying to say about the FOIA, you 
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 cut out. But I can address that if you want. I 

2 mean -

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. I was 

4 just going to report - you go ahead.

5 MR. KATZ: I mean, just the FOIA issue 

6 is, this is - this is just the way FOIA works, is 

7 the owner of the document is the only agency that 

8 can release them. And so - and I think going 

9 through the right procedures to request them from 

10 those agencies, and in some cases you have to appeal 

11 if they don't provide what you want, and the appeal 

12 may or may not succeed. 

13 But in any event, NIOSH and the Board 

14 are not in a position to release documents – neither

15 NIOSH or the Board, in effect. I mean, the Board 

16 uses NIOSH's own documents. So there's nothing to 

17 be done by this agency. The only recourse there 

18 is the FOIA process.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. 

20 Alright. Well, at some level, there were many 

21 items that Ms. Barrie raised. I'm not - I don't 

22 feel like - this is not a back and forth discussion. 

23 They were presented. 
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 I'm going to ask the Working Group 

2 Members or the technical consultants - NIOSH and 

3 SC&A - if they have comments on any of those or on 

4 - there was - there was an issue raised in Item 4, 

5 Building 460 and 440, and Ms. Barrie, you said we 

6 said that there was no need for bioassay, and I 

7 don't believe that's a correct quote. 

8 It's not the question of whether we 

9 believe there should have been - there should be 

10 a bioassay. The question is, were bioassays 

11 conducted? And they were not, apparently. I'm 

12 not sure whether not at all or rarely. Does 

13 anybody - can anybody speak to that who has been 

14 over the records?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon 

16 Rutherford. I can't remember - I know that - I 

17 can't remember from the data whether we have any 

18 bioassays from 440 and 460. I can't say for sure. 

19 I don't know if Dan or Jim Bogard or 

20 anyone has looked at it and can make a statement 

21 on that. But I can't be for sure.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Certainly 

23 we know that those buildings were cold and that was 
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 the considered decision based on materials people 

2 were working with.

3 And so LaVon or others, what about the 

4 - her - the issue she raised about Building 444?

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Building 444, I would 

6 like to clarify that the, you know, neutron 

7 exposure from depleted uranium is not an issue. 

8 You don't have enough there. But I did commit to 

9 looking into whether there had been any neutron 

10 monitoring at all in 444 and which I have not done 

11 yet. I'll admit that.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

13 So that's another thing that would --

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: But I want to point 

15 out that there is a - there was an NDRP report. 

16 There was a lot of review done on neutron exposure 

17 under SEC-30 that I see no reason why it should hold 

18 up this petition at all.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm. I missed 

20 the first part of that. Could you repeat?

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I said the NDRP - and 

22 Jim may remember what the acronym stands for - I

23 can't remember. But there was a detailed neutron 
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 study done at the Rocky Flats. And corrections were 

2 made to dosimetry results from that, and also 

3 neutrons were discussed thoroughly under SEC-30. 

4 So I don't feel like this is an issue that should 

5 hold up this petition.

6 Further WG discussion as needed of any

7 other issues related to the SEC Petition 192

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, and that 

9 leaves me only with we've talked about things now 

10 on the items - the only - the first item she raised 

11 on the safety concerns, and I think we have 

12 discussed that already today.

13 So let me ask Members of the Working 

14 Group, I'm on Item 5, are there any other issues 

15 related to the SEC Petition 192 that you believe 

16 should be or might need to be looked into at this 

17 point?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No. The only questions 

19 that I had were involved with issues that LaVon just 

20 discussed.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. Then 

22 it seems to me that we have - this has been - this 

23 is year four of this effort on the 192 petition and 
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 we've closed out the item that we agreed to look 

2 at. We've investigated some other items. What is 

3 left outstanding is an interview with the person 

4 who was working with the cobalt-60, and also that 

5 the neutron monitoring in Building 444 will be 

6 looked into by LaVon and confirm his remembrance 

7 of that, right?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct. And I will 

9 also - Terrie brought up the question on the two 

10 bioassays, whether they had followed up on that 

11 issue from SEC-30. I'll see if I can find what the 

12 closure on that was and provide that.

13 Working Group decision on path forward and/or

14 recommendations on SEC Petition 192 for the

15 March ABRWH meeting

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But - okay. 

17 Then I think those are issues that can be dealt with 

18 and that we could and should move ahead with the 

19 provisional decision on the recommendations to the 

20 Board for the March meeting on Petition 192.

21 Is there - do I hear a motion?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Our specific question 
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 was whether or not to extend the dates of the SEC. 

2 Is that not correct?

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct. 

4 From '83, which it is now, to I think the request 

5 went to '89.

6 MEMBER MUNN: To '89. That was my 

7 memory.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Would you 

9 like to make a motion?

10 MEMBER MUNN: I'd like to make a motion 

11 that we do not extend the dates of the SEC that 

12 currently exist.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Second?

14 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I'll 

15 second it.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Further 

17 discussion on this? This is provisional on the 

18 interview, the neutron monitoring, and the checkup 

19 on the two bioassays, although I'm not sure how they 

20 would exactly input. It's a question of were they 

21 done, or LaVon, I'm not sure. Try -

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think it's a 

23 question of - and I've got to go look into the issue 
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 myself, but I think it's a question on the path 

2 forward or how they close the issue out that was 

3 previously identified under SEC-30.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Got it. Okay. 

5 Okay. So I think - I think - do we - any further 

6 comments?

7 MR. KATZ: Yeah, just - well, just to 

8 add to your motion, to clarify, I mean, it's a 

9 motion to find that dose reconstructions are 

10 feasible for that period.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right, that 

12 - that recommending that we not approve the SEC 

13 Petition 192, it means that all individuals who 

14 have exposure in that post-'83 period, that we can 

15 do individual dose reconstructions and that their 

16 claims will be processed and acted upon based on 

17 those.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. Thanks.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Surely. Hearing 

20 no further, I think - I mean, this - if we will, 

21 let's do it in roll call fashion in terms of - to 

22 approve - to approve the motion or disapprove. 

23 Well -
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: It's just to approve the 

2 motion, Dave.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

4 MR. KATZ: And it's to make this 

5 recommendation to the Board.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Do we -

7 should we - can we do this by voice or should we 

8 -

9 MR. KATZ: We can do it by voice. 

10 You've all already spoken to the motion.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right. 

12 Okay. All those in favor of the resolution, please 

13 say aye.

14 (Chorus of ayes.)

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oppose? Abstain? 

16 Okay. So it's a unanimous decision. It's 

17 provisional and we will get a report back from -

18 hopefully during - before the March meeting so that 

19 we can make a report to the Board in March. 

20 And all issues that - either 

21 petitioners or others in the public related to the 

22 Rocky Flats petition that they want to raise, they 

23 are welcome to do so at the March meeting and time 
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 will be given for that before the Board acts.

2 So that, I believe, will close this. I 

3 don't - I think -

4 MR. KATZ: Dave, so just as an 

5 administrative matter, it's important, I think it 

6 makes sense for someone to prepare a presentation 

7 for you to give to the Board on this.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, absolutely.

9 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, I know - it's 

10 totally up to you. You're welcome to prepare it 

11 yourself. You're also welcome to have SC&A 

12 support and NIOSH support to the extent in drafting

13 that. I mean, I expect that, given that CML came 

14 up before the whole Board, LaVon, I expect you'll 

15 give a presentation to the Board. Isn't that 

16 correct?

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can give the 

18 presentation that I gave or modify it accordingly 

19 if you think that's necessary.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, I think since that's 

21 sort of a - sort of technical presentation - it's 

22 up to you, Dave, whether you want LaVon to present 

23 in - or you want me to summarize it or yourself, 
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 and either can be done. Certainly I can share all 

2 the materials from today with all of the Board in 

3 either case. So it's just a question as to how we 

4 want to handle -

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure. I don't -

6 well, let's see what we did in the past. I don't 

7 believe the White Papers on deciding the issues, 

8 the four out of the five issues that we had, were 

9 presented to the Board. I think I just reported 

10 on it.

11 MR. KATZ: No. What I was saying is that 

12 the CML issues came up before the Board and were 

13 discussed some at the Board level, too, because you 

14 discussed them and so on. But anyway --

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes. You're 

16 right, we did. Well, since we raised it before the 

17 Board there's - I would say that why not actually 

18 then have - conclude the discussion before the 

19 Board. That is, the reports - basically the 

20 reports that LaVon made and Ron made should be given 

21 before the Board.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. I mean, they can give 

23 them or you can just -- it's up to you, Dr. 
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 Kotelchuck.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'm - if the 

3 Board has been privy to this discussion we 

4 certainly - I certainly should report it to the 

5 Board that this issue was open and why it was open. 

6 I think it would be worthwhile, and then I will 

7 prepare a report. In this case, I'll look to your 

8 advice for what I should do for a deadline because 

9 I would like to circulate this to SC&A and NIOSH.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, do you want - do you 

11 want SC&A to draft your presentation or do you want 

12 to do the first draft yourself? It's up to you.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's - at one level, 

14 I'm more than happy to have them do it. But let 

15 me ask you, since this would be the first report 

16 of this sort in terms of the Working Group. Is this 

17 the way it's done customarily? I may ask -

18 MR. KATZ: It's done both ways. It's 

19 just - it's really every Work Group Chair has a 

20 difference preference. Some Work Group Chairs, 

21 like Paul likes to make his own presentations and 

22 generally prepare them himself and then run them 

23 by. Of course, you'll run it by the staff so that 
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 they can check your work and -

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

3 then I will - I will do the first draft.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then -

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I will make sure 

6 I get it to people. 

7 MR. KATZ: Yeah. Then in timing it, if 

8 you can get your draft to everyone else in the Work 

9 Group. Get them to me and I'll circulate it. But 

10 I'll circulate it to the Work Group and the staff. 

11 If you can do that three weeks - get it done three 

12 weeks ahead of the Board meeting that would be fine, 

13 in time for them to add any details that you might 

14 add and you can -

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'll set a 

16 March 1st deadline for myself.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, and just - just do 

18 parentheticals. If you want them to fill in 

19 details that you don't have time to get to just do 

20 a parenthetical with instructions and they can do 

21 that.

22 Adjourn

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sounds 
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 good. And thank you, everyone. I think we are 

2 finished now, in time for lunch for some of us and 

3 breakfast for others.

4 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And coffee for 

6 others. Okay. Thank you all very much. And 

7 Bill, I hope you're feeling better soon.

8 MR. KATZ: Yeah. Thanks, Bill, 

9 especially for joining us.

10 MEMBER FIELD: Thanks. My pleasure.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, appreciate 

12 it. Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: Take care.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Bye, folks.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

16 went off the record at 12:04 p.m.) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22