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

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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

+ + + + +

PANTEX WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

AUGUST 10, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Brad Clawson, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRAD CLAWSON, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BOB PRESLEY, Member*

PHIL SCHOFIELD, Member*
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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

ISAF AL-NABULSI, Department of Energy*

TIM ADLER, ORAU*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

BOB BISTLINE, SC&A*

MEL CHEW, ORAU

KATHY ROBERTSON-DEMERS, SC&A

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, ORAU

JENNY LIN, Health and Human Services

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU*

JIM NETON, ORAU

SARA RAY*

MARK ROLFES, ORAU

PAUL RUDER, ORAU

BILLY SMITH, ORAU*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

* Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 

Welcome and roll-call/introductions 4 

WORK GROUP DISCUSSION:

Summary of Activities since last meeting 5 

NIOSH White Paper: Pantex Bounding 15

 Uranium and Thorium

NIOSH Responses to "SC&A Draft Data 225

 Completeness and Adequacy Review for

 the Pantex Plant"

SC&A Summary of Pantex Onsite Review 237

 (memorandum)

Resolution of remaining SEC Issues

Work Group conclusions and

recommendations to full Board 255

 

Adjournment 272
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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: So good morning, 

4 everyone in the room and on the line. This is 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 Health, Pantex Work Group. We are just 

7 getting started, and we will begin as always 

8 with roll call, beginning with Board Members 

9 with the Chair.

10 (Roll call.)

11 MR. KATZ: All right, so that 

12 takes care of roll call. Let me note for 

13 everyone on the line, please mute your phone 

14 except when you are addressing the group. If 

15 you don't have a mute button on your phone, if 

16 you press *6, that will mute your phone, and 

17 then press *6 again, and it will take it off 

18 mute; and, please, nobody put the call on 

19 hold. Hang up and dial back in, if you need 

20 to leave for a piece. Thank you.

21 We have an agenda, which is posted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 on the NIOSH website in the Board section. 

2 Brad, it is your agenda.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Appreciate it. 

4 The first thing on the agenda that we are 

5 going to discuss is activities since our last 

6 Work Group meeting.

7 We did have a meeting, and it 

8 wasn't really a Work Group meeting, but we got 

9 together to review some documentation in 

10 Germantown to be able to review some of the 

11 classified documents that have been posted 

12 there.

13 Also, SC&A and NIOSH have made 

14 site visits since our last Work Group meeting, 

15 and captured some more documentation. Does 

16 SC&A want to mention anything on our data 

17 capture that we have done, or NIOSH? Any new 

18 information?

19 MR. ROLFES: Well, if Joe -- I 

20 don't know, Joe, do you want to answer 

21 anything?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 

2 after our session in Germantown, we noted that 

3 we wanted to go back to the site, and we did. 

4 We spent the better part of four days at the 

5 site, did a couple of additional interviews.

6 This was all kind of focused from 

7 our discussion in Germantown. So this was 

8 definitely a very focused type visit. I 

9 outlined some of the touchpoints in this two10 pager that we managed to get reviewed by DOE 

11 and is cleared. 

12 The detailed notes, I understand 

13 from Mark, have made their way to Germantown. 

14 So they are available to both sides when the 

15 Work Group wants to take a look at them. So I 

16 think that is probably the key thing, and all 

17 that information that we did get and all the 

18 notes from the interviews are at DOE, 

19 Germantown.

20 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

21 Kathy Demers. I actually wanted to direct a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 question at Isaf. Now I know that, from 

2 talking to Mike Lohr before he moved on, that 

3 the classified documents from our trip to 

4 Pantex were sent to DOE Germantown. 

5 There were some unclassified 

6 documents which we don't know the status of at 

7 the moment, but the direction we provided to 

8 Pantex and the subsequent direction we 

9 provided to DOE were to provide us with a 

10 redacted copy of our notes from Pantex.

11 I was wondering if you knew the 

12 status of that and whether -- or if you could 

13 find the status of that, because we need a 

14 turn-around on those notes.

15 MS. AL-NABULSI: I will check that 

16 for you, Kathy.

17 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Isaf, when you 

19 send that out, could you also make sure that 

20 the Work Group has a copy of that and so 

21 forth?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MS. AL-NABULSI: I will.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you very 

3 much. 

4 MS. AL-NABULSI: You are welcome.

5 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I think for our 

6 updates, we went down and looked at the same 

7 records that were pulled for both SC&A and 

8 NIOSH. We made some selections, and as I 

9 understand, those selections were forwarded up 

10 to Germantown as well. We haven't had the 

11 opportunity to review them in detail. We just 

12 made some initial selections to look for 

13 examples of the types of records that were 

14 available to us.

15 We looked for some contamination 

16 swipes, which we took a sampling of, made some 

17 notes regarding how many samples there were 

18 and which systems were involved. Let's see, 

19 what else did we find? We had looked at some 

20 earlier access registers, information on which 

21 employees worked where, some of the early 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 training records. I am trying to think what 

2 else there was. There was both some dose rate 

3 surveys and some contamination surveys that I 

4 recall. Anything else that I haven't -- No? 

5 Okay.

6 MR. CHEW: No.

7 MR. ROLFES: There might have been 

8 some early --

9 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

10 Kathy Demers again. In one of the documents 

11 we looked at, it was a log of hydroshots, I 

12 believe, and there was mention of thorium in 

13 one of those logs, and I think we need to look 

14 into that a little bit more and see if that 

15 shot actually occurred.

16 MR. ROLFES: Yes. We had spoken 

17 with a couple of subject matter experts about 

18 this, and there was one individual who had 

19 said that it was possible that one had

20 occurred, but they couldn't pinpoint a date.

21 So what we have done in our Site 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Profile to account for that is to apply an 

2 exposure from one shot which could have 

3 resulted in exposure to thorium. The date 

4 wasn't known by the subject matter expert or 

5 whether or not it actually had occurred.

6 So we assumed that it did occur, 

7 and had assigned an intake based upon some air 

8 monitoring data from the area where it would 

9 have occurred.

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay. Is 

11 this a proposed assignment or is this actually 

12 in the Site Profile as it exists now?

13 MR. ROLFES: This is in the Site 

14 Profile that is actually being used.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Is that it, 

16 Mark?

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes, that is all.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I 

19 appreciate that. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I had one 

21 question, just to go back to your document 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 got cleared and got to us. Was that the 

2 summary of the interviews? Is that the 

3 document you are talking about?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: No. Actually, 

5 what I wanted to do, knowing the lag time in 

6 redactions we have experienced in the past, 

7 was to at least get something out. So I 

8 talked to the Pantex folks, said if I wrote a 

9 two-pager, with the likelihood of that being 

10 available for the Work Group, would that be 

11 fine, and they said yes. 

12 So what I did was just do the 

13 highlights of what we found from the records 

14 as well as what we gleaned from the 

15 interviews, but these are just simply the 

16 highlights. So there is a whole interview 

17 summary -- actually, this is what Kathy is 

18 referring to -- and other documents that we 

19 requested that are in Germantown, apparently, 

20 right now.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: But I mean, what--
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 DR. NETON: It was an email with 

2 twenty-eight --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: The memo isn't a 

4 summary of the interviews. What it is, it is 

5 just the touchpoints, the highlights of what 

6 we learned while we were there. This is kind 

7 of what we took from our visit. It was four 

8 days. This literally is just the highlights, 

9 and the details and the references of the 

10 interview notes are in Germantown. I suspect 

11 that will take time to get those redacted, in 

12 our experience. This took four or five weeks.

13 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

14 Kathy, just to clarify something. The site 

15 expert interview summary that was sent out to 

16 the Working Group covers our interviews back 

17 from the Site Profile review through, I think, 

18 an August visit in 2010, the two interviews 

19 that we conducted on this last visit --

20 actually, one was related to Pantex; another 

21 was related to the Medina site. Those are in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 raw note form, and that is what was sent to 

2 Germantown.

3 The process for getting interview 

4 summaries reviewed by the interviewee is very 

5 cumbersome. So it would probably be easier to 

6 review our interview notes, if you want to 

7 view something in a timely manner.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

10 interview that we did do at the site, which is 

11 alluded to in our little memo, was a pretty 

12 good interview. So I would certainly suggest 

13 that, if it is there unredacted in Germantown, 

14 it would be worth looking at. We found it 

15 pretty useful.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And that is the 

17 one you did in -- since Germantown.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, since 

19 Germantown, this last visit we spoke with a --

20 I think he was an operating engineer who was 

21 involved with the systems that we are talking
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 about, and went back far enough that he has 

2 some pretty good perspective, and we touch on 

3 some of what he said here, but I don't have 

4 everything here.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Stu, that was 

6 our June 20th through the 24th down at Pantex.

7 MR. KATZ: Then just to clarify, 

8 Joe, this two-page memo, is it summarizing a 

9 longer written piece that sort of pulls it all 

10 together that they are still clearing or are 

11 there just the notes and the documents?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: No.

13 MR. KATZ: The primary documents 

14 and then this?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Literally, 

16 we don't even have the primary documents 

17 cleared such that we could even write a 

18 summary yet. So I wanted to get something out 

19 of it, given the short time frame, and this is 

20 what we were able to get out of it. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: While we were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 down there, Joe talked to me, and he said he 

2 was worried about us being able to get this 

3 before the Work Group. So this is why he built 

4 this two-pager for us to be able to go 

5 through.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And this has been 

7 redacted. So, you know, the unredacted 

8 version of this is at Germantown as well. So 

9 there we go.

10 MR. ROLFES: I guess I just wanted 

11 to point something out about travel right now. 

12 We are, obviously, not going to be able to 

13 get to look at those until about October 

14 sometime because of travel restrictions right 

15 now due to the end of the fiscal year. So it 

16 is going to be a little delay, at least for us 

17 to be able to go up and get our eyes on those 

18 documents.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We have a 

20 particularly early travel cut-off. So our 

21 travel plans have to be essentially made by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 now pretty much.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Isn't it the 15th, 

3 this cut-off, for us I think it is?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the hard and 

5 fast on it is the 15th which, of course, is 

6 Monday. 

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. The 

8 first thing on the agenda here is the NIOSH 

9 White Paper, the Pantex Bounding Uranium and 

10 Thorium. I would like to note again, Mark, 

11 that you received this over the weekend. It 

12 seems to me to be kind of a trend, just right 

13 before the Work Group here. It makes it very 

14 hard for us to be able to respond or to be 

15 able to even review these when we get these 

16 this late. 

17 If nothing else, I would at least 

18 appreciate -- you know, the reason we put this 

19 later on into August was to be able to give us 

20 three weeks time after your paper was done to 

21 be able to review it. So in the future, at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 least make a notification that we are going to 

2 be late.

3 MR. ROLFES: Sure.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I would 

5 appreciate that, because it makes it pretty 

6 difficult to be able to respond, but we will 

7 do the best that we can.

8 Do you want to go over your paper 

9 and explain it?

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I will just 

11 give a quick summary. It is a seven-page 

12 paper, sort of responsive to the memo that was 

13 put together, and it is basically sort of 

14 laying out some of the reasons that we feel 

15 that our uranium intakes are bounding intakes.

16 Basically, the way we developed 

17 our Site Profile, it basically relied upon the 

18 300 bioassay samples that were collected in 

19 the 1989-1990 time period, basically following 

20 an incident that occurred where there was some 

21 depleted uranium contamination which workers 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 identified on their clothes and gloves.

2 They had basically been doing this 

3 same operation for about the past five years, 

4 and this operation, the contamination incident 

5 sort of stopped operations and prompted the 

6 site to take bioassay samples from about 300 

7 people who could have potentially been 

8 involved in this operation.

9 Basically, that five-year chronic 

10 exposure period and those 300 bioassay formed 

11 our basis in the Site Profile for dose 

12 reconstructions. We went back and interviewed 

13 -- as a result of the last Work Group meeting, 

14 we went back and interviewed several 

15 individuals from the site who had some 

16 involvement in that particular incident that 

17 occurred in 1989.

18 We asked them questions: If this 

19 contamination incident involving uranium would 

20 have been a bounding-type potential for 

21 exposure. I think everyone that was involved 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 agreed that it would, and they gave several 

2 reasons, primarily due to the length of the 

3 time that this particular weapon had been in 

4 the stockpile, due to the size of the uranium 

5 that was involved.

6 Basically, this particular series 

7 had been stored in various temperatures, 

8 humidities, areas, different places out in the 

9 field for many, many years, up to 30 years in 

10 the stockpile; and since the corrosion was 

11 dependent upon the time that the components 

12 were out in the field or the weapons were out 

13 in the field, the internal potential for 

14 exposure was really an issue with the oldest 

15 weapon programs.

16 This particular program was one of 

17 the ones that Pantex was aware of as having a 

18 potential for uranium oxidation or corrosion 

19 to develop, and that knowledge was likely 

20 gathered as a result of the stockpile 

21 surveillance program that was conducted, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 basically since 1958 forward.

2 Basically, we looked back at the 

3 survey data as recorded in documentation we 

4 have received from the site, and looked at the 

5 contamination levels in the area where this 

6 incident occurred, and the contamination 

7 levels, I think I mentioned earlier, on the 

8 workers' coveralls and gloves were in between 

9 200 and 400 dpm per 100 square centimeters.

10 We also looked at the survey data 

11 that was collected as a result of the 

12 contamination that had built up in that cell, 

13 then came up with various ranges of both fixed 

14 and removable alpha contamination in there.

15 We looked at the air monitoring 

16 data also, basically for all operations. We 

17 had previously looked at some of the air 

18 monitoring data. We had initially done the 

19 analysis from the seventies through the 

20 eighties, I think. That was when we had the 

21 most of the data, but since that time we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 identified additional air monitoring data from 

2 the sixties.

3 So one of the things that we are 

4 currently working on is updating our analysis 

5 of the average air concentrations in the cells 

6 and bays over time. It looks like we have 

7 found, at least tentatively, an increasing 

8 trend. It appears that the air concentrations 

9 in the work areas in the earlier years appear 

10 to be lower, and then as the disassembly work 

11 ramps up in the seventies and eighties, it 

12 appears that the average air concentrations 

13 increase.

14 We have actually compared -- Now 

15 these aren't breathing zone samples. They are 

16 general area air samples which are taken from 

17 a pretty small work area. We have actually 

18 compared intakes from those air monitoring 

19 results to the intakes that we have defaulted 

20 to based upon uranium bioassay data, and we 

21 are using the intakes developed from the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 uranium bioassay data to perform dose 

2 reconstructions for Pantex employees, because 

3 that results in a much higher intake and 

4 resulting internal dose.

5 We have also asked the involved 

6 subject matter experts if there were any other 

7 weapon systems that had similar oxidation 

8 concerns. There were a couple mentioned, but 

9 none were of the magnitude of the B28 incident 

10 that occurred in 1989.

11 We have also included a 

12 description here which is slightly different 

13 from our original approach in the Site Profile 

14 to assign thorium intakes. I think we had 

15 defaulted to a 40 DAC-hour thorium intake for 

16 every year of employment at Pantex. We 

17 actually have gone back and evaluated some air 

18 sampling data from disassembly work, and came 

19 up with a thorium intake based upon that.

20 I don't know if there are any 

21 questions about my quick summary here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I have a 

2 couple of questions. You interviewed four 

3 people.

4 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

5 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I think. 

6 Can you tell us what their job responsibility 

7 was?

8 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Let's see. I 

9 believe two of them were safety engineers. 

10 One of them was a health physicist. Well, I 

11 guess you could call all three -- the two 

12 safety engineers could also be called health 

13 physicists as well, because they had 

14 experience in radiation safety. They had 

15 received radiation safety training, both prior 

16 to their employment at Pantex as well as on 

17 site at Pantex.

18 Then the fourth individual -- what 

19 was his experience?

20 MR. CHEW: He is a health 

21 physicist from Livermore, going down to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 support a specific program.

2 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

3 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Did you 

4 talk to any of the field technicians?

5 MR. ROLFES: We have in the past, 

6 not in this particular set of interviews. We 

7 have definitely spoken with just about anyone 

8 and everyone that we could think of that 

9 might have had some kind of involvement in 

10 this incident.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Just as a follow12 up, you know, I knew (identifying information

13 redacted), but was he in charge of health 

14 physics during the `89 incident, if you 

15 recall?

16 MR. ROLFES: I believe so.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: He actually 

18 managed the HP program. Where did 

19 (identifying information redacted) fit in, 

20 I'm a little sketchier on him.

21 MS. AL-NABULSI: Can we refrain 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 from --

2 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I was going to 

3 say, we probably shouldn't --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay. I am 

5 sorry. It is in the documentation.

6 MS. LIN: But those are not PA7 cleared.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: The two 

9 individuals' names were presumably health 

10 physicists, but were they actually managing 

11 the Pantex health physics program?

12 MR. ROLFES: From the very 

13 beginning back in 1957, there was a group of 

14 about nine people that had been given 

15 radiation safety training.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I know.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What he just 

18 tasked about the two specific people -- and 

19 were they managing the health physics program.

20 MR. ROLFES: I didn't want to 

21 answer specifically about somebody's job. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 didn't think I was supposed to discuss --

2 Jenny?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. Are 

4 we allowed to talk about --

5 MR. KATZ: They were working in 

6 their professional capacity.

7 MS. LIN: It really depends, 

8 because if it is someone that has a managerial 

9 position, then their privacy expectations are 

10 less than someone who is not.

11 MR. KATZ: A line worker.

12 MS. LIN: So I think we should --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I consider this 

14 very pertinent to this particular -- because 

15 the interviews are the basis -- they are part 

16 of the basis for one of the key conclusions. 

17 So we certainly can go back to Energy, but I 

18 think who these people are is very relevant to 

19 the context of that information provided. 

20 That is kind of the -- that would 

21 be the reasoning for wanting to know better on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 this, and we can certainly talk offline, but--

2 DR. NETON: What type of 

3 information are you talking about?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, let me just 

5 give you my general perspective on this. We 

6 discussed this issue at Mound as well, as you 

7 recall, on tritide.

8 I am concerned on statements from 

9 individuals who were in a management role for 

10 the operations and/or the health physics 

11 programs that these issues fall under, and I 

12 am not saying that from the standpoint of 

13 questioning their technical expertise, 

14 credibility.

15 I have known a lot of these folks, 

16 and they are the best HPs in the business, but 

17 from my experience, it is difficult to 

18 critique, in a sense, your own program that 

19 you were, in fact, responsible for. During 

20 the eighties and nineties -- and I think some 

21 of us share that time frame -- the department 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 and the health physics program in the 

2 department were going through just dramatic 

3 change, and there was a lot of realization 

4 that practices that were perfectly fine from 

5 the health physics standpoint, meaning that 

6 from dose control, and we all made judgments, 

7 what was important from a standpoint of dose, 

8 didn't necessarily pass muster with the rad9 con manual or radiological controls in 54.11 

10 and 835.

11 So rigor was imposed in the 

12 system, and that is what led to a lot of the 

13 changes in that very time frame that we are 

14 talking about here. I think it may be 

15 difficult to query the managers who were in 

16 place at that particular time, and sort of ask 

17 them about how the health physics program 

18 addressed issues as they arose or ask for 

19 judgments about the significance of this or 

20 that, simply because -- and again, simply 

21 because it was under their respective watch.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So I think there is an implication 

2 there. I am not saying that they would 

3 purposely say anything that way, but I think 

4 it is just that there is a tendency to not 

5 want to publicly acknowledge necessarily that 

6 it is something that maybe, because of the 

7 culture, because of the mindset, because of 

8 accepted practice for years and years that is 

9 the way business was done, and all of a sudden 

10 it wasn't the way it was done, and I think a 

11 lot of folks at that particular time were 

12 uneasy about how that reflected on their 

13 position as well as their professional 

14 judgment.

15 So I think that is the concern I 

16 have. I had it at some other sites, because I 

17 think it is a -- I have seen that many times. 

18 So that is the reason I want to raise this, 

19 that if we are asking less for objective 

20 information, more of a subjective "what do you 

21 think," or from your standpoint, you were in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 charge, was it as bad as it seemed or -- I 

2 think we got to remember that the response is 

3 going to be from the vantage point of somebody 

4 who was responsible for either the operation 

5 or the actual health physics program that was 

6 in place.

7 DR. NETON: I completely 

8 understand what you are saying, and I think it 

9 has a lot of merit, but I think we can just 

10 look at what the objective evidence is that 

11 Mark just provided. It doesn't rely on people 

12 making statements about the quality of the 

13 program.

14 You have a situation where you 

15 have 300 bioassay samples that were taken at 

16 the termination, at the end of a five-year 

17 campaign to disassemble these weapons that 

18 are, I think, agreed by all that these were 

19 the potentially dirtiest, most contaminated 

20 weapons components out there.

21 This five-year campaign was, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 think, orders of magnitude higher in workload 

2 than any of the other previous years. Now 

3 you've got a situation where you have 300 

4 bioassay samples on workers who had worked 

5 potentially five years with this material, and 

6 urine samples are a long term integrator of 

7 their exposure.

8 Now you take that integration, you 

9 take the 95th percentile of that, and you come 

10 up with 135 dpm per day intake. I think that 

11 is a pretty good scenario to bound what these 

12 workers were exposed to over that campaign.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I am not speaking 

14 to that information.

15 DR. NETON: -- but that is what 

16 Mark was talking about, the bioassays.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What the report 

18 says, Jim, is that the conclusion for W-28 

19 units had the highest potential for exposure 

20 is based on information that you have got.

21 DR. NETON: But I think SC&A has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 agreed to that. I mean, I read in their 

2 little statement that they agreed that W-28 is 

3 the highest contaminated component out there. 

4 I just read that in your write-up.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: The 28 -- let me 

6 step back. What I am speaking to is a broader 

7 background, including these interviews, that 

8 speak to the significance of what we are 

9 calling the incident -- I will get to that in 

10 a minute, but the '89 "incident," and I am 

11 going to use quotation marks on that -- as 

12 being the most significant one. Okay? 

13 Meaning the one that would be most notable 

14 from the standpoint of the contamination 

15 levels and the exposure potential and, 

16 therefore, being a good, if not the best, 

17 candidate for a bounding analysis.

18 DR. NETON: We are not doing that. 

19 We are taking 300 urine samples, projecting a 

20 chronic intake over a five-year campaign. 

21 That is all we are doing. We are not using 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that incident to bound workers. We are 

2 talking about a cumulative urinary excretion 

3 of these workers at the end of a five-year

4 period, and how much could have been coming 

5 out of their urine. How much could they have 

6 breathed in, and be excreting that in their 

7 urine at the end of a five-year campaign? 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So let me 

9 just clarify, because this is a major change, 

10 in a sense. I am just trying to make sure I 

11 understand this then.

12 So whereas the Evaluation Report 

13 certainly advances the '89 or maybe 1990 

14 incident as the bounding bioassay results, you 

15 are saying that that is no longer the case, 

16 that you are not looking at '90 as necessarily 

17 bounding. You are taking all the bioassay 

18 samples, regardless of vintage, taking out the 

19 firing pit, and that is going to be the basis 

20 for assignment.

21 MR. ROLFES: Yes. All along in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 our Site Profile, we have been relying upon 

2 this 1990 bioassay dataset, which was 

3 collected as a result of this 1989 incident. 

4 What Pantex did, they went back and identified 

5 any workers who was involved in the W-28 

6 program that was on site, and they took 

7 bioassay samples from them. They were 

8 analyzed at the Y-12 facility. 

9 In addition to that, they had 

10 brought in the Helgesen in vivo lung counter, 

11 and performed chest counts on these 

12 individuals.

13 We have always been using that 

14 bioassay dataset for dose reconstructions. 

15 Now in addition to that, we have gone back and 

16 analyzed some of the earlier bioassay data 

17 which was collected beginning in 1959, and we 

18 have incorporated that into our intakes and 

19 calculated the 95th percentile intake rate 

20 based upon those urinary uranium excretion 

21 results.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 DR. NETON: The use of it is 

2 important itself. That is what drove them to 

3 collect the urine samples, but we are using 

4 the urine as indicator, which is not unusual. 

5 That is what we do very often.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, going from 

7 that, you know, the ER, as I recall, when it 

8 advanced using the 1990 urine data as the 

9 bounding in this -- I guess that that is now 

10 not the case for the approach, the new 

11 approaches that take them all. Right?

12 It does make the case -- and of 

13 course, this could have been done from the 

14 get-go, but it does make the case that the 

15 reason -- I don't know if I have this actually 

16 cited here; maybe I do. The reason for the 

17 1990 set of data being used is that it is the 

18 oldest set of data that provides isotopic 

19 determination of uranium alpha activity in 

20 urine samples -- this is a quote -- "and has 

21 significant data to perform statistical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 analysis."

2 So, certainly, the background is 

3 that it has the data that is of quality and 

4 number, number of samples, to provide 

5 statistical validity. Then it goes on: 

6 "because it is the most comprehensive set of 

7 depleted uranium intake data found in the 

8 Pantex records" -- I don't think we would 

9 argue with that -- "and that it is of large, 

10 known high quality, and that the intakes from 

11 exposures are expected to be above normal 

12 operating exposures."

13 I guess my question is: that 

14 certainly points to -- and this is something 

15 that we have looked at as well, that there are 

16 earlier bioassay samples, but by virtue of the 

17 fact they are earlier ones, the number of 

18 those samples and the quality of those samples 

19 would not necessarily be the same as or 

20 approach the later ones.

21 I guess I would like to hear your 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 views about how to handle -- quality was 

2 raised in the ER as the reason for going with 

3 the 1990 set. Now that you are going back and 

4 taking those earlier datasets, why would that 

5 not be a problem or why would that not 

6 undercut the statistical validity of doing 

7 that?

8 DR. NETON: Well, what ended up 

9 happening, when you had the earlier bioassay 

10 samples, you ended up increasing the 95th 

11 percentile, but largely because of the 

12 detection issue. So it is claimant favorable 

13 to do that from bioassay samples, and there 

14 would be a larger value because of the 

15 detection limits which were with those sets of 

16 measurements.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But I guess the 

18 part I am stumbling over a little bit, Jim, 

19 is that -- and I go back to what the ER 

20 originally said, is that what was attractive 

21 about the 1990 incident was the 305 data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 points, that you get a lot of data points, 

2 whereas in complete operating history before 

3 that you maybe barely had 100 or something 

4 like that, and they were of questionable 

5 quality and some questions about even how they 

6 were taken, those kinds of issues. But now we 

7 are saying -- or you are saying that you can 

8 go ahead and blend those in, and it will be 

9 favorable, but I guess my question would be 

10 how can we know that the distribution is going 

11 to be a valid distribution when I think all 

12 of us would agree that you are not going to 

13 have captured perhaps the data points that 

14 existed.

15 You know, you have 305 from one 

16 incident, and you have 100 for 25 years. 

17 Clearly, there is a disparity from that 

18 standpoint.

19 DR. NETON: I would actually argue 

20 -- I think the 1990 cases are an issue. They 

21 were added in, I think, primarily because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 people felt they were added in. The number 

2 goes up. It is claimant favorable. I didn't 

3 look at the analysis. The data were weighted 

4 based on the number available at that time 

5 period. So the '90 data essentially probably 

6 weighted -- it didn't weight it more heavily 

7 than earlier days.

8 Again, I go back to the 1990 data 

9 where you capture bioassays for 300 workers on 

10 a campaign. It was by far the largest 

11 campaign that disassembled this type of weapon 

12 in the history of the plant, for a five-year 

13 period starting in '84, ending in '89 --

14 orders of magnitude more, rather than the 

15 surveillance activities which occurred all 

16 preceding years. I don't know the numbers, 

17 but orders of magnitude less. 

18 So now you've got a bioassay 

19 sample on a group of workers that worked on 

20 those weapons for a five-year period, and 

21 you've got their excretionary values, which is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 an integrator of all of the exposures that 

2 occurred over that five-year period, and it 

3 looked pretty good as a method to bound what 

4 these workers were breathing in over that 

5 operation.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: But how do you 

7 know? How do you know? This is the question 

8 that we have kicked around for over a year. 

9 How do you know that this 19 -- or even three 

10 or four or five-year campaign, or even within 

11 the five-year campaign, that these results 

12 are, in fact, bounding? I mean, it seems like 

13 we come down to why are these 300 samples --

14 DR. NETON: Because if the workers 

15 were working with the weapons and at the end 

16 of five years you take a urine sample, and you 

17 say what could that person have breathed in 

18 over that five-year period and still have his 

19 urine below that value, that is what we are 

20 doing.

21 We are saying what possibly could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 have this person breathed in over five years 

2 and still be excreting x, in the 95th 

3 percentile, at that time point? You can't pee 

4 out anymore than you breathed in.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I understand 

6 that, but I am just saying how do you know --

7 DR. NETON: You have 300 workers.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: How do you know -

9 - yes, you have 300 workers, because it is 

10 1990 or '89, and the management woke up. The 

11 workers complained, and you had literally the 

12 kind of scrub that happens when you have that 

13 kind of change. But I am just saying how do 

14 you know -- and this again comes back to what 

15 we have been talking about.

16 How do you know that the exposures 

17 before that were, in fact, less than or the 

18 same as the ones for which you have resolved 

19 in the '90 incident?

20 DR. NETON: It has evolved in a 

21 sort of a weight of the evidence argument. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 think that the bioassay data are very small. 

2 Now you take what we are assigning as an 

3 intake, which ends up being 135 picocuries per 

4 day, if it is a Type S material.

5 That equates to roughly 14 dpm per 

6 cubic meter of uranium in the air for every 

7 hour this person worked over that period. 

8 Then you go back and look at other operations 

9 involving uranium. You can go back and look 

10 at Kingsley and Harrison, all these other 

11 operations. What kind of airborne do you get 

12 from handling derbies of uranium?

13 In any operation that doesn't 

14 involve abrasive activities such as grinding, 

15 welding, cutting, sort of shaping operations, 

16 you get less than 20 dpm per cubic meter in 

17 the air. Matter of fact, most often the daily 

18 rate average is less than 10 for those types 

19 of operations.

20 That is consistent with what we 

21 are applying here. It is hard for me to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 fathom that, for a person doing an inspection, 

2 pulling out whatever they are pulling out, 

3 examining it, writing down a number, whatever, 

4 putting it back, that you can generate more 

5 than 14 dpm of uranium per cubic meter. It is 

6 sort of a what are you doing kind of thing.

7 Well, I don't know how you can 

8 sort of get this idea where you are going to 

9 get higher than that.

10 The other thing is, if you look at 

11 the lung counts with the Helgesen full body 

12 counter, they are determined to be biased high 

13 because of certain background correction 

14 issues. 

15 So the fact is, if you assign this 

16 12 dpm -- or 14 dpm per cubic meter breathing 

17 rate over a five-year period, at the end of 

18 that period a person would have accumulated 

19 somewhere around 12 milligrams of uranium in 

20 his lungs. That bounds all the Helgesen whole 

21 body count data, not ridiculously implausibly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 bounds, but it is higher than about a factor 

2 of two than the highest person that was 

3 measured with the Helgesen full body count.

4 That gives me some comfort, too.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but we are 

6 still talking -- I understand the comparisons 

7 within this late eighties into the '90, 

8 whether it is the in vivo counting or in vitro 

9 counting. You have a contemporary picture, 

10 which I don't have any problems with the 

11 contemporary picture. 

12 I am just trying to go back to the 

13 25 years -- well, it is almost 30 years, but 

14 before that and say, does that picture 

15 basically take care of the handling before 

16 that, and can we rely on this being the worst 

17 case?

18 DR. NETON: The same weapons, as I 

19 understand it, are being inspected. There is 

20 a potential for oxidation to develop over 

21 time, to indicate that have more loose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 contamination in the earlier period. Again, I 

2 get to the campaign. The workload -- if your 

3 workload is 100 times less over that entire 

4 25-year period than we did in five years, I am 

5 having trouble figuring out why it is not 

6 bounding.

7 If I do 1,000 of something on the 

8 same issue all the time, every day, and then 

9 for the previous 25 years I do hundreds of 

10 that, where is the increase in release rate, 

11 the source term? I'm missing that.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because the 

13 processes have changed.

14 DR. NETON: Processes changed.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Processes 

16 changed in how you are going to do it. In 

17 1980, you saw a drastic change in procedures 

18 and how you were doing things. In the earlier 

19 years, you did not have any of that.

20 So what you are saying totally 

21 goes out the window. That is that, if 1989 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 back to 1957, it was all done the same way, 

2 with the same procedures, the same processes 

3 and everything else, then that could hold. 

4 But in that time frame from 1958 onward, 

5 processes changed, areas changed, how they did 

6 it changed. Everything changed.

7 DR. NETON: What changed? Or is 

8 that is not allowed.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, no, we can 

10 talk about changes, but --

11 DR. NETON: I'm open to that.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Just take, for 

13 instance, how many weapons would be able to be 

14 allowed in there, which that changed over the 

15 years. How the processes go, and even after 

16 '89 era and going into the '90 era, that is 

17 when they started bringing in fume hoods and 

18 everything else like that. They started 

19 moving air different. They changed the cell 

20 diagrams. They changed the air flows on it. 

21 They changed the sampling programs on it. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 They changed everything, 1985 up to --

2 DR. NETON: Well, what you are 

3 talking about are sort of -- the air controls, 

4 I can understand, if they did something 

5 special with air capture maybe, but sampling 

6 and stuff, I just don't see that.

7 The process change, to me, is 

8 something different. Now you are taking --

9 rather than just pulling it out, looking at 

10 it, and doing it, putting it back, whether you 

11 are abrading it, you are grinding it. You 

12 have to have some way to generate airborne 

13 activity. Without that, I have trouble 

14 understanding why you are going to get large 

15 quantities of airborne uranium, especially 

16 since this particular sample in 1989 they had, 

17 and it was less than one percent uranium. It 

18 was mostly organic material, primarily two 

19 percent lead.

20 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

21 Kathy. Can I ask a couple of other questions? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 First of all, where -- and, Isaf, please stop 

2 me if there is a problem with these questions.

3 MR. KATZ: Don't ask a question 

4 that you have any doubts about, Kathy.

5 DR. NETON: Why are you asking me? 

6 I don't have a clearance.

7 MR. KATZ: No, but I am just 

8 saying, Kathy can't ask -- when in doubt, 

9 don't ask.

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Well, let 

11 me see. I think I can ask a yes or no 

12 question. Was there only one mod of the 28?

13 MR. ROLFES: We will delay our 

14 response, but --

15 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay.

16 MR. ROLFES: We can answer that 

17 pretty openly. There were different mods of 

18 the W-28, and you know, the warhead was 

19 actually used in several different platforms, 

20 I guess, delivery platforms.

21 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay. Also 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 --

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So there were 

3 differences in how they were handled.

4 DR. NETON: Handling them how? I 

5 mean, it is pulling them out -- I understand 

6 that W-28 is the potential worst potential for 

7 contamination, because it is not an alloy.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: There were other 

9 non-alloyed. There were other non-alloyed 

10 weapons.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: But the W-28 was 

12 uncased, which makes it a particular problem.

13 DR. NETON: It seems to me there 

14 is agreement that W-28 is -- and there was a 

15 five-year campaign that disassembled it.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, let me 

17 touch on that a little bit, though. I don't 

18 think I would disagree that the W-28 sort of 

19 stands out. It was an uncased DU design, and 

20 because it was uncased, the raw uranium would 

21 oxidize almost immediately once it was in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 air, and that would accelerate depending on 

2 environmental conditions, as Mark pointed out. 

3 But the one thing -- and I would invite you 

4 to look at the interview we did do, and you 

5 can certainly interview this individual again, 

6 but we wanted to talk to somebody that was 

7 intimately familiar with sort of the 

8 operational aspects, not just health physics 

9 but the operational aspects of the W-28.

10 It is pretty clear, you know, this 

11 wasn't sort of an episodic -- you had certain 

12 campaigns, and you had perhaps releases. You 

13 had unusual occurrences, maybe incidences, but 

14 this exposure got out.

15 In fact, it was a continuous 

16 process of not only assembly but retrofits, 

17 redesigns, surveillance -- trying to think of 

18 some of the other words -- dismantlement, 

19 modifications, and anytime you actually went 

20 into the system, because this was uncased DU 

21 there was a potential for exposure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Now unclear how much, but it was 

2 pretty clear from the interview that, as time 

3 went on, this was pretty prevalent in terms of 

4 just having to deal with the fact that you 

5 were essentially going to have this get out, 

6 and you would be covered with this material.

7 Unfortunately, it is a very 

8 subjective thing, because --

9 DR. NETON: But the material, 

10 though -- you can have a lot of material, but 

11 not all of it is uranium.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that is 

13 another issue that we probed when we were at 

14 the site, and --

15 DR. NETON: Well, I looked at the 

16 analysis of the material.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I did, too, 

18 the spectral analysis. I included it in my 

19 memo. I guess we have a point of disagreement 

20 on that, because I think the results that we 

21 looked at said it was predominantly uranium, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 and there was lead and other -- cadmium and 

2 other materials that were also present. So we 

3 can go back and look at that, but --

4 DR. NETON: Less than one percent.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Apart from that, 

6 because we are not talking about the --

7 talking about the amount of --

8 DR. NETON: See, that is worker 

9 perceptions, how much material was being 

10 spread around, and black material is not all 

11 uranium.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I know, but I 

13 don't want to go down that path, Jim, because 

14 this is not about the size of the source term. 

15 I think we all agree there was an exposure 

16 potential from DU, and whether it was one 

17 percent, five percent, 20 percent or 30 

18 percent, the question is can one come up with 

19 a means to dose reconstruct?

20 So I am just saying, though, that 

21 certainly by virtue of visible signs, there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 was, in fact, observable exposure potential 

2 from the DU, from the uncased uranium that was 

3 in the W-28 throughout this history of 

4 dismantlement.

5 Now dismantlement wasn't just for 

6 retirement. That is the point I am trying to 

7 make. Dismantlement was for retirement, 

8 surely, mostly toward the end, obviously, but 

9 also for retrofits, modifications, and in some 

10 cases the surveillance that was necessary. 

11 You had to, in fact, go in there, and you 

12 were, in fact, potentially exposed.

13 So that occurred throughout the 

14 life history. Now I will grant you that it 

15 was accelerated when they retired, dismantled 

16 and retired. But I want to make sure it is 

17 clear that there was dismantlement throughout 

18 many of these years, and that was confirmed at 

19 the site, that you had to do that.

20 MR. ROLFES: We all know that 

21 there was an earlier disassembly and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 inspection. However, the numbers of 

2 disassembly and inspections were very, very 

3 small in comparison to the dismantlement 

4 effort that we are using as our basis to 

5 assign intakes. 

6 We are using the 1984-1989 data, 

7 which is basically the worst case scenario, 

8 because those weapons have been in the 

9 stockpile for the longest and have been 

10 potentially corroding for the longest amount 

11 of time, over an approximately 30-year period.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I am just coming 

13 back to the point, though, that we have this 

14 wealth of data for this one point in time, and 

15 we have various pieces of data for the 

16 previous 25 years covering this operating 

17 history of dismantlement that went on during 

18 that time frame.

19 I don't want there to be a 

20 perspective that, you know, these things sort 

21 of stayed sealed in the system and were
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 untouched. In fact, there was a lot of 

2 retrofits going on, a lot of modifications 

3 going on, and the system was very versatile.

4 So it went in and out of Pantex 

5 for a long time. In fact, one thing that we 

6 found and we are told that there were a number 

7 of workers who spent most of their careers 

8 working on the W-28 line, so to speak, in 

9 terms of doing these various procedures. They 

10 were most familiar with that particular 

11 system. They stayed with that particular 

12 system their entire career.

13 The other thing I want to raise --

14 and I raised this the last time, because it is 

15 the source of the confusion, I think, and we 

16 had a conversation that Stu was involved with. 

17 I am trying to reconcile the point that was 

18 made in the TBD for internal dosimetry where 

19 there was a comparison of mean uranium 

20 intakes. I think you know what I mean.

21 I think that was something that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 you were going to come back with and sort of 

2 give us some perspective. Maybe I missed it, 

3 but I didn't see it in the analysis, but I 

4 guess I am still wondering about that comment.

5 It is the comparison of the mean 

6 uranium intakes for '66 to '79 versus '80 to 

7 '90, and it is the .375 d per m per day versus 

8 the .188 d per m per day. Just trying to 

9 understand if one took the earlier excretion, 

10 mean excretion rates, compared them with the 

11 later ones, it appears -- now the TBD notes 

12 that these were pretty close.

13 On the other hand, one is a factor 

14 of two higher than the other. So I just 

15 wondered if you were able to find out more 

16 about that.

17 MR. ROLFES: Right. That was a 

18 valid point. So what we did to address that, 

19 we went back and looked at that earlier 

20 bioassay data, in addition to those 300 urine 

21 samples that were collected, and that is what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 we are proposing to use now. We have 

2 calculated the 95th percentile intake rate 

3 from roughly 400 uranium urinalyses from 1959 

4 up to 1990.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: So, basically --

6 I am just trying to understand. Basically, 

7 this is in terms of a mean uranium intake for 

8 that period, those are valid numbers, because 

9 I haven't actually crunched all the data. I 

10 am assuming that is a valid number.

11 That is kind of where I am going 

12 back to what we talked about earlier. We can 

13 talk about people's recollections and the 

14 weight of evidence, but one difficulty and 

15 challenge for this topic, when you get before 

16 1990, is a lot of it is we get into weight of 

17 evidence.

18 This one, actually, I thought, was 

19 -- in terms of the issue, was pretty relevant, 

20 meaning that it sort of compares the 1990s 

21 data that was in the ER with the previous 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 data, and again it just appears as a contrast.

2 DR. NETON: You take and assign 

3 all workers an excretion rate that is equal to 

4 -- greater than 95 percent of all the samples 

5 that were taken of the 400. So you take the 

6 95th percentile of 400 samples and say 

7 everybody is excreting that -- is assigned 

8 that excretion rate.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: And that is --

10 Maybe I am backing into what I thought we have 

11 already discussed. Excuse me, if I am, but 

12 that is where, I guess, I am thinking about 

13 statistics. I am just thinking that, again, 

14 we know we don't have a lot of data from the 

15 early years, and that what data we do have you 

16 are blending in, but it clearly suggests that 

17 the data from the early years is higher, much 

18 higher than the nineties data, and it seems to 

19 take a 95th percentile of what you got, which 

20 is these samples over the 20-25 years here and 

21 there, because they just didn't do that much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 sampling, and the 305 high quality ones from 

2 1990. You put them together in a pot, and you 

3 basically say I am taking the 95th percentile.

4 It just seems to me that the data 

5 is going to be skewed, if your distribution, 

6 even with the 95th percentile, may not be 

7 representative of the earlier time.

8 DR. NETON: Take 400 samples at 

9 the site during this long time period, and 

10 largely many of those were incident-based, we 

11 are saying. You take the 95th percentile of 

12 those. It is hard for us to imagine that 

13 anyone was chronically exposed at a level that 

14 would be greater than the 95th percentile 

15 excretion rate. It is hard to fathom that 

16 that would be the case.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that is 

18 what I am trying to get to. It seems to me, 

19 this is a -- it is a judgment call. It is 

20 hard to fathom versus actually having a 

21 representative set of data from the pre-1990. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 We are doing the best we can. We got what we 

2 got. You got the data that you have to live 

3 with. I am just saying that it seems to me 

4 that we are proposing that we think the data 

5 points that we do have from the early years, 

6 understanding that they seem to be much higher 

7 than the ones in 1990 --

8 DR. NETON: I would have to go 

9 back and look at --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: -- it's a factor 

11 of two.

12 MR. ROLFES: Just for one specific 

13 laboratory, it was a factor of two higher 

14 intakes based upon the bioassay data -- would 

15 be a factor of two higher, and I think it was 

16 largely based upon the laboratory who 

17 conducted the bioassay and that analyses. 

18 For example, in 1959, Los Alamos 

19 National Laboratory actually had a pretty low 

20 -- they were reporting less than -- I think it 

21 was around one microgram per liter. Some of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 the independent laboratories might have been 

2 reporting 5 micrograms per liter as their 

3 minimum detectable amount of uranium in urine.

4 So it was contingent upon which 

5 laboratory or commercial lab did the analyses.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Mark, let me just 

7 finish this. I understand that. I think you 

8 do the best you can, but in terms of objective 

9 data, not subjective data or weight of 

10 evidence data, but objective evidence or data, 

11 I think this is the hardest we have as far as 

12 contrasting the information from 1990 with the 

13 information from the earlier years and trying 

14 to figure out whether it is feasible to use 

15 the data that we do have and how we use it.

16 I think the first judgment that 

17 was made in the ER was, does earlier data have 

18 really enough of it necessarily, and it is 

19 questionable quality, but we have these 305 

20 gold-plated bioassay samples from 1990, and we 

21 have a lot of confidence in that information 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 and, oh, by the way, because this was a final 

2 dismantlement campaign, say, so to speak, from 

3 28, that we think that would be the number to 

4 bound.

5 Now we are backing off a little 

6 bit from that and saying, okay, why don't we 

7 take in all this data. I am trying to 

8 reconcile the original position with the new 

9 position, saying, okay, I see where you are 

10 going. And, certainly, we raised this 

11 question about the earlier data, but I am 

12 still having difficulty with wrapping that 

13 earlier data with all those qualifiers and 

14 throwing it into a distribution, taking a 95th 

15 percentile, and feeling confident that it is 

16 going to not miss the data that wasn't 

17 collected from the earlier years and it is 

18 making the best stab at coming up with a 

19 conservative value, but it is not getting past 

20 the fact that you don't have good data from 

21 the earlier years. You do have data, but it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 is not good data, which essentially was the 

2 context of what the ER said.

3 That is where I have a problem 

4 with the approach. I think it is a better 

5 approach, quite frankly, than just hanging 

6 your hat on '90 and saying, you know, this is 

7 the bounding, end of story. But I still think 

8 the statistics and the quality of the data 

9 that is part of this analysis is still 

10 questionable, particularly given this 

11 observation in the TBD that you have -- you 

12 know, granted, laboratories sometimes do 

13 slightly different analyses, but these are 

14 National Labs.

15 So I don't think they are going to 

16 be tremendously off, but you have a factor of 

17 two, a factor of two difference between the 

18 sixties and 1990. It is not 10 percent, 20 

19 percent. It is a factor of two.

20 MR. ROLFES: The same lab can get 

21 a factor of two difference in a sample on a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 day to day basis.

2 DR. NETON: I, frankly, am not 

3 familiar with how some of that data looked in 

4 the earlier time frame, whether it is based on 

5 different detection limits that are driving 

6 that factor. So in fact, I guess I can't.

7 DR. MAURO: This is John. Can I 

8 jump in a little bit, just to collect my 

9 thoughts and the way in which this is being 

10 described. It might be helpful for me, but it 

11 may be helpful for others.

12 Can everyone hear me okay?

13 MR. KATZ: We hear you perfectly.

14 DR. MAURO: What I am hearing, Jim 

15 and Joe, is that you really have two 

16 strategies that are being entertained. One 

17 strategy is you have got a collection of very 

18 good data in the later years, the '90s, and 

19 the big question is, okay, can we use that 

20 data somehow to bound exposures that may have 

21 occurred decades before.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 One line of argument, which in 

2 theory -- and, of course, these are where the 

3 judgments come in -- could be used is that, 

4 well, you have got the following weight of 

5 evidence that said, yes, you can do that. One 

6 is the process knowledge. That is your 

7 knowledge of what went on in the past may not 

8 be substantively different than what was going 

9 on in the '90s. 

10 Certainly, Brad has pointed out, 

11 well, there were differences, and the degree 

12 to which those differences are important, of 

13 course, need to be aired, but that would be 

14 like level one. Okay, process knowledge 

15 arguments.

16 The second one that I heard is 

17 that there are also what I call the Adley 

18 arguments. This is that special study that 

19 was done where lots and lots of data were 

20 collected regarding uranium airborne dust 

21 loadings for a whole variety of different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 operations, and one could argue that, okay, if

2 you look at the Adley data and all the 

3 different kinds of things that were done, just 

4 about everything you could think of, and if 

5 somehow you could say, well, the kinds of 

6 things that took place in the early years 

7 somehow fit into the kinds of things that

8 Adley describes as operation type X as being 

9 reasonably representative. 

10 So in that regard, you sort of 

11 have a surrogate data line of argument that is 

12 separate from the process to actually look at 

13 as a little bit different than the process 

14 knowledge.

15 Then the third one is you have got 

16 some early measurements that you are really 

17 not that comfortable with, but they are there, 

18 and those measurements somehow could be, okay, 

19 if I have got those measurements, are they 

20 compatible, consistent with -- not 

21 incorporating or blending them into your 1990s 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 data, but say, well, let me ask a question a 

2 different way.

3 Here is my 1990s data. Is there 

4 anything about the earlier data that tells me 

5 that the 1990 data does not bound it or those 

6 datasets are incompatible, just doesn't make 

7 sense?

8 So what I am hearing is, if you 

9 use what I call the non-blended approach that 

10 I guess you originally used, and you are 

11 making your case saying that the non-blended 

12 approach -- go with the 95th percentile for 

13 the 1990 data, and the way you validate that 

14 for extrapolation back in time is through 

15 compelling arguments along the lines of the 

16 process knowledge, the Adley data, and the use 

17 of the earlier measurements together.

18 If together those argue favorably 

19 that, yes, the 1990 data are bounding, I think 

20 you will have made a strong case. It sounds 

21 like there are some questions regarding that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Now finally, and I will make one 

2 more statement, the alternative approach is 

3 the blended approach, and it sounds like that 

4 is something new. I would have to say that 

5 the blended approach is -- my first reaction 

6 to it is that, if you have questionable data 

7 about its representativeness, quality, 

8 completeness and that sort of thing, and to 

9 blend that into your 1990 data, I think that 

10 is actually trying to mix two sets of data 

11 that may not be compatible, and actually hurt 

12 your distribution and the validity of the 

13 approach.

14 So my sense right now from 

15 listening to this interesting story is that 

16 the unblended approach coupled up with an 

17 argument that you can make your case on 

18 process knowledge, Adley, and early 

19 measurements, that would be the line of 

20 approach that could be the most compelling, 

21 whether it will hold up or not.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 What I am hearing is there is some 

2 question regarding whether or not you have 

3 those three levels of weight of evidence to 

4 support your position.

5 The way I just characterized it, 

6 is that a fair representation of where the 

7 issues lie?

8 DR. NETON: I think so, John, and 

9 I would say that I am in pretty much complete 

10 agreement with you.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me clarify, 

12 though, that he just said that the blended 

13 approach would --

14 DR. NETON: No, I agree. I have 

15 problems with the blended approach as well.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

17 DR. NETON: I think it is a more 

18 compelling argument to take the 300 samples 

19 that you have in a distribution and ascertain 

20 what the chronic exposure could have been over 

21 that five-year campaign with a much higher 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 workload and a higher potential for oxidation, 

2 and now you can go back and look at the

3 earlier years -- and John exactly said the 

4 right thing.

5 First of all, does that make 

6 sense, given what I know about -- the intakes 

7 that we are prescribing based on that 

8 approach, does that make sense, given what we 

9 know about the vast knowledge of people 

10 handling uranium itself?

11 We have a lot of knowledge of 

12 people handling uranium pieces, derbies, 

13 dingots, grinding, shaping, welding. If you 

14 go back at the Kingsley and Harrison or the 

15 Adley documents and it is consistent with that 

16 in that right same range, then you have a good 

17 feeling.

18 The only remaining piece then is, 

19 as Brad pointed out, are there significant 

20 process differences that would make that not 

21 valid for extrapolation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. FITZGERALD: For the record, I 

2 am kind of confused now, because what you are 

3 saying basically is that the current proposal 

4 of blending, you would agree, may not be the 

5 way to go, but maybe go back to the original -

6 - use the 1990s data, but along the lines of 

7 what John has outlined, make a stronger case 

8 for the continuity of operations and those 

9 kinds of arguments.

10 Okay, we will go back to --

11 DR. NETON: We are open for 

12 discussion.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I know, I know. 

14 I am just trying to figure out where I am 

15 standing, because --

16 DR. NETON: You have heard what I 

17 think.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. I am just 

19 saying, though, that that takes us back to the 

20 discussion we had in Germantown, which is on 

21 the 1990s data being bounding as well -- well, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 bounding, because it would then envelope 

2 previous exposure potentials and -- okay. 

3 Well, all right.

4 DR. NETON: Now that I have heard 

5 about the campaign and the magnitude of the 

6 workload, I feel very comfortable with that 

7 bounding unless there is something else I can 

8 hear that convinces me that they were doing 

9 something substantially different with these 

10 inspections or disassemblies in the earlier 

11 years that would generate more airborne than--

12 MR. FITZGERALD: That where I 

13 guess I still have to reconcile -- we don't 

14 have very much hard data to go with on the 

15 early years versus '90, but we just talked 

16 about the fact that what data we do have --

17 and it is highlighted in the internal 

18 dosimetry TBD. The early data is a factor of 

19 two -- the mean is a factor of two higher than 

20 the 1990s data.

21 I know you are shaking your head, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 but I guess I just have trouble, and there 

2 isn't that much that you can use to contrast.

3 DR. NETON: We would have to go 

4 back and look at the distributions. I haven't 

5 looked at those for a while. I apologize.

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I have a 

7 problem with that, too, because here is my 

8 catch. We keep talking about airborne 

9 contamination. We all know workers scratch 

10 their heads, wipe the sweat away, things like 

11 this. So you have this transfer of material 

12 that is not necessarily airborne.

13 DR. NETON: Well, Phil, that is 

14 true, but our model incorporates an ingestion 

15 component as well. The ingestion is in there. 

16 The fact is that a dose from ingestion is 

17 much, much smaller than any dose that would 

18 accrue via inhalation.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I would like to 

20 know what basis you can say that, because you 

21 could have both inhalation at that point, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 you could have ingestion, too. It could enter 

2 both pathways into the body.

3 DR. NETON: Well, we do, Phil, and 

4 that is accounted for in the current approach, 

5 but when you ingest something, a small 

6 percentage of it is absorbed into the body. 

7 Most of it goes out the other end. When you 

8 inhale it, it is directly deposited in the 

9 lung, and that is what ends up giving you the 

10 larger component of dose. It is not ignored. 

11 It is included, but it is in there.

12 MS. RAY: This is Sara Ray. Can I 

13 ask a question?

14 MR. KATZ: Go ahead, Sara.

15 MS. RAY: Are you taking into 

16 consideration the ongoing practice that is 

17 well documented of burning the depleted 

18 uranium? The fire department did it for 

19 training purposes, and many, many items were 

20 contained in the materials that were burned in 

21 open pits, and this was dispersed into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 air.

2 MR. ROLFES: Sara, this is Mark 

3 Rolfes. What we are trying to focus on right 

4 now is specific to the assembly and 

5 disassembly operations conducted in the plant. 

6 In addition to the bioassay data that were 

7 collected at the site historically, we also 

8 have bioassay data from, for example, the 

9 firing sites and the burn grounds, which were 

10 not included in this specific analysis or 

11 discussion, but those data are considered 

12 separately.

13 MS. RAY: Bioassay was not done in 

14 the a timely manner on the Cell 1 incident. 

15 That is fairly common knowledge.

16 MR. ROLFES: Sure. Yes, there was 

17 a delay. We are aware there was a delay in 

18 between the collection of bioassay data 

19 following that 1989 incident. Well, you are 

20 referring to Cell 1. So you are referring to 

21 the tritium release, which is different than 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 the depleted uranium chronic exposures that we 

2 are referring to.

3 MS. RAY: That was also a common 

4 practice, was the delay, because there were so 

5 few people in the safety department, and the 

6 operations were basically 24/7 during the 

7 early years, especially during the war years.

8 MR. ROLFES: Since we know the 

9 date that this incident occurred, and we have 

10 the date that the bioassays were collected, we 

11 consider that in the dose reconstruction 

12 process; and if we don't know the date, for 

13 example, we can take a mid-point between a 

14 previous bioassay and the most recent bioassay 

15 result and usually use the mid-point between 

16 those two to estimate a reasonable and 

17 claimant-favorable intake to assign internal 

18 dose.

19 MS. RAY: Oh, you are using the 

20 earlier, questionable data, from what you are 

21 saying.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. ROLFES: I'm sorry, Sara Ray. 

2 Could you please repeat what you said? I 

3 didn't catch that.

4 MS. RAY: Then you were saying 

5 that you take an earlier point, a mid-point, 

6 and a later point, and you are trying to come 

7 up with a good figure using these. I was just 

8 saying you are using the earlier data that is 

9 questionable.

10 MR. ROLFES: Well, this is a 

11 common practice in internal dosimetry. If 

12 there is an incident that you don't know the 

13 date of, and you have bioassay data that was 

14 collected prior to the incident and bioassay 

15 data that was collected after the incident, we 

16 actually would use -- if we didn't know the 

17 date that the incident occurred, we would use 

18 the most claimant-favorable incident date to 

19 interpret that bioassay data to assign the 

20 highest possible and claimant-favorable 

21 internal dose in our dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 process.

2 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

3 Kathy. I have a similar question along that 

4 line. Do you have a solubility determination 

5 for this uranium?

6 MR. ROLFES: Most uranium, if you 

7 take a look at uranium metal, it is usually 

8 Type M with a little portion of Type S. We 

9 usually assume the most claimant-favorable 

10 solubility factor based upon the target organ 

11 in our dose reconstruction.

12 So if we have a lung cancer case 

13 that we are reconstructing a dose for, we 

14 would assume that the uranium is insoluble and 

15 that it resides in the lungs a longer period 

16 of time and results in a higher internal dose.

17 If it is a systemic organ, we 

18 would choose something that is more soluble, 

19 because it would deliver more dose to systemic 

20 organs.

21 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: So we are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 talking about bioassay collected one year 

2 after the incident, and we are talking about 

3 solubility Class M.

4 MR. ROLFES: What we are talking 

5 about is the same as what we have had in our 

6 Site Profile for the past several years. We 

7 have bioassay data that was collected after a 

8 1989 incident which would essentially bound 

9 any potential exposure incurred by employees 

10 for the five-year operation from 1984 through 

11 1989. 

12 DR. NETON: Actually, both 

13 solubility classes or types were modeled, and 

14 that is what can see in our report, Type M and 

15 Type S.

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I guess my 

17 concern is what is left in the urine after you 

18 have waited a year to take the bioassay 

19 sample? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu --

21 what is in the urine a year after the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 exposure, regardless of solubility class --

2 well, particularly for more soluble types, 

3 intermediate and soluble -- is the uranium 

4 that is being decorporated from where it 

5 deposited initially.

6 DR. NETON: But if you have 

7 inhaled this material for five years and it 

8 deposited in your kidney and your skeleton and 

9 other depositional loci --

10 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: We have had 

11 this discussion before where there was a delay 

12 in the bioassay sampling, and in order to see 

13 the detection level at that time that it was 

14 taken, you would have had to have taken in a 

15 lot more for, say, Type M than Type S.

16 DR. NETON: Correct. That is 

17 factored into the calculations. These are 

18 modeled based on the standard ICRP metabolic 

19 models, and that is accounted for.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Well, models aside, 

21 I am still having trouble with the lack of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 bioassay data in the earlier years.

2 DR. NETON: But again, I wish 

3 someone could give me an idea why the process 

4 campaign in the five-year period was orders of 

5 magnitude more workload of the same weapons 

6 than what happened in the preceding years, why 

7 that would not be a bounding scenario. What 

8 happened differently to generate more airborne 

9 on a daily basis than what would have been 

10 observed in the five-year campaign?

11 MR. FITZGERALD: At the risk of 

12 being repetitive, my answer would be it is all 

13 subjective. You know, we can talk to people 

14 and ask them their opinion as to the 30 years 

15 of -- you are talking 30 years, three decades 

16 of handling of this system and trying to get 

17 them involved in more contemporary -- at the 

18 very beginning. I was trying to find people 

19 that could at least remember talking to 

20 somebody who did do the early systems, but we 

21 are trying to say that over 30 years, from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 1960 to 1990, the operations were normalized 

2 such that you could backfit these values.

3 We have been looking for objective 

4 information. I mean all of us have, actually. 

5 I am looking at this as sort of a search for 

6 something that would give this a hard edge,

7 other than the fact that we have to rely on 

8 people's recollections and judgments and what 

9 have you.

10 Again, I tend to find the only 

11 thing that I can hang a hat on is the values 

12 that were cited in the NIOSH TBD where, quite 

13 apart from whether we think they were the same 

14 or quite apart from whether you can't imagine 

15 that they would be different, the mean 

16 excretion rates for workers handling the W-28 

17 in the early years was double the mean 

18 excretion rates of the workers that handled it 

19 in 1990. I can't get past that.

20 Everything else is conjecture on 

21 our part to say could they have handled it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that much differently or not. Now I guess I 

2 am with Brad from the standpoint that over 30 

3 years, the radiological controls improved to 

4 the extent that -- you know, they were 

5 vacuuming up the cells a little better, and 

6 weren't letting things get too crapped up, and 

7 there was that degree of diligence, but there 

8 wasn't really a formal program until the 

9 overhaul in 1990. But there was an evolution 

10 where things got slightly better over time, as 

11 there is in any plant. We are talking 30 

12 years.

13 So if it was five or 10 years, I 

14 would have less of a problem saying that there 

15 was a reasonable chance the operations were 

16 much the same, rad controls were similar, and 

17 you could confidently apply that. But 30 

18 years? That is almost the entire operating 

19 history of the plant up to that point, and we 

20 are trying to make that assumption in the 

21 absence of any objective evidence.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 The only objective evidence we 

2 have points to a factor of two difference in 

3 what seems to be an indicator of exposure. 

4 That is the inescapable point.

5 When I look at what is objective 

6 and what is subjective, the objective evidence 

7 is that mean average, and I don't think trying 

8 to apply a 95th percentile is going to do you 

9 any good, because you are looking at data that 

10 is incomplete at best.

11 Yes, back in the early days they 

12 certainly had no systemic bioassay program. 

13 So we are assuming they kind of did bioassays 

14 on the worst case. If they had a release of 

15 some sort or somebody thought it looked pretty 

16 messy in the cell, they did a bioassay sample, 

17 but there was no regime there. It was a 

18 judgment call, not necessarily even by an HP.

19 So how can we even know that a 

20 95th percentile of that hodge-podge back then

21 would give you any reasonable assessment of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 conditions that would be comparable? To me, 

2 it is apples and oranges. You are trying to 

3 apply a statistical test of data that is 

4 small, to begin with, and incomplete to a set 

5 of data that we know is pretty darn good up 

6 front.

7 So I am just saying, I don't know 

8 where you go with that.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I was going to say, 

10 Joe, isn't it true interview notes say -- you 

11 interviewed an engineer. He said '89 wasn't 

12 even the worst case. There was worse prior to 

13 that. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: You know, we 

15 wanted to raise that question. Irregardless 

16 of the answer, I think, if this decision comes 

17 down to trying to get people to make a 

18 judgment call of was this worse or was this 

19 worse or did you think the one before that was 

20 worse, to me, it doesn't matter if you are 

21 asking people to say, you know, 20 years ago 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 was that '89 worse than all the ones that came 

2 before?

3 DR. NETON: How are we going to 

4 know whether '89 was the worst? We have 

5 already talked about that.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: No, but I am just 

7 saying that, you know, Josie raises the 

8 question. I am just saying that I don't think 

9 that part of it -- maybe we are in agreement 

10 here -- that part of it matters, because we 

11 are asking people to recollect and make a 

12 judgment or a value call which is completely 

13 nontechnical. Was it the worst? Who knows?

14 DR. NETON: The real question is, 

15 is the '84-'89 work conditions and the 

16 subsequent bioassay samples bounding of the 

17 previous years? That is the question. That 

18 is the question, not whether one is worse than 

19 the others.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: But, you know, we 

21 are using the values in '90 for that five-year 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 period as the bounding question. 

2 DR. NETON: That is all we are 

3 saying.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, 

5 and I am just saying that, in doing so -- and 

6 you are couching it a little differently --

7 that we are still saying that the values from 

8 that five-year period would be bounding, 

9 because we can't imagine that the exposure 

10 potential would have been higher than that 

11 reflected in those bioassays.

12 DR. NETON: For various reasons.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I am 

14 just saying that that is a weight of evidence 

15 value judgment. I think we said that earlier, 

16 and I am trying to reconcile that with the 

17 only objective information that I have, which 

18 is these values we keep going back to. I am 

19 just making the case that I don't think doing 

20 a statistical analysis of the early data to 

21 compare it with the more contemporary data is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 going to demonstrate anything. We already 

2 know that data is incomplete and --

3 DR. NETON: You are back to the 

4 other aspect, which is what makes sense on an 

5 empirical basis of what we know about handling 

6 uranium. Can you generate more than 14 dpm 

7 per cubic meter on a continuous basis from 

8 this operation, knowing we have a lot of data 

9 about experience with people dealing with 

10 uranium in nonventilated situations, whether 

11 they are inspecting something, they are just 

12 moving it or shaping it. 

13 You have sort of a lot of 

14 empirical data out there. It gives you a 

15 sense that you can only get so much in the 

16 air, doing what we know was done on this 

17 project. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I would --

19 DR. NETON: And that binds up 

20 nicely -- matches up nicely with the 

21 urinalysis data.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. FITZGERALD: I have two 

2 problems with that. One, I think from NIOSH's 

3 own hierarchy, before we turn to modeling or 

4 modeling assumptions, I think we have to look 

5 at what hard data exists. I think we have 

6 mean excretion rates for both periods of time 

7 in question. 

8 So, actually, you know, it is the 

9 only actual -- you call it empirical --

10 empirical information we have. I think that 

11 has got to take precedence over modeling. 

12 That is one issue.

13 DR. NETON: We are not modeling. 

14 We are validating.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, we are 

16 using a set of assumptions based on, whether 

17 it is Adley -- we are using those assumptions. 

18 I am just saying that we have actual 

19 measurements that were taken at the time.

20 The second thing I want to raise: 

21 we talked about contamination surveys and air 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 sampling, but I want to make sure that the 

2 Work Group is reminded of a review -- and this 

3 is on the SRDB, and I know you guys are 

4 familiar with this -- by the Albuquerque 

5 Operations Office.

6 They were rather chastened by the 

7 Tiger Team when they went through earlier and 

8 found a number of serious issues with the 

9 internal program, but as you know, Tiger Teams 

10 were compliance based. So they didn't go into 

11 the actual practices as deep. So Albuquerque 

12 ordered up a follow-on evaluation focused 

13 specifically on the internal dosimetry program 

14 and how it stood up with accepted practice.

15 I want to read just these 

16 findings. I want to make sure we are reminded 

17 of how things were from the air monitoring 

18 standpoint as well as contamination survey 

19 standpoint. This is a review that took place 

20 October 30th to November 3, 1989, so very much 

21 in the same time frame, reflecting backward on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 existing practice.

2 "First, no fixed air sampling 

3 stations. Second, air monitoring system used 

4 as a remote alarming monitoring" -- it is a 

5 RAM system -- "and not for quantifying air 

6 concentration." 

7 So RAMs were designed to detect 

8 accidental releases and not breathing zone 

9 air, never intended to be representative of 

10 air sample, never intended to be used to 

11 assess dose. It was simply an alarming 

12 system.

13 "There were, and are, no areas 

14 controlled for potential airborne or surface 

15 contamination except in the 12-44 Cell 1 where 

16 the tritium incident occurred. No self17 monitoring and no chronic low level airborne 

18 contamination monitoring. Self-monitoring was 

19 not performed except at the waste compaction 

20 operation in the B28 disassembly, and the 

21 operating and inspection standard for B28 was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 not specific as to who performed personal 

2 monitoring" -- this is what Albuquerque says -

3 - "or even if it is performed." So there was 

4 some question as to whether or not there was 

5 even monitoring performed.

6 "Use of nose swipes or special 

7 surveys were at the discretion of the 

8 radiation protection technician with little 

9 written guidance from written procedures. 

10 Evidence that this system was not adequate is 

11 most obvious in a recent DU contamination 

12 incident" -- which is the one that we have 

13 been talking about. "This disassembly program 

14 resulting in this contamination was in 

15 progress for several years" -- as we know --

16 "before a full assessment of internal exposure 

17 potential was initiated. The current 

18 contamination monitoring program is not 

19 adequate in type and frequency of swipes and 

20 surveys to assess workplace contamination."

21 "Disassembly workers observed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 visible airborne black dust during the years 

2 of routine operations before the incident."

3 The reason I am raising this is 

4 that there was not a reliable contamination 

5 survey program at the site. The air 

6 monitoring results were based on data from the 

7 RAMs themselves, and I think that was taken 

8 into question by the site.

9 The cautionary note on using a lot 

10 of this data pre-1990, before they actually 

11 overhauled all these programs, is to keep in 

12 mind that they were collected in a way which, 

13 even at the time, the Albuquerque HPs and the 

14 consultants from the labs that helped the 

15 review found wanting.

16 That is the only context I would 

17 provide on that one, is that I think we got to 

18 be careful if we tag the air monitoring 

19 results, survey results, and the contamination 

20 survey results too religiously in this case, 

21 because at the time they were found to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 inadequate in terms of doing the job.

2 Just as a backdrop -- I read this 

3 in your analysis. The thing I keep going back 

4 to is I am not sure if you have qualified that 

5 so called corroboration -- you are 

6 corroborating, I think, some of the data --

7 with the fact that the programs under which 

8 that data was collected were wholly deficient 

9 as determined by Albuquerque in their review 

10 at the time; because this was surfaced by the 

11 Tiger Team. They felt they had to go in and 

12 look at it, and they found it to be completely 

13 inadequate. These are the findings. We have 

14 the review.

15 I just want to make sure. It is 

16 not every piece of data, but I am just saying 

17 that in terms of the programs that were in 

18 place to collect the data, I want to make sure 

19 that that context is clear.

20 MR. ROLFES: I think you made a 

21 couple of points there, and I will try to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 address them. The use of the data that was 

2 collected in 1990 represents chronic exposures 

3 that would have occurred over those past five 

4 years. We have that data.

5 So it becomes a matter of 

6 interpretation of the data how we completed 

7 dose reconstruction, not if we completed dose 

8 reconstruction.

9 Regarding the collection of data, 

10 yes, there are certainly fewer bioassay 

11 results in the earlier years. The first year 

12 that they started sampling people for uranium 

13 exposure was in 1959. I think there were 

14 roughly about 12 or 15 individuals that were 

15 sampled, maybe 10. I would have to look back.

16 Then we have some additional data 

17 again in 1961. It is about every two years we 

18 have a group of bioassay data that is 

19 collected.

20 To get back to what you had said 

21 about not having a reliable contamination 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 survey program really bothered me, just 

2 because of some of the things. Now I am 

3 saying there may be exceptions to this, but we 

4 recently came across this memo from 1959. It 

5 is from Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason, basically 

6 the people operating the Pantex plant.

7 They sent some correspondence to 

8 the Y-12 plant, basically describing that, 

9 basically, upon receipt everything that they 

10 received is placed on brown paper and swiped. 

11 Swipes are taken over the entire container 

12 and the components themselves.

13 Basically, Pantex has stated, when 

14 positive swipes were obtained and verified, 

15 the container is cleaned; usually a deep 

16 Kleenex is sufficient -- a damp Kleenex, 

17 excuse me. You can barely read the writing 

18 here. 

19 There is an important point here. 

20 It says, "We are committed to the Army 

21 Ordnance Department to allow no detectable, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 removable contamination into the assembly 

2 area." So, basically, in 1959 there is data 

3 here showing the results of the surveys for 

4 shipments to the Pantex Plant, and also a 

5 pretty bold statement that says they have 

6 committed to the Army that they will allow no 

7 detectable, removable contamination into the 

8 assembly cell.

9 So, basically, when components are 

10 received on site, they are surveyed. If 

11 anyone needs to clean them, it would be people 

12 that are trained in radiation safety. Those 

13 components would be placed in storage or 

14 released to assembly as a clean component.

15 So work would be done to assemble 

16 that weapon, and then that weapon would be 

17 sent out to the military or put into the 

18 stockpile.

19 Really, you know, the components 

20 may have some removable contamination. There 

21 are survey results showing 200 dpm removable 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 of 1197 dpm. They range from 200 to 1500 dpm 

2 here. But that --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Mark, can I stop 

4 you right there? Yes, I know we have had this 

5 discussion before.

6 MR. ROLFES: This is new. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, my point 

8 is, absolutely, Pantex had a rigorous 

9 contamination control program on the assembly 

10 side. In fact, they had one mishap, which I 

11 won't get into, where some contamination 

12 creeped in, and it was a big deal, and they 

13 actually really had to clamp down even 

14 further.

15 So I don't have any argument that 

16 the rigor of the contamination control program 

17 on the assembly side was there. You could not 

18 deliver to the customer something that was 

19 even slightly contaminated in Mel's lab, 

20 because that would be not good. 

21 On the disassembly side, they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 shared a blind spot -- I actually talked to 

2 Mel about this at breakfast -- a blind spot 

3 for depleted uranium that most of the complex 

4 had. It was no fault of anybody. It just 

5 was, from a dose standpoint, DU just didn't 

6 figure very prominently compared with 

7 everything else, and wherever low-enriched or 

8 depleted uranium was handled in the complex, 

9 it just wasn't afforded the attention and 

10 rigor and formality that everything else was. 

11 That is just the way it was, and 

12 it wasn't given that attention until the late 

13 eighties, early nineties when a consistent 

14 standardized health physics program was put in 

15 place by virtue of the orders and the Price16 Anderson regulations and the Tiger Team. 

17 So that is when you started 

18 getting a uniform approach and attention to 

19 something that was considered -- remember my 

20 old quote from Fernald when I was there in 

21 '85: "the only way you get hurt from DU is to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 have it land on your foot." That was told me 

2 by the plant manager. I was there to do a 

3 health physics review. So you can imagine the 

4 dissonance there.

5 So I am very familiar with --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I remember that. 

7 It was not the plant manager. It was actually 

8 the assistant plant manager.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay. So I 

10 am very familiar with the attitude for DU, and 

11 I can understand perfectly why, for many 

12 years, it just wasn't considered a big deal. 

13 As long as you were pristine on the assembly 

14 side, a little DU wasn't going to be a big 

15 deal on the disassembly side. However, we are 

16 talking about trying to figure out a means to 

17 dose reconstruct.

18 That is where this blind spot 

19 becomes sort of relevant to our issue, which 

20 is, because they didn't consider it a big 

21 deal, they just didn't monitor for it as they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 would everything else, and the data is sparse. 

2 It doesn't become plentiful until 1990, and 

3 through no fault of anybody. It is just the 

4 way it was.

5 The dilemma for Pantex is it was 

6 an assembly/disassembly plant, ostensibly 

7 pretty damn clean. I mean, I never lost sleep 

8 over Pantex and HP at headquarters, but from a 

9 dose reconstruction standpoint, because of 

10 that blind spot with DU, there is an issue. 

11 There is a hole, and that is what we are 

12 trying to resolve.

13 so I am not arguing about the 

14 rigor of the program on the assembly side. I 

15 think, on the disassembly side, you really 

16 only had -- the big issue was the 28, and I 

17 agree with that. You might have had some 

18 issues with the others, but the 28, because of 

19 the length of service and the unsealed nature 

20 of it and the fact it oxidized like crazy, it 

21 was a problem anytime you took it apart.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So there was exposure, and for 

2 some workers who handled and were on the line 

3 for 30 years, it probably was not 

4 insignificant. I don't have any idea what the 

5 dose value would be, but nonetheless, it is a 

6 real issue.

7 The only question is: how do we 

8 reconcile the lack of the data, because very 

9 little was collected before 1990, with this 

10 question about how do we come up with a dose 

11 reconstruction. 

12 So I am only raising some issues 

13 that are pretty clear but, yes, because there 

14 wasn't much attention, the contamination 

15 surveying, the air sampling and all the rest 

16 just wasn't what it should have been or could 

17 have been, and didn't really get changed until 

18 you had these kinds of reviews coming out at 

19 DOE that said, you know, we can't live with 

20 that anymore.

21 I think we have to treat what data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 we have before that time period in that 

2 context, that yes, we have data, but how it 

3 was collected and the quality of the data and 

4 all the rest of it comes into play. And 

5 whenever we use that to corroborate something, 

6 I think you always have to put an asterisk and 

7 a footnote saying, yes, but you know, these 

8 programs were not sufficient or adequate.

9 I am not saying it directly. I am 

10 just quoting the review from '89 when the HPs 

11 went in to look at it and said "voila." Now 

12 they were suffering from the same thing 

13 everybody else suffered. They could have said 

14 "voila" a year or two before that. They lived 

15 with the system as it was as well.

16 So the no flaw finding that, in 

17 '89 the system woke up to the fact that DU 

18 wasn't being controlled and surveyed in the 

19 way it should have been, and that that is when 

20 you started getting the data collection that 

21 would provide this program the grist for dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 reconstruction.

2 I guess I would feel differently 

3 if we had more objective information that said 

4 that the sixties and seventies, even though 

5 they were 20-30 years before, didn't appear 

6 any worse than the nineties. That would be 

7 surprising because of natural evolution of 

8 practice, but I can't get past this mean 

9 excretion rate that is in the TBD nor the fact 

10 that we have interviewed people that said, 

11 yes, you know, there were steps over time 

12 where things got tighter; they hired HPs and 

13 technicians, and there was a little more 

14 attention, use of vacuum cleaners. Things got 

15 a little cleaner as time went on.

16 I think we are just operating in a 

17 range of uncertainty about how much and when 

18 and, to the extent that any of these values 

19 are truly representative. I think that is 

20 where we are. I don't think it can be 

21 improved.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 The data that we have looked at in 

2 the past year for uranium is the same data. 

3 We haven't really added data -- I am talking 

4 about the bioassays now. We haven't added to 

5 that data, and the other data, whether it is 

6 air sampling or survey, I guess I would 

7 question based on this review and findings on 

8 the quality of that information and whether it 

9 would be used to corroborate your bioassay 

10 issue.

11 MR. BISTLINE: This is Bistline 

12 speaking. Could I interject a few thoughts at 

13 this point?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sure, Bob, go 

15 ahead.

16 MR. BISTLINE: In support of what 

17 Joe is saying, the objective information that 

18 we have, the differences in the values, the 

19 mean values, and then going back to the 

20 subjective side of it, in the interviews and 

21 so on that took place, we certainly see a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 great deal of difference in the process that 

2 was taking place in the eighties, the late 

3 eighties and early nineties versus what took 

4 place earlier on.

5 As you interview all of these 

6 different workers, and none of which were 

7 linked in any way, you get the same story 

8 about coming out black, black on their faces 

9 and blowing their noses and having black in 

10 their handkerchiefs, and working without 

11 gloves and respiratory protection in some of 

12 the early cases.

13 I think it behooves us to look at 

14 some of the processes and the information that 

15 is available through the interviews that have 

16 taken place. This goes all the way back. 

17 This process engineer that we interviewed 

18 talking about how, in modifications those 

19 units were taken apart all the way down to the 

20 bare bones, and that there was a great deal of 

21 contamination present.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 I think it is important that NIOSH 

2 gets to look at the interview notes that were 

3 taken with a couple of these people and the 

4 process and the information that they had to 

5 provide to us. Thank you.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

7 Hinnefeld. Bob, are those interview notes --

8 have those been cleared and redacted or are 

9 those all in Germantown? Even if some of them 

10 aren't cleared and redacted, it would be 

11 better to look at the unredacted.

12 MR. BISTLINE: Yes. I think those 

13 are still in Germantown, and I don't think 

14 they have been redacted as yet, and I think 

15 that is what Kathy was referring to, is that 

16 we really need some of those redacted notes, 

17 Jim, but certainly, if you could go back to 

18 Germantown and look at the interview notes, I 

19 think it would be very, very helpful.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, maybe Kathy 

21 can clarify one more time, because the set of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 interview notes up to August of last year, as 

2 I understand it, were, in fact, redacted and 

3 are available. Now the unredacted versions 

4 are available as well in Germantown. The 

5 interviews since then are the ones we have 

6 just done, and they are in Germantown, and 

7 they haven't been screened yet, in unredacted 

8 form. But there is all the Site Profile review 

9 interview notes and summaries have been 

10 reviewed and cleared, have they not, Kathy?

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Yes, and 

12 that includes SEC interviews up through, I 

13 believe, August 2010 also.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: And were they not 

15 forwarded?

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: They should 

17 have been distributed to the Working Group.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, they were 

19 distributed to the Work Group maybe a month 

20 ago. They finally came out of the DOE system, 

21 and those are actually -- there is a lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 interviews in there that support what Bob is 

2 saying, because the only thing that is lacking 

3 is the most recent ones. But the bulk of the 

4 ones that Bob is referring to are in that 

5 whole group that has now been transmitted and 

6 available.

7 So you can look at it now in 

8 redacted form, and you can certainly look at 

9 the unredacted version in Germantown. 

10 DR. MAURO: This is John. Could I 

11 also jump with a very quick statement? With 

12 that concept of a framework for decision 

13 making, the kind of things that we are talking 

14 about earlier about weight of evidence, et 

15 cetera, seems to me what Bob just described is 

16 extremely important in terms of, if there is 

17 interview information that says, gee, things 

18 were going on here that are quite unusual and 

19 our understanding of the processes and 

20 activities and the contamination may not be 

21 what we think they were, that goes toward our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 ability to use the 1990 data to extrapolate 

2 backward.

3 I think we are really getting to 

4 the heart of where the weight of the evidence 

5 lies, and looking at that information, and if 

6 that information is indicative of unexpected 

7 circumstances that might have existed at the 

8 time -- I am presuming this black dust that 

9 you are referring to is indicative of a 

10 substantial amount of uranium contamination --

11 that perhaps is incompatible with the 

12 understanding of the place and the fact that 

13 perhaps the 1990 data may not be appropriately 

14 applicable or bounding for the early years.

15 I think this gets to the heart of 

16 the matter. Anyway, I thought I would add 

17 that in as a framework for decisionmaking.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I appreciate 

19 that. I would like to at this time at least 

20 take a 15-minute break. We have all got

21 submarines in our eyes. So, Ted, if we could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 just mute it, we will come back in 15 minutes.

2 MR. KATZ: So we will be back --

3 folks on the phone, we will be back around 

4 eleven.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record at 10:47 a.m. and 

7 resumed at 11:00 a.m.)

8 MR. KATZ: All right. We are 

9 reconvening after a short break, Pantex Work 

10 Group, and we are talking about DU and related 

11 matters.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: With 

13 enthusiasm. 

14 MR. KATZ: With enthusiasm, yes.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I just wanted to 

16 make sure that everybody had -- John made a 

17 statement there at the very end. We wanted to 

18 make sure that, if there was anybody that 

19 wanted to respond to that or, if there were 

20 questions of what he was saying, to be able to 

21 have the opportunity to discuss that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I had a couple 

2 of points, I think, back to what Joe had 

3 mentioned. I know Joe made a few points, and 

4 then Bob Bistline made some points, and then 

5 John Mauro did. I was trying to wait 

6 patiently to, you know, discuss some of the 

7 data that we do have available to us that 

8 would point as indicators as to exposure 

9 potential.

10 Getting back, I think I mentioned 

11 earlier on, we had done an analysis of the 

12 average air concentrations within the cells in 

13 bays. Basically, our initial analysis from 

14 about three years ago evaluated 4300 air 

15 sample results.

16 We looked at the average air 

17 concentration changes over time. We had some 

18 bits and pieces of missing information that we 

19 now have been able to fill or are in the 

20 process of filling, and are using those just 

21 as a comparison. You know, we certainly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 realize that they are not breathing zone 

2 samples, but there are air samples which are 

3 taken.

4 We have got monitoring stations 

5 set up around the cell and the two bays and 

6 equipment rooms in that area, looking at 

7 potential airborne releases. We have looked 

8 at basically the highest concentrations that 

9 were measured and compared those to the 

10 intakes that we are assigning based upon 

11 uranium bioassay data.

12 The uranium bioassay data related 

13 intakes are more representative of actual 

14 workers' exposure, and they are also higher, 

15 but that higher is likely a result of the 

16 minimum detectable amount of the analysis and 

17 our interpretation of that data and the 

18 assumptions of chronic exposures over time.

19 That data, as we have said 

20 previously, was collected during the time 

21 period that work was likely the highest 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 potential for exposure to uranium, because 

2 that particular operation, which was conducted 

3 in '84 through '89, those were some of the 

4 oldest weapons in the stockpile. They had 

5 some of the largest uranium source term in 

6 them, and the uranium that was there was the 

7 most likely type of uranium, we will say, to 

8 oxidize, potentially.

9 We can go back -- there are some 

10 things that were said about the depleted 

11 uranium, that nobody cared about it. To say 

12 that, really, is not true. 

13 Even if someone says the only way 

14 that uranium could hurt you is if it dropped 

15 on your foot or head, I am sure that was said 

16 jokingly, but the data that are available to

17 us -- for example, from the Fernald facility, 

18 if you look at the actual data that were 

19 collected pre-1985, we are looking at hundreds 

20 of thousands of uranium urinalyses that were 

21 collected at the Fernald facility.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So it still appears to me that 

2 there was a concern about exposures to 

3 depleted uranium, because we have got quite a 

4 bit of data showing that they were monitoring 

5 workers for potential exposures.

6 The monitoring -- we can get into 

7 discussions of why the monitoring was done and 

8 such, but we have a Fernald Work Group 

9 tomorrow. 

10 Let's see. Looking back at some 

11 of the historical reports and incidents that I 

12 have seen, we have reports of incidents that 

13 occurred at the site where uranium was 

14 detected. There were elevated air samples. 

15 They were investigated. The materials 

16 involved were evaluated, and bioassays may 

17 have been collected as needed. 

18 That was determined based upon 

19 surveys of the cells, surveys of the work 

20 areas. There are numerous documents that we 

21 have available to us in that research 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 database, as well as health physics appraisals 

2 from the earlier time period which indicate 

3 that personnel exposure control and 

4 radioactive contamination control are 

5 excellent.

6 So there is good and bad. We have 

7 discussed this before. You have to take a 

8 weight of the evidence. You have to look at 

9 everything that we have available to us. We 

10 have looked at swipe data from the 1990-

11 forward period. We have looked at -- I think 

12 there is about 90,000-something swipes, which 

13 would show a bounding quantity of 

14 contamination build-up during a disassembly 

15 period.

16 If a component is clean when it is 

17 built into a weapon, the bounding quantity of 

18 contamination would be observed during the 

19 disassembly period, and the data that we have 

20 reviewed, if you look at those 93,000 samples 

21 in that characterization database that is on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 the K: drive for the Work Group, you can see 

2 that the majority of the swipe data indicates 

3 no removable contamination.

4 In addition to those electronic 

5 data that we have available to us, we had the 

6 opportunity to review some earlier swipe data 

7 from the 1980s on site at Pantex, and I think 

8 we came up with an estimate that there is 

9 probably an additional 100,000 to 150,000 

10 surveys covering about 30-something or 40 

11 different weapon programs.

12 So we have got a pretty broad 

13 scope of survey data that shows this is what 

14 the worst case scenario observable removable 

15 contamination could be from this particular 

16 part of this particular program.

17 In looking at the data, at least 

18 our quick perusal, it appeared that the worst 

19 case scenario was about 1 dpm per square 

20 centimeter of the removable alpha 

21 contamination. We are talking about a very, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 very small amount of removable contamination 

2 at the worst case that could be observed.

3 These can be used for dose 

4 reconstructions. However, we do not use these 

5 for dose reconstructions at this time. We are 

6 using this as just another piece of 

7 information, in addition to the air monitoring 

8 data, to say, hey, is our bioassay data in 

9 line with what we would expect.

10 Based upon my review, it looks 

11 like it is right in line with what we would 

12 expect, and that the approach that we have 

13 taken in dose reconstruction, by using the 

14 95th percentile, we feel that it would bound 

15 potential worker intakes.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Ted, I just 

17 wanted to make sure the other Board Members 

18 and Sara were on the line. Phil, are you on?

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I am.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Bob?

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Sara, 

2 did you make it back on?

3 MS. RAY: I am back on. Can I 

4 make a comment, Brad?

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sure.

6 MS. RAY: You know, I have been 

7 involved with this for five-plus years, and it 

8 sounds to me today, from what I am hearing 

9 Mark say, that he has changed his mind about 

10 the way that he wants to do it.

11 We are at a time now when all of 

12 this should start to be finalized. I have 

13 always felt like -- what I am hearing is the 

14 records aren't there. I just heard Mark talk 

15 about accident -- incident reports. I have 

16 seen the listings of them. There are 10-year 

17 gaps. Yet all of this information, to him, 

18 provides -- to use Joe's term, I think it is 

19 objective evidence.

20 I heard Mark talk about 

21 interpretation. It is the interpretation. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 That is subjective, to me. I have a real 

2 problem with the flip-flopping, and it seems 

3 to me that there is a certain amount of 

4 grasping at straws.

5 The original guidelines, and I 

6 have a copy of them on my computer, to NIOSH 

7 before any of this started was that dose 

8 reconstructions should be attempted, but 

9 should not be the cost that would ever be paid 

10 to a claimant. This has obviously not been 

11 done.

12 The person that all of this is 

13 hurting is the individual worker. It sounds 

14 to me today, listening, possibly that Mark has 

15 not even read the interviews. The worker 

16 history is the only, if you will, true history 

17 of what has happened, and yet the claimants 

18 have continually been left out of the process.

19 They are the really important part 

20 of it, and it is just frustrating to me what I 

21 am hearing today, and I think NIOSH could be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 made to abide by the same rules that we are or 

2 a claimant is. 

3 There are guidelines, and we 

4 follow them. We can't keep changing mid5 stream. This cannot go on for another five, 

6 too.

7 I appreciate you all listening. I 

8 would like to thank Brad and the Board and 

9 SC&A for what they are doing, but I am highly 

10 disappointed in what NIOSH has done and is 

11 attempting to do now. We have got to have 

12 constraints on what they are allowed to do. 

13 So thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

15 Sara. I appreciate that.

16 MR. ROLFES: Sara, this is Mark 

17 Rolfes. In regard to the interpretation, I 

18 don't remember the context of what I said 

19 interpretation of the data, but I think what I 

20 was referring to: when we interpret the data, 

21 if there is uncertainty involved in that data, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 use that uncertainty to the benefit of the 

2 doubt of the claimant during the dose 

3 reconstruction process.

4 MS. RAY: Well, and another thing, 

5 everything I am hearing you say, Mark -- it 

6 disagrees with what the Tiger Team said. It 

7 disagrees with the Ahearne Commission. There 

8 were several groups that looked at all of 

9 this, and it sounds like an attempt by you and 

10 others possibly -- and I don't mean this 

11 accusatory -- but we cannot rewrite history. 

12 We have to take history as it is.

13 If you are saying that the DOE 

14 reports are wrong, well, then you are taking 

15 their record. You can't have everything your 

16 way, so to speak. If one record is good, 

17 another is good. 

18 I just have a real problem with 

19 all of this.

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Sara.

21 MR. ROLFES: One other thing I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 wanted to speak to. We also did hear, Sara --

2 this is Mark again. We also did hear from the 

3 workers the exact same concerns that SC&A 

4 heard. We are not saying that worker 

5 exposures did not occur. That is not what we 

6 are saying.

7 We are saying that we have enough 

8 data available to us to enable us to bound 

9 what the worst case exposure potential could 

10 have been, and that is what we would use for 

11 dose reconstruction, if we had no data for 

12 that individual.

13 MS. RAY: I question whether or 

14 not that is what you need to be doing. I 

15 doubt if there was just one incident. You 

16 have one incident that you are -- one or two 

17 that you are dwelling on. But what about all 

18 of the other ones that were never recorded? 

19 I know you are saying that the 

20 number that you are using is higher, and it 

21 would be -- you know, higher than a worker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 could ever have over that same period of time, 

2 and I appreciate the science, that type of 

3 science. But I think you are not looking at 

4 past practice.

5 There was not one weapon in there. 

6 There were multiple weapons. So everything -

7 - it is a different scenario, I think, than 

8 what you are looking at. I think you are 

9 trying to box it into a neat little box, and 

10 there was no neat little box in the 1960s. 

11 My experience also -- the comment 

12 about the letter, those letters are often 

13 written -- the 1959 letter -- in response to 

14 something that happened. That wasn't just out 

15 of the blue: you are doing a good job. There 

16 was some reason that that letter was written, 

17 from my experiences in the complex.

18 I just really question that you 

19 will be able to go back and, honestly, for 

20 every single worker who had the potential for 

21 exposure, that you can go back and do a dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 reconstruction that would be fair to all 

2 workers using 1989 and 1990 operational 

3 processes and records. 

4 I don't think that you can take a 

5 car today and compare it to my 1955 Chevy 

6 pickup. I don't think records on my Navigator 

7 are going to, in any way, compare to my 

8 pickup. It is just not possible.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

10 Sara. Joe, did you want to respond to 

11 anything?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Just taking 

13 off from Sara's comment, for the record, we 

14 are trying to talk about the normalizing of 

15 operations, and we had this conversation one 

16 or two Work Groups ago about the fact that 

17 trying to take 1990s information and -- I 

18 won't use the word back-extrapolate -- but use 

19 it backwards to cover or to bound previous 

20 operations is troublesome, and for 30 years it 

21 is very troublesome.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Sara's comments brought to mind 

2 one particular issue, which I think would have 

3 a real bearing on this. In the earlier years 

4 of Pantex, they had three, four, five units in 

5 a bay at once, handling them in close 

6 proximity, and you had, just by virtue of 

7 handling multiple units, a much higher 

8 potential for source term in that area. That, 

9 over time, got restricted. They just wouldn't 

10 allow you to have that many.

11 Now it got down to three, two, and 

12 I think there were some procedures where it 

13 would limit it to one, but that is just one 

14 example of evolution of operations over that 

15 time frame which would have had a fairly 

16 significant bearing on available exposure 

17 potential, particularly of, say, the Rolf W28s 

18 being handled, which was quite plausible.

19 There are other issues in terms of 

20 controls and what have you, but those are the 

21 kind of issues that we are grappling with when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 we talk about normalization of operations in 

2 terms of making this kind of backfit, if you 

3 will, a viable and plausible way of doing it.

4 I am not going to get into the 

5 programmatic issues. I started jotting them 

6 down, Mark, but we covered this at the last 

7 Work Group meeting, and covered it over about 

8 six or seven hours. 

9 So all I would say is that 

10 programmatically, we can't rely on the 

11 programs, the procedures, the good intentions, 

12 what is written down as the basis for what 

13 actually happened, and whether or not that 

14 actually did happen. I don't want to get into 

15 that discussion again, but I think at the last 

16 Work Group meeting we spent a lot of time on 

17 outlining why this program, I think, can't 

18 place reliance on program assurance and 

19 programs implementation. So on those issues, 

20 I would stand pat.

21 Now in terms of the completeness 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 and adequacy of the air sampling data and the 

2 contamination data, we talked about that. 

3 Certainly, that data is there. I would only 

4 raise the question of how complete and valid 

5 it is as you go back before 1990, by virtue of 

6 the Albuquerque findings. In fact, they found 

7 them to be unreliable. The findings are right 

8 there, the basis for the findings are right 

9 there. So I will leave it at that. 

10 I don't want to go back there, but 

11 I still have problems using those calibration 

12 points for corroboration, just because the 

13 programs have been found to be flawed by 

14 contemporary HP views at the time.

15 I guess, in general, my take on 

16 the whole thing is that anytime, I think, this 

17 program is confronted with a back18 extrapolation, taking relatively current data 

19 and using it backwards -- as, I think, John 

20 pointed out earlier, we have to be extra 

21 careful about whether or not one can normalize 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 across those operations.

2 The longer the time period, the 

3 more care I think we have got to take, that in 

4 fact, you can make those assumptions. I gave 

5 you one example of a major change at Pantex 

6 where it went from multiple units to one or 

7 two, just simply because that was the change 

8 in practice over those 30 years.

9 There are other issues, I think, 

10 that we have raised in the past. That is one 

11 aspect, but I think also, Jim and I had this 

12 colloquial discussion back in Santa Fe about 

13 how one approaches exposure potential, and it 

14 was a good discussion.

15 We were trying to figure out --

16 Pantex was actually part of the discussion --

17 this notion that you have an exposure 

18 potential. How does one walk that down? I 

19 think there was agreement that one had to 

20 approach it from a quantitative standpoint. 

21 Certainly, one can look at programmatic issues 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 and other issues, but not as a first order, 

2 that one started with a quantitative analysis. 

3 That is required by the regulations.

4 Then one could go on to perhaps 

5 looking at secondary information such as air 

6 sample data and what not, and then even so far 

7 as to look at source term information in terms 

8 of characterizing operations. 

9 That is kind of how I looked at 

10 uranium -- this issue here, you know, starting 

11 with what was actually quantitative, objective 

12 information, and we have the bioassay samples, 

13 clearly, and we have some of the comparisons 

14 that were done, clearly.

15 I think where we stand today is 

16 that we have a set of data in the 1990s that 

17 is being proposed as a means to bound previous 

18 exposures, and I, for one, can't see any way 

19 to demonstrate that that necessarily bounds 

20 previous exposure scenarios that go back in 

21 time, when you might, in fact, have had four 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 or five W28s in one cell area or you might 

2 have had a handling protocol that was less 

3 rigorous, maybe fewer surveys by rad techs, 

4 because they didn't have very many rad techs 

5 in the beginning, but the notion that one can 

6 normalize over 30 years and claim that the 

7 operations and the controls were essentially 

8 bounded by the measurements in 1990, I just 

9 don't really find credible.

10 With the additional quantitative 

11 information -- again, quantitative 

12 information, comparing the sixties mean 

13 excretion values with the 1990s mean excretion 

14 values, and having a factor of two -- I think 

15 that raises a reasonable doubt that, in fact, 

16 you necessarily had the same exposure 

17 potential between those two periods of time.

18 So that is where we are, and that 

19 is where we have been for quite a while. I 

20 guess at this stage, what I am thinking about 

21 is: Is it likely that the quantitative data -
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 - I mean the hard data -- is going to be 

2 improved at this point? I don't think so. I 

3 think we have what we have. 

4 We have gone back to the site and 

5 dug more, but in terms of the hard data, the 

6 bioassay data -- I am talking about the 

7 hierarchy of what we look at. We got the 

8 bioassay data, for what it is. We have a 

9 comparison of that data. We have looked at 

10 the operations.

11 I think there is a reasoned sense, 

12 and I understand what Jim is saying, but I 

13 could make a compelling argument the other 

14 way, that the operations did shift over time, 

15 and that you did have a changing picture in 

16 terms of exposure potential.

17 Now a lot of this is subjective. 

18 I think we are, at this point, moving away 

19 from what is objective, but to looking at the 

20 operations and saying that, yes, there were 

21 these changes in practice that would have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 altered the potential. 

2 Nonetheless, I think you look at 

3 that when you try to back-extrapolate, but I 

4 think there is some real doubt as to whether 

5 the operations remained the same for 30 years 

6 such that you could use the bounding analysis 

7 that NIOSH is proposing.

8 So without any additional data, I 

9 don't see how this really changes. I think 

10 the Work Group just has to decide, based on 

11 what it has heard, where it wants to go with 

12 this particular issue. I don't think it is 

13 going to be improved by going back to Pantex 

14 or interviewing more people. 

15 I think we have interviewed 

16 everyone we need to, and we have dug up all 

17 the data that we need to. It is what we got, 

18 and that is what I would say at this point.

19 MR. ROLFES: Can I please respond 

20 to a couple of clarifications?

21 I think earlier on in the meeting, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Joe, you had indicated -- this is Mark Rolfes. 

2 You had indicated that the assembly 

3 operations, you believed, were clean. You 

4 said you had no concerns about assembly 

5 operations.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Relatively 

7 speaking.

8 MR. ROLFES: If you consider the 

9 number of units that are being assembled in a 

10 certain area, they are all clean units early 

11 on. The only issue that would be of concern 

12 would be external dose rates in that area, 

13 primarily. There wouldn't really be any 

14 additional concern over an assembly of several

15 units in one area.

16 The internal exposure --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Put an asterisk 

18 on that, by the way.

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes. We need to keep 

20 that in mind, but the most significant 

21 contributor of concern for dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 would be the external dose rates in the area. 

2 That is for assembling clean, new parts. 

3 There is not going to be an exposure potential 

4 in the air.

5 If you take a look at the mean 

6 excretion values from the 1960s versus the 

7 1990s, you have to use caution, as we said on 

8 the break, because there are data that are --

9 I think you might have just cited one 

10 particular lab analysis from one year of the 

11 several years that we had data in the sixties.

12 So I would have to look back at 

13 the mean excretion rates for the other years 

14 that we have data as well to compare those to 

15 the 1990s data. The other indicator -- 

16 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Whoever is 

17 trying to break in, Mark is speaking right 

18 now. Thank you.

19 MR. ROLFES: The other indicator -

20 - if you look at the history of disassembly 

21 operations, disassemblies -- you know, there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 were other plants that were involved in work 

2 prior to 1975. We had the Iowa Ordnance 

3 Plant, as you mentioned in your memo, both the 

4 Clarksville and Medina facilities. Pantex 

5 wasn't the only one in town that was involved

6 in operations involving nuclear weapons.

7 Really, if you take a look at the 

8 operations conducted at Pantex, it is really 

9 not until the 1970s forward that you really 

10 see the true increase in the number of 

11 disassemblies that are being conducted, and 

12 that is all part of the picture that you need 

13 to consider in looking at exposure potentials.

14 To use data from the 1985-1990 

15 period to estimate what intakes could have 

16 occurred back in the 1970s is not too far of a 

17 stretch. 

18 So those are all parts of the 

19 things that we would need to consider in 

20 determining whether or not we could bound 

21 potential intakes to workers.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, a quick 

2 clarification. The W28 did come back.

3 MR. ROLFES: Right.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I acknowledge 

5 that it also went back to Medina-Clarksville, 

6 but it did come back to the Pantex for 

7 dismantlement for any of these reasons we have 

8 talked about, mods, retrofits. So that did 

9 happen in the sixties.

10 In terms of looking at the other 

11 excretion rate comparison, I think this is 

12 something that we talked about in Germantown. 

13 I was kind of hoping that we would be able to 

14 put that issue to bed, because that was one of 

15 the issues we focused on specifically and 

16 talked about specifically.

17 At this stage, I think, yes, one 

18 could do that, but quite frankly, we have a 

19 valid comparison. It is actually cited in the 

20 TBD, and as I said earlier, we can dress it up 

21 and do all kinds of statistical analyses of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that data, but as a group that data from 

2 average standpoint, mean standpoint, comes out 

3 appreciably higher than the later data.

4 I think that is what the Work 

5 Group has and has had, and it kind of bothers 

6 me, because we have had this issue, and we 

7 have looked at this issue, and it has been out 

8 there for five years, and I think that 

9 comparison is a valid comparison and, even if 

10 we were to find another lab that didn't find 

11 an appreciable difference, we still have that 

12 difference there.

13 So I don't know where to go with 

14 that, but I just wanted to make that comment.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I appreciate 

16 that. I want to make a comment now, because -

17 - and please forgive me. I am just -- I am 

18 not a political speaker, and I am not very 

19 good with a lot of words, but I will tell you 

20 something that I have got a lot of issues 

21 with, and that is, number one, depleted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 uranium showed up at Pantex way early, back in 

2 the 1954, '53.

3 And like from our interview, it 

4 was a problem child when it came on site, 

5 period. They used to have to clean it up. 

6 They were having to make special acids to be 

7 able to even clean it up to be able to get it 

8 to be able to even be -- two HPs in 1989 

9 covering all the assembly and disassembly.

10 So that is telling me you have two 

11 rad-cons that are making sure the assembly is 

12 put together clean and goes out clean. Like 

13 Sara said, that letter that they had was 

14 probably because they had an "oh, oops" --

15 that is two rad-cons. We are not even looking 

16 at that. 

17 Right after that, in 1990 time 

18 frame, they totally shut Pantex down, because 

19 they did not -- they were not meeting the DOE 

20 guidelines or anything else like that, and 

21 since that time they have quadrupled to -- the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 last I heard was 80 rad-con at Pantex.

2 So from 1989 back they had to --

3 and I call them rad-cons. They could have 

4 been called rad-safe or safety or so forth. 

5 The issue that I am getting into is working in 

6 the industry myself, I have got to be able to 

7 look at the changes that we went through from 

8 1950 to 1989, which were astronomical.

9 There is no way we can be able to 

10 do what we did back there. Our production 

11 rate has also decreased a lot, because we are 

12 not able to do what we used to be able to do.

13 Every time I hear this -- and we 

14 are going around and around and around in 

15 circles -- we are at the same point that we 

16 were five years ago, really. You know, we 

17 have gathered a little bit more data. We have 

18 got a little bit more understanding, but I 

19 think the term that somebody told me a long 

20 time ago: no matter how much lipstick you put 

21 on a pig, it is still a pig.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 To me, no matter how much we go 

2 around on this, we are going to be back to the 

3 same thing. There is not really good data out 

4 there, and for me to be able to take data and 

5 go back with it, I think, is totally wrong.

6 In all the sites -- and this is no 

7 disrespect to the health physicists or anybody 

8 else that was there -- we see this complex9 wide. We see it at Hanford. We see it at 

10 Idaho. We see it at Oak Ridge. We see it at 

11 all.

12 Most of them didn't worry about 

13 depleted uranium or uranium. It wasn't the 

14 big player. It was plutonium, and that is 

15 what they looked at. Later on in the years, 

16 we learned more, and we come to find out that, 

17 yes, there are other players in the game.

18 I think of the letters that were 

19 stated, and the one that pops into mind is a 

20 letter that was sent out that the importance 

21 of monitoring workers, and we do our best, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 we won't let anything happen. Just like Sara 

2 said, it was after an incident, because the 

3 one that I read, for me, was after 13 of us 

4 went down to the whole body count with 

5 uptakes.

6 They take it seriously. It is 

7 just the way they do business in there. My 

8 point to this is it has been five years, and I 

9 don't think that we are going to come -- I 

10 don't think we can go out and find any more 

11 data. I don't think that we can interview 

12 anybody more.

13 So as the Work Group Chair -- and 

14 I hope that the rest of the Board Members are 

15 listening to this -- right now I would like to 

16 take a vote to be able to push this to the 

17 full Board, as we have slated for August.

18 I feel that I have done everything 

19 I can to get to the bottom of this. I feel 

20 that we have gone through every rock. I feel 

21 that we have -- NIOSH and SC&A have done a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 fabulous job of trying to determine what we 

2 can do, but I think basically, what it comes 

3 down now is to the Board.

4 So what I would like to do is I 

5 would like to propose that we move this to the 

6 full Board from the time frame of 1958 to 

7 1991, due to the inability to be able to 

8 deplete -- or depleted uranium to the Board.

9 MR. KATZ: Brad, can you just -- I 

10 don't want to interrupt too much the 

11 discussion of your motion, but can you put 

12 some flesh on the justification for the time 

13 period you are giving? 

14 I mean, Joe just made a statement 

15 earlier today about the -- what I have heard 

16 is '84 to '90 period, that that data was very 

17 strong for that period. You are proposing a 

18 period that goes to '91, which goes well 

19 beyond.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Actually, in 

21 looking at it, the other weapons, depleted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 uranium actually showed up at Pantex in the 

2 early 1950s, but the data that I found down 

3 there is that they were dealing with depleted 

4 uranium in 1958. I can't get into what they 

5 were doing, but it was part of the process 

6 with the HE, and this is what we came up with.

7 Matter of fact, I went through 

8 thousands of files of the shipments to Medina 

9 and Clarksville from Pantex.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Can I interrupt? I 

11 think that '58 is probably a good starting 

12 point. I think the question is the later 

13 years. So why did you pick '91?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because '91 is 

15 -- and correct me if I am wrong, Mark, but the 

16 petitioner stated '91, and I believe that was 

17 right. Sara, was it '91?

18 MS. RAY: Yes, it was. It was 

19 1991, and that was chosen because major 

20 changes were made in rad safety. Rad-con 

21 manuals came about in '92-'93. That was '91, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 yes.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I can't 

3 change that date.

4 MR. KATZ: No, but that is the 

5 petitioner's date, and I'm asking about is 

6 Joe's statement.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me clarify, 

8 and I tried to write this a little bit in the 

9 memo I sent. I guess I sent it to you, Mark.

10 We wanted to kind of focus on that 

11 particular question, because I think there was 

12 some uncertainty when we met in Germantown 

13 about some of that. I think the key aspect on 

14 the beginning part -- well, first of all, the 

15 key aspect is the W28.

16 I think we have all agreed. I 

17 don't disagree with Jim's comment that we 

18 believe that 28 in particular offers this 

19 exposure potential above and beyond the other 

20 systems.

21 Looking at the 28, we were looking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 at dismantlement. Dismantlement is, in a 

2 sense, the opportunity for an exposure 

3 potential. Now you could argue about the 

4 degree of exposure potential, which means the 

5 degree of oxidation and the handling practices 

6 and all that, but it is something that one 

7 can't easily establish, because, again, 

8 records aren't explicitly clear on exact 

9 handling and the degree of oxidation.

10 We did interview an engineer who 

11 pointed out that with raw, uncased depleted 

12 uranium, it oxidizes almost immediately upon 

13 contact with air, which means even if you're 

14 at the fabrication facility -- I think it was 

15 Y-12 -- you start getting oxidation, and that 

16 just worsened over time. 

17 So even that issue is not clear, 

18 whether it took a year or two to get to a 

19 point where you would get a reasonable amount 

20 of airborne contamination or not. I don't 

21 have that specific data. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So we just focused on: when did 

2 you have a clear record of dismantlement at 

3 Pantex of the W28, and that is where the '58 

4 figure comes in, because that is the first 

5 dismantlement which was associated with 

6 surveillance.

7 Now we tried to go further, and I 

8 can't really talk about it. We tried to go 

9 further to figure out what the exposure would 

10 likely have been, but I think dismantlement is 

11 a good trigger point, that you basically -- If 

12 you have dismantlement, you have an exposure 

13 potential to this uncased depleted uranium, 

14 and we leave it at that. 

15 We don't have a good means to 

16 characterize how much was airborne at the 

17 time, which is partly what we have talked 

18 about. It is just not easy to do that because 

19 of the lack of air samples and bioassays, but 

20 we can point to that as being the first 

21 dismantlement.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Now going forward from there, I 

2 think, as Sara points out, after this incident 

3 and after the Tiger Team, very clearly in '91 

4 Pantex completely revamped its health physics 

5 program and its control -- particularly its 

6 control program over the W28 and other units 

7 in terms of contamination control and all of 

8 these issues that we have talked about.

9 So the endpoint would be a 

10 completely different system in terms of 

11 routine bioassays, the whole nine yards. So 

12 beginning with the 1990s bioassays, they 

13 started getting a different regime.

14 MR. KATZ: Joe, I guess the thing 

15 I just want to understand is you made a strong 

16 statement earlier that the '84 to '90, all 

17 that dosimetry that was done for the 300 

18 individuals and so on is a very strong basis 

19 for --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: That was Jim's 

21 comment, I think.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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. KATZ: No, but you were 

2 saying you would be fine if all the data were 

3 that, and that your problem was with the older 

4 data. You said pretty clearly in this that 

5 the data at that later period, all that data 

6 that was developed on the 300 individuals, 

7 that was good data, good methods and all that, 

8 high pedigree, excellent, so that the 

9 dosimetry that would be produced based on that 

10 would be good, and that is in '84 to '90 

11 period. So I am just trying to understand 

12 what the basis is for going to '91.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, because the 

14 actual sampling in terms of the workers didn't 

15 occur until 1990. I am just saying, we were 

16 talking about the fact that the campaign was 

17 five years long, but until the workers 

18 complained, until the management investigated, 

19 and until they ordered all those bioassays for 

20 305, it didn't become apparent that you were 

21 having this degree of contamination and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 intake.

2 So as far as when the practice was 

3 actually changed, it wasn't changed until 

4 after the incident. This was all -- the 

5 samplement took place in 1990. It wasn't done 

6 across the five years. It was only done in 

7 1990. Okay?

8 Now because of the nature of the 

9 uranium uptake, you could assume that those 

10 bioassays would tell you about the exposure 

11 over that time frame, but in terms of when you 

12 started having good data across the board for 

13 the workforce, that would be when they were 

14 doing bioassays for all the workers that were 

15 potentially exposed, not just simply the 300 

16 that they singled out for the incident.

17 MR. KATZ: So I misunderstood, 

18 because I thought the argument was that that 

19 was the worst exposure -- at least 

20 contemporaneous to the '84-85 period forward, 

21 that would have been the worst exposure, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 then you are saying, yes, and their dosimetry 

2 that they based on '90 data but covering that 

3 period would be good for that cohort that was 

4 exposed from '84 to '90. Those are the most 

5 exposed people, and your dosimetry on them is 

6 good, and that is a bounding analysis for '84 

7 to '89.

8 So are you saying that there are 

9 other people in Pantex not involved in that 

10 incident that would have had higher exposures?

11 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. But I am 

12 just saying there's other people that were 

13 exposed, but for that cohort, those bioassay 

14 samples would have been representative. Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: So then -- okay. I was 

16 just trying to get -- so you have a cohort 

17 that is the worst cohort at Pantex from the 

18 period '84 to '90, and you can do their dose 

19 reconstructions, so it would seem to me that 

20 you are arguing that, really, the SEC period 

21 would end at '84, because from '84 forward you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 have this worst cohort, and you have good 

2 dosimetry on them. So that is a bounding 

3 analysis for Pantex, starting in '84. Or not?

4 I'm just trying to understand the argument.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: The only issue in 

6 my mind -- That is a plausible approach. The 

7 only issue in my mind is you have other 

8 workers that weren't a part of that cohort, 

9 that one would have to establish that the 305 

10 were the worst cases.

11 I haven't heard that discussion, 

12 but I would assume that, as far as this 

13 incident, they would have been. The reason I 

14 am hesitating is because you have a five-year 

15 period where you have workers that may have 

16 come in and out of the program.

17 I don't know if that 305 would, in 

18 fact, represent the bounding cohort. I would 

19 think intuitively it might.

20 MS. RAY: May I say something? 

21 The DOE was not happy with Tiger Team. The 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Ahearne Commission was appointed because of 

2 the Tiger Team report.

3 MR. KATZ: Sara, we understand 

4 that, Sara, but --

5 MS. RAY: They would not have 

6 thought of that as good data. I think any 

7 ending date has to come after 1990.

8 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

9 Kathy. I think what we have been saying all 

10 along is that that data might be bounding, but 

11 we need to see the objective evidence that it 

12 is bounding for all situations all the way 

13 back to 1958.

14 MR. KATZ: No, no. Kathy, that is 

15 mixing another issue. We are talking only 

16 about for the period from '84 forward whether 

17 that is bounding, Kathy.

18 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Right, 

19 right, and like Joe was saying, we have to 

20 demonstrate that that is bounding.

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Phil. I would like to throw something in on 

2 that. Okay, we did have these people that 

3 were assayed based on that one incident. What 

4 we don't have is a lot of the crafts, a lot of 

5 the guards, other people that may have come 

6 through that area, picked up a dose, who were 

7 not on that program, who were not assayed.

8 As we know from their testimony --

9 we went through Pantex -- this is a strong 

10 possibility, that this contamination could 

11 have been spread. It was spread by people on 

12 their hands, on their booties, clothing. So 

13 that does not bound everybody at the facility 

14 saying everybody that got a dose was covered. 

15 You have so many people going through these 

16 areas that are not on a bioassay program. You 

17 have a lot of people falling through the 

18 cracks, and I could not vote and say, yes, 

19 that is great. 

20 No, there are too many people in 

21 that time frame who, until the Tiger Team came 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 in, ripped them up and said you are going to 

2 change this program from top to bottom. Those 

3 people -- you don't know who went through that 

4 area in every case. 

5 They did not keep logbooks of 

6 everybody that went past those cells. They 

7 did not keep track of every person who came in 

8 and out of there. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thanks, Phil. 

10 Also, too, I think when Phil or when Joe and 

11 Mark were discussing the 1989 data, I think in 

12 his reference, yes, it is more scientifically 

13 proven than the early years, because, 

14 remember, we were talking about the earlier 

15 ones.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that it's 

17 a valid question as to whether or not the 

18 values, and they are credible values that were 

19 taken, would in fact envelop those workers 

20 that worked on the W28 during those specific 

21 years.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 The reason I hesitate, even though 

2 I think it is a valid concept, is in terms of 

3 solubility, and I think NIOSH can answer this 

4 maybe at the table now. In terms of 

5 solubility class and what have you, would you, 

6 in fact, be able to bound just the 305 workers 

7 and any other workers?

8 To answer Phil's question, until I 

9 -- and if you saw my memo, I did go into some 

10 details to other worker categories that would 

11 have been implicated, because you just can't 

12 confine contamination. There's other people, 

13 guards, maintenance people, who become 

14 exposed, but I would think -- this is sort of 

15 an open question -- that the actual hands-on 

16 operators would be bounding, because they 

17 would be most exposed continuously; whereas, 

18 maybe some other worker categories would be 

19 exposed, but not quite as directly and 

20 continuously.

21 Now, guards are a question, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 because they clearly would be doing 

2 surveillance, but, again, I think that could 

3 be addressed as well.

4 So I think it is a valid question. 

5 I don't think we have actually answered that 

6 specifically, and the Board is certainly 

7 within its scope to feel that, even though 

8 that might be an open question, one could feel 

9 that you can make the argument up to '84 

10 without any reservations. Certainly, NIOSH 

11 can answer the kind of questions that Bill, 

12 Kathy and myself would raise about the data 

13 versus the four or five years of that specific 

14 campaign.

15 We have not, as a Work Group, 

16 focused on that, but think it would be 

17 something -- given the later time frame, I 

18 think it could be answered relatively 

19 straightforward, but not keep the Work Group 

20 from moving forward on the pre-'84.

21 MR. KATZ: But just to clear about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 my role, because I am not trying to engage in 

2 the substantive. This is the Work Group's 

3 business with its technical staff, not mine.

4 I just want to make sure that, 

5 when Brad gives his recommendation to the 

6 Board, that the basis that he provides lines 

7 up with his dates. What I interpreted you as 

8 saying earlier, really, I understood 

9 differently than you are pitching it now, 

10 which is fine, but which is why I said what I 

11 said, to be clear.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

13 '84 -- I mean, the bioassay data taken in 1990 

14 reflecting the campaign conceptually might be 

15 usable for that campaign, but there are a 

16 number of questions that come to mind as to 

17 whether or not that would be bounding for that 

18 campaign, whether or not the 305 workers 

19 represents the most exposed individuals, 

20 intuitively it sounds like it might, but I 

21 think that has to be nailed down.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MEMBER BEACH: Let me just ask a 

2 clarifying question. The 305 samples, some 

3 of those were taken after -- several months 

4 after the actual exposure time period. Isn't 

5 that correct?

6 MR. ROLFES: Correct. The 

7 exposure potential time period for this 

8 particular operation, which was the bounding 

9 operation for potential uranium exposure, as 

10 indicated by actual survey data, air 

11 monitoring data, worker interviews and the 

12 bioassay data that we have.

13 There was an operation going on 

14 for five years, roughly from 1985 through 

15 1989. In 1989, a worker reported basically 

16 having oxide on his gloves and on his 

17 coveralls, and I will read here just a little 

18 excerpt from February --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The issue here, I 

20 think, is one of timing and what the argument 

21 is based on. We are talking about the -- I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 can talk about this stuff, right?

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We are talking 

4 about the W28 dismantlement, meaning they were 

5 being retired or not being --

6 MEMBER BEACH: No, there is more 

7 to it.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I am just talking 

9 about what the data is purporting. NIOSH's 

10 presentation is purporting that this dataset 

11 provides a bounding dose for the dismantlement 

12 of the W28, and that the W28 is the worst --

13 that dismantlement of the W28 is the worst 

14 potential for exposure. That is the NIOSH 

15 position. That is all I am saying.

16 I am not arguing it. I am just 

17 trying to restate it. So those are the right 

18 dates? They started dismantling to remove it 

19 from 1984. Is that the correct date?

20 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So that is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 then where we considered this bounding 

2 approach. So if, in fact, there is a reason 

3 to add an -- I have not heard a reason to 

4 believe that there is another set of people 

5 who would have had a higher dose.

6 Now, Phil, to your point, we are 

7 not saying that only the 305 people are going 

8 to receive this bounding dose. The 

9 potentially exposed people would receive this 

10 bounding dose, not just the 305. So the 

11 maintenance people and security people would 

12 be -- who had gone in there, or we wouldn't 

13 maybe know where they went, so they would get 

14 the dose.

15 So the fact that not everybody was 

16 sampled who was potentially exposed doesn't 

17 really relate to the ability of this dataset 

18 to bound the dose. 

19 I am saying this stuff, and I am 

20 asking this stuff not because I am trying to 

21 take a side in the argument. But remember 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that a designation decision is made by the 

2 Secretary. Okay? And I have got to advise my 

3 boss what to do and, if I can't explain to him 

4 why he should ignore his technical staff, what 

5 do you think that is going to say?

6 That is what I am trying to make 

7 this argument for. I am just trying to get 

8 this out there. I have not heard -- I have 

9 been trying to listen. I have not really 

10 heard a particular reason to believe, because 

11 what I have heard is W28 seems to have been 

12 the worst, because it was unalloyed and 

13 uncased, that dismantlement is the worst 

14 activity, although they did disassemble things 

15 for surveillance and modification and stuff 

16 like that.

17 The numbers of things done per 

18 year were certainly high when they were 

19 dismantling from '84 to '89 and when they were 

20 doing the maintenance, and I just don't hear 

21 much that tells me a reason to believe that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that is not bounding. I am just trying to lay 

2 it out here, guys, because this is not 

3 something that I have delved into. I have not 

4 looked at the technical evidence to the extent 

5 that everybody else has, but I am just 

6 looking at my path forward going down the 

7 road.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand 

9 that, and here is my take on it. Things have 

10 changed over the years. We are taking a 

11 snapshot of time, five-year time period, and 

12 saying, well, this is the worst it could have 

13 ever been. This is '84 to '89, and this is 

14 the worst it could have been. Nobody could 

15 have ever done it, but we don't know, really, 

16 the other 30 years.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: My question right 

18 now is I am only talking about '84 to '89. 

19 That is all I am talking about right now, is 

20 '84 to '89. What have we said today that 

21 makes us say that '84 to '89, that this data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 doesn't bound the doses?

2 MEMBER BEACH: We have to -- I 

3 agree. I think that we need to look at that 

4 end date, but I think we -- we haven't been 

5 focused on the '84 to '89. I think we need to 

6 take a look at that and see if that is 

7 bounding, so that we can come up with the 

8 right end date. I think that --

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because at the 

10 beginning of this meeting, the process that 

11 was going to be done was we were going to take 

12 the '84 to '89 data and put it with the early 

13 60 years. So now --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand that. 

15 I am just talking -- you know, you are 

16 talking about -- the discussion here is about 

17 a recommendation to go to the Board with a 

18 recommendation to add a class for some time 

19 period, and you said through '91, and I 

20 haven't heard anything that says it should go 

21 past '83.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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: Yes, just to jump 

2 in again, it is one of these things we really 

3 haven't focused on, but I tend to agree with 

4 Stu that when we did the comparison 

5 contrasting the data, it was clear that we 

6 were contrasting data that went back to the 

7 sixties, seventies, and early eighties, and I 

8 think the question of whether or not that data 

9 would bound the campaign itself, I think is a 

10 good question. 

11 That is why I said it was a 

12 legitimate question that was raised, that Ted 

13 raised, because we have been looking at it in 

14 a different way, but looking at it from that 

15 standpoint, I would say, you know, I could see 

16 the 305 bioassay samples being bounding of 

17 those workers, other workers that weren't as 

18 directly involved with. And, yes, I think 

19 this is something that we need to do a little 

20 bit more homework on just to make sure that 

21 that approach, in fact, is valid. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 I think it might be, but that 

2 would not necessarily hold back the Work Group 

3 from accounting up to '83, because I think 

4 there I would say those samples aren't going 

5 to do you much good, going back before that 

6 campaign. That campaign, I think, stands as a 

7 specific operation.

8 We don't get into the 

9 normalization issue as much with the five-year 

10 period that you would for a 30-year period. 

11 But I think we had to cross those Ts, because 

12 if they went from -- if there were some 

13 changes, there were workers coming in and out, 

14 I would want to at least be able to see that 

15 accounting done that would give confidence 

16 that you can back down those five years.

17 I think there is no equivocation 

18 before '84. I think that is where all the 

19 discussion today brings you to the fact that, 

20 yes, it would be a much bigger reach taking 

21 that same data and trying to apply it to those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 earlier years.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And this is 

3 what we have done at other sites, you know. 

4 Because I'll be right honest, Stu, I now 

5 understand what you were saying about it. I 

6 was taking it as this whole thing, because we 

7 have been told that these 350 are bounding for 

8 all years. Then all of a sudden, this has 

9 changed.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I am not trying to 

11 change my argument. What I am saying is, what 

12 can we conclude from the evidence being 

13 provided?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, and I 

15 agree with you, and maybe what I ought to do 

16 is --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can't 

18 necessarily tell you what will be concluded, 

19 because there is still a lot of evidence 

20 before '83, and I think -- I don't know if we 

21 want to get into this before lunch, but I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 think we still need to make sure that we are 

2 clear on -- you know, NIOSH's argument is that 

3 there is sufficient other evidence to believe 

4 that these doses from this '84 to '89 campaign 

5 would bound all of that work.

6 So some reasons to say that -- now 

7 there may be some reasons talked about here, 

8 the reasons that the Work Group chooses. You 

9 know, what convinced us that NIOSH's argument 

10 is not convincing?

11 If that can be set down clearly, 

12 it makes the path for the Institute going 

13 forward a lot easier.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand. 

15 I understand fully what you are saying, and 

16 what I am looking at is: 1984 on we can 

17 address. There is an awful lot of petitioners 

18 that are leaving this earth, and I would 

19 really like to be able to see -- because these 

20 earlier years, bottom line I understand what 

21 you are saying.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So I am going to re-put this to 

2 the Board. What I am going to say is from 

3 1958 to the end of 1983 that this go to the 

4 Board for an SEC, due on the inability to be 

5 able to monitor for -- or however we want to 

6 put it, for depleted uranium.

7 Is there any questions by other 

8 Board Members?

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob. Now 

10 are you saying that this is all people that 

11 worked at Pantex?

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: That is not 

14 right. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, that is the 

16 Class Definition that we have to work with.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That is the 

18 Class Definition, Bob.

19 MEMBER PRESLEY: So we are able to 

20 go back in and find the people that worked in 

21 that operation. You will have a few we will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 have to look for, but there is no way in the 

2 world I can go for a --

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So you are 

4 telling me that you can go back and find the 

5 security guard?

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: I am telling you 

7 that there is going to be people that you 

8 can't find and, yes, we can help you, give the 

9 benefit of the doubt, too. It is not fair to 

10 go in and say that the people that worked in 

11 the cafeterias or the people that may have 

12 worked in a non-rad building are covered.

13 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Wait one 

14 moment. Bob, we could hear you, sort of, but 

15 it is very difficult. I think Sara -- maybe 

16 someone has their line open, and we are 

17 listening to chatter in the kitchen or 

18 something, and it is making it very hard for 

19 us to hear one of our Board Members. So, 

20 please, mute your phone, *6 if you don't have 

21 a mute button, and that will help us a lot. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Much thanks. I still hear -- I think it is 

2 you, Sara, but maybe it is someone else. 

3 Please mute your phone.

4 MS. RAY: No, it is not me. I am 

5 muted.

6 MR. KATZ: I am sorry, but it is a 

7 woman, anyway, that we are hearing.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Kathy?

9 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: No, I am 

10 not in the kitchen.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, Bob -- and 

13 I understand that to a point, but -- and like 

14 I say, you can vote your opinion. Your vote 

15 is just as important as mine is or whatever 

16 else, but I don't think that you can really 

17 single anybody out. I don't think you can 

18 single out the people that are bringing in 

19 shipments of depleted uranium, but this is 

20 your choice. You can air these concerns.

21 My whole thing is that all I am 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 doing is voting as a Work Group to be able to 

2 put it before the Board and start airing these 

3 things to the Board.

4 MR. KATZ: But your motion -- just 

5 to be clear, Brad, your motion is to say all 

6 workers.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: That you're suggesting 

9 to the Work Group to recommend to the Board.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: And I don't agree 

12 with that. I am sorry.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Bob, that is no 

14 problem. We all have these opinions, and it 

15 is just like a lot of them. I don't agree 

16 with them either, and that is what we can go 

17 with.

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: One of the big

19 problems we have is the fact that how do we 

20 know who went in these potentially hot areas 

21 and who did not? Unless there is some valid 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 way that we can selectively say these people 

2 went in here and these people did not, but 

3 given Pantex's -- the lack of badging, the 

4 lack of bioassay for many people who still 

5 went through those areas --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me just start 

7 on this. This is Stu Hinnefeld. If I am 

8 correct, there are pretty comprehensive access 

9 records to the various buildings at Pantex, 

10 and this is a record underlying some of these 

11 testimonies.

12 MR. ROLFES: I just want to 

13 clarify. I guess for the earlier years, in 

14 our last document review trip at Pantex, I 

15 found a box of records that were created in 

16 1980-1981 time period. Any employee that was 

17 on site at that time period filled out a sheet 

18 which showed which buildings they had accessed 

19 during which years, from the beginning of 

20 their employment up until 1980.

21 Now also beginning in 1970, there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 were also access controls.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Hold on, Sara.

3 MR. ROLFES: Now, beginning in 

4 1970, there was also a system we looked at 

5 that had radiation safety training 

6 requirements, basically specific 

7 authorizations and approvals to work on 

8 certain aspects of certain weapons system in 

9 certain areas. 

10 It wasn't a casual operation. It 

11 may have been more casual in earlier days. 

12 However, there is documentation which allows 

13 us to identify which workers worked on which 

14 weapons systems or in which buildings. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: In the category 

16 of fly in the ointment, let me make one 

17 comment, because we did kind of probe that a 

18 little bit in our last site visit. 

19 MR. KATZ: I am sorry. There is 

20 someone on the line who is speaking. Please 

21 mute your phone. Hello, hello? Someone on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 the line, a man now, is talking. Please mute 

2 your phone, *6 if you don't have a mute 

3 button.

4 MS. RAY: This is Sara. Can I say 

5 something?

6 MR. KATZ: Well, right now Joe is 

7 speaking. Thank you, Sara, but you will get 

8 your chance, Sara.

9 MS. RAY: I am sorry. I thought 

10 he was finished.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we were 

12 waiting to clear the conference phone. I have 

13 a short comment, Sara, and certainly bow to 

14 you.

15 In my memo, this is something we 

16 specifically asked for, which was what other 

17 worker categories -- clearly, operators would 

18 have been exposed, and they were, in fact, 

19 bioassayed. Who else might have been 

20 implicated, and could you confine 

21 contamination to specific areas?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Granted, this came from an 

2 interview. I have to look at the notes, but--

3 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Sir, 

4 whoever is speaking about '91 and so on, you 

5 are not on mute, and you are interrupting Joe 

6 Fitzgerald here in the room who is trying to 

7 get a few words in edgewise. Would you please 

8 mute your phone or stop talking, either one? 

9 Thank you.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. What I was 

11 going to say is that we asked the question, 

12 what worker categories would have been 

13 implicated, not just simply the operators that 

14 we focused on. In terms of contamination 

15 spread, what areas should you be concerned 

16 about, and this individual -- This is kind of 

17 the first time we actually raised this in this 

18 particular way. He identified technicians, 

19 supervisors, engineers, safety personnel, 

20 handlers, support personnel.

21 It is sort of the usual range of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 characters that would involved that would have 

2 frequented these areas. But then he gave me 

3 some pause, and I am only putting this out 

4 because it is something I hadn't thought 

5 about.

6 They had done a chronic beryllium 

7 survey of Pantex, because they were concerned 

8 about beryllium spread in the facility, and 

9 they did this at most DOE sites. They found 

10 beryllium in the office areas. They found 

11 beryllium in storage areas and hallways.

12 And his comment was, given the 

13 controls on depleted uranium in the early 

14 days, he would not have been surprised that 

15 you would have had residual contamination in 

16 the same areas that you found the beryllium, 

17 just basically because it might have been 

18 tracked out. You just didn't have the 

19 surveying and the controls, as I noted in the 

20 Albuquerque audit, in the early days.

21 So there is no way to pin that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 down, but just saying that that was the 

2 observation in terms of some of that. That is 

3 in the memo.

4 MR. ROLFES: Just to clarify, what 

5 you put in the memo -- it didn't say anything 

6 about uranium contamination, just specified 

7 beryllium contamination, though.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. In the 

9 context of DU, what I am pointing out is that 

10 the comment was in the context of who may have 

11 been involved with depleted uranium beyond the 

12 operators, and where you may have found 

13 similar residual contamination for DU as they 

14 had found for beryllium. That was the intent. 

15 Maybe I didn't word it very clearly.

16 His point was, given that finding, 

17 that we had to be careful about assuming that 

18 the depleted uranium stayed in a particular 

19 control area, that it never got out. In fact, 

20 they had that assumption for beryllium, and it 

21 was a false assumption.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So be that as it may, that is 

2 about as far as we could take it.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: There was also 

4 some things said in there that, I believe, got 

5 redacted out, because he got a little bit into 

6 detail.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. This is the 

8 generalized surviving words that I had. That 

9 is all I can tell you about that.

10 MS. RAY: Can I make a comment?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, go ahead now, 

12 Sara.

13 MS. RAY: What Joe is just saying, 

14 you are talking about basically what I am 

15 hearing is individuals carried beryllium and 

16 other materials on their coveralls. The 

17 coveralls were washed at the plant site, but 

18 if someone went through the cafeteria, they 

19 took it with them to the cafeteria. If they 

20 went to 1236, and they signed a form for 

21 payroll deduction or whatever, they carried 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that with them.

2 Employees did not shower. They 

3 were not swiped at the end of shift. The 

4 utility guys, the people that do the air 

5 handlers, they changed the HEPA filters --

6 those are nonstandard air handlers. They had 

7 to crawl inside those. The fire department 

8 has to go in and do PMs. The guards have to 

9 respond.

10 I mean, there are so many people 

11 that are in and out. The people who carried 

12 the cards, and it would have been the old IBM 

13 with the cards. It would have been payroll 

14 cards that were going up. It would have been 

15 disassembly cards that go with the weapons. 

16 Those were carried throughout the plant. 

17 That material was not contained in 

18 the bays and cells. It was not only where the 

19 weapons were. It was carried throughout the 

20 plant. It was buried. It was burned. There 

21 are documents that represent that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 So it has to include everyone.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I 

3 understand what you are saying there, Sara, 

4 because at many of the sites we have seen the 

5 same thing. What this individual was using 

6 was because they put so much effort into the 

7 beryllium, he was just showing how it traveled 

8 throughout the site, and it actually had more 

9 controls than what some of the uranium and so 

10 forth had on it.

11 MS. RAY: And I saw all the 

12 records on the beryllium, and it was basically 

13 in every single facility.

14 The other comment that I wanted to 

15 make, what Mark was looking at: the plant 

16 recognized at some point -- and my husband, 

17 Don, participated in this, but they never kept 

18 records of what programs people worked on or 

19 what facilities they worked in. 

20 Don had maybe been working there 

21 five or six years, and they called him up and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 they said, okay, we want you to write down 

2 every program in every facility you have 

3 worked on and every operation. 

4 How many of you can tell me 

5 everywhere that you went last week and track 

6 every single step? I cannot do that. I am

7 old. So I get the benefit of the doubt, but 

8 that is a difficult thing to do.

9 So I question what Mark is talking 

10 about. That was a record created after the 

11 fact. It was not one that was maintained 

12 throughout the years. 

13 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

14 Kathy Demers. I have kind of a simple 

15 question for Mark. The records that you are 

16 talking about -- are they in -- do they fall 

17 into such a category that they could even be 

18 released?

19 MR. ROLFES: They are Official Use 

20 Only, because they contain Privacy Act 

21 information concerning details of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 individuals' work history.

2 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay. So we 

3 would be relying on this couple -- a set of 

4 records and going into who worked on what 

5 program, we might be in another category.

6 MR. ROLFES: It would still 

7 contain Privacy Act information.

8 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: What I am 

9 getting at is: is that information of such a 

10 content that it would have to be secure?

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes, because it 

12 contains Privacy Act information.

13 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: No, that is 

14 not what I am getting at. So all of this 

15 information--

16 MR. ROLFES: To my knowledge, 

17 those records that I reviewed were 

18 unclassified, and there is no reason that the 

19 identify of a particular worker working on a 

20 specific weapon program would be anything more 

21 sensitive than Privacy Act information. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 is not my call to make, 

2 however. It is Department of Energy's.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Time frames, 

4 when you start putting --

5 MR. ROLFES: Like I said, that is 

6 not my call to make.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. I 

8 understand. From what we have learned, you 

9 can't -- that is where they get into problems 

10 with time frames.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess the other 

12 issue -- I heard the end of '83. I was 

13 thinking, does that actually mark precisely 

14 the beginning of the campaign? I suspect it 

wasn't January 1st 15 , '84. Five years, I think, 

16 is just our shorthand description or term for 

17 the campaign, but I would want to nail that 

18 down a little better.

19 Then also you -- given the 

20 solubility classes, your bioassays, would they 

21 -- you know, we are sort of saying that they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 would see the five years. Of course, 

2 bioassays don't stop at the five years. I am 

3 just wondering if -- but we are confident that 

4 it would envelop those five years in terms of 

5 the results.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: What I said was I 

7 didn't -- haven't heard a reason why it 

8 wouldn't. So there can be additional 

9 discussion going forward, but I haven't heard 

10 a discussion today why it wouldn't.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: My feeling on 

12 this is, just like a lot of the other sites, 

13 you know what, we haven't looked at this data 

14 to be able to use it in just this content. 

15 Like I say today, things have changed. Now we 

16 are looking at it in a little bit of a 

17 different aspect, but I personally don't see 

18 anything for 1983 that we can bound -- or '84.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, '83 and 

20 earlier.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 see anything on that. My opinion is that, as 

2 I have put out to it, and then we can continue 

3 to research this data and go forward from 

4 there. If it gets extended a week forward, 

5 then that is what we can do from there.

6 MS. RAY: And this is Sara. I 

7 would like to request that you also continue 

8 to look at the '91 date, because there was a 

9 reason for that. I cannot tell you every 

10 single reason at this point, because I don't 

11 have all of my information. But I think that 

12 considering the Tiger Team report is an 

13 important thing. I don't think you can set it 

14 aside. 

15 I think that Stu could go to the 

16 Secretary and say this is on DOE findings and 

17 recommendations, and that after '91 things 

18 changed. I think '90 or '91 should stay the 

19 ending date. 

20 I appreciate the '83, but I really 

21 would like for people to continue to look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 the later date and not just dwell on this one 

2 weapon, because I know many other weapons were 

3 disassembled, even in recent years and you 

4 all, the ones who have clearances, I am sure 

5 you know which ones I am talking about. But 

6 there are many weapons that are probably not 

7 as dirty, but dirty.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 MEMBER BEACH: So, for me, I am in 

10 agreement with moving forward with a vote 

11 between the Board Members on this Work Group 

12 to the end of '83 time period, but I would 

13 also like to ask Joe, how long will it take 

14 you to review the documents for '84 to '91 and 

15 get back to us? Is it doable before the 

16 August Board meeting?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think so. 

18 I think it is a new line of inquiry.

19 DR. NETON: I think, if you craft 

20 the designation such through the Board that 

21 you are leaving this period open, you don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 have to go through the 83.14 process. You 

2 just say we can go through '83; we are still 

3 investigating this latter period.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Which is fine. I 

6 was just curious as to how long Joe thought 

7 the --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think it 

9 wouldn't be the next two weeks for sure. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: That's fair.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: So it is a new 

12 line of inquiry, and I think we have talked 

13 about some of the issues, solubility class and 

14 whether or not it envelops all the workers 

15 that would be relevant, and some of the 

16 discussion about whether you can actually 

17 locate the affected areas of the plant in 

18 terms of access information.

19 That all sounds like a completely 

20 different line of inquiry. It is going to 

21 some time, but it doesn't, obviously, keep the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 Work Group from doing what it can do through 

2 '83.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Which I think is 

4 important.

5 MR. KATZ: Right, and then the Work 

6 Group, in its report to the Board, can talk 

7 about what is going on, give them an update on 

8 what is going on for the '84 forward period, 

9 too. I think that would be a good thing to 

10 include in the presentation of the Work Group.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: And, Sara, this 

12 is exactly what you are talking about, just 

13 being very responsive to making sure that all 

14 the Ts are crossed in this five-year period up 

15 to '91 before settling on that issue. So, 

16 really, trying to settle on what we can settle 

17 on in terms of what the technical information 

18 -- where the technical information takes you, 

19 and where there are some remaining questions, 

20 closing that out as quickly as we can.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: My one question 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 is: as a Board and so forth like that, we have 

2 always been held within the strength of the 

3 petition. So if we go past that time period, 

4 we are going to have to also designate that in

5 this as a time period that we are looking at.

6 MR. KATZ: So you are bound within 

7 the period of the petition's eligibility. So 

8 that is '91, the end date, then that is where 

9 you are bound for all of your work. DCAS can 

10 go beyond that. You can't.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, and that 

12 is what I am wondering, is how we do this 

13 because of what Sara just brought up.

14 MR. KATZ: If the petition goes to 

15 '91, the Board can consider '84 to '91 down 

16 the road, without any -- there's no 

17 constraints on that.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No constraints 

19 on that.

20 MR. KATZ: If you wanted to 

21 consider, you know, 2000, of course -- and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 that is not within the envelope of the 

2 petition -- then you couldn't do that without 

3 another petition, but within the envelope of 

4 the petition you can consider that full 

5 period. So you are apportioning one piece of 

6 that petition now. It is fine, and it doesn't 

7 constrain you to continue working on the rest 

8 of what is enveloped within the petition.

9 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

10 Kathy. Are we going to continue consideration 

11 of '51 through '57?

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I 

13 understand what she is getting at, because in 

14 this -- when we went down there, the 

15 interviews indicated earlier years, but '58 

16 was the only year that we could find the 

17 disassembly of the W28. So I guess we need to 

18 look at the earlier years in the same aspect.

19 MR. KATZ: So that is another 

20 thing that you can report to the Board, that 

21 you are still looking at the '51 to '58 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 period, and explain what the issues might be 

2 for the '51 to '58 period. Then they will 

3 have a snapshot of all of what is going on, 

4 and what you are putting before them to start 

5 wrestling with, the '58 to '83 period.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So let's recap 

7 this to the Board Members that are on there. 

8 What we are looking at is to take to the Board 

9 in August the 1958 to the end of 1983 for all 

10 employees, due to the inability to reconstruct 

11 for uranium, depleted uranium. I guess I am 

12 looking at the -- and we will look into the 

13 earlier years, the 1950 to 1958 and the 1984 

14 to 1991. Does everybody understand what we 

15 are doing or do we need to clarify it? Phil?

16 MR. KATZ: Phil, are you still 

17 with us?

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Whoops. 

19 MR. KATZ: There you are.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I think let's 

21 go ahead and just hold off on those latter 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 years until that gets clarified, but go ahead 

2 with an SEC, as Brad has proposed.

3 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing that 

4 I would make note on is that you need to 

5 clarify, like Bob brought up, who was 

6 involved. I think that that may be part of 

7 your presentation of clarifying who may or may 

8 not have been involved, and why, what our 

9 thoughts are.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: That bears on the 

11 breadth of the Class, which was an issue with 

12 what Bob Presley raised, and I think that 

13 might be the basis for a larger Class and a 

14 smaller Class. That is arguable, but I think 

15 that would be the basis.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, and I 

17 think, when we bring this before the full 

18 Board, I think we will be able to write this 

19 up in a better understanding of what we are 

20 saying with that because I understand Bob's 

21 point on it and so forth, but from what I have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 seen -- and this is my personal opinion -- I 

2 don't know how you would be able to do it.

3 MR. KATZ: So we should just get 

4 clarity though. Phil, you support the 

5 approach that Brad has put forward, the 

6 motion. Is that correct?

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Correct.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then let's 

9 just get Bob Presley. You position is what, 

10 in support or opposed?

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But also did he 

12 understand what I said? Do you understand 

13 what I propose there, Bob?

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: I understand what 

15 you propose, but if we vote on it -- if I vote 

16 on this thing, then how are we going to bring 

17 it to the full Board that there are some 

18 reservations on the Class?

19 MR. KATZ: So, Bob, you just need 

20 to state so that we are clear what it is you 

21 support or don't support, so that when Brad 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 reports out -- and I would suggest that Brad 

2 share with the rest of the Work Group Members 

3 what he is planning to present, but so that he 

4 can accurately represent where you stand as a 

5 Member of the Work Group.

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: So that is what he 

8 needs to hear from you now, just you can be 

9 supportive, opposed to the whole thing, 

10 supportive but you are not supportive of a all 

11 workers Class. Whatever your position is, 

12 that is what we need to hear.

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: My position is 

14 that I am supportive of the Class, but not for 

15 everybody that worked at Pantex.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Your statement 

18 on the record before fleshes that out nicely. 

19 Josie?

20 MEMBER BEACH: I am in support of 

21 the motion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. KATZ: In support, and those 

2 are all the Members. Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Now my question 

4 is -- and this is to you, Ted -- because we 

5 have not looked at this time frame in this 

6 aspect, do we need to task SC&A to do that?

7 MR. KATZ: No. So what you are 

8 asking -- this is not for the pre-August Board 

9 meeting, but yes. I think SC&A needs to 

10 scrutinize the question as it is on the table 

11 now in terms of the post --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I think Jim and I 

13 are on the same page.

14 DR. NETON: I would suggest that 

15 NIOSH -- 

16 MEMBER BEACH: NIOSH, I was just 

17 going to say --

18 DR. NETON: -- because we have 

19 changed our position --

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, you know, 

21 you are absolutely right, Jim.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 DR. NETON: -- and I think we need 

2 to take the opportunity to flesh this out in 

3 more detail. I would acknowledge that what we 

4 have on the table right now doesn't have 

5 sufficient detail to demonstrate -- clearly 

6 demonstrate it.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we -- we 

8 put -- some of our questions I think I 

9 expressed -- I think those are the kind of 

10 things --

11 MR. KATZ: So this is -- this is 

12 step-wise, that's fine, I mean, so NIOSH needs 

13 to put on the table -- I mean, NIOSH hasn't 

14 necessarily withdrawn its position, as Stu 

15 said, that it can cover it all. Anyway, if it 

16 comes to this, NIOSH needs to put its position 

17 on the table as to how it would address the 

18 period of '94 forward -- `84 forward, and at 

19 that point I don't think we need a new 

20 tasking. You know, Joe, that at that point 

21 you would be scrutinizing that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And the `50 to 

2 `58, because --

3 MR. KATZ: That is ongoing, '50 to 

4 '58. So you don't need a new tasking. That 

5 is ongoing, and I assume you will continue 

6 marching down that road.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that some 

8 questions came up about earlier systems. We 

9 don't know.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. Anyway, no new 

11 tasking needed for that. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: So we get work 

13 product from NIOSH; SC&A reviews it.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I just wanted 

15 to make sure we weren't held up with any kind 

16 of a tasking, and you are absolutely right, 

17 Jim. I apologize. I was looking at it as the 

18 tasking part of it instead of what it was.

19 MR. KATZ: In terms of time frame, 

20 I imagine -- DCAS can speak for itself, but 

21 they are not going to march down that road 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 until some of this gets addressed at the Board 

2 level because it sort of depends on what 

3 happens at the Board level how they handle 

4 that question.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. The 

6 time here is 12:30. We are going to break for 

7 lunch. So we will come back about 1:30. 

8 MR. KATZ: One-thirty? Is that 

9 good?

10 MR. ROLFES: I had a question. 

11 Brad, I don't know. What are your plans for 

12 discussion after lunch? I just wasn't -- I 

13 was looking, I think we covered most --

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: We have still 

15 got the draft completeness. We are not even 

16 done with this paper. We got thorium.

17 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I just wanted 

18 to check with you.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And we wanted 

20 to go over this memorandum that we have been 

21 talking about from our last site visit, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 then just an overview of our path forward.

2 MR. ROLFES: We have been covering 

3 a little bit of each.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is why I 

5 have been trying to sit here and -- thanks, 

6 Joe, I forgot all about thorium. So that is 

7 what we will do after lunch.

8 MR. KATZ: So at 1:30, we will 

9 reconvene. We are in recess now. Thank you, 

10 everyone on the line. See you again at 1:30 

11 or hear you again.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 12:28 p.m.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 1:33 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Pantex Work 

4 Group. We are reconvening after lunch break, 

5 and, Brad, it is your agenda. Let me just 

6 remind everyone on the line, please keep your 

7 phones muted except when you are addressing 

8 the group. Use *6 if you don't have a mute 

9 button to mute your phone. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Do we want to 

11 check with the other Board Members?

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. I should do 

13 that. So let me check and see that our Board 

14 Members are on. Bob and Phil?

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob is on.

16 MR. KATZ: Hi, Bob. 

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

18 I am on.

19 MR. KATZ: Great. Loud and clear. 

20 Thanks.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 morning we made it through the first --

2 halfway through the first item. We still have 

3 -- on bounding uranium and thorium, we need to 

4 finish up the thorium part. So with that, I 

5 will turn it over to Joe.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually, I think 

7 format-wise I guess we just would need a 

8 summary from Mark.

9 MR. ROLFES: In our document that 

10 I sent out last week on Pantex bounding 

11 uranium and thorium intakes, we had the 

12 uranium discussion. Then also we have got a 

13 section on thorium.

14 Basically, to go through some of 

15 the points that we have made, there is 

16 additional documentation that back up the 

17 summarization of this report, but basically we 

18 reviewed the potential for exposure to 

19 thorium. The potential for exposure to 

20 thorium at Pantex was much lower than a 

21 potential for exposure to depleted uranium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 We looked at a Los Alamos 

2 scientific laboratory 1976 report regarding 

3 the health physics and industrial hygiene 

4 aspects of thorium. The analysis, documented 

5 in this report, concluded that there was no 

6 airborne contamination problems associated 

7 with the thorium material because of the large 

8 particle size involved.

9 Pantex investigated this on their 

10 own as well and took hundreds of swipes of 

11 components which they collected and analyzed. 

12 They found that a posting of a contamination 

13 area wasn't needed to handle thorium and that 

14 respiratory protection was not needed either. 

15 They analyzed 73 worker breathing zone samples 

16 which showed that there was no airborne 

17 activity detectable in the air in the Pantex 

18 workplace.

19 Let's see. Just another point 

20 here, Pantex plant had been operating under a 

21 thorium-232 removable contamination 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 administrative control level of 40 dpm per 100 

2 square centimeters, which was below the 

3 regulatory limit of 200 dpm per 100 square 

4 centimeters.

5 There is also employee-specific 

6 bioassay data for thorium, was monitored via 

7 nasal swipes, urine and fecal samples, as well 

8 as direct radio-bioassay, which would be in 

9 vivo lung counting that was done on site.

10 The years that are covered by 

11 these analyses were 1983 forward, roughly, and 

12 we have got some references here in the Site 

13 Research Database that have the results of 

14 these analyses.

15 Basically, we currently have a 40 

16 DAC-hour intake of thorium in our Site 

17 Profile. However, based upon updated

18 information, we have actually looked at the 

19 air sampling data available to us, and have 

20 analyzed the amount of uranium and thorium in 

21 air, using the air monitoring results. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 We were able to develop a ratio of 

2 how much thorium would be present in the 

3 workplace versus how much uranium airborne 

4 activity would be present in the workplace, 

5 and we have agreed to revise our Site Profile 

6 to assign thorium intakes based upon a ratio 

7 of the airborne depleted uranium.

8 The analysis that we were able to 

9 do using these breathing zone samples from 

10 disassembly operations showed that about two 

11 percent of the alpha activity that is airborne 

12 during certain operations is a result of the 

13 thorium that is present, while the 98 percent 

14 that is present in air would be the result of 

15 depleted uranium alpha activity.

16 We also are changing the mode of 

17 thorium intake from a previous acute intake to 

18 a chronic low level exposure as well.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: You did say 

20 breathing zone. So these were true breathing 

21 zone samples that were taken?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MR. ROLFES: That is correct.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Kathy, are you 

3 still on? 

4 DR. MAURO: Joe, while we wait for 

5 Kathy, I got a quick question for Mark. This 

6 is John. When you say you have thorium 

7 airborne samples, I know in the past, 

8 especially when you go back in time, it was 

9 just a gross alpha count, and you are not 

10 really sure whether it is uranium or thorium11 232 that you are looking at.

12 How do you know you are looking at 

13 thorium-232 as opposed to uranium?

14 MR. ROLFES: Well, what they did, 

15 they took a look at the air filters and ran 

16 ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma mass 

17 spectrometry, and scanning electron microscopy 

18 to specifically identify which particles were 

19 uranium and which particles were thorium.

20 DR. MAURO: Thank you. You 

21 answered my question.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, who was 

2 doing these swipes and stuff like this?

3 MR. ROLFES: These were air 

4 samples.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Air samples?

6 MR. ROLFES: The swipes that I 

7 mentioned earlier were done by an industrial 

8 hygienicist/health physicist at the site.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess we had 

10 talked about trying to normalize across some 

11 of these systems and operations. How does 

12 that account for, I guess, a sufficient --

13 conservatisms -- envelope thorium use? You 

14 know, it wasn't as lengthy, obviously, as DU.

15 MR. ROLFES: Could you repeat 

16 that?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I am just 

18 saying, you are using these ratios, and the 

19 two percent was based on these measurements. 

20 I guess my question goes to the thorium 

21 systems that would have been handled. Does 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 this, in fact, bound --

2 MR. ROLFES: This particular 

3 weapons system was also one of the ones that 

4 was said to have been a worst case type 

5 potential for exposure. It was one of the --

6 we have identified a list of -- let me get 

7 back to it. Wanted to go back to the specific 

8 list of -- okay, here at the top of page 4 in 

9 our evaluation, the 28 program, since that was 

10 one of the ones that resulted in the highest 

11 potential for contamination. We also asked 

12 about some of the other weapon programs.

13 One that was responsible for the 

14 thorium was also one of the ones that Mason & 

15 Hanger-Silas Mason personnel were aware of and 

16 knew that there would be a greater potential 

17 for exposure due to contamination. So once 

18 again, it appears to me that we have chosen 

19 the bounding situation for possible thorium 

20 exposures.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 MEMBER BEACH: Mark, can you give 

2 us a list of the assemblies and disassemblies 

3 for everything that had uranium and thorium in 

4 them?

5 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

6 MEMBER BEACH: From '58 through --

7 so you can go all the way back to the early 

8 years?

9 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I can tell you 

10 the source term for every program.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Is that 

12 available?

13 MR. ROLFES: That information is 

14 very, very well documented from the beginning 

15 of time of our weapons programs.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, great.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But some of 

18 them came on-line and went off-line before a 

19 lot of the more stringent monitoring came on20 line. I guess I was just wondering how we 

21 were going to account for those where we don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 really have any data on them. 

2 You know, when we pulled up that 

3 chart down to Pantex, I noticed that is a 

4 classified document, but numerous ones came 

5 on-line that had the thorium issues and the 

6 thorium problems, also some other problems, 

7 but they also went away quite rapidly, too, 

8 for some of those reasons.

9 You know, we have got data for the 

10 `70s era and so forth, and I just -- when does 

11 the data actually start that we have the 

12 thorium smears for? Is it the beginning of 

13 the `70s?

14 MR. ROLFES: The earliest smear 

15 for thorium that I am aware of would have been 

16 collected back in 1968, I think. 

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Maybe this is a 

18 loaded question or whatever, but what time 

19 frame do we really -- because in the early

20 years they were just trying to get a handle on 

21 how to deal with thorium. What time period, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 guess, does NIOSH feel that they have a robust 

2 thorium monitoring program that they could 

3 really hang their hat on?

4 Many of these sites, I have never 

5 really seen the time frame when you could hang 

6 your hat on it, is basically what I am trying 

7 to say.

8 MR. ROLFES: What we have in our 

9 Pantex bounding uranium and thorium intakes, 

10 since we are proposing to use basically two 

11 percent -- we would have assigned a depleted 

12 uranium intake first, and then assign an 

13 intake of thorium-232 equal to two percent of 

14 depleted uranium intake on top of those. So 

15 we'd reconstruct the depleted uranium intake 

16 and then add an intake, two percent of the DU 

17 intake as thorium. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess, going 

19 back to -- you know, we are talking about a 

20 particular system. You are talking about 

21 assigning a chronic exposure based on DU. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 wouldn't the workers who were directly 

2 involved in the dismantling of that particular 

3 system be getting more of the direct intake 

4 potential? 

5 It sounds like what we are doing 

6 is a generic chronic intake factor of two 

7 percent for everybody. Right?

8 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I am thinking 

10 about the workers who are working with the 

11 unit directly as opposed to the general 

12 operator population. I am just trying to 

13 reconcile whether they, in fact, are being 

14 shortchanged by that approach or not.

15 MR. ROLFES: I am not following 

16 where you're --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I'm saying 

18 it sounds like -- maybe I am misunderstanding 

19 you. It sounds like you are assigning a two 

20 percent of the DU as being a chronic exposure 

21 for all the operators or just the thorium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 operators, the ones working on this particular 

2 system?

3 MR. ROLFES: What we have -- here 

4 is what we have laid out in our Pantex 

5 bounding uranium and thorium intakes. Getting 

6 back to the uranium intakes, we are using the 

7 1990 bioassay data. If an individual doesn't 

8 have any thorium monitoring in their file, for 

9 example, we would make the assumption that 

10 they were potentially exposed to both uranium 

11 and also to thorium.

12 So we would assign our uranium 

13 intakes based upon the analysis of the data 

14 from 1959 up through 1990, about 400 uranium 

15 bioassay results which we've proposed here; 

16 assign that uranium intake, and add in an 

17 intake of thorium equal to two percent of the 

18 depleted uranium intake.

19 DR. NETON: Can I interrupt? Am I 

20 missing something? I thought that the Working 

21 Group is already recommending they can't do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 any DU dose reconstructions prior to 1984.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This was my 

3 next--

4 DR. NETON: If that is true, then 

5 this is all irrelevant.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I know. I am 

7 just trying to figure out just --

8 MR. KATZ: Well, it's not -- but 

9 that's just --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Our position is we 

11 can do the dose reconstruction.

12 DR. NETON: Right. Right.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So if, in fact, 

14 the Work Group and the Board determine that 

15 dose reconstruction for uranium isn't feasible 

16 up through '83, then if we are tying thorium 

17 intakes, then they are also -- but now we have 

18 the years from '84 forward.

19 DR. NETON: Right, but that's 

20 slightly different, I mean think about what 

21 quality of data we have for thorium. So what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 I'll say is it doesn't seem productive for us 

2 to debate whether we can reconstruct thorium 

3 prior to 1984 until the Board meeting because 

4 if the Board accepts the Class Definition 

5 prior to '84 --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: This reminds me 

7 of the -- wasn't there an issue at Mound where 

8 we were going to park something, and then we 

9 couldn't do it, because -- as a matter of 

10 fact, as far as resources, why don't we wait 

11 and apply those resources maybe more 

12 efficiently by addressing this later? But 

13 just even clarifying the approach would be, I 

14 think that's all we're doing is understanding 

15 it better.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, and I 

17 will be honest with you. Maybe this is -- you 

18 know, I feel that you guys went to some work 

19 on this, and we really haven't got into the 

20 thorium issues, and I just wanted to make sure 

21 that I understood how it was being put, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 because the next question I was going to ask 

2 was, with what happened today, how will this 

3 hold together?

4 MR. KATZ: My point of view is 

5 just that we don't know what the rest of the 

6 Board is going to say about what the Work 

7 Group is going to recommend, but they may then 

8 have different issues about the thorium. For 

9 some Board Members, the thorium may be a more 

10 compelling issue than the uranium. I have no 

11 idea. 

12 DR. NETON: If the uranium -- if 

13 you can't reconstruct uranium --

14 MR. KATZ: I know. 

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. KATZ: That is one 

17 possibility. Another possibility is Board 

18 Members are not persuaded on the uranium 

19 question, but they may have issues with the 

20 thorium even if they are not persuaded on the 

21 uranium, in which case they would need to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Pantex 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 understand whether the thorium can be 

2 reconstructed.

3 MS. LIN: -- you can reconstruct 

4 thorium.

5 MR. KATZ: No? I mean, what if a 

6 Board Member says I don't buy it; I think the 

7 NIOSH argument is fine for uranium, but what 

8 about thorium. Then we don't -- any advance 

9 through the question on the thorium thing.

10 So whether you want to just wait 

11 and have that discussion, should that arise, 

12 that is one thing. But if the Work Group 

13 wants to sort of plow that ground now so that 

14 it will have been discussed, it is up to you.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I had several 

16 questions I wanted to get. First of all, I 

17 wanted to understand if this thorium --

18 because the way I read it, everything was tied 

19 to depleted uranium. If we decided we 

20 couldn't do depleted uranium, was there -- or 

21 do we have anything else so that we could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cover thorium? That was going to be my 

2 question, Jim.

3 I did not understand how the 

4 process was, plus also, too, NIOSH has put 

5 quite a bit into this, and I know that it was 

6 bounding uranium and thorium intake, but they 

7 were separated out. I wanted to make sure 

8 that I had an understanding of how the thorium 

9 process worked, and if this DU problem came 

10 into this, did we have another way or is it 

11 ultimately tied?

12 My next question out was going to 

13 be do we need to address this as uranium and 

14 thorium to the Board because they are 

15 ultimately tied together.

16 MR. KATZ: You don't need to 

17 because you have the uranium and your reasons 

18 for the uranium. You don't need to address 

19 thorium. The only other issue with thorium is 

20 that if you add a Class and some people are 

21 not covered and you want to reconstruct their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium doses, if you have already decided you 

2 can't reconstruct uranium, I think it puts it 

3 out of the ballpark because it is based on the 

4 uranium. If you can't reconstruct the 

5 uranium, then you can't reconstruct the 

6 thorium either. They don't get credit for 

7 those doses either.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, and that 

9 is why I was wondering if we needed to address 

10 that along with the uranium because I want to 

11 make sure people understand that that is part 

12 of the -- you can't do uranium or thorium. 

13 Everything is based on it. That was going to 

14 be my next question.

15 DR. NETON: I think what we are 

16 going to end up with here, if we continue down 

17 this thread, is the quality of the thorium 

18 data we have available establishes percentage 

19 probably much better after 1983.

20 MR. ROLFES: Yes, there's bioassay 

21 data.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

220 

NEAL 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 are going to have 

2 similar issues that we have with the uranium. 

3 So I don't know that it is going to be a 

4 productive use of our time this afternoon to 

5 sit here and debate about the quality of the 

6 thorium data we have prior to 1983, if in fact 

7 it has been decided that we can't reconstruct 

8 uranium.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Jim, I 

10 understand wholeheartedly that maybe this is a 

11 futile effort, and maybe it can be just summed 

12 up to me as the Work Group Chair, because my 

13 question was, and what I was hesitant about, 

14 is we had only been talking about uranium. So 

15 that is how I posed it.

16 I am wondering if we needed to tie 

17 thorium to it, because basically we are into 

18 the same ballpark of it. It all depends on 

19 the DU. I will be honest with you. The 

20 programmic part of this is baffling to me of 

21 what we can and how we do it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

221 

NEAL 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. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

2 Hinnefeld, and I just want, for clarity -- I 

3 haven't studied this or had any conversations, 

4 I guess we could have had these ahead of time. 

5 But for my edification, trying to get the 

6 dates for this data is collected -- hundreds -

7 - in Pantex, their second bullet, hundreds of 

8 Pantex swipes of components were collected and 

9 analyzed, and that covers -- what time period 

10 does that cover?

11 MR. ROLFES: The swipes that I 

12 have seen cover -- you know, I have seen bits 

13 and pieces here and there of swipes in the 

14 early `60s. However, most of the data that we 

15 have available would be during the disassembly 

16 time period, which was, let's say, later on in 

17 the operating history, during the `80s, `90s.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't know 

19 that we can talk about it, but do we know when 

20 thorium weapons, for instance, were in the 

21 surveillance program? I am sure we had to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dismantle them because I have seen the 

2 document that shows the dismantlement 

3 schedule. You guys apparently know which ones 

4 had thorium in them. 

5 So I know we know what years they 

6 had the dismantling. I assume we have some 

7 breadth of years that covers the presence of 

8 thorium in either a surveillance or 

9 dismantlement for both those sections. I know 

10 we have dismantlement.

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes, we do have that 

12 information.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: You say you have 

14 seen some data in the `60s, and then there's -

15 - the bulk of it, you say, was later. Can you 

16 give me a year?

17 MR. ROLFES: 1980s is when the 

18 true bulk of all the swipe data that has been 

19 collected, at least that we have seen so far. 

20 We hear that data exists from earlier years, 

21 but most of it has been within incident 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reports. We found it all in a consolidated 

2 box from 1980 and then an electronic database 

3 from like 1990 forward.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So then the 73 

5 worker breathing zone samples that didn't 

6 apparently show any airborne activity date 

7 from what period?

8 MR. ROLFES: That would have been 

9 in the `90s.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you say that 

11 if we have thorium bioassay for a person, that 

12 we would rely on that for that person? Is 

13 that what I heard, or are we relying on the 

14 ratio for everybody?

15 MR. ROLFES: If they don't have 

16 data, we would rely upon that ratio. If we do 

17 have data on thorium bioassay, we would use 

18 that data for that individual.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Certainly, 

20 the in vivo would work.

21 Now then the ratio is established 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by samples collected on a specific program, 

2 W55. So do we know enough about relative 

3 abundance of the items of the two materials 

4 for the other thorium series to know that that 

5 provides us something we can use for all time?

6 MR. ROLFES: Yes, and we selected 

7 this particular program as a result of the 

8 potential for contamination and oxidation that 

9 was based upon some of the worker interviews 

10 and also the listing of programs that were 

11 identified by the Health and Safety staff at 

12 Pantex, which were the worst ones that could 

13 have presented a contamination potential.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Essentially then, 

15 the worst of the thorium-containing weapons, 

16 in terms of its potential for contamination?

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I would say 

18 that.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That is kind of 

20 what we said, like W28 is the worst based on 

21 our argument as the worst. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay, you understand where I am 

2 going? We have a ratio set up on this one 

3 system, and if it, in fact, has the highest 

4 ratio of thorium to uranium in the thorium 

5 series weapons, then you certainly have a 

6 bounding value. If not, there is an argument 

7 that can be made that this ratio doesn't bound 

8 the potential ratios that would be encountered 

9 in other systems. That is just where I am 

10 going, just the logic of it. Things don't 

11 work out later on.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That was --

13 part of my question was coming from of the 

14 earlier years because some of those weapons 

15 came on-line and went off-line relatively 

16 fast, and the time period we are talking about 

17 here, those weapons would have already gone 

18 away. 

19 I am just wondering how that 

20 worked because 55 may have been the worst 

21 actor, but we really don't have any data for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

226 

NEAL 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 other ones. Were they worse or was 55 the 

2 one that we have the most information for?

3 MR. ROLFES: The 55 would have 

4 been the worst. It's not the only one that we 

5 have information for.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Now this is 

7 where it really comes back to me, especially 

8 looking at the roadmap or whatever you want to 

9 call it, because it was very -- you know, get 

10 printout at Germantown, stuff like that, and 

11 said this is when it came on-line, this is 

12 when it went off-line, and this is what it has 

13 in them. We really don't have any data for 

14 those. 

15 I just want to make sure that we 

16 are bounding it. From the perspective in 

17 hindsight, well, maybe 55 was worse or one of 

18 the others. That is where I am going at with 

19 this, and part of my question came up with 

20 that, plus also what Jim has brought up about 

21 how it affects us with the DU.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

227 

NEAL 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 am wondering of how to be able 

2 to handle the thorium issue. I guess that is 

3 what I am looking at because we are kind of in 

4 a conundrum right here.

5 MR. KATZ: I think it --

6 DR. NETON: The Class of workers 

7 is the same, all workers -- 

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

9 DR. NETON: -- or all people who 

10 worked --

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

12 DR. NETON: And it doesn't add 

13 anything by saying you can't reconstruct 

14 uranium and thorium. It's the same people who 

15 are going to be in the Class, unless there are 

16 people who only worked with thorium.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. You know, 

18 they had several different programs that they 

19 did deal with a lot of thorium. There were 

20 thorium parts that were coming in and so forth 

21 like this, and this is why I didn't want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say that, no, NIOSH can't reconstruct thorium 

2 either because this is why I wanted to talk 

3 this out -- is, can we? Are we confident we 

4 would be able to do that without the data?

5 MR. ROLFES: We have proposed that 

6 we can bound both uranium and thorium intakes 

7 for all years, basically, in this report. So 

8 that is --

9 MR. KATZ: But from your 

10 perspective, Brad, once you say you can't 

11 bound the uranium, since it requires that 

12 uranium data to do the thorium, you are saying 

13 you can't do either?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, yes, that 

15 --

16 MR. KATZ: With the exception of 

17 where they have personal monitoring on thorium 

18 for an individual -- obviously, those 

19 individuals you could use it for some 

20 monitoring. It is listed in your 

21 recommendation that you are making to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

229 

NEAL 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 that thorium is a non-starter, too.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. This is 

3 my issue. I am sorry that I can't express 

4 myself better, but in reading this, it is hard 

5 to understand what is tied to what, when I was 

6 getting this, and when we went through what we 

7 did this morning, this was one of my concerns, 

8 but we hadn't talked about it yet, and I 

9 wanted to discuss it out and see where we go 

10 from there.

11 So, to me, it sounds like that, if 

12 we can't -- if the Board recommends we can't 

13 do uranium, basically, thorium is going to be 

14 right along with it. That's where I was 

15 wondering if we needed to put that into the 

16 recommendation.

17 MR. KATZ: I think it is fine to 

18 note that as a consequence of this, too, and 

19 to note that some individuals will have 

20 personal monitoring on thorium, and those 

21 individuals, of course, might have their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium doses reconstructed even though they 

2 won't have a complete dose reconstruction.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Just one more 

5 question. The ratios are based on air samples 

6 that were done on the W55 in June of '96. Now 

7 this is, unlike some of the other analyses and 

8 samples taken -- we are talking about DU --

9 this was taken after they had revamped the 

10 overall HP control program for contamination 

11 control and air sampling and everything. 

12 Presumably, they had down-draft tables and all 

13 the things that they had installed.

14 MR. ROLFES: No, they did not.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. so for 

16 thorium, they did not have the upgraded 

17 controls?

18 MR. ROLFES: There is no down19 draft tables on site that I am aware of at 

20 Pantex, you know, with an exception possibly, 

21 but it is not going to be routine --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

231 

NEAL 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: That is 

2 interesting because we did get some 

3 documentation -- I may have to go back and 

4 take another look -- that they had upgraded 

5 the control system, including a down-draft 

6 table to reduce the dissemination 

7 contamination for the DU program -- DU system, 

8 W28. This is post-'89. I was wondering if 

9 those same kind of controls were put in place 

10 for thorium, but you are saying there was no 

11 upgrade of those kind of controls after the 

12 incident.

13 MR. ROLFES: I haven't seen any 

14 documentation of a down-draft table at Pantex.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Well, that 

16 is something that we have a number of sources 

17 on. So the notion there was to improve the 

18 contamination control, given the fact that you 

19 had this stuff that was flying around.

20 What I am trying to get to in this 

21 thing -- I guess we can investigate that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 further, but if the controls for the 55 

2 program in '96 -- this is getting way down the 

3 pike -- were much improved, given all the 

4 experiences and lessons learned, then your 

5 samples, I would assume, would be much lower 

6 than what you would have found maybe 10 years 

7 before.

8 I am just trying to reconcile 

9 whether or not that would --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, though, 

12 that would speak to the total activity --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but would 

15 really, with the additional controls, would 

16 they preferentially collect the thorium versus 

17 the uranium? It would seem like it would 

18 collect both contaminants to the same extent 

19 in general. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe. I was 

21 just trying to think how this is going to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 run out because we are taking very late 

2 samples and then using those samples to create 

3 ratios to apply back into the `60s, and I am 

4 just trying to make sure I understand how that 

5 is being proposed.

6 So the notion is that they would 

7 be equivalent -- the ratios would end up being 

8 equivalent, irregardless of any upgrades that 

9 may have occurred, the major overhaul of the 

10 system that took place in '90-'91, that kind 

11 of thing. This normalization question, I 

12 guess, is what I am raising.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it would 

14 seem to me that, going forward, there are a 

15 number of things that could happen at the 

16 Board. The Board could act in accordance with 

17 the recommendation of the Work Group, in which 

18 case everything '83 and earlier, unless a 

19 person got bioassay data that is off the table 

20 and we can't be -- then the thorium post-'83 

21 becomes part of the overall post-'83 Class. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

234 

NEAL 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 know we are going to continue on. So that 

2 is one outcome.

3 Another outcome would be that the 

4 Board would say, well, you haven't convinced 

5 us on the uranium; maybe there -- maybe NIOSH 

6 has already -- that there is a way to do this. 

7 And at that point, where we are today is that 

8 thorium would be an open question. We 

9 haven't explored it. And this report is 

10 pretty recent, you know, people really haven't 

11 had much time to evaluate this report. So 

12 that would slide it out.

13 I am just trying to think of what 

14 other possible outcome could come out of the 

15 Work Group. I mean, I can't. That is pretty 

16 much it, right?

17 MR. FITZGERALD: To me, we could -

18 - I'm sorry, go ahead.

19 MS. LIN: If the Board also 

20 decided that the '84 to '89 data was good 

21 enough to be back-extrapolated as the basis 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

235 

NEAL 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 thorium, you can use only that five years 

2 for thorium.

3 DR. NETON: Right. We still have 

4 to address is the thorium back-extrapolation 

5 valid as well.

6 MS. LIN: So you still just have 

7 to address --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: That is kind of 

9 what I was driving at.

10 DR. NETON: The question of the 

11 uranium back-extrapolation is on the table. 

12 The Board says, well, we agree that they can 

13 back-extrapolate, but then the thorium back14 extrapolation is still out there.

15 MR. KATZ: That is what I raised 

16 originally.

17 DR. NETON: And that is what I was 

18 trying to point out earlier. We could talk 

19 all day.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that is

21 all I am going to raise, but again it strikes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me that one contrast with the back2 extrapolation issue for DU is the fact that we 

3 are using data that even actually comes more 

4 recent in time and after all the other --

5 DR. NETON: And it has its own 

6 nuances such as you pointed out, that it is a 

7 ratio as opposed to an actual activity. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: But I would 

9 disagree. If this is a question we are going 

10 to know in a couple of weeks, then I would --

11 you know, if there are other questions, we can 

12 certainly look at this later. I would propose 

13 that we wait and do our research after we have 

14 some clarity as to where this goes.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I 

16 understand that. I'm kind of new to this, and 

17 I just wanted to make sure, though, that what 

18 I was addressing or bringing forth before the 

19 Board was correct and that I could portray it 

20 to them in the right content because there are 

21 things that are tied to it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When I read this, I didn't know if 

2 there was another process that NIOSH had that, 

3 no, we can do this. I didn't want to go in 

4 and say that you can't do thorium either if 

5 NIOSH did have something else. That is why I 

6 was bringing up the question, is if I ought 

7 to, in bringing this to the Board, bring it up 

8 as uranium and thorium.

9 Jim, I understand fully what you 

10 are saying. I guess, more for me, I was 

11 wanting to make sure that what I am presenting 

12 to the Board and also to the public is correct 

13 and not saying something that you guys might 

14 have something different.

15 So is there any more discussion on 

16 the White Paper of uranium and thorium that 

17 anybody wants to address? Bob or Phil, do 

18 either of you have anything that you wanted to 

19 say on thorium?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: I am fine right 

21 now. This is Bob.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, thank 

2 you, Bob. And nothing from Phil? Maybe we 

3 can continue on.

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No, I don't 

5 have any comments there, Brad.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thanks, Phil. 

7 Okay, NIOSH's response to the SC&A 

8 Draft Completeness and Adequacy Review for the 

9 Pantex Plant. I guess, Mark, it is up to you.

10 MR. ROLFES: All right. Let me 

11 see if I can find my hard copy of this. All 

12 right.

13 I guess a lot of the same issues 

14 that we have been discussing have primarily 

15 been related to, you know, our dose 

16 reconstruction methodology for the earlier 

17 years. How do we account for the lesser 

18 numbers of uranium bioassay? There were some 

19 questions regarding external dosimetry.

20 I don't know if we want to go 

21 through each of the issues that are presented. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

239 

NEAL 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, the first issue here was that not all 

2 workers were monitored, and we understand 

3 that. There is a reason why early workers 

4 weren't monitored, really because there were 

5 no radioactive materials on site. They were 

6 focusing on the production of high explosive 

7 components. 

8 The only people who were monitored 

9 in those very earlier years were the 

10 radiographers. As you see fissile materials 

11 coming onto the site in the late 1950s, you 

12 see an increase in monitoring, external 

13 dosimetry, and then also as well you see the 

14 bioassay sampling program beginning in 1959.

15 I guess on to -- I don't know. 

16 Would you like for me to go through each of 

17 the sort of summary issues?

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I guess we 

19 could question that not all the workers were 

20 monitored and so forth like that. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Can I address one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

240 

NEAL 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, though?

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sure.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: This is one of 

4 these "ships passing in the night" issues. 

5 The Data Completeness Report -- you remember 

6 our discussion in the May Working Group 

7 meeting was held up in DOE review for about 

8 four months, and didn't actually get forwarded 

9 until about the time of the Work Group 

10 meetings. We couldn't address it there.

11 During the Work Group meeting, 

12 going through this revised matrix, we actually 

13 closed some of the issues or at least 

14 dispositioned some of the issues, and that 

15 account is in here, I believe. Yes, down 

16 below, if I can refer you to this package.

17 So this is kind of a curious 

18 situation. We had issues back in December --

19 November-December when this White Paper was 

20 put together on data adequacy, and it got into 

21 the system and popped out of the system after 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 six months. In the meantime, we had a Work 

2 Group meeting where we engaged on some of 

3 these issues and reached some degree of 

4 closure.

5 I just want to provide that 

6 backdrop because I would certainly hate to re7 fight some -- or not re-fight, but re-discuss 

8 some of these issues that, frankly, we've 

9 already were able to disposition at the last 

10 Work Group meeting, and that is all, I think, 

11 laid out in this matrix.

12 So what I would suggest, because I 

13 sort of recognize this issue now because of 

14 the timing question of these different 

15 reports, is that perhaps we could review this 

16 -- we have only had it for a couple of days 

17 anyway; so we haven't had a real good chance 

18 to look at even the reference documents and 

19 data that are behind this -- and disposition 

20 it with a view toward what occurred at the May 

21 meeting.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

242 

NEAL 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 if it has been closed, sort of 

2 God bless, you know, we are fine, and whatever 

3 issue we might have had originally we were 

4 able to work out, and just kind of narrow it 

5 down to what may still be outstanding issues 

6 and maybe see where we are going with that. I 

7 think in the Germantown discussions, I think 

8 we narrowed it down to issues like uranium and 

9 thorium, and felt that some of these other 

10 issues, while legitimate, were -- and I think 

11 you say this in your piece -- were beginning 

12 to tilt toward Site Profile.

13 So maybe we need to take a good 

14 look at this, array it against the results of 

15 the May Work Group meeting, and see what is 

16 left. I don't think, frankly, there are a lot 

17 of big issues left. There are some issues 

18 that we need to disposition.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Joe, with that, 

20 when did you -- the latest matrix I have was 

21 May 2011.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

243 

NEAL 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 MEMBER BEACH: Is that the most 

3 recent?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: That is the most 

5 recent, and --

6 MEMBER BEACH: Has that been 

7 updated to reflect the minutes or what we 

8 discussed in the May meeting?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: This was updated 

10 May 25th. So, yes.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Because mine still 

12 says March. It says cover letter written May 

13 2011, and then in the body of it, it says at 

14 the bottom -- it says March 27, 2008. So that 

15 is why I was questioning whether I --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I had the 

17 one that has updated May 25, 2011 on the lower 

18 righthand corner. 

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You are right. 

20 You guys haven't even had time to be able to 

21 really look at that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

244 

NEAL 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: We can go through 

2 it. I just want to suggest that, you know, 

3 this is maybe a little confusing, given the 

4 progress that was made on some of these issues 

5 at the last Work Group meeting, and the fact 

6 that the White Paper on data completeness was 

7 held up so long that, by the time it did get 

8 in, we had made some progress on some of those 

9 issues, and that is laid out. I am sure it is 

10 laid out in the minutes, but I think, based on 

11 the update of the matrix, that maybe it will 

12 take care of it from that standpoint. It is 

13 up to you.

14 MR. KATZ: I am just thinking, 

15 between the new paper and Mark's presentation 

16 on that and the matrix, you are going to need 

17 to, at this Board meeting, also cover that 

18 topic. So to the extent that -- some of it 

19 may not be resolved yet because you haven't 

20 had a chance to dig into the new material, but 

21 to the extent that things have been resolved 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

245 

NEAL 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 then you know what work there is to do, it 

2 would be good to be telling the Board where 

3 that all stands. So whatever discussion is 

4 useful for that, you should have.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, except we 

6 haven't had a chance to really go behind the 

7 new analysis, given the fact we have had it 

8 for a couple of days. I am just saying that 

9 we can listen to the presentation, but I don't 

10 think we have anything to clarify or respond 

11 to at this point. It is just too early.

12 It is up to you, Brad. What do 

13 you want to do with this?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I don't know 

15 really what benefit it would bring. We have 

16 got several things that have come to closure. 

17 This was, at the last Work Group meeting, I 

18 believe, was something that we were waiting 

19 for from NIOSH, and you guys haven't even had 

20 a chance to review what has been said.

21 I think it would be -- I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

246 

NEAL 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 it would do us any good to go through 

2 this unless there is something that Mark 

3 wanted to bring out specific that changed. I 

4 notice that there was a few things in there 

5 that NIOSH had decided to change and, I guess, 

6 give Mark -- I guess my biggest thing was to 

7 make sure that Mark had an opportunity to 

8 express this paper that they did all this work 

9 on off-line.

10 MR. ROLFES: Well, thanks, Brad. 

11 I appreciate that. I think everything -- you 

12 know, the majority of everything -- as Joe did 

13 say, we came to agreement on just about 

14 everything. It was the basis for 

15 reconstructing uranium and thorium intakes, 

16 which was the primary issue that we left with 

17 at the last Work Group meeting.

18 I think we have come to agreement 

19 or decided that, you know, the other issues 

20 aren't SEC issues, that we are able to bound 

21 doses for any of these other issues, and so we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sort of left it as Site Profile type issues. 

2 Which correction factor do we apply for this 

3 or which correction factor adjustment do we 

4 make for that sort of issue?

5 I don't believe, you know, there 

6 is anything -- the most significant things 

7 that we put together for this meeting were 

8 really the information that allows us to bound 

9 uranium and thorium intakes for all 

10 operational years.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Then, to me, I 

12 guess this is basically in your hands, Joe.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm just 

14 saying, for efficiency's sake, since we have 

15 actually made progress on these issues and, 

16 for example, tritides and some of the other 

17 ones, that I think we have agreed that these 

18 have tilted toward Site Profile questions. 

19 I think for purposes of the 

20 meeting coming up, we can go through what 

21 happened at the May Work Group meeting, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

248 

NEAL 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, certainly reflect this White Paper and 

2 share with you back where we think things 

3 stand on the balance of the issues outside of 

4 uranium and thorium, and then try to 

5 characterize that as accurately as we can, 

6 understanding that there were a lot of things 

7 that were going past each other at the same 

8 time.

9 So we will take that on to go 

10 ahead and work that issue, and be able to put 

11 in your hands collectively now here is what it 

12 looks like as far as where these came out. I 

13 don't think we got transcripts for May, did 

14 we, or did we? We do now? Okay. 

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, there was 

16 kind of a mix-up. It got kind of lost.

17 MEMBER BEACH: No, the January one 

18 did.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: The January 

20 ones got lost.

21 MEMBER BEACH: But they are both 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out.

2 MR. KATZ: They didn't get lost, 

3 but anyway --

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, excuse me. 

5 They didn't get -- they hadn't reviewed them, 

6 and I just got a deal yesterday to review them 

7 and go from there, and I thought, well, wait a 

8 minute, I just took these and -- well, then --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I will certainly 

10 make use of the May transcripts just to make 

11 sure that everything seems to be where it 

12 needs to be as far as what came out, so there 

13 is a record, a public record that brings us up 

14 to date. But that would be, I think, the way 

15 to deal with this one.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

17 and I also know that you haven't had time to 

18 see it much. 

19 So we can continue on. We have a 

20 summary, and I know that we worked on this 

21 down at Pantex.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

250 

NEAL 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, let me make 

2 sure. Is Kathy on the line? She put her 

3 heart and soul in this piece. I don't want to 

4 shortchange, if she had any questions for 

5 Mark. I don't think she is, though. Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I know that we 

7 went through quite a bit to be able to get 

8 this memo out, and I wanted to know if you --

9 we have gone quite in depth through it, but if 

10 you want to give us a summary of what we found 

11 down there and what we learned.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. We focused 

13 on the W28, just because out of the Germantown 

14 meeting, given the timing of the on-site 

15 visit, it was natural to try to pin down some 

16 of the questions that came up in our 

17 Germantown meeting as far as gaps in our 

18 knowledge and timing questions and scoping 

19 issues.

20 So I wanted to highlight that in 

21 this note that we sent through DOE to make 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sure it was clear. These are just basically 

2 the highlights. The originals are in 

3 Germantown, and I would invite you to look at 

4 the transcripts of the interview we did.

5 The interview was pretty good. We 

6 talked to HPs and rad techs, but we finally 

7 got around to talking to a sort of operating 

8 site engineer who seemed to really have his 

9 finger on a lot of the operational issues. We 

10 found that quite valuable and got a lot of 

11 insights out of this. We allude to some of 

12 the comments that he had on the W28, but he 

13 also had a number of general comments on 

14 operations. 

15 At any rate, the highlights on 

16 this thing, again, is that -- I think I said 

17 this earlier -- is that you did have the 28s 

18 coming through on a continuous basis, 

19 different types of dismantlements, that he in 

20 his view felt there were at least two more 

21 incidences or releases before the one that we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

252 

NEAL 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 been talking about that were, in his 

2 view, as bad, if not worse, from the 

3 standpoint of contamination. But, again, that 

4 was a recollection.

5 MR. ROLFES: Are you aware of 

6 which incidents they were? Did he mention --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: No. We were 

8 trying to -- obviously, trying to pin down, 

9 but off the top he couldn't remember exact 

10 dates. But what he was trying to say is the 

11 same thing that, I think, we have been asking, 

12 too, which is what can you recollect 20 years 

13 ago in terms of these incidents.

14 His take, though, on the '89 -- is 

15 it '89 or -- `90 is the data; '89 was the 

16 release. His characterization, and he was 

17 there -- he was assigned to the 28 program at 

18 that time. 

19 His take on it was simply, you 

20 know, we had these releases in the past, and 

21 what changed in '89 was the environment that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

253 

NEAL 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 going on in the Department in terms of the 

2 scrutiny, and the workers were becoming more 

3 mindful and they finally raised their hand, 

4 and management in that time frame really 

5 decided to take action.

6 It wasn't so much the incident 

7 that pushed things. It was just, frankly, the 

8 circumstances that the plant was under and the 

9 fact that DU was finally seen as a 

10 radiological issue that had to be addressed. 

11 He felt that that is what kind of made this 

12 thing as noteworthy as it came to be, and that 

13 other than that, it was business as usual.

14 Before that, they had releases of 

15 the same nature, and there wasn't that cloud. 

16 You know, the circumstances weren't such that 

17 the workers would have raised their hand, and 

18 it is tough for a worker in the circumstances 

19 of Pantex to complain about contamination, as 

20 you can imagine.

21 So, yes, the circumstances in '89 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

254 

NEAL 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 such that this happened, but his point 

2 was it could have happened well before that, 

3 given the actual contamination situation with 

4 the 28.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And, Mark, he 

6 did call out that it wasn't numbers; it was 

7 the inner parts of it. He said, these 

8 problems will but, you know as well as I do, 

9 we are not going to be able to talk outside of 

10 the confidential area. 

11 When we put it out -- and what 

12 came forth to me was when we said, and we 

13 understand that the 28 was really the worst 

14 one, he said, no, it wasn't; there's just more 

15 who were working on it. We had this, that it 

16 is just the change of the environment in this 

17 time that it became more brought forth. He 

18 says, in my personal opinion, we had several 

19 ones that were a lot worse. But he tied them 

20 to an object and stuff, you know, that we 

21 won't be able to discuss.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: That is why I was 

2 asking. You know, I wondered what the 

3 specific occurrences were because we do have 

4 documentation of other incidents similar to 

5 the B28. That is why I wondered. I wanted to 

6 get a sense of which ones he was referring to, 

7 so that we could do a comparison or a source 

8 term analysis to basically ensure that the W28 

9 exposure pathway is truly bounding. That is 

10 why I am trying to ask for what specific 

11 sources.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: It was the 28, 

13 but he couldn't pinpoint the actual release 

14 time frame or, if there was an incident, what 

15 was the incident that might have been worse. 

16 We were trying to get some more specifics, 

17 just so we would have that, but he could not 

18 remember. And to be fair about it, 20 years -

19 - I just wanted to understand, did this stand 

20 out from a magnitude standpoint to be the most 

21 significant release or -- and his response 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

256 

NEAL 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, not from a magnitude standpoint, just 

2 from the standpoint that management -- it was 

3 significant from a managerial standpoint, and 

4 management responded. That was the difference 

5 with that particular incident, more than 

6 anything else.

7 MR. ROLFES: I am just saying, I 

8 have seen similar responses earlier on besides 

9 the W28 incident. That is why I wanted 

10 clarification because there are bioassay data 

11 collected as a result of other contamination 

12 incidents that occurred with different weapon 

13 programs surrounding this time period as well.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: He did say it was 

15 the 28, but he just couldn't pinpoint any 

16 particular event as a certain date or -- that 

17 was all we could get out of him at that point.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And you 

19 interviewed this person this year?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: This was the last 

21 trip, right. The raw notes are in Germantown, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

257 

NEAL 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 the name is there, too. So it is all --

2 He is down there. He is still working.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Actually -- and 

4 this is what is interesting about him -- he 

5 lives and works at Pantex and has for numerous 

6 years, but he works for Los Alamos now, as 

7 being there. This is why he didn't show up as 

8 a Pantex employee, but he is there at Pantex.

9 MR. ROLFES: And there is Sandia, 

10 Livermore, Pantex people down there. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: That is why he 

12 didn't jump out earlier because he wasn't 

13 listed as a Pantex employee.

14 The other thing that he indicated 

15 -- and this goes to the earlier discussion we 

16 had on the pre-1958. He sort of said, well, 

17 you know, just so you know, while the W28 

18 series was apparently the earliest series that 

19 was viewed significant at Pantex, units 

20 containing DU from earlier series -- the Mark21 15 Mod 2 was an example -- may have been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 handled earlier at Pantex.

2 So he was just cautioning that, as 

3 far as DU significance, there were systems 

4 predating the 28 that we ought not just forget 

5 about or not at least address that early on. 

6 So he did mention that.

7 MR. ROLFES: That is pretty much 

8 the same kind of program as the W28.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: And you can read 

10 the memo. I mean, they were in disassembly 

11 and heavily oxidized units. 

12 The initial work was done in the 

13 absence of gloves and respiratory protection. 

14 If a worker requested a dust mask, the 

15 company provided one, and this is the approach 

16 pretty much through '89, at which point down17 draft tables were installed. 

18 So I actually read that. Before 

19 we interviewed him, I had read that elsewhere. 

20 So that would be something I would love to 

21 know for sure because I have heard it in more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than one place that down-draft tables were 

2 installed after the incident for purposes of 

3 contamination control.

4 We talked about worker categories.

5 MR. ROLFES: Joe, could I ask a 

6 question about the previous statement there?

7 The initial disassembly of all 

8 both clean and heavily oxidized weapons 

9 doesn't involve gloves or respiratory 

10 protection because you have got a complete 

11 unit coming out of the field. You know, the 

12 initial work is done outside of a Gravel 

13 Gertie where there is essentially no potential 

14 for exposure until you really start breaking 

15 the thing down into pieces.

16 So all initial work -- I mean, the 

17 first initial work might be, you know, some 

18 loosening of some screws or bolts or 

19 something. So I just wondered if -- what you 

20 meant by the initial disassembly. I was going 

21 to say, the initial disassembly of any kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

260 

NEAL 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 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I didn't 

3 say initial disassembly. I said during the 

4 disassembly of heavily oxidized units.

5 MR. ROLFES: The initial work?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: The initial work 

7 was done in the absence of gloves and 

8 respiratory protection.

9 MR. ROLFES: I am just saying that 

10 both heavily oxidized as well as clean, you 

11 know, because it is not every unit is 

12 oxidized, obviously, and the majority of them, 

13 in fact, aren't. So I just wondered. You 

14 know, the initial handling of any component 

15 would be done without gloves or respiratory 

16 protection.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think in 

18 terms of dismantlement down to the DU, what we 

19 are getting from the interview and from the 

20 documentation was just that they did not have 

21 the respiratory protection. They could, in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fact, get some of these items, but they had to 

2 request it. So that was just the distinction 

3 that was being offered. It wasn't a rigorous 

4 procedure to wear that or don that.

5 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I just want to 

6 point out that we wouldn't reduce the intake 

7 that we assign based upon respiratory 

8 protection factors.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. I didn't 

10 put it there for that intention.

11 The next issue was simply to point 

12 out the one we talked about, that the types of 

13 workers -- again, this is from the interview -

14 - types of workers that would be implicated in 

15 terms of the DU contamination were the ones I 

16 have listed. 

17 Not surprisingly, they involve 

18 sort of a broad range of people that would 

19 frequent those areas, not just the operators, 

20 but technicians, the maintenance staff, safety 

21 people, handlers, folks that actually moved 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 things in and out of the bays, and that we 

2 talked about the beryllium as an issue, just 

3 as a marker, if you may, for the possibility 

4 that, in fact, the DU was likewise spread in 

5 the same way.

6 That was the comment that was made 

7 again by the engineer who was familiar with 

8 this thing, and he brought that up. You had a 

9 question?

10 MR. ROLFES: I was just thinking. 

11 I mean, you know, it is hard to compare, 

12 because I don't know if -- you know, there 

13 were different requirements for fissile 

14 materials and high explosives where that work 

15 had to be done. So beryllium work might have 

16 been done somewhere outside of the bays 

17 themselves. 

18 So it is not really a direct -- I 

19 am just trying to think. You know, it could 

20 speak, obviously, to contamination being found 

21 in other parts of the plant, but it doesn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

263 

NEAL 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 say that uranium would also 

2 follow.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think it is 

4 just a cautionary note that before they did 

5 the beryllium survey, they felt the beryllium 

6 was confined to the actual handling locations, 

7 and it turned out it was actually fairly 

8 widespread. But that is not uncommon at other 

9 DOE sites, actually.

10 In this case, I think the issue is 

11 what would have precluded spreading that kind 

12 of contamination outside the cells when you 

13 have, as noted in the Albuquerque audit, that 

14 you really didn't have a rigorous 

15 contamination program and self-monitoring and 

16 other things, egress monitoring, that would 

17 have guarded against someone having it on 

18 their coveralls and going out into the hallway 

19 or the office areas, and over time that, 

20 obviously, would have contaminated those 

21 areas. So just again an observation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

264 

NEAL 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 actually bears on this question 

2 of what workers would be located in this.

3 This one is baffling to me, 

4 because -- well, I will have to go back. We 

5 did request the documentation. We had 

6 material, actual material, at Pantex that 

7 should be in Germantown that talked about the 

8 spectrographic analysis of black powder.

9 This came up in our discussion, as 

10 you recall, a couple of times before that, 

11 that even though workers were complaining 

12 about being covered with black powder -- I 

13 think, Mark, either you or somebody, maybe it 

14 was Mel, was talking about, yes, but this was 

15 hardly depleted uranium; it could have easily 

16 been a lot of other things, including lead.

17 So we were looking for that when 

18 we down to the site, and actually we did find 

19 a document that nailed it down because when 

20 they had the incident, they actually did a 

21 spectrographic analysis following the incident 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

265 

NEAL 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 establish what the composition was.

2 I don't know if I read a different 

3 document, but what I reported was predominant 

4 presence of uranium followed by smaller 

5 concentrations of lead, chromium, cadmium, and 

6 other metal compounds. 

7 Jim, what you were saying seemed 

8 to be the opposite. So that is puzzling to 

9 me, and when I get back to Germantown, I will 

10 go back to that document and get you a 

11 specific reference. It is not cleared yet, 

12 but --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It will be in the 

14 holdings in Germantown.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So the 

16 spectrographic analysis following the incident 

17 -- the black powder, I think, is very germane, 

18 but what I recorded, it was mostly depleted 

19 uranium but did, in fact, include other 

20 concentrations of metals.

21 DR. NETON: Well, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inconsistent with how they followed up the 

2 incident, though, because they took blood lead 

3 samples because they felt that the blood was 

4 going to be a more sensitive indicator because 

5 the lead was higher than the uranium. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Like I said, I 

7 say it is baffling because it is baffling.

8 DR. NETON: I am not saying the 

9 blood level's the right way to go.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there might

11 have been enough lead because I had lead 

12 recorded second. It might have been enough 

13 lead.

14 DR. NETON: It was -- two percent, 

15 and uranium was under one percent.

16 MR. ROLFES: There were also zinc 

17 protoporphyrin samples that were taken as a 

18 result of that incident. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: And this is a 

20 secondary issue because we are not talking 

21 about how big the source term is per se, but I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 again wanted to hit that issue while we were 

2 down there because of the questions that were 

3 raised about the black powder.

4 The last item, you know, we did 

5 look at Medina-Clarksville, and I don't know 

6 if that is germane for this work -- probably 

7 not. So I will leave that out, but again 

8 there is some information that was coming out 

9 of that, I guess the Work Group did -- but it 

10 is not germane to the SEC question. So I am 

11 going to leave that out unless you feel 

12 otherwise, Brad, on Medina-Clarksville. It is 

13 in the memo.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. It is 

15 just that it pertains a little bit to Pantex 

16 because at this time Pantex was shipping to 

17 Medina and Clarksville, and probably this Work 

18 Group -- you know, we are kind of hitting all 

19 three of these, and the one good person that 

20 came from -- from Medina?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- to Pantex 

2 that was still there that is seventy-something 

3 --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. He was the 

5 interviewee.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Just in terms 

7 of the DU because -- the question being, Ted, 

8 is because the earlier years DU was there a 

9 lot sooner than '58. 

10 MR. KATZ: At Medina, you mean?

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, at Pantex, 

12 but we couldn't -- we found shipments of HE 

13 which -- along with, but we couldn't find 

14 anything that called it right out. They 

15 called it by a part number, and we couldn't 

16 find anything to tie it to that.

17 You know, we can keep that with--

18 MR. KATZ: Exploring that early 

19 period.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, with the 

21 earlier periods.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

269 

NEAL 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: But there is a 

2 considerable amount of information that was 

3 collected on that interview as well as the 

4 documentation on Medina and Clarksville that 

5 is also in Germantown. So I think a lot of 

6 progress was made on that, too. So just for 

7 the record.

8 That is kind -- again, that is the 

9 tip of the iceberg. That is all we could get 

10 through the system for this meeting.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And that took a 

12 lot of effort, which I have been in contact 

13 with Mr. Lewis on, and he is trying to assist 

14 me. I know that we have kind of taken a hit 

15 with the problems with Michael, too. So I am 

16 sure that Isaf will help us through that, and 

17 we will go from there.

18 I guess my question is is we have 

19 got the Work Group's recommendation for the 

20 full Board --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. I would just like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

270 

NEAL 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 suggest that Joe help you put together some 

2 flesh on the bones for when you make your 

3 recommendations, so that you have sort of some 

4 bullet points on what is the basis behind for 

5 what you have discussed today, so that you can 

6 -- you know, because the Board -- this is all 

7 coming out of the blue to the Board. So they 

8 are going to need some context.

9 I am planning to send to all the 

10 Board the documents that we have that we can 

11 provide.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: As well as transcripts, 

14 so that the Board can review all that material 

15 and have some background when they hear from 

16 you, but I would try to do a reasonably robust 

17 presentation because, again, they are coming 

18 at this pretty new, to be frank.

19 And likewise for DCAS. You know, 

20 there's two stories to tell, and DCAS will 

21 want to tell a story, too, to help the Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 get up to speed and perspectives on these 

2 matters.

3 MR. ROLFES: Just as a matter of -

4 - if it is for the next Board meeting, though, 

5 the problem is our presentation deadline has 

6 already passed for the meeting. So if we were 

7 to give a presentation to the Board, it would 

8 just have to be like a verbal thing because it 

9 is sort of past our --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I can waive that. 

11 We will get something together.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. I think it is 

13 important that the Board get some context.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: What we presented 

15 here was essentially a weight of the evidence 

16 argument. Here are some pieces of things, and 

17 these are our reasons to believe that what we 

18 presented is a bounding approach for the work 

19 there. Okay.

20 So our presentation should be very 

21 concisely that, you know, not a lot of other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 stuff, not a lot of talking about -- you know, 

2 just these are the pieces of information that 

3 we are using to conclude that this period was 

4 the bad period, and we can bound it based on 

5 this data set, and that's it. That is 

6 essentially the extent that we would do.

7 I don't see it being particularly 

8 long, but we really should provide, because 

9 you know, our Evaluation Report still says 

10 dose reconstruction is feasible. We need to 

11 provide a concise description of why we think 

12 that is true.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. And, again, 

14 they will have the transcripts from the Work 

15 Group meetings that we have had previously. 

16 They won't, obviously, have the transcript for 

17 this one, but that is part of what will get 

18 accomplished in the summary that Joe helps 

19 Brad with. Circulate it if you can -- if you 

20 have time.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

273 

NEAL 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 certainly needs to be up by early next 

2 week, and I will use words that are already on 

3 the table and have been screened by DOE -- or 

4 not screened by DOE, but -- yes, screened by 

5 DOE, so I don't have to send this presentation 

6 through. It won't be ready by then.

7 MR. KATZ: And it should be 

8 completely derivative.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, derivative 

10 and focused, as Stu is pointing out, on 

11 strictly the issue at hand which is the 

12 depleted uranium.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and 

14 particularly why is something -- I think we 

15 have presented the various things here. We 

16 should try to get it together pretty quickly 

17 because your discussion is going to be why is 

18 this not convincing to us.

19 MR. KATZ: Well also touch on 

20 thorium and touch on completeness of data, 

21 too.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

274 

NEAL 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: Why don't you believe 

2 we can extrapolate before --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Before 1984.

4 MR. KATZ: Just so that they have 

5 a sense of what was discussed here in context 

6 with the transcripts that they get that lead 

7 up to this meeting.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: The January 

9 transcripts -- I haven't reviewed them for 

10 accuracy yet.

11 MR. KATZ: But that is fine for 

12 the Board. The Board can get them before --

13 it is not a problem for the Board. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: They are 

15 online.

16 MR. KATZ: It would be good to get 

17 them, be able to review them, the public --

18 well, the public gets it, too, PA cleared. 

19 They just don't get the one with your stamp on 

20 it.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. I just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

275 

NEAL 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 make sure that you knew that these 

2 just came to me, and I am --

3 MR. KATZ: No, that is fine. So 

4 it is not a worry that the public has it, too, 

5 in one version.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. We are 

7 through the agenda. I want to make sure that 

8 everybody has had an opportunity to voice what 

9 their concerns are, or if there are any 

10 questions on our path forward.

11 I have several, to make sure that 

12 SC&A is covered by their tasking or whatever, 

13 but there shouldn't be any ongoing problems, 

14 and when we bring this up, we are going to 

15 look at the earlier years and on, but what we 

16 are going to bring before the Board is '58 to 

17 the end of '83, and that we will continue, 

18 because I want to make sure that the 

19 petitioners understand that things have kind 

20 of changed a little bit today and that we are 

21 still looking at that. I just want to make 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sure that we are there.

2 My question -- and I know -- I 

3 guess my question is do we tie -- how we tie 

4 thorium to this DU concern. Do I need to 

5 bring that up? Do I need to change what I am 

6 bringing forward to the Board and add thorium 

7 to it or would it be understood that thorium 

8 and uranium --

9 MR. KATZ: I think you just need 

10 to give the context that this will also mean 

11 that thorium can't be reconstructed because 

12 thorium is dependent on the uranium 

13 reconstruction, the DU reconstruction. I 

14 think that's probably adequate.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, we 

16 came out with Medina and Clarksville on here, 

17 and I just wanted to help everybody understand 

18 why this kind of played into it. It is 

19 because this is probably going to be the Work 

20 Group that is able to do those, but also, too, 

21 when we go to these sites, it better utilizes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our time, because it is interesting that Los 

2 Alamos and Sandia and everything else like 

3 that is a large amount of the data for these 

4 three sites, Pantex, Medina and Clarksville. 

5 There is a lot of data there, and that is why 

6 SC&A sometimes gets double things that they 

7 are looking at down there. That is why we got 

8 into that.

9 MR. KATZ: I would just also note 

10 for your thought about the Work Group taking 

11 on then the new assignments and so on, and we 

12 have Sandia coming up, too. Right? A Work 

13 Group on Sandia is getting assembled, I 

14 believe. Right? Jim has asked for volunteers 

15 for that, and we actually have a couple of 

16 more Board Members who will get cleared, who 

17 will get clearances to work on these Work 

18 Groups, too. So that is going to be helpful.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: And by the way, 

20 that is going fairly well with Sam, just to 

21 kind of weave us in on it. So we are not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 starting from scratch.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. So that has been 

3 very good, I think, the coordination on that.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So can we go over 

5 action items? I have a couple of them listed, 

6 but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss 

7 anything. 

8 For -- because I know NIOSH is 

9 going to look at the uranium for the years '84 

10 to '91 and then '51 to '58. Correct? I think 

11 that was the only assignment you guys have.

12 DR. NETON: Fifty-one to '58 is 

13 what it is.

14 MEMBER BEACH: That one is not 

15 going to be included?

16 DR. NETON: Well, I had thought 

17 that our only action item was to go and put 

18 forth our model for -- analysis model for 1988 

19 '89 -- based on the 1990 data.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it would be 

21 '84 to '90, actually, and then presumably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

279 

NEAL 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 a routine --

2 DR. NETON: That was our action 

3 item, to shore that up and explain our 

4 rationale.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And SC&A was 

6 going to, after they get that, review that, 

7 but they were also going to continue the 

8 earlier years. When we were down there, we --

9 that kind of falls into SC&A for the earlier 

10 years.

11 MEMBER BEACH: And then SC&A is 

12 going to review the responses for NIOSH on the 

13 data adequacy and completeness paper?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

15 MEMBER BEACH: And then the 

16 matrix? 

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: Very good. Thank you, 

19 Josie.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And Joe is 

21 going to help me put a slide together.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

280 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I put that down on 

2 my list for you.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: It is not on my 

4 agenda to do. Also, to -- and this is kind of 

5 SC&A's and also NIOSH's -- is to make sure 

6 that all the documentation that the Board 

7 would need -- do you want us to run that 

8 through you and disseminate it?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Ted said he was 

10 going to send it.

11 MR. KATZ: I am going to send to 

12 all the Board Members transcripts and the 

13 products that have been delivered to the Work 

14 Group that can be disseminated. So all those 

15 things I will send, and I will also ask Zaida 

16 to put it in the folder, so it is in the 

17 Board's folder, if it is not already there, 

18 and it will be on the memory sticks for the 

19 Board's computers. So I will take care of 

20 that.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, I just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

281 

NEAL 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 make sure that they have the 

2 information.

3 MR. KATZ: I am going to do the 

4 same for Fernald, for that matter, tomorrow. 

5 I will talk about that tomorrow.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. And we 

7 have gotten the up to date matrix?

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. It is up to 

9 date as of the May 4th Work Group meeting.

10 MR. KATZ: Was that distributed to 

11 the whole Work Group? Okay. So then I have 

12 that. So that would be part of what I will --

13 they will get everything -- everything that 

14 the Work Group has had to consider.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Before that, I 

16 think there was a March 10th piece that was an 

17 email that was sent out.

18 MR. KATZ: There's two -- Right. 

19 There's two memos and whatever.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Whatever, 

21 different types.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

282 

NEAL 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: You will all be copied 

2 on that. So if I miss a piece somehow, by all 

3 means, let me know when I send that. If there 

4 is another piece that I have missed, please 

5 cover me.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I just 

7 wanted to make sure who was going to do that 

8 or so forth because I want to make sure that 

9 gets out to the Board as soon as possible.

10 MR. KATZ: How many transcripts --

11 we only have three transcripts, three meetings 

12 on Pantex?

13 MEMBER BEACH: January, March.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Three Work Group 

15 meetings.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. That is what I 

17 am saying. Including today or this is the 

18 fourth?

19 MEMBER BEACH: I think it is 

20 today, including today.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: There won't be a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

283 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transcript -- for Germantown.

2 MR. KATZ: No, there is no 

3 transcript of that.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: A series of 

5 redacted interviews was sent to us within the 

6 last month or two ago. It was redacted and

7 provided to the Working Group. Did Nancy send 

8 them? I can't find the message from Nancy 

9 about that.

10 MR. ROLFES: It was last month. 

11 It was from July.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I recall it.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And it is a series 

14 of interviews?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: It is all the 

16 interviews up through --

17 MR. KATZ: August of last year.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thanks, 

19 Mark. I couldn't find it.

20 MEMBER BEACH: So it is July 2011? 

21 That is the document? It is July 2011 is the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

284 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Pantex site, expert interview summary.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. Correct.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm sorry, 

4 I have that one.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So everything 

6 that Nancy sent out and stuff like that will -

7 - Okay. 

8 With that, is there anything else 

9 that anybody feels we need to discuss? Phil 

10 or Bob?

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No, not on my 

12 part.

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'm in good 

14 shape.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

16 Appreciate that. As soon as we get something 

17 together, I will send it out to the rest of 

18 the Work Group, my presentation and so forth, 

19 and if that is it, we are adjourned.

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pantex Work Group, has 

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

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

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

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

285 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matter went off the record at 2:50 p.m.)

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18