NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

+ + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

 AND HEALTH 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

 NEVADA TEST SITE WORK GROUP 

+ + + + + 

 TUESDAY, 

DECEMBER 15, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 MEETING 

+ + + + + 

 The Work Group convened, in the 

Zurich Meeting Room at the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott Hotel, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:30 a.m., Robert Presley, Chair, 

presiding. 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Chair 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON 

WANDA I. MUNN 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

TED KATZ, Acting Designated Federal Official 

NANCY ADAMS, Contractor to NIOSH* 

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE* 

LYNN ANSPAUGH, SC&A* 

BOB BARTON, SC&A 

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A* 

JEFF COATES, DOL* 

JOHN FUNK, Petitioner* 

STU HINNEFELD, OCAS 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

BONNIE KLEA, Santa Susana Field Lab* 

JENNY LIN, HHS* 

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

JAMES NETON, OCAS 

KATHLEEN ROSNER, Office of Sen. Harry Reid* 

LEW WADE, NIOSH 

*Participating via telephone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

Call to Order and Welcome 4 

 Ted Katz 

Roll Call and Conflict-of-Interest 4 

Statements 

Agenda for the Meeting 8 

 Bob Presley 

SEC Petition 84 White Paper 9 

 Jim Neton 

 Questions and Answers 21 

 John Mauro 29 

 Arjun Makhijani 40 

 and 

 Bob Barton 44 

 Discussion 68 

Next Steps 124 

Motion to accept NIOSH's proposed date 154 

of January 1st, 1963 through December 

31st, 1992 in the SEC 

 Amendment to the motion 155 

 Vote 158 

New Business 158 

 Information to come to the Work Group 158 

 on the TBD or the site profile 

Adjournment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

(9:30 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

in the room and on the phone. 

 This is the Advisory Board on 

Radiation Worker Health, the NTS Work Group. 

We are just ready to get going now, beginning 

with roll call, Board members in the room. 

 Please, everybody, for roll call, 

please address your conflict-of-interest 

situation. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Robert Presley, 

Chairman, NTS Working Group. No conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: Board members. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, NTS 

Work Group. No conflict. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield, 

NTS Work Group member. No conflict. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, NTS 

Work Group member. No conflict. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board 

member. No conflict. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, do 

we have any Board members in attendance? 

 MR. FUNK: This is John Funk of Las 

Vegas. No conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: Hello. John, thank you. 

 You're later, but right now we're just doing 

Board members. 

 MR. FUNK: Sorry, Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: It's okay. 

 Any Board members on the phone? 

 (No audible response.) 

 Then, the NIOSH ORAU team in the 

room? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

Interim Director of OCAS. I don't have a 

conflict at NTS. 

 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS. No 

conflict at NTS. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, 

NIOSH ORAU team? Any? 

 (No audible response.) 

 Are you expecting any, Jim? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. 

 SC&A, in the room? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. No 

conflict. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, 

SC&A. No conflict. 

 MR. BARTON: Bob Barton, SC&A. No 

conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: And then SC&A on the 

line. 

 MR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn 

Anspaugh. Conflicted. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Lynn. 

 Okay, that's SC&A. 

 Then let's go with other HHS or 

federal officials, DOE, DOL, or contractors to 

federal agencies in the room. 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

 MR. WADE: Lew Wade. I work for 

NIOSH. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FUNK: John Funk. 

 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

DOE. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome. 

 Any other government employees, 

contractors, on the line? 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, 

contractor, NIOSH. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Nancy. 

 MR. COATES: Jeff Coates, 

Department of Labor. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Jeff. 

 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin with HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Hi, Jenny. 

 MS. LIN: Hi. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then, members of 

the public or staff of congressional offices 

on the line? 

 MS. ROSNER: Kathleen Rosner from 

Senator Harry Reid's office. 

 MR. KATZ: Kathleen Rosner? 

 MS. ROSNER: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome. 

 Any other members? 

 John Funk, you're with us still? 

 MR. FUNK: Yes, sir. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, John. 

 MS. KLEA: Bonnie Klea, Santa 

Susana Field Lab. 

 MR. KATZ: Hi, Bonnie. Welcome. 

 MS. KLEA: Good morning. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, then, let's just 

remind folks on the phone, please mute your 

phones except when you're addressing the 

group; *6 if you don't have a mute button; *6 

again to take it off of mute. Please do not 

put your phone on hold at any point. Just if 

you have to leave the call, hang up and dial 

back in. 

 And it's all yours, Bob. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. What I would 

like to do is set the stage this morning. 

What we plan on doing is letting Jim go 

through his findings, and I would like to have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

John and Arjun do SC&A's rebuttal. Then I 

would like to talk about the two remaining 

issues that we have. 

 John put a letter out stating their 

position on these. I would like for him to 

state that. 

 Then we will go into new business 

after that. 

 Jim? 

 DR. NETON: Okay. Well, I am going 

to be speaking from a White Paper that NIOSH 

issued on November 25th, 2009. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Does anybody need a 

copy of that? Has everybody got it? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: If we had a spare, 

I would -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I have copies. 

 DR. MAURO: It's easy for me to 

work from this and move back and forth. 

 DR. NETON: It's a very short 

paper, and I just intend to do a brief 

synopsis of what is in here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 This has been cleared for the 

Privacy Act and other things. So it is 

available to be shared with the public. I 

believe it is possibly on our website by now. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: This is the cleared 

version. 

 DR. NETON: There was an earlier 

version. It was not Privacy-Act cleared, but, 

in fact, there are no differences. Nothing 

was considered to be Privacy Act-protected in 

the original. 

 So we have been discussing SEC 

Petition 84 for quite some time now with this 

Working Group. We presented that in April 

2007, and it was our position at that time 

that we could plausibly bound all internal and 

external exposures at NTS after January 1st of 

63. 

 There has been a lot of technical 

discussions gone on since then, and through 

the detailed review by SC&A, there was a 

number of findings that were identified that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

required further investigation. 

 After a lengthy amount of debate, 

the remaining issue of concern boils down, at 

least in NIOSH's opinion, to the ability to 

bound internal exposures for unmonitored 

workers. I call it one issue. Really, I 

think SC&A considers it two. 

 There's two pieces to that. One is 

the ability to construct a coworker model for 

internal exposure for those who weren't 

monitored, and the other one is for people who 

are, like, sort of in the field doing 

operations, not necessarily working with very 

well defined source terms. But, for our 

purposes, I considered them to be one source 

term. 

 So we had originally proposed the 

use of the claimant data. We didn't have any 

real extensive bioassay data for workers from 

NTS. So we proposed the use of the coworker 

dataset that we had or the claimant dataset 

that we had, and used the highest 100 exposed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers as our dataset of a coworker model. 

 SC&A did some very serious review 

of that dataset and identified what we 

considered to be some issues of 

representativeness. So, to address those 

questions, we felt that it was important to go 

back and review the site procedures and 

documents that indicated why people might have 

been monitored. 

 And in addition, at about that same 

time, we had learned of the existence of this 

electronic database of all of the bioassay 

data that had been taken over an extended 

period of time at NTS. So we undertook a 

review of both the documentation that reported 

why bioassay samples were taken as well as a 

review of the new dataset. 

 Briefly, the electronic dataset; we 

originally thought it had somewhere around a 

quarter million records. I believe now it is 

something about half that. It's 125,000 

records, is my best recollection. The dataset 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was included in about four different tables, 

and it is out there on the O: drive or the K: 

drive for people to review. 

 We took a look at that dataset and 

characterized it. And indeed, there were a 

large number of samples for plutonium, 

tritium, gamma measurements and beta 

measurements, all in urine, over the entire 

time period that we were interested in. 

 Interestingly enough, though, the 

dataset did contain the name of the person, 

the Social Security number, but there was no 

indication of the job title or why the sample 

was taken, or where the worker was. So it 

didn't really give us a good, comfortable 

feeling that we could really better define who 

was monitored and why, based on that dataset, 

in spite of the fact that we had a large 

number of samples. 

 To make a long story short, after 

our analysis of the dataset and the 

documentation that was available to support 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the bioassay program, we ended up with four 

issues of concern. Those are: 

 The first one is that we have 

identified scenarios where there were a lot of 

job titles and work activities, a lot of 

varied activities that had been undertaken at 

the Nevada Test Site, drill-backs, 

construction, post-test work activities, those 

sort of things. 

 But, prior to 1993, we could find 

no documentation to confirm the rationale 

behind why those samples were actually taken. 

 In other words, we were looking for a 

document that said, okay, we monitored the 

people that are in the database because they 

had the highest potential for exposure, and 

they were routinely monitored, and those sorts 

of things, the things you would like to see 

for a good, robust monitoring program. 

 Further, we looked at the available 

data itself, and to the extent we could, we 

attempted -- and SC&A had done this before -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to characterize the types of people that were 

sampled. Even though the database didn't 

contain those identifiers, we went back into 

the NOCTS database, looking at claimant 

populations to try to now get a better 

correlation for who was sampled and why. 

 The same pattern had emerged that 

SC&A observed in the review of the 100 or 120. 

 That is, there is a large number of 

radiological technicians and security 

personnel that were sampled. That makes some 

sense. These people were all over the site 

doing various activities. 

 But the fact remains that you 

cannot, sort of a priori, assume that these 

people were the highest-exposed workers. They 

were convenient people to sample to get a 

sense, was the Rad Control program functioning 

as it should. But, nonetheless, it wouldn't 

give you a good feeling that the highestexposed people were sampled. 

 There were a lot of other job 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

duties and titles represented, but those 

samples appear to have been more incidentdriven samples as opposed to routine samples. 

 In other words, there might have been some 

evidence of an elevated airborne area or a 

campaign started up where they drill-back, and 

then you would see a large number of samples 

collected on one day. That is not a 

distinctive mark of what I would call a 

routine monitoring program. 

 The second issue we identified was 

that there were some data gaps, even in the 

electronic database. We could only find 300 

bioassay records for uranium up until 1992. 

That, in and of itself, is not, maybe, a 

tremendous shock, but we really couldn't 

correlate, was that really the right number of 

samples based on what was done at the site. 

We just don't have a feel if that was the 

appropriate number. 

 And secondly, in that area of the 

data gaps, there is only tritium -- I mean 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

beta analyses and gamma analyses for the 

fission products, of which there could be a 

very different mix, depending upon when the 

sample was taken. This was, after all, a 

nuclear weapon that had been detonated, and 

there's a lot of short-lived decayed fission 

productions that decay over time. Depending 

on where that sample was taken in relation to 

the actual weapons detonation, you could come 

up with some fairly significant differences in 

dose conversion factors. 

 Our third concern was the nature of 

the work at NTS. It is sort of a large 

geographic area over which the work was 

conducted. 

 Unlike many production sites, like 

a Fernald or a Savannah River that has 

stationary operations, where routine samples 

were taken -- for example, there's hundreds of 

thousands of samples at some of these larger 

sites -- NTS was largely an episodic-driven 

program. There would be a weapons test on one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

day, and then there would be some operations 

over the subsequent weeks to try to 

characterize how well the weapon functioned by 

doing drill-backs and that sort of thing. 

 So there was really, from our 

perspective in this time period, no real 

evidence of what I consider a routine 

monitoring program, except for the 

radiological technicians and the security 

guards, who were not necessarily the highest 

exposed. 

 Because of the episodic nature of 

that work, which was almost an acute-type 

exposure scenario, NIOSH was not comfortable 

saying that we could develop a coworker model 

which largely is based on a chronic exposure 

situation. So the question is, how do you 

take an acute sampling program and convert it 

into a chronic coworker model to bound 

exposures. 

 And lastly, there was a variety of 

nuclides that were generated on the Site, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

addition to the ones that were in the 

database. These would include, but not 

limited to things like americium, thorium, 

radium, iodine, and, of course, the fission 

products, which were sort of captured with the 

generic gamma and beta analyses. 

 So, with no bioassay records, these 

other nuclides that were not monitored, one 

would also have to establish some sort of 

ratios to come up with the intakes of the 

other nuclides based on the plutonium 

sampling, which would also have been 

problematic for us. 

 So, given those four main areas of 

concern that weren't addressed by either 

looking at the bioassay records themselves or 

the documentation, we really could find no 

strong documentation for a routine program. 

That is not to say it was a bad program. I 

mean one needs to consider that during this 

timeframe they were largely operating under 

the concept, the internal dosimetry concept of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ICRP 2, Publication 2, which basically said, 

as long as you stay below a certain maximum 

permissible concentration in air over the 

entire year, then the program was behaving 

satisfactorily. There were limits above which 

one shouldn't go: maybe 25 or 50 percent. I 

have forgotten what the limits were. 

 But that was the nature of the way 

the programs were designed in that timeframe, 

and it appears that NTS did a good job doing 

that. Unfortunately, what they have collected 

is not useful for us in the dose 

reconstruction area that we are trying to do 

now. 

 Lastly, though, I would like to say 

that, after 1992, it did appear to us that the 

condition was a little more robust because 10 

CFR 835 came into effect at that time period, 

and that was where programs were under civil 

and criminal penalties for not following 10 

CFR 835, which is a regulation. 

 Sure enough, in 1993, through the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

existence of a fairly large Technical Basis 

Document for internal dosimetry -- it does 

contain documentation as to who was 

potentially exposed, why, and what the basis 

for the monitoring programs were for those 

workers. 

 So, based on that review and 

looking at some of the data after 92, we 

believe that, for two reasons, 92 is a good 

stopping point. One is that that is the 

cessation of underground testing at the site. 

 And secondly, 10 CFR 835 was in effect, and 

the program appears to have embraced that to a 

large degree. 

 And that's it. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I ask a 

question? So, Jim, you actually did a similar 

analysis to what we have done in that, I know. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I have not 

presented here in the timeframe -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: -- but we went back and 

looked at -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: -- the 

representativeness of what we had, given the 

restrictions on the number of data points we 

could find. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Right. 

You're right. 

 DR. NETON: We feel very confident 

that that same pattern persisted into the 70s 

and 80s -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: -- which is rad techs, 

security guards, that sort of thing, but no 

good evidence of a routine program for other 

sort of first-line workers. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Jim, your report here 

focused pretty much on a new electronic 

database that had come to the fore recently. 

From many months back in our deliberations, I 

recall seeing photographs and hearing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

discussions about dosimetry programs that were 

focused specifically on drill-backs and the 

folks who had tunnel entries. I recall seeing 

photographs of workers coming out of their 

drill shaft dropping their badges into a 

bucket so that they could be read. 

 It is difficult for me to reconcile 

what I'm hearing with respect to the 

electronic database and a lack of information 

in prior databases that we have looked at 

which seemed to give a much broader view of 

types of activities that might have gone on 

and individuals who might have been badged 

doing entirely different things that we knew 

were well described and defined. 

 So I am a little puzzled as to how 

this new information brings us to the 

conclusion that the prior information was not 

more robust than we thought it was. 

 DR. NETON: I think the prior 

discussions we had were focused on the 

external dosimetry monitoring program. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but -- 

 DR. NETON: We still believe that 

to be a fairly good representation. You know, 

almost everybody was badged that went into 

radiological areas, as far as we know. We 

discussed that extensively. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we did. 

 DR. NETON: And we did this -- SC&A 

engaged in this analysis of badges not worn, 

and could not find any evidence that that was 

really going to bias our results. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

 DR. NETON: So we feel fairly 

comfortable that we can reconstruct external 

exposures for workers. What we focused on in 

this position paper is internal exposures. 

 Up until we retrieved this 

electronic database, we had no internal 

monitoring program except for the results that 

were forwarded to us for claimants under NTS. 

 So, anyone who was a claimant, the Site would 

forward us some data. We would have it in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there, and that was what our analysis was 

based on. 

 We believe that there was a 

correlation between the highest 100 people who 

were exposed externally and their internal 

exposures. That was our previous coworker 

model. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: SC&A correctly 

identified; those data points were not 

necessarily representative of all categories 

of workers who were exposed. There's a 

persistent pattern of radiological technicians 

and security guards being, I don't want to say 

oversampled, but principally, largely sampled, 

to the exclusion of what we call the firstline workers, the people who were actually 

doing the drill-backs. There are some of 

those, but it is not obvious that those people 

were involved in routine monitoring programs. 

 In other words, from the startup -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: And routine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

biological monitoring -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I'm sorry. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes. 

 DR. NETON: I mean, to be clear. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that is a point 

which gets lost in the discussion. 

 DR. NETON: Right. So there 

certainly were samples from people doing 

drill-backs and the construction workers and 

those types, but it is not clear why those 

samples were taken. 

 We will see a sample and then 

nothing for a while. There will be another 

event, another operation, maybe another 

sample. They seem to be largely based, either 

incident-type-driven samples -- they were in 

an area -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Which you would 

expect. 

 DR. NETON: Which you would expect. 

 There's nothing wrong with that. 

 But to take those incident-based 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

samples and to reconstruct a coworker model 

that assumes a chronic exposure pattern is not 

realistic, in our opinion. 

 The other sites, like a Savannah 

River or a Hanford where you have an operator, 

a chemical operator or someone running a lathe 

who had, every quarter, a uranium urine sample 

or a plutonium sample, that gives you some 

confidence that you can get an idea of what 

their actual exposure was over a period of 

time. 

 MEMBER MUNN: A pretty broad 

sampling program. 

 DR. NETON: And it is partly the 

unique nature of NTS that is driving this. If 

you think about it, all monitoring programs 

run with this ICRP 2 requirement. So it is 

just interesting that NTS had these episodic 

events, the unique conditions that don't allow 

for routine programs, where the other sites 

did because it was just constricted and 

confined to certain areas where they could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

easily collect a lot of routine samples. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Where did we 

finally find this database at? 

 DR. NETON: Well, NTS had the 

database all along and, to be clear, we were 

aware of the existence of the database. We 

were not aware that the database file 

contained the complete set of bioassay samples 

by workers. 

 It was our understanding that the 

database was there, but to get the samples, 

one would have to go to microfilm records to 

retrieve the information to get a complete 

picture of a name, Social Security number, 

result. 

 It turns out that that was in there 

all along. We were getting additional 

information from the site to supplement what 

is in the electronic database, and it was just 

not clear to us that the electronic database 

existed where at least there was name and 

sample all in one location. But it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

provided to us by the Nevada Test Site. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Any more questions? 

 (No audible response.) 

 John? 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. I'll get 

started. 

 I guess a good point of departure 

is when we prepare a summary of the state of 

the issues, and this is just prior to when you 

submitted your report. From my recollection 

-- I don't have it in front of me -- but it 

really came down to three issues, only one of 

which was really of great significance. 

 One was, if you recall, the badgesleft-behind issue. That goes to external 

exposure. We did a lot of work on that. Our 

main goal in looking at that data was to see 

if the badges-left-behind issue could somehow 

bias the distribution of exposures, so that 

you really couldn't build a coworker model 

where you would have a degree of confidence 

that the upper end was captured. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 For example, the concern was, well, 

if people left their badges behind 

deliberately, in order to avoid experiencing 

high exposures which would have them be 

replaced from their job, the implication being 

that that was widespread, the upper end of the 

tail would be cut off. And if you build a 

coworker model, it wouldn't capture the true 

upper end of what people's exposures were. 

 So we did a lot of work to see the 

extent to which that practice took place and 

the extent to which that practice might have 

biased distribution. 

 MEMBER MUNN: John, you're speaking 

very softly. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I will 

speak up a little louder. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 DR. MAURO: So we did a lot of 

work. The real question we asked ourselves 

was, one, what's the extent to which badges 

left behind appear to have occurred; and two, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was it of such a nature that you really 

couldn't construct a coworker model because 

the upper end of the tail was lopped off. 

Because the badges that got left behind were 

the badges -- the people that had the highest 

potential for exposure. 

 We looked real hard at that, and 

the bottom line is that there's absolutely no 

doubt that there was a lot of badges left 

behind. This was as a result of lots of 

interviews that took place following one of 

our meetings at NTS. 

 If you recall, at one of the 

meetings, Harry Reid was there with a large 

number of workers who stood up and claimed, 

yes, we left our badges behind. We 

interviewed those and many other folks. 

 We did that. We also looked at 

badges, film badge records and pocket 

dosimeters. Remember, that was, like, an idea 

that came up real early in the process. If 

there was a disparity, a clear disparity, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

between the film badge record, which let's 

say, for example, the person left out in his 

pickup truck, but he left his pocket dosimeter 

on, something would show up that said 

something isn't right. 

 Well, to make a long story short, 

we could not find what we have called the 

smoking gun. Now it was clear that the 

badges-left-behind was of such a nature and to 

such an extent that you could not build a 

coworker model. 

 So where we stopped -- and we did 

the best we could -- we looked at a lot of 

data. It certainly wasn't a complete 

statistical analysis of all the data. But we 

did a lot of work; we've got a lot of pages. 

 By the way, this is all hard-copy 

work. This is really not electronic work. So 

we had to pull tens of thousands of pieces of 

paper out. 

 The bottom line, and this is what 

we reported back to the full Work Group at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

time, is that we can't sit here and say that 

the data are biased. We believe that we did 

not find the smoking gun. We believe that, 

based on the information we have here, it 

appears that you could build a coworker model 

that would be representative of the full 

distribution of exposures that workers 

experienced. 

 And at that point in time, that's 

what the results came back. At that point in 

time, the Work Group said, good enough; I 

think we will stop at this point. Let's move 

on to the other issues. So that is where that 

issue is. 

 The second issue had to do with 

workers that worked out in the Flats, not in a 

post-test mode, but just were out there all 

the time doing prep work, and it wasn't part 

of, let's say, the post-test movement where 

you mobilized a team of workers to go into a 

controlled area under controlled 

circumstances. This was folks, ongoing all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the time, doing work, moving equipment. 

 NIOSH had an approach. In fact, 

there's some history here. I think it is 

important that we recapture this because I 

think we are in the home stretch here. 

 NIOSH originally had an approach 

that said, listen, we have a lot of data 

characterizing the amount of residual 

radioactivity. It was called the McClellan or 

the name of the fort. It started with an M, 

M-C. Anyway, there is a fellow that wrote 

this, gathered all the data, where you know 

the becquerels per meters squared across the 

entire complex. If you actually make contours 

of plutonium and a whole mix of radionuclides, 

you could actually reconstruct what the 

patterns of the surface contamination were on 

soil post-above-ground testing now. This is 

what was left on the ground. 

 Now NIOSH's original approach for 

reconstructing the doses to those workers from 

inhalation, internal dose, was to say, okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we know what the pattern looks like and we 

know that the worst location -- it was broken 

up in different areas. And there was one 

particular area -- I don't remember the number 

-- there was an area, and it might have been 

Area 3, I'm not sure. 

 We looked at the data, and there 

was one area that was clearly the worst area. 

 We said, okay, do you know what we're going 

to do? In order to place a plausible upper 

value, since we don't really know where all 

the people worked all the time, we will simply 

assume that the exposures were to people that, 

when we construct exposures from that 

scenario, and workers working out in the 

general area, we are going to assume that they 

were working in this area that had the highest 

concentration and assume that they were 

chronically exposed to a dust loading of 5 

milligrams per cubic meter. So that is a very 

high dust loading for chronic exposure. 

 Certainly, there's times when for a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

short period of time you could get 5, but to 

assume you are chronically exposed to 5 

milligrams per cubic meter all the time to all 

the workers, in our opinion, that was more 

than claimant-favorable. That was the 

approach that was going to be taken. 

 But, somewhere along the time, it 

was decided, well, that might be just too -- 

not us, but NIOSH, and correct me if I'm 

wrong, NIOSH felt that that was just a little 

bit over the top. So they moved to a 

different method, which is based on air 

sampling data that was taken from a number of 

air sampling towers. There were 15 or I don't 

know how many. They were all over the Site. 

 But that started in the 1970s. 

From that data, they, through the 63, 64, 65 

time period, using a fairly sophisticated set 

of adjustment factors, after that was done, a 

report was written by Lynn Anspaugh that 

basically showed that that approach isn't 

going to work. You can't do it. You just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can't do it. And we left it at that. 

 Well, no. At that meeting, Jim 

pointed out he understood the concerns we had. 

 And correct me if I'm wrong, the position 

that you took at that time was that, yes, we 

are going to have to do something about that, 

and we have a number of options. 

 I think one option was to go back 

to the resuspension factor approach, which we 

already aired out and agreed it was a good 

approach. Or, alternatively, perhaps use what 

we are going to talk about next, which is the 

Table 7-1 approach, and assign that to 

everyone. 

 So that is where we left that 

issue. That is, and please correct me if I 

have it wrong, but we left it at that. 

 There was general agreement that 

the air sampling approach really isn't going 

to work, and that NIOSH would look at other 

strategies, including returning to the old 

resuspension factor approach, as a way to come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to grips with that. 

 So, in my mind, those two issues, 

the badges-left-behind and the exposure to the 

general outdoor areas, are what I would say, 

well in hand. Okay? 

 Then it comes to what I consider to 

be the single major issue. That was Table 7-1 

in the DR. Okay? 

 Jim did an excellent job in 

summarizing the issues. Basically, the 

summary you presented was, to a large extent, 

similar to the kinds of things that, in fact, 

it's even richer. You looked into looking for 

reasons why they picked these people. 

 So, in effect, where we are right 

now is the major issue, in my mind, really the 

only issue that is left on the table is Table 

7-1. Jim, basically, has agreed that, well, 

you really can't use Table 7-1, and it sounds 

like that you don't really have an alternative 

as a way of coming to grips with this problem. 

 Now that all happened over the last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

month. A week ago last Friday, in fact, at 

the meeting where we were meeting and greeting 

the new four Board members -- it was a week 

ago on Friday -- that Ted said, John, I would 

like to direct you to go ahead and take a look 

at Jim's paper. So, that was about 10-12 days 

ago, I imagine. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: December 4th. 

 DR. MAURO: December 4th. There 

you go. 

 And I said, sure. As soon as I get 

back. 

 So what I did is that weekend I 

rounded the crew up. We had a big, long 

conference call over the weekend. That 

Monday, we launched into quite a large effort 

to look very closely at the data, at Jim's 

report, to see, to come to our own conclusions 

regarding the strengths and limitations of 

that 125,000 bioassay data. That is the work 

that has taken place intensively. 

 We had, I would say, five or six 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

folks working the problem. 

 Bob Barton, first of all, thank you 

for working day and night on this with Arjun. 

 At that point, I would like to hand 

it over to Arjun and Bob to let you know what 

we found out. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, John. 

 Are Harry and Joyce on the phone? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Joyce, are you on? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: I am on the phone, 

Arjun. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, thank you. 

 John handed this over to me. There 

were two things that we needed to look at. 

There wasn't a lot of time, so we couldn't 

look at everything in Jim's paper in detail. 

We would be happy to, if the Working Group 

asked us. 

 But just to remind you, what we did 

before on this question was a little bit 

different than what we have done at other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sites. By focusing on Table 7-1, and NIOSH 

saying we can build a coworker model, we 

actually focused on the areas where there was 

the most internal monitoring data, which was 

plutonium, beta, gamma, and tritium. 

 We did not seriously look at all 

these other radionuclides: americium, thorium, 

and so on, which we are often doing at other 

sites. We had left that aside, presumably, 

until the main issue was settled. Now it is 

sort of moot. 

 NIOSH had revised their 

radionuclide list when they revised their TBD. 

 We didn't look at that big, new radionuclide 

list. In this review also, we didn't go there 

because we just didn't have the time. 

 And as I said, this a work in 

progress. So we just wanted to see the core 

analysis that Jim talked about, and I'm very 

glad that he actually did the same thing that 

we did, was correct and whether the new data 

corresponded with the data we had previously 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

examined. 

 Now, previously, we had not only 

looked at the NIOSH 100, but, to remind you, 

we picked six job categories with 20 workers 

in each category at random. I'll start with 

the plutonium Word file. So, if you will just 

click on that and bring up page 1, you will 

see the job categories: RadSafe, laborers, 

welders, wiremen, miners, security. Of 

course, there are lots of other job types. So 

you see the total number of claimants that you 

find are more than the claimants in these job 

categories. 

 So what I wanted to do was to see 

whether the broad pattern that emerged -- 

RadSafe were the most monitored. Then 

security were also monitored, but, really, 

security was monitored only, not only, but 

primarily in the 1980s. 

 Also, we wanted to see whether any 

new patterns or new information would emerge 

from this admittedly much larger database. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

So, since there were no job types in this, we 

wanted to sort this in conjunction with the 

NOCTS database. 

 I handed this to our numbercrunching man, Bob Barton, and I also asked 

Harry to look at it, the statistics of it. We 

had Joyce, as before, look at the quality of 

data. If you remember, Joyce had a number of 

issues in Attachment B of our prior report 

regarding quality of data. 

 So we wanted to revisit the issues 

that we had conclusions about before to see if 

we needed to change any of our conclusions or 

whether we could reaffirm, and whether 

anything new emerged. 

 We also had Rich Leggett, who is 

the expert's expert in many ways. It was a 

fresh pair of eyes. He had not been involved 

previously in our NTS work. I'm very glad 

that John brought him on because I felt having 

a new pair of eyes, you know, very much 

respected in the health physics community, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we could arrive at a reasonable conclusion 

together, that we could present you with a 

strong result. 

 With that, let me just hand it over 

to Bob to tell you how he sorted the data and 

what you are looking at. 

 MR. BARTON: Okay. Like Arjun 

said, there weren't actually any job title 

data contained in this new database. So we 

had to figure out a way to try to figure out 

who these people were. The only way we could 

really do that was to identify who the 

claimants were in the database. 

 So what we did was we matched up 

Social Security numbers from NOCTS, which have 

job titles listed, carried that over to the 

database. So, then, now we have a subset of 

workers in this database who are also 

claimants who we can identify the job 

categories with. 

 As you can see, in the first two 

lines of this plutonium table we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

approximately 40 RadSafe claimants that we 

were able to identify in the database. There 

were 21 in security. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There are 40 

RadSafe claimants who had plutonium 

monitoring. 

 MR. BARTON: With plutonium 

monitoring, that is correct. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That is the 

interpretation. 

 MR. BARTON: Yes. Thank you for 

revising that. 

 We found 468 samples for those 

RadSafe workers. As you go along and look at 

who we were able to identify and how many 

samples for each job category, you can see 

that approximately 70 percent of the samples 

that we identified for claimants were for 

RadSafe and security. So that sort of affirms 

what our earlier analysis had found, was that 

it was primarily geared toward those two 

groups of workers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 You can see there's some samples 

for the others. There's 25 samples we were 

able to identify for miners, 18 for laborers, 

and so on. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But, Bob, let me 

interrupt you for just a moment. Let me be 

clear in my own mind. 

 The RadSafe workers and the 

security workers were the individuals who were 

most likely to spend the most time, day after 

day after day, on the site itself, correct? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. No, no. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: They were people 

who were likely to have been all over the 

site, but not necessarily spend the most time. 

 It is our understanding, for instance -- I 

mean RadSafe was there initially to check out 

the conditions, but, you know, miners may have 

spent a lot more time in the most 

contaminated. 

 Let me talk about the actual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

measurements a little bit later because we 

have some new evidence -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. I didn't want 

to interrupt the flow of thought. I was just 

trying to get something clear. 

 DR. MAURO: But I think you bring 

up the heart of the matter. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and we have 

some, actually, new information about that. 

 DR. MAURO: But if I understand 

your question, and it is a question that, 

otherwise, we have a lot of data on RadSafe 

workers, plutonium data, which basically says 

you probably could reconstruct exposures to 

RadSafe workers to plutonium. 

 The question becomes, is that 

bounding for everybody else? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I understand. 

 DR. MAURO: Is there any evidence 

that says, wait a minute, maybe welders or 

wiremen could have had a greater potential for 

exposure than RadSafe workers? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 In other words, for us to say, yes, 

you could use the RadSafe workers as a 

coworker for all other categories of workers, 

there's got to be some argument that could be 

made as to why that would happen. And as Jim 

pointed out, we really couldn't find anything. 

 We actually, to the contrary, which 

you will hear more from Arjun about, found 

that there's some evidence that there are 

other categories of workers that may very well 

have had higher exposures than RadSafe workers 

internal. 

 But, I mean, your question goes 

right to the issue. 

 MEMBER MUNN: My question, really 

and truly, was, were these not truly the most 

chronically exposed ones? And I'm hearing 

probably not, that that comes later. 

 DR. NETON: What really surprised 

me, and you are probably going to get into 

this, is the number of positive plutonium 

results that there were in the database. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Nine thousand. 

 DR. NETON: I originally thought 

that we would see this and say, well, they are 

all less than or something like that, so 

there's really no potential for exposure. 

But, somehow, there apparently was a large 

potential for plutonium exposure, which really 

took me by surprise. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it surprised 

me, too. And in all categories, there is 

quite a large number of positive results. 

 MR. BARTON: And as Jim was just 

saying, in that first line of sort of the 

second section of the table, under Data 

Characteristics, you can see the number of 

positive samples there were generally ranged 

from between 50 to 70 percent. 

 I will warn you that I noticed the 

percentages for all workers in that part got 

lost in translation somewhere. I have 

actually just fixed it. But that figure of 

6,598 positive samples for all the workers in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the plutonium database, that represents about 

71 percent of the total -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I didn't 

notice that. 

 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I missed that. 

 MR. BARTON: If you reopen the file 

now, it will have the correct numbers in 

there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's why I don't 

want you to download that. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MR. BARTON: Yes. I certainly 

apologize for that, the short notice and 

everything. 

 But you can see that for all 

workers it was fairly comparable to the 

RadSafe workers, which had 77 percent positive 

samples. It got a little bit lower for the 

welders and the miners. We only had one entry 

for plutonium that we could identify with a 

wireman. It was a whole body count, which in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this database, when there was a whole body 

count entry, there was never a result attached 

to it. It was just a blank entry. 

 Arjun, did you want to comment? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Let me kind 

of make one comment. 

 This database, this analysis is 

different in one very important way than our 

previous analysis. Our previous 120 took a 

random sample of 20 workers in each of six job 

categories. So we had a number of workers who 

have no bioassay monitoring, and NIOSH wrote 

in their evaluation report about a third of 

NTS workers had some internal bioassay data. 

 And we found -- I don't remember. 

We calculated a percentage, but we found that 

many workers had bioassay data and many 

workers had no bioassay data. 

 In this set of claimants you're 

looking at, 144, and the subsets for these six 

workers, these are all workers who are 

preselected in this database who actually all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have bioassay data. So we have no workers in 

this database who did not have bioassay data, 

but may have had exposure potential. 

 We haven't had time to go back and 

sort our previous database and eliminate 

people who did not have bioassay data and make 

that old 120 comparable to this, whatever it 

is, maybe close to 100 that are in this 

database. 

 So it is not fully comparable, but 

I did some back-of-the-envelope work with 

this. The number of samples per worker are 

broadly comparable, and the pattern of samples 

is broadly comparable. 

 If you go to page 2, which is 

actually in some ways the most important page, 

where it says, plutonium data samples by 

period, you will see that in the 60s and 70s 

there were several categories of workers who 

had no samples or almost no samples. 

 Most of the plutonium sampling, 

except for RadSafe, was focused in the 1980s, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and then, to a lesser extent -- yes, except 

for RadSafe, most of the plutonium sampling 

was focused in the 1980s. 

 If you go to the spreadsheets, 

please don't open it now because the 

spreadsheets are very big and huge, and I will 

go through it in a minute. 

 But if you look at that, you will 

see that the exposures tended to be higher in 

the earlier years, where there were more 

tests; there were more events. So you would 

expect that the exposures would tend to be 

higher in the earlier years. 

 So the time, we had previously 

selected four time periods to look at. One of 

the things that this new data showed us was 

that, while you can argue about where the 

cutoff should be for the time periods, that it 

is very important to look at this in time 

periods. You can't just say we have a lot of 

data and most of the data will be from the 

1980s and then use that to reconstruct doses. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I will go through those spreadsheets after a 

while. 

 Do you want to comment? 

 MR. BARTON: Sure, just to kind of 

expand on what Arjun is saying with the 1980s, 

if you look at the security guard category, 

almost 90 percent of the samples we identified 

for them were from 1981 and onward. In the 

other categories, you can also see that the 

percentages are just much higher in the 1980s, 

and I am not sure if that is just how the 

database is put together. 

 One thing we haven't been able to 

investigate yet is, how complete is this 

actual database. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we know it is 

incomplete. Joyce actually looked at it a 

little bit. 

 Joyce, do you want to give us a 

couple of examples? Joyce? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Hello. Yes. Now 

can you hear me? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, thank you. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, because I was 

on mute. 

 I just compared the data that we 

had from the 120 records that we have from 

claims. I saw that there were some people 

that we analyzed and that these people, those 

workers, were not on the new electronic 

database for plutonium. So this is not a 

complete report because we didn't look at all 

the claimants from NTS. 

 But from the 120, for example, in 

1965, there was one worker that was analyzed 

from June until October '65. He had 18 

measurements, and there is no data on this 

worker on the new electronic database. Also, 

the data from 65 goes up to June 1965, when 

only the 120 database that we had -- we had 

data until October 65. So this means that it 

is incomplete. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: We are fairly 

comfortable with the idea that this database 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

does not represent all workers who have 

bioassay data, but we don't know how 

incomplete this database is. 

 DR. NETON: That is interesting 

because that is not what the site that 

provided the data is portraying it as. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we have one 

example of a person who was pretty frequently 

monitored in 65, and none of those bioassays 

have -- 

 DR. NETON: That surprises me. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But we have not had 

time to put a fine point on it. 

 I did ask Bob to sort how many of 

the claimants are in this database. And what 

did you find, 20? 

 MR. BARTON: It was 20 percent. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, about 20, 

maybe 22 percent, something. Roughly, 20 

percent of the claimants are in this database, 

but the claimants are, more or less, 

representative of how many were monitored. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

You would expect to find more of the claimants 

in this database. 

 I think that we should go to our 

120 and sort that. It won't be hard to see 

how many of those 120 are in this electronic 

database, so we can get some idea. 

 DR. NETON: I am not sure how much 

extra work needs to be done. If it's not 

appropriate, it's not appropriate. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. I mean it 

depends on how detailed a report from us the 

Working Group wants in order for the Board to 

have its comfort level in considering the 

matter. This is completely up to the Working 

Group, the Board, Ted, and what you feel. 

 I am just putting stuff out there, 

not that I think necessarily it should be done 

because our conclusion is pretty firm, as I 

will come to it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Arjun, you just made 

a statement that I'm wondering about your 

basis for. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: You said that you 

would expect more than 20 percent of the 

database to be claimants. I am wondering why 

you would expect that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, no. I 

would expect more than 20 percent of the 

claimants to be in the database if the 

claimants are broadly representative of people 

who worked at NTS. Then about a third of 

them -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: But we don't know -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: We don't know that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is something, 

if there is a large number of claimants, this 

is something you would normally statistically 

expect, that if you have a large enough 

sample, they should be representative of the 

whole population. And it is something that 

NIOSH has also kind of relied on in other 

contexts, right, Jim? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I am not saying that it should 

be so. I'm just saying I suspect that, based 

on what Joyce has told you and based on 

NIOSH's count previously, that about a third -

- I presume a third of the claimants had had 

bioassay data, that you should find more than 

20 percent of the claimants in this database. 

 But I don't know for a fact what 

the reasons are. That is part of the reason I 

would suggest that, as a very simple exercise, 

we actually -- 

 DR. NETON: Was that a match based 

on Social Security number? 

 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, that we 

actually complete this exercise because it 

will just take a couple of hours or three 

hours. 

 It will kind of, since we have 

raised the question of the completeness of 

this database -- I think there are also -- how 

many workers are in this database? Do you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have a rough count? 

 MR. BARTON: Let me see if I can 

get that for you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Originally, we were 

told 125,000. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That is the number 

of samples -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Samples. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- in the SEC 

period. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But I saw the number 

somewhere. 

 MR. BARTON: It was about 15,000 

workers. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Fifteen thousand 

workers. 

 I mean I don't know how 

incomplete -- we have an idea that there are 

some workers who are not in this database. 

But it may be fairly complete. It may not be. 

 I don't have an opinion on that at this time. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Arjun, you made a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comment a little bit earlier that it showed 

the timeframe of 1991 and 1992, that, you 

know, there was more information. That goes 

to show the exact same thing, though, that we 

have found at all the other sites; that as the 

RadCon practices had improved, and so forth -- 

remember, we call it the pre-Tiger Team or 

after-Tiger Team -- all of a sudden, we start 

to see a lot more broader spectrum of people 

being monitored and so forth like this. This, 

basically, shows the exact same thing. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, yes. We 

haven't looked at why. I mean we don't know 

where that cutoff is, but it is a real knee in 

the curve, number of workers who were 

monitored, and what that exact date is. 

 But in this sorting, it definitely 

looks like the monitoring went up drastically 

in the 1980s sometime. 

 MR. BARTON: Well, if we move on to 

the next chart, it will show you the number of 

workers sampled for plutonium by year. So, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that one, you can definitely see, as the 80s 

come around, the number of workers who are 

submitting samples goes up. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: There it is. 

 DR. MAURO: Which file is that? 

 MR. BARTON: It will be on the next 

page or page 3. 

 DR. NETON: Part of that could be 

the amount of activity going on at the site. 

I mean if it's got more work going on, more 

shots, more -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the number of 

tests, I think the number of tests overall in 

the 1980s were lower, but I think in the first 

part of the 1980s there were more tests, and 

then it tapered off. So we haven't looked at 

it year by year. 

 MEMBER MUNN: There is probably a 

budgetary factor in there, too, if you want to 

really think about it. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: There's a few test 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bands in there, too. That has a lot to do 

with it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Do you want to go 

over the rank order? Then I can take over. 

 MR. BARTON: Sure. Okay. If we 

can move on to the next chart there, we show a 

rank order -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: On page 2. Also on 

page 2. 

 MR. BARTON: As you can see here, 

we have several different job categories. The 

yellow line there represents all the workers 

in the database. They follow along fairly 

closely, but we can see that your RadSafe 

group, in general, is a little bit higher than 

the overall worker average, and in this case 

security guards is a little bit higher on 

certain points in the graph. Once you get 

above about the 70th percentile, the security 

guard concentration kind of falls off a little 

bit. 

 You also have some laborers in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there that were showing higher concentrations 

in urine at various points, especially when 

compared to the all worker average, and in 

some cases compared to the RadSafe and the 

security guards as well. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now one very 

important thing about limitation of this chart 

is that this mushes all the periods together. 

 This does not tell you anything about what 

happened when. 

 Actually, if you can go to the 

Excel file and open the spreadsheet that says, 

plutonium data scrubbed for chart -- 

 MR. BARTON: Before we get into 

this, let me just explain what that actually 

means. 

 DR. NETON: Could I ask just a 

question? On this rank order, where is the 

detection limit on this? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The detection limit 

is 1.5 times 10 -- Joyce, what is the 

detection limit? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: It's all years. So 

maybe it has changed over time. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 DR. NETON: But just to get a rough 

idea -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If I remember what 

Joyce said yesterday during our conference 

call, it was 1.5 times 10 to the minus 11, is 

what is in the TBD. 

 DR. NETON: And, remember, they had 

a practice of reporting all data. They didn't 

censor their data to any extent. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 DR. NETON: So you have a lot of 

data that are below the detection. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 

 DR. NETON: You really have 

several -- I've always felt there's a normal 

distribution about the non-detectables layered 

on top of the log-normal distribution. So I 

think you've really kind of got two things 

going on here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Let me ask a 

question. This is Bob Presley. 

 Where you have -- 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Jim? 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Go ahead, Joyce. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: My phone was on 

mute, so I was trying to answer. 

 From 77 to 87, the detection limit 

was 5E to the minus 11 microcuries per mL. 

Then from 88 to 2000, it was 1E to the minus 

11 microcuries per centimeter probably, mL. 

 The problem is from 61 to 76, we 

have a limit of detection in microcuries per 

sample instead of per volume. So we don't 

know how to deal with it. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. Thank you, 

Joyce. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Joyce, did you say 

5 times 10 to the minus 11 from 77 to 87? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. That's on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the occupational internal dosimetry. 

 DR. NETON: So it is up around the 

median value of the rank order, which is 

interesting. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Question: each one 

of the little dots, triangles, you've got one 

area here where the laborers are very, very 

high. Is that one person or is that -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: One sample. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That's one sample? 

 Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. 

That's one sample. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Laborers had only 

five or six non-zero samples, and there were 

very few samples all together. So you don't 

expect a lot of -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. I just 

wondered if that was one or if that was a 

number. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If you actually had 

many samples for these workers' categories, 

then we would be in a fairly different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

situation, at least in regard to plutonium. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

question. Going back to the dust loading, 

particularly those people who were working out 

in the piler areas of the facility, it seems 

like the dust loading out there could be 

substantially higher if they are trying to 

look at the coworker model and trying to 

calculate the amount of dust these people 

might be exposed to versus the people who were 

up near the tunnels, which usually is around 

the mesas, in that area. 

 Can they actually break those 

workers out? Or is there any way of knowing? 

 DR. NETON: No, that's one of the 

problems. That is one reason we abandoned 

this soil mass-loading model, is I didn't 

feel, we didn't feel that we could partition 

those workers to any large extent. 

 Just to elaborate a little bit on 

what John was saying, originally, we proposed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that mass-loading model for all workers. 

SC&A's comment was that it appeared to be on 

the high side, and we agreed. 

 We went back to this environmental 

sampling model. Then the Lynn Anspaugh report 

questioned that for people who were engaged in 

activities that disturb soils. In other 

words, if you were just sort of walking around 

the site, maybe the environmental model works. 

 But if you are out there with a bulldozer or 

a grader or something, and you're kicking up 

dust, that is when we had proposed maybe this 

mass-loading model for that category of 

workers, for people who are actually in 

contaminated areas disturbing soils. 

 But, at the end of the day, we 

couldn't figure out a way to partition those 

versus the coworker model ones. So that is 

why we ended up where we are. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I mean, just 

to supplement what Jim said now and in his 

earlier presentation, the nature of the work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

at the Site is that, if you don't know who was 

doing what when, the whole matter becomes very 

difficult or impossible. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I would think in 

those areas where the pilers were, there 

people would, even just being in that area 

would have a much higher, a substantially 

higher probability of dust loading, and high 

dust loading, because there's no vegetation to 

hold that soil down when you get a dust level 

going through there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Also, you will 

actually see some -- when we get off of 

plutonium, where there are almost no samples 

for laborers and wiremen, and so on, when we 

go to other categories where these groups of 

workers have some more samples, we will 

actually see a pattern like that indicated, 

but we don't have enough samples to make any 

definite opinion. 

 DR. NETON: And again, you really 

don't know whether these are incident samples 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or routine samples. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 

 DR. MAURO: The model I have in my 

head about it is I make a clean distinction 

between the exposures that people get not when 

there was a test, on the ground test. You 

know, we're in the post-1962 time period now. 

 And let's make believe there were no more 

tests. Let's say there were no tests starting 

in 63, on the ground or otherwise. Okay? 

 And the only thing you really had 

to do now was say what type of internal 

exposures workers might have gotten who were 

out there doing things. You know, no tests 

now. 

 Well, in my mind, the resuspension 

factor or function will work. And you could 

reconstruct what is the upper bound for 

inhalation by going with the 5 milligrams, but 

that's not what we have. What we actually 

have is that work is going on, but 

superimposed on that are these underground 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tests. 

 Now the way I see these underground 

tests in my head is that, okay, the test 

occurs. Some RadSafe workers come in, perhaps 

wearing respiratory protection, go in to check 

if there's a problem. Before they let the 

rest of the crew in to do the work they do, 

they come in, they check it. 

 Let's say they give it a green 

light. We can have people go in. In my mind, 

I could even envision that maybe many of the 

RadSafe workers were wearing respiratory 

protection, maybe not. I don't know. 

 Then they sort of step aside. They 

have done their job, and now a team comes in 

behind them. Now we are talking a controlled 

area now. It is not just a general area. 

This is the area where the test took place, 

and they are doing their job. 

 Now these could be welders, 

carpenters, various trades, crafts. They come 

in and are doing the work that needs to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

done, which could last, I guess, several weeks 

at that location. 

 Now, during that time period, I'm 

envisioning that -- and this comes, to some 

extent, from information that John Funk 

provided. He said, well, there could have 

been some leakage. Sometimes leakage occurs 

later. Sometimes there's subsidence, where 

some radionuclides could escape. 

 Also, he had mentioned that there 

were also -- and this is all out in the Flats 

now -- there's also these coaxial cables that 

ran down that were true coaxial cables with an 

opening before they were plugged. 

 So the model I have in my head is 

that there are these scenarios one could 

envision that the crafts and trades and other 

specialists that come in after the RadSafe 

workers, working at the site, where they, in 

theory, could have experienced some internal 

exposures that were not experienced by the 

RadSafe workers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So it creates a situation where 

there are questions whether the RadSafe 

workers truly were the ones that had the 

highest potential for exposure. In other 

words, that is sort of the model I have in my 

head as I go through this material. 

 And that's why I guess the sense 

being that it is possible that welders, 

laborers could very well have experienced 

exposures that could have been higher than the 

RadSafe workers. I'm not saying they were. 

We have no way to really know that. But there 

is certain reason to think they could have 

been, and that's the picture that emerges for 

me. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is always the 

final question, the difference between 

possibility and probability. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, we have some 

data. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: As I said, we have 

some more data than we did before. Before we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had no idea. Bob, can we open that 

spreadsheet? 

 MR. BARTON: Sure, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If you go to that 

plutonium spreadsheet, the one that says, 

plutonium data scrubbed for chart, and open 

that -- 

 MR. BARTON: And let me just 

explain what is meant by the word scrubbed. 

You couldn't just simply take this data and 

throw it in a chart and expect it to tell you 

what is really going on there. There had to 

be some work for it for samples that couldn't 

be converted to microcuries per cc. There 

were some there that would be simply in 

microcuries that we didn't have a sample 

volume with it to be able to normalize it to 

microcuries per cc. 

 So those samples that I couldn't 

correlate to that particular unit were removed 

for the purposes of doing this rank ordering. 

 Now what we have just looked at, this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scrubbing, so to speak, only applies to the 

rank order charts. All the other counting 

statistics we were looking at earlier include 

all of the samples. 

 Other things I had to do was, for 

instance, remove the whole body scans because 

they were blank and not relatable to a urine 

sample. Also, if a sample was just simply 

blank, it didn't have a less-than or nodetects tag next to it, that was removed. If 

it did have a less-than tag, those samples 

were always either less than zero or less than 

a blank cell. So, if it has a less-than tag 

next to it, it was entered as zero for the 

purposes of rank ordering. 

 So that is what is meant by 

scrubbing of the data, just so all the samples 

in there are relatable and indicate a urine 

sample in microcurie per cc. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I just wanted you 

to look at this for one reason only. I mean 

some massive numbers. There's almost 8,000 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

rows in here. 

 But if you look at the Column G, 

that is the date of the sample. If you look 

at Column K, that is the rank order, not in 

percentage, but in fraction. And if you look 

at Column L, that is the value in microcuries 

per cc. Obviously, a lot of the initial 

values are just zeroes. 

 If you scroll down rapidly, you 

will see -- and you have to scroll down very 

rapidly because there are lots and lots of 

zeroes -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: There sure are. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you will be able 

to see that the lower values, as you scroll 

down, are generally in the 80s and 90s. You 

know, you have ones that go up to 1.6 times 10 

to the minus 11, which is below the detection 

limit. You are now at a rank order of 25, 26, 

30 percent. 

 This is partly because there were 

more samples taken in the 80s and 90s, but, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

also, as I will show you, the lower end of the 

numbers were in the 80s and 90s. 

 So, if you scroll down -- 

 DR. MAURO: Just give me a line 

number where we should be. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I'm at near 

3,000. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So you're 

way down. Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Well, because 

it goes very slowly, most of the samples, 

almost all of the initial samples are from the 

80s and 90s until you get well above 50 

percent. So you have to go very deep down. 

 You know, there are occasional -- 

of course, there are samples from the 60s and 

70s that are also below detection limit or 

zero. 

 But now, if you go to the very 

bottom of the database, in the 7,000s, more 

than the 7,000s, line numbers like 7700 

downward, you will see that the -- I'm at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

7700, yes, 7700. You'll go down. You'll see 

like from 7720, 21, you will see very, very 

many more samples from the 60s that are in the 

higher percentile of readings. 

 Harry, actually, had done this by 

period. Right, Harry? Are you on the line? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm here, 

Arjun. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And Harry worked up 

these plutonium data. They are not ready for 

even sort of semi-primetime here. 

 But you can see that most of the 

high readings are concentrated in the early 

periods. And this is why you actually need to 

parse this data by period, and you can't just 

aggregate the whole data and say, I can 

construct a coworker model out of this. 

 DR. NETON: I have always 

constructed coworker models by time period. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, right. You 

know, I'm not saying that you haven't done 

that. I'm just illustrating that in this case 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there are actually very dramatic differences 

between the place where we have the mass of 

data and the place where we have most of the 

exposure. 

 And that is the only reason. 

Because now we have been looking at this 

plutonium data chart in the Word file, which 

has no time periods in it. But Harry actually 

did a little bit of analysis corresponding to 

time period. Right, Harry? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, Arjun. I 

tried to do what I would assume NIOSH would do 

if they were to build a coworker model, which 

was to go into the same data you are looking 

at for plutonium and to separate it out by 

decade and by job category. 

 When I did that, it turns out that 

in the early years really all you have to look 

at are RadSafe workers. Later, there's other 

groups that enter in, but mainly they are the 

security workers in the 80s. Between those 

two groups, that is three-quarters of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

data. 

 Now, when I tried to fit log-normal 

distributions, the first thing you see is the 

distributions are very irregularly shaped. 

They have very long tails, in particular, in 

the RadSafe, in the early years, most likely 

due to incident data being defined in the 

database with no identifiers as to why the 

samples were taken. 

 When I do fit a log-normal 

distribution, even though they don't fit very 

well, the numbers in the 60s ended up being 

somewhere in the neighborhood of -- well, if 

you looked at the 95th percentile, it was in 

the neighborhood of about 400 times higher 

than in any of the other decades for the 

RadSafe people, which is the only group where 

we have data in all the decades to look at. 

 The security folks had about the 

same numbers as the RadSafe people for the 

95th percentile when you look in the data in 

the decades where we had data for the security 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

people, which was after 1980. 

 And the other groups, there were 

just too few samples to really fit log-normal 

distributions that you could depend on. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. So this is 

just sort of to put a fine point on something. 

I agree with Jim. I mean NIOSH normally does 

it by year even, I think, when they estimate 

doses, not by decade, if possible. 

 And just to kind of illustrate the 

limitations of this chart, so you can actually 

go from this chart to a coworker model, so 

that is plutonium. I would like to 

illustrate, just quickly go through the other 

three files on tritium. 

 See, if you open the tritium Word 

file -- I don't think we need any more 

spreadsheets. 

 DR. MAURO: There's a scrubbed one? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, not a 

spreadsheet. The Word file. It's in the 

Working Group -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I've got to back 

out of here. Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, no, you 

have to go there. 

 DR. MAURO: I've got go here, okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Go to the Working 

Group subdirectory. 

 DR. MAURO: Got it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And you can open 

the tritium data. 

 DR. MAURO: Back home again. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And you see there 

are more tritium data, especially in the miner 

category. Miners did have a fair amount of 

tritium monitoring. 

 I don't think we found any quality 

problems with the tritium-monitoring data 

before or now? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: No. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: I am sorry to 

interrupt, but, Joyce, we started talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about, a little earlier, possible quality 

problems related to the plutonium data, but we 

really never got there. I mean I guess I 

don't -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Let me just go over 

the quantity issues, and then I will get to 

the work that Joyce -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Sure. Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- for a fuller 

view of the quality. 

 So, if you go to page 2 of the 

tritium data, you will see that for miners we 

actually have samples in all periods. And we 

have more samples for our other worker 

categories except welders and wiremen. Up to 

1970, we really don't have significant data. 

We don't have much data for welders and 

wiremen. We have a little more for laborers. 

 If you go to the chart on page 4, 

you will see this is very different than the 

plutonium chart. Clearly, miners had more 

exposure, at least if you leave out the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

periods, miners had more exposure than all 

other worker categories, including RadSafe. 

 Now this may be partly because it 

is incident-driven and they were going in a 

particular time and they were being monitored 

immediately after they had exposure because 

tritium monitoring would be very sensitive to 

that. 

 This, again, raises the question 

of, how much do you know about what the 

monitoring regime was and what can you say 

about dose reconstruction. 

 But here you can see there are 

three, four worker categories where much of 

the -- if something is to the right of the 

RadSafe, which is the magenta -- would you 

call that color magenta? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's magenta. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 (Laughter.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If you go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

horizontally across the chart, anything that 

is to the right of the magenta line would 

indicate that, for that cumulative 

probability, that that group of workers is 

more exposed than RadSafe. 

 So you can see that there are a 

number of categories of workers that were, 

overall, more exposed to tritium or at least 

had higher -- more precisely, we should say 

they had higher monitoring results. 

 So, in this case, you have a little 

bit more of a systematic indication that, for 

tritium at least, RadSafe was not the most 

exposed category, if you used monitoring data 

as a proxy for exposure, which is the only 

thing we can do, actually. If you go to gamma 

data, which is the next Word file -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: But security, on the 

other hand -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Security, yes, and 

that's the other thing to look at, Wanda, 

you're quite right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Security -- the samples from 

security indicate less exposure, at least 

lower samples, depending on when they were 

monitored. Now, if they were on a routine 

monitoring regime, they might have been 

exposed, but -- 

 DR. NETON: It is a little 

confusing because that is all-years aggregate. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It is all-years 

aggregate. We actually have the year-by-year 

data, and in order to see when this 

happened -- yes, security will be dominated by 

the 80s. So, to do a security worker exposure 

comparison with the other categories, you 

really have to eliminate everything except the 

1980s to do that. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, what I find 

interesting is that the welders is almost 

pretty close to what the RadSafe was on it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Wiremen, yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: The welders. The 

welders are the black triangles. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: The welders are very 

different than the welders -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Are you in tritium 

or gamma? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Tritium. We're in 

tritium. 

 DR. NETON: I guess the point, 

though, that I was making earlier is that we 

couldn't tell -- the coworker model is really 

to substitute data for people who are 

monitored -- not monitored, but should have 

been. So it is a little different 

distribution. 

 If you believe that all the highest 

workers were monitored to begin with, you 

could establish that, which we couldn't 

here -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, we couldn't. 

 DR. NETON: Then the coworker model 

would only fill in for those who were not 

monitored but should have been, but were not 

among the highest exposed workers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 

 DR. NETON: So that's a little -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. We're just 

reinforcing that conclusion of yours. I mean 

the bottom line is we agree with you -- but we 

tried to kind of make sure that we had gone in 

enough detail in the data to be comfortable in 

our own minds that your paper -- that we could 

agree with it or say partly or we need to do 

more work, or we don't agree with it. We just 

wanted to be sure that whatever we said was 

clearly done. 

 If you go to the gamma Word file, 

you will see the similar pattern. There is 

more data on gamma than for plutonium. More 

worker categories have data. That is on page 

1. So you have more claimants represented in 

the gamma. 

 We agree with Jim that this data, 

even if it were complete, would be very hard 

to interpret and do anything with. Just 

proceeding along the quantity of data and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

taking the data at face value, and then if you 

go by period, you see, again, that RadSafe was 

monitored in all periods, but most of the 

monitoring is focused in the latter periods. 

 If you go to page 3, 4, you will 

see a comparison. And you see a similar 

pattern to tritium here, except it is not 

miners who are the right-most. This time it 

is laborers and welders. 

 This, again, has the limitation 

that you are mushing all periods together. So 

security looks like they have at least 

exposure potential, but you shouldn't 

interpret it that way. This is because 

security data are focused on the 80s, and the 

others are more evenly distributed. 

 So this, again, indicates that, you 

know, RadSafe was everywhere. They may be 

convenient to monitor, as Jim said. We think 

that is probably what happened. 

 We agree with Jim that they were 

monitoring people and they were monitoring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

people who were convenient to monitor to 

maintain some kind of regime and protocol, but 

not necessarily monitoring the people who were 

most exposed. 

 And data is a similar pattern. 

 MR. BARTON: Arjun, if I could just 

point to one thing? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure. 

 MR. BARTON: When we are talking 

about the gamma graph, if you look at that 

yellow line, which is the all-worker rank 

order, from about the 50th percentile onward, 

the all-worker concentration here was higher 

than the RadSafe category. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So the average of 

all workers was higher. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, of course, you 

have a much larger number of individuals in 

the laborers, welders, wiremen, miners 

category -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- in the gamma -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. So that's 

what -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- than you do in the 

others. So that larger number of individuals 

gives you, would be expected to give you a 

quite different picture. 

 The question then arises as to 

whether or not the gamma exposure records are 

not the most reliable and the most 

informative. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, they are 

informative in the sense that they indicate 

that RadSafe wasn't necessarily the most 

exposed. So you can actually build a coworker 

model out of the group that has the richest 

amount of data for all periods, and we agree 

that they were monitored in all periods. 

 But, with gamma, you have this 

problem of how you are going to interpret that 

data with beta and gross fission products. 

Unless you know the time of the monitoring and 

the reason for the monitoring, you are not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to be able to interpret this data to do 

any dose reconstruction with. I mean we agree 

with Jim on that. And we did explicitly 

discuss that yesterday. 

 Joyce is on the line. 

Unfortunately, Rich Leggett could not be on 

the line, but he did send me a written summary 

of his opinion. He would agree with NIOSH 

that this gamma data are such that -- I 

actually have it open on my regular computer, 

and I can read what he said. 

 But, broadly, he agreed that this 

is not a dataset that is easily manipulable to 

get a reliable dose estimate out of it. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Could you send us 

Dr. Leggett's report? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Dr. Leggett -

- as I said, this is not ready for primetime. 

 It is informal conversations between us. 

 I did check with him whether I 

could represent him, and he did send me kind 

of an informal thing to guide me. Dr. Leggett 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will be involved in finishing this product, if 

the Working Group wants us to do something. 

 And, yes, he explicitly authorized 

me to say this. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I should have asked 

this earlier, but what are the units, MI per 

cc? 

 MR. BARTON: Microcuries per cc, 

yes. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I would assume 

where they are going back in after a test 

shot, going back into these areas, that if it 

is typical of most facilities, you have a pool 

of RadSafe workers. When you're going back 

in, you're going to have these laborers, these 

miners, whatever they are going back into that 

area with. There's only going to be x number 

of RadSafe workers at a shot. 

 So you've got this large pool of 

RadSafe workers, but a lot of them aren't even 

involved directly at that time. They're 

rotated in and out, depending on where their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

work area is for the day. 

 That is going to also bias these 

numbers because you are going to say, well, 

yes, they were all monitored, but how many 

were actually there when they were going back 

in or doing a drill-back or anything else? 

 We know you don't have a one-on-one 

ratio of RadSafe workers to any other kind of 

workers. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, but based purely 

on the conversations we have had with workers 

themselves, and that we have heard from them, 

these folks seem to have a tendency to work on 

a project and not be quite as controlled by 

shifts as many of the other sites seem to have 

been. 

 They gave us the impression, many 

of the workers gave us the impression, when we 

talked to them, that once they went out to 

work on this job, they stayed there. There 

wasn't a lot of -- 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No, I'm saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they do. It's just, when you look at the 

numbers of RadSafe workers in this pool, I 

mean they have various jobs, and we know some 

of them sat at the entrance to these tunnels 

when they were going back in. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: And you might 

have 50-60 people sitting in that tunnel 

working. You might have two or three RadSafe 

workers in the tunnel with them. Then you 

have one or two sitting on the outside to 

monitor people as they come out. 

 But those pools typically are 

rotated around. They are not assigned to a 

tunnel the whole time. So you've got this 

large pool of RadSafe workers who are, 

obviously, moved where they are needed or 

where they're suspected they are going to be 

needed. 

 Then you have these miners and 

these other people who are going, at least 

until they got in whatever they need to do at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that particular drill-back or re-entry, until 

they are done, they are going to be there on a 

daily basis. 

 So that would bias the total amount 

of exposure these RadSafe workers are going to 

get. Some of them are going to have higher; 

some of them are going to have lower, 

depending on the particular shop they are 

going back into. But they are not going to be 

assigned to, typically, a RadSafe pool, and 

assigned to where they are needed. It is not 

like a facility like Rocky or somewhere that 

they are assigned to a building. 

 At Nevada, I mean even by the 

pictures, you can see some of them within the 

tunnels in protective gear; others sat outside 

the tunnels to monitor those coming back out. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

 The bottom line, though, it comes 

down to, just as the claimants have said, that 

by using the RadSafe as supposedly the highest 

exposed, that's not the fact. And it has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

seen on this data here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. The caveat to 

that is that should be regarded as indicative 

in this data because of its problems, that we 

don't know why this was done. But, certainly, 

this data indicates if you are going to do a 

coworker model, you cannot use RadSafe as the 

reference population. You can't do that. 

 You can, on the other hand, 

conclude that there was some other group that 

was. So that also, because different groups 

emerge in these different monitoring datasets, 

so there is a different group that emerges 

when you look at tritium and a different group 

that emerges when you looked at gamma, you 

don't actually have a consistent pattern that 

emerges that you can say, okay, I'm going to 

use this. 

 Just to clarify a little bit, in 

regard to the second point that Jim made in 

his paper, which was NIOSH identified data 

gaps exist in the electronically available 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

database, and specific analysis for fission 

products are not available to NIOSH, and given 

that fission products were the most likely 

source of potential exposure and make-up 

fission products, source term was project- and 

time-dependent, this brings into question the 

ability to reconstruct a representative 

distribution of NTS fission products. This is 

what is in the NIOSH report. 

 As a preliminary response, Dr. 

Leggett asked to me say that we have generally 

agreed with this, although, you know, there 

are situations where you can use mixed fission 

products to extract dose information. I just 

wanted to put that caveat, but, in general, he 

was in agreement with you on this. 

 The beta data are the same. 

Yesterday, we had a conference call to review 

Bob's analysis, also review the analysis that 

Harry has done. And I, actually, because Dr. 

Leggett was the new fresh eyes and much 

respected by everyone, I asked him first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

whether he thought the bottom line in Jim's 

paper, whether he would agree with that, that 

looking at this electronic database and the 

other reports that we had done, and all the 

analysis, admittedly, he only had a week to 

look at this, what was his opinion of the 

NIOSH conclusions that you could not 

reconstruct internal doses, and he agreed with 

the NIOSH conclusion. 

 Then I did a poll. Joyce is on the 

line, so let her speak for herself. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. Are you 

talking about my personal opinion or --? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, your vote 

yesterday, when we went around. Rich Leggett 

agreed -- 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- basically, with 

the NIOSH position. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, he agreed, 

basically, with the NIOSH position, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And you did, too, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I do, too. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And, Bob, you 

scrubbed the numbers. Do you want to throw 

your opinion in the pot? 

 MR. BARTON: I'll let those more 

brilliant than I make that decision. 

 (Laughter.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. All right. 

 Basically, all of us agreed that we 

have enough information. When I went into 

this, I didn't know what was in this database. 

 My main object was to look at whether Jim's 

analysis, whether we agreed with it. 

 I also wanted to look at whether 

the patterns in this 125,000 samples 

reproduced what we had done before. Because 

if it had not reproduced what we had done 

before, then I couldn't have given you a 

conclusion today because then I would have 

said: give me more time; I can't tell you. 

 But it very strongly reinforced 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what we had done before. Other than more data 

points which indicate RadSafe was not the most 

high -- you can't use RadSafe for a coworker 

model, and we are more sure about that now -- 

there's nothing really new that emerged from 

our previous analysis of this, and that makes 

me very comfortable in the conclusion we all 

arrived at, that the NIOSH recommendation is 

technically sound. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Can we stop right 

here? Let's go take a break, no more than 10 

minutes. Be back in here at 15 after. We are 

going to try to break again around noon. Some 

of us have to check out and go get our bags. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 11:02 a.m. and 

resumed at 11:14 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: We are coming back 

online. 

 Let me just check to see, someone 

on the phone, that we have you again. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: John, are you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there? 

 MR. KATZ: Somebody say, hey, from 

the phone. 

 MS. ADAMS: Hey. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Thank you. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ted, could I say 

just say one more thing? 

 MR. KATZ: Of course. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: One caveat to our 

analysis is we were looking at the SEC period. 

 So this is what we did. We didn't examine 

the post-SEC statements, the 10 CFR 835 

statement, because it goes beyond the SEC 

period, and we weren't asked to do that. 

 So we limited ourselves to 

basically examining whether the bottom line on 

the NIOSH paper, our previous analysis, the 

nature of this dataset -- so there's a lot of 

data that goes 1993 and beyond, and we have 

not looked at that. 

 I mean we would be happy to, if you 

want us to, but we haven't done it so far. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just wanted to make that clear. 

 MR. BARTON: Arjun, could I also 

make a comment that goes to whether this 

database is actually complete or not? 

 We had said that, when we looked to 

see how many claimants were actually included 

in these files, we had about 20 percent. From 

the SEC evaluation report, we see that, from 

the DOE-supplied records, that the hard-copy 

records are not, because you have 32.8 percent 

had some sort of internal dosimetry data. So, 

if it were a complete electronic database, we 

would expect to see something near that 

number, and, in fact, we are about 10 percent 

lower than that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I mean I 

indicated that earlier. We are not sure, but 

it seems like that, and we can certainly 

verify that, if necessary. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. Do you all 

have anything else to add? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Let me ask our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

team. 

 Joyce? Harry? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Did you have 

anything to add? Joyce? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Could you repeat 

that? I just joined in. I'm sorry. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Did you want to add 

anything to our prior discussion regarding 

quality of data or any of the observations 

that you have made that you think are 

important to add? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. From the 

quality pattern, I had one question, actually. 

 What does it mean, HDDR error, in the tables? 

 DR. NETON: I don't know. I 

couldn't tell you. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: There were many 

results with this comment. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Especially, like in 

65 and 66; right, Joyce? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: No, all over, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

could not associate -- no, all over the years 

-- and I could not associate it either with 

the result itself or the percentage error and 

things like that. But there was no 

correlation at all with anything. So I didn't 

know what this comment was. 

 And with the main error, it strikes 

you, what's this? 

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

I'll see what I can find out, though. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. And the 

other thing is the percentage error that was 

associated with the measurements. There were 

many results where there is no percentage 

errors. There are some results that have like 

very, very big percentage errors. So I don't 

know how valid they are. 

 And I don't know when there is zero 

percentage errors, no percentage errors, what 

does it mean if it was not calculated, and 

what happens with this data? So we get a lot 

of uncertainty because you don't know what it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is. 

 Many years there are like 100 

results and 10 of them have a very high 

percent of errors, and all the others have 

zero. So we don't know what it really means 

to the quality of the data. 

 And the other problem that I had is 

that sometimes you have measurement results in 

a Code 40, which is microcuries, and other 

results you have in microcuries per cubic 

centimeters, and I don't know how to correlate 

them. I didn't know how to do to correlate 

them. 

 Also, I didn't know if they really 

meant microcuries or if it was, you know, the 

cubic centimeter was forgotten. I tried to 

see if the results on the higher range, 

whether all were microcuries instead of 

microcuries per cubic centimeters, and in some 

years, yes, but in other years, no. So I 

still don't know. 

 It talks about the quality of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

measurements. 

 MR. BARTON: Joyce, I can add a 

little bit of information there. From our 

experience when we compiled the data from the 

hard-copy records last time, we found that in 

the 70s, and perhaps in the 1980s, the 

practice at NTS was just to put in M-I for 

microcurie as shorthand for microcurie per cc. 

 Now you point out the values with 

the numerical code of 40. These were 

generally outside that period. So my 

impression was that, if it simply had an MI 

and it was in the 70s and the 1980 period, it 

was probably microcurie per cc. And you could 

verify that by just seeing whether it is in 

the range of the other values that were 

microcuries per cc, but oftentimes the ones 

with the Code 40 were significantly higher. 

We would need to believe that they needed to 

be corrected by some sort of sample volume, 

which is not listed in the database. 

 DR. MAURO: And is that part of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scrubbing that you did when you -- 

 MR. BARTON: The 40s were gone. 

The MIs from the 70s were in. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: In 1980, for 

example, we had 38 results in the range of 8 

to the minus 9 to 8 to the minus 7, when the 

other measurements were in the range of 8 to 

the minus 11. Those results in the range of 8 

to the minus 9 and 8 to the minus 7 were in 

microcuries. So it made me believe, well, 

that's it because one is for a sample, the 

other is for cubic centimeters. 

 But, then, in the same year, we had 

21 results in the range of 8 to the minus 6 

and some with units of microcuries and others 

in units of microcuries per cubic centimeters. 

 So, then, I didn't know what to think about 

it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Now, you 

know, if you look at all these caveats, 

obviously, there's been some judgment calls 

that we made in putting the whole database 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

together. Earlier we had been able to make a 

more detailed analysis of quality, because we 

went from a paper record, which had a lot more 

detail, but we still have quality concerns 

with this database, and some new issues have 

emerged. 

 But would you say, broadly, Joyce, 

that our previous -- how do your concerns 

about quality reflect what we found before? 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: I think they are 

the same concerns we had. I just examined the 

plutonium quality data from the new electronic 

database, and I think the same patterns that 

we had before, they are repeated in this 

database, with the addition that I found it 

was probably not a complete database. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think -- Harry? 

Did you want to add anything, Harry? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: No. I just have 

to second the problems that have been stated 

so far. The database is not very clean. It 

takes a lot of work to try to get to where you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can have a set of numbers you can believe are 

all comparable. 

 MS. LIPSZTEIN: And the other thing 

that told me about the quality of the results, 

I was looking at the 1990 results, which 

should be, you know, fairly recent. And when 

you look at the results that are fairly high 

results, and then there are some workers that 

were monitored two or three months after the 

high results, and then it drops to very low 

results and something that is not compatible 

with what you would expect from plutonium. 

 DR. MAURO: That is the plutonium. 

 Okay. All right. 

 MR. BARTON: And just to sort of 

expand on what Harry was just saying, I think 

there are definitely some QA problems that we 

identified with the database, things like 

someone with the same Social Security, but 

their last name is spelled differently or 

incorrectly. Or, you know, you may have some 

dose entries that was simply a 1E and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

nothing. You know, what can you really do 

with that value? Or sometimes you would have 

a 1E K to the minus 7, or something like that. 

 So I think it is certainly not in pristine 

condition, anyway. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but, I mean, 

most of the data were usable in terms of a 

gross analysis that we have given, enough to 

say what we have said. 

 DR. MAURO: Is there paper behind 

every one of these? These 125,000; there's 

paper somewhere? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MR. BARTON: So we could probably 

get sample volumes and be able to convert a 

lot of those over simply -- 

 DR. NETON: I think a lot of these 

issues could be reviewed and determined, you 

know, one way or the other. But the fact is, 

if we don't know, again -- what the data were 

collected, the purpose the data were collected 

for in the first place, is it really that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

relevant to go back and have a quality review 

of the data? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am hearing a lot of 

negative information here with respect to data 

that exists, based on what one can only truly 

term as clerical idiosyncrasies. 

 It seems unreasonable to discard, 

obviously, carefully obtained data based on 

the idiosyncrasies of the time or the speed or 

personal preferences of the individuals who 

were recording the data and, in all 

probability, who were recording, were 

transferring the data from the paper record to 

the electronic record. 

 So this puts us in the position, of 

course, of having to always be looking at the 

same original paper records. But, even then, 

to discard them because -- and, Bob, I 

understand the need for filters. Yes, I 

understand what you are doing. 

 But, by the same token, to discard 

the information because of these issues that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are being presented as quality issues that are 

more human activity issues than lack of 

quality in the original data is very 

unfortunate for a long list of reasons. 

 MR. BARTON: I certainly didn't 

mean to imply that these things -- I was 

simply pointing out some observations that we 

saw going through it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Wanda, we are not 

discarding the data because of anything. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: In fact, the data 

always, all these things that could be in the 

typo category, actually, I know I discussed 

this with Bob, he corrected the typos and 

eliminated some of the obvious typo issues and 

used as many data points as were usable. And 

most of the data points were usable. 

 The quality concerns that Joyce 

expressed are somewhat more fundamental than 

the kind of, you know, whether the database 

was QAed in its transcription, which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certainly fixable. If everything were all 

right, you would go back and fix it, and you 

wouldn't have a problem with that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, I understand her 

concerns with the database. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Right. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Did anyone contact 

anybody that might have transcribed this or 

knew something of the transcription and the 

personal items that were put in or left out, 

or anything like that? Did you all get with 

anybody to try to reconcile why they left 

these out or why that they did some of the 

things that they did? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Mr. Presley, 

the extent of the problem in regard to 

transcription wasn't extensive. We are not 

meaning to imply that. And if it had been, we 

would probably have felt the necessity of 

contacting somebody, yes. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Let's get that on 

the table. You all did not feel that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was a big problem in -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: -- the 

transcription that was available? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. There was -- 

and Bob is most familiar with the database, 

and Jim is. 

 DR. NETON: Any time you have 

100,000 records collected over -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, exactly. 

 DR. NETON: -- a 30- or 40-year 

period, you are going to have some issues 

identified, some legacy kind of issues. But, 

with some work, those could be evaluated and 

remedied to a large extent. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: But we feel like -- 

that there's not a problem going back with 

that, the missing data? Is that correct? 

 DR. NETON: Well, again, I don't 

know how much more work it would be worth 

putting into evaluating the pedigree of all 

these records, given that we really have come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to the conclusion that we are not certain if 

the highest exposed workers were monitored in 

the first place. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Oh, okay. That's 

what I -- 

 DR. NETON: Once you make that 

conclusion, come to that conclusion, then the 

rest of it is sort of a moot issue. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: One of the things that 

I was thinking about is you do have all of 

this hard-copy data that does contain, in 

theory, the job categories, the hard copy. 

It's not in the electronic. 

 Now, however, we sampled enough of 

the hard-copy data, a couple of hundred, and 

we are finding that it is mostly security and 

RadSafe. In my mind, there's no reason to 

believe, if you went in and looked at all that 

data, anything is going to change. So that is 

an important point. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: John, I think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

conclusion of this analysis, and the reason, 

one of the main reasons, certainly the main 

reason I'm very comfortable that the bottom 

line is robust, is this larger dataset -- I 

mean before we had selected the 120 at random, 

and we had gone fairly methodically. Then we 

examined the NIOSH 100. So there was some 

overlap, but nearly about 200 individuals that 

we had looked at all the hard-copy 

information, and that corresponds very closely 

to this electronic database, which covers a 

lot more workers. 

 So I do not believe we will find -- 

if you spent two more years, I doubt that you 

would find anything else. 

 DR. NETON: I agree. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So the real wrap-up 

here is we have adequate data for external 

exposures, but we do not have a large enough 

number of individuals covered in the database 

for a bioassay to be able to say with 

confidence that we can bound internal dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

So that is the real bottom line here? 

 DR. NETON: For workers who were 

not monitored. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: We have monitoring data 

for workers that we would use for dose 

reconstruction, but we have no confidence, if 

a worker wasn't monitored and should have 

been, that we could reconstruct their dose. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Internally? 

 DR. NETON: Internally, that's 

correct. 

 DR. MAURO: Would you go as far as 

to say, well, you could fill the coworker 

model for RadSafe workers, I was thinking, or 

for -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm reluctant to 

say we could do that. I mean, first of all, 

we are not sure that even all the RadSafe 

workers were monitored or not. 

 Secondly, you get into the job 

category situation, and it is never clear to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me that a guy who is a RadSafe today was a 

RadSafe three years ago. Typically, what you 

have on, especially people who are survivors, 

you have their last job category, and that's 

about all you've got. 

 DR. MAURO: You don't know what 

else they might have done. 

 DR. NETON: So then it becomes a 

real dicey enterprise to try to go back and 

say I can, with confidence, know that I can 

reconstruct the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

 DR. NETON: In fact, I suspect 

that, given what we see here, most of the 

RadSafe workers already have monitoring data. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: And that will be in our 

database, and we will reconstruct them, if 

they are not -- 

 DR. MAURO: Got you. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Gen, do you have 

anything? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: No. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I guess I have 

to agree. I just don't feel comfortable with 

the data because we don't know what kind of 

internal exposures some of these people who 

weren't monitored received. Just because you 

have an external badge doesn't show what you 

got internally. 

 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Brad? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, I 

applaud Jim for what he has put forth. I 

guess one of my issues is we have been told 

numerous times that all the data that is out 

there had been found and that everything was 

there. But with the SEC petition, they even 

brought up this extra data. 

 I just want to make sure that, as 

we go into this and other sites, that when we 

say that we have all the data, that we do have 

it. I applaud Jim because to review this and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

come forward with this, it shows a dedication 

to the science, and so forth. And I stand 

good with what has been discussed. I just 

want to make sure that we do explore the 

avenues for the data that is out there. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: And again, on what 

Brad said, I would like to add one thing. 

This is a work in progress. We are never, I 

mean never, going to be able to get all of the 

data that's out there on this because a lot of 

it has been thrown away. 

 So, you know, you may come up 10 

years down the road and somebody will open a 

safe somewhere and say, my gosh, look what's 

here. 

 So the fact that you're going to 

find all the data, again, know this is work in 

progress. Things are going to change. It did 

change. 

 So that is what I would like to get 

on the record, that this is a work in 

progress, and when things come forward, they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will be looked at, I presume. 

 Is that correct, Jim? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, sir, that is 

correct. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you. 

 Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, if we don't have 

the material to do it, then the rest of the 

good science goes out the window. It's that 

simple. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Unfortunately. 

 Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: I am just the DFO here. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: What I would like 

to do is -- let's talk about our task and what 

we are going to do forward. Coming up, we 

have one more meeting. We have a technical 

database that I would like to see us say yea 

or nay on. We have an SEC petition coming up 

that I would like to hear some discussion on. 

 And we have one more meeting coming up in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

January. I believe it is on the 27th or the 

28th, the 26th, the 27th, somewhere in that 

timeframe -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think the 28th. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: To come up with a 

final recommendation for the Board, what I 

would like to do is for us to go away from 

this meeting today with a path forward as to 

what we are going to do, either today, or if 

we think it is going to take another meeting 

on the 28th to do this, let's have that path 

forward today. I want to get something done, 

one way or the other. 

 Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: On the process question, 

I am happy to make a suggestion here, which 

is, it is sounding like -- I mean you haven't 

taken a vote, but you have all spoken your 

minds, and I assume you will form a position 

and second it and take a vote. 

 But if there's consensus among the 

Work Group about this analysis and the SEC, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean you don't have before you an actual redo 

of the SEC petition evaluation yet. You have 

this White Paper, but it is pretty, sort of, 

closely aligned with what a petition 

evaluation would say ordinarily. I am just 

thinking about trying to save your resources 

in terms of time and all that. 

 I mean I think, if you have 

consensus and you want to take a vote on the 

position as it stands, as laid out in the 

White Paper, you can do that, contingent with 

the final evaluation report being consistent 

with what's laid in the White Paper, and not 

necessarily have to come together again. 

 You could formulate your 

recommendations today to the Board, wrap all 

that up, again, contingent on the final 

product being consistent with all this, and 

then wait and see. We can leave the January 

meeting on the books as a possibility, but if 

it all comes forward the way it has been 

discussed today, you wouldn't necessarily have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to use that January meeting. I would just 

leave it on the books for now, so barring any 

unforeseen -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, that's the 

SEC. What about the TBD? 

 MR. FUNK: Hey, Ted, may I make a 

comment here with this point? 

 MR. KATZ: John. Well, I mean 

right now we are just discussing process, but, 

yes, go ahead, John. Go ahead, if it's -- 

 MR. FUNK: Okay. I will make it 

really short. 

 I would like to bring up this IG 

audit, DOE IG-0773, which is a mirror of what 

NIOSH has done and also a mirror of what SC&A 

has done. And in this, to cover it real 

quick, it says, bioassay programs were not 

working as it was intended to work and was 

inefficient. People who should have been 

bioassayed were not. People who should not 

have been bioassayed were. Bios were not 

timely so as to capture all possible 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposures. Seven out of 30 of the documents 

that had bioassays could not be found of the 

workers. Methodologies for determining who 

should be tested did not always ensure those 

who should be tested were tested. Weaknesses 

on how individuals were entered into the 

bioassay or removed from the database were 

exposed. There was computer failures. 

Federal monitoring of site-level bioassay 

programs was inadequate, and to finish it off, 

the Department of Energy concurred with all 

the findings in this report, which is merely a 

mirror of what both sides have done. 

 And there's another report, which 

you have, called OAS-M-08-02, which also 

covers. It's called the Audit Report Contract 

Transitional Activities at the Nevada Test 

Site. 

 And that's all I have to say. 

Thank you, Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John. 

 I don't know if anyone wants to -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just as a matter of record, these reports John 

forwarded to me, maybe to SC&A as well, I 

forwarded them to the Work Group. So everyone 

has these in hand. I don't know if anyone 

wants to respond at this point. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I would only 

comment -- this is Jim Neton -- that the 

report IG-0773 was for an audit that was 

conducted after the end of this SEC evaluation 

period. It was in the 2000s. Well, this 

covers a different era. It might be discussed 

at another time. 

 MR. FUNK: Jim, there was a point 

in there about the buried and lost records, is 

why I brought that out. 

 DR. NETON: Okay. Fine. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this brings 

up one question that I have now. The petition 

goes from the beginning to 1991. Are we 

looking at that -- because I have seen NIOSH 

with certain information extended, and so 

forth, like that. Have we looked at that to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

see if, from 1991 on, or -- 

 DR. NETON: In the report, we have 

evaluated, we've put our opinion forth that we 

believe, after 92, we can do dose 

reconstructions. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: But it is certainly the 

Board's purview to weigh in on that, how they 

want to deal with it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If I could offer 

something from my perspective, if the Board 

wants to withhold judgment on post-92, feeling 

that has not been completely discussed, it 

would seem like there could still be an action 

to recommend addition of a class as 

petitioned, and specifically withhold judgment 

about whether or not dose reconstruction is 

feasible after the end of that. 

 So that, essentially, holds it open 

and it allows for additional debate or 

discussion on the post-92 period. And what 

that does, though, is to get these claimants 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

who fall into the petition period 63 to 92 and 

start their path moving. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Without that 

recommendation, they -- 

 MR. FUNK: A little clarification 

on that. I wasn't intending to try to get 

that past 92. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. FUNK: Although the audit is 

dated 2008, or 2007 -- excuse me -- it did 

investigate the past practices, and the 

practices I was referring to was only 1992 and 

on back, so don't misunderstand that. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Just a vote on the 

petition class, on saying, you know, based on 

the discussion here, your recommendation I 

guess is what the discussion would lead to, 

would essentially have this petition, but it 

does not close out discussion elsewhere for 

other things. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Or it does not prevent 

anyone from petitioning further for 93 

forward. I mean we see no evidence at face 

value why we couldn't reconstruct after 93. 

If the Board wants to continue down that path 

and keep the SEC working group alive, I guess 

that's okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean it 

would be a site profile question then. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, this is 

basically what it comes down to. We've just 

dealt with a lot of information here. I don't 

know how to do it politically or anything 

else. I would like to be able to get the SEC 

that Jim has already put before us, and stuff 

like that. I would like to get it going 

toward that, but I, myself personally, I would 

like to just have a little bit of time to make 

sure that we have the adequate time pass 

there. 

 It may be one or two years that 

could be added to it, or whatever else like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that, but I would like us to be able to 

address it because we are putting a lot out 

onto this table, and a lot of things have 

changed. I do not want to in any way hold up 

the people for the SEC at all, but I just want 

to make sure that, when we go to the public or 

anything else like that, that all of our Ts 

are crossed and our Is are dotted on this. 

 That's just my personal opinion on 

it. I just want to make sure that we have 

covered everything. That is what Stu has 

said. I think that is kind of what I am 

looking at. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: And again, we 

stopped testing in 91. This thing goes for a 

year prior or post that, is that correct, I 

believe? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The last test was 

in 92. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Nineteen ninety-two, 

and it goes through -- 

 DR. NETON: No, it stops at 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 

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: It stops at 93? 

 DR. NETON: Through 92. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. It starts 

and then it goes to the end of 1992, I 

believe. 

 DR. NETON: Correct. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I don't have -- 

 DR. NETON: This coincides with the 

end of atmospheric testing. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. 

 DR. NETON: Oh, no, underground 

testing. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Underground 

testing. 

 DR. NETON: I mean there's still 

nuclear activities going on, but there was no 

more underground testing after 92. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. 

 DR. NETON: It also coincides with 

the introduction of 10 CFR 835, which is a 

much more robust monitoring effort required by 

all contractors. We found evidence that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had a fairly good documentation as to who they 

sampled and why, which we couldn't prior to 

92. That's the basis for us saying we can do 

it at this point. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, up to that 

point, and I understand that. But, after the 

atmospheric testing, and so forth, it also 

took us into another era. But you're right, 

the monitoring was a little bit better and 

stuff like that, but a lot of the cleanup of 

the Nevada Test Site, it went into that. This 

is still being implemented. I just want to 

make sure that we have kind of looked at that 

a little bit. 

 I guess that is more of a site 

profile issue than an SEC, but I just want to 

make sure that we don't miss that. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I think Stu is 

right. I mean it could certainly be taken up 

under the site profile review because it has 

been reviewed, and if issues arise to a level 

where it looks like they become SEC issues, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certainly would discuss them at that point. 

There's many ways this could be handled, I 

think. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. In no way, 

shape or form do I want to hold this back. I 

want to get this SEC taken care of, get the 

people proceeding forward, but I want to make 

sure that we clean up the site profile. 

Because we have been focused on many things in 

the earlier days, and so forth like that. 

 My personal opinion is we have that 

data opened up to us. I would like to be able 

to see SC&A's final paper that they've got, be 

able to discuss it, and maybe even from NIOSH 

just a preliminary of what they see past the 

92 timeframe, and be able to bring this to the 

Board at the February meeting. 

 But that is just my opinion on it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn't 

understand. Are you saying that we should 

compile the work that we have done so far up 

to 92 into a report to consider? Is that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: The information 

that you just brought to us today, I would 

like to have it in -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- a more formal 

form -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- that the public 

could actually look at, and that we could put 

out there, so that people see what we are 

doing. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I think 

that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We will be 

delivering an evaluation report in the 

meantime, too. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. So that will all 

be coming in January. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. So I would 

like some explicit guidance from the working 

group about that, because, you know, it will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have to go through DOE review. There's sort 

of a lengthy process before it can -- and then 

Privacy Act reviews -- before the petitioners 

can look at it. So I would like to be able, 

if we are going to do this report, I would 

really like to start on it tomorrow. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes, because you 

don't have a whole lot of time. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. I actually 

talked with our team about this yesterday, 

that in case we were asked to do this, that we 

would start on it right away, try to finish a 

draft, you know, by the end of the year or 

early in January, so that we can send it to 

DOE for review and go through all the 

necessary steps, so that the Working Group can 

consider it, you know, before your next 

scheduled meeting or by teleconference or 

before the Board, whatever, that you have 

ample time and that the petitioners also have 

some time to look at it. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: What's this going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to do to the site profile? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I think what 

it's going to do is it is going to remove the 

major issue that has been there. Well, as Jim 

said, the two major issues with resuspension 

and that environmental model and the internal 

dose are now taken care of, up to the end of 

1992. So the most difficult issues will be 

resolved. 

 Now there are some things in regard 

to the site profile. NIOSH published a new 

internal dose and list of radionuclides, and 

there's possibly some post-93 issues: the 

waste workers and things that we have not 

looked at since we created the original 

matrix. 

 We haven't received any direction 

from you about that to my recollection, but 

the major issues from the previous matrix will 

be over. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That's what I want 

to get on record. We have taken those 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 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issues and we've worked the hound out of them. 

 I want to make sure that everybody 

understands that those original 22 issues are 

going to be put to bed, and, hopefully, we 

won't have another 22 issues from 1993 to 

2009. 

 DR. MAURO: From a practical 

perspective, going through this process, let's 

say that a recommendation is made to grant the 

SEC through 1992. That leaves NIOSH in a 

position where, to do partial dose 

reconstructions for that time period, which 

means reconstructions for prostate cancer, 

reconstructions for skin cancer, and some 

others, that would still need to be done. 

 Presumably, they would be done in 

accordance with your latest version of your 

site profile. So the question becomes -- it 

sounds to me that the path forward seems clear 

in one respect. That is, SC&A will put 

together its report on this matter, as we have 

just reviewed it, and deliver it to the Work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Group as early as we can. It is going to be 

tight because of the DOE cycle. And you will 

have a piece of paper that will be available 

for PA clearance, to put up on the public 

accounting. Of course, that will put the Work 

Group in the position to make a recommendation 

to the full Board. 

 However, what we don't have is, 

okay, are there any technical issues regarding 

partial dose reconstruction now that really 

emerge from your latest version of your site 

profile, which we haven't reviewed, I guess. 

 DR. NETON: Right. But we would 

also, though, at the same time, have to revise 

our site profile to incorporate these partial 

dose reconstructions. That is typical of what 

we do. 

 DR. MAURO: So I am looking at it 

from the point of view of SC&A and what it can 

do to add value. And it seems to me that, 

right now, the most important thing we have to 

do is to get this report out to support the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

January 29th meeting. 

 These other matters that you bring 

up certainly are important, but it sounds like 

perhaps they should wait until you finish your 

paperwork related to whether it is a revision 

to your site profile or a revision to your 

evaluation report that addresses how you would 

approach partial dose reconstruction. 

 But if you are planning to do that, 

then it really would make more sense for us to 

just sit tight for a while on that matter. 

 DR. NETON: I would agree with that 

process perspective. I mean we are going to 

take another look at the site profiles and 

modify them, if this petition is granted as we 

propose. 

 We have to make some decisions 

about what level of internal monitoring data 

remains. For instance, I would suspect that 

we would still use the environmental modeling 

for those who are not presumptive cancers, 

that sort of thing, for internal exposures. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

But we have to make some of those decisions. 

That is typically what we do after an SEC is 

granted, what's left to do. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So the short answer 

to your question, Mr. Presley, is that what 

issues remain will depend on what NIOSH comes 

up with in terms of revising its site profile, 

in light of what has happened. 

 Right now, I would say that, from 

our point of view, no issues are on the table 

until NIOSH provides the site profile. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. So what I am 

hearing is that Jim needs to come up, 

essentially, with their input to a new site 

profile or additions to the original site 

profile and submit that. Is that correct? 

 DR. NETON: That would be 

appropriate -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: -- although, you know, 

typically, we wait until the SEC has been 

granted. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: But we need to get 

your data for the SEC and SC&A's data for the 

SEC, and then say, okay, we agree with this. 

We will either recommend to the Board that 

this be accepted at the end of 1992 or we 

disagree and something else. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, and I would 

hope that, at least a week before your next 

scheduled Working Group meeting, that the 

Working Group would have our report on this. 

I will try to make it as much before, if 

possible, so that we can make it go through a 

Privacy Act review, so petitioners can also 

have it on the 20th. 

 DR. NETON: I think, from what I 

have heard at this meeting so far, I think we 

can proceed with generating a revised 

evaluation report that we could have in hand 

for the working group in that same timeframe, 

if not sooner. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And we are very 

comfortable with the NIOSH paper. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Right, and our 

evaluation has to be based on this White 

Paper. I mean, we will probably do a lot of 

cut and paste. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If you did a lineby-line review, we would have some fine points 

to put on it, as Rich Leggett did. But we 

have no doubt about the bottom line. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: There should be no 

extensive reports necessary between now and 

the end of January. The reports that need to 

come from NIOSH and from SC&A should be brief. 

 You do not need to repeat all of the 

information that is involved in the back 

study. That is not what we are looking for. 

All we need is a very brief report with two or 

three points that have made it necessary for 

us to do what NIOSH and our contractor are now 

suggesting. 

 It is very clear the agency is 

charged with the responsibility of doing these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose reconstructions in the best scientific 

manner. If there is a portion of them that 

they cannot do, then there is no question that 

we must accept at least some portion of the 

SEC. 

 And whatever we are going to do 

with the SEC needs to be clear in those two 

very brief papers: recommendations that we can 

then turn into a one-paragraph recommendation 

to the full Board in February. I can see, 

personally, no reason for any involved 

reporting between now and then. It would seem 

to be fairly simple. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, our 

evaluation report is going to be pretty much 

what's in this White Paper. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Any additional 

revision that needs to be done to the site 

profile -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The site profile 

revisions will be largely a matter of removing 

things. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: And that would be -- 

right -- subsequent to any action that would 

be taken in February. I can see no reason why 

that should precede the February 

recommendation. 

 Sorry, Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: I am just saying, I 

mean, based on Stu's and Jim's statement that 

the evaluation report is going to be, 

basically, what you already have before you, I 

think you can go ahead and, in a contingent 

sense, make a recommendation today, not leave 

that up necessarily until the end of January, 

which is just a week before the Board meeting. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I just worry about 

things, you know, whether it is things 

happening that you can't control for: DOE not 

clearing something, what have you. I would 

encourage you, if you are prepared to take 

action today, even though it is in a 

contingent sense, to do that, just because I 

worry about just things that you can't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

predict. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Let me pass this 

forward. There's two or three of us that have 

to check out. 

 Can we break right here, go to 

lunch, be back in here no later than one 

o'clock, and let's talk about going forward 

with accepting the SEC as it stands to the end 

of 1992 with a contingent that, if everything 

goes fine and we get a thing from SC&A -- and 

not the site profile, but the SEC petition 

from Jim that doesn't change, and that if 

something should go awry and we cannot meet, 

at least we've got that and we can get on the 

phone and say, hey, everybody's got a copy of 

this. Do you agree? So that we can pass this 

on to the Board. 

 I don't want to hold this up. 

We've got people out there that really need to 

have this pass, so that dose reconstructions 

can be done. 

 So can we break now? You all think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about it. If somebody's got some big reason 

why that they don't want to do this, then I 

would like to hear it at one o'clock. If not, 

come back prepared to -- let's vote on this. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Also, if I might 

make one request, Mr. Presley and Ted, I would 

like a little more specific guidance about the 

report, because I kind of had the impression 

that the work that we have done should be in 

the report, maybe as an addendum, and maybe we 

should have a two-page report that we could 

clean it up and not do new analysis. 

 Was that the -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is what I was 

looking at, too. I just want to be able to 

get it to where the people, the public, can 

actually see it and so forth, too. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean I think you would 

want to tie up your loose ends that you 

mentioned because you want a quality product 

to be delivered. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: But I agree with that. 

 And it just occurs to me that some 

of these, like these tables and so on, I don't 

know how you will handle that to minimize the 

Privacy-Act challenge. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I think it 

can't be done. 

 Sorry, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Only gross numbers 

can be done. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I think we 

would probably produce some aggregate tables 

and a summary. In the past, that is what we 

have done, is produce a summary with some 

aggregate data that could be made public 

pretty easily and pass Privacy-Act review 

relatively rapidly, at least as I remember. 

 Is that right? 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I can see some bar 

charts like you had in there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: As you think about that, 

exactly what data you want to put forth in a 

way that minimizes the hurdles -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then we would 

have everything else in an appendix that the 

Board would be able to look at. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Highly truncated, 

please. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, we are not 

going to do anything new. We are going to 

clean up what we have. 

 You know, we did discuss yesterday 

whether there are -- you know, there are, 

obviously, a lot of things that we didn't look 

at, and all of us agreed -- I've even made a 

list -- and all of us agreed that, given where 

we were with the bottom line and how 

comfortable we were with Jim's report, that we 

didn't even want to recommend to you that we 

do further work on this. 

 MEMBER MUNN: There's really no 

reason to. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, there is not. 

 MEMBER MUNN: If the agency says 

they cannot do the reconstruction that is 

necessary for internal exposure, there's no 

reason for you to qualify that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I agree with 

that and our whole team agrees with that. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, let's break. 

 MR. KATZ: For an hour, is that -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: One hour. So be 

back in here as fast as you can at one 

o'clock. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So everyone on 

the phone, we will be back in session about 

five after 1:00. Thank you, everybody. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:02 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:05 p.m.) 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

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 

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

(1:05 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. 

 This is the NTS Work Group, the 

Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. We 

are just reconvening after lunch. 

 We have all of our Board members in 

the room. 

 Bob, you can take over from here. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: All right. 

 As we discussed before we went to 

lunch, what we want to take up this afternoon 

is to come up with a proposed motion that we 

either accept or deny the SEC petition 0084 

for NTS. At this time, the dates on this 

petition are January the 1st, 1963 through 

December 31st, 1992. 

 The motion will be, I hope, to 

accept, with a caveat in there that we are 

waiting on the White Paper from NIOSH to come 

forward with the exact wording, dates, times 

and everything for the petition. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Do I hear a motion as to the path 

forward? Or has anybody got any more 

discussion from the Working Group on this 

first? 

 Brad? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would just like 

to move that we accept NIOSH's proposed date 

at this time of January 1st, 1963, through 

December 31st, 1992 in the SEC. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I will second 

that. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That we accept 

NIOSH's proposal. Do I hear any type of a 

caveat in there? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just the caveat 

that they are going to get us the exact dates. 

 It is what you had mentioned earlier about 

the petition. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In fact, we will 

provide the evaluation. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Correct. 

 Okay, do I hear a motion or any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

discussion on the motion prior to our vote? 

The vote is to accept this. 

 Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I would have a 

friendly addendum based on the information 

that we have discussed earlier and based on 

NIOSH's own recommendation that we have that, 

although they recommend adding a portion of 

the class to the SEC, NIOSH intends to use any 

available internal and external data for the 

recommended period. That can be interpreted 

using existing NIOSH processes and/or 

procedures for the purpose of partial dose 

reconstructions. 

 I would request that be added as a 

friendly adjunct to what Brad has proposed for 

the motion. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Do we have any 

discussion on the amendment? 

 (No audible response.) 

 Any more discussion on the main 

motion? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. HOWELL: Can I clarify 

something? 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes, ma'am. 

 MS. HOWELL: The Working Group is 

really just making a motion about what you are 

going to recommend to the full Board -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That's correct. 

 MS. HOWELL: -- as opposed to -- 

okay, I'm not sure that the wording of the 

motion spoke to that, but maybe it did. Maybe 

I missed it. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: This is a 

recommendation to the full Board that we 

accept SEC-0084 NTS and the time period 

December 31, 1992 -- I'm sorry -- January 1st, 

1963 through December 31st, 1992 with the 

addition of the words that Wanda, I hope, has 

on her computer where we can get a copy of 

that to him. 

 Is there any more discussion? 

 Everybody ready to vote? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I guess I would like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to make one comment. It is not really a 

discussion. 

 It is unfortunate that, given the 

very good science that has transpired with 

respect to this and many other issues 

surrounding the Nevada Test Site, that we find 

that we are unable to complete the internal 

dosimetry information as we would like to be 

able to do. 

 This is so often misinterpreted by 

people outside of the circles we work in as 

indicative of a failure in the program and a 

failure on behalf of the individuals who have 

worked so hard to see that safety and security 

were maintained at that site. 

 But this is the reality of the 

information we have now. Given that reality, 

this is, obviously, the move we need to make 

next. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: And I agree with 

what you said, Wanda. 

 Are we ready to vote? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: You know, you can just 

do it all in favor, if you want. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I can do that. 

 All in favor of the motion signify 

by saying aye. 

 (Chorus of ayes.) 

 Opposed? 

 (No audible response.) 

 Let the record show that it was a 

unanimous vote by the NTS Working Group that 

the petition be granted and that we make a 

full report to the Board as such. 

 New business. 

 What I would like to discuss just a 

little bit before we go on is, what do we 

anticipate for what information is going to 

come to us on the TBD or the site profile? I 

had a few thoughts at lunch. 

 You know, the site profile is, 

what, Arjun, 214 pages long; something like 

that? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it is in six 

volumes. I don't remember the total. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Oh, the total 

thing, yes, it is very long. 

 I wonder if, rather than going back 

and doing this, can we have an amendment so 

that we can say where the changes are in that 

thing without having to come up with changing 

Volume 1, 2, or 3 or Volume 3 and 4, or 

whatever, so that we have some type of a short 

version to look at what changes were made down 

the road for this thing? 

 I realize this is not something 

that is going to be done here in the next 

month, but when we do get to this -- you know, 

I work with documents all the time that use 

change bars or I get a revision that says, 

okay, the revision's on page 4, 10, 15, and 

22, line so-and-so. And it sure helps me when 

I don't have to go through 500 pages to rereview a document when the changes are there. 

 Does anybody have any feelings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about this? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Don't we normally 

have a revisions sheet incorporated in the 

transmittal document? 

 DR. NETON: There is, but it is a 

fairly brief summary of all the changes that 

were made. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And that's really all 

we need, isn't it? 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I think we ought 

to -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: It would be nice 

to be able to see how it lays out -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: See how it lays 

out. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- into the rest 

of the -- all my procedures that are sent out 

to us, we always have a highlighted change 

through it, and I would really like to be able 

to see that. It would make better use of my 

time, if there's any way. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes. If you are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to do in the whole TBD, then put change 

bars out there or highlight the changes where 

we can look at that, and we can go back and 

discuss some of the things like this. 

 DR. NETON: Refresh my memory, 

though, where we are in the process because it 

seems like we have issued a new revision since 

you, SC&A, has reviewed at least the internal 

dosimetry. So SC&A has not even reviewed the 

latest revision. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. That's 

correct. 

 DR. NETON: At the same time, we 

are going to -- a lot of the issues that were 

raised are going to go away with the potential 

addition of the class. 

 So I would take the assignment on 

to see if I can provide some type of 

characterization. I don't know if I can get 

an exact track-changes mode version, but 

something that could indicate the differences 

between the two revisions and where we feel 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the existing issues lie. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: What I am getting 

at, we've got another meeting coming up. If 

Jim's not going to be ready and John has not 

had time for SC&A to review the position or 

the SEC, not the SEC, but the TBD and the site 

profile, then the only thing really that we 

have to discuss is the up-and-coming paper on 

the petition that I hope everybody would have 

before then in hand. 

 I see maybe getting on a conference 

call and us doing that, rather than spend the 

government's money on all of us and everybody 

taking a day to come up here for that. I 

mean, that is my thoughts. 

 We had a meeting the other day for 

the full Board, and it only lasted 55 minutes. 

 That's all it was. 

 And I'm just wondering if we can't, 

if at all possible, everybody's got that date 

held -- if that's all we have to discuss -- 

 MR. KATZ: Well, you may not have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to discuss anything. I mean, you have made 

your recommendation to the full Board. Unless 

anything changes unexpectedly, it should 

stand. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I still would like 

for everybody to have a chance to look at that 

thing and one more time say, I don't have a 

problem with this. Let's get it to the Board. 

 MR. KATZ: So let me just suggest, 

once the documents go out from SC&A and OCAS, 

those will go out and be distributed to all 

the members of the Work Group, and when they 

are PA-cleared, they will be given to the 

public. 

 But I think you can confer by 

email, just to say, is there any new issue? 

If there's no new issue, I don't think you 

need even a meeting. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. I 

understand. 

 MR. KATZ: I think you're okay. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: So no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

teleconference on the -- 

 MR. KATZ: So it could be a 

teleconference if there were a new issue, but 

if there is not -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: If there's a new 

issue -- 

 MR. KATZ: If there's no new 

business -- 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: We will hold it 

then? 

 MR. KATZ: So I will hold that 

meeting in case we need it, but -- 

 DR. MAURO: The question is, what 

piece of paper is needed on the record in 

order for the Board to be able to act on your 

recommendation? Because, in theory, right 

now, you have effectively made a 

recommendation, concluded a recommendation 

contingent on -- 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I'm going to be 

honest with you. The only thing that I see 

that we would need is the evaluation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: So that is where I'm 

headed. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Now if your evaluation 

report is in place, our review of what I would 

say is in your White Paper which, for all 

intents and purposes, we expect to be very 

similar to what your eventual -- you would 

have two pieces of paper in place prior to the 

next full Board meeting. That would be to 

provide the evaluation report and SC&A's 

commentary. And on that basis, I think the 

Board could proceed based on your 

recommendations. 

 MR. KATZ: Those would be 

circulated to the whole Board, and I'm sure 

Jim would be planning to present to the full 

Board on the new evaluation report, or someone 

from OCAS. 

 Certainly, SC&A would have an 

opportunity to present their findings on this 

to the full Board. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The Work Group would have its 

opportunity to make its recommendation to the 

full Board, and then it would be taken up by 

the full Board. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: By the full Board. 

 DR. MAURO: I just want to make 

sure the White Paper is there. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That is what I want 

to make sure, that everything is in order for 

us to do this. 

 DR. MAURO: But the only reason I 

brought this up is that, to move it to the 

world of site profiles and what's needed, I 

don't know if that's really -- 

 DR. NETON: No, that's not 

required. 

 DR. MAURO: That is not in play 

here. We can put that on the shelf. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: The site profile is 

on the shelf until we can get something from 

Jim for you all to look at, and then we will 

go back and discuss the site profile. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't think we 

would be ready by this 28th timeframe. 

 MR. KATZ: So it would be, in 

effect, like as you did -- SC&A did with 

Hanford after there was a new SEC added. You 

are sort of going to have to -- they are going 

to have to produce the new site profile, or at 

least clarify what has changed with respect to 

the site profile, and then reconcile what has 

been taken off the table and what might be 

remaining to discuss, and what new might -- 

 DR. NETON: But Hanford is a little 

different in the sense that there were still 

pieces of the proposed SEC -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Right. 

 DR. NETON: -- hanging out there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Formally speaking, 

there is no SEC issue remaining. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: With the petition. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The petition, yes. 

 Jim is right; at Hanford, the petition went 

up to 1990, I think, something like that. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there's a period in the petition that is 

outstanding. In this petition, there's no 

period outstanding. So it is all, basically, 

going forward from 93, which we are not ready 

to do. 

 And we, as I said, did not look at 

the 93-forward issues because -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's not on the 

table. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: That is not on the 

table. We don't have an SEC that has been 

applied. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. Correct. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, but the thing 

that we have gone into before, NIOSH has come 

to us and extended dates when they found more 

information and so forth, and I want to make 

sure that we -- because you're right, we have 

taken up to the end of the atmospheric testing 

and everything else like that, but then we 

started into a different realm, and we need to 

make sure that we don't lose sight of that, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my only issue. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I guess the 

question remains in my mind; is that an 

extension of the site profile review itself? 

Because SC&A still has an active role in the 

review of the site profile. And if those 

issues rose to the level of significance, 

where we all agreed that this was a showstopper, then we certainly would be in a 

position to add an 83.14 class, if it got to 

that point. I'm not sure what the 

process would be here, but that would be a way 

to accomplish that, but the same profile 

process continues through its logical 

conclusion. 

 DR. MAURO: The only possible 

caveat is, very often, your evaluation reports 

draw heavily and make reference to your site 

profiles. Now the extent to which you could 

put an evaluation report out that basically 

presents the scientific basis for your 

recommendation, the way you did in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

summary, and not have to draw heavily on a 

site profile that is going to be revised, you 

see -- you want clean boundaries. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I'm not in favor 

of making issues occur that don't exist. We 

have posited our position. It is on the 

table. The site profile says we can do it. 

SC&A is charged with a complete review of the 

site profile. I think that, to me, is the 

logical place at which to pick up the debate 

or discussion. 

 DR. MAURO: My main concern is I 

want to make sure that, whatever paperwork 

needs to be in place and in the public domain, 

which would allow the Board to be able to 

vote, I just want to make sure everybody -- 

 DR. NETON: Okay. I misunderstood 

what you were saying. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Do we have any more 

business to come before the Board? Any new 

business? Any old business? Anything to come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

before the NTS Working Group today? 

 (No audible response.) 

 I want to thank Jim and his people, 

John and his people, and the Working Group for 

doing their due diligence on this. 

 MR. KATZ: Bob, are you going to 

need some help preparing a presentation to the 

Board? 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: I will prepare a 

presentation to the Board, and you will see it 

before -- everybody on the Board will see it 

before we get it to them, and in that 

presentation -- at the end I will hold that 

part of the presentation until -- or what we 

will probably do is let him do his thing. 

John will do his thing and then we will make 

our presentation. 

 MR. KATZ: For all of you, I will 

just keep in mind sort of the combined result 

of all your presentations. The full Board 

hasn't been at the table here for all of this 

discussion, and they will need a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

context beyond what you have actually 

discussed today. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: And that is one of 

the things that we have been, John and I and 

Wanda and Brad, we've been real good at is, 

when we have done these things in the past, we 

have had a history -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: -- lesson up front 

about where we have been. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: And I've got that 

on the computer up until the last time, and we 

will add to it. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, this is 

kind of what I was looking at the 28th date, 

trying to keep it open, because if we've got 

to kind of review kind of where we are going 

heading forward, or whatever, even if it is a 

conference call or whatever else like that, 

just so that we are onboard and ready to 

present all this to the full Board, because I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know that there will be numerous questions. 

It is just a good opportunity to get freshened 

up. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: It will be in your 

hands, hopefully, in the next two to three 

weeks, so that we can -- 

 MR. KATZ: Well, all of you, if you 

have thoughts about materials that the rest of 

the Board members ought to particularly look 

at in addition to what is going to be provided 

that would help them, let me know and I will 

get those submitted to the rest of the Board 

members, whether it be transcripts or White 

Papers, or whatever, that has come along the 

way. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The White Papers are 

the easiest to read and do a better job of 

concentrating information in small doses. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: If I remember 

correctly, I have an abbreviated version of 

our 22 matrix that we had that was in one of 

the reports where we went to the Board, and we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

can add the last two, which was the badging 

and the internal doses to that and go from 

there. 

 MR. KATZ: Very good. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Anything else? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you for your 

time. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you for your 

efforts. 

 MR. KATZ: We are adjourned, and 

thank you everyone on the telephone who has 

contributed to this call, as well. 

 Have a good day. Happy holidays. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 1:26 p.m.)