1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY 

MARCH 6, 2013 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 2:30 p.m., Eastern Standard

Time, Josie Beach, Chair, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

JOSIE BEACH, Chair

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

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 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JAMES NETON, DCAS 

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

 A-G-E-N-D-A 

Welcome and Roll Call, Introductions ........ 4 

Work Group Discussion on Post-1993

Dose Reconstruction Feasibility ............. 7 

- DCAS Dose Reconstruction Methods 

for Four Sample Cases 

- Work Group Recommendations on Path Forward 

March Board Meeting Plans .................. 57 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

4 

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

2 
 2:31 p.m. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. This 

4 
 is the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker 

5 
 Health. Let's get started. We have a fairly 

6 
 short time frame although we don't have a long 

7 
 agenda either. But let's get started with 

8 
 roll call. We're speaking about a specific 

9 
 site conflict of interest. How about we go 

through it. Board Members. 

 (Roll call.) 

 MR. KATZ: So, there's an agenda 

for the meeting that's posted on the NIOSH 

website under the Board section under meetings 

for today. There's no material posted and, 

Josie, it's your meeting. 

 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thank you. So 

just to touch up on February 14. The Work 

Group has a phone conference call. We asked 

10 

11 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 NIOSH, Grady, to go back and prepare some 

proposed approaches for dose reconstruction 

for four sample cases. He did deliver those 

21 
 

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 
 

 

 

 

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 
 

last week for Case A, B, D and E. 

 On the agenda it talks about the 

four methods and then Work Group methods, a 

path forward recommendation and then March

meeting plans. I also want to just real 

briefly touch on the Site Profile issues. I 

don't want to spend whole lot of time because 

I know our call is limited but I just want to 

go make sure we're moving forward with some of 

those also. So we'll touch on that before the 

end of the call. 

And Grady, if you would like to go 

ahead and since you put out the cases for us, 

the history, if you just want to start with 

those. 

MR. CALHOUN: Sure. I guess what 

I'll do is I'll just, I'll go Case A through 

E. And I'll stop after each one and then we 

can kind of discuss it and let me know. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

MR. CALHOUN: The first one I'll 

start out with is Case A. I hope everybody 
 

 

 

 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 

21 

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 

6 

has a chance to look at this because I'd like 

to say that this was a really good exercise, 

actually, for me too because it kind of 

solidified my confidence in the records that 

we have by looking at things that really are a 

little bit above and beyond what records were 

but they were submitted at Brookhaven with our 

records request. 

So case number A or letter A, the 

individual has verified employment from `56 to 

`95. Worked as a technician with 

accelerators, later transferred to cold 

neutron moderator facility. The records, 

dosimetry records that we have are external 

dosimetry records from 1956, `57, with a break 

in `58. Then we have `59 through `95. 

We also have tritium urinalysis 

from October of `89 through October of `92. 

We have in vivo exams beginning in December 

`83 and they go into September of `95. 

Okay, based on the latest SC&A --

MEMBER ANDERSON: This is Andy. 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 

7 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

just want to let you know that I'm here. 

 CHAIR BEACH: Great. Thanks, Andy. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Based on the latest 

SC&A report the concerns seem to be that there 

were no bioassay records for `94 and `95. And 

he retired in `95. 

Our conversation, the last -- or 

whenever we had it, awhile ago. Our last 

conversation I'll say. So we talked about --

I put forth that I believed that it was quite 

possible that the individual wasn't monitored 

because he didn't need to be monitored. And 

at that time I had no -- that actually said 

that he didn't need to be monitored. 

Now, keep in mind that such 

documentation is really rare to find at any 

site. But lo and behold I found it. And --

that as Attachment A1. And in Attachment A1 

what we have is a HFBR bioassay program. 

And just to remind everybody, these 

five cases were selected by SC&A because they 

had at least some employment at the HFBR, 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 

8 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9

10 

11 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 

21 
 

22 
 

 
 

the High Flux Beam Reactor Facility. So the 

review was done by SC&A to determine -- there 

was an assumption made that tritium monitoring 

-- that tritium monitoring would be required. 

And then they looked -- monitoring records 

weren't there after the 1993 SEC period in 

particular. 

COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

reporter. Is anybody else getting 

interference on the call? 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Yes. Let me just ask 

everybody except for Grady because Grady's 

speaking. Everybody else should mute your 

phone. And if you don't have a button press 

*6. That will mute your phone. Press *6 

again, it'll take you off mute. Because we 

have about 20 people on this call so not 

everybody's registered, listening to speak. 

Mute your phone. Thanks. *6, okay. 

MEMBER MUNN: Ted, this is Wanda. 

You may be getting some static from my 
 

 

 

 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

9 

feedback even when I'm on mute. I'm going to 

sign off for the moment. I'm only about 5 

minutes from home. I'll be back on. Thank 

you. Bye bye. 

MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay, carry on. 

MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, I'm 

still getting that chirp. But anyway I'm 

going to continue. 

Basically where I left off is there 

was some discussion. I believe that it was 

possible that the individual was not monitored 

past 1992 for tritium that he didn't need to 

be monitored. 

And I didn't have proof of that but 

actually when I looked through we found a 

document and I included that as Attachment A1. 

And what that is, it is a 1992 document that 

explains what the monitoring requirements are 

and it includes a 6-month exposure and it 

gives a list of individuals. And it says, it 

gives their last 6 months of tritium dose and 

it states whether or not they need to be 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 

10 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 

routine tritium monitoring. 

 And this individual, his name was 

[identifying information redacted] and he is 

not -- well, never mind. He does not need to 

be monitored. He was on that document, he's 

one, two, three, four people up. And it 

states that he does not need to be on his 

monitoring. And the previous 6 months of 

tritium monitoring was zero. 

So I don't really think I need to 

go any further on this case because that 

pretty much nailed it. There is some other 

information that talks about him moving to a 

different facility where monitoring wouldn't 

be required but the key for this case is there 

was a documented formal evaluation as to 

whether or not routine monitoring was required 

and the determination was made that no, it 

does not. So I'm going to stop on that one. 

CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. 

Thanks, Grady. Any questions on Case A from 

Work Group Members or SC&A? 
1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9

10 

11 
 

12 

13 

14 
 

15 

16 
 

17 

18 

19 

20 
 

21 

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 

 MR. FITZGERALD: No. This is Joe. 

I think we found the documentation to be 

persuasive as well. I think that would be our 

comment. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So an overall 

comment. Okay. Yes, and Grady, I really 

appreciated the write-up that you did. It was 

very helpful. And I especially liked being 

able to have those attachments to reference 

back. So good job there. 

MR. CALHOUN: You know what, it was 

very helpful for me too. 

CHAIR BEACH: Good. 

MR. CALHOUN: It helped me feel 

better about it, so. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: It was what we 

were looking for. 

MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

MR. CALHOUN: Okay, I'm going to 

move on to case B then if that's okay. 

CHAIR BEACH: 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 

 MR. CALHOUN: All right. Hold on, 

I'm going to delete something here because 

I've got so many files open it's driving me 

crazy. 

 

 

 

12 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 

Okay, case B. We have verified 

employment from [identifying information 

redacted] of `86 to present. Per the assisted 

telephone interview he worked as [identifying 

information redacted], and he worked at the 

HFBR and a medical research reactor. 

The records that we have received 

from Brookhaven include external radiation --

records from -- to 2009. Urinalysis from 2/87 

to 3/01, February 1987 to March 2001. We've 

got in vivo exams beginning in December of `86 

and going at least through October of `99. 

Per the latest evaluation the main 

concern was that we were missing -- they 

thought that we were missing tritium 

monitoring for the month of June of 1994 and 

several months in 1995. The in vivo did not 

seem to be an issue with 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 

 So, what we have found, we've got 

more than 170 individual tritium samples taken 

for this guy, `94 through `01, and all of the 

months in question either have a monthly 

 

 

13 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

report or a summary of multi months or even an 

annual summary. 

But one of the keys is Attachment 

B1. And this attachment is actually for 1995. 

And in 1995 the concern was that there were 

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight 

months missing. And what I found, that there 

actually were not eight months missing. What 

happened was he just wasn't monitored every 

single month. 

And this Attachment B1 gives the 

date of the individual sample and the number 

of days in between those samples. So what's 

that telling us is there's not missing data. 

And so there's not missing data. And the 

concern was that there was missing data. And 

since there's not missing data we can do the 

dose reconstruction by assuming a missed 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 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 

22 
 

14 

or positive doses were there throughout the 

entire period of his monitoring. 

 And even if there was some months 

assumed to be missing we could still do that. 

But this document clearly shows that there's 

no missing data in between those months as we 

had thought. And again, this is one of those 

pieces of information I hadn't seen before. 

It was provided to me by Brookhaven. 

There are hundreds and hundreds of 

pages of documentation to go through. And so 

this is one of those pieces I didn't see until 

I started going through this. So we don't 

have anything past -- the concern was `94-`95 

and it looks like we've pretty much put those 

to bed with this in my opinion. 

The guy did later transfer to the 

collider/accelerator department where 

monitoring would be required but the concern 

of these `94 and `95 is I think pretty much 

answered by Attachment B1. 

Any questions on that or comments? 
NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 

21 
 

22 
 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Grady, Joe. 

I have one question. Would that be -- you 

talked about the hundreds of pages of 

documentation. We certainly saw the same 

 

 

 

15 

thing. Is that body of records, is that going 

to be available in a form say a dose 

reconstructor could have ready access to and 

be able to make heads or tails of it? It 

sounds like the information may be there but 

I'm wondering how easily accessible it might 

be. 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I mean it's in 

the same exact form, they're just bigger 

records than any other response we received 

from a Department of Energy facility. And 

this isn't the only Department of Energy 

facility that may provide hundreds of pages of 

records. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. So the 

process would probably be the same. 

MR. CALHOUN: It would be exactly 

the same because it's listed as a DOE 
 

 

 

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 
 response. 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. Now, just 

this is for the Work Group. Now originally 

when we, you know, certainly when Ron proposed 

and we came up with this sample process the 

whole intent was to test, challenge if you may 

the completeness of the records past `93 in 

terms of being able to rationalize and support 

DR. 

And I think this is exactly what we 

were hoping to see which is a demonstration 

that in this body of records, the additional 

records, there is some way to explain gaps and 

also to provide a basis for dose 

reconstruction. So this is all in keeping 

with what we were trying to do with these 

samples. 

And Brookhaven is a difficult one 

to sample because of the -- just a lack of 

information sort of guiding who was routinely 

monitored and for what. I think using these 

five cases is a good way to go. So I 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 

17 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 

12 
 

13 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

this one, again, we felt the challenge was met 

in terms of the records being available to 

rationalize the gaps. So again I think we're 

okay with this one. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay, this is Josie. 

Thanks, Joe. Any other Work Group Members, 

questions on Case B? 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Joe, are you okay 

with Case A also? 

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, Case C, and 

I let Ron --

MEMBER ROESSLER: Case A which we 

already covered. Are you --

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we already 

covered and I think that came out as being 

complete in terms of the records. You know, 

originally the May 22 memo authored by Ron --

I should let Ron talk about this --

identified, went through a process to identify 

five cases that involved individuals at 

Brookhaven during that time frame that should 

have been routinely monitored based on 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 

I think that one turned out to have a 

complete set of data in any case. Is that 

right, Ron? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 

15 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

location of their work and other information. 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Case C had all 

12 months of tritium every year and whole body 

counts for every year. So Case C wasn't an 

issue. 

CHAIR BEACH: I think Gen asked 

about Case A, the very first one, Joe. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I'm sorry. I 

thought she said C. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm trying to --

the line is bad. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm just trying 

to I guess establish are you okay with Case A, 

Case B and then also Case C at this point. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Again, the 

supporting documentation, the additional 

records that Grady had cited last year seemed 

to be sufficient to answer the questions 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 

19 

1 
 we posed. You know, what are these gaps, why 

would they exist and are they real. And if 

they are in fact real can they be explained in 

terms of the assignment of the worker 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 involved. And so far certainly on A, B and C 

6 
 we're satisfied. 

7 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, thanks. 

8 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, if there's no 

9 
 other questions, Grady, please carry on with 

10 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 

21 
 

22 
 

Case D. 

MR. CALHOUN: Okay, Case D. Let me 

close out real quick. All right. 

Okay. Case D is kind of a 

different one. Case D, now remember that 

these five cases were selected because there 

was some inkling at least that there was --

these individuals were assigned to or 

frequently worked at the High Flux Beam 

Reactor which is one of the main sources of 

tritium for that facility. 

This individual did not. She 

mentions in her CATI that she actually 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 

20 

1 
 there, but when you look at her medical

records and whatnot she was a scientist that 

worked in isotope separation and she primarily 

worked in the isotope separation lab. 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 However, there was monitoring 

6 
 records there and let me tell you some of the 

7 
 things here. She had verified employment from 

8 
 1989 through 2004. She worked as a scientist 

9 
 in various labs, accelerators and reactor 

10 
 areas. 

11 
 One thing I forgot to put in here 

12 
 that I should have is that in her CATI there's 

13 
 a bunch of radioisotopes listed as to were you 

14 
 or were you not exposed to them. The tritium 

15 
 is marked no, she was not exposed to tritium. 

16 
 However, here's what we've got. 

17 
 The dosimetry records that we see are -- we've 

18 
 got external radiation dose from 1989, 

19 
 November of `89 to -- of 2005. We only have 

20 
 tritium urinalysis from -- in one month and 

21 
 that was 1990, October. So she only had one 

22 
 or two 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 

 She had some other urinalysis for

different radionuclides in 1990 as well and

that involves a gamma scan because she was

involved with some exotic type of

 

 

 

21 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

radionuclides, things that weren't as typical 

as say -- and some of the other fission 

products that you might see at a reactor. 

She had a multitude of in vivo 

exams but they appear to be very much incident 

driven. She had them in 1990, 1993, `95, `96, 

`99, `01, `02, `03 and `04. She has multiple 

contamination that are well documented. In -

`93, `96, `99 and 2000. 

We also have a calculation using 

the code for internal dosimetry lovingly known 

as CIND to us. And that was done in 1992. 

There was a thought that she had done a 

cobalt-57 uptake. And we also have like I 

said a gamma scan in October of `90. 

Now, the latest Work Group SC&A 

review was concerned because tritium bioassay 

records do not exist through `94 through `99. 
NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

In vivo records don't exist for `94, `97 and 

 

 

 

22 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

`98. 

Now, I think that the tritium is 

not as significant of a deal because she 

didn't work at HFBR. That's not a place that 

she was routinely assigned to. She never 

shows up on any of the bioassay records of 

people that were working at that facility. 

And like I said, her medical records show that 

she was working at a different lab. 

Okay. We've got the external 

records. We believe those are all complete. 

She worked primarily in the target processing 

lab where tritium monitoring would not be 

required. 

We've got 14 different in vivo 

exams from `90 to 2000. And I didn't include 

a bunch of those but we've got -- you can see 

that there's notations. Let me pull one up to 

see what it says. There's notations and even 

reports that talk about incidents that she may 

have been involved in and how these incidents 
 

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 
 

were followed up. Some of the incidents were 

identified because she was contaminated and 

she was walking out of the facility. And 

follow-up survey decided or found that she was 

contaminated and identified the contaminants 

and she had to end up multiple whole body 

counts and even gamma scans of urinalysis. 

B1 that I show here is really an 

example of a whole body count but she was 

potentially involved in a scandium-47 

incident. And that's just, really just for 

your information. It shows that these really 

exotic nuclides were the reason that she was 

monitored and this was pretty much the result 

of an incident. And her monitoring, internal 

monitoring appears to be incident driven. 

We've got some other dosimetry 

evaluations because somebody said, you might 

say, well, if she was contaminated do we need 

to -- were any follow-up bioassays required. 

And one of these events that I have that 

occurred in 1999 there's actually -- in 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 

24 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

Contamination Report it -- what the 

contamination levels were, where they were on 

her body. And it says what is additional --

is a bioassay required and if so what kind. 

And in this case it is checked no, but in 

other cases we actually did have a bioassay 

that was Attachment D2. And then I -- D3 

says. Okay? 

D3 is a similar situation although 

it occurred in 2000. And again was bioassay 

required. In this case it was not. But this 

was a different -- it was a different 

contamination event. It talks about the 

contamination levels. And this one was 

actually on the skin and it wasn't on the 

clothing. I think the last one might have 

been just on the clothing. 

And basically the way we will do 

dose reconstruction in this case, we would not 

assign tritium other than anything that might 

show up in ambient except for the year that 

she was monitored for tritium. Even though 
 

 

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 
 

that is -- SEC period we would use that data. 

 And other radionuclides, the

fission products and the exotics, we've got 

the MDA fission products, the minimum 

detectable activities, and we would assign 

those with the in vivo that we have. And we 

would assign either missed or positive doses 

based on the result of those. 

In addition, we've got detailed 

analysis of radionuclides other than routine 

radionuclides that we would see. And we would 

and actually did include those in the dose 

reconstruction. This individual was actually 

I think comped through the SEC. 

But that's all I have on -- let's 

see, make sure I got it right here. Multiple 

documents -- examinations were provided. Yes, 

we don't feel that there were any records 

missing for this individual. Because she was 

working in a different type of environment 

other than HFBR it appears here that she had 

significant and detailed bioassay, both 
 

 

 

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 
 urinalysis and in vivo counts. And those 

2 
 would certainly be sufficient for us to do 

3 
 dose reconstruction on this individual. I 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

don't have anything else on that one. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. This is Josie 

again. Thanks, Grady. Any questions on Case 

D, Work Group Members or SC&A? Or comments? 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is Joe 

again. Just one quick comment. You know, 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

compared with the previous years going back 

into the eighties and nineties, and I spent 

some time at Brookhaven looking through these 

records. You know, I think this eventually is 

just a change in the nature of the records. 

You can tie an individual to a 

location, to a time frame, to a source term 

18 


19 


20 


21 


22 


which is something when we were going through 

the records in the eighties and nineties, or I 

should say the seventies and eighties, you 

just couldn't do it. The records wouldn't 

allow you to do it. So I think this is 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 

27 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

significant shift in what we were looking for 

in terms of a post-SEC time frame. So again I 

think that's the lesson or the evidence to 

take from this. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

MR. CALHOUN: And I don't want to 

be here either, Joe, but if -- like I said, 

this has been really helpful to me too because 

I'm looking at more than just the dose. You 

know, I took the time to actually, you know, 

you look at the whole body count and you see 

the notations and you see where they worked, 

and you look at their medical records. And so 

it adds -- it's an eye opener for me. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And just pre 

nineties period we were seeing whole chunks of 

data missing. 

MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

MR. FITZGERALD: A lot of it was 

disposed of or taken back by a researcher and 

it was just missing. So, you know, you might 

have somebody in a case they were at 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 

28 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 

21 
 

22 
 

facility but you could not tie any data to 

them. So again I think that's the contrast 

that we were looking for. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I will move on to E. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

MR. CALHOUN: You ready for that 

one? Just give me a second again. I've got 

to -- okay, there's that. I'm talking to 

myself but I do that a lot. Okay, E. 

Case E, the verified employment 

individual is [identifying information 

redacted]of `61 through [identifying 

information redacted] of 2003. Per the 

computer-assisted telephone interview the E 

worked in chemical management with a fixed 

barcode. The chemicals and various labs and 

whatnot. He reported he did that from `92 to 

`94. Then he also -- in -- HFBR from `94 to 

2001 performing rad surveys. And he also --

urine samples -- tritium analysis. 

The records that we received, the 

external records go from `61 to `63. 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 

29 

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 gap and we go from `92 to 2003. We 

have tritium urinalysis beginning November of 

1995 and it goes through or into at least 

October of 2001. 

We've got whole body or in vivo 

exams for `95, `97, `98, `99 and 2000. The 

latest concerns that we have about this 

individual is that we were missing tritium 

analysis for `94, for all of `94 and for 

January into December of `95. And that there 

are no records of in vivo monitoring for `94 

and `96. 

Okay, this is another kind of a fun 

one that it took a little detective work. But 

we found out through his records and the --

they complied with the dosimetry request. 

These aren't any funky records that we found 

on a capture. But he didn't really start 

working at the HFBR until October of `95. 

And how we can find that is that I 

attached Attachment E1 is the first one. And 

these are visitor logs. And the individual 
 

 

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 
 

was required, escorted into an area. And you 

have to sign in on these every day. And he 

had to be escorted into this area and he was 

on three separate occasions between September 

14, `95 and October 10 of 1995. 

And then -- have is attachment E2 

is an indoctrination sheet. And what we found 

is that this indoctrination sheet is the 

training that allows the individual to begin 

working at a facility at the HFBR unescorted. 

And so this individual signed off on this in 

October 10 of `95 and the estimated time 

working at this facility was described as 

indefinite after October 1995. 

Now, very -- not really a 

coincidence. In vivo exams begin in November 

of 1995. And when you pull out that in vivo 

exam that happened in, you know, a month 

after, less than a month after he was 

indoctrinated to be allowed to work there 

unescorted the notation in there is that he 

was Reactor Division annual new HD transfer 
 

 

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 
 

from the Department of Applied Technology. So 

he was working in an area of the Department of 

Applied Technology and he was transferred to 

the Reactor Division which would be the HFBR 

as notated on in vivo count in November of 

1995. 

He also started, let's see. We 

also see that the -- the tritium urinalysis 

begins November of `95 as well. And -- very, 

very many tritium urinalysis after that point. 

But the reason that we did not have that is 

because he wasn't working at the HFBR October 

of 1995. 

We certainly have enough tritium 

results and in vivo counts to dose 

reconstruction. Basically what we would do is 

we would include -- we would reconstruct 

tritium using all of the tritium monitoring 

that we have and we would assign missed and 

positive based on those results. And we would 

do the same thing with the in vivo exam. And 

those would be based on missed and 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 

32 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 

6 

7 

8 


 


 


 


 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 


 


 


 


 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

positives although I don't believe he had any 

in vivo exams. And that's how we would do the 

dose reconstruction for internal at that 

point. 

Now, there was one concern that 

between `95 and `97 -- we didn't find an in 

vivo result for 1996 but we do have one for 

`95 and we have one for `97. And the interval 

between those is 18 months. And you certainly 

can make assumptions with missed dose in 

between there. And that certainly is an 

acceptable way for us to do dose 

reconstruction, missed dose. 

So, let's make sure I didn't miss 

anything else with that one. No, that's all I 

have with Case E as well now. 

CHAIR BEACH: This one appeared to 

be the most challenging of the four to me. 

MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, I 

thought it was pretty conclusive with the 

indoctrination sheet. Because the whole 

thing, HFBR employment and whether or 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 

33 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 

12 
 

13 

14 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 

22 
 

routine bioassay was required. 

 CHAIR BEACH: Right. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Didn't start working 

there until October. I mean, and internal --

the in vivo and tritium both start in November 

of `95 and his indoctrination was October of 

`95. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: That's pretty 

clear-cut. 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes, any questions? 

Comments? Work Group Members or SC&A? 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Josie, are you 

satisfied on this one? 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Now that he's 

gone through it. 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes. I'm satisfied 

with all of them, actually. I thought that 

was a good exercise. I appreciate NIOSH for 

taking that extra step on all of these. It 

was helpful. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, I appreciate 
 

 

 

 

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 
 

it too. I know it was a lot of work and 

Grady, I know you had a busy schedule. But I 

think before we really didn't have what we 

needed to feel confident about this. 

MR. CALHOUN: I feel better about 

it too. So, it was okay, you know. You know 

what's funny is Stu always says if it wasn't 

for the last minute nothing would ever get 

done. And boy, those 2 weeks, I had 2 full 

weeks of last minute, so. 

CHAIR BEACH: You got a lot done. 

You even managed to answer my Site Profile 

question so that is awesome. Anything -- or I 

don't know if you're still with us, Andy. 

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, my only 

question is that are this new set of records 

going to be easily searchable. It sounds like 

you put a tremendous amount of effort in it 

and if this now goes into being used how easy 

is it going to be to find these 

documentations? 

MR. CALHOUN: I've got a thought 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 

35 

1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 

13 


14 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

that. And first of all, like Joe said, they 

will all be in the same format as everything 

else. But what this exercise does is we don't 

have to go back and look for indoctrination 

sheet. This shows documentation that we have 

and that the dosimetry that was provided is 

good. We do have all that information to it, 

for it and they are required, we are required 

to look at the DOE information as provided to 

us before we do a dose reconstruction. So it 

is, it is all there in a normal format that 

any other -- providing information. 

MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay, good. 

Thanks. 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

Buchanan with SC&A. What I did when I 

reviewed these cases originally was to say, 

okay, identify. It looked like there were 

some gaps there. 

And then when Grady went through, 

and he used a material that the dose 

reconstructor would receive, do the 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 

36 

1 
 reconstruction. So this material is

available. This isn't something that Grady 

had to go out and search for individually. 

 And so what I did is I used the 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 protocol that we used on Task 4 to audit the 

6 
 NIOSH dose reconstruction and say did it meet 

7 
 the standards of that protocol. And I found 

8 
 that it did, that when you go back and look 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

through all the hundreds of pages and find 

out. 

And the dose reconstructor will do 

this. He goes back and looks and see if 

there's gaps and see how it should be filled 

in or if it's justified or whatever. And so 

as far as my experience of doing the audits on 

the dose reconstruction I found that it did 

satisfy that protocol. 

MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. 

CHAIR BEACH: Thanks, Ron. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Josie, you 

mentioned going on to the Site Profile issues 

but are we going to come up with 
 

 

 

 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 

15 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

(

37 

recommendations for the meeting, the Board 

meeting? 

CHAIR BEACH: Well, that's going to 

be a question that I was going to just ask Ted 

how to proceed. Because we still have SEC 

issues. And remember back in May, we divided 

them into the most relevant ones. I believe 

there was three, the remaining primary 

findings. And we tried to push ahead with the 

SEC issues. So, I guess we have to decide on 

the end date or agree with the end date but 

I'm not sure how to go forward with that, so. 

MR. KATZ: Hi, Josie, can you hear 

me? 

CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: So, this is Ted. So I 

mean, if this closes out the question of the 

`93 period, that is the question that was left 

open for the Work Group to report out to the 

Board on in terms of data accuracy. So I mean 

if you reached a conclusion and you all sound 

unanimous that these records seem good, 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 
 

(

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

38 

you would need to make a recommendation in 

line with that to the Board so that they can 

then close out the Board consideration of SEC 

Petition. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So the 

question I have then is, we are considering 

the `94 to 2007 time period. We do have a 

couple of Site Profile issues that could have 

SEC implications but I'm not 100 percent sure. 

I'm assuming, based on this, we can close out 

those years. But does that completely close 

out all SEC items? 

MR. KATZ: Well, that would only --

oh, go ahead. 

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

trying to remember what those other issues are 

that we had. They were outside the -- what 

were they dealing with? 

CHAIR BEACH: Well, and Grady can 

talk. Grady went by and he sent me an email 

because I asked about the Site Profile issues. 

And the three primary ones, he sent a report 
 

 

 

 

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 
 

out answering those just real briefly. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on. I'm going 

to try to see if I can find these. Let's see, 

hold on. 

Well, I'm remembering while I'm 

looking through here. A couple of the ones --

and I might have screwed this up a little bit 

because -- all of them. There were basically 

finding number, I think 1 and then --

CHAIR BEACH: Number 1, 2 and 13. 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And number 13 

is primarily x-ray issues. And what you'll 

see is that actually changed our TBD. And the 

TBD was recently revised and approved. And we 

actually -- oh, here they are. Good. We did 

exactly what was recommended. 

And there was, for example, Table 

3-1 has to do with default frequency of chest 

x-rays. So that's really, in my opinion 

that's not an SEC issue but it's a TBD issue. 

And further, we actually did exactly what was 

recommended. It was unclear. You guys made 
(2

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 

 

 

 

1 
 s

e

t

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 i

6 
 

7 
 i

8 
 l

9 
 n

10 
 t

11 
 g

12 
 y

13 
 h

14 t

15 
 

16 n

17 
 

18 t

19 

20 

21 
 

22 g

40 

ome recommendations to clarify. We did 

xactly what you asked us to. 

 And now, although I did kind of 

hrow it together and it would be prettier if 

t was on a piece of paper, discusses that. 

And then there was one further 

ssue that you guys might need to look at a 

ittle bit more. But you had asked for claim 

umbers to help, I don't know, verify some of 

he statements that were in the TBD. And I 

ot those to you, but again that was only like 

esterday. And there was probably, if I look 

ere there's probably a good dozen of them 

hat I gave. And those -- x-rays as well. 

Finding number 1 and -- or finding 

umber 1, let's see what that is. 

MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought that was 

he x-ray one was finding 1. 

MR. CALHOUN: No, those were 13. 

MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, was it? 

MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Hold on, I'm 

etting there. 
1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

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 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, finding 13, 

number 1 which is past --

 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- photographs

 

 

 

 

 

41 

taken. 

MR. CALHOUN: There were multiple 

subs in 13. Okay. Finding 1 was bioassay 

monitoring not adequately established. 

CHAIR BEACH: And I think --

MR. CALHOUN: And you see, these 

actually -- I think number 1 was answered by 

our discussion here past -- 1993. 

CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. It 

was. Grady, I think looking at number 4 

possibly. I guess what I'm going to suggest 

is that we close out the end date. I think we 

can agree with that, that after `93 we have 

the records available to do dose 

reconstruction. 

But then I'd like to go ahead and 

ask, I know we had tasked SC&A to look at the 

Site Profile issues early on. But with 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 

42 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

new Site Profile issue that was issued on 

February 7 of this year are we already tasked 

-- and I guess this is a question for you, 

Ted. Are we tasked for SC&A to go back and in 

light of the new Site Profile issue re-look at 

those 13 Site Profile issues and then report 

out to the Work Group on those at a later 

date? 

MR. KATZ: So we're not, but we can 

task that right now. Because I mean, it's 

pretty normal to have SC&A, once these are 

updated, to address SC&A comments and Work 

Group comments. It's pretty normal to have 

SC&A then follow up and say okay, it's all 

there and it's been done as agreed to, or 

whatever. Whatever they find. But yes, I 

think that's fine. We can just consider that 

tasked today. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Ted and 

Josie, this is Joe. I think we're just trying 

to make the distinction between what we're 

identifying. And go back to the May 22 memo 
 

(2

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 

1 
 t

f

w

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 n

6 
 W

7 
 p

8 
 p

9 
 c

10 S

11 
 

12 
 P

13 
 t

14 
 t

15 
 r

16 
 r

17 a

18 
 

19 
 n

20 
 i

21 
 w

22 
 i

43 

hat Ron sent forward. And I'll defer to Ron 

or the details. 

But we made a split in that memo on 

hat we thought were SEC questions, not 

ecessarily issues, but questions that the 

ork Group ought to be clear on before 

roceeding. Of course the end date was the 

redominant one and has taken front and 

enter. And the others were clearly in the 

ite Profile vein. 

But you know, separating Site 

rofile ones out just for clarity's sake I 

hought we had Ron, and maybe you can finger 

hose very specifically. Several loose ends, 

emaining questions that NIOSH may have 

esponded but not completely. Am I right 

bout that? 

DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. Okay, 

ow we had 13 SEC issues and 13 Site Profile 

ssues. The Site Profile issues, and these 

ere addressed in a May 22 email of 2012. And 

n that email we outlined the SEC issues 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 

44 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

the Site Profile issues that NIOSH was 

responsible for. 

 Now, underlying that, the other 

side of the coin is that SC&A had not verified 

that the remaining Site Profile issues had 

been set aside with the revision in 2010. And 

that kind of got put on the back-burner. 

So now we're faced with the fact 

that we have about six Site Profile issues. 

We need to go back to the 2013 TBD revision 

and see if they're satisfied. 

I do not see any remaining Site 

Profile issue at this time that NIOSH is to 

address. And so that is kind of -- the ball 

is in our court on the Site Profile issues and 

seeing if they're satisfied by the 2013 

revision. 

Now, the SEC issues, I'd like to 

remind everyone that we had 13 of those and 

most of those were answered. However, number 

4, number 11 and number 12 were not answered, 

have not been answered to date. And so we 

(
(2

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 

 

 

 

1 
 s

t

h

a

i

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 a

8 
 t

9 
 f

10 
 q

11 
 i

12 
 a

13 
 g

14 
 

15 
 J

16 
 d

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 O

20 
 

21 
 n

22 
 

45 

till have those even though the question of 

he `93 end date has been settled. We still 

ave some pending SEC issues which we put 

gain on the back-burner because we were 

nterested in this end date. 

And these had to do mainly with the 

ccuracy of the various neutron dosimeters and 

he transfer of data, of the external data 

rom one database to another. And the 

uestion of whether there was a need for 

nternal coworker models. Now, those three 

re still hanging out there as far as the SEC 

oes. 

CHAIR BEACH: And Ron, this is 

osie. Would -- on those three, the SEC ones, 

o we need a NIOSH answer on those? 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, because --

CHAIR BEACH: To move forward. 

kay. 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, on number 4, 

umber 11 and number 12. 

CHAIR BEACH: 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 

 DR. BUCHANAN: And these were in 

the May 22, 2012 email that SC&A sent out. 

This was an attached document to it. 

 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

 

 

46 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

MR. KATZ: Okay. This is Ted, 

then. I mean given what Ron just said then, 

we can't close out the SEC at this meeting. 

We can close out the question of the end date 

and you can report out on that. And I guess 

we'll keep -- we can keep the session as is 

but it won't be a possibly vote session 

because we can't vote until we close out all 

the SEC issues. 

But you can report out on this and 

the Board can ask you questions about this 

issue. You know, Grady can give a 

presentation on this, the whole nine yards on 

this one issue. And then you won't expect the 

Board to act on closing out the rest of the 

SEC until we hear what comes of these last 

three issues, assuming as Ron is sort of 

implying that those all apply to this late 
NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

1 
 

2 
 S

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 m

6 
 g

7 
 t

8 
 o

9 
 h

10 
 d

11 
 i

12 r

13 
 

14 
 I

15 
 p

16 
 B

17 
 o

18 
 w

19 w

20 
 

21 
 t

22 
 s

47 

period as well. Because we already have an 

EC before that. 

CHAIR BEACH: Right. 

 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I 

ean, isn't it -- to me it seems like we've 

ot the records past 1993. And you know, if 

here is some massaging that needs to be done 

f the neutrons or whatever, I know that we 

ave written some responses back to that. I 

on't think that that's necessarily an SEC 

ssue. I think that that's a TBD dose 

econstruction issue. 

And, I don't know. It would be --

'd like to see this SEC issue closed if 

ossible and continue on with TBD issues. 

ecause if I knew that there was some 

utstanding SEC issues before this meeting, I 

ould have been working on those because that 

as my top priority. 

MR. KATZ: Well, Ron, do you want 

o just respond to that? Because that's 

omething I think everybody needs 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 

 

1 
 u

2 
 i

3 
 

4 
 l

5 
 t

6 
 r

7 


8 
 o

9 
 s

10 
 r

11 
 r

12 
 k

13 
 t

14 
 t

15 
 t

16 
 q

17 
 a

18 
 f

19 
 t

20 
 I

21 S

22 
 

48 

nderstand, what the TBD potential is or

sn't. 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. These were 

isted as SEC issues originally. And I feel 

hat they should remain SEC issues until we 

esolve them. 

 Now, these involved the assignment 

f neutron dose. And Grady has responded to 

ome of that in that the highest of the three 

eadings were recorded and used for dose 

econstruction. And our question is how do we 

now that that highest was correct. And also 

he verification of the data transfer between 

he many records system for external dose, 

hat was number 11, which I think is a 

uestion of accuracy of the data. And then 

bout the internal dosimetry, number 12, as 

ar as a coworker model goes. So I think 

hese have to be responded to before we can --

 don't know that we can just shift those, the 

ite Profile issues. 

CHAIR BEACH: No, I think we need 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 

 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 

49 

response from NIOSH before we do that because 

that's where we left it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

would request that whatever we do, someone 

take the responsibility for making a very 

clear distinction between what we need to 

complete for our current problem and what we 

need to complete in terms of what we view as 

TBD issues. 

If we don't have that clearly and 

if we don't agree on it then we're going to 

encounter this situation repeatedly where we 

think we've done something and we end up with 

the discovery that we have a dangling 

participle somewhere. So if we could get a 

very clear decision of what we are going to 

call an SEC issue and which are remaining 

outstanding, it would really be helpful for me 

rather than going back and sorting through all 

of our past transcripts to try to identify 

exactly what we had said earlier. Can we do 

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 

 CHAIR BEACH: Wanda, this is Josie. 

I can take the task of sending out the latest 

memo that we've been talking about today, the 

May 22, 2012. And the latest Site Profile 

 

 

 

 

50 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 

22 
 

issue because those are very clear in what the 

step forward or the process forward. 

The biggest problem here is it's been a 

year since we had a work call. Until we 

decided to separate these out and then --

you're right, these three kind of got lost 

when we started thinking about the end date, 

`93, and that got pushed forward. So. 

MEMBER CLAWSON: I don't think they 

got lost, Josie. I think what the thing was 

is we were focusing in on the end date. 

CHAIR BEACH: Right, right. 

MEMBER CLAWSON: The issue with 

that. 

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, if the data 

would have been complete then the other issues 

weren't as critical for SEC. 

MR. KATZ: Let me just suggest. 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 

51 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 

mean, Grady, if as you -- we have, you know,

not much time between now and the March Board

meeting. But Grady, if you want to just

consider these three issues that Ron has

highlighted here that are remaining, if you 

want to consider in your presentation to the 

Board addressing why those may not be SEC 

issues, I think that's fair game. And folks 

can respond to that in the Board meeting. 

So if you want to address that 

that's fine and the Board can consider whether 

-- your arguments and then whatever people's 

responses are to that, whether those -- what 

governs here as to whether they're still SEC 

issues or they're not. But that'll be fine. 

MR. CALHOUN: I'd really like to 

get the exact issues. I'm sure I've got them 

here in all this stuff. But since I obviously 

got confused and I thought that this was the 

evaluation of the end date, I'd really like to 

get those three objectives and I'll see what I 

can do by 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 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'd agree it

would be helpful. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm not putting it on

you to have to do that. I'm just saying that 

 

 

 

 

 

52 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

that's an option. 

CHAIR BEACH: So again, this is 

Josie. I'll go ahead and forward that, the 

May 22 memo out which has those four 

highlighted. 

MR. CALHOUN: I've got the May 22 

one and it only has -- I think it's only got 

number 1 and number 13. 

CHAIR BEACH: The one I have goes 

through all 11 and it highlights all the 

answers that are given to that date. 

MR. KATZ: Ron, wait. Ron is on 

the line. Ron, we just need you to send Grady 

the SEC issues you identified. 

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron. I 

forwarded Josie a copy of the May 22 email and 

also the Site Profile Matrix. And I updated 

that to the current yesterday and highlighted 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 
 the action items for SC&A and for NIOSH. And 

so, Josie, if you would forward that to Grady 

then he would have a current copy to work from 

that you and I, Joe, have been working from. 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I will do that. 

6 
 And I will also forward it to the Work Group 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 

19 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

Members. 

DR. BUCHANAN: And so, Grady, you 

would have what we're looking at in front of 

you there. And I highlighted in yellow the 

areas that need to be addressed either by 

NIOSH or by SC&A. 

CHAIR BEACH: Actually, Ted, if it 

works for you, I'll send it to you and then if 

you could forward that to all the pertinent 

parties. 

MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll send it to the 

whole Work Group and staff, right. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

MR. KATZ: And so then, I mean 

Josie, it sounds like if it's okay with you 

then I'll leave this, it's a possible 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 

54 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

But it would only be a vote if we somehow put 

to bed sufficiently with respect to as being 

SEC issues, these three items that Ron has 

highlighted as well. And if we don't then 

there won't be a vote but there can be 

whatever discussion is needed. 

CHAIR BEACH: A discussion. 

MR. FITZGERALD: I might add --

this is Joe. We're talking number 4, number 

11, number 12 in that May 22 piece. Just not 

to confuse it with the other issues that are 

more of a Site Profile nature. 

And all we had at the time, you'll 

see this in the note. We posed the original 

issue. We got a NIOSH response. Then SC&A 

provided a response to that response. And 

that's where it has been since the Work Group 

has focused on the end date. 

And these three issues aren't 

necessarily of the same ilk where one has to 

spend a lot of time doing analysis. I think 

it was asking for answers as far as what NIOSH 
(

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 

17 
 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

55 

would in fact do on that particular point and 

why. And I think in those -- in some of these 

cases, the response wasn't deemed complete or 

adequate at the time. So that's kind of where 

it was left. 

That's not to say that a lot of 

analysis per se, just sort of a complete 

answer as to what the path forward is going to 

be on that particular point, whether it's 

neutron dosimetry or on some other matter. 

And these are issues, by the way, 

that were originally SEC issues pre `90, you 

know, in the SEC period that was voted by the 

Board last time. And they were carried 

forward as relevant issues past the current 

SEC period, is why they're here. 

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but the NIOSH 

memo that went out with the same cover letter 

at the May 22 Work Group. I think one of the 

things that's confusing is that that's the 

latest information that I have in my file. 

And it's the format, in written format the way 
 

 

 

 

 

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 
 

it is, it is kind of cumbersome to try to 

identify what is still considered outstanding 

and what isn't. I think, if we can helpful 

something. Perhaps what Ron is going to be 

sending out already has so that it stands out. 

CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. I 

just sent that to Ted so you have it, Ted. 

MR. KATZ: Great. I'll get it to 

everybody right after this call. 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So to wrap up 

or to try to wrap up, we have a couple of 

action items. SC&A is going to be tasked with 

evaluating the latest version of the Site 

Profile issue and marry it with the Site 

Profile issues that we currently have, the 13. 

And NIOSH will look at those three 

items of the SEC relevant from the May 22 time 

frame. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Josie, this is 

Gen. I've been listening to this May 22 

information. And the email I got is not -- I 

just really don't know what to make out of 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 

57 

1 
 

2 


3 


4 


5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 

18 
 

19 
 

20 
 

21 
 

22 

So when this is sent around again, I think I 

need to see some pretty clear conclusions that 

come along with it. 

 MR. KATZ: So Gen, Ron says he 

highlighted the three issues, the 4, 11 and 

12. We'll send those around. He -- not 

necessarily responded to those yet. He may 

respond to those at the Board meeting. 

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, okay. 

MR. KATZ: Okay? 

CHAIR BEACH: Okay. This is Josie 

again. Thank you for your patience. When we 

don't meet for over a year and we had two 

lists going it does really get complicated 

when you try to reconcile it and then vote on 

something. So I appreciate everybody's 

patience here as we sort this all out again. 

MR. KATZ: Yes, it's okay. And we 

have an hour set aside for the BNL discussion. 

So, you know, there's gracious amount of time 

to at least get things clear at the Board 

meeting, if not resolve them. 
NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So I have 

nothing else unless anybody else does. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Not me. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm done. 

 CHAIR BEACH: Then I'd say we can 

adjourn this meeting. Thank you. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled

matter went off the record at 3:36 p.m.) 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

17 
 

18 
 

58