NEAL 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.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

 AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION 

 AND WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 WORK GROUP ON NEVADA TEST SITE 

 + + + + + 

 WEDNESDAY, 

 OCTOBER 29, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The work group meeting convened in 

the Frankfurt Board Room at the Cincinnati 

Airport Marriot, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky at 9:00 a.m., Robert Presley, Chair, 

presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Chair 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD 

WANDA I. MUNN 
 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 

JENNIFER HOFF, ORAU 

JIM NETON, NIOSH 

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

MARK ROLFES, NIOSH 

MEL CHU, ORAU 

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU 

GENE ROLLINS, ORAU 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

BOB BARTON, SC&A 

LYNN ANSPAUGH, SC&A 

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A 

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A 

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A 

LOUISE PRESLEY 

JOHN FUNK, Petitioner 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH contractor 

LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 

JEFF COACH, DOL 

HANS BEHLING, Sanford Cohen and Associates 

BRYCE RICH, ORAU 

BILLY SMITH, ORAU 

ARJUN MAKHAJANI 

KATHY ROBERTSON-DEMERS 

KATE OH, Office of Senator Reid 

ISAF AL-NABUSI 
 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

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

2 (8:57 a.m.) 

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, this is 

4 Ted Katz. The DFO of Advisement Board on 

5 Radiation and Warfare Health and we are about 

6 to begin the work group meeting, the NTS Work 

7 Group Meeting about a test site. 

8 First things first is we're going 

9 to do roll call. Starting roll call, in a 

10 conflict of interest starting with board 

11 members in the room. CHAIR PRESLEY: I am 

12 Robert Presley, Chairman of the Nevada Test 

13 Site Working Group, no conflict. 

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm Gen Ressler, 

15 member of the Board, member of the Nevada Test 

16 Site Working Group, no conflict. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I am Brad Clawson, 

18 member of the working group at the Nevada Test 

19 Site, member of the Advisory Board, no 

20 conflict. 

21 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone do 

22 we have either Wanda, either or both Wanda 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 

 4

1 Phil? 

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

3 I'm a member of the Board on the NTS Work 

4 Group. No conflict. 

5 MR. KATZ: Hi Phil, thank for 

6 joining us. 

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Thanks. 

8 MR. KATZ: And Wanda? 

9 (No response.) 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, the next Board 

11 members. Now we start with the NIOSH ORAU 

12 Team in the room please. 

13 MS. HOFF: Jennifer Hoff, ORAU 

14 Team, no conflict with NTS. 

15 MR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no 

16 conflict. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, NIOSH, 

18 no conflict. 

19 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH, 

20 health physicist, no conflicts. 

21 MR. CHU: Mel Chu, ORAU Team, no 

22 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 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, ORAU 

2 Team, no conflict. 

3 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

4 MR. ROLLINS: Gene Rollins, ORAU 

5 Team, no conflict. 

6 MR. KATZ: That's it, okay, SC&A in 

7 the room? 

8 MR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

9 conflict. 

10 MR. BARTON: Bob Barton, SC&A, no 

11 conflict. 

12 MR. ANSPAUGH: Lynn Anspaugh, SC&A, 

13 conflicted. 

14 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone 

15 SC&A? 

16 MS. BRIGGS: Nicole Briggs, no 

17 conflict. 

18 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Harry Chmelynski, 

19 no conflict. 

20 MR. KATZ: Harry Chmelynski. 

21 That's it for -- 

22 MS. LIPSZTEIN:: Joyce Lypstein, 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 

 6

1 conflict. 

2 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, say again. 

3 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Joyce Lypstein, no 

4 conflict. 

5 MR. MAURO: Arjun has gone on -- 

6 MR. KATZ: Arjun, okay, not yet. 

7 Okay, then the members of the public in the 

8 room. 

9 MS. PRESLEY: Louise Presley, no 

10 conflict. 

11 MR. KATZ: Louise Presley, no 

12 conflict. and then on the telephone starting 

13 with Congressional representatives and SE -- 

14 Congressional representatives, any? 

15 (No response.) 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, how about 

17 petitioners? 

18 (No response.) 

19 MR. KATZ: John Funk are you out 

20 there yet? 

21 MR. FUNK: Yes I am, non22 conflicted. 
 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 MR. KATZ: Welcome John. 

2 MR. FUNK: Thank you sir. 

3 MR. KATZ: And other members of the 

4 public? 

5 (No response.) 

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then finally 

7 in the room other Federal employees or 

8 contractors? 

9 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no 

10 conflict. 

11 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

12 contractor, no conflict. 

13 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, 

14 any other Federal employees? 

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki16 Titus, HHS, no conflict. 

17 MR. COACH: Jeff Coach, Department 

18 of Labor. 

19 MR. KATZ: Welcome Jeff, welcome 

20 Liz. Anyone else? 

21 MR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, 

22 Sandford, Cohen and Associates, 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 

 8

1 MR. RICH: Bryce Rich, ORAU Team, 

2 conflicted. 

3 MR. SMITH: Billy Smith, ORAU Team, 

4 conflicted. 

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, then that goes -- 

6 that completes the roll call issue. Let me 

7 also just say -- 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: Ted, this is Arjun 

9 I just joined. 

10 MR. KATZ: Arjun welcome. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: I am not 

12 conflicted. 

13 MR. KATZ: Not conflicted. 

14 MS. HARRISON: And this is Monica 

15 Harrison-Maples, I just joined but I am not 

16 conflicted, ORAU Team. 

17 MR. KATZ: Welcome Monica. 

18 MS. HARRISON: Thank you. 

19 MS. AL-NABUSI: Isaf Al-Nabusi from 

20 the OE, just joined, no conflict. 

21 MR. KATZ: Welcome. Any others on 

22 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 

 9

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, good morning, 

2 this is Wanda. 

3 MR. KATZ: Wanda welcome. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, I'm not 

5 sure how much I'm going to be on this morning. 

6 I am in extremis in Seattle and my spouse has 

7 had a severe blow to the head in a fall 

8 yesterday, the day before rather and is 

9 probably going to have to have some sort of 

10 extreme surgery done to his face here. 

11 And so we're -- I'm not sure how 

12 much I'm going to be on. I'll be on and off. 

13 MR. KATZ: I'm very sorry Wanda. I 

14 think a lot of people here are worried now. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

16 MR. KATZ: But welcome, and you are 

17 not conflicted? 

18 MEMBER MUNN: I am not. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, and anyone else on 

20 the line? 

21 (No response.) 

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then I also, 
 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 just before we get started, wanted to say 

2 there are three documents that we'll be 

3 discussing today. Of those three documents 

4 only one has been PA-cleared and really very 

5 late yesterday evening, it was cleared. 

6 It's been released since this 

7 morning and I ask that it be sent to the 

8 Congressional office, Senator Reid's office, 

9 but I'm not sure if that's happened yet. 

10 And also to you John, John Funk, 

11 I've asked that it be sent to you from Laurie 

12 Breyer, and I think she has done that this 

13 morning. 

14 The other two -- has a large 

15 document and it went through a lot of work and 

16 then redaction. But there's changes that need 

17 to be made related to redaction that just 

18 simply couldn't be done. 

19 I just want to say that people 

20 worked through the weekend and into their 

21 evenings trying to get that done and I'm sorry 

22 that that wasn't 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 

 11

1 The third document is a brief 

2 document full of personal identifiers that 

3 needed a lot of work but didn't get in the 

4 system to get PA-cleared. 

5 MR. RICH: Ted, which document was 

6 cleared and which wasn't? 

7 MR. KATZ: So, the document that 

8 was cleared is the -- is Lynne Anspaugh's 

9 environmental desk document. 

10 The sample doses -- dose 

11 information, the symmetry information was not 

12 cleared although it's been through most of 

13 it's work, there's still redaction changes 

14 that need to be made. 

15 So, that will be released probably 

16 in a day or two, but it has more work to be 

17 done. And the badging document has not PA18 cleared. 

19 Okay, last point just for all of 

20 you who are listening on the phone when you 

21 are not participating please mute your phones. 

22 I mean we can hear someone and we could hear 
 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 someone breathing for a while. 

2 So, star six or mute button either 

3 that you might have will work for that. 

4 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Ted, this is 

5 Liz-Homoki-Titus. We don't have that third 

6 document for clearance. But if somebody -- if 

7 it's short and someone wants to get it to us 

8 we can certainly get started on it. 

9 MR. KATZ: Right, Liz I know you 

10 don't have that document. It wasn't put in 

11 the system. It is relatively short but it's 

12 full of, it's full of Privacy Act information. 

13 And it will take a lot of redacting to make 

14 it a releasable document. 

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, I didn't -

16 - I knew you put in short, but I thought we 

17 had a period of time. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, but nothing that 

19 would get done before today. 

20 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you and I 

22 will turn it over to Bob. 
 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 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you very much 

2 Ted. Wanda? 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

4 CHAIR PRESLEY: I want to let you 

5 know that we're all thinking about you very 

6 much. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, thank you. I 

8 really appreciate that Bob. I am sorry to 

9 have to weave in and out like this, but I'm 

10 afraid that's what's going to happen. 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: No problem, thank 

12 you. At this time we're going to start off 

13 with SC&A presentation on the discussion on 

14 the badging issue. 

15 And again, I remind you that this 

16 has not been redacted. So, be really careful 

17 about what you say. 

18 MR. MAURO: I guess I -- this is 

19 John Mauro. I'll sort of kick it off and then 

20 hand it off to Arjun. Arjun has led and has 

21 been leading all our efforts related to all 

22 the NTS matters. But by way 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 

 14

1 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry to interrupt. 

2 But someone is listening and breathing into 

3 the phone. It's very disruptive. Can you 

4 please mute your phone, star six if you don't 

5 have a mute button. Much thanks. 

6 MR. MAURO: For the purpose of 

7 getting this started I'm assuming everyone has 

8 either a hard copy or an electronic copy of 

9 the document called SC&A Review of NTS 

10 Petition, SEC00084 Defeat of the Universal 

11 Badging Policy. 

12 As long as everyone has that in 

13 front of them and it's probably a good thing 

14 and we'll start to flash our way through. 

15 By way of introduction you may 

16 recall that this has been one of the highest17 concerned issues that we've dealt with. The 

18 issue being that a number of workers have 

19 claimed and in their petitions and affidavits 

20 that it was standard -- 

21 MR. NETON: We don't have this 

22 document. 
 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 MR. ROLFES: John, what date was it 

2 sent? 

3 MR. KATZ: It was the end of 

4 September. 

5 MR. MAURO: The date on it is 

6 September 25, 2008. 

7 MR. ROLFES: I'm going to look for 

8 it in my email and see if I can send it to 

9 everyone else that doesn't have it. Does' 

10 everyone else got it? 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: I have got it. 

12 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

13 MR. NETON: Did it come from Nancy 

14 Johnson? 

15 MR. MAURO: Yes. 

16 MR. ROLFES: I think I've got it 

17 here. Yes, I do have it. I'll send it to -- 

18 MR. NETON: Go ahead. 

19 MR. MAURO: Okay, a lot of this 

20 will be familiar to -- the issue is that a 

21 number of workers had indicated that it was 

22 standard practice for them to leave their film 
 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 badges behind for a variety of reasons. 

2 One of which was the concern that 

3 they may exceed their quarterly limits for 

4 external exposure and as a result be taken 

5 off-line so to speak from doing their jobs. 

6 You may also recall that during one 

7 of the meetings that we had at the test site 

8 Senator Harry Reid was present and he 

9 introduced a number of individuals in the 

10 audience who stood up and indicated yes, that 

11 was something that was standard that often 

12 occurred. 

13 The reason this is an important 

14 issue has to do with an SEC issue, has to do 

15 with if that was in fact a widespread 

16 practice. It puts into question the ability 

17 to do dose reconstruction. So, it's one of 

18 the core issues. 

19 NIOSH had addressed this subject 

20 originally and in fact in terms of trying to 

21 get a handle on the extent to which this 

22 practice may have taken place -- and if 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 

 17

1 scroll down in your report to table one, the 

2 very first table, I believe this was taken 

3 from a NIOSH report, the evaluation report 

4 which effectively states that well, based on 

5 our investigation, your investigation that is, 

6 we're talking about perhaps 1.1 percent of the 

7 total number of workers may have engaged in 

8 that practice. And the judgement was made 

9 that at that level it's a manageable problem. 

10 We, SC&A were then asked to 

11 investigate this matter further. Those 

12 investigations consisted of two separate lines 

13 of inquiry. 

14 One line of inquiry was interviews 

15 whereby we would interview a number of 

16 individuals who had indicated that yes in fact 

17 they had participated in such a practice and 

18 gathered information regarding their 

19 experience either personally or their 

20 knowledge of such practices. 

21 Independent of that, and that 

22 basically we're looking at right now, we were 
 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 asked to sample workers from -- sample their 

2 records, and to see in fact if there is any 

3 indication in their records that there might 

4 have been badges left behind. 

5 This was an idea that came up early 

6 on in the process as one way to look for hard 

7 evidence. And by sampling their records, and 

8 I'm going to stop in a second Arjun and then 

9 I'll turn it to you, the idea being that we 

10 know that when workers entered a controlled 

11 area they carried with them their film badge 

12 and their pocket ionization chamber. 

13 The idea being if they wore their 

14 phone badge but left a pocket ionization 

15 chamber behind there would be an indication on 

16 the access records for those jobs on those 

17 days of the information contained on the PIC 

18 and the information contained on the film 

19 badge. 

20 And if there was consistent 

21 disparities between these, whereby for example 

22 consistently see perhaps elevated readings 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 

 19

1 the PIC and as a result of that the film 

2 badges are pulled and then look at the film 

3 badges and not see readings for that month or 

4 that badge that were elevated and see that 

5 consistent way, that worker -- we all together 

6 looked at ten workers. 

7 But just by going into their 

8 handwritten records for the daily logs and 

9 make tables and comparisons and just let the -

10 - again, as I usually say, let the data speak 

11 to us, what do we find out. 

12 So, by way of introduction Arjun, 

13 working closely with Nicole Briggs did that 

14 work. And the report you have in front of you 

15 is the result of those investigations. 

16 So, at this point Arjun, I'd like 

17 to hand it off to you and Nicole. Could you 

18 take it from here? 

19 MR. ROLFES: John, before -- 

20 MR. MAURO: Arjun, before you speak 

21 -- one second, Mark has something to say. 

22 MR. ROLFES: John, have 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 

 20

1 provided copies of those interviews to NIOSH 

2 yet? 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: That's the first 

4 thing I was going to explain is not all of 

5 this work is complete because we did a set of 

6 interviews including some of the people who 

7 stood up at that Board meeting and said you 

8 know that they routinely take off their badges 

9 and we were able to, you know, re-verify that 

10 and detail, make detailed documentation of 

11 the interviews. 

12 But, we have had a significant 

13 amount of difficulty getting approved text of 

14 the interviews back from everyone. We have 

15 many of them, and then we don't have many of 

16 them. And it's been a lot of back and forth 

17 trying to complete that process. 

18 So, we now decided in the last 

19 month that we could not wait any longer for 

20 everything to be complete. And there's a 

21 person on the line that I might request you 

22 sent yours back please, check yours, and make 
 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 any changes, and send it back to us if you 

2 please will. 

3 But, including one petitioner we 

4 have not heard from in terms of an approved 

5 text. And so what we have done is -- and 

6 this relates really primarily to the more 

7 recent experience of workers. 

8 And I can describe that briefly in 

9 terms of some of the conclusions that were 

10 indicated is that they reaffirm that they took 

11 off their badges, but it was in quite a 

12 different context than the 63 to 67 set that 

13 we examined. 

14 The major context seems to be that 

15 workers were afraid that if they damaged their 

16 badges three times, it was a three strike and 

17 you're out policy that they believed. We were 

18 not able to find any documentation about this 

19 and they were not able to point us to anybody 

20 that would. 

21 It was apparently a common belief. 

22 And so workers would have badges in 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 

 22

1 back pockets or take them off and put them in 

2 their lunch pail, something like that at the 

3 job. 

4 And that process of investigations 

5 is unfortunately not yet complete. What we 

6 have decided to do is take the verified and 

7 check interviews and compile them into a 

8 summary. We've just finished that process and 

9 then we compile the unverified interviews. 

10 So we have the -- our process is 

11 that we make a interview record and send it to 

12 the interviewee for the approval and any 

13 changes and corrections and so we've compiled 

14 all of the ones that are corrected. 

15 All the ones that have not been 

16 corrected we compiled a summary from the 

17 corrected ones. And we're looking for some 

18 direction from the working group as to how to 

19 proceed in the absence of a complete set of 

20 interviews, including one from the petitioner 

21 which is required of us and it was one of the 

22 petitioners that actually was quite strong 
 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 about this point. 

2 MR. MAURO: Arjun, I have a quick 

3 question. Is there any -- in this process is 

4 there any DOE clearance type reviews required 

5 of this material? 

6 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, there is a 

7 DOE type clearance required for all interviews 

8 obviously for Nevada Test Site and the 

9 individuals that have completed -- I know 

10 Kathy Demers is not on the line. I called her 

11 and reminded her, but I forgot to call 

12 yesterday, I called her this morning, and 

13 she's in Washington State so she may not get 

14 my message for a while. So, I will ask her 

15 again when she does. 

16 But my best memory of that is that 

17 the summary of the interviews has gone through 

18 the DOE process and the individual interviews 

19 that have been finalized have also gone 

20 through the DOE process. 

21 I'm not 100 percent sure whether 

22 there are interviews that have not 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 

 24

1 finalized have gone through the DOE process. 

2 They may have. But that wouldn't be much use 

3 because you have to go through the DOE process 

4 again if and when they do get finalized. 

5 So that we can definitely send 

6 those. And this has recently happened, we can 

7 send those to the working group for SC&A 

8 review in short order. But we are not -- we 

9 have not done the actual verification and 

10 further analysis from the records of these 

11 since we don't have a complete set. And 

12 that's why I'm looking for some direction from 

13 the working group about that. 

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Arjun, this is 

15 Gen. After you get the complete set what is 

16 your plan for doing the -- what is your 

17 analysis plan? 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: Gen, we will pull 

19 the records in a similar way that we have done 

20 here and we also have -- at least one 

21 interview that I recall doing personally with 

22 a supervisor who did not take off his badge. 
 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 So, he said he did not take off his 

2 badge, although he knew that his colleagues 

3 did, because his badge was not at risk of 

4 being damaged given that he was a supervisor. 

5 So we will make some kind of 

6 comparative analysis similar to what we have 

7 done here from the records, at least some of 

8 the individuals who have said that they did 

9 this in the later periods, in the 70's and 

10 80's. 

11 Now, we decided to separate these 

12 periods Gen because from `63 to `67 there was 

13 a separate ID badge and a separate film badge. 

14 Well, in `66 they were joined together. 

15 And it's always been sort of an 

16 article of discussion that when the badge was 

17 integrated it would be much more difficult to 

18 leave it behind in your truck because you 

19 wouldn't be able to enter the work place. 

20 But, the phenomenon that we were 

21 talking about in the later period was sort of 

22 different workers said that they did things 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 

 26

1 the badge to prevent damage to the badge like 

2 putting it in the back pocket or in the lunch 

3 pail that might be right near the place of 

4 work and not say leave it behind the truck or 

5 between lead bricks or something like that. 

6 CHAIR PRESLEY: Arjun, this is Bob 

7 Presley. How many completed datasets do you 

8 have? 

9 MR. MAKHAJANI: I think we have 

10 about ten or a dozen. And we could proceed 

11 with a partial analysis if you authorize us to 

12 do that. 

13 CHAIR PRESLEY: Well if you have 12 

14 out of 14 I would say that's probably a pretty 

15 good -- 

16 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, I didn't say 12 

17 out of 14, I said I think there are a number 

18 of interviews that I don't have any data from. 

19 After the break I will be able to give you an 

20 exact count Mr. Presley. 

21 But there are a number of 

22 interviews that we have not received back 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 

 27

1 I'm not -- you know those 12 are not all 

2 workers who said they took their badges off. 

3 Some are petitioners, and some are workers who 

4 took their badges off, and others are 

5 officials, and supervisors and so on. 

6 So, I could give you an exact count 

7 after the break if you like. But we can 

8 proceed the completed interviews. Or if you 

9 like we could actually pull the records of all 

10 of the claimants we interviewed and begin 

11 analyzing that. It's not a large number of 

12 them, maybe ten in all including completed and 

13 incomplete. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Arjun, do you have 

15 copy of the questions that you went into the 

16 interviews with, just to give an explanation 

17 of what the interview was about, et cetera 

18 that you could send to us? 

19 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, Kathy has 

20 been managing and I don't have them in my 

21 interview records. Why don't I -- why don't I 

22 actually have the completed interviews and 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 

 28

1 summary as well as the ancillary materials 

2 prepared and forwarded to the working group in 

3 a couple of days. 

4 MR. ROLFES: I'm just saying to 

5 keep in mind that we need to -- you know this, 

6 because it's an important issue we need as 

7 much detail as possible. 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: All right, you know 

9 -- the question -- we will forward raw 

10 interview records that is completed and when 

11 the raw interview records it includes the 

12 question that questions that were asked. 

13 So the full interchange in terms of 

14 what the question was and what the response 

15 was is in the text of the interview itself. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: And then in the 

18 summary -- those interviews are the individual 

19 interviews with the name and obviously you 

20 know that's all privacy protected. But we 

21 will send you the raw data that will have the 

22 questions and Q&A essentially 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 

 29

1 interviewee. 

2 Then we have a summary, which takes 

3 all of the issues in the interviews and 

4 summarizes them by issue. So in that version 

5 the questions are not there. But you will 

6 definitely see the question. 

7 MR. ROLFES: Okay, thank you. 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: Mr. Presley, we can 

9 actually proceed with this work. It won't 

10 take long, but we have not had the situation 

11 before where we were not able to get back 

12 critical interviews and so have not proceeded 

13 to the next step, but we can do that. 

14 CHAIR PRESLEY: Ted, do we have 

15 money to do this? 

16 MR. MAKHAJANI: Sorry? 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: I asked Ted if we 

18 had the money to do this. 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

20 CHAIR PRESLEY: We do have the 

21 money to do this? 

22 MR. MAURO: Well, by way of a -- 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 

 30

1 believe what we'll have to look is our 

2 contract ends on December 1st. We have at 

3 least a million or more money will be left 

4 over. 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: Brad, what have you 

6 got? 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, we've got to 

8 put this to bed one way or another. Now I 

9 think one of the things they followed up with 

10 requests -- Arjun, have you followed up with 

11 these people to get these interviews back in? 

12 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, we have made 

13 repeated follow-ups by phone, by letter, by 

14 email and you know it's -- we've even thought 

15 of going and knocking on the door but we have 

16 not done that. 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, Gen? 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: When do you think 

19 you'll have it finished Arjun? 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, you know I am 

21 not confident that we will get our interview 

22 records back and my recommendation to 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 

 31

1 working group would be that we go ahead and 

2 pull the records of all the interviewees that 

3 are claimants and make an analysis and then 

4 submit to the working group and the Board and 

5 NIOSH these presets. 

6 You know, I am looking for guidance 

7 because this is completely unprecedented that 

8 this has happened. The completed interviews, 

9 the summary that is based on the completed 

10 interview and the separate file, or all the 

11 uncompleted interviews that I do not believe 

12 we can actually put into any analysis. 

13 But we can certainly analyze the 

14 records of these workers. 

15 CHAIR PRESLEY: Mark, has this 

16 already been done during the interviews? 

17 MR. ROLFES: I'm sorry, could you 

18 repeat the question Bob? 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: Has any of this 

20 already been done when we did the claimant 

21 interviews? 

22 MR. ROLFES: I'm not sure what 
 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 you're referring to? 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: These are new 

3 claimant interviews that we did after the 

4 Board meeting at which the workers stood up, 

5 you know there were a number of welders as you 

6 remember Mr. Presley who stood up and they 

7 said that they had done that. 

8 And you had authorized us to 

9 conduct a post board meeting inquiry into that 

10 and that included a extensive set of 

11 interviews. I think we were in Las Vegas for 

12 two or three days and actually Billy Smith was 

13 one of the people we interviewed then. 

14 And so this happened after the 

15 Board meeting. And so the analysis of these 

16 records had not been done. The document you 

17 see before you is a separate set of records. 

18 And I'll let Nicole tell us how she pulled 

19 them. 

20 CHAIR PRESLEY: Wanda, have you got 

21 anything or Phil? 

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, my only concern 
 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 is whether if we go over this material now, we 

2 will simply have go over an extension of the 

3 same material later. 

4 From my perspective the real 

5 question here is do we want to accept the work 

6 that has been done as being adequate. And 

7 that simply raises the question does SC&A 

8 consider the work that has already been done 

9 adequate for their purposes in reporting. If 

10 they do not then we have a problem. 

11 MR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John 

12 Mauro. I consider these two lines of inquiry 

13 completely independent and separate. The 

14 interviews that Arjun described is one way to 

15 come at the problem and get information that 

16 might be valuable to the Work Group. 

17 Independent of that, what we get 

18 that from that is the report that you have in 

19 front of you, which is complete, and which has 

20 information that I believe is valuable to the 

21 Work Group in terms of it reveals whereby ten 

22 workers independently pulled, has nothing 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 

 34

1 do with the interviews now, workers that were 

2 selected where we went into their records. 

3 And as we move through this you 

4 will see the results. So, this is a stand 

5 alone document. For example, in principle, 

6 even if we never have done any interviews 

7 whatsoever, the line of inquiry that Arjun is 

8 referring to this document would still have 

9 great value, the one we're looking at right 

10 now. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, I mean, John, 

12 let me explain this. You know as I said 

13 earlier there are two separate periods that 

14 were sent to workers that we're talking about. 

15 The analysis before you is complete 

16 and this will not have to be revisited. There 

17 was only one claim out of ten in which we had 

18 some questions and we're not sure what the 

19 answer to that is and I'll explain that. 

20 But, we will have questions about 

21 nine out of ten records and three out of four 

22 years in the one case that we had questions 
 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 about. 

2 So, the second set that we will be 

3 talking about relates to the group of workers 

4 who were different set and more recent after 

5 the integrated bade was introduced mainly you 

6 know from workers that we say welders and 

7 associated field workers who were afraid that 

8 their badges would be damaged. 

9 What I was suggesting is that an 

10 analysis parallel to this be done even though 

11 not all of the interviews are complete. And 

12 then that of course would go with the set of 

13 interviews. 

14 And in a way of -- would have a 

15 persuasive power in our results because it is 

16 accompanied by interviews that have claimant 

17 record analysis along with that. 

18 This is based on claimant analysis 

19 files and you know as an analysis it stands 

20 completely on it's own. The document you have 

21 for 63 and 67. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: Gen? 
 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 MR. MAKHAJANI: And I would 

2 recommend you know that we go ahead and 

3 complete that work because it's an important 

4 part of the petition and it was a very 

5 important statement made before the Board and 

6 that we go ahead and finish that analysis so 

7 the Board will have a document that 

8 corresponds to some statement that we made 

9 before that are very important. 

10 CHAIR PRESLEY: Gen has the floor. 

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think having 

12 come this far on the interview process that we 

13 do need to complete it. But I'm -- it's easy 

14 for me to understand looking at the hard data 

15 and the film badges and the PICs and coming up 

16 with a conclusion. 

17 It's harder for me to think about 

18 what your analysis is going to be and your 

19 conclusion. I would hope you have a 

20 conclusion after the interviews. It's an 

21 entirely different approach to evaluating the 

22 problem. Basically I think we have 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 

 37

1 continue with it. 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well Gen, from the 

3 interviews I can tell you that there was a 

4 pretty uniform conclusion from the workers 

5 themselves and their supervisor. Now, we also 

6 interviewed you know one person who was in the 

7 health physics. 

8 Can I name a person who was part of 

9 the oral -- 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: You probably 

11 don't have to. 

12 CHAIR PRESLEY: No. 

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think we know. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, okay and so 

15 there was at least one interview in which -- 

16 well official, of a person in an official 

17 capacity who said that this did not happen. 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: He's no longer 

19 available. 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: However, the 

21 workers themselves who stood up and at least 

22 one supervisor there was a pretty uniform set 
 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 of statements as to what they did and why they 

2 did it. 

3 It's very different from the 

4 statement that was made that badges were taken 

5 off to hide or reduce the total dose because 

6 the dose was coming up against the dose 

7 limits. 

8 In this case workers did not say 

9 that, they said that they took off their 

10 badges because they were afraid that the 

11 badges would get damaged and that they have 

12 had that happen three times they would lose 

13 their jobs or be sent -- 

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: And one more 

15 quick question then I think we'd probably 

16 better carry on. So what you're saying in 

17 this latter group, the interview group, is 

18 it's a different time period and a different 

19 set of workers than the one's we're going to 

20 talk about -- 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, there's a 

22 certain time period of certain workers had 
 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 different reasons for taking off the badge. 

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: So we could come 

3 up with two different conclusions based on the 

4 two different reports? 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: I do not believe 

6 that the latter analysis will effect what 

7 you're looking at in any way. So I do not 

8 believe that we have to revisit this 

9 particular -- 

10 CHAIR PRESLEY: Larry Elliott? 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: We may want to look 

12 at more workers in this set, and that's up to 

13 you of course. We've looked at ten. But I 

14 don't think the two analyses have anything to 

15 do with each other. They are about different 

16 sets of workers, different reasons and 

17 different periods. 

18 CHAIR PRESLEY: Larry. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Arjun, this is Larry 

20 Elliott. I'm just curious to know in your set 

21 of interview questions on this set of ten did 

22 you include a question on where these events, 
 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 where they removed the badge happened at the 

2 site? 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, this set of ten 

4 was not interviewed. This set of ten is 

5 simply pulling records of workers and 

6 following, you know, in a way -- 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, the question 

8 still remains, did you -- 

9 MR. MAKHAJANI: -- and did this 

10 kind of comparing taking the records. And 

11 there are no interview records associated with 

12 this. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: But did you ask the 

14 question where, because they could be on the 

15 site in a situation where they don't -- where 

16 the badge is not needed in a rad control area. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: We didn't find 

18 significant issues in this set of ten. So 

19 actually -- 

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: No, we're talking 

21 about different sets of ten. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: Larry is asking 
 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 about the next set. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: For the interviews 

3 you did -- for the interviews that you've done 

4 that we haven't seen the results of did you 

5 include a question about where on the site 

6 they might have been when they took their 

7 badge off to protect them from being damaged? 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: I am very sure that 

9 we did, you know, but he process has gone back 

10 and forth. I must say I haven't read the 

11 interview in a little while. I just wanted to 

12 report the status to you and I had to go back 

13 and check. I am pretty sure we knew what they 

14 were doing. 

15 MR. MAURO: I might be able to help 

16 out a little bit here. Coming to the meeting 

17 today our intention was not to talk about that 

18 as you can see. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: There's a lot of open 

20 questions. 

21 MR. MAURO: Yes, because just to 

22 let you know it's part of the process and it's 
 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 still on the way. Our intention was to 

2 describe the results of the report that's 

3 before you right now which has nothing to do 

4 with that, and the results that it has. 

5 I apologize, I wish we would be 

6 able to give you a nice story to tell about 

7 what we found out. Everything you're asking -

8 - 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: It piques our 

10 interest. 

11 MR. MAURO: Yes, I don't blame you. 

12 And we are very interested too, but 

13 unfortunately there was steps along the way 

14 that just tripped us up. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: I am sorry that 

16 this got rather lengthy, and maybe it's my 

17 fault. I didn't quite separate the two 

18 analyses there. They are very independent and 

19 we will send you -- Larry we will send you the 

20 completed interview records and summary in a 

21 couple of days. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank 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 

 43

1 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Arjun, this 

2 is Kathy Robertson-Demers. 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: Thank you, can you 

4 answer Larry's question? 

5 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Yes, we went 

6 through a series of questions on where they 

7 were, whether they were actually in posted 

8 areas and so on and so forth. So we tried to 

9 get to the bottom of -- 

10 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry Kathy, let me 

11 just -- I'm sorry Kathy, let me just 

12 interrupt. Someone again is listening to the 

13 call without their phone on mute and we can 

14 hear you breathing and it's completely 

15 squelching Kathy's remarks. Thank you. 

16 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, do you 

17 want me start over? 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's great, thank 

19 you. 

20 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Okay, when 

21 we interviewed them we tried to get to the 

22 bottom of whether they were in radiological 
 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 areas or not. So we asked a series of 

2 questions about where they were, how far from 

3 the radiological source they were. Whether 

4 they were in a posted or an unposted area and 

5 so on and so forth. 

6 That kind of information is 

7 included in the interview. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, thank you 

9 Kathy. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, and Kathy 

11 could you send the completed interview set 

12 that has been verified along with the summary 

13 to Ted and -- has Nancy formated everything? 

14 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I haven't 

15 been on the email. 

16 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, we will send 

17 it to you in a couple of days. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda and I -

19 - can you hear me? 

20 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes Wanda. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, just one 

22 question before we leave this. When 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 

 45

1 investigation is complete and we do have the 

2 SC&A information in hand are we still going to 

3 be in a position where we can take a valid 

4 position that the information we have is now 

5 adequate. That's my real concern. 

6 Our earlier expectations were that 

7 the information that had been gathered prior 

8 to this time was adequate enough to get a 

9 rough feel for how extensive these types of 

10 activities were, if they did in fact occur. 

11 Now, there were questions raised 

12 with regard to that conclusion and it was from 

13 my understanding at the outset that these 

14 investigations that are being undertaken were 

15 partly to address that specific issue. 

16 I have not heard anything so far 

17 this morning that leads me to believe that 

18 that question would not still be a issue. Am 

19 I correct in my assumption? 

20 MR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. I 

21 could take a shot at that. The challenge that 

22 we have here is when you look at the records -
 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 - let's put the interviews aside and 

2 statements made and affidavits and just look 

3 at the records. 

4 And the intent here is that is 

5 there anything in the records that would 

6 indicate a widespread practice. Now, we're 

7 going to get into these. I don't want to 

8 prejudge them, but the way I look at them is, 

9 is there anything in here when we look at case 

10 one, case two, case three that says, it look 

11 here's a consistent pattern where people have 

12 high PIC readings and very, very low zero film 

13 badge readings. 

14 That in my mind would be -- 

15 especially because the economy selected it 

16 would be indicative that it might have been 

17 widespread practice if we saw that. 

18 Now, if we don't see it and you'll 

19 make your own judgement when you look at it. 

20 If we don't see it that means well if it's 

21 going on we didn't catch it. So, in effect 

22 the work we're doing right now and that we'll 
 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 be talking about and this probably goes also 

2 toward any follow-up of the records of the 

3 workers that are being interviewed separately, 

4 we're never going to be able to prove the 

5 negative. 

6 All we have to do is look real hard 

7 to see if the positive is there. That is look 

8 real hard to see if something looked amiss. 

9 And if we can't find it doesn't mean it didn't 

10 exist, all it means is that we couldn't find 

11 it. 

12 And at that point we're in a 

13 difficult position of making a judgement of 

14 what a Work Group is and what do we do with 

15 that information. We're never going to be 

16 able to prove the negative, all we can do is 

17 say we cannot find the positive. 

18 MR. RICH: I think that's right and 

19 ultimately it's going to be -- once you have 

20 the analysis then it's going to be a judgement 

21 call on the part of the Working Group or the 

22 Board of course. 
 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 MR. MAURO: It's almost a due 

2 diligence that is I think quite frankly the 

3 Board or Working Group or all of us are doing 

4 everything we can to probe the records to see 

5 if there's any way we can find a way -- to see 

6 if things don't look right. 

7 And when you're done then you're 

8 wrestle with the hard decision well, if 

9 there's anything about it that we just looked 

10 at that indicates that we do really have a 

11 problem here or is the evidence just not 

12 there. 

13 And then you know it's a matter of 

14 due diligence to weigh the evidence as always. 

15 And so I'm hoping that after we go through 

16 the ten cases that we have in front of us 

17 right now that was done by Arjun and Nicole, 

18 you folks can see the tables, see the 

19 comparisons between PIC and film badge, and 

20 make judgements for yourself whether or not 

21 there is any indication here that something 

22 looks amiss. 
 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 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, I think that 

2 is right. I think it maybe -- you know my 

3 suggestion Mr. Presley would be we go through 

4 these cases so the discussion is less abstract 

5 and it will be clearer at least for the 

6 earlier period where we can go with this. 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, let's go 

8 ahead and start through the cases and we'll 

9 make our decision down the road. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, we picked 

11 these ten cases at random and the overall 

12 objective as john has stated was to compare 

13 the results of the PIC which we know can be 

14 sort of not as reliable as the film badge 

15 results. But it seems as though it's a 

16 systematic pattern of the PIC results being 

17 higher than the film badges. And also to see 

18 whether the PICs were worn and reported or 

19 whether there was some problem with them, or 

20 gaps with the PIC results. 

21 Let Nicole explain how those cases 

22 were picked and what those three scenarios 
 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 were that we have three scenarios that we 

2 examined in relation to these ten workers. 

3 Nicole, you want to tell the 

4 Working Group how those ten workers were 

5 chosen? 

6 MS. BRIGGS: Sure, Arjun if I can 

7 make a minor correction. These cases, these 

8 ten cases were not chosen randomly because we 

9 were looking at very specific time periods. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: That's right. 

11 MS. BRIGGS: We were looking at 

12 specific job categories and we were also 

13 limited to the cases which had available area 

14 access registered data. Those area access 

15 register forms that contained the daily 

16 accounts of the PIC data. 

17 So, with all of those limitations 

18 we really couldn't pick a random sample. So 

19 they were really handpicked according to what 

20 data we had available and for the very narrow 

21 time period we're looking at which was 63 to 

22 67. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 We decided to take advantage -- 

2 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, let me 

3 interrupt you again. I'm very sorry but and I 

4 think the Work Group is losing it's patience. 

5 There's someone who is listening on the phone 

6 who has again taken themselves off mute and 

7 we're listening to your breathing. And if we 

8 have to we'll cut the line for you. So please 

9 keep -- stay on mute, thank you. 

10 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, I'll continue. 

11 We decided to take advantage of a large amount 

12 of data that we collected for another NTS 

13 petition investigation where we collected data 

14 for 120 cases. 

15 So, the ten case studies from this 

16 badge issue analysis were chosen from that 

17 data set. 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: See that's where my 

19 error arose because that data set was picked 

20 at random. 

21 MS. BRIGGS: Right, the 120 cases 

22 that we used for our investigation were chosen 
 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 randomly. And then we essentially hand picked 

2 these ten case studies from that set based on 

3 like I said specific job categories, the time 

4 period of 63 to 67 and also what really 

5 limited us was the number of cases that had 

6 these available area access register data 

7 forms. 

8 So that really narrowed down the 

9 number of cases that we could pull from. We 

10 decided like I said ten case studies. We 

11 chose the worker categories based on worker 

12 categories we used for our other analysis. 

13 Lynn Anspaugh helped us choose 

14 these worker categories, which those workers 

15 may be at a greater risk of taking part in 

16 this practice. Those categories include 

17 miners, radiation safety workers which include 

18 health physicists and radiation monitors, 

19 welders, laborers, security personnel, and 

20 also the category which we call wiremen, but 

21 we also decided to include carpenters in with 

22 the wiremen 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 

 53

1 And we chose of the ten three 

2 miners, two radiation safety workers, two 

3 welders, one laborer, one security guard, and 

4 one wiremen. So this just gives us a sort of 

5 an overview and we did a very detailed case 

6 study that each of those workers where we 

7 pulled from the 63 to 67 time period all of 

8 the film badge data and all of the available 

9 PIC data that were in the case records for 

10 these workers and compared them side-by-side. 

11 I guess we could summarize it. Of 

12 the ten we really only found one case that had 

13 any kind of discrepancy in the data. All of 

14 the PIC data -- 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Nicole, let me 

16 interrupt you. 

17 MS. BRIGGS: I'm sorry, go ahead. 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: By discrepancy we 

19 mean where the PIC results seemed to be quite 

20 a bit higher than the badge results. That's 

21 what we mean. Go ahead Nicole. 

22 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, if you'd like 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 

 54

1 can go case by case. You know what I'll do, 

2 I'll discuss the scenarios that we found. 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: This is Bob 

4 Presley, wait just a minute. 

5 MS. BRIGGS: Sure. 

6 CHAIR PRESLEY: We've had one 

7 question. What's a wiremen? 

8 MS. BRIGGS: That's their term for 

9 electrician. 

10 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. 

11 MS. BRIGGS: But that's how they 

12 were described in the case records as wiremen. 

13 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, thank you. 

14 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, after we looked 

15 at the data we -- oh well when we looked at 

16 all of the data the cases could fall into 

17 three possible scenarios. 

18 One is if all of the workers PIC 

19 data readings totaled zero then there was 

20 really no further investigation because if the 

21 -- if the PIC -- if the film badge was zero 

22 and the PIC data was zero there was really 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 

 55

1 further investigation. 

2 And many of those cases we did see 

3 fall into that category. And the second 

4 category are workers that had PIC readings 

5 below 100. If the -- the policy I believe at 

6 the time was that the PIC readings read 100 or 

7 above for a given shift or a given day. That 

8 worker -- soon that data was pulled for 

9 analysis to confirm the reading on the PIC 

10 with the film badge. 

11 And any of the -- so the film 

12 badges weren't read for that day. If they had 

13 a PIC reading that was below 100 then the film 

14 badge wasn't necessarily pulled. So, we don't 

15 have the fine detail in terms of the data. 

16 The most important instance is the 

17 PIC reading for above 100 for a given worker 

18 and that means that most likely their film 

19 badge would have been pulled for that day and 

20 analyzed on that day. And we had a really 

21 good -- in those instances we can compare 

22 directly from the film badge to the PIC 
 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 readings. 

2 Let's see, I think we have five of 

3 the ten case studies fell into this category 

4 where there were elevated PIC readings. I 

5 guess I could go case by case Arjun if you 

6 think -- 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: Why don't you do 

8 that. Why don't you go through those five, 

9 just go by case by case. It will be fairly 

10 rapid I think. 

11 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, we'll go quickly 

12 through these ten cases. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: It's very 

14 important. 

15 MS. BRIGGS: Can I mention the case 

16 numbers. Is that okay? 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: No. 

18 MS. BRIGGS: No, okay. Let's see, 

19 one case was a miner and let's see all of his 

20 PIC readings were from October of `67. 

21 MR. MAURO: Excuse me, Nicole? 

22 MS. BRIGGS: 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 

 57

1 MR. MAURO: I think you can make 

2 reference to the table number in the report. 

3 Everybody has got the report in front of them. 

4 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, you know what 

5 you have -- not all of the data is presented 

6 in -- I guess I'll go through the -- 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: The data went 

8 through -- its' either one, two, three, four. 

9 Just start at the top with the first person 

10 whose data we examined and whose serially and 

11 everybody will know. 

12 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, the first worker 

13 was a miner and that's on Table A-1. And you 

14 can see we put side by side the area access 

15 register data next to the film badge data. 

16 I guess I'll work through one line 

17 of data so you can see how we did -- how we 

18 were looking at this. 

19 In all of the area access registers 

20 data for this individual was in 1967. Like I 

21 said, we didn't have PIC data necessarily for 

22 every year for this time period and not even 
 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 for the whole year. I believe that the area 

2 access registers were put into place for very 

3 specific periods of time through very specific 

4 activities that were going on site. 

5 So for this particular worker the 

6 majority of the PIC data comes from October of 

7 1967. And in that PIC total is 250 millirem 

8 and we can compare that to the total film 

9 badge readings from this worker for October of 

10 1967 which is 285. 

11 And as you can see those values are 

12 very close and the film badge reading is 

13 actually above or higher than the PIC reading. 

14 So in this particular case there doesn't seem 

15 to be any discrepancy. 

16 And I'll move on to the second case 

17 which was another miner on Table A-2. For 

18 this worker all of the PIC data came from 

19 October and May of 1963 and their PIC readings 

20 totaled 140 millirem and the film badge data 

21 for those months totaled 350 millirem. 

22 So, as you can see again we have 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 

 59

1 situation where the film badge data is well 

2 above the PIC data and there doesn't seem to -

3 - there's no discrepancies between this data. 

4 Let's see, the next case is our 

5 third miner, case A-3. This individual had a 

6 lot more PIC data available. For I guess it 

7 looks like it's the last quarter from 

8 September to December of 1967 which totals, 

9 let's see I guess it's 1,860 millirem. And 

10 all of the film badge reading from the entire 

11 year of 1967 for this individual totaled 

12 1,525. 

13 There is obviously the film badge 

14 data is slightly lower than the area access 

15 register data. But it's not too -- it's not 

16 far enough I guess of a difference. It was 

17 our understanding that the PIC data is 

18 actually a much more crude method of analysis 

19 than the film badge. 

20 Arjun, maybe you can step in with 

21 that. Is that a valid assumption that we were 

22 going on. That the film badge data is even -- 
 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 is just slightly -- 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: Sorry, I was on 

3 mute. Yes, that's right. You can proceed on 

4 that basis. 

5 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, as we work 

6 through with our next case. This next 

7 individual for Table A-4 is a health 

8 physicists. And he had a tremendous amount of 

9 data. Both film badge data and PIC data. 

10 We found that to be the case for 

11 all of our investigations. The radiation 

12 safety workers often had a tremendous amount 

13 of data to look at. So much so that I decided 

14 to collapse the data into Table 1 of the main 

15 body of our report. And we can compare the 

16 PIC totals year by year to the film badge 

17 totals. 

18 And in each instance the PIC total 

19 were much lower than the film badge totals. 

20 And so there didn't seem to be any 

21 inconsistencies with this case. 

22 MR. MAKHAJANI: Again, just for 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 

 61

1 record and for clarity, when we say 

2 inconsistency we don't mean that no 

3 inconsistency, we don't mean to say that the 

4 readings were equal. 

5 Since we're looking for evidence 

6 that film badges were taken off the criterion 

7 for this is film badge readings are much lower 

8 than the PIC readings. So, the film badge 

9 readings are much higher than the PIC readings 

10 we don't investigate that, or look into it 

11 because there's no evidence that film badges 

12 were taken off. 

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: Nicole, this is 

14 Gen. I think you meant you collapsed it into 

15 Table 2 in case anybody is following along. 

16 MS. BRIGGS: I'm sorry, I misspoke. 

17 Okay, I'll move onto our next case in Table 

18 A-5, which is a laborer. And this individual 

19 had PIC readings mostly for 1965, and some 

20 readings in 1966. 

21 And we compared the film badge 

22 readings -- we decided to focus just 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 

 62

1 1966 readings were all very low. We decided 

2 to just focus on the 1965 readings. 

3 And let's see, there really didn't 

4 seem to be any inconsistencies here. I think 

5 the totals for 1965, let's see -- oh here we 

6 go. The total for `65 particularly in -- I 

7 guess it was July and August, I think we 

8 decided to focus on July and August. There 

9 wasn't that much of a -- there were no 

10 inconsistencies between the totals there. 

11 MR. CHU: You don't have the film 

12 badge reading on this table, is that correct? 

13 MS. BRIGGS: On Table A-5, I have 

14 the film badge readings for this individual. 

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: On the right hand 

16 side. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: In the attachment 

18 tables actually the readings are the 

19 individual film badges, right Nicole? I mean 

20 where we're doing the comparisons you have the 

21 individual PIC readings. And when the film 

22 badges is read you have the reading 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 

 63

1 time that it is read. 

2 MS. BRIGGS: Right, yes. Yes, the 

3 film badge data for these cases were presented 

4 by issue date, which means that the period 

5 that's represented by that value is the period 

6 between issue dates. And that's what we were 

7 comparing. 

8 We were comparing the totals and 

9 then in the instances where the film badges 

10 were pulled or there was any kind of 

11 elevation, we looked at the specific film 

12 badge period that would coincide with that day 

13 that the PIC was read. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: Another way to 

15 understand some of these tables -- because the 

16 film badges were not always pulled as Nicole -

17 - can you hear me, am I on mute or not? 

18 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, we can hear you. 

19 MR. KATZ: We can hear you Arjun. 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: The -- when the PIC 

21 readings were less than 100 and the film badge 

22 was not read at that time you look 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 

 64

1 cumulative PIC readings from the days for the 

2 period representing the film badge readings. 

3 So, the film badge was read once a 

4 month. You had the PIC readings for that 

5 month and compare it to the film badge 

6 readings. So, that can also be done and we 

7 have done that. And you know when you 

8 accumulate the PIC readings and compare it to 

9 the film badge readings, that's the relevance 

10 of comparing the periods. 

11 And then when you have the reading 

12 of a PIC that's more than 100 you can compare 

13 the individual badge readings or the 

14 individual PIC readings. But you can't always 

15 do that because the badge wasn't always read 

16 every day. 

17 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, I'll continue 

18 with our cases. We're almost through. Table 

19 A-6, this case was a welder. All of his PIC 

20 data came from November and December of 1965 

21 and it totaled 1,150 millirem, compared to his 

22 film badge data for those months, which 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 

 65

1 1,250 millirem. Again, they are in parity 

2 there. So there's no inconsistencies for this 

3 case. 

4 Table A-7, this individual was -- I 

5 believe he was a health physicist. For this 

6 case is the only case where we saw some 

7 inconsistency between the PIC data and the 

8 film badge data. Again, he was a health 

9 physicist so he has a tremendous amount of PIC 

10 data from 1965, 1966, and 1967. So we had a 

11 lot to compare. 

12 One of the issues that we found 

13 with this case is the -- this individual often 

14 did not check out on the PIC forms. At the 

15 beginning of the shift, the worker would sign 

16 in and put the date that he entered the site. 

17 And then at the end of his shift he would 

18 sign out and put the time that he signed out 

19 and also write down his PIC readings. 

20 We found that, for this case there 

21 were a lot of blank spots. This worker would 

22 check in and then not check out. Now one 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 

 66

1 the issues that we found was that many of 

2 these workers, particularly the radiation 

3 safety workers worked double shifts. 

4 So what we would do is check on the 

5 next shift to make sure that they checked out 

6 on the second shift. But for this worker we 

7 noticed that he didn't sign out at all. And 

8 there were -- even though he checked in with a 

9 PIC he didn't necessarily sign out. 

10 And I think we saw that on a number 

11 of occasions. I think about 20 different 

12 occasions over the course of the three years 

13 where that occurred where he didn't 

14 necessarily sign out. 

15 And also one of the other 

16 inconsistencies we noticed is the 1967 PIC 

17 data is 750 millirems greater than the film 

18 badge data. Again, that doesn't necessarily 

19 mean that there was -- doesn't mean that they 

20 were hiding the badge, but we just were 

21 indicating that there was an inconsistency in 

22 that data. 
 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 MR. MAKHAJANI: The relevance of 

2 this particular case is the combination of the 

3 higher PIC reading in one year and the 

4 frequent practice of this individual not to 

5 log out. And so yes, this was the only 

6 problem, question that we found. 

7 We have not further analyzed, and 

8 you know we look for guidance. We want 

9 further analysis as to the cause of this. We 

10 have not attempted in any way to contact the 

11 individual or don't know if, you know, they 

12 are alive, or -- you know we have not done -- 

13 at least I don't know. And Nicole do we know 

14 if the person is alive or? 

15 MS. BRIGGS: I could look it up. 

16 We could check their records. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: But we have not 

18 attempted to -- 

19 MS. BRIGGS: No, we haven't done 

20 that. 

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Arjun or Nicole, 

22 what would be the implication of him 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 

 68

1 checking out. I mean what would be the 

2 rationale. I can't quite get it. 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: You know it may be, 

4 and you know people from NIOSH and ORAU, 

5 people who were there and Billy Smith might 

6 want to comment on this. But, one implication 

7 could be that you know if you don't check out 

8 with your PIC and you are also trying to kind 

9 of not report your full film badge dose then 

10 there might be an issue there. 

11 Now it might also be that the 

12 discrepancy is simply a technical issue with 

13 the PIC readings and we can't second guess as 

14 to why the individual did not check out 

15 because it could be a lot of different 

16 reasons. And you know until we have some 

17 information for that person it's very 

18 difficult to tell. 

19 So, at this stage, you know, this 

20 was an exercise where we were wanting to 

21 report any issue that came up that may 

22 indicate a problem but not -- this is 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 

 69

1 conclusory in any sense that we're saying that 

2 there is a problem. It's just we're reporting 

3 that this was the one time in one year where 

4 there was a question that arose. 

5 MR. SMITH: This is Billy, point of 

6 clarification if you don't mind. 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: Sure, please. 

8 MR. SMITH: Common practice for 

9 people going into a radiological area was that 

10 we called them radiation monitors, monitors, 

11 they are now called RCPs. 

12 Monitors would take the 

13 individual's security credential, fill out the 

14 access log and issue the PIC. When the person 

15 would leave the area, they would provide that 

16 PIC information, or the PICs to the monitor 

17 and he would read that and enter it on the 

18 log. So there was no signing in if you will 

19 and signing out by the individual worker. 

20 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: Nicole will you 

22 clarify -- we did find log entries 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 

 70

1 everybody else, right? 

2 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, there were log 

3 entries, yes. I guess signing in was a bad 

4 term. They were indicated on this form that 

5 they had entered this area, were issued a PIC, 

6 and then, at the end of the shift, their PIC 

7 reading was logged in and the time that they 

8 exited the area was also logged in. 

9 And like I said, it happened to be 

10 for this one health physicist worker, there 

11 were 20 case instances where he essentially 

12 never checked out. Where the PIC that he was 

13 issued for that day, the number was not 

14 entered in. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, so that's a 

16 specific example. If you look at the entry on 

17 3/6/1967 you'll see the comment column says no 

18 PIC data, did not time out. And then, you 

19 know there are PIC data in other dates in 

20 March and April. And you go down to 5/5/1967 

21 again it says no PIC number, data no time out. 

22 So that's what we mean, Billy. 
 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 MR. CHU: But there appears to be a 

2 PIC reading on the one that you just read, 

3 Arjun. 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: 5/5? 

5 MR. CHU: No, you read the one on 

6 5/31. 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, I said 

8 5/5/1967. 

9 MR. CHU: Yes, well that's where he 

10 had no PIC, no id number, and no time out. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, both the 

12 columns are blank. And the other one that I 

13 said was 3/6/1967. 

14 MR. CHU: My point is that at other 

15 locations where you said he did not time out 

16 and there's no PIC numbers, but there is a PIC 

17 reading. 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: I only have two -- 

19 maybe I made a mistake in what I said. I 

20 thought I only read two different rows. 

21 MS. BRIGGS: Well there are some 

22 cases where the PIC reading is there and 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 

 72

1 individual just didn't write a time out time. 

2 Right, that wasn't included in our -- we took 

3 that into consideration. 

4 But there were many instances where 

5 the person did sign in or, whereas this 

6 person's name was put on the access register 

7 with a time in or sometimes it just says name 

8 was there to indicate that he had I guess 

9 entered the area, but there was no time out 

10 and no PIC reading. Those are the instances 

11 that we were focusing on. 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Billy, this 

13 is Brad Clawson. 

14 MR. SMITH: Yes, Brad? 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: How did Nevada 

16 Test Site deal with abnormalities like with 

17 your PICs. What I'm trying to figure out here 

18 is I know that they were very sensitive a lot 

19 of times and I know, in very strenuous work or 

20 so forth like that they can be dropped and so 

21 forth and they'd either go off-scale or they'd 

22 zero out. 
 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 How did they handle that down 

2 there? 

3 MR. SMITH: The first thing they 

4 would do is that they would indicate whatever 

5 the reading represented on the PIC and then 

6 look at the other people that were working 

7 alongside the individual to see whether or not 

8 that reading made any sense. 

9 Then they'd start up a preliminary 

10 investigation to see whether or not there was 

11 any particular cause for the PIC reading to be 

12 as high as it possibly was. 

13 So the fact that those changes are 

14 really substantive is the biggest concern if 

15 you have -- particularly when you're working 

16 either on a drilling or underground or 

17 something like that. But there were 

18 investigations and entries could have been 

19 made, would have been made on the access logs 

20 by the RPT if there was a problem with the 

21 PIC. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I was 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 

 74

1 wondering because I know we've got into 

2 situations where we've hit them or something 

3 with a wrench and the reading was way out from 

4 what it was. And they just -- in our sense 

5 they just followed with what our badge reading 

6 was 

7 I was just trying to come up with 

8 -- 

9 MR. SMITH: What would happen. I 

10 mean the person is still there it would have 

11 been exchange if they had expected if he had 

12 gone over 100 mr. 

13 CHAIR PRESLEY: In this case 

14 there's one on here that's like that where on 

15 5/1/1967 he has no PIC reading. But it says 

16 that his badge was pulled and his badge 

17 registered 265 mr. And it says that his 

18 badge was pulled, I think. Robert, do you 

19 have anything? 

20 MR. MORRIS: Yes, I would like to 

21 make a point. I think I've heard you say in 

22 the past, Billy -- this is Robert Morris, 
 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 excuse me, that sometimes the access logs were 

2 filled out ahead of time with expected people 

3 who would be on the site? 

4 MR. SMITH: That's true. 

5 MR. MORRIS: And the fact that 

6 there may be a name on there with no entry 

7 time or exit time might be a fact that they 

8 anticipated the person being there and that 

9 person did not show? 

10 MR. SMITH: That's true. 

11 MR. MORRIS: Do you think that that 

12 could have been a factor in some of these 

13 confusing entries, Nicole? 

14 MS. BRIGGS: Sure, that's certainly 

15 a possibility, sure. Yes, I wasn't aware that 

16 that was done. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: As I said, we 

18 haven't you know attempted to contact co19 workers or interview this person or anything 

20 like that. 

21 MR. CHU: Bob, going back to yours 

22 and if you're tracking it. This badge 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 

 76

1 pulled on 5/29 and the period that you talked 

2 about, 265, covered 5/1 to 5/31. 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right, right. 

4 MR. CHU: So, it looks like we have 

5 the 30, 20, and 65 and the 150 that's pretty 

6 close to that number. 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Nancy? 

8 (No response.) 

9 CHAIR PRESLEY: Nicole? 

10 MS. BRIGGS: Yes? 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: You want to go 

12 ahead? 

13 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, I guess we can 

14 complete. The last three cases we actually 

15 had very limited area access data for Table A16 8 for the security guard. 

17 As the table indicates there was -- 

18 although the area access register sheets were 

19 there, there was no data on those sheets. 

20 Table A-9, he was a wiremen or an 

21 electrician. He only had one data point for 

22 his area access register which read zero so 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 

 77

1 didn't have much data to work with there. 

2 And the last one, Table A-10, that 

3 individual was a welder and there was only two 

4 pieces of data for his area access registers. 

5 And so we didn't have much data to work with. 

6 That, I think, is really what we 

7 were limited by with how many of the cases 

8 actually had area access registered 

9 information for us to work with. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: And Nicole, if I 

11 might ask you this about this data set. Of 

12 the 120, how many has area access data, and we 

13 picked ten. 

14 MS. BRIGGS: Right, you know I 

15 don't know off-hand but I could look into 

16 that. I know we were, you know we didn't have 

17 much to choose from. 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, fine. 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: And the conclusion 

20 of this is? 

21 MS. BRIGGS: Excuse me? 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: And the conclusion 
 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 of this is? 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, Mr. Presley, 

3 the conclusion is that you know we examined 

4 ten cases and as Nicole had said we were 

5 limited largely by the area access register 

6 data. 

7 And out of these ten cases, in nine 

8 cases we did not find any evidence that the 

9 film badges were being taken off because film 

10 badge readings were about the same or higher 

11 than the PIC readings. 

12 And in the one case in three out of 

13 four years, why there was the question of no 

14 PIC entries in some cases and no evidence of 

15 log-out. We didn't find a number discrepancy, 

16 but we did find a number discrepancy in one 

17 year. 

18 And so in the vast majority of 

19 cases we did not find a problem. But you know 

20 we only looked at ten and as Nicole had said 

21 it's largely limited by the amount of 

22 information we had in the cases that we had 
 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 pulled. 

2 So, I guess the rest would be for 

3 the Working Group to decide whether this 

4 investigation provides you with sufficient 

5 information of your conclusion about that. 

6 We certainly did not find positive 

7 evidence that badges were being hidden in this 

8 investigation. Most of the indication, as I 

9 said nine out of ten was negative, and in the 

10 one case most of that was negative. There was 

11 this one question that we put before you but 

12 we do not know the cause of that. 

13 MS. OH: Arjun, this is Kate from 

14 Senator Reid's office. Can I ask you; the 

15 film that you have done this study on, one or 

16 two or three welders or -- 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: Ma'am, can you 

18 speak up please and say your name again? 

19 MS. OH: Sure, I'm Kate from 

20 Senator Reid's office. 

21 MR. KATZ: Kate Oh, Senator Reid's 

22 office. Thank you, Kate. 
 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 MS. OH: I'm just curious are you 

2 guys confident that the number of cases that 

3 you guys studied is representative of the 

4 worker categories. I notice that you only 

5 have one or two welders and such. 

6 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, Kate, if you're 

7 asking me whether one or two welders can be 

8 representative in any statistical sense, it 

9 cannot. 

10 MS. OH: Right. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: I mean we did look 

12 -- we pulled ten out of 120 and I think we 

13 tried, as Nicole explained and pick at least 

14 one from the various job categories. And we 

15 could do more than ten. But we are limited by 

16 the amount of information available in terms 

17 of these area access registers. 

18 Nicole, do you have a number on 

19 that or can you get a number later in the day? 

20 MS. BRIGGS: I could probably try 

21 and get you're a number later. 

22 MS. OH: 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 

 81

1 MR. RICH: Arjun, this is Bryce 

2 Rich and I'll ask just a quick question. As 

3 you've -- an Nicole perhaps, as you've gone 

4 through the records, do you find any of the 

5 individuals that were approaching the limits, 

6 most of the data that we see, there have been 

7 no limits. So, there was a concern for 

8 exceeding the limits this might be one other 

9 area that you could look at to -- 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: I didn't see any 

11 individual approach in a quarter here. I 

12 don't remember them. 

13 MR. RICH: No, I don't think so. 

14 And that's one area that really would be 

15 another indicator I would think because if you 

16 were approaching limits -- 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, so I think 

18 maybe you know if there is another question is 

19 we will go meet them, rely on NIOSH maybe in 

20 the dose reconstruction get completed or 

21 search the records in some other way to find 

22 individuals who were close to that 3 rem 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 

 82

1 per quarter or 5 rem per year. 

2 As I understood from what our 

3 office has said there were many. The one -- 

4 let me kind of explain a little bit more about 

5 that. There was one time where there were 

6 individuals who were approaching the dose 

7 limit. 

8 But that was -- and where a lot of 

9 the controversy and some quite important 

10 presentations to the Board arose in terms of 

11 the interpretation of the data and maybe data 

12 manipulation and taking off badges. 

13 And that was in the pre-1963 

14 period, so it's not in the period that we've 

15 investigated. We did look at that particular 

16 -- we did look at the files in that 

17 particular case. And a good bit of that 

18 confusion arose from the poor state of the 

19 record and non-comparable sets of records 

20 reporting, you know apples and oranges 

21 comparison. 

22 So some records had tritium 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 

 83

1 external dose added up and others did not. 

2 And a great deal of confusion, I think, arose 

3 out of that. 

4 In any case the one instance where 

5 this has arisen and there being numbers on the 

6 table was not in the SEC period being 

7 examined. 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Arjun or Nicole, 

9 just to clarify in my mind. On these ten 

10 cases you said on nine there's no 

11 inconsistencies. You identified one where 

12 there were inconsistencies and I'll refer to 

13 the table numbers so I can make sure I'm 

14 looking up the right data. 

15 That's Table A-7 that you're 

16 talking about inconsistencies. Is that right? 

17 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: And then on that 

19 one, just to summarize, it seems that the 

20 inconsistencies have to do with the worker not 

21 checking out with his PIC which we already -- 

22 I think Bob explained maybe how that 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 

 84

1 have come about. 

2 If I'm right in this evaluation 

3 then in my view I don't see any 

4 inconsistencies that effect the data. 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, that's not 100 

6 percent right, Gen. In the sense that for 

7 this one individual and one year we also found 

8 the sum of PIC readings that was quite a bit 

9 higher than the sum of badge readings. 

10 And I don't think there is -- now I 

11 have not personally looked at the records. 

12 Nicole, is there any indication in the records 

13 that there was some kind of investigation of 

14 the PIC having been knocked about and the PIC 

15 readings being suspiciously high and therefore 

16 to be rejected? 

17 MS. BRIGGS: Of these ten cases? 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, in this 

19 particular case? 

20 MS. BRIGGS: In this particular 

21 case, no I didn't run into that. 

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Arjun, however 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 

 85

1 that same individual, you don't question the 

2 difference in the other two years where the 

3 PIC reading is a whole lot lower, you know 

4 significantly lower. 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, no I think in 

6 the other two years that the numbers, the 

7 numbers are -- 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: So it would seem 

9 that that individual, if he were prone to 

10 hiding the badge or something, that he didn't. 

11 It's not consistent over the years. And to 

12 me the difference in that one year in 1967 

13 between his PIC and his film badge, the PIC is 

14 higher, but you know that's not -- it's 

15 probably in the realm of uncertainty with the 

16 PIC. I don't see a problem. 

17 MR. MAURO: If I may that's what 

18 we're doing here today -- this is John -- is 

19 in effect we're putting on the table in front 

20 of everyone, this is the results. We went 

21 into the process, we pulled numbers out, made 

22 a table, tried to disclose it as clearly as 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 

 86

1 possibly can at a high level of resolution as 

2 we can and then everyone can make up their own 

3 mind because, I mean certainly you look at the 

4 data and let it speak to you. 

5 And that was our intent. And it 

6 was -- as you notice we're hesitant in saying 

7 what we conclude. I'm sure everyone has in 

8 their own mind, I know I do have in my mind 

9 but I don't feel its appropriate. 

10 I'd rather leave it to the Work 

11 Group to look at the data and let it speak to 

12 you and you decide whether or not you see if 

13 there's anything in here that makes you 

14 concerned. Including the fact that we only 

15 look at 10, we picked 10. 

16 By the way Nicole, in these ten how 

17 many pages -- these were hard copies that you 

18 -- 

19 MS. BRIGGS: Well, I mean I didn't 

20 print them out. I worked, you know, from the 

21 database. 

22 MR. MAURO: And is this 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 

 87

1 pages. I mean is this 100 pages, 1000, I mean 

2 -- 

3 MS. BRIGGS: Let's see, my memory 

4 is that for each case depending on, some cases 

5 more than others, certainly in the hundreds of 

6 pages. Even in the cases where there was very 

7 little data we're talking about having to go 

8 through 200, 300, 400 pages. 

9 And there were a couple of cases, 

10 particularly this case for Table A-7, I'm 

11 pretty sure there was about 2,000 pages of 

12 information. Not necessarily the film badge 

13 data but just, you know, pages of information 

14 for this case. 

15 MR. MAURO: So it's a matter of 

16 surgically going through a handwritten and 

17 typewritten records or electronic on PDF I 

18 guess and extracting the information. 

19 Was there, in terms of the 

20 extraction process I recall that we did some 

21 quality control checks in terms of going 

22 through such an immense amount of information, 
 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 extracting from the thousand of pages and 

2 trying to boil it down to what we're looking 

3 at. How was that handled? 

4 MS. BRIGGS: Let's see, either 

5 myself or some of our other members of the 

6 SC&A team would go in initially, collect all 

7 the data, and then we made sure that it -- 

8 another individual went into the data also and 

9 confirmed all the data that were logged in. 

10 MR. MAURO: Thank you. 

11 MR. BEHLING: Nicole, this is Hans 

12 Behling. I have a question regarding the one 

13 individual whose PIC data exceeded the film 

14 badge. Do you know off hand what his -- for 

15 that one year where there was the 

16 inconsistency that you keep mentioning. What 

17 was his total cumulative exposure -- but then 

18 in fact let me rephrase it. 

19 Was there an exposure that would 

20 have -- was potentially going to put him over 

21 the 3 rem per quarter or 5 rem per year dose 

22 limit that might have given him the incentive 
 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 to do something with his film badge? 

2 MS. BRIGGS: I don't think so 

3 because his -- well his film badge totaled for 

4 the year that we're talking about is 1967. 

5 His film badge total for that year was not 

6 quite 2 rem. It was 1,945 millirem and that 

7 was his film badge total for the year. His 

8 PIC total for that year was about a 2.7 rem. 

9 MR. BEHLING: And what was -- in 

10 terms of time line, what was the quarterly 

11 doses because sometimes, as you approach the 

12 end of year, you may have reasons to question 

13 whether or not you're going to finish out the 

14 year and still come under the wire with regard 

15 to the dose limit? 

16 And so sometimes it's obviously a 

17 function of looking at the data in terms of 

18 the times for which these assigned values 

19 apply. 

20 MS. BRIGGS: I didn't break it down 

21 by quarter for this case. 

22 MR. MAKHAJANI: But we can 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 

 90

1 One point to consider might be that his 1965 

2 total was pretty close to 5 rem. 

3 MR. NETON: You know this is Jim 

4 Neton, I -- 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: 1966 total rem was 

6 2 rem and odd, so his doses seem to go down. 

7 Maybe that was because, you know he was doing 

8 some other work, different tests, or maybe an 

9 indication of something else. It's very hard 

10 to tell. 

11 MR. SMITH: But he was the radcon 

12 individual. 

13 MS. BRIGGS: He was a health 

14 physicist. 

15 MR. SMITH: Yes, and those are the 

16 people with, from what I recall, were people 

17 who were among the highest exposed 

18 individuals. 

19 MR. MAKHAJANI: For external dose 

20 maybe, not uniformly. Well we'll come to that 

21 in the afternoon. 

22 MR. NETON: This is Jim Neton 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 

 91

1 I'm looking at the 1967 data and I agree with 

2 Gen. I don't think that there's any 

3 statistical discrepancy between 1,945 

4 cumulative for the film badge versus 2,700 

5 millirem for the PIC data. 

6 I brought this up the first time 

7 this project was proposed and I said, what are 

8 you going to accept as reasonable agreement 

9 because I think if you look through literature 

10 that type of agreement is very consistent with 

11 what you see in the field between a pocket 

12 ionization chamber and a film badge. 

13 But I don't think any hay can be 

14 made by this difference of these two numbers 

15 personally. 

16 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, we're not 

17 saying it should or should not be made. 

18 MR. NETON: I agree, but I'm just 

19 stating my opinion that these numbers are not 

20 really different. 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: Right, the one -- 

22 if you look at the text where the totals by 
 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 year are given this individual, we haven't 

2 remarked on this in the text. 

3 But this individual did approach 

4 five rem in 1965. And doses, it seemed to go 

5 down in 1965 to `66 and then from `66 to `67. 

6 So we have three years of data here. 

7 And the PIC totals, you know, in 

8 the first two years were quite low and much, 

9 much lower than the film badge totals and the 

10 reverse was true in the last year. 

11 So, I -- it's my intent and also, 

12 you know PIC readings were not reported 

13 numbers of times in all three years. 

14 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you, Arjun. 

15 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris. I 

16 think there's one materially important fact 

17 that probably needs correction in your working 

18 draft. And that is this idea of signing in 

19 and signing out. 

20 I think the idea is portrayed 

21 incorrectly in your description of the -- 

22 you're narrative of how things happened 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 

 93

1 this company. 

2 I just wondered, since this is a 

3 working draft, that your plan was to go back 

4 and make that kind of correction there. 

5 MR. MAURO: We'll take our 

6 direction from the Work Group. Certainly if 

7 there's any factual information or other 

8 representation. Especially if this material 

9 is going to be cleared and posted, we 

10 certainly would want this document to be as 

11 clear and accurate as we possibly could make 

12 it. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: Billy, may I ask a 

14 question about that since what's just been 

15 said was based on what Billy told us? 

16 Billy, was that sort of an informal 

17 practice or was that normal written practice 

18 that you created a register of people that you 

19 expected to go in and then there was a 

20 notation that the person actually didn't show 

21 up? 

22 Normally one would expect that 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 

 94

1 the person didn't show up there would be some 

2 kind of notation that they didn't show up. 

3 MR. SMITH: Well, it was not an 

4 informal practice. Although the logging that 

5 took place was done by monitors. Those cases 

6 where, generally you could tell when a monitor 

7 was working in his bay station and he had the 

8 daily reports which were the reports of the 

9 last film processing of the last previous days 

10 that he had the listing. 

11 You could tell the access logs that 

12 were probably pre-prepared in that most often 

13 they were alphabetical. Whereas when people 

14 just, you know when they were not prepared in 

15 advance, then the people would be randomly 

16 signed in by that particular monitor as the 

17 person would enter the radiological area. 

18 And in some cases these access logs 

19 were used just to identify people that were 

20 going into areas and they were not necessarily 

21 issued PICs. So the comment that was made 

22 earlier that all people that entered 
 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 radiological areas wore dosimeters and PICs is 

2 not a true statement. 

3 They may have entered a 

4 radiological area with or without a PIC. 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: Now, this would be 

6 true that the same people would be issued a 

7 PIC sometime and not other times. Is that 

8 what you're saying? 

9 MR. SMITH: It depended on the job. 

10 If a particular -- let's say you were talking 

11 about a reactor where the work location was 

12 designated as a radiological area and 

13 everybody was issued PICs, then everybody 

14 would be issued PICs all the time until it was 

15 declared not a radiological area. 

16 MR. RICH: Billy, this is Bryce, 

17 just a clarification. It could still be a 

18 radiological area but the assignment of the 

19 work area would not be in a radiation area 

20 requiring a PIC. 

21 MR. SMITH: That's right. 

22 MR. MAKHAJANI: This person 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 

 96

1 obviously in radiological areas for all three 

2 years. The film badge readings clearly 

3 indicate that they were radiological areas. I 

4 think that that's not an issue with this work. 

5 MR. SMITH: The other point is you 

6 know that the use of PICs is a tool that's 

7 used for exposure control. The suggestion 

8 that the agreement between the PICs and the 

9 film badges needs to be 100 percent really 

10 doesn't make a lot of sense in our business. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: We haven't actually 

12 chosen agreement as the criteria as I 

13 explained a couple of times. We only chose 

14 the criterion as the PIC reading being greater 

15 than film badges indicates a problem, not the 

16 other way about. 

17 So, if you look at this particular 

18 worker you'll see in 1965 their total PIC 

19 reading was only 355 millirem. But their film 

20 badge total was 4,415 millirem and we didn't 

21 call out a discrepancy over there even though 

22 the readings don't match. 
 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 That's because the purpose of this 

2 wasn't to investigate how the PICs worked and 

3 whether the readings were accurate when they 

4 were up or down relative to the film badge. 

5 But simply to find whether there was any 

6 evidence of film badges not being worn. 

7 But in this case I think this is 

8 the only worker actually who ever approached 5 

9 rem in any year of all the ten cases that we 

10 did examine. And none of the -- actually the 

11 PIC reading and film badge readings don't 

12 match in any of the years, they're not even 

13 close. 

14 CHAIR PRESLEY: Gen? 

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: I have a 

16 suggestion with regard to this draft report, 

17 that in that section where you discuss this 

18 particular worker where it says that there are 

19 two inconsistencies, I think the wording there 

20 implies -- it just implies something that 

21 isn't there. 

22 I think I would say that there 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 

 98

1 two interesting observations and then go on to 

2 explain what you all have been talking about. 

3 What they were and what it meant. 

4 I think to call them 

5 inconsistencies says something that we really 

6 we don't have evidence for. 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: We looked at the 

8 same term as in all the other nine cases in 

9 that one. We did not find any evidence that 

10 you know that the film badge readings were 

11 higher or about equal to the PIC readings. We 

12 called that no inconsistencies. 

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: But you're 

14 leading the reader to a conclusion. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: So would you 

16 suggest that we go back and change all of it? 

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: No, Arjun, I 

18 think with the objective of this particular 

19 study to use that wording leads the reader to 

20 a conclusion that really isn't there. 

21 MR. MAURO: I think we need to use 

22 a terminology -- this is John. We went 
 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 through this exercise. We felt that it might 

2 help. And these comparisons, really what 

3 we're really saying is when we make these 

4 comparisons is there anything about these 

5 comparisons that would raise our attention to 

6 this issue or inform us related to this issue. 

7 And I would say, and I was trying 

8 not to do this, but there's nothing about 

9 these comparisons that I would call a smoking 

10 gun. Okay, the fact that the two numbers 

11 differ, whether one is higher or lower or 

12 lower or higher is not in my mind the 

13 important point. 

14 The important point is, do we see 

15 after we are done consistent results that show 

16 every time we have these paired numbers that 

17 we see over and over again readings where you 

18 have positive PICs in a given and zero, or it 

19 would be zero -- this film badge during that 

20 particular time, or you didn't wear it. A 

21 zero reading consistently found. 

22 I went into this with the idea 
 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 that, does a pattern emerge from the ten that 

2 would inform us about whether or not there 

3 seemed to be something amiss. And up until 

4 now we've been zeroing in and focusing on one 

5 particular worker where there seems to be 

6 something where oh, it looks like in this 

7 particular case the PIC was a little higher or 

8 somewhat higher than the film badge. 

9 I think unfortunately we forgot 

10 about the other workers where the results came 

11 down that were surprisingly compatible between 

12 the PIC and the film badge readings. 

13 So, I mean -- 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well John, I 

15 wouldn't say we forgotten about them. I think 

16 we represented -- we represented our 

17 investigation accurately. You know we said in 

18 nine of the ten cases the film badge readings 

19 were the same or higher than the PIC readings 

20 and there was no reason for concern in terms 

21 of film badges being taken off. 

22 We also in response to Kate's 
 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 question, you know we haven't looked in worker 

2 categories that represented a number. I don't 

3 know that we could from the data that we've 

4 pulled. I don't think so. 

5 MR. MAURO: Well, I'm going back to 

6 Gen's concern. 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: We found an issue 

8 with one how it is to be characterized. I 

9 think that's, of course entirely up to the 

10 Work Group. 

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: And that's my 

12 concern. Again I recommend not only the 

13 wording under that particular individual, but 

14 on page -- what is it page six on my report 

15 that's the end of section 2.1 where you talk 

16 about there are no inconsistencies in nine out 

17 of the ten cases. There was -- and that's 

18 true, we've agreed on that. 

19 And one case is that sentence that 

20 I think could be misinterpreted. I think 

21 someone down the line could take that without 

22 fully understanding what we've been discussing 
 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 and say, well, you know one of the cases was 

2 suspicious. And that's not true. And I don't 

3 want that to be misinterpreted. 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: You know of course, 

5 we can go back and revise the report. But the 

6 main, I think you need to look at the worker'' 

7 data in its entirety as it's presented there. 

8 He did have one year in which he 

9 approached 5 rem. And Lynn Anspaugh has often 

10 pointed out that you know if workers are 

11 afraid of being laid off and approach 5 rems 

12 they are not going to let their, their not 

13 going to let their badges approach 5 rems or 3 

14 rem and a quarter that they might preemptively 

15 do something. 

16 And we don't know that and we 

17 actually, you know, we have to conduct a much 

18 different and much more detailed investigation 

19 than we have done to actually come to some 

20 kind of conclusion. 

21 The words that are used to describe 

22 these set of numbers and I think it should 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 

 103

1 seen as a whole for this particular Work 

2 Group. You know, of course you know, 

3 different people use different words, but I 

4 think the numbers say something and whether 

5 that needs to be addressed further in what 

6 conclusion the Working Group wants to draw, 

7 you know, it's for the Working Group. 

8 MR. BEHLING: Arjun, this is Hans 

9 and I think it's important to make a statement 

10 here. If the question that you are raising is 

11 did in fact workers take off their badge and 

12 put them in their lunch boxes or in their back 

13 pockets was the central question and we're 

14 trying to solve that particular question by 

15 looking at the data, you may not get there. 

16 What I'm really saying here is that 

17 you may in fact have had workers telling you 

18 the truth and still your data doesn't support 

19 it for the simple reason that when you take 

20 your badge off then there's only one on the 

21 chest and put in the back pocket it's going to 

22 read the same thing because we're 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 

 104

1 about an ambient radiation field that will 

2 probably give you the same results whether the 

3 badge is on your chest or it's in your back 

4 pocket or even in your lunch box provided the 

5 lunch box is in the same area that the worker 

6 is located. 

7 So, you may have the situation 

8 where the workers were telling you basing what 

9 they did as being truthful and yet your data 

10 will not allow you to make that statement as 

11 to whether they wore their badges on their 

12 chest or whether they wore it in their back 

13 pocket. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: Hans, that's why -- 

15 that's the reason why I think we've been 

16 rather careful in how we've said all of this. 

17 We didn't find any evidence of this. We're 

18 not representing this as a conclusion 

19 investigation that will show, you know we had 

20 some people in various positions of authority 

21 including one person who was very involved in 

22 the health physics of the Nevada Test Site who 
 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 had said that this happened. 

2 We've got a lot of workers that 

3 said they did this and I certainly don't have 

4 any reason to disbelieve them. But this was 

5 an attempt to make an empirical investigation 

6 as to whether it was -- you could find 

7 evidence of that. And then as John has said 

8 it's very difficult prove negative. 

9 MR. BEHLING: And basically what 

10 you've only pointed out is the fact that 

11 people in the later years were not concerned 

12 about exceeding a dose limit, but more 

13 concerned about damaging their badges. 

14 MR. NETON: Hans, I think there's 

15 two issues here. Now this is Jim. I recall 

16 that the assertion was not that they put them 

17 into their back pockets in this earlier 

18 period, but they actually left them at the 

19 control point or somewhere outside the 

20 radiological area. 

21 MR. BEHLING: That's correct. 

22 MR. NETON: And so that's 
 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 applicable to this period. I'm glad to hear 

2 you say that people putting badges in their 

3 back pocket in their later years is not that 

4 significant of a difference in the dose. 

5 MR. BEHLING: Right. 

6 MR. NETON: Because that's what 

7 you're currently investigating and I would 

8 suggest that that's not a huge issue even if 

9 they did for the same reasons that you just 

10 stated. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: Now, in one of the 

12 interviews that I had done earlier that we 

13 documented in the site profile review even 

14 being the assertions of you know badges being 

15 left in the trucks or between lead bricks or 

16 rocks or something like that. 

17 MR. NETON: Right, that's what we 

18 would be investigating. 

19 MR. MAKHAJANI: So there's a 

20 suggestion of shielding and the badges not 

21 being in the work place. And that would have 

22 happened before 1966. That was the specific 
 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 context of that interview. 

2 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark, I had a 

3 quick question for clarification. This 

4 individual also worked at another site during 

5 the year of 1965. I wondered if you possibly 

6 added any of that dose from the other site 

7 into the dose that you reported for that year. 

8 I wondered if it was so many that 

9 you just -- 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: All the doses were 

11 added. I don't know if we noted the site. 

12 Nicole? 

13 MS. BRIGGS: Sorry, I'm on mute. 

14 No, we didn't note the specific site. I think 

15 he was the only individual where that 

16 happened. 

17 MR. ROLFES: Okay, I'm just looking 

18 at the details of this case and there was 

19 covered employment in 1965 for the great 

20 majority of the year at Hanford. 

21 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, for the cancers, 

22 oh no, we would -- I didn't take that into 
 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 consideration. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Okay, so it was only 

3 Nevada Test Site? 

4 MS. BRIGGS: Oh yes, it was only 

5 Nevada Test Site. 

6 MR. ROLFES: Okay, okay. 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Let's take a break 

8 for ten minutes. I've got 10 to 11. Am I 

9 about five fast or not. In about five minutes 

10 to 11 we'll come back and I'd like to get 

11 started at that time on the occupational and 

12 environmental dose. And we'll take this up at 

13 two o'clock under Working Group discussions 

14 back on what we've been talking about with the 

15 film badges. Is that acceptable? 

16 (No response.) 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: We can talk about 

18 this all day long. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, we are putting the 

20 phone on mute, but we're not disconnecting the 

21 line. 

22 MS. BRIGGS: Thank 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 

 109

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

2 matter went off the record at 10:44 a.m. and 

3 resumed at 10:59 a.m.) 

4 MR. KATZ: This is the NTS Work 

5 Group the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker 

6 Health. We're getting started again after a 

7 short break. 

8 Before we get started I just want 

9 to -- I have a message for John Funk. John, I 

10 assume you're still on the line here. I just 

11 want to let you know we had you on the agenda 

12 for 11:30 a.m. But as you see we're quite off 

13 agenda. Right now we're about to start Lynn 

14 Anspaugh's presentation about environmental 

15 dose at the site. And he has quite a lot to 

16 present. 

17 So, here's what we'll do, John. 

18 John are you there? 

19 (No response.) 

20 MR. KATZ: John Funk, you may be on 

21 mute. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: Is anybody 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 

 110

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, this is Wanda, 

2 I'm here. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, good someone is 

4 there; that's a good sign. But, John, one 

5 last call then John, are you on the line? 

6 (No response.) 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, okay so John is 

8 not on the line then. 

9 MR. FUNK: Ted, my mute button 

10 stuck. 

11 MR. KATZ: So you are there, good. 

12 John, listen, did you hear what I said so far? 

13 MR. FUNK: No, I was getting a 

14 drink of water. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, so John we are off 

16 track in terms of time in the sense that we 

17 spent more time on the badging issue than we 

18 expected and that can always happen, of 

19 course. 

20 So, although we have you set up for 

21 11:30 a.m. after Lynn Anspaugh makes his 

22 presentation and there's some discussion. 
 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 Lynn is starting later. So it may be that we 

2 have time for you before lunch, but if we 

3 don't we'll just move you to after lunch so 

4 that you can still have the benefit of Lynn 

5 Anspaugh's presentation and discussion before 

6 you make your remarks, providing that you can 

7 be with us after lunch. Is that good? 

8 MR. FUNK: I will be here all day. 

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. 

10 MR. FUNK: It's fine with me. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you. 

12 MR. FUNK: All right, fine. 

13 MR. KATZ: It's all yours. 

14 CHAIR PRESLEY: Before we get 

15 started, I'm going to pass something around. 

16 I'd like to have everybody please -- Lynn, 

17 it's yours. 

18 MR. ANSPAUGH: In order to 

19 facilitate this discussion, I assume everybody 

20 has a copy of my report and it will be easier 

21 if you separate this. Some of the figures are 

22 available separately because I am going 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 

 112

1 refer to some of the figures. 

2 And unless -- before I might forget 

3 it let me tell you I made one mistake on 

4 figure 21. And I discussed a photograph of a 

5 drill rig. And as many of you probably have 

6 sharp eyes have noted that is not a drill rig 

7 in there. It's a crane. And the drill rig 

8 has already been removed and that path marked 

9 by the black lines may be where the drill rig 

10 was drug off or drug in. But I did make a 

11 mistake in not looking at that close enough 

12 and it's not a drill rig it's a crane, 

13 commonly called big boom. 

14 So, this report is very different 

15 than what we discussed before in the sense 

16 that there are no personal information in here 

17 and that's why it got cleared easily, I guess. 

18 This is a report that's really a review of a 

19 methodology and as such, it only discusses the 

20 methodology, nothing to do with individuals. 

21 And the review is about the 

22 document that's part of the Nevada Test Site 
 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 Technical Basis Document. It's the part four 

2 of that document called Nevada Test Site 

3 Occupational Environmental Dose. 

4 And the purpose of this document is 

5 to examine how to calculate radiation doses to 

6 workers when they were outside of controlled 

7 areas where they would have been subject to 

8 monitoring by air samples and other means. 

9 So basically it involves people 

10 working out in the field mainly while their 

11 running bulldozers in non-controlled areas or 

12 working on drilling rigs or so forth. 

13 Basically my interpretation is it's 

14 anything when they were outside of a radiation 

15 control area that would have been subjected to 

16 air sampling for example. 

17 And this particular report has been 

18 revised now twice and this is also the first 

19 time that there is consideration of incidental 

20 ingestion of soil which is another pathway of 

21 some importance. 

22 I might mention that 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 

 114

1 report from me. It's -- in order for me to 

2 participate in this activity there was special 

3 dispensation because I am conflicted. So 

4 there is a little bit of a Chinese wall 

5 between me and the rest of SC&A. So this is 

6 my work alone. 

7 So, basically I examined the 

8 methodology of this document and the page two, 

9 I think, is a very important page because it 

10 talks about the fundamental assumptions that 

11 were made in the NIOSH methodology in terms of 

12 driving this occupational environmental dose 

13 which is basically involves not only the 

14 incidental ingesting the soil, but also the 

15 inhalation of material that came about from 

16 resuspension or in my mind it should include 

17 the amount of material that came about from 

18 current activities going on at the Nevada Test 

19 Site. 

20 And so some of the fundamental 

21 assumptions that were made in the document 

22 from NIOSH was that there was no contamination 
 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 of the Nevada Test Site after July 1962. 

2 This is a very important 

3 consideration in the methodology that was 

4 developed. And a second important fundamental 

5 assumption was that air samplers operated on 

6 the Nevada Test Site during 1971 through 2001 

7 can be used to derive air concentrations that 

8 would have been seen by these same air 

9 samplers during 1963 to 1970. 

10 So, basically can you take current 

11 air samples and extract them back for nine or 

12 ten years. And the third fundamental 

13 assumption was whether or not air 

14 concentrations measured by air samplers 

15 outside of cafeterias or dispensaries or those 

16 kind of locations are representative of those 

17 actually experienced by workers at the Nevada 

18 Test Site when they were doing their work out 

19 in the field. 

20 And then the fourth fundamental 

21 assumption was that there was no clean-ups of 

22 radioactivity at the Nevada test site between 
 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 1962 and the 1980s when the surveys were made 

2 by the Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution 

3 Program. 

4 The fourth assumption, maybe, is 

5 not so obvious, but it's important to know 

6 that in order to extrapolate back to look at 

7 air concentrations from radionuclides other 

8 than plutonium, the data from RIDA program, 

9 Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution, were 

10 used to formulate that extrapolation. 

11 So these assumptions, the first one 

12 is the contamination of the NTS after 1962 and 

13 it stated repeatedly in the NIOSH document 

14 that after the atmospheric testing ceased 

15 there was -- the only source of air 

16 concentrations seen on the Nevada Test Site 

17 were due to resuspension of aged materials. 

18 And that's basically how the 

19 procedure goes. I think this assumption is 

20 not valid for several reasons. And if you 

21 look at Table 1 for example. These are five 

22 very large planned releases that occurred 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 

 117

1 we need to remember that, even though there 

2 was a limited test ban treaty the Plowshare 

3 activities were specifically exempted as long 

4 as that activity did not cross international 

5 borders. 

6 So we had some very large 

7 experiments at the Nevada Test Site, the five 

8 mentioned here that were basically cratering 

9 events that lofted a great deal of activity 

10 into the air. And Buggy itself was a five-row 

11 shot as I recall that was designed to simulate 

12 how one might create a new Panama Canal with 

13 nuclear explosives, which was a very serious 

14 consideration at the time. 

15 And you can see that these events 

16 released amounts of material on the order of 

17 megacuries and sometimes propelling ten 

18 megacuries. 

19 So these were very large releases 

20 and I just might mention that Schooner event 

21 violated the test ban treaty very clearly. 

22 Activity was seen as far away as Finland. 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 

 118

1 that was the end of the Plowshare cratering 

2 event. 

3 The President was very angry at the 

4 time because of the violation of the test ban 

5 treaty. 

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Lynn, could I ask 

7 a question on that table? 

8 MR. ANSPAUGH: Sure. 

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: When you -- Table 

10 1 on page two where you say released curies at 

11 H+12. What is H+12, I mean is that something 

12 above the ground or -- 

13 MR. ANSPAUGH: Well, this is a very 

14 important point and, because radioactivity 

15 decays so rapidly after a nuclear explosion, 

16 if you measure it five minutes after the event 

17 you're going to get one answer. If you 

18 measure it ten days after the event you're 

19 going to get a very different answer. 

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: So that's always 

21 -- 

22 MR. ANSPAUGH: So 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 

 119

1 normalization of what it would be like 12 

2 hours after the event. 

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I thought it had 

4 to do with height or something. 

5 MR. ANSPAUGH: No. 

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, okay so 12 

7 hours after the event. Then at what point? 

8 MR. ANSPAUGH: This is total 

9 release. 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, so that's 

11 taking the source term, so to speak, and 

12 that's so some of it could be confined and 

13 some of it could go out. 

14 MR. ANSPAUGH: Well basically this 

15 is a material that is beyond the original 

16 crater location. 

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: This goes out 

18 into the atmosphere, that amount? 

19 MR. ANSPAUGH: Well not necessarily 

20 all the way into the atmosphere. This would 

21 include the base surge. And most of this 

22 material is still on site. But it's just 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 

 120

1 at it's original point. 

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. 

3 MR. ROLFES: The refractories would 

4 have stayed on site and some of the particles 

5 would have been -- 

6 MR. ANSPAUGH: There would be 

7 fragination, more of the volatile's would be 

8 on site and more of the refractories would be 

9 on site. And when we're talking about Buggy 

10 in fact that did produce the highest 

11 contamination that was measured on site in 

12 RIDA. And this was acknowledged on the NIOSH 

13 report as this area had the highest 

14 contamination. 

15 But because it was in a location 

16 not deemed very accessible, it was 

17 disregarded. But there is very clear evidence 

18 that that was a significant source of 

19 contamination. 

20 The other thing is there were all 

21 sorts of releases that were not planned. And 

22 if you look at Table 2 in fact there were 225 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 releases between the 1963 to 1970 period. And 

2 this includes the Plowshare shots and the 

3 plutonium dispersal tests that are shown in 

4 Table 3, but it does not include the test of 

5 the nuclear rocket engines. 

6 So, some of these releases were 

7 very, very small, just barely detectable. 

8 Some of them were very, very large. And I 

9 think it's important to remember that 

10 containment at the Nevada Test Site was not 

11 very good for the years `63 through 1970. 

12 And the last major event occurred 

13 on December 18, 1970, this was the Baneberry 

14 event. And that was such a large release that 

15 should not have occurred that the test site 

16 was actually shut down in terms of doing any 

17 testing for several months while they tried to 

18 get a handle on that, and they created the 

19 Containment Evaluation Panel. And I mentioned 

20 for Baneberry the geologist told them ahead of 

21 time that you're going to have trouble with 

22 that shot and they went ahead and fired 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 

 122

1 anyway. 

2 So, the geologists obviously didn't 

3 have the attention of the decision-makers. 

4 But after that point they had a lot of 

5 influence and this kind of activity came to 

6 more or less an abrupt stop after the 

7 Baneberry event when there was a lot more 

8 careful consideration of whether or not such 

9 events were going to occur. 

10 Table 4 is a list of the events at 

11 the Nevada Test Site which actually produced 

12 activities that was seen off-site. So these 

13 are the larger events and you can see that 

14 Baneberry released a million curies. And 

15 there was other events that released similar 

16 amounts and most of them somewhat less. 

17 Pike was a bit of an unusual event 

18 because it had a cloud that headed straight 

19 for Las Vegas and people were very concerned 

20 about that. And that also led to revised 

21 planning in terms of, don't you ever shoot an 

22 underground shot if it's going to head for Las 
 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 Vegas. 

2 And so there was changes that were 

3 going on. This was a learning process. I 

4 mean you don't confine a nuclear explosion 

5 underground perfectly without a lot of careful 

6 working. And it took a while to get that 

7 experience to really know how to do this. 

8 The next table is tests of nuclear 

9 rocket engines and we tend not to remember 

10 these nuclear rocket engine tests. But in 

11 fact there were about 25 of them in the 1963 

12 to the 1970 period. 

13 Some of them released large amounts 

14 of activity. Some of it went off-site. And 

15 some of it -- a lot of it stayed on-site 

16 depending on what the particular situation 

17 was. 

18 And the particular sites where 

19 these events occurred were heavily 

20 contaminated and in fact they were rather 

21 thoroughly cleaned up before the radiation, 

22 before the Radionuclide Inventory 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 

 124

1 Distribution Project ever made it's 

2 measurements. 

3 And then the final Table 6 is the 

4 nuclear ramjets. These were relatively small 

5 release of activity and it's just put in there 

6 for completeness. 

7 Now one of the things I looked at 

8 was the site environmental surveillance 

9 program in terms of well what were these 

10 measurements actually reporting during this 

11 period of 1963 to 1970. And how well could 

12 measurements in 1971 to 2001 capture these 

13 releases. 

14 So, there's a lot of discussion in 

15 here on the environmental surveillance program 

16 and what it's purpose was and what it's 

17 purpose was not. 

18 And on page seven, I would call 

19 your attention to the quote that says, the 

20 results of environmental surveillance and 

21 sampling activity values cannot be used in 

22 calculating personnel exposure doses, and 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 

 125

1 goes on to explain what they were. 

2 And then the first results really 

3 from this environmental surveillance report 

4 were given in this Glora and Brown report 

5 which started out with 12 air sampling 

6 stations and that are shown in Figure 1 of the 

7 report which unfortunately doesn't have the 

8 test site superimposed. 

9 But you can see that they are 

10 fairly widely scattered throughout the test 

11 site. They were using 8 X 10 glass fiber 

12 filters which, as you all know, are not very 

13 efficient in capturing radioiodine. 

14 The statement was made that they 

15 were going to operate caustic scrubbers to 

16 look at radio iodine but they never showed any 

17 data. I suspect these caustic scrubbers 

18 didn't work very well in the desert 

19 environment and probably dried out very 

20 rapidly. 

21 Any way, we don't have specific 

22 data for them. And one of the things 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 

 126

1 occurred shortly after this network was set in 

2 place was the problem of shot Pike that I 

3 mentioned before. And you can see in Figure 2 

4 here that there were dramatic increases in air 

5 quality or air concentrations of gross beta 

6 and gross alpha, I've got gross beta shown 

7 here, that were increased as far much as a 

8 factor of 100. 

9 And it was noted that these 

10 increases occurred in nine out of 12 air 

11 sampling stations and they occurred in both 

12 upwind and downwind locations. 

13 So, this is representative of this 

14 unplanned release causing a considerable 

15 disruption in terms of the concentration of 

16 airborne activity on the site. 

17 The next problem or next reporting 

18 period is for `64 through `65 operating on 

19 fiscal years. And during that period there 

20 were a few more air samplers running. 

21 And locations are shown on Figure 

22 3, although this is a difficult figure 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 

 127

1 interpret. We have to look at the upper left 

2 quadrant to know whether there was an air 

3 sampler operating there or not. But I draw 

4 your attention to Table 7 which indicates the 

5 locations and you see where the samples were 

6 located. They are by and large, they are by 

7 and large at cafeterias and dispensaries or 

8 guard gates in some cases buildings at Mercury 

9 or NRDS. 

10 And so I think it's fairly clear 

11 that these locations were not picked to 

12 represent where workers were in the field, but 

13 they were probably strongly influenced by 

14 where they had stable sources of power and 

15 where somebody could more or less keep their 

16 eye on them. 

17 So, I think that's an important 

18 point that continues for this period of time 

19 when these samplers were operating. They were 

20 not out in the field, they were at locations 

21 that would not represent active activities. 

22 Now there are some data here shown 
 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 in Figure 4. And the biggest thing is -- the 

2 biggest point here is from a Chinese test that 

3 you can see that occurred in October of 1964. 

4 But let me just mention that one of the 

5 drawbacks of the data in these reports is that 

6 you have maybe 11 or 12 air samplers operating 

7 and they're operating for a week and what you 

8 see up on it here is the mean and the range 

9 for all of the 11 to 14 air samplers. 

10 So it's not possible to look at 

11 this data and to tell which station had the 

12 highest result. You know I think that's 

13 probably -- excuse me -- I think that's 

14 probably one of the reasons why these data 

15 weren't used more extensively, because you 

16 can't tell which sample is which in these 

17 graphs. 

18 So in the later part of this Figure 

19 4, it's stated that the pick-up in air 

20 concentration is related to activity at the 

21 NTS. And then the next period is July `66 

22 through `67. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 There were 20 stations and there 

2 were some activities that increased which were 

3 due to NRDS and NTS. There was one sampler at 

4 the HENRE site which is -- that was the former 

5 BREN tower that now has an accelerator on it, 

6 where Billy Smith actually worked when he 

7 came to the test site first. 

8 And this air sampler did show a 

9 high activity which evidently was caused by 

10 the Nash event which was another one of the 

11 things that, items that leaked. 

12 This was also the first time they 

13 had some background stations that were looking 

14 at environmental gamma exposure rates. And 

15 those background samples operated for a few 

16 years, but usually what happened, if anything 

17 really was noticed, was they saturated and 

18 weren't that useful. So they were -- didn't 

19 operate that long. 

20 Now going onto some things that 

21 were more interesting if we look at the period 

22 from July 1967 through July 1968, which gets 
 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 us to -- Figure 9 shows where the stations 

2 were and Figure 10 shows some of the air 

3 sample results. We see that there are two 

4 very strong peaks that actually go off the 

5 scale here. 

6 One of these was due to leak called 

7 the Hupmobile shot. And you see the peak 

8 value there is 1.5 times, no 5.15 times 10 to 

9 the minus 11 which is somewhat off-scale. 

10 And then we have the Buggy event 

11 which has the highest activity which is about 

12 200-some magnitude beyond what the highest 

13 values are elsewhere in the graph. So, again 

14 this was a very substantial input of 

15 radionuclide material that resulted from the 

16 Buggy event which, again, I remind you was 

17 found to have the highest contamination by the 

18 Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution 

19 Project. And this Buggy event occurred on 

20 March 12, 1968. 

21 And also at this time there was 

22 something which did not occur very often, 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 

 131

1 due to the Buggy event there actually was a 

2 reported contamination of potable water supply 

3 in the Area 20 dispensary. Now, I don't know 

4 how an event like that would contaminate a 

5 potable water supply, but it did, at least it 

6 was reported that way in the data. 

7 And the background radiation 

8 monitors also showed some strong saturation 

9 due to the Buggy event and also due to the 

10 Door Mist event. This was in the `67 to `68 

11 period. 

12 Now the next period was July `68 

13 through `69 which includes the Schooner event 

14 which again was that cratering event that I 

15 discussed with you before, that was the end of 

16 the Plowshare cratering program because it 

17 violated the test ban treaty with the debris 

18 crossing the Canadian border and this took 

19 place in December of 1968. And you can see in 

20 Figure 12 that we have some very strong 

21 increases in air concentration that were due 

22 to the Schooner cratering event. 
 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 MEMBER ROESSLER: Some of those 

2 numbers should be negative, shouldn't they? 

3 Shouldn't that be minus 10? 

4 MR. ANSPAUGH: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

6 MR. ANSPAUGH: Well, it's 4.7 times 

7 10 to the something, and I suspect that -- 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: That's off. 

9 MR. ANSPAUGH: -- I got too vigorous 

10 in doing my cropping. 

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, 10 to the 

12 minus 11 probably. 

13 MR. ANSPAUGH: I'll have to consult 

14 the original diagram. 

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, okay. 

16 MR. ANSPAUGH: That was my fault 

17 for being, cropping that too strongly. 

18 Anyway, the Schooner event was again something 

19 that also contaminated potable water supplies, 

20 and you can see that, in Figure 13, this is 

21 now a graph, the first graph that's shown here 

22 of contamination in water supplies, you can 
 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 clearly see the peak from Schooner. 

2 Then the last thing of real note is 

3 what happened in December of 1970, and 

4 unfortunately this report, which deals with 

5 this period, and is producing this kind of 

6 very poor quality material. 

7 So you can see here what the 

8 average is. This is the gross beta, and also 

9 the plutonium analyses. And this thing 

10 indicated by a B, where you see this very 

11 sharp increase in activity is actually due to 

12 the Baneberry event. 

13 Now you look at the bottom here, 

14 this is several years worth of data, which is 

15 the first time they combined so many years in 

16 the report. 

17 And if you look at the next two 

18 Figures, 16 and 17, you can see a very 

19 predominant increase in activity due to the 

20 Baneberry event, which produced a serious 

21 contamination problem at the Nevada Test Site. 

22 Figure 17 is actually taken from 
 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 what they called a changehouse in Area 12. 

2 You may remember that the Baneberry event went 

3 up to the Area 12 camp, and there were about 

4 900 people there who took refuge inside the 

5 tunnel, but the tunnel became contaminated, as 

6 well. Then they moved them out to another 

7 location, and eventually down to Control Point 

8 6, where these 900 people were scanned and 

9 processed through. Some of them were sent to 

10 Mercury for further studies of their thyroid. 

11 Some were sent to Las Vegas for whole-body 

12 counts and so forth. 

13 So Baneberry was a very substantial 

14 event, and as I mentioned before, it brought 

15 about an abrupt stop in the period of testing 

16 until there was firmer controls on when not to 

17 test. 

18 So, Table 11 now is also very 

19 interesting, because it shows by station now - 

20 this is some of the first data we actually 

21 have in the reports by station - these data 

22 shown in Table 11 are for plutonium, and 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 

 135

1 can see here that there are some very unusual 

2 values that are cropping up here that we have 

3 -- like I draw your attention particularly to 

4 Area 9, the 9-300 Bunker, where 1972, we have 

5 429 times 10 to the minus 17 microcuries per 

6 mL. 

7 Now this number is very key to the 

8 NIOSH dose reconstruction because that number 

9 was picked as a number to base essentially all 

10 of the NIOSH methodology on. And you can see 

11 it is a very high number compared to most of 

12 them. The only one higher was Echo Peak, Area 

13 19, but that was averaged with the Area 19 

14 sample at PM substation to get a lower value 

15 by area. 

16 The reason given in the report 

17 about why the air concentrations at the Area 

18 9, the 9-300 Bunker were increasing and were 

19 erratic was because there had been alpha 

20 contamination in Area 9 in this vicinity. 

21 There had been extensive clean-ups that 

22 consisted of washing the Mercury-Highway 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 

 136

1 grading contaminated soil. And the speculation 

2 was that the reason contamination was getting 

3 so high in this area now was because these 

4 clean-up activities, where material had been 

5 stored, or wind was degrading and releasing 

6 the plutonium into the airborne material. 

7 So, I think just to summarize what 

8 the environmental surveillance data tell us 

9 is, number one, it's very clear that 

10 environmental contamination did not cease at 

11 the Nevada Test Site in July of 1962, and I 

12 think it's showing that there were events, 

13 such as Pike, and Nash, and Hupmobile, and 

14 Buggy, and Door Mist, and Schooner, and 

15 Baneberry, that caused widespread 

16 contamination at the Nevada Test Site, and 

17 it's my opinion that there's no way that you 

18 can take an air sample from 1971 through 2001, 

19 and reproduce these excursions that were noted 

20 to actually have occurred in the `63 to 1970 

21 period. 

22 And another important point is 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 

 137

1 contamination of the potable water supply 

2 which had not been addressed in the NIOSH 

3 procedure work. So that pretty much takes 

4 care of the first two issues, and I would like 

5 to now move to a slightly different subject, 

6 and discuss what the NIOSH method to 

7 reconstruct doses is. I already mentioned 

8 this important measurement of plutonium that 

9 was airborne in 1972. 

10 So the NIOSH method assumes that 

11 that value can be used to represent the 

12 plutonium contamination all the way back to 

13 1963, and you don't have to worry about half14 life corrections because plutonium is 

15 sufficiently long lived. 

16 So the question then is what to do 

17 about all the other radionuclides that you 

18 don't have data for except in terms of gross 

19 beta and gross alpha. So there are a couple 

20 of ways that one might approach that. One 

21 would be to go back to the original data that 

22 we just looked at and try and make sense 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 

 138

1 the gross beta and gross alpha material, but 

2 you would have to get the original bystation 

3 data, which I understand is available on 

4 microfilm, but it's not in the reports. 

5 The other method that NIOSH 

6 actually used was to take the data from the 

7 radionuclide inventory and distribution 

8 program, when the measurements were made in 

9 the 1980s, and assume that those are the long 

10 lived radionuclides that somebody would be 

11 inhaling, and to use that as a basis for 

12 extrapolation. 

13 So that is what was actually done. 

14 The data from the radionuclide inventory and 

15 distribution program were decay corrected back 

16 to 1963, and the assumption was that this was 

17 the material that could be resuspended. 

18 There was an additional correction 

19 for short-term resuspension with the 

20 assumption that, although this material was 

21 deposited in July of 1962, and this increased 

22 the projected inhalation pathway for the years 
 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 of `63, `64, and `65, and then yet an 

2 additional correction was made, and this took 

3 a great deal of work to do this, but as an 

4 attempt to correct for all of the short-lived 

5 radionuclides that are no longer there, but 

6 have decayed, then there was a lot of work 

7 done to actually look at what radionuclides 

8 would have been there based upon the 

9 tabulations and calculations that were 

10 published by Harry Hicks. And these have very 

11 extensive lists of radionuclides that would 

12 have been present all the way from zero time 

13 through fifty years. 

14 So that's what was actually done as 

15 a very serious attempt to correct these values 

16 for the short-lived radionuclides, assuming 

17 that everything was deposited in 1962 in July. 

18 So that represents a lot of work. There is 

19 some details given here about that. 

20 I also discussed how NIOSH did the 

21 occupational environmental ingestion doses, 

22 which is basically goes back again to 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 

 140

1 radionuclide inventory and distribution 

2 program in looking at the different kinds of 

3 radionuclides that would have been available 

4 for ingestion with soil. 

5 With all of the, basically the same 

6 assumptions that went into the resuspension 

7 pathway. So now I'm on page 20 here looking 

8 at basically assumption one, and that was no 

9 contamination of the Nevada Test Site occurred 

10 after July `62. I think that's clearly not 

11 true. 

12 There were many events that 

13 produced contamination, and you can see it in 

14 the air quality observations, and you can see 

15 it in the radionuclide inventory and 

16 distribution program. 

17 And then the assumption two, you 

18 can look at the air concentrations in 1971 

19 through 2001, and use that to extrapolate back 

20 to what the concentrations at the same air 

21 samplers were in `63 to `70. Again, I think 

22 that's a bad assumption. And you can see from 
 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 the plots that very clearly there were some 

2 very serious excursions, and particularly the 

3 ones from Pike, and Baneberry, and Schooner, 

4 that you would not see from looking at data 

5 after that time point. 

6 And then assumption three is 

7 something that may be one of the more serious 

8 issues, and that's whether the air samplers of 

9 the environmental surveillance program really 

10 represent the air that would have been 

11 breathed by people working at the test site. 

12 And there are a variety of 

13 different kinds of situations where it's known 

14 that there can be very large increases in the 

15 mass loading due to different kinds of 

16 occupational activities. And for example, 

17 there's driving bulldozers out across the 

18 area. There's driving tractors. There's even 

19 driving a car on a dusty road. There's doing 

20 construction work, and so forth. And one of 

21 the more important ones, perhaps, is related 

22 to the movement of drilling rigs, and Figure 
 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 18 now is a photograph of a large drilling rig 

2 at the Nevada Test Site. And you can sort of 

3 get a feeling for how large this thing is by 

4 looking at the trailer that's in the 

5 foreground there, that's seriously dwarfed by 

6 the size of this big drilling rig. 

7 Now, some of the craters at the 

8 Nevada Test Site are very close together. 

9 We're talking about subsidence craters. If 

10 you set off an underground shot, typically 

11 what happens is after some period of time you 

12 have created a cavity, and this cavity is 

13 going to collapse. And it collapses all the 

14 way up to the surface, and you get a 

15 subsidence crater. 

16 And actually you can look out in 

17 places like Area 3, and you can see these 

18 subsidence craters that are not separated by a 

19 very large distance. And so you've got a -- 

20 for example, you've got an enormous drill rig 

21 like this, and say you want to move it 200 

22 yards. Now if you wanted to take that drill 
 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 rig apart and truck it over there, you know it 

2 might take you four or five weeks, and it 

3 would take all kinds of trucks to move the 

4 thing. 

5 So that's not what they did. They 

6 decided, why don't we jack this thing up, put 

7 it on some coasters, and we'll just drag it 

8 with a whole bunch of bulldozers over to the 

9 next site. So that's what they did. 

10 And the next photograph shows one 

11 of these coasters, they had four coasters that 

12 -- first they would jack this thing up, and 

13 they put a very large beam right through this 

14 thing. And they had four of these coasters, 

15 two very large beams, and they would just jack 

16 this thing up, hook up four or five bulldozers 

17 or more, and just drag the thing across the 

18 desert. 

19 So you can imagine that this is one 

20 situation where there would be an enormous 

21 amount of dust-loading. And the next -- 

22 Figure 20 shows these very large beams. 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 

 144

1 so one of the issues is what kind of desert 

2 material was this thing drug over, and I 

3 believe Figure 21 shows the path of one of the 

4 operations of either moving a drilling rig 

5 into this position, or moving it out. 

6 Now this particular photograph, as 

7 I showed before, the drilling rig is already 

8 gone, and what is shown there is a crane, and 

9 part of some other construction activities 

10 going on. 

11 Now eventually at this site what 

12 you're going to see is something that looks 

13 like a missile launch tower, and they're going 

14 to build a scaffold around this thing that 

15 they're going to insert down the hole. On top 

16 of the bomb itself there will be what they 

17 call a rack, which contains all of the 

18 scientific experiment. 

19 So this is also a very complex 

20 operation which involves the use of cranes, 

21 and some construction of what looked like 

22 missile towers. 
 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 So basically the question is, do 

2 what these air samplers measure represent what 

3 the worker was exposed to. And I think it's 

4 fairly clear that it does not, and I also went 

5 back to look at some of the material that had 

6 been written about Yucca Mountain, where they 

7 are seriously worried about, if there is a 

8 volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain, what kind 

9 of results would that be. And they are very 

10 worried about resuspension. 

11 They talk about resuspension in 

12 several different environments. One is the 

13 inactive outdoor environment, which is typical 

14 of where these air samplers we're talking 

15 about at the Nevada Test Site were operated, 

16 where you have, not serious ground 

17 disturbance, but perhaps some nearby vehicular 

18 traffic and so forth, and based upon the 

19 measurements that they made at the Yucca 

20 mountain site, and other locations like 

21 Amargosa Valley, they came up with description 

22 of that as -- with a triangular distribution 
 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 that had a mode of .06 milligrams per cubic 

2 meter, or 60 micrograms per cubic meter. 

3 And I can tell you that, from my 

4 own experience in having measure mass loading 

5 at the Nevada Test Site, that volume 

6 corresponds to very closely what I had 

7 measured as well. 

8 So the active outdoor environment 

9 now, we're talking about driving tractors, 

10 doing construction work, and driving 

11 bulldozers, and so forth. 

12 Now the Yucca Mountain people I 

13 actually contracted to do some measurements 

14 with this, and they are not the first ones to 

15 do this. This has been an active area of work 

16 for some time looking at resuspension, doing 

17 farming activities, doing harvesting, and so 

18 forth. And the Yucca Mountain people also 

19 hired the Desert Research Institute in Nevada 

20 to come out and actually make some measures in 

21 the Amargosa Valley, which is just to the West 

22 of the Nevada Test Site. 
 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 And so their interpretation of 

2 those measurements and how they wanted to do 

3 their model was that they could describe it 

4 with the triangular distribution with the mode 

5 of 3 milligrams per cubic meter. And if you 

6 look at the relationship then, the ratio of an 

7 active outdoor environment to an inactive 

8 outdoor environment, it turns out to be three 

9 divided by .06, or 50 times higher. 

10 So my feeling is that in order to 

11 be claimant-favorable, you can't assume that 

12 these air concentrations recorded by the air 

13 samplers represent what the workers were 

14 exposed to, but there is a substantial 

15 difference between the air concentration the 

16 workers could see and what the samplers see. 

17 And then the final assumption was 

18 whether or not -- well basically the 

19 assumption was made that, between 1962 and 

20 when the measurements and the radionuclide 

21 inventory distribution program were made, 

22 there were no clean-ups, because the values 
 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 from the RIDA are being extrapolated back all 

2 the way to 1963. 

3 And of course if in the meantime 

4 they had been cleaned up, then you're 

5 extrapolating back with the wrong data. And 

6 in fact, it's clearly stated in at least one 

7 of the reports from MacArthur and Meade 

8 mentioned that the Nuclear Rocket Development 

9 Station in Area 25 had been cleaned up 

10 extensively before these measurements were 

11 made. 

12 And I know from my own experience 

13 as well that there was an active program of 

14 cleaning up material that had resulted in 

15 contamination of the Nevada Test Site, and 

16 these clean ups were taking place over a good 

17 deal of this time. 

18 The RIDA measurements were not made 

19 for purposes of dose reconstruction. In fact, 

20 they were actually made for use in helping to 

21 guide the clean-up and control. So in that 

22 sense, it was not an attempt to deduce what 
 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 the contamination had been originally, but to 

2 consider what the contamination is right now, 

3 and to help assist in what might be done in 

4 terms of future clean-up. 

5 The one final point I just wanted 

6 to make is related to Figure 22, and I think 

7 there is a misconception of what a controlled 

8 area at the NTS actually means. 

9 Now some areas are very rigorously 

10 controlled, and some are not. And of course 

11 it depends on how serious the contamination 

12 is. And what I show in Figure 22 is an 

13 example of this is called a controlled area 

14 you see by the sign, but there is a road right 

15 through the middle of it. 

16 So this is one example of control 

17 that's certainly not vigorous, and these kinds 

18 of areas are available for people in this case 

19 to drive through or to -- there's no physical 

20 barrier to enter into such a place. 

21 So that basically is what I wanted 

22 to say about the paper, and if there are 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 

 150

1 questions about it, of course I would be happy 

2 to try and answer them, or whatever you would 

3 like to do. 

4 MR. NETON: I'd just like to say 

5 one thing before the discussion starts, in 

6 that this relates -- goes back to the last 

7 meeting that I attended. There seems to be a 

8 fundamental misunderstanding of how we apply 

9 environmental dose in these programs, and 

10 that's what constitutes a worker. 

11 A lot of the categories of worker 

12 you were talking about, people dragging things 

13 through the contaminated areas, and that sort 

14 of thing, would be covered by our occupational 

15 dose program. That would be workers such as, 

16 you know, I don't know what the categories of 

17 those workers are, but anybody that had a work 

18 activity that would be in the field would be 

19 assigned a dose based on the bioassay 

20 measurements, as opposed to this environmental 

21 thing. 

22 And I would suggest that 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 

 151

1 environmental doses that are being assigned 

2 are exactly the areas where those sampling 

3 locations will be. People that were in 

4 cafeterias, dispensaries, those sort of areas. 

5 This is not intended to be an occupational 

6 dose for a worker who may be a wiremen, or a 

7 driller, or any of those type of activities. 

8 So I think you're way off the mark 

9 here Lynn in terms of how you've analyzed it, 

10 how you interpreted how we apply environmental 

11 dose. 

12 Now that being said, I think there 

13 is some merit to the issue that you raised, 

14 and I think you can address some of those 

15 issues. But I think you really got to look at 

16 how we apply this dose. 

17 MR. ANSPAUGH: I certainly hear 

18 what you're saying, Jim, and I guess my other 

19 comment about that is we're implying that all 

20 these people were in a bioassay program. 

21 MR. NETON: I'm not. I'm saying 

22 that we would apply our co-worker model 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 

 152

1 those people, and that's the subject of an 

2 entirely different discussion that's going to 

3 happen later today. We've taken that co4 worker model where we apply the 50th, 95th 

5 percentile of the bioassay workers. 

6 But all those workers that you were 

7 talking about go out in the field doing 

8 drilling and dragging and those types of 

9 operations. So a lot of what you said is 

10 really not relevant to this discussion. 

11 MR. ANSPAUGH: Okay, well I will 

12 defer my comment until we have an opportunity 

13 to discuss that, but I think I'm going to have 

14 some disagreement. 

15 CHAIR PRESLEY: Can I intercede 

16 here. We've heard Lynn's comments, and I 

17 appreciate that. It is getting close to lunch 

18 time. Our discussions and rebuttals are going 

19 to take longer than -- as you know, we're not 

20 going to finish those up between now and 

21 lunch. 

22 I propose that everybody break 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 

 153

1 lunch, gather your thoughts. We'll come back 

2 here at 1:00, and we pick up on the comments 

3 and rebuttal on Lynn's proposal. 

4 Do I have any problems with that 

5 from any of the Board members? 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just on -- 

7 MR. KATZ: That's fine, I told John 

8 that we would have this discussion, and then 

9 he would come after the discussion. I think 

10 John prefers that. 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: John, are you on 

12 there? 

13 MR. FUNK: Yes, I'm on here. I -- 

14 Ted's already told me what's going on. 

15 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, all right. 

16 MR. KATZ: That's all right, Brad 

17 just wanted to be certain. 

18 MR. FUNK: Yes. 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: We're going to 

20 break for lunch now, and then we're going to 

21 come back at 1:00 Eastern Standard Time. 

22 MR. FUNK: Okay, let Lynn keep 
 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 going, he's doing fine. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you everyone 

3 on the telephone. We'll disconnect now and 

4 start back up around 1:00. 

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record from 11:50 a.m. and 

7 resumed at 12:59 p.m.) 

8 

9 

10 

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

12 12:59 p.m. 

13 MR. KATZ: Hello everybody on the 

14 phone. This is Ted Katz with the Working 

15 Group, Nevada Test Site Working Group, 

16 Advisory Board and Radiation Worker Health. 

17 We're starting up again post-lunch. 

18 And just a reminder for everyone who's on the 

19 telephone, please at this point mute your 

20 phones or use star six, except if you are 

21 going to address the Board. Much thanks, bye. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: John, are you 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 

 155

1 there? 

2 MR. FUNK: Yes, I am. 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, thank you. 

4 MR. KATZ: Just checking, John, 

5 thanks. 

6 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, Jim you were 

7 in discussion before I so rudely interrupted 

8 you. 

9 MR. NETON: No, I was actually 

10 finished with the brief statement that I 

11 wanted to make, and then I turn it over to 

12 Mark and his folks if they had any -- unless 

13 anyone else has anything else from the Working 

14 Group to say first. But I'll have Mark and 

15 Mel and others comment on what our feelings 

16 are in the report. 

17 MR. ROLFES: All right, mine is 

18 pretty brief. I just wanted to point out that 

19 some of the - I'm sorry - the numbers, the 

20 dose that we're talking about from 

21 environmental intakes here are really pretty 

22 small. 
 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 Just to show an example of the 

2 internal dose from the gross beta, one of the 

3 highest measured gross beta concentrations 

4 that was presented in Lynn's report was 

5 roughly 1 e to the negative fifth microcuries 

6 per cubic meter. 

7 If we assume that that individual, 

8 an individual was breathing 2,400 cubic meters 

9 of air at the Nevada Test Site in one year, 

10 and was exposed continuously to that highest 

11 air concentration of 1 e to the negative five 

12 microcuries per cubic meter, that would give 

13 him an intake of roughly 24,000 picocuries of 

14 gross beta activity per year. 

15 Now to assume a worst case scenario 

16 strontium-90, Type F solubility material, the 

17 internal doses resulting from such an intake 

18 per year for the highest non-metabolic organ, 

19 we're talking a committed effective dose 

20 equivalent, which is the dose received over 50 

21 years, would be less than a millirem, it would 

22 be a fraction of a millirem. 
 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 The highest -- one of the highest 

2 doses would be roughly 190 millirem, and that 

3 is spread over 50 years. So we're really 

4 talking about very low doses, or very low 

5 impact on a dose reconstruction. 

6 I can pass around, you know if 

7 anybody would like to see a listing of what 

8 I've done here. This is basically an intake 

9 estimate and the resulting internal doses and 

10 the integrated modules for bioassay analysis. 

11 I don't know how long we would like 

12 to continue to go back and forth, because the 

13 doses that we're discussing are really pretty 

14 small in most cases. 

15 The bottle that we've already got 

16 in our approved site profile for the Nevada 

17 Test Site basically is assuming that an 

18 individual was exposed to the maximum 

19 documented air concentration in any area of 

20 the Nevada Test Site. 

21 We're also assuming that that 

22 individual would have been breathing without 
 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 any respiratory protection factors applied, 

2 would have been breathing that air at that 

3 worse concentration for 2,000 hours per year. 

4 So we've applied a maximum 

5 documented environmental air sample result 

6 with a maximum occupancy factor, essentially. 

7 And we've also applied maximum scaling 

8 factors to assign intakes of other 

9 radionuclides, which this accounts for the 

10 decay of short-lived fission products, et 

11 cetera. 

12 So if we were to go back and look 

13 at the specific air monitoring results, look 

14 at a distribution of the results, rather than 

15 select the highest single air sample result. 

16 If we look at a distribution, that 

17 would further refine the dose estimate for the 

18 intake amount and subsequent dose estimate. 

19 Additionally, if we would actually 

20 consider the occupancy, you know, it's 

21 unlikely that one worker would stay in that 

22 area for the full 2,000 hours per year. It's 
 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 much more likely that he could have entered 

2 that area for you know a shot, for say a month 

3 or something, perhaps. 

4 So once again, that would reduce 

5 things by, you know, roughly an order of 

6 magnitude or more. So anyway, I feel like 

7 what we have done already is pretty strong and 

8 defensible. 

9 I think that's what I have to say, 

10 so -- 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: Go ahead, Gen. 

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well thank you 

13 Mark, because as Lynn was talking, and he's 

14 got a lot of numbers here, and I was trying to 

15 digest the significance of the numbers, or 

16 what the magnitude or impact would be, and I 

17 just took one, because on this one chart, I've 

18 forgotten where it is, but it has to do with 

19 plutonium, and I think it was that 400 number. 

20 And I was hoping I didn't make a real big 

21 mistake, but I'll go ahead and you can correct 

22 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 

 160

1 But I wanted to get a feeling for 

2 what that meant. It was given in terms of -- 

3 well it was about 400 microcuries per 

4 milliliter. Microcuries, yes, so I took that, 

5 and took it into becherels, because I can 

6 think in disintegrations per second. And I 

7 came up with on the order of 10 to the minus 

8 10 becherels per milliliter. 

9 I have a hard time picturing even 

10 being able to measure that number, if I've 

11 done it right. Sometimes I -- you can check 

12 me here. I know you're doing it. So 

13 picturing that that could have any kind of an 

14 impact, you know with the occupancy factors 

15 you're talking about. 

16 So I was hoping somebody could take 

17 these kind of numbers and take them to what 

18 you've just done, and put it in perspective. 

19 MR. ANSPAUGH: I would like to make 

20 a couple of comments about that. We know, for 

21 example, that the Baneberry event resulted in 

22 evacuating 900 different people. And we know 
 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 that the people were screened, all 900 people 

2 were screened, and so some of them were sent 

3 for more detailed analysis. 

4 And the highest dose that was 

5 reconstructed on the basis, not of air 

6 samples, but of the documented iodine in the 

7 person, is actually four rem to the thyroid. 

8 So that's getting up to the point 

9 where it's interesting. And the other -- I'm 

10 not quite sure what you were referring to when 

11 you said the highest documented air 

12 concentration. Are you talking about the 

13 environmental surveillance program, or -- 

14 MR. ROLFES: What I had selected is 

15 from one of your figures. There were some 

16 ranges of gross beta concentrations in air. 

17 MR. ANSPAUGH: Are you talking 

18 about my report? 

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct. Well it 

20 was from one of the -- it was what you had put 

21 together, you had referenced Brown and - I'm 

22 sorry, I forgot the other author's name. 
 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 MR. CHU: Glora. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Okay, thank you. From 

3 one of the figures, I didn't write down which 

4 figure I selected that value of 1 e to the 

5 negative microcuries per cubic meter. But it 

6 was a gross beta concentration that I had 

7 selected. Just as a simple back of the 

8 envelope type calculation. 

9 MR. ANSPAUGH: Okay, well my only 

10 comment on that, and I know Jim would have a 

11 strong disagreement, but whatever that number 

12 is, I would multiply it by a factor of 60 if I 

13 wanted to represent what was actually the 

14 dust-loading template. And we'll have to 

15 check some of these numbers, but -- 

16 MR. NETON: Well that number looks 

17 like it was Figure 4, which is the weekly 

18 means and ranges of gross beta activity and 

19 air samples in 1964. 

20 And that's the highest end of the 

21 range of all of the air samples was 10 to 

22 minus 5. But anyway, yes. So of all 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 

 163

1 composite air samples, the range of the 

2 highest values is 10 to the minus 5. 

3 I think when you talk about the 

4 dust-loading, though, then I think you're 

5 getting into what I would consider the 

6 occupational area of dosing, because again, 

7 this would not be assigned to someone who was 

8 a bulldozer operator, or something of that job 

9 category. 

10 And we would rely on a co-worker 

11 model, which again, I know there's another 

12 separate analysis of that done by SC&A. But 

13 that would be based on bioassay measurements 

14 from the workers to assign dose, not rely on 

15 air sample measurements. 

16 So these values would be applied to 

17 people who were principally in support roles 

18 that might primarily be administrative, 

19 clerical, those type of things. But anybody 

20 with a job category that is more defined as an 

21 occupation out there, doing the work so to 

22 speak, this model would not even come into 
 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 play. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: It wouldn't be 

3 applied to those who were monitored. 

4 MR. NETON: The bioassay samples 

5 would incorporate that exposure. It would 

6 reflect that exposure. So that's, I guess, 

7 where we're coming from. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: The 900 folks that 

9 were brought out of the Baneberry event, Dr. 

10 Anspaugh specified that there was some 

11 screening activity, and some were removed to 

12 have further monitoring placed upon them. So 

13 we would utilize that information. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Right, that being the 

15 most important piece of information that we 

16 would use for a dose reconstruction in the 

17 first place would be the bioassay data for the 

18 individual. 

19 That would likely result in a much 

20 higher internal dose assay, as you alluded 

21 to, when we would reconstruct someone's intake 

22 from their actual bioassay data, rather than 
 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 an air sampling result. 

2 MR. ANSPAUGH: Let me just make one 

3 remark about that, and that is, you have a lot 

4 more optimistic attitude about the frequency 

5 of the bioassay data than I do. And I realize 

6 that's a separate discussion for later. 

7 MR. NETON: No, I agree with you. 

8 I mean, there are some -- you know, the report 

9 by SC&A on the table that we're going to 

10 hopefully get to today, but -- 

11 MR. MAURO: I think there's 

12 something very important conceptually in that 

13 it's almost like a way of thinking about the 

14 workers, the groups of workers that were at 

15 the site. 

16 When we last met, I certainly 

17 understood that there were a group of workers 

18 that had, were under radiological control, 

19 there was access control for certain areas, 

20 because certain kinds of activities were going 

21 on in those areas where it was deemed you need 

22 to have access, you need to use controls. 
 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 People wore badges, and so forth and so on. 

2 And then there were another group 

3 of workers at the site who were working in 

4 just more of a general capacity. They were 

5 out there and doing various physical things. 

6 But they are not a part of what I would call 

7 an access control type of operation. 

8 And it was my understanding, and 

9 these could have very well have been people 

10 driving around, perhaps towing bulldozers and 

11 doing all sorts of physical activities out 

12 there, and not entering access control areas. 

13 And the intent of your model was to 

14 apply to that group of workers. Now what I'm 

15 hearing, though, is that, if there were people 

16 out there on bulldozers doing whatever type of 

17 ongoing maintenance and activities that were 

18 taking place continually, they would fall 

19 within the group that you had assigned your 

20 occupational and internal exposures to. 

21 And that's a new concept, because I 

22 think that the last time we spoke, we didn'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 

 167

1 parse it that way. 

2 MR. MAURO: I need to be careful 

3 what I'm saying, because I have not reviewed 

4 this in detail. But my feeling is that would 

5 be the case, because you're in a heavy dust 

6 loading environment, I would agree with Lynn 

7 that these ambient environmental measurements 

8 were taken -- I like to call it ambient 

9 environmental, not occupational environmental. 

10 That's really what this model is intended to 

11 apply, in other words, ambient environmental 

12 exposure. 

13 But someone actively involved in 

14 disturbing soil, digging things up, would not 

15 be covered by this, in my opinion, this model, 

16 this ambient environmental model. 

17 MR. NETON: I hear you saying -- 

18 MR. MAURO: In fact, it would not 

19 even be used. 

20 MR. NETON: From our last 

21 discussion, I forget the fellow that was 

22 sitting to my right, we talked about 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 

 168

1 And it was made very important to distinguish 

2 between two groups of people. But really now 

3 we have only three groups of people. 

4 MR. MAURO: But see I guess my 

5 point is, how would you know. See how would 

6 you know. If you have a unmonitored worker, 

7 and he's got a job category in bulldozer 

8 operator, whether he really entered these 

9 areas all the time or not. 

10 MR. NETON: So let's assume for the 

11 time being that you have a worker, and you're 

12 going to have to drop him in one of three 

13 bins. Okay, he's going to be this person that 

14 we know entered access control areas, was 

15 badged, and we have another worker who was 

16 working generally at the site, but was not 

17 under an active program, but he was doing work 

18 where he could have been kicking up some dirt. 

19 And then we have this other 

20 category of worker that is the worker that you 

21 would use your model for. I'm not quite sure 

22 how you're going to fit, how you create those 
 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 bins. 

2 But now let's get to that third 

3 bin, which you're saying is the bin at which 

4 this particular model would apply to. I guess 

5 it's at that point then, within that context, 

6 that we have this third bin that we can put 

7 people into. Now I guess I would pose this 

8 question to Lynn. 

9 In light of that, what we're 

10 thinking about it, this other group of people, 

11 let's say for example cafeteria workers -- 

12 MR. CHU: The Base camp people in 

13 Mercury. 

14 MR. MAURO: The Base camp people in 

15 Mercury. So there are certain people that you 

16 have in mind that if you think -- 

17 MR. NETON: That clearly fall into 

18 that. 

19 MR. MAURO: -- and now I guess the 

20 next question is, are some of the concerns 

21 Lynn that you had raised related to this 

22 model, would those -- are any aspects of those 
 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 concerns applicable to this other category 

2 that's been defined for us, such as the Base 

3 camp workers, and some other groups of people, 

4 I guess. 

5 MR. NETON: Dispensary, cafeteria -

6 - 

7 MR. MAURO: Okay, is there any 

8 aspect now given what we just -- because I 

9 have to say, when I read your report 

10 originally, I was thinking more in terms of 

11 all of these people that are out there working 

12 who are not necessarily going into controled 

13 access areas, but were still out there 

14 outdoors working. 

15 MR. NETON: And just to point out, 

16 there are signs in the middle of the road. 

17 MR. MAURO: Yes, right. 

18 MR. NETON: I mean, controlled 

19 areas. And you would certainly have to cover 

20 those areas. 

21 MR. MAURO: And I would have to 

22 say, my understanding is, well that model 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 

 171

1 you have just described for ambient would be 

2 applied to those workers. But you're saying 

3 no, they wouldn't, and that's an important 

4 distinction. 

5 So given that, let's move on and 

6 okay, this third bin group of people, is there 

7 anything about the model in light of your 

8 research that says, well there may be some 

9 problems there also. 

10 MR. ANSPAUGH: Well I would like to 

11 make a couple of comments. I think this bin 

12 has very big boundaries, and that's part of 

13 the problem, and the other part of the problem 

14 we're really focusing on one out of the four 

15 points I had. And there's still the other 

16 three points. 

17 And so whether the point number 

18 three about the relationship between these 

19 environmental air samplers and the people out 

20 in the field I guess is really subject to the 

21 vague bin boundaries. 

22 When I read the technical basis 
 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 document, basically it says it's the dose 

2 individuals received at the Nevada Test Site 

3 while outside operational facilities, but on 

4 the site. And again, operational facilities 

5 is kind of a vague bin, too, and I think 

6 that's part of our problem here. 

7 MR. NETON: I think you raise a 

8 good point there. We need to firm up what we 

9 really intend to apply this to. But, and I'm 

10 hoping I'm on the right path here, because I 

11 think how we define that -- and it was my idea 

12 that this would be -- 

13 MR. KATZ: Joyce, could you hold 

14 on? Jim Neton is still speaking. 

15 MR. NETON: -- it's just my idea 

16 that this would apply to people where, you 

17 know, they are not disturbing the soil, you're 

18 not actively engaged in operations that would 

19 be disturbing soil, and that stuff like that. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, Joyce go ahead. 

21 MS. LIPSZTEIN: I think on the SEC 

22 evaluation before us, there were four 
 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 scenarios that were described, worker group 

2 scenarios, and the environmental models would 

3 be applied to scenarios three and four. There 

4 are three of them on the evaluation report, 

5 and that would comply workers from the weapons 

6 safety test, nuclear rocket development, the 

7 combination facility, radiochemistry lab, well 

8 logging operations, radiation instruments 

9 calibrations, low level waste, and many 

10 others. 

11 So that's what basically should be 

12 the evaluation report that for those group of 

13 workers, whenever the bioassay results, they 

14 would apply it in environmental model. 

15 MR. NETON: I didn't catch all 

16 those facilities, but it sounded like it was 

17 fairly encompassing. But again, I think we 

18 need to interpret what they're doing. 

19 I mean by the job categories, I 

20 keep going back to thinking about this tip 

21 that we talked about yesterday that defines 

22 the categories of workers to which 
 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 environmental versus the 50th percentile or 

2 maybe the 95th, or however we parse that out 

3 is applied. 

4 And that's defined in this 

5 Technical Information Bulletin. I have to 

6 admit that I can't recall exactly what was 

7 said in the evaluation report, and how that 

8 would apply here, but suffice it to say right 

9 now, let's for sake of argument suggest, and I 

10 think John has brought this up, that if these 

11 were applied to areas where there were non12 disturbed soil, because clearly in my mind you 

13 can't apply these environmental samplers to 

14 areas where people are actively disturbing 

15 soil, because like you suggested, I mean the 

16 factor may be ten or more would be more 

17 appropriate. 

18 But again, that is one issue out of 

19 four though, and I think maybe you can put 

20 that aside for now, because if the model is 

21 not valid to begin with, then that's what Lynn 

22 is suggesting based on these other three 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 factors, we need to maybe talk about that and 

2 why, you know, why we still believe that the 

3 maximum plutonium values that we've used is 

4 bounding for let's -- for argument purposes 

5 apply to this class of workers the people in 

6 cafeterias, dispensaries, Base camp workers, 

7 that sort of thing. 

8 Because clearly we need to be able 

9 to define how those people were exposed. 

10 Ultimately we could use bioassay data for 

11 other classes of workers if we can come up 

12 with a valid co-worker model, which again is a 

13 subject of another discussion. 

14 I don't know if we have anymore to 

15 say on Lynn's analysis other than the fact 

16 that, I mean we've had this for a week, so we 

17 haven't had time to give it a detailed 

18 analysis and compare our value in relationship 

19 to what, you know, what Lynn has said. 

20 So maybe that's where we're at 

21 right now is that we're not right now willing 

22 to say that this model is invalid as 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 suggested, but we need some more time maybe to 

2 study it. And that's what we have for now. 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: Does anybody else 

4 have anything? 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just -- I'm 

6 still, I sound like the rest of us. I'm 

7 trying to figure out how this would apply as 

8 far as people wise and so forth, because, and 

9 the reason why I'm saying that is because I 

10 remember one of the petitioners talking to us 

11 that, well they called me out as a welder, but 

12 my area was the central area, but I was never 

13 there, and that's where I was based out of. 

14 MR. NETON: Right, and that's what 

15 I'm talking about. I'm sorry to interrupt. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, and I'm just 

17 trying to get a handle on how we would capture 

18 this one way or another, because many of the 

19 people that classified themselves as clerical 

20 or whatever, well they are the ones that went 

21 out there and helped take the readings and so 

22 forth like that out in the field and so forth. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 And I'm just trying to -- I really 

2 can't get a clear line of how we would 

3 separate it. 

4 MR. NETON: And I think maybe 

5 that's my action item as a result of this 

6 which is one, to clarify the boundaries as to 

7 where this model would be used, and then 

8 secondly, to react to Lynn's analysis on a 

9 point by point basis, and justify what we're 

10 doing, or agree that, you know, we need to 

11 make some changes. 

12 MR. ROLFES: One of the important 

13 things that we would have to consider also 

14 Brad in there for looking at what the 

15 individual was doing is we would have to take 

16 a look at his external dosimetry records and 

17 for example his access logs to see if he had 

18 entered a radiologically controlled area. 

19 That would be like a starting basis 

20 for us to determine whether he could have been 

21 exposed to higher concentrations of airborne 

22 radioactivity. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 What we would have to do then is 

2 look to see if he had bioassay results, and if 

3 he did, those would be the first source for us 

4 to do a dose reconstruction for his intakes. 

5 It's -- you know, if the individual 

6 did not enter a radiologically controlled 

7 area, and was issued a dosimeter, and never 

8 had any positive dose, we would probably be 

9 okay just assigning ambient internal exposures 

10 based on what we have in our site profile. 

11 It's, you know when we complete a 

12 dose reconstruction, however, even though we 

13 have these ambient environmental intakes in 

14 the approved site profile, we have typically 

15 used higher air concentrations to assign as an 

16 overestimation for, you know, any work that 

17 that individual might have done. 

18 For example, our TIB 18 approach, 

19 we've assumed that certain workers have 

20 entered radiologically controlled areas, and 

21 could have been exposed to some fraction or 

22 even maximum permissible air concentration. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 So if there's uncertainty for, you 

2 know, whether a worker entered into a 

3 radiologically controlled area, and may not 

4 have been bioassayed, there are other 

5 approaches that we have used for dose 

6 reconstruction which are much -- well so there 

7 are other approaches rather than just -- 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

9 what you're saying. My issue is, and this has 

10 come up several times, you can go out through 

11 that whole site, and it's like one guy says 

12 once you pass through Mercury, you're really 

13 in a radiological control area, because 

14 everything else -- now when you get up in the 

15 tunnels, that's a totally different entrance 

16 into radiological controls. 

17 They've got kind of different 

18 boundaries, and we really kind of have these 

19 at all the sites kind of like this. And I 

20 guess the terminology of radiological control 

21 area -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: They have access 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 controls that they relax at times. We have 

2 log books that would show that, in certain 

3 instances, they allowed individuals to go into 

4 an area that, you know, previously was a very 

5 strict RAD controlled area, but they have 

6 relaxed the controls on it to allow that entry 

7 for those specific activities. 

8 So I think you have to understand, 

9 you know, that operational process dictates 

10 what happens to an individual whether they are 

11 monitored or not monitored for that access. 

12 Am I correct in that? 

13 MR. ROLFES: Exactly. Something 

14 that's a radiologically controlled area one 

15 day could be decontaminated, and the next day 

16 it could be open to anyone who needed to 

17 conduct work in that area. 

18 There is still typically 

19 documentation of the entries into those areas 

20 by -- 

21 MR. NETON: I think we also have to 

22 be aware of the fact that what's called 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 

 181

1 radiological control area varies depending on 

2 the time frame we're discussing. 

3 I mean, I'm looking at this picture 

4 that Lynn apparently took on May 23, 2008. 

5 That's taken in accordance with the DOE 

6 regulations of today, which would imply that 

7 anybody who has a potential to receive 100 

8 millirem of exposure you have to label as a 

9 controlled area. 

10 That clearly would have not been 

11 the case back in 1962. It's a very different 

12 definition. So you know we have to be careful 

13 what we're talking about and looking at what 

14 was defined as a radiological area back then, 

15 you know, prior to 1980s they had a very 

16 different definition. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, that -- maybe 

18 that's -- 

19 MR. NETON: In fact, I'm not even 

20 sure it was consistent. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe that's why 

22 I'm having a hard time getting my hands around 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 it, because what we consider a radiological 

2 control is really totally different than what 

3 -- 

4 MR. NETON: Well yes, in the 60s 

5 there would have been people at DOE 

6 facilities eating their lunch in areas that 

7 are now restricted access. I mean so it's 

8 very different. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, well we enter 

10 through the gate. 

11 MR. NETON: You're in a controlled 

12 area right there. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, but that's 

14 just for every general thing, because you're 

15 right. Rules have changed and so forth like 

16 that, and I guess that's what I have a hard 

17 time -- control areas, that meant that there 

18 was something there, somebody, something to 

19 stop you from going into those areas. 

20 And that's -- so we need to look, 

21 we need to look at how -- you're right. They 

22 were changed over the years and so forth 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 

 183

1 that. 

2 MR. NETON: But I strongly agree 

3 that we need to also go back and very clearly 

4 define who's covered by which model here. 

5 I mean I agree, that's the cause I 

6 think of a big disconnect here. And so we're 

7 going to revisit that, and shore that up. And 

8 then we'll also evaluate, in light of that, 

9 we'll look at Lynn's model, or the evaluation 

10 of our model and react to it. 

11 MR. KATZ: Hello Arjun, go ahead. 

12 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, sorry I didn't 

13 know it -- a couple of things, one, to react 

14 to what Mark Rolfes just said about Lynn's 

15 model, and how we might check it out, that if 

16 there weren't an external dose, there might 

17 not be a concern for internal intakes. 

18 I think a great part of how I heard 

19 Lynn's presentation was that you'd expect 

20 episodic exposures in various kinds of 

21 situations like dragging a drill across the 

22 desert, or vehicles, or accidental venting 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 

 184

1 so on, and resuspension in the short term due 

2 to bursts of wind, to people working on the 

3 outside. 

4 So I am a little skeptical about 

5 that approach to checking on the validity of 

6 what is being done. And also, this is going 

7 to be reinforced by what we're going to talk 

8 about in terms of the internal dose 

9 investigation. 

10 We did not find that external and 

11 internal doses, or recent external and 

12 internal dose measurement frequencies were 

13 related. And so that's a kind of caution. 

14 The other thing is, Joyce did read 

15 out a rather long list of worker types, some 

16 of which, some of whom would be clearly 

17 covered in terms of being vulnerable, or 

18 having potential overexposure in the situation 

19 that Lynn was talking about. 

20 So I really agree with Jim Neton 

21 that there's some boundaries that need to be 

22 put around. And then the final thing 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 

 185

1 course you all already said is that there 

2 ought to be other points in Lynn's critique of 

3 the model that we addressed, independent of 

4 who gets assigned an environmental dose. 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, John? 

6 MR. KATZ: John Funk, are you still 

7 with us? 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: John? 

9 MR. FUNK: Okay, I got my mute off. 

10 I'm having a real hard time with it. 

11 MR. KATZ: John, do you want us to 

12 now raise points that either haven't been 

13 covered or that you want to emphasize? 

14 MR. FUNK: Yes, I've been sitting 

15 here chomping at the bit. 

16 MR. KATZ: Chomping at the bit, 

17 that's good. 

18 MR. FUNK: Oh yes. In fact, I've 

19 been sitting here chomping at the bit. I get 

20 a little bit of problem when we hear this 

21 bulldozer mentality. There is a lot of other 

22 people out there besides bulldozer operators. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 In fact, the carpenters were down in the hole 

2 building a form for the tower pad, which is, 

3 by the way, four foot deep, and your head was 

4 about 18 inches above the top of the ground 

5 while a lot of this grading was going on 

6 around these paths. 

7 And I'm talking about, they graded 

8 these paths so you could play golf on them. 

9 They were perfectly flat. So there was a lot 

10 of earth moving activity. 

11 And as to what Mark's comment about 

12 you would have to spend 2,000 hours out in the 

13 field. Well I've got some news for you, I did 

14 spend 2,000 hours a year out in the field and 

15 sometimes more because we worked on the field 

16 crew. We were always out on one hole or 

17 another, and when you go into Area 3, like 

18 they said when you come over past gate 200, 

19 you are in a radioactive area. And when you 

20 go into Area 3, if you look at the maps from 

21 the surveys that were taken out there, it was 

22 the dirtiest area on the Test Site. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 And we had the most tests in that 

2 area too. That's almost everywhere you went, 

3 there was a possibility for exposure from it 

4 any time that dust blew at all. 

5 So, I got a little problem using 

6 that word for bulldozer operators only. That 

7 was carpenters, that was laborers, there was 

8 teamsters. There was equipment operators. So 

9 we got more than just bulldozer operators. 

10 And we seem to have that same 

11 problem in the tunnels when we're talking 

12 about reentry. Listen to you guys, the only 

13 place you ever did a reentry was in the 

14 tunnels. There was 50 times more reentries 

15 done in the flats than was done in the 

16 tunnels. It was done by totally different 

17 people. 

18 In the tunnels, the miners were the 

19 predominant force. In the flats, it was a 

20 crew that was made up of a composite group of 

21 people of carpenters, iron workers, laborers, 

22 teamsters, and operating engineers. There 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 

 188

1 no miners unless there was a shaft in the 

2 flats. And you only had -- shafts were very 

3 rare. 

4 The Q1A was a shaft, but Q1A was 

5 closed I think in a year, I think it was only 

6 opened up towards the end of testing there. 

7 So, when you talk about reentry, 

8 you got to start looking into issues of these 

9 other areas of the flats as well as the 

10 tunnels because there was a lot of reentry 

11 done down there too. 

12 Excuse me, I'm having a little 

13 trouble breathing, I'm on oxygen. Let's see 

14 what's the next thing I want to go into here. 

15 Co-worker models, he was talking 

16 about bioassay. I worked in the flats for 

17 four years. I know for a fact that I was 

18 exposed on three different occasions because I 

19 was chased out of the area by LASL. RICO's 

20 people told us to go in and work. LASL people 

21 would come in and chase us out. 

22 I was never given a bioassay. 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 

 189

1 don't know anybody else who ever was. And 

2 even PICs, nobody in the flats was ever given 

3 PICs. There was a few guys on the bowshot 

4 who got PICs, but they were the only ones who 

5 got it or nobody else. 

6 And I went into the area where the 

7 guys were wearing the PICs, but nobody gave me 

8 one. It was a doghouse under the drill bit 

9 where the rad-safe guys picked up the core 

10 sample. We used to take him boxes back there 

11 all the time to put his soil samples in. We 

12 built his tables back there. And we'd come 

13 and went there all the time, and they never 

14 gave us any PIC to wear over there. 

15 And the only controlled area, you 

16 keep talking about controlled area, if RICO 

17 had all the rad-safe people that you're saying 

18 they had -- now you got to keep in mind, 

19 sometimes we had nine to 10, 12 tests going at 

20 once. RICO did not have that many people to 

21 man all of these places that you are talking 

22 about. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 190

1 They had to -- The rad-safe area 

2 would have had to been fitted - extended on 

3 the test site. In fact they were the less - 

4 the least, it was just a handful of them out 

5 there. Most of them were just trainees. I 

6 don't know where all these people were at that 

7 you're talking about. I sure as hell never 

8 seen them. 

9 I was down there four years and 

10 like I said, I don't know anybody given a 

11 bioassay so I don't know what you're going to 

12 use as a co-worker. You can't use Area 2 co13 workers for Area 3 because it's apples and 

14 oranges. Lawrence Livermore did things 

15 totally different than what LASL did them and 

16 a totally different time frame and there was 

17 nothing even similar. 

18 Lawrence Livermore used a drill rig 

19 to drop the bomb in the hole, LASL used a 

20 cable and a crane. So everything is different 

21 the way they did things. So you can't be 

22 using -- I don't know where you're going 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 

 191

1 get the co-workers from. 

2 Now let's talk about another thing, 

3 full-body scans. Now mine -- I got a lot of -

4 - I'm an advocate for a lot of people, so I 

5 get their medical records. And then I see an 

6 awful lot of full-body scan forms that show no 

7 results. And I just happened to look at mine, 

8 and I got one of them in mine too. I've got 

9 two or three of them in there, full-body 

10 scans, papers with no results. 

11 Well, I've also got in my briefcase 

12 three refusals of a full-body scan. However, 

13 they are not in my medical records. So the 

14 dose reconstructor does my dose, he looks down 

15 and he says well this guy had a full-body 

16 scan, no results, you know, he didn't have no 

17 problems. 

18 What he doesn't know is I signed a 

19 refusal for that full-body scan, and that 

20 document shouldn't even be in my medical 

21 records. And I've got them, I'll send you 

22 copies of it if you want. And I don't know 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 anybody else who did the refusal that have 

2 them in their medical records either. 

3 So you're talking about going back 

4 to the records. There's a lot of these 

5 records that are missing and as far as 

6 culinary people is concerned, being in a 

7 controlled area, there's a contract on the 

8 test site that any time people were working in 

9 excess of five hours without a break RICO had 

10 to serve them a hot lunch in the area they 

11 were working, and that included in the drill 

12 rig too, in the post shop. 

13 So they couldn't stop that drill. 

14 The guys couldn't stop working. They'd bring 

15 the food right in to them. And there would be 

16 culinary people that brought it to them too. 

17 They'd take it right into the tunnels too, 

18 past the RAD control points. 

19 So, just saying that people from 

20 the culinary were never in a control, never in 

21 a dangerous area is absolutely wrong. 

22 And even if you go to the Baneberry 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 report on page nine and ten. Let me see if I 

2 can find the document, you're probably aware 

3 of one of them. I'm referring to -- just a 

4 minute. Document NVO-410-29 on pages nine and 

5 ten. 

6 You guys need to revisit this 

7 document and read about it because what you're 

8 going to find in here is that the culinary 

9 cleaned the mess hall up after Baneberry. The 

10 maids cleaned up the living quarters, washed 

11 the blankets and everything. The janitors 

12 cleaned up the recreation room and anywhere 

13 else. The warehousemen cleaned up the 

14 warehouses, and the fire department actually 

15 played one of the major parts in cleaning up 

16 the site. They washed all the roads down, 

17 washed all the roadsides down. They made a 

18 discovery that their X foam that they used for 

19 petroleum fires was also a great radiation 

20 abatement process. 

21 However, this does not say so on 

22 the firemen's job classification by 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 

 194

1 And they were used quite extensively at the 

2 tunnels. Every time they had a leak up there 

3 and they had to bring the equipment out to 

4 decontaminate it, the fire department had 

5 control of the foam. They had the machine 

6 that put the foam, and they did most of that. 

7 But it's not on their job classification. 

8 And speaking of job 

9 classifications, also heard somebody talking 

10 about a welder. Please, if you're going to 

11 talk about a welder say what kind of welder 

12 you're talking about because every craft on 

13 the test site had a welder on site. We had a 

14 welder, our department had a huge welding 

15 group. The pipefitters had welders, 

16 electricians had welders, the miners had 

17 welders, even the operating engineers had 

18 their own welders. And I think the only one 

19 didn't have one was the teamsters. 

20 But when you're talking about 

21 welders say what kind of welders because there 

22 was a lot of different kinds of welders out 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 there. That's the whole problem with this 

2 whole thing is they used co-worker models from 

3 other crafts because they say he was a welder. 

4 They don't identify what kind. What kind of 

5 welding the carpenters did would be nothing 

6 like what the pipefitters did. 

7 So that's where, we're getting a 

8 lot of confusion now with the job 

9 classification. And I'd like to finish out by 

10 saying these air sample stations were never 

11 intended to be used in the manner they are 

12 being used. There wasn't enough of them. 

13 I sent you an 18-page report. I 

14 detailed the locations of them, the distances. 

15 I've also described the buildings, the 

16 obstructions, what they were open to. And I 

17 don't see how any information gleaned from 

18 this could ever be of any benefit to figure 

19 out what a person was ingesting. 

20 And I'd like to make one other last 

21 comment. You're very cavalier about what you 

22 say that there was no possibility of anybody 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 getting sick out there or getting radiated and 

2 to listen to you guys, they might as well 

3 turned into a park because there is a lot of 

4 danger out there and the Government knows it, 

5 that's why they got the signs up, don't go in 

6 here. 

7 They got a great concern because 

8 the place is not habitable. So, for you to 

9 say that -- being so cavalier that there's 

10 nothing out there to worry about and the 

11 percentage is low, believe me it's not. And 

12 there's a lot of hawks in the Pentagon just 

13 waiting for this report to come out so they 

14 can put the nuclear bomb on the first-strike 

15 option and the report that they're going about 

16 right now is going to give them all the 

17 ammunition they need. 

18 Now, I'll finish. Thank you very 

19 much. 

20 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you John. We 

21 appreciate your comments. Does anybody have 

22 any comments to John's -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda, I have 

2 one question, a terrifying question. John, 

3 thank you for the material you sent to the 

4 Board. Excuse me. It's been very helpful. 

5 One of the -- perhaps I did not quite 

6 understand what you were saying earlier when 

7 you talked about refusal of a full-body count. 

8 

9 Did I understand you to say that 

10 you were offered three whole body counts and 

11 refused them? 

12 MR. FUNK: Yes Wanda, and I tell 

13 you why. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: That was my question, 

15 why did you refuse a whole body count? 

16 MR. FUNK: I will tell you exactly 

17 why. You were only offered the full-body scan 

18 when you were off payroll. Otherwise, we 

19 would clear the job when -- the only time you 

20 were offered body scan was when you were laid 

21 off. 

22 So, you would go down to Mercury 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 and you would clear out everything and the 

2 very last thing you would do is go to payroll 

3 and you were on your own time. So we had to 

4 go up to Mercury Medical for a full-body scan. 

5 It took -- the way they did it it 

6 took one hour. You went on a room, laid on a 

7 bed, you closed the doors and turned it on. 

8 One hour you could leave. But you weren't 

9 getting paid for that. 

10 And the second reason they would 

11 not give you the results of it after the gave 

12 it to you. 

13 And the third reason, I asked a guy 

14 how it worked, he said, "Hell I don't know. I 

15 just turn, I just close the door and turn it 

16 on and turn it off." Now, you going to let 

17 somebody x-ray you that doesn't know how it 

18 works? I said no, I wasn't going to do it. 

19 So I said no, I wouldn't do it. So 

20 they have a regular form that you have a right 

21 to refuse it, and you can sign the form. And 

22 I have three copies and that's the only reason 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 I refused it. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: That's interesting, 

3 thank you for that information. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've got one 

5 question John, this is Brad Clawson. A lot of 

6 talk has been about access logs and so forth 

7 like that. 

8 In your experience out there, did 

9 you use a lot of those going in and out of 

10 areas or what? 

11 MR. FUNK: Well, we had -- it 

12 depends on what kind of access you're talking 

13 about. Now, on the tunnel access they did 

14 have -- when they did reentry they did have 

15 control points where you had to go back and 

16 forth through inside. They usually had a 

17 station where they had industrial hygienists 

18 and maybe a RAD safety trainee. 

19 And they did log you in places in 

20 the hot areas in the tunnel. But in the 

21 flats, the only access that you had -- well 

22 access points, control points was at the post-
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 shot. 

2 And the way the post-shot worked, 

3 they put a snow fence around the back-drill 

4 and they'd make a complete fence and they had 

5 the RAD access points would be directly 

6 pointed at the snow fence area. Now that 

7 didn't cover the whole pad, that only covered 

8 the drill rig and the immediate area around 

9 the drill rig, which is probably about maybe a 

10 200 feet in diameter, area. 

11 The rest of it was not controlled. 

12 And when you got in -- when you went into the 

13 drill rig you did have to walk inside and put 

14 rubber boots on and put paper coveralls on and 

15 when you came back out, you had to walk 

16 through the loop and they had tape on the 

17 floor to take things off your boots. And just 

18 left the boots there and picked your own boots 

19 up and went on. 

20 Now other than that there was no 

21 control point. There was no rad-ex control 

22 point they said they had because I worked 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 there four solid years and I was on the field 

2 crew, I was in the field all the time. 

3 I might work at nine, ten different 

4 locations and that could be verified with my 

5 time cards. You'll see on my time cards that 

6 I'm all over the place. And I also worked in 

7 the tunnels as well as in the flats, so I know 

8 what happened in both places. 

9 Like I said we're getting tunnel 

10 mentality on the re-entry. There was a lot 

11 more re-entry done in the flats and quite 

12 differently. In the tunnels, the miners were 

13 the predominant craft that did the reentry 

14 because they had to cut out the plugs that we 

15 put in and but down in the flats, there was no 

16 miners unless you were working on a shaft 

17 shop, where they had to go down the shafts and 

18 then back in the tunnel like Q1A. Everything 

19 down there was done by carpenters, 

20 ironworkers, laborers, operational engineers. 

21 Okay, very little rad-ex control 

22 out here. There is -- and back in them days 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 when I worked there there weren't even signs 

2 up. And in fact, you're talking about a rad3 ex control right across the road from Area 3 

4 coming up where they called the Mercury 

5 Highway. There used to be a road that used to 

6 go up through there and going up to the -- 

7 what they called the batch plant going up to 

8 19 and 20. And normally that road was closed 

9 all the time because that was a radioactive 

10 area. 

11 So, when we had a job up to 19 and 

12 20 they would open that road up for us to go 

13 up through there because otherwise we would 

14 have to drive all the way up to CT-6 and take 

15 the new road all the way back, which is about 

16 six miles out of the way before we even got 

17 going up to 19. 

18 It used to take about an hour and 

19 45 minutes to go from the shop up to 19. So, 

20 in order to cut down that extra eight miles 

21 off the trip, they'd open up that road and let 

22 us go up through 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 

 203

1 So, it wasn't that the radiation 

2 had dropped. It was just that money was 

3 dictating them when they opened areas when 

4 they did. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, appreciate 

6 it John. 

7 MR. FUNK: Thank you. 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, anybody have 

9 anything else on this? 

10 (No response.) 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, we're about 

12 an hour and a half, two hours behind. The 

13 next item is SC&A's presentation on the coal 

14 worker model. 

15 Does anybody besides the Chairman 

16 need a break for about five minutes? 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I do. 

18 CHAIR PRESLEY: Let's call about 

19 five or ten minute break. We'll be right 

20 back. 

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record from 1:45 p.m. 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 

 204

1 resumed at 1:55 p.m.) 

2 MR. KATZ: Folks on the line, just 

3 to let you know, we're getting started again. 

4 I realize there's that obnoxious beeping. 

5 Someone has put us on hold. We're going to 

6 get them to disconnect that line. That should 

7 happen pretty quickly. But, we'll just have 

8 bear with it until -- any way we'll get that 

9 taken care of as soon as possible. We've 

10 asked for them to disconnect that line. 

11 I mean, I could mute all lines 

12 coming in, if you want to continue with no one 

13 else on the phone who needs to speak right 

14 now. I can mute all lines coming in so that 

15 we can talk. But, they'll still be hearing 

16 you on the phone line. 

17 MR. FUNK: Ted? 

18 MR. KATZ: There it goes. 

19 MR. FUNK: Ted? 

20 MR. KATZ: Yes? 

21 MR. FUNK: This is John, can I make 

22 a quick statement to Brad. He asked me 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 

 205

1 question that I didn't fully answer. I won't 

2 take more than a minute. 

3 MR. KATZ: That' fine John, go 

4 ahead. 

5 MR. FUNK: Brad. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

7 MR. FUNK: About your rad-ex control 

8 question, in the flats, one of the things I 

9 forgot to mention was that in the flats we did 

10 the reentries in a series of about seven to 

11 eight reentries. 

12 The first time they went to do a 

13 site assessment, I'm talking about the area 

14 managers and superintendent and a rad site 

15 man. 

16 And then the second entry we do 

17 that right away and we would get the doors 

18 open to the buildings because they were 

19 usually all over the place, you know, from the 

20 shock, it didn't come down level, and they 

21 had to get the data out. 

22 The third reentry we went and put 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 the hard rocks under the buildings and level 

2 them up and get the flow data out. 

3 The fourth reentry we would go in 

4 and start moving the alpha station test 

5 readers out. The fifth time we went in was 

6 when we set up the rad-ex control points for 

7 the phoshot. We had already usually worked 

8 enough two to three weeks before the phoshot 

9 even got there. I forgot to tell you that 

10 part. 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I appreciate 

12 that John, see, one of my issues is the term 

13 that we use as a control point and so forth 

14 like that I think is -- especially in the 

15 Nevada Test Site is used totally different. 

16 Being an ex-miner myself, I know 

17 that in the shafts a lot of times they use 

18 control point not just for the radiation but 

19 it was -- 

20 MR. FUNK: No, we was inside -- 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- whose inside 

22 and outside and that was a mining law. 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 

 207

1 now I get down into the flats and using the 

2 same terminology of control points and 

3 controlled access, I think it kind of varies. 

4 And I do agree with you, I was just 

5 trying to get a clearer description of that 

6 because some of the people we've talked to 

7 have expressed that they didn't have a lot of 

8 control point paperwork to go out and go into 

9 a lot of these jobs unless it was right after 

10 a shot or so forth. 

11 MR. FUNK: Well, they did do 

12 brassing out there in the early days. Where 

13 they had to brass in and brass out so they 

14 knew how many people were on the ground. But 

15 they did away with the brassing shortly after 

16 they started those. 

17 Now I have worked on jobs that -- 

18 like the same way with old copper mines and 

19 different places like that where we did brass 

20 in and brass out. And the whole purpose was 

21 to know who was inside and know who was 

22 outside. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, I 

2 appreciate that John. 

3 MR. FUNK: All right, thank you. 

4 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, are we ready 

5 to continue? 

6 (No response.) 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, SC&A's 

8 presentation on white paper on the NTS 

9 coworker model. John, are you going to -- 

10 MR. MAURO: Yes, I guess I just 

11 introduce that this was a major investigation 

12 that we were asked to perform, and it has -- 

13 just a little introduction. It has to do with 

14 the evaluation report on Table 7.1 which is an 

15 evaluation report on Table 7.1 was a list of 

16 100 workers that were selected by NIOSH as 

17 being good, a case of workers to use -- to go 

18 into and use their bioassay data as a means 

19 for building a coworker model that would be 

20 developed and then applied to other workers. 

21 And a judgement would be made that once you 

22 have all of that data you could decide amongst 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 that data set which ones would be -- which 

2 individuals would be assigned the high-end 

3 value, the median value and so forth. 

4 Our mandate, and there were a 

5 couple of aspects here. But I guess by and 

6 large it was to take a look at that data and 

7 see if, in fact, that the dataset was fairly 

8 complete in terms of characterizing the 

9 internal exposures these workers may have 

10 experienced. 

11 Also, it was an important premise. 

12 It was assumed that the reason those 100 

13 workers were selected by NIOSH was they had 

14 the higher external exposures, cumulative 

15 external exposures. And there was a general 

16 sense that, well, those are likely to be 

17 individuals that have the higher internal 

18 exposures and would therefore serve us well as 

19 the dataset for internal exposure. 

20 So we were asked to look into this 

21 matter. And the lead on that -- there were 

22 two individuals in a very important role. 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 

 210

1 had was of course Arjun led the effort. We 

2 had our statistician involved, Dr. Harry 

3 Chmelynski, and Bob Barton did a lot of the 

4 heavy lifting in terms of going into the 

5 records and downloaded the records. 

6 So, with that, and of course you 

7 should have what you have in front of them, 

8 something call a white paper, and it's dated 

9 October 21, 2008. I don't believe this has 

10 been PA-cleared, and at this point I'd like to 

11 turn it over to Arjun if he wouldn't mind. 

12 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, thank you 

13 John. Well, as John said, this involves a 

14 major effort to collect all of this data. I 

15 will, you know, after I introduce it let Bob 

16 Barton describe that process to you as to how 

17 it was collected, documented, and checked. 

18 You have, you have the first and 

19 main set of spreadsheets that came out of this 

20 thing. It's a somewhat larger collection of 

21 data. But you have the main thing that goes 

22 with the white paper. We will 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 

 211

1 communicating the rest of it to you shortly. 

2 But the main relevant part of it that goes to 

3 the heart of Table 7.1, just to remind you 

4 what Table 7.1 was, it was in the context of a 

5 NIOSH statement that -- about a somewhat under 

6 a third of the records that were supplied by 

7 DOE for claimants of the Nevada Test Site had 

8 "some internal dosimetry data." 

9 So a little over two-thirds did not 

10 have any internal dosimetry data. And so 

11 there's a question of a co-worker model, and 

12 NIOSH selected 100 claimants with significant 

13 total whole body photo exposures cumulative of 

14 above 1 rem. 

15 And I'm now just reading from the 

16 evaluation report. This is on page 10 of the 

17 white paper. There's a long quote from there. 

18 Sorry about the long quote. But I thought it 

19 was important to give you the full context of 

20 what NIOSH was trying to say. 

21 NIOSH made a number of statements 

22 in that paragraph, and so we try to evaluate 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 those statements. And in the bullet points 

2 just under that and on page 11. So one is, 

3 with the frequency of internal monitoring 

4 correlated with external exposure. 

5 The external exposure is considered 

6 a proxy for internal exposure potential, then 

7 we should see that external exposure triggered 

8 bioassay monitoring or some other kind of 

9 internal monitoring. So, a lot of that 

10 analysis is done and that is actually being 

11 recorded. 

12 We examined whether the workers -- 

13 this is in attachment C as well. Whether the 

14 workers in the NIOSH 100 dataset were 

15 consistently monitored or in some form by -- 

16 What you see there is urine 

17 bioassay there was really not very much other 

18 internal monitoring although, you know, in 

19 vivo monitoring, but we didn't find any 

20 significant rems in the in vivo dataset. 

21 CHAIR PRESLEY: Arjun, excuse me, 

22 could you speak up please. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 MR. MAKHAJANI: Sorry? 

2 CHAIR PRESLEY: Can you speak up 

3 please. 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, sorry, I'm 

5 not speaking loudly enough. Can you hear me 

6 now? 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes. 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: And tell us what 

9 page you're on in the white paper. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: I am on page 11. 

11 There's a set of four bullet points. Let me 

12 start over on page 11. 

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: I got it. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: And there's a long 

15 quote from the NIOSH evaluation report. We 

16 say what we're going to examine in terms of 

17 the NIOSH statement about how they are going 

18 to go about doing the internal dose 

19 reconstruction and bounding the internal dose 

20 in the context of the SEC. 

21 And this examination is done in the 

22 context of the SEC because either you have 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 

 214

1 bound the dose for the whole set of workers or 

2 do a dose reconstruction more accurately than 

3 a bounding dose. 

4 And the four points that we 

5 examined derived directly from the NIOSH 

6 statement, so the selection of 100 was 

7 according to those with significant external 

8 exposure. So we examined whether the 

9 frequency of internal monitoring was 

10 correlated with the external exposure. 

11 In other words, did a high film 

12 badge reading, for instance, trigger a 

13 bioassay. Whether the workers in the NIOSH 

14 dataset were consistently monitored with 

15 bioassay or some other internal monitoring. 

16 Whether the rad-safe workers were 

17 representative of the groups with the highest 

18 exposure potential because that's one of the 

19 key points in the NIOSH dataset, and that's 

20 very important because of all the groups of 

21 workers, really the rad-safe were the most and 

22 best monitored in terms of being followed. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 And whether the quality of the data is 

2 adequate to support internal dose 

3 reconstruction. 

4 And we also divided the period of 

5 the SEC into four different periods. And 

6 there's, you know obviously some judgment that 

7 goes into that and you could divide it into 

8 two periods or maybe three periods. But in 

9 our judgement, you do have to divide it into 

10 periods because working conditions and 

11 monitoring conditions were different in these 

12 periods, `63 to `67. And when fuller 

13 bioassays started -- it was instituted in NTS 

14 `68 to `70. And that's ending date is the 

15 last date of a major rendering. And that's 

16 what I was explaining to you all. 

17 `71 to `80 and `63 to `70 also had 

18 quite a lot of -- quite frequent, more than 

19 four per year. And then `70 until `80 

20 relatively low testing period and `81 to `92, 

21 where the testing frequency went down even 

22 from that. But still, the monitoring actually 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 seems to have increased in many cases. 

2 Now you can parse the periods 

3 differently, but at least the `63 to `70 

4 period should be separated from the later 

5 periods, in our view. 

6 And so that was the framework of 

7 our examination. We did find that the rad -- 

8 and then we also selected 120 workers 

9 randomly. We wanted to do a job category 

10 evaluation with which we could make some 

11 statements with confidence. 

12 And is Harry Chmelynski on the 

13 call? 

14 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm on here. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Harry will you 

16 explain to the Working Group how we did the 

17 120 selection? 

18 We had six job categories and then 

19 there is a selection process at random -- 

20 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, just did a 

21 simple random sample. 

22 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, so we did 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 

 217

1 simple random sample for each six job 

2 categories and we had 20 workers in each job 

3 category, and those six job categories are 

4 listed. 

5 We had the rad-safe workers. We 

6 had laborers. We had welders. We had 

7 wiremen, miners, and security. 

8 Now in response to what John Funk 

9 just said, we did not distinguish between 

10 different types of welders. But I don't think 

11 it would have made very much difference 

12 because we didn't find very much data for any 

13 welders. 

14 So we had two sets of data 

15 basically. We had the NIOSH 100 data, and 

16 then we had a 120 claimants, for who we 

17 examined data at length into six job 

18 categories, one of which was rad-safe. So we 

19 were able to compare these to each other and 

20 also with the NIOSH 100. 

21 Let me give you sort of the bottom 

22 line conclusion on this. Is that we did find 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 the rad-safe workers were the best monitored. 

2 The data in most of the other categories were 

3 fairly sparse. We looked at five categories 

4 of, five categories of data: plutonium, gamma, 

5 bioassay, gross fission products, tritium and 

6 iodine. We looked at three isotopes of iodine 

7 and compiled all the data. 

8 And the Working Group should have the 

9 spreadsheets in which those data are compiled. 

10 And every single data point was looked at. 

11 Maybe Bob Barton can describe the process by 

12 which the data was compiled. 

13 MR. BARTON: Sure Arjun, this is 

14 Bob Barton and like John and Arjun have 

15 indicated, our intent here was faithfully 

16 capture what data there was out there in each 

17 of these select claimant files. 

18 Mainly, what you see in this report 

19 is urinalysis data. And as far as QC goes, 

20 the records would be originally gone through 

21 and I just have the points collected into the 

22 database. After that our data capture team 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 would went to two levels past that to check 

2 specifically the bioassay data points to try 

3 to ensure that they weren't being incorrectly 

4 transcribed. And then the last layer of QC 

5 was to look to make sure that we weren't 

6 missing or not interpreting correctly or 

7 missing chunks of data or, you know any of 

8 that sort of thing. 

9 If you want specific information 

10 other than the bioassay data that we are 

11 looking in this report, it's all pretty much 

12 outlined in Table 1. 

13 We looked at all DOE response 

14 files, tried to transcribe what was contained 

15 there as accurately and faithfully as we 

16 could, the only exception being the medical 

17 expert file we do not look at. 

18 And numerical values were only 

19 pulled for annual external exposure and then 

20 what was contained in the internal monitoring 

21 file. This does not include lung counts, 

22 which we did not find many of. And we do 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 

 220

1 transcribe any data points for whole body 

2 counts. All we did was indicate whether there 

3 was a whole body count and whether we 

4 identified any results in the file associated 

5 with that whole body count. 

6 MR. MAURO: Let me add one thing. 

7 I have gone in this process one of the -- as 

8 sort of an observer. And I'm just going on 

9 and found that when you go into these efforts 

10 and you start to look at these records and 

11 extract the information, sometimes it's 

12 difficult to interpret exactly what the 

13 information meant. There's notations used, 

14 there was a lot of information that needed 

15 interpretation. 

16 And during this process, I believe 

17 we interacted closely with Marl Rolfes who 

18 helped us make sure that when we assigned a 

19 given number of what we thought it meant that 

20 we did that correctly. 

21 So I think we did everything we can 

22 to present a data -- to build a database 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 

 221

1 accurately and faithfully represented the 

2 material that was in the records. And so 

3 that's the true value, this big database that 

4 went, in effect, we have the group of 100, 

5 we'll call it the NIOSH 100 and we'll call the 

6 SC&A 120. 

7 These are people that we went in 

8 and extracted the bioassay data and put it 

9 into a form that we can pose questions to and 

10 ask okay, and look at and start to make some 

11 judgements related to -- for example, is there 

12 a relationship between the -- for people who 

13 have the higher exposures, are they internal 

14 exposures or they also the people that have 

15 the highest external exposures. 

16 We asked questions about, amongst 

17 the group of 100 do they -- are there other 

18 groups like, for example, the wiremen or the 

19 welders. Is it possible that they have some 

20 measurements, whether there's plutonium or 

21 other readings that were higher than let's say 

22 the highest values we saw amongst the 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 

 222

1 100. 

2 So, we have a lot of data that we 

3 can ask questions of. We asked our own 

4 questions and processed the information and 

5 Arjun is going to summarize what we found 

6 regarding the inter-comparisons between these 

7 different groups. 

8 My guess is, there may be other 

9 questions that you may want to pose to this 

10 data. Also of great importance is Joyce 

11 Lypstein took a real close look at the data to 

12 see if there's anything about some of the 

13 measurements, especially the plutonium and 

14 urine measurements that led us to question 

15 perhaps there was some data quality issues. 

16 So, I guess I just wanted to hear 

17 that a little bit more to preface that there 

18 was a large effort that went into compiling 

19 the data and the true value of the data, and 

20 now what you, you know what we're trying to 

21 disclose is what at least we saw and what the 

22 data spoke to us and what it told us. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 So, Arjun if you'll excuse me -- 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: So let me summarize 

3 the quantity aspects of the data, and then 

4 I'll hand it over to Joyce to describe some of 

5 the quality concerns that we had. 

6 If you go to page four of the 

7 report it summarizes the data quantity aspect 

8 of the data without regard to time period, and 

9 that caveat is very, very important. That 

10 I'll show you the polishing by time period and 

11 summary for plutonium, which is also a little 

12 bit below, table 7.1 and table 7.2 and 7.3. 

13 But you can see at once that really 

14 the largest number of data points are with the 

15 rad-safe group of workers and that's also true 

16 in the NIOSH 100 set. NIOSH had 21 rad-safe 

17 workers and there are 100 in most of the data 

18 points except for tritium. Most of the data 

19 points really do relate to the rad-safe group. 

20 There are some exceptions. 

21 But when you look at the job22 specific categories that we did, 20 in each 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 randomly selected, but plutonium you'll see 

2 that there's really no significant data that 

3 you can make statistical or sensical 

4 statements about. 

5 Welders had actually zero, of 20 

6 welders there were no plutonium samples. In 

7 20 wiremen there were no plutonium samples. 

8 Laborers had only two and miners had eight. 

9 And that's really the gross number in which 

10 any sampling is indicated. 

11 And when you get down in the weeds 

12 and look at what that -- what the context of 

13 that eight is it becomes even more 

14 questionable as to the actual number of 

15 useable data points is less than that. 

16 And you see the same pattern 

17 repeated in most of the sampling categories. 

18 There is an exception and you see the security 

19 guards had a lot of plutonium measurements, it 

20 would appear. But almost all of them were in 

21 the 1980's and that's the value of actually 

22 separating this by periods because the periods 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 were radiologically different. It's very 

2 important to do that. 

3 But we kind of wanted to give you 

4 some kind of overview to show you where at 

5 least the records could be plentiful. Again, 

6 in the dose gamma, you see there are not very 

7 many samples, especially when you see that 

8 there are 20 workers many of whom work for 

9 quite long periods of time. 

10 MR. MAURO: Excuse me Arjun, would 

11 it be helpful to direct everyone to a 

12 particular table? For example I'm -- 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: I thought I said 

14 that. I'm on page four. You see laborers has 

15 one tritium samples; 20 laborers working there 

16 for many years had one tritium sample among 

17 them. Among the welders, there were 12 and 

18 among the firemen there were -- 

19 Now, miners had many tritium 

20 samples, and this is a very important dataset 

21 because you can see in summary that 

22 consistently all of the values for the miners, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 whether the maximum 99 percentile, 95 

2 percentile, were greater than the rad-safe 

3 dataset and also the NIOSH dataset. 

4 The NIOSH dataset is sometimes 

5 comparable because the NIOSH dataset also had 

6 miners in it if you're really comparing, for 

7 the most part, miners to miners. 

8 You can see iodine data also quite 

9 sparse. And then down below over to the next 

10 page on page six you'll see one -- this is an 

11 example summary table. You have more of these 

12 tables in detail in the attachment in 

13 Attachment A. 

14 But if you look -- I looked at the 

15 NIOSH 100 dataset and took out the rad-safe 

16 workers and rad-safe broadly defined, you know 

17 health physicists, health monitors, radiation 

18 monitors, radiation control people and so on. 

19 And you look at these other 

20 categories of jobs, you see that there are 

21 almost no plutonium samples except for the 

22 five -- among the four samples for the miners, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 three have no readings, one is noted as a zero 

2 reading for a plutonium-239 and gamma and 

3 counts per minute. So out of the four, 

4 there's really no interpretable result. 

5 And what we've given you the raw 

6 numbers as they appear. And so really there 

7 are five results for security guards in the 

8 1980's and almost no -- and three for laborers 

9 in the 1970's. 

10 In the `63 to `70 period when there 

11 many ventings and, you know, much 

12 contamination some of the things that we were 

13 talking earlier about in Lynn's presentation 

14 that essentially no usable data. 

15 And so the significance of this is 

16 how do you compare, how do you determine 

17 whether your rad-safe workers for whom you had 

18 data had the highest exposure potential if you 

19 have no comparison points. 

20 And we know, for instance, that 

21 miners had higher tritium readings, pretty 

22 consistently than rad-safe workers. 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 

 228

1 scattered measurements that are indicated as 

2 higher in other cases, rad-safe workers were -

3 - often had a higher reading than most of the 

4 these, but the comparison points are very 

5 difficult. 

6 And we found the same thing in the 

7 120 worker dataset that SC&A selected at 

8 random, and that is shown in Table S.3. And 

9 so we had really three overarching findings. 

10 That the monitoring frequency for internal 

11 dose was not correlated with external dose. 

12 And Joyce will go into that in more detail. 

13 But overall, we did not find that a 

14 higher external dose reading triggered any 

15 internal dose findings. So the methodological 

16 approach of selecting 100 workers by saying 

17 they had a high cumulative dose and so they 

18 must have had a high internal exposure 

19 potential is questionable using that as a 

20 motivation because we didn't find that a high 

21 external dose triggered any internal 

22 monitorings. So we find it difficult to say 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 that that would be the right dataset. 

2 That said, we found the rad-safe 

3 workers in the two groups to be generally 

4 comparable. And the NIOSH 100 dataset 

5 compared to the rad-safe 20 workers were 

6 comparable or NIOSH was often higher in terms 

7 of their bioassay results. 

8 Okay, then we found many 

9 inconsistencies in the bioassay results for 

10 gamma images and plutonium and this is a 

11 quality of data problem. And I'm going to let 

12 Joyce describe that as soon as I'm done with 

13 the other two overarching findings. 

14 To the extent that data can be 

15 considered reliable, and that is a very big 

16 qualifier caveat, rad-safe personnel appeared 

17 to have had the highest exposure potential for 

18 internal dose for some radionuclides. But 

19 this is not the case for all radionuclides. 

20 And as I said most notably, miners seemed to 

21 have had the highest exposure potential to 

22 tritium. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 And we can really not make 

2 statements about most other job categories. 

3 We don't have the data to do it. We simply 

4 don't appear to exist, at least for the sets 

5 that we examined. 

6 One of the principle bases 

7 regarding the feasibility of internal dose 

8 estimation in the evaluation report is that 

9 "radiation protection and safety stop are 

10 considered representative of the NTS workers 

11 with the highest potential for external 

12 exposure." And that's from page 36 of the 

13 NIOSH report. 

14 And we will not, we were not able 

15 to conclude that this was uniformly supported 

16 by the data. And in some cases data are too 

17 sparse to verify this NIOSH conclusion, in 

18 several cases actually. 

19 And the last -- NIOSH also said 

20 that all "all 100 of the individuals 

21 identified as having significant external 

22 whole body photon exposures were monitored by 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 bioassay during their employment." We did not 

2 find that this was supported by our review of 

3 the NIOSH dataset. As I said, the rad-safe 21 

4 among these was significantly monitored. And 

5 there was some monitoring for some of the 

6 other workers, but generally we did not -- for 

7 instance we have shown this plutonium 

8 monitoring. There was very little plutonium 

9 monitoring for any of the other worker groups 

10 during the entire period. 

11 So those were our overarching 

12 findings. I think the quality of the data 

13 findings is very important, and I'm going to 

14 let Joyce describe them. Joyce? Are you 

15 there Joyce? 

16 (No response.) 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: She must be on 

18 mute. I hope she's on mute. Joyce? 

19 (No response.) 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, Joyce is not 

21 there, so I will fill in as best as I can. 

22 There are a number of different concerns about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 the internal dataset. One of the concerns 

2 was, you know, as Lynn was saying earlier, you 

3 have a variety of fission products, gamma 

4 emitters at the Nevada Test Site. Many of 

5 them are short-lived. 

6 We didn't find in the dose records 

7 themselves any indication of when the exposure 

8 was relative to the time when the urine 

9 samples were taken. Now, it may be possible 

10 to go into like the access control records and 

11 so on and determine this, when the exposure 

12 might have happened and relate that to the 

13 individual worker sampling time. I don't even 

14 know whether that is possible. 

15 But in the dosimetry records, this 

16 is not indicated. And so it calls into 

17 question how you interpret say a gamma 

18 bioassay or dosimetry product. Bioassay 

19 because you don't really know what the 

20 exposure was because you don't know what 

21 short-lived radionuclides have decayed away 

22 and what you're actually measuring, compared 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 233

1 to what the person was exposed to. 

2 The second -- this applies 

3 primarily to the short-lived radionuclides, 

4 which would include the iodines and the gamma 

5 emitters and the gross fission product. 

6 The other problem which we found 

7 primarily in the gamma emitters and the 

8 plutonium monitoring was a problem with the 

9 minimum detectable amounts. There's minimum 

10 detectable amounts reported in the site 

11 profile. And then there are minimum 

12 detectable amounts also inclusive in the 

13 measurements as they are reported in the data. 

14 The minimum detectable amounts 

15 recorded in the data are often reported as 

16 less than and then a number. And within the 

17 same year, within the narrow bound of time in 

18 a dataset, you get a lot of variation in the 

19 less-than, and that might be dependent on 

20 counting time and so on and we understand 

21 that. But the variation is quite large. 

22 And then there are positive results 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 that are reported that are less than the 

2 implicit MDA values in the measurements and 

3 also less than the MDA values dated in the 

4 site profile. 

5 And then in some cases, we have no 

6 MDA values reported in the site profile. So 

7 we have a lot of issues in this particular 

8 internal dataset, especially with gamma 

9 emitters and plutonium, to some extent also 

10 gross fission products and iodines in terms of 

11 time of measurement amount of exposure and 

12 minimum detectable amounts. So it raises a 

13 question as to how this data are to be used in 

14 dose reconstruction. 

15 We had a number of other findings, 

16 which are on page 8 of the report. I'll just 

17 go through them quickly, and that will end my 

18 summary and maybe we can ask detailed 

19 questions, I hope. Joyce will come back and 

20 be able to fill in other questions about the 

21 quality of data. Otherwise, I'll do the best 

22 that I can. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 So my other five findings were that 

2 in each of the six categories of worker they 

3 had some internal exposure in at least one of 

4 the five categories that we examined in the 

5 report, Plutonium-239, gamma tritium, gross 

6 fission products, and radio-iodine. 

7 And rad-safe workers have data in 

8 all five categories but no reliable quantity 

9 to comparison statements with other groups of 

10 workers, especially when you divide it by time 

11 period, if possible based on this data. 

12 Bioassay data for three of the six 

13 categories were sparse to non-existent: 

14 laborers, welders, and wiremen. Yet the data 

15 indicated that one or more categories for 

16 which there are some data points, the average 

17 in some cases, in some periods the categories 

18 were higher than the NIOSH 100. 

19 I would -- and this is not in the 

20 report. But I would not attach much 

21 quantitative significance to this because when 

22 you average using -- we don't attach much 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 236

1 significance to the average values because 

2 there are very sparse data, and so this is not 

3 to be taken as a quantitative interpretation 

4 of the data but just as a reporting on what 

5 you will find if you actually take the 

6 average. We don't attach any comparative 

7 significance to this because the data are very 

8 sparse. 

9 Also, we used -- when they were 

10 less than we used half of the less than value 

11 to calculate the average, so the content of 

12 this average, you know, well, you can take it 

13 for what it's worth which is not a whole lot. 

14 The data for miners are also sparse 

15 except for gamma and tritium bioassay. And 

16 especially in the earlier periods. Miners had 

17 higher exposure potential for tritium as I 

18 said. And data for security personnel are 

19 more plentiful, and I do not understand why, 

20 why the data for security personnel were very 

21 plentiful in the 1980's because for the most 

22 part in the 1980's, they don't seem 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 

 237

1 had much external exposure, as indicated by 

2 the external exposure records. 

3 We did the correlation of external 

4 exposure and did not find as I reported 

5 external exposure per the internal monitoring. 

6 So that's summarizes our main 

7 findings. Overall, we concluded that NIOSH 

8 has not really demonstrated yet that those 

9 reconstruction as far as the radionuclides are 

10 concerned -- not only the five types of 

11 monitoring that I've indicated, but there are 

12 a number of other radionuclides that are 

13 mentioned in the site profile, other isotopes 

14 of plutonium, uranium, americium, curium, 

15 strontium, various isotopes of strontium, 

16 cesium. 

17 The NIOSH 100 dataset, as presented 

18 in the evaluation report, hasn't demonstrated 

19 dose reconstruction feasibility or bounding 

20 dose feasibility. 

21 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Arjun, can you hear 

22 me now? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 MR. MAKHAJANI: You were there and 

2 were not able to be heard? 

3 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, can you 

5 explain your concerns about the quality of the 

6 data? I don't know that I properly -- 

7 MS. LIPSZTEIN: You did very well, 

8 the MDA is very well, you did it very well. 

9 There are about an order of magnitude 

10 difference between the last values. And then 

11 you have a operational report that below the 

12 last values and this is in conflict also with 

13 some MDA that were given on the internal 

14 dosimetry when there is a MDA given in the 

15 internal dosimetry. 

16 So we don't know what to expect 

17 from it. And the other thing that is very 

18 important that you were telling us about, it's 

19 about the one -- NIOSH has to demonstrate 

20 feasibility of those reconstruction to be 

21 identified. 

22 And what we see on Table 7.1 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 

 239

1 composite of the total external dose and the 

2 total number of internal results. So, what we 

3 try to do is at least put the external dose by 

4 year instead of total dose. And we didn't 

5 find any correlation. For the regional 

6 guides, the classification of regional guides 

7 that we have for the gamma and the fissure 

8 tests. 

9 Yet we have enough data to do 

10 anything about it. But there a number of ways 

11 that we don't have -- either we don't have any 

12 data or we don't have much data to do any 

13 correlation that we couldn't write to any 

14 conclusion about it. I think that's it 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Sorry, I missed 

16 that one point about parsing the external with 

17 the different kinds of internal monitoring. 

18 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, we did that 

19 because my -- when you have the total dose, 

20 you don't know what happens during the year. 

21 So it's the same amount of words per ten years 

22 and the other sets of words for two years, 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 

 240

1 they have the same total external dose, which 

2 completed this situation. 

3 So we wanted to know by year if the 

4 number of sampling or bioassay would correlate 

5 with the -- at least with external dosimetry 

6 also, and it doesn't. 

7 For any of the ones the guys that 

8 we tested, the integrity of the bioassay that 

9 we tested which was the plutonium, which was 

10 brass fissure purpose, which was gamma and 

11 fissure. The other regional guides, we 

12 didn't even have enough beta to test them. 

13 MR. MAURO: Arjun -- 

14 MS. LIPSZTEIN: In the titanium -- 

15 MR. MAURO: This is John, I'd like 

16 to make one more statement because the genesis 

17 of this, when we first conceived of this 

18 investigation, it fundamentally went to the 

19 idea that okay, we've got these 100 workers 

20 for better or worse as a sample. Whether they 

21 are the bounding group or not. 

22 And if we were to collect all 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 

 241

1 let's use plutonium for example, if we were to 

2 collect all of the plutonium data, all of the 

3 100 workers, and if you look at Table S.1, 

4 it's a good place to -- in fact, table S.1 in 

5 my original model that I had in my head as 

6 what we're trying to do. 

7 I guess if we could say well the 

8 premise is that the high end numbers -- let's 

9 say plutonium concentrations in urine amongst 

10 the samples collected from the NIOSH 100. If 

11 that high end value was higher than, let's 

12 say, these other groups that we sample from 

13 whether they are the laborers, the welders, 

14 the wiremen. 

15 In other words, the idea being, 

16 well, we filled in this whole table and we 

17 looked at it said it looks like across the 

18 board the upper 95th percentile, or the 

19 highest content for the NIOSH 100 is always 

20 comparable to or higher than these other 

21 groups. 

22 The idea simply being that it's 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 

 242

1 way to confirm that, in fact, there weren't 

2 any groups out there that had any unique 

3 behavior or operational activities going on, 

4 like miners where it turns out that they in 

5 fact were different and were not bounded by 

6 the NIOSH 100. 

7 Well, the only place -- and so it 

8 was my expectation that we'd have sufficient 

9 data in these samples for each of these 

10 categories to look at the table and say yes or 

11 no. Yes it is a value or no it's not. 

12 And it turns out that we really 

13 weren't able to do that because it just -- 

14 except for miners and tritium. You know the 

15 work, it's strange when you enter into a 

16 investigation like this. You have certain 

17 model in your head or expectation of what 

18 you're going to get back. And you never do, 

19 you never get back what you think you're going 

20 to get back. 

21 The only place we got back what I 

22 was hoping that we would get back is 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 

 243

1 tritium in miners where, yes, we had enough 

2 data and we were able to compare the upper-end 

3 99 percentile, 50 percentile bioassay sample 

4 for miners against the NIOSH 100. And in that 

5 case, it turns out that the NIOSH 100 wasn't 

6 bounded. But the miners were. 

7 I was hoping that we'd be in a 

8 position to be able to make those comparisons 

9 for all the categories and for the relevant 

10 isotopes. But clearly that was -- so, I want 

11 everybody to know that when we first started 

12 this it was with that sort of simple-minded 

13 idea that we entered into this process. 

14 And the outcome, of course, is what 

15 we have before us, where a lot of other things 

16 emerged and became apparent to us that we felt 

17 important. So, in a way -- it didn't end up 

18 where I thought it would. It ended up 

19 someplace else. 

20 And I think what we have here is a 

21 valuable database with which we could all ask 

22 ourselves, does the NIOSH 100 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 

 244

1 represent the dataset that is, I guess, 

2 robust. The issues that Joyce brought up, 

3 some people didn't expect mainly that there 

4 was some problems apparently with the MDA's. 

5 The issues that there are a number of groups 

6 of workers that just don't have very much 

7 bioassay data what does that mean and what are 

8 the implications with respect to the ability 

9 to reconstruct exposures to all categories of 

10 workers? 

11 And to top it off, something that 

12 we did when we parsed it by time period we 

13 find that well, there clearly are some time 

14 periods where you got a lot of data, but other 

15 time periods where you don't and what are the 

16 implications of that with regard to your 

17 ability to use the NIOSH 100 as your basis of 

18 the data as the basis for your co-worker 

19 model. So with that said I'd like to open it 

20 up for discussion. 

21 MR. KATZ: John, go ahead. 

22 MR. CHU: Well, as we talked about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 in the St. Louis meeting too when you first 

2 thought about proposing this as a model to 

3 work with nothing I hear that you presented 

4 here should be surprising to you. I think 

5 we've already had some of that discussion 

6 already. 

7 We already talked about the test 

8 site being the kind of an environment where 

9 you have the number of internal exposures in 

10 total number is going to be low. I think we 

11 already expect that. 

12 Remember, this is a test site. 

13 Other than I would be focusing in on the 

14 tunnel entries here, which the miners picked 

15 up here. There's no question. 

16 But if you look at the NIOSH 100, 

17 just looking at your dataset here and except 

18 for the few tritium had the 95 percentile or 

19 90 percentile, which is only slightly higher 

20 than that, the NIOSH 100 and we have to now, 

21 we have to sort of agree to the very fact that 

22 the reason why you're not seeing very much 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 exposures at the laborer category or the 

2 welder category and the wiremen category is 

3 because it just wasn't that kind of exposure 

4 of the internal exposure that happened to 

5 them. 

6 And the rad-safe people, who were 

7 most likely the highest exposed, and we have 

8 said so in our -- what we have evaluated, that 

9 they should be. 

10 So to me, if I look at your table 

11 here I think that the NIOSH 100 accept, agree, 

12 agree for the 95 percentile and the 99 

13 percentile for the miners for tritinium. 

14 Everything else is well-founded. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Mel, this is Arjun, 

16 well you can't actually say that because 

17 there's no basis for comparison in most of the 

18 categories. You see in a lot of the entries 

19 there's no entries for percentiles, mostly. 

20 Most of those things are blank. 

21 So you cannot say, this is a 

22 problem in that had there been some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 monitoring, especially when you parsed it by 

2 time period. I was very hesitate to leave 

3 Table S-1 in there, but it was a kind of the 

4 roll-up of the data that gives you a bird's 

5 eye view. But in a way, it's kind of a 

6 misleading bird's eye view because you do need 

7 to look at the various period. 

8 And when you, in order to say rad9 safe workers have the highest exposure or are 

10 among the highest exposure potential or are 

11 representative of the workers with highest 

12 exposure potential you need to be able to make 

13 a comparison. 

14 Now if you take John Funk at his 

15 word for example and what he was just saying 

16 that laborers went down in the flats and did a 

17 lot of work inside and that the miners were 

18 not there, how do you know that the laborers 

19 did not have more exposure than miners, say, 

20 in the plutonium categories. 

21 You don't have data for miners. 

22 You don't have data for laborers, and 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 

 248

1 can't even compare them to rad-safe. So in 

2 order to say, make a relative statement about 

3 rad-safe personnel, you need to have 

4 something to compare it to and the problem is 

5 you don't. 

6 MR. NETON: Arjun, this is Jim. 

7 This is the same age old problem we've had and 

8 that I pointed out yesterday in that Fernald 

9 study that you were trying to get through, 

10 which was, you know there's no prior reason to 

11 believe that all of these workers had higher 

12 or equal exposures to most miner workers. 

13 And so because they are not 

14 sampled, that may be indicative of the fact 

15 that their potential for exposure was lower. 

16 Now we have to go back and somehow convince 

17 folks of that. But you know because there is 

18 no monitoring data does not mean that they had 

19 significant levels for exposure that were 

20 unrecorded. 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, on the one 

22 case that we can make -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 MR. NETON: You can't have it both 

2 ways. 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well on the one 

4 case, that we could make -- It didn't come out 

5 that way. Why is it that miners have higher 

6 tritium exposure, for instance -- 

7 MR. NETON: Wait. We'll agree to 

8 the miners, and that would be well understood, 

9 given the knowledge we have of what went on at 

10 the site. 

11 MR. CHU: Exactly right, if you 

12 would have asked me that at the last meeting, 

13 I would have told you that right off -- 

14 MR. NETON: But the other thing I'd 

15 like to point out, though, is the fact the 

16 plutonium data -- I'm gratified to see that 

17 all of these data points show that the 

18 internal exposures that were monitored are 

19 indeed fairly low. 

20 In fact 50 percent or more of the 

21 plutonium samples that were recorded were 

22 below the detection limit of the measurement 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 by this table. So you're not seeing any 

2 positive exposures and even the 95th 

3 percentile is pushing the limits of the 

4 sensitivity of the plutonium analysis, 

5 depending on the time frame that this was 

6 measured. 

7 So this is almost no positive 

8 plutonium measurements were recorded here by 

9 my analysis of this table. So that's 

10 gratifying. Yes Joyce? 

11 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, I was 

12 thinking about this and if you look at the 

13 100 results for plutonium, in 1963 there were 

14 four results, one positive and two results 

15 with positive backgrounds. In `64 there were 

16 no plutonium results. In `65 there were only 

17 two results. In `66 you had four positive 

18 results and many results had zero recoveries. 

19 In `67 you had only two results. 

20 So no conclusion about plutonium 

21 can be drawn. And also the MDA, when you have 

22 the results, the situation must be in the MDA 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 so big that you cannot see anything. And 

2 there was no lung measurement on the 100 

3 results. We looked at the lung measurements. 

4 So there was no lung measurements either on 

5 the 100 or 120. 

6 MR. NETON: Joyce, you know as well 

7 as I do that a lung measurement for plutonium 

8 would be useless here. 

9 MS. LIPSZTEIN: No, that's what 

10 you, you know if you want to see something 

11 years after or something like that, there is 

12 nothing. 

13 MR. NETON: You would have to have 

14 two -- 

15 MS. LIPSZTEIN: And another -- the 

16 number of urine results are very, very small. 

17 The two are basically two results per year or 

18 one result per year of those results. That's 

19 a big problem, and the situation of results 

20 also, that was the MDA at that time because 

21 the situation is more than the order of 

22 magnitude. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 It makes it impossible to test 

2 conclusions, and that's what is going -- at 

3 least you have some measurements, uranium you 

4 don't have anything for the total 100 people. 

5 You have two results for uranium. And the 

6 americium doesn't have anything. Thorium you 

7 don't have anything. Barium you don't have 

8 anything. So, if you go by individual rate on 

9 the bioassay, it is more difficult. 

10 MR. NETON: Well, there's a couple 

11 of reasons probably. I mean, the values are 

12 going to be very low, and we can certainly use 

13 some type of scaling factor. But I'll go back 

14 to your plutonium in vivo measurements. 

15 The detection limit for plutonium 

16 in vivo at best, for a very thin person, it's 

17 somewhere around a couple hundred nanocuries 

18 of plutonium intake. Yes it is. 

19 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Well, I agree with 

20 you, I agree with you. 

21 MR. NETON: Well then, so those -- 

22 MS. LIPSZTEIN: I know, I know. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 MR. NETON: So that would be a 

2 silly measurement to even have because these 

3 workers are in -- my understanding of the work 

4 situation is, that this is not working with 

5 pure plutonium like you would at, say, Rocky 

6 Flats. 

7 This is plutonium that's dispersed 

8 throughout the site from the detonation of a 

9 weapon. So it's in some kind of matrix where, 

10 you know I don't know what the concentrations 

11 are. We can go back and look at that. But, 

12 it's not like pure plutonium. So the intakes 

13 are going to be small. And this is, 

14 basically, what the bioassay data confirmed. 

15 That the intakes were small. 

16 The fact that some measurements 

17 were recorded below the detection limit don't 

18 bother me too much because that's actually 

19 acceptable. It's probably best practice. 

20 MS. LIPSZTEIN: I agree with you. 

21 The problem with that for me is that no 

22 results. And for some years there are only 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 two results in the whole year. Although only 

2 four results in the whole year. 

3 So its, you know you can't take -- 

4 and when you look at the detection limits, 

5 it's also so much. So this is thinking of if 

6 you had results below detection limits. 

7 But I'm saying that there are not 

8 data to do any statistical work. At least 

9 until 1988. 

10 MR. NETON: Well, we're going to 

11 have to go back and re-look at this. 

12 Obviously, we just got this less than a week 

13 ago. But I think again, like with Lynn's 

14 report, we're going to have to go back and 

15 look at the data and I do agree that you 

16 raised some issues related to the distribution 

17 of samples throughout the year. That's 

18 something that we need to check. 

19 I still maintain that the bioassay 

20 program was in place, admittedly small for 

21 probably a very good reason which was the 

22 intakes were very -- potential for intakes 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 were very low. And the data that we have tend 

2 to bear that out. So we'll go back and look 

3 at that and react to this. 

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: But if you're 

5 only sampling six or seven people out of maybe 

6 200, 300 workers who are more likely to be 

7 exposed to dusty or dirty conditions they will 

8 not have a large external potential. But they 

9 have a great internal potential. 

10 MR. NETON: Right, but -- 

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: And so that -- 

12 those numbers are six or seven they are really 

13 meaningless when you take the total number of 

14 workers that had that potential. 

15 MR. NETON: Right, but you need to 

16 look at the magnitude of potential. How large 

17 is this potential for exposure. You know 

18 there's plutonium in all soil in the United 

19 States for example because of atmospheric 

20 weapons testing. It's all over the world. 

21 You're not going to sample 

22 residents of the United States for plutonium 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 just because there is a little bit in the soil 

2 here. So you've got to look at where the 

3 plutonium was concentrated and which workers 

4 were monitored and where it was concentrated. 

5 And that's what we'll need to take a look at 

6 and we'll get back and react to this. 

7 MR. MAKHAJANI: Jim, in this 

8 context I might make a request also. When we 

9 discuss Lynn's report, and Lynn please feel 

10 free to comment, there were a number of 

11 different worker categories to whom what Lynn 

12 was saying would apply in terms of 

13 occupational internal dose and I felt that in 

14 many of these cases you have a high episodic 

15 internal exposure potential relatively 

16 speaking, whatever that high might mean 

17 relative to external dose potential. 

18 And so I think this whole question 

19 of external dose driving internal dose 

20 exposure potential maybe that needs a relook. 

21 And this particular report might need to be 

22 looked at in conjunction with Lynn's 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 

 257

1 MR. NETON: I agree with you, 

2 Arjun. I mean I think probably one of the 

3 more conclusive findings that I've seen in a 

4 quick look through this report is that the 

5 correlation between external and internal at 

6 least does not appear to be there based on 

7 urinalysis. 

8 And we're going to look very 

9 closely at that. I think that's of 

10 significance. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: And Jim, just to be 

12 clear what Joyce did was to see whether 

13 external -- examine really what the practice 

14 was at the time rather than the dose 

15 correlation. We did an external exposure 

16 measurement trigger bioassay. That was a 

17 touchstone, you know -- 

18 MR. NETON: Yes, I don't think it 

19 would. In retrospect in thinking this through 

20 I mean the potential for external would put 

21 you in an area where there were, there was a 

22 potential for higher internal exposure. 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 

 258

1 really what you did in that area that drives 

2 you're internal exposure. 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: Right. 

4 MR. NETON: Whether you're, you 

5 know, digging, shoveling, whatever, you have 

6 to have some sort of outside factor there to 

7 generate an airborne aerosol. 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: And also if you 

9 went in earlier you might have a higher 

10 external potential. But you know for those 

11 that went in a week later or the fifth team or 

12 sixth team or the sixth entry in the flat or 

13 so on, you know in terms of what John Funk was 

14 saying earlier there would be a lot of 

15 variation in terms of -- so I think maybe 

16 internal needs to be looked at. 

17 MR. NETON: Right, this is a 

18 classic problem of where you have a 

19 potentially low internal dose site so there 

20 was a concomitant low emphasis on monitoring 

21 for internal exposure and, you know, we're 

22 going to have -- we've got to go do 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 

 259

1 homework and demonstrate that that's really 

2 the case. 

3 That there was a low internal 

4 chance for exposure and that's why the 

5 monitoring program is as such and the program 

6 that was there bears it out. So, we'll go 

7 back and re-examine this and get back. 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: Anything else? 

9 MR. MAURO: Does everyone have the 

10 complete database because that's where I think 

11 the value lies. In other words -- 

12 MR. MAKHAJANI: We haven't in the 

13 compilation. That doesn't really have 

14 anything in it. But it's supplementary to 

15 what we sent along -- 

16 MR. NETON: All the individual -- 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: -- in a couple of 

18 days. 

19 MR. NETON: I have some questions -

20 - 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: There's really 

22 nothing in it, 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 

 260

1 MR. MAURO: Well what I'm getting 

2 at is you know you collect all of this 

3 information, it's the data. That's the world 

4 we're living in. And it clearly, when Jim 

5 looks at it, when we summarize it in this 

6 table there's a lot of other ways in which you 

7 can sort it. 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, yes all the 

9 spreadsheets are long. 

10 MR. MAURO: And let the research, 

11 the other folks look at it and see what it 

12 tells them. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: Exactly, exactly. 

14 MR. NETON: I had a few questions. 

15 For example your analysis of the 50th and 

16 95th was that just sort of a rank order 

17 analysis. That wasn't a fit to any -- 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: It wasn't actually, 

19 you know, this is actually one of the reasons 

20 we removed a lot of the numbers is that we did 

21 not do a rank order analysis and you might 

22 want to do that, it might be useful all 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 

 261

1 there isn't enough to do rank order. That was 

2 part of the problem. 

3 So, Bob used a percentile function 

4 from Excel. And when we looked at that it 

5 wasn't giving sensical results because when 

6 you got two numbers it really -- the whole 

7 thing doesn't make sense. 

8 MR. NETON: And I'm also looking at 

9 your report and you need to go back and look 

10 at some of the original data because by my 

11 calculation the 99th percentile plutonium 

12 result that you recorded was pretty darn high. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, no it's a 

14 percentile function in Excel. And -- 

15 MR. NETON: No, I'm talking about 

16 the maximum concentration. The maximum 

17 plutonium concentration reported here is 318 

18 picocuries per liter. That makes absolutely 

19 no sense to me. 

20 Now that may actually be what was 

21 reported, but I would question the validity of 

22 that data point, knowing what we know about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 262

1 the exposure potential for workers. 

2 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Maybe if you look 

3 at the maximum concentration it will tell you 

4 more, because the maximum was the real number. 

5 MR. NETON: Well the maximum was 

6 300 picocuries per liter which sounds 

7 implausible to me. 

8 MR. MAURO: Yes, that's -- 

9 MR. NETON: That's 300, that's 3/10 

10 of a nanocurie plutonium per liter in this 

11 worker. I just can't believe that would 

12 happen at the Nevada Test Site. 

13 MR. MAURO: I am looking at Table 

14 S-1. I'm going to minus four -- 

15 MR. NETON: No, it's 3.1 times 10 

16 to the minus 7 microcuries per cc which, by my 

17 head calculation, comes out to 318 cubic 

18 curies per liter plutonium. That just doesn't 

19 seem right to me. 

20 MR. CHU: I got the same thing, 

21 it's 600 per liter. 

22 MR. NETON: It may be actually what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 they reported, but I think you need to go and 

2 look at that data. 

3 MR. BARTON: I did check that one 

4 because it was not typical of -- 

5 MS. LIPSZTEIN: Because that's not 

6 one of the sections that we have it's not only 

7 clear but also we used gamma because there is 

8 some concentrations that are so high that you 

9 doubt that they are real. So, that's why 

10 Arjun was talking about the positive also. 

11 MR. NETON: Well, you can always 

12 get false positives. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: We have Billy Smith 

14 and Lynn Anspaugh on the line and maybe they 

15 might want to make some comments on the kind 

16 of -- whether the lab had, you know, was 

17 qualified at various points and what it was 

18 qualified for, and you know what the ups and 

19 downs of that situation were. 

20 MR. SMITH: This is Billy, I'm 

21 here. We participated in the cross check 

22 studies and I was the laboratory director 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 

 264

1 more than 10 years and we ran all of the 

2 analysis for plutonium: the wet chemistry and 

3 then alpha spectrometry. 

4 The GFP's were separated from urine 

5 and beta-counted and the urine was treated and 

6 counted in a -- in the early days in sodium 

7 iodide crystal and later a germanium detector 

8 and then later a higher curied germanium 

9 detector. 

10 It's interesting that, Arjun, you 

11 asked the question why so many results for the 

12 test site guards. I thought we told you early 

13 on that there were two people that were in a 

14 regular routine ballot, or two categories of 

15 workers that were in bioassay programs because 

16 the stratification that you guys are trying 

17 to apply to the NTS workers are just not 

18 applicable because you can't stratify 

19 something where there is no strata. 

20 The guards were on site, all over 

21 the place 24 hours a day. They went in 

22 tunnels, drill rigs, ACEP, Mercury, so if 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 

 265

1 talk about what kind of environmental 

2 exposures as an example did workers get then 

3 the scenario ought to be that there would be 

4 just like ours. 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well Billy, the 

6 reason I raised this question was that first 

7 of all guards seem to have been frequently 

8 monitored only during a specific period. And 

9 then going by NIOSH's criterion of external 

10 dose, there was almost no positive recorded 

11 external doses for any security guards in the 

12 1980s to my memory. 

13 Bob, am I right about that? 

14 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

15 MR. FUNK: Hey Arjun, this is John. 

16 Can I make a point here. 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes. 

18 MR. FUNK: I can answer that 

19 because the, see, the guards -- if you look at 

20 the number of positive gammas or external 

21 exposures overall of the test site population 

22 you've got less than one percent 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 

 266

1 people that were badged that got any positive 

2 doses at all. Less than one percent of 

3 everybody that was badged 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: I think there were 

5 not even -- it was much less than that for 

6 security guards in the 80's. Bob Barton, do 

7 you want to make a -- do you remember the 

8 number. As I remember, you told me there was 

9 only one badge from the whole 20 security 

10 guards in that time that had a positive 

11 result. And yet they had lots of bioassays. 

12 So, my question, Billy, was not 

13 related to -- 

14 MR. SMITH: The gamma dose -- the 

15 external dose did not trigger bioassay 

16 sampling -- 

17 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay. 

18 MR. SMITH: -- in most cases. 

19 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, we did find 

20 that. I think that is a correct statement and 

21 that's part of the recommendation that, when 

22 you reevaluate what data set is to be used, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 maybe that should be taken into account. 

2 MR. KATZ: One person at a time, 

3 please. 

4 MR. SMITH: One of the things that 

5 happened, we analyzed essentially thousands of 

6 bioassay samples on an annual basis. If any 

7 analysis came out to be positive, that is, 

8 above the MDA for a particular analysis and 

9 one of the HPs, we would then evaluate the 

10 particular result to see whether or not there 

11 was a dose consequences associated with that 

12 number. 

13 If there was no dose consequences 

14 associated with that number then that 

15 information was not put into the dosimetry 

16 record. That was included in the laboratory 

17 record set because there was no dose 

18 consequence associated with that. 

19 So, if you don't see a lot of 

20 positive numbers, that just means that the 

21 analysis was below the MDA in such that there 

22 was nothing to put into the bioassay record. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 MR. MAKHAJANI: That I did not 

2 understand, Billy. Are you saying that you 

3 made measurement for which there were no 

4 entries in the record at all to indicate that 

5 a sample had been submitted? 

6 MR. SMITH: I am saying that 

7 samples were analyzed based on the urine 

8 samples that were submitted for analysis. If 

9 there was no dose consequence as a result of 

10 that record then no information from that 

11 sample would have been included in the 

12 bioassay record -- no, I'm sorry in the 

13 dosimetry record. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: But there would be 

15 some indication in the files that the bioassay 

16 sample had been analyzed and what the 

17 measurement was, right? 

18 MR. SMITH: There should be. There 

19 should be. But those would fall out under the 

20 analytical reports that may be included in the 

21 person's files. But that would not be in the 

22 dosimetry record. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 269

1 MR. MAKHAJANI: Now we looked at 

2 all of the DOE files that were in the 

3 claimants' files. Are we saying that those 

4 are not -- that those results are not in the 

5 claimant file. I mean I'm not sure where 

6 we're headed here. 

7 MR. SMITH: I'm not sure what's in 

8 all of the claimants' files, Arjun. It 

9 depends on the information that was supplied 

10 and the information that was requested. So 

11 those people that NIOSH needed additional 

12 information for then they would submit a 

13 request to DOE and they would provide them 

14 with whatever additional information that they 

15 had on that individual. 

16 But simply because a person had a 

17 request in to supply dosimetry information 

18 would not necessarily trigger all the 

19 information that exists with that persons name 

20 on it. 

21 Whether or not that was a sample 

22 form or a log book or an access log. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 270

1 MR. NETON: Okay, well I think we 

2 all agree that we're going to go back and 

3 relook at the dataset. 

4 MR. MAURO: Jim, I got a question 

5 to ask. When you're looking at the -- I'm 

6 going to ask it again. When you're looking at 

7 Table S-1, okay, and you're saying that, 

8 you're looking at the plutonium level and 

9 you're saying there be an error here. 

10 MR. NETON: I don't know, it was 

11 your error what's in the database. If it's in 

12 the database it's -- 

13 MR. MAURO: So you're saying that 

14 right now looking at plutonium-231 the max 

15 value 3.18 minus 7 microcuries per cc, that 

16 would be for the NIOSH 100. 

17 MR. NETON: Right. 

18 MR. MAURO: And then we went ahead 

19 and, I guess we have numbers that are very 

20 similar to that where the -- and all the 120 

21 down there and then when we spread out the rad 

22 safe. So you're saying that perhaps there's, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 271

1 it seems to me that in your mind that number 

2 might be high by what, several orders of 

3 magnitude? 

4 MR. NETON: I'm not saying that you 

5 made a mistake. I'm just saying that I have 

6 trouble believing that you have hundreds of 

7 picocuries per liter in the urine of workers 

8 at the Nevada Test Site. 

9 MR. MAURO: Okay, but now -- 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: We actually, just a 

11 minute, John. We actually found the same 

12 order of magnitude as the highest measurement 

13 in the rad safe set that we had in our 120. 

14 MR. NETON: Yes, I saw that. 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: 173. 

16 MR. NETON: Yes, they just seemed 

17 high to me. This is the first time I've 

18 really gone through this personally in detail. 

19 So I have a concern here. 

20 MR. MAURO: And let me say 

21 something about this. I think that, when it 

22 comes to SEC issues and the ability to do 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 

 272

1 reconstruction, there is great value to 

2 pulling these data. 

3 Now it doesn't mean we're all going 

4 to interpret the results the same way. What 

5 it means is -- what I'm hearing is you're 

6 looking at it and saying yes this all makes 

7 sense. Except for the numbers -- in other 

8 words, the kinds of numbers you're looking at 

9 you're finding useful and I'm hoping that the 

10 rest of the folks working on this find the 

11 dataset useful to start to help to probe to 

12 answer whether or not there are softnesses in 

13 the co-worker model and the dataset upon which 

14 it is based. 

15 MR. NETON: I would agree with you. 

16 This is a good analysis. I didn't mean to 

17 imply it wasn't. But we obviously have some 

18 different ways of interpreting the results 

19 than you do and like I said I'm gratified that 

20 the numbers in general are very low. These 

21 are all non-detects for the most part for 

22 plutonium. There's a few exceptional high 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 273

1 values that bother me that I can't believe are 

2 plausible. 

3 Now that might bring in a question 

4 of data, quality of data as Joyce suggested. 

5 I don't know. 

6 MR. CHU: And I think the 

7 distribution on the record for the job 

8 category is not sufficing John. Maybe that's 

9 why -- 

10 MR. MAURO: This issue -- one of 

11 the issues that you first conceive of this is 

12 breaking out by year. It seems to be -- that 

13 seems to be pretty eye-opening, the 

14 differences by year as being another surprise 

15 that it's important that we probe. And what 

16 are the implications of that and opposed to 

17 when rolling it all up, all of those years. 

18 So, running by year the things 

19 change in a way that -- 

20 MR. NETON: Right, and they change 

21 that dramatic -- the rad conditions change 

22 that dramatically in those years and we need 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 to address that. I mean you raise a valid 

2 point. I'm not sure they changed as much as 

3 you might think, but we will take a look at 

4 that. 

5 MR. CHU: Okay, you have to look at 

6 the history of the test sites and things that 

7 happen and the kinds of things that happened 

8 in the 60's. It did change significantly as 

9 we talked about today. 

10 MR. NETON: Yes, you look at the 

11 95th percentiles and given that they are all 

12 near the detection limit, the values to me 

13 they are not substantial different. They are 

14 all basically non-detects almost, the 50th 

15 percentiles. 

16 And that shows true in all job 

17 specifics, rad safe, security guards across 

18 the board. We have no laborers or welders but 

19 there may be very valid reasons for that. 

20 MR. MAURO: Well the 50th 

21 percentile you know their trouble. Quite 

22 frankly I was most interested in 95th 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 275

1 percentiles because I thought that's where 

2 your coworker model was headed. 

3 MR. MORRIS: Well, our coworker 

4 model's headed toward 84th percent. Well, 

5 very rarely, it was only that compromised -- 

6 MR. NETON: The quality of the data 

7 issues were sufficient but we moved to the 

8 95th percentile. 

9 MR. MAURO: There is no doubt it's 

10 spread between the 50th percentile to the 

11 higher percentiles. We're talking about three 

12 or four orders of magnitude. 

13 MR. NETON: That's good because the 

14 signal goes on -- 

15 MR. MAKHAJANI: Excuse me, please. 

16 You cannot take the percentile numbers as 

17 rank ordering, please. But I just want to 

18 tell you what the numbers are. They are not 

19 rank ordering. 

20 So, if we want to talk about rank21 ordered percentiles you have to recompile the 

22 data. We can do that or NIOSH can 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 

 276

1 But we just need to take a pause on the 

2 relative numbers as if they were rank-ordered 

3 because we're not talking about rank-ordered 

4 numbers. 

5 MR. MAURO: Arjun, I agree with you 

6 100 percent. In fact originally, now that I'm 

7 back looking at the picture that I have in my 

8 hand we were actually going to make a table 

9 and say here's the highest plutonium 

10 measurement we made, here's the second, here's 

11 the third highest one. 

12 And we were going to do statistics. 

13 We would just stack them up from highest to 

14 lowest for the NIOSH 100. Then we would stack 

15 them from highest to lowest laborers and just 

16 stack them up and not even -- and look at 

17 them. 

18 So, as opposed to trying to try 

19 assign percentiles because if you only have 

20 two numbers it doesn't really help you very 

21 much. 

22 MR. NETON: Yes, sure. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 MR. CHU: We actually did that in 

2 Figure 1 of the distribution. 

3 MR. MAURO: In Figure 1? 

4 MR. CHU: Yes. 

5 MR. NETON: In fact if you look at 

6 the distributions you plotted they overlap 

7 very nicely. They very nicely overlap which 

8 indicates that their -- to me on a visual 

9 inspection, from the same sampling population. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well, they are from 

11 the same sampling population because when you 

12 look at the distribution they are really it's 

13 all rad safe with some exceptions. 

14 MR. NETON: You know what, that's 

15 true. 

16 MR. MAKHAJANI: And that's why you 

17 see that. 

18 MR. NETON: Well, not all job19 specific workers was not all rad safe though 

20 was it? 

21 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, but the data, 

22 that's a set so, if you're counting how many 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 people were monitored you're really talking 

2 about the rad safe sample. 

3 MR. NETON: Okay, fair enough. 

4 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, Arjun? 

5 MR. FUNK: Ted, can I make a 

6 comment here for a minute about these workers? 

7 MR. KATZ: Unless we have more 

8 technical talk. 

9 (No response.) 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes John, go ahead. 

11 MR. FUNK: When they talking about 

12 using guards for resuspension it's not a good 

13 idea because there was no whacking of guards 

14 out in the areas when we would be doing this 

15 excavation work. 

16 The main people who worked around 

17 the heavy resuspension would have been the 

18 surveyors, the operators, the teamsters, the 

19 carpenters, and the laborers. And not even 

20 rad safe was out there that much when we were 

21 actually doing a lot of the work on grading 

22 the path, a lot of the heavy resuspension, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 279

1 moving the drill rigs. 

2 There was also, we're missing 

3 another thing here. We had trucks out there 

4 that had two trailers married together. With 

5 drill pipes and they were pulled with a jeep 

6 behind that. They were 72 feet long and they 

7 had 42 tires on them. They used to use them 

8 to move the power sections and the mud boxes. 

9 And they also put up just about as much dust 

10 as that drill rig did do and they ran all the 

11 time. 

12 And there's another point. RICO 

13 must have had some concern about resuspension 

14 otherwise they wouldn't have spent all of that 

15 money spraying them pads with a special black 

16 emulsion that solidified the dust to keep it 

17 from re-suspending. 

18 And there is two areas out there 

19 that had very heavy plutonium deposits. Area 

20 11 had plutonium valley which is totally spent 

21 and consigned. And you have old Area 13 which 

22 has also had another plutonium disbursement 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 280

1 test up there too. So, you have to pick the 

2 right people. 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: Now, can you say 

4 that list again. You said surveyors, laborers 

5 -- 

6 MR. FUNK: Surveyors from homes and 

7 arbor, operators who was the operating 

8 engineers they ran the equipment, the 

9 bulldozers and the surveyors, the wire masters 

10 were run by the teamsters, and the carpenters 

11 were building the foundation pads, laborers, 

12 that was it. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: Okay, thank you. 

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John. 

15 CHAIR PRESLEY: All right, does 

16 anybody have anything else for any of the 

17 three technical procedures, white papers, 

18 whatever we are going to call them? 

19 MR. KATZ: Going, going. 

20 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, now the next 

21 thing is Working Group discussions and from 

22 this morning our discussion on the badging 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 issues. SC&A has a proposal, asked to do the 

2 work. John, you said you've got something 

3 this morning. You had more work on -- wait a 

4 second, on the interviews. 

5 MR. MAURO: That's still to be 

6 delivered. 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: Well, the question 

8 was do you want it -- do you, the Working 

9 Group, want that done? 

10 MR. MAURO: I'm operating on the 

11 premise that you want us to take the 

12 initiative to do work. So right now unless 

13 you're giving direction otherwise you 

14 understand the -- some he challenges that 

15 we've encountered, Arjun described them, we're 

16 in the middle of resolving those. 

17 Our plan was to finish those 

18 interviews, get them all written up and done. 

19 Then for those folks that were interviewed, 

20 go in and based on the interview information 

21 do something not unlike what was done here for 

22 this group -- not here, the group of ten 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 

 282

1 were done as independent. 

2 I guess the question was I'm not 

3 sure how much longer that will take. Arjun, 

4 are you still there? 

5 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

6 Kathy. 

7 MR. MAURO: Yes, Arjun and Kathy, 

8 right now what we're talking about is, it 

9 sounds like we're -- we're down the road quite 

10 a ways on the interviews and then the -- 

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Where we are 

12 is they've gone through and come back from 

13 DOE. And all their redactions have been taken 

14 into consideration and that was forwarded to 

15 Arjun and it's in technical editing right now. 

16 MR. MAURO: Okay, is there a hold 

17 point that might make sense here. Let's say 

18 you finish, you get -- it sounds like we're in 

19 the home stretch of getting that. 

20 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Yes, we're 

21 probably 90, 95 percent done. 

22 MR. MAURO: Okay, but then the plan 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 being, once you have that done was to go into 

2 the records of these individuals and do 

3 something similar to what was done with the 

4 other set of ten that we -- 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: John, that is what 

6 I would like to have some explicit directions 

7 from the Working Group about that, given the 

8 amount of discussion that we had about the ten 

9 and what it means. 

10 You know from the interviews the 

11 story is pretty consistent with one or two 

12 exceptions and the story in terms of what the 

13 workers have said reaffirm largely what was 

14 said before the advisory board. And that will 

15 be the interview record. 

16 A summary of course will reflect 

17 faithfully what the interview record says. 

18 Now beyond that, you know internal from 

19 different points of view that may come up. 

20 But, beyond that, if the Working Group wants 

21 us to pull the record I'd like some specific 

22 direction from the Working Group about 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 

 284

1 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Well this is 

2 Kathy. I need to remind you that not all of 

3 the interviewees were claimants. 

4 MR. MAKHAJANI: Right, how many of 

5 the interviewees who said they took off their 

6 badges were claimants, a rough, five, eight? 

7 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I'd say 

8 maybe a third. 

9 MR. MAKHAJANI: So that would be 

10 maybe about like five? 

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Well it gets 

12 complicated in that some of those people 

13 didn't respond to our request for a reading. 

14 MR. MAKHAJANI: Well whether they 

15 responded or not of all the interviewees -- do 

16 we have five or seven interviewees who were 

17 claimants? 

18 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: I would say 

19 you have at least five. 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: Five, that would be 

21 my guess. I think we can pull the records of 

22 about five. And we could try to find more 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 

 285

1 the people who stood up. 

2 Part of the problem, just so you 

3 know is that we attempted to find all of the 

4 people who stood up but could not successfully 

5 locate them all to do interviews with them. 

6 So we were not able to do 

7 interviews with all of the people who stood 

8 up. But we were able to do interviews with 

9 quite a few of them. 

10 MR. MAURO: I would like to make a 

11 suggestion. The group of ten that we looked 

12 at and we discussed this morning clearly -- I 

13 think everyone would agree that there was 

14 nothing in there that showed up what I would 

15 call the smoking gun. 

16 In other words, there's clearly 

17 something amiss here. Out of the ten there 

18 was one item that seemed to be a little bit 

19 out of line to say even to use that term is 

20 questionable. 

21 But it seemed to demonstrate that, 

22 you know we can't prove a negative 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 

 286

1 certainly have not proven the positive with 

2 that group of ten. 

3 So we'll do an exercise in good 

4 faith to see if there is anything that would 

5 reveal that there really is a serious problem 

6 here. And I would say that -- I will take the 

7 risk of coming to a conclusion that I hope -- 

8 there is plenty not to do around here. That 

9 there's nothing there that would say, 

10 certainly there is a problem with badges left 

11 behind based on what we looked at. 

12 Okay, now we're going to have 

13 another group of affidavits or interviews of 

14 individuals who said yes, I did do that. 

15 Okay, and it sounds like out of that group 

16 there may be five of them who said yes, I did 

17 do that. 

18 The question we have to ask 

19 ourselves now is if we go into their records 

20 exactly the same way we went into the group of 

21 ten will -- now will that be a matter of due 

22 diligence as let's close this thing down. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 287

1 Let's go to those five that said they did it 

2 and now either that will show us yes, we're 

3 starting to see some incongruities or we're 

4 not. 

5 Now, it seems to me that's -- you 

6 know what I would say is yes, it's worth 

7 doing. It sort of closes the book. We've 

8 done all of the things that -- 

9 MR. MAKHAJANI: Let me put a caveat 

10 down. 

11 MR. MAURO: Yes, sure. 

12 MR. MAKHAJANI: I think we were at 

13 great pains to separate these two categories 

14 of, you know, worker statements in terms of 

15 why they took off their badges. And I don't 

16 think we should be mixing the two up again 

17 because I don't think analyzing the next topic 

18 is going to tell us something about the first 

19 five. 

20 We relay there that the reason the 

21 context was different and I think it just 

22 muddies the -- in my opinion, I'm sorry but 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 

 288

1 think it does muddy the waters a little bit to 

2 mix them. 

3 MR. MAURO: I don't want to mix it 

4 up. I want to finish the -- 

5 MR. MAKHAJANI: It kind of needs to 

6 be kind of an independent discussion as to 

7 whether we want to put that second thing to 

8 bed to the extent that we can. And it's not 

9 going to be very far along. You know it just 

10 says ten is not a lot and five is going to 

11 been even less. 

12 And so you'll be able to make 

13 statements about five or seven, but that's 

14 all. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: There is another 

16 issue too, unless this was discussed during 

17 the period of time that I was off line. Do we 

18 have any assurance at all that the individuals 

19 who claim they hid or deliberately did not 

20 wear their badges? 

21 Have any pending information 

22 against which to evaluate. Did they even 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 

 289

1 -- if they had personal dosimeters then there 

2 really wouldn't be an issue would there. I 

3 mean I'm assuming that those folks for the 

4 most part did not have a pin on when they were 

5 there or when they went to work. Whatever 

6 they are doing that day. 

7 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Wanda, there 

8 may have been a couple that mentioned that 

9 they wore PICs at some time. 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, I don't know 

11 that we can do the same kind of investigation. 

12 It's unlikely that, you know, we'll have a 

13 need to the extent, you know of PIC badge 

14 comparison is neat. But we'll have the same 

15 kind of neat result. 

16 This will be simply to take this 

17 investigation one step further. If almost all 

18 the film badge readings are zero for instance 

19 you know, what that will allow you to 

20 conclude, I don't know. 

21 I just want to stress that we have 

22 the no reason to disbelieve the workers 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 

 290

1 they did this. In fact you know, there's some 

2 evidence that this might have gone on. The 

3 question is what does it mean for dose 

4 reconstruction. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and how 

6 widespread was it, really? How widespread was 

7 it? 

8 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, exactly. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: If it was a 

10 systematic kind of thing which has been 

11 inferred then that's one issue. If on the 

12 other hand it was a series of isolated events 

13 limited to small groups of individuals then 

14 that's an entirely different issue. With 

15 respect to both dose reconstruction 

16 individually and with respect to the overall 

17 program. 

18 MR. MAKHAJANI: Or you know there 

19 may have been one type of worker -- there may 

20 have been one type of worker who the badge was 

21 at high risk of being damaged and their 

22 exposure potential can be established. 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 

 291

1 may be able to build a coworker model from 

2 some other group of workers. 

3 I mean there are a number of 

4 possibilities and at this stage they are all 

5 speculative. 

6 And I don't know what investigation 

7 of a handful of cases can do. But it is in 

8 the petition -- well, at any rate, we just 

9 want to report what is there for you to 

10 decide. 

11 CHAIR PRESLEY: Well, number one 

12 out of the cases it looks like you're only 

13 going to be able to do a possibility of five. 

14 Number two, we don't know if any of those had 

15 PICs or not. The only possibility was two out 

16 of five. 

17 The other thing on that is, you 

18 know, we don't know whether those people were 

19 in the field, in a rad area or not. I mean 

20 they could have been taking their badge off 

21 and doing some welding on a trailer at 

22 Mercury. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 So, I'm just wondering if there is 

2 any added value to this or not. And you know 

3 -- 

4 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is 

5 Kathy, we asked them pretty good their 

6 complete work history and we talked to them 

7 about what they were doing when they took 

8 their badge off and that's all in the 

9 interviews. 

10 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Kathy, someone 

11 else is on the line and has not muted their 

12 phone. Would you please mute your phone? 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Actually, I think 

14 this does to a point because we have in the 

15 public meeting these people stood up, 

16 addressed us. They wanted the Board to look 

17 into this. I think that we've got to give it 

18 all due dilligency to be able to bring most of 

19 the closure at some part. 

20 They may not have had PICs or 

21 whatever. But also with this investigation I 

22 also feel that we will be on the request more 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 point-blank questions to them that we can. 

2 And all we can do is the best we can. If we 

3 can't locate these people then that's what it 

4 is. 

5 But I do believe that we owe it to 

6 the petitioners and also the public to be able 

7 to address these. 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: Gen, you got a 

9 thought on this? 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm really not 

11 clear on what needs to be done that's beyond 

12 the scope of what was already agreed upon 

13 initially. 

14 MR. MAURO: The original scope was 

15 to go to the -- to make judgements. In other 

16 words, once the interviews were done and we 

17 had this information on this group of workers. 

18 I say 10 or 12 or whatever the numbers are, 

19 and have them before us. 

20 I think at that point the judgement 

21 was, well would it be worth going into their 

22 records. I think that -- so perhaps the 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 

 294

1 way to handle this is let's get these reports 

2 back out. Let's have these 10 or 12 reports 

3 on these workers, these people and see the 

4 story that's told about each one of them. 

5 And at that time we can make a 

6 judgement of which amongst those are there any 

7 where we think will be productive to go in and 

8 retrieve their records and take a look at it 

9 rather than try to make that decision now. 

10 CHAIR PRESLEY: I would agree with 

11 that. I mean if you don't have 10 or 12 I 

12 understand you got a five and that's it. 

13 MR. MAKHAJANI: That is a guess. I 

14 mean we haven't actually -- it would be a 

15 handful, you know. But we can actually report 

16 to you the exact number if you'd like in a day 

17 or two. 

18 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, that would be 

19 fine. Now, what are you going -- are you all 

20 going to give the copy of this to the Working 

21 Group that says you did it? 

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Excuse me, let 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 

 295

1 butt in here just long enough to ask. 

2 CHAIR PRESLEY: Go ahead. 

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Am I the only one 

4 whose getting so much cross talk that I can't 

5 hear what's transpiring? 

6 MR. KATZ: I'm sure it's worse for 

7 you Wanda because you're on the telephone. 

8 I've asked for them to stop. 

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, we hear 

10 people discussing picking up their kids from 

11 school and work and -- 

12 MR. KATZ: Right, we're hearing it 

13 too, Wanda, and I've asked them to stop. It's 

14 probably late enough that we don't need to go 

15 through the motion of cutting them off. 

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Probably not. 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: Can anybody there 

18 hear us talking other than Wanda and John 

19 Funk? 

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I can hear you 

21 just fine, unfortunately. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: Is that you, Phil? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: It's 

2 interference. 

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: It's very 

4 difficult to hear. 

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, let me -- do we 

6 have considerable deliberation remaining 

7 because if we do I'll get this line cut off. 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: I think we're 

9 coming pretty close to the end. I would like 

10 to see that paper before it comes to us. We 

11 can make the decisions. I'd like to see the 

12 copy of the paperwork go to SC&A. 

13 John, please don't make this last 

14 two or three months and we need it as fast as 

15 we can. 

16 MR. MAURO: What I heard is we're 

17 on the home stretch. Kathy Demers, are you on 

18 the line? 

19 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Yes. 

20 MR. MAURO: Kathy, give me a date 

21 when you think we'll be able to get this 

22 material into the hands of 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 

 297

1 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: 

2 Realistically, well -- 

3 MR. MAURO: And we have control 

4 over that. We can make that our number one 

5 priority. How many pages of material are we 

6 talking about? 

7 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Probably 

8 about 100. 

9 MR. MAURO: So it's 100 pages. 

10 That's been through PA already? 

11 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: Well 

12 actually we separated it into something that's 

13 going to come to the working group where it's 

14 the actual individual interviews compiled into 

15 one document. It's the long strain. And 

16 that, we will maintain the names in those. It 

17 won't go out publicly. This is a master 

18 interview summary where we are going to have 

19 to send it to PA in a week. 

20 MR. MAURO: Right now my main 

21 concern is to get into the hands of the Work 

22 Group the material we have. I am not all 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 

 298

1 concerned right now about PA. PA, we'll move 

2 through in parallel. 

3 It's more important that we get 

4 this material into the hands of the Work Group 

5 so a judgement can be made whether or not 

6 there's any follow-up that's appropriate or 

7 not. And in parallel, while that's being 

8 done, certainly we can move it to PA. 

9 I hope that's okay with the -- with 

10 Emily and Liz. 

11 MR. MAKHAJANI: John, you know, if 

12 you'll give us the appropriate priority with 

13 Nancy. It's just straight text. There's no 

14 complication: tables, graphs, charts, 

15 formatting. You know it just needs to be gone 

16 through and text-formatted and with the right 

17 cover. 

18 MR. MAURO: What I am hearing is 

19 we're days away from having to deliver this. 

20 MR. MAKHAJANI: Yes, I believe that 

21 that would be right. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: We don't have 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 

 299

1 worry about classification or anything like 

2 that? 

3 MR. MAKHAJANI: No, that's being 

4 done. 

5 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: No, it's 

6 been -- 

7 CHAIR PRESLEY: All right. 

8 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: It's been 

9 through the review at DOE. 

10 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, then we will 

11 -- 

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: So Veteran's day 

13 week we should have it, right? 

14 MR. MAURO: How many -- how about a 

15 week. We'll make a commitment that we deliver 

16 within a week. Is that okay? 

17 MS. ROBERTSON-DEMERS: This is a 

18 product of work time, but -- yes, I think we 

19 can do it within a week. 

20 MR. MAURO: Good, we'll make sure 

21 it's -- 

22 MR. KATZ: That's not our call. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 Their going to cut the line. 

2 CHAIR PRESLEY: Work Group 

3 discussion, Brad, do you have anything? 

4 (No response.) 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: Really, the only 

6 thing I see is NIOSH has to go back and look 

7 at the papers that were presented and make 

8 their recommendation and determinations. 

9 John has to get us some interviews 

10 to where we can look at this to make a 

11 decision on whether the path forward is to go 

12 do some more research on badging. Is that the 

13 only thing that we have right now on trying to 

14 get this NTS site profile or technical data 

15 sheet in the hands of a yea or nay 

16 presentation? 

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I thought we 

18 were reviewing the SEC at this point. 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: That's part of it. 

20 Some of this stuff is for the SEC as well. 

21 MR. FUNK: Chairman Presley? 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes sir. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 301

1 MR. FUNK: This is John, how is 

2 Area 51 going to impact all of this? 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: Area 51 -- hey, 

4 John? 

5 MR. FUNK: Yes. 

6 CHAIR PRESLEY: If you remember you 

7 had a letter sent to you that said Area 51 was 

8 part of the -- I'm having a senior moment. 

9 MR. ROLFES: Area 51 is included as 

10 part of the Nevada Test Site for the years of 

11 1958 -- there's a DOE letter that was issued 

12 to the Department of Labor and also really 

13 provided to John Funk as well. And that 

14 basically said that Area 51 would be included 

15 within the confines of the Nevada, within the 

16 boundary of the Nevada Test Site up through , 

17 and I don't remember the end date. 

18 CHAIR PRESLEY: Yes, John it's 

19 covered up through some time after the last 

20 shot, if I remember correctly, in the 90's. 

21 MR. FUNK: Yes, well `92 is all the 

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 

 302

1 CHAIR PRESLEY: And you should have 

2 -- if I remember correctly I saw where they 

3 sent you a copy of that letter. 

4 MR. FUNK: I did receive it, yes. 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. 

6 MR. FUNK: That's going to get 

7 worked into the discussion before they vote 

8 on, right? 

9 CHAIR PRESLEY: No, no that is -- I 

10 understand from Mark has already been worked 

11 into -- or did you already work that into the 

12 technical datasheets, Mark? 

13 MR. ROLFES: As far as individuals 

14 that worked as a DOE contractor employee for 

15 RICO for example, the people that would have 

16 entered would have been monitored in the same 

17 manner that the people that did not enter that 

18 area. 

19 So, there is essentially no 

20 different requirements for those individuals' 

21 external dosimetry monitoring. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: John, understand 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 303

1 that there is a tremendous amount of people 

2 that worked at Area 51 that did not work for 

3 DOE. 

4 MR. FUNK: I understand that, I'm 

5 aware. 

6 CHAIR PRESLEY: They are not 

7 covered. 

8 MR. FUNK: I am aware of that. 

9 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay. 

10 MR. FUNK: But I'm concerned about 

11 the RICO people that worked over there and the 

12 Holmes and Arbor people. They were covered. 

13 MS. OH: This is Kate Oh in Senator 

14 Reid's office, can I address a little bit? 

15 CHAIR PRESLEY: Who is this again 

16 please? 

17 MS. OH: Kate in Senator Reid's 

18 office. 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: Go ahead, Kate. 

20 MS. OH: I've been working with DOE 

21 on this issue and the Labor Department told me 

22 that you were working with DOE to get a list 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 of DOE contractors. And I can just forward 

2 that on when I get it. 

3 CHAIR PRESLEY: Please do. 

4 MS. OH: Okay. 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you, Kate. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: What did we come 

7 up with a the total. Wasn't that part of one 

8 o the early fifth in the earlier years? 

9 MR. ROLFES: That's a completely 

10 separate area. The Tonopah Test Range is in 

11 the extreme northwest portions of the Las 

12 Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range. The Tonopah 

13 Test Range information is included in the 

14 Sandia Site Profile as an attachment to that. 

15 So it's a completely separate area -- covered 

16 facility, separated from NTS. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: But that's part of 

18 the Sandia though? 

19 MR. ROLFES: Correct, correct. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Because there was 

21 other people that were talking about working 

22 in 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 

 305

1 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Since you're 

3 getting ready to wrap up what I'd like to do 

4 before Jim and Mark leave is to have them 

5 briefly state what they are going to be doing 

6 to follow-up on the occupational environmental 

7 dose paper and then also on the NTS coworker 

8 model paper just so we have it on the record. 

9 MR. ROLFES: Well, for the 

10 environmental side, let's see -- 

11 MR. NETON: I think I've got it 

12 here. It will clearly define where the 

13 environmental models would be applied and 

14 evaluate Lynn Anspaugh's evaluation of our 

15 current model for what I would call ambient 

16 environmental dose. 

17 And that would be in the form of 

18 some type of white paper. And similarly for 

19 the -- I believe we would do a review of the 

20 SC&A evaluation of the NIOSH coworker model 

21 for NTS. 

22 MR. KATZ: But you would also, 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 

 306

1 I have in my notes that you would also review 

2 the other factors that aren't really 

3 addressed, right? 

4 MR. NETON: Yes, well that's what I 

5 said Lynn Anspaugh's evaluation report we 

6 would cover all, the whole thing. 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, Jim I'm sure 

8 this is probably under -- but when we were in 

9 the discrepancy of the category of workers or 

10 so forth that falls under Lynn Anspaugh? 

11 MR. NETON: Yes, that would be the 

12 first thing we would do is establish clearly 

13 where we would apply our ambient environmental 

14 model and then we would also evaluate Lynn's 

15 for the four areas, the points that he made 

16 regarding out model and how he felt they would 

17 apply. 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: So what's the 

19 time line on this? 

20 MR. NETON: I will defer to Mark on 

21 that. He's the lead of the technical charge 

22 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 

 307

1 MR. ROLFES: Let's see, there's a 

2 lot of uncertainties with the end of the year 

3 approaching as well as right now with funding 

4 issues going into a new fiscal year. 

5 CHAIR PRESLEY: We've got -- you 

6 all have got your plate pretty full with about 

7 three sites right now, too. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: We can figure on 

9 about a week. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Once again I can't 

11 commit to a time at this -- 

12 MR. NETON: Maybe we can commit to 

13 getting something to you guys within the next 

14 week or so. We'll reconnoiter and get at a 

15 time for you. But we really need to look at 

16 resource-loading and stuff is the way to go. 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: Well, that's true. 

18 Looking back at our calendar okay, we've -- 

19 right now John gets us his in a week. You 

20 know that gives us some time to look at that. 

21 We've got a week of a holiday at the end of 

22 November. Then we've got the conference call 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 coming up on the 6th. 

2 The only thing, I'm going to be 

3 honest with you, that I see that we can do 

4 there is report. We haven't had a meeting and 

5 here's what's gone on at this meeting. 

6 The Advisory Board meeting is the 

7 16th, 17th, and 18th I really don't see us 

8 getting back together some time after the 1st 

9 of the year. I really don't. 

10 That gives Mark some time to work 

11 on this stuff. That gives Jim some time to 

12 work on, and it gives John some time if we say 

13 go ahead and do that to get this because I'm 

14 going to be honest with you, I would love to 

15 saw this off. I mean we can kick this around 

16 for about four years. And then we can start 

17 working on the SEC petition totally. 

18 MR. MAURO: I would ask a naive 

19 question. The SEC matrix, I mean we've been 

20 focusing on these three big-ticket items. 

21 CHAIR PRESLEY: That's correct. 

22 MR. MAURO: I'm not even sure 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 

 309

1 there are any other items on the matrix that 

2 are still alive and well that we need to 

3 address. 

4 I haven't looked at the matrix and 

5 -- so this is it. So, that being the case 

6 we're in the home stretch on these three 

7 items. I mean that's where we are right now. 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: I think so, I 

9 really do. Hey, Arjun? 

10 MR. MAKHAJANI: I understand that 

11 we -- the paper you have before you from the 

12 internal dose, you know the NIOSH 100 and the 

13 SC&A 120 was all analysis of the SEC, of 

14 course it has implications for the site 

15 profile. 

16 But, it was basically geared to the 

17 statement saying in NIOSH's evaluation report 

18 and our verification and evaluation of it. 

19 CHAIR PRESLEY: Right. 

20 MR. MAURO: We are in agreement, 

21 Arjun. 

22 CHAIR PRESLEY: We are in agreement 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 310

1 on that. 

2 MR. MAKHAJANI: I am a little 

3 confused I guess. 

4 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, does anybody 

5 else got anything for him? 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've got one 

7 thing. We have received a lot of information 

8 from Mr. Funk on the Nevada Test Site. 

9 Granted some of it goes to the TBD, some of it 

10 goes -- it doesn't effect part of the dose 

11 reconstruction but it does effect the TBD. 

12 How are we able to track so that -- 

13 because there is a lot of information in there 

14 that is pertinent information and so forth. 

15 So, I'm just wondering how we're 

16 tracking it. This has been implemented and it 

17 has been addressed. You know I can go back 

18 numerous pages of things and -- 

19 MR. ROLFES: Sure, sure, I would be 

20 happy to answer that. If you talk a look at 

21 that on the O: Drive we produced a couple of 

22 matrices and some correspondence letters 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 

 311

1 we put out there for the Advisory Board to 

2 review. 

3 And I believe we've fulfilled all 

4 of our commitments with responding to the 

5 issues that have been received for the site 

6 profile worker claims. 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, and I 

8 remember reading several those. It was a TBD 

9 issue, it wasn't a site profile issue and you 

10 explained why they were and so forth. 

11 I just don't want to lose any of 

12 the information that's being brought forth to 

13 us. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Right, it's out there 

15 on the O: Drive still. It's certainly not 

16 going to get -- 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: Okay, one of the 

18 things that Mark and I have been doing is 

19 every time that we get some information from 

20 John they pass onto me and I pick the phone up 

21 and I'll at least get an email and talk about 

22 has this been implemented or will this 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 

 312

1 implemented or where is this in TBD. 

2 Now, does anybody else have any 

3 more going around the table of what we need to 

4 do? 

5 MR. KATZ: So we're probably look 

6 at a Working Group meeting some time in 

7 January? 

8 CHAIR PRESLEY: Some time in 

9 January. You know we will get back together 

10 and see what everybody's schedule looks like. 

11 I would love to have it back up 

12 here -- you know let's see. We don't have -- 

13 to my knowledge I don't have anything down for 

14 January. 

15 MR. KATZ: We are not going to be 

16 able to schedule it now. 

17 CHAIR PRESLEY: No, no, no, no. 

18 Let's see how things shake out especially with 

19 John's stuff here and we'll get together and 

20 talk about rescheduling this meeting on an 

21 email basis. 

22 But it does look like some time 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 

 313

1 January for back up here. I think that's 

2 easiest for everybody to get here. 

3 I know it's awful easy to have CDC, 

4 and, John, your people were able to get here 

5 pretty good. 

6 Anybody else have anything, Ted, do 

7 you have anything? 

8 MR. KATZ: No sir. 

9 CHAIR PRESLEY: Thank you, 

10 everybody for coming. John, I appreciate 

11 your comments. 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, John, 

13 for participating. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Thank you everyone, 

15 and one final reminder that I have for 

16 everybody here in the room is to make sure we 

17 pick up all of our papers before we leave, so 

18 that we're not leaving anything with Privacy 

19 Act information on it. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, so we are 

21 adjourned. 

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 314

1 matter was concluded at 3:41 p.m.) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18