14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

a5

a9

exposures or radon intakes. If you're going to be
dealing with that, you know, and people work, even
for a long period of time, it may not add
significantly to the POC, but nevertheless, it
perhaps would give more credibility to the AWE
wide profiles.

DR. NETON: That's a good question. I think
-- I failed to communicate to you, this is for
natural uranium only and does not apply to
facilities that processed uranium ore that may
have radium-226 in the stream. So if you receive
natural uranium, you just can’t grow in radon in
that decay chain in any quantity that would make
any difference in the dose calculation.

DR. ANDRADE: So this is for processed
uranium,

DR. NETON: Exactly.

DR. ANDRADE: You're not dealing with ores at
all.

DR. NETON: That's correct.

DR. ANDRADE: And when you say "natural", it
is processed naturally.

DR. NETON: [tL is processed uranium, already
refined, in either powder or metallic form of some

type We did allaw for a 100-day decay so that

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

1s

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

using an upper limit for the detection limit.

Okay, in the internal dose area, the worker
had no evidence of urinalysis bioassay at all, but
there was one non-detectable in vivo exam, which
was below the detection limit of the measurement
system. So the complex-wide approach would assume
that the worker inhaled -- had a hypothetical
intake of a mixture of 28 separate radionuclides
that were likely to be present on DOE facilities
during these time period S0 there was an acute
inhalation intake of 28 radionuclides that were
equal to ten percent of the maximum permissible
body burden at that time. In doing that, it was -
- the estimate -- the overestimate or the dose was
11,923 millirem to the prostate gland.

I will say that when we do these, we take
into account any existing bioassay data that we've
received, such that the predicted intake must be
above the value of the bioassay levels, so you'll
never assign a dose lower than what the bioassay
would predict. You‘re always going to be on the
high side, the curve would be on the top of ir.

So the results of this dose reconstruction --
did I miss a slide? Yeah.

Okay, orcupational medical dose. Of course

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

il

12

16

17

18

19

20

ai.

22

23

24

25

85

settling into coffee cups, that sort of thing. So
we tried to do a -- covering ail the bases here
with some fairly maximized assumptions to see how
we could use this for these claimants.

As i mentioned, it was restricted to uranium
only, and it does exclude dose reconstructions for
the lungs, skin, breast, eyes and tissues. It
just won't work for those. Obviously for lung
cancer, if you're breathing this type of a air
concentrations, it’s just not going to work.

Okay, let me just briefly go over one case.
This is a person who worked at an AWE that was
located in Pennsylvania. He was employed as a
millwright from the mid-fifties through the late
seventies. The DOE operation only occurred in one
year during that employment. And in fact, this is
one of those facilities where it was for six
months, and they actually only worked two days per

mon

h -- or they were contracted to work two days
per month.

We assumed for this particular dose
reconstruction, though, that the person worked the
entire year, eight hours a day, five days a week,
52 weeks, breathing that 100 times the maximum air

concentration. That‘s pretty -- that’s fairly

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



ot 7n he Ye BY He

.]

10
11
12
13
14

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s

82

interesting to me to just keep track. The
probability of causation at the 50th percentile in
this particular case is one percent, given even
these very extreme -- we believe -- overestimates
for this particular case.

So that’s an example of what we do with these
AWE -- or the DOE complex-wide. f'd like to now
talk about what we do in the AWE area, It's a
little different.

There's a technical basis for estimating
maximum plausible doses to workers at AWE
facilities that‘s out on our web site, as well,
and it includes an internal dose evaluation
protocol that covers all the major modes of
exposure. That would be internal, both inhalation
and ingestion; external exposure, and residual
contamination being present at this facility.

The approach here -- most of the -- this
approach for complex-wide only is applicable to
Atomic Weapons Employer facilities that handled
natural uranium. A lot of the facilities handled
natural uranium -- hang on, I think I have a
number here. About 100 of the AWE facilities
handled only natural uranium, and a large number

of those -- more than 70 percent -- operated less

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

22
23
24

25

81

we're including that in our dose reconstructions,
so we assume that there was an annual medical X-
ray for this worker for each year of employment,
whether or not we actually had any evidence of
that. We would just automatically assume that at
the most he would have had an annual medical X-
ray. We would have no evidence that there was any
more frequent than that, let's put it that way.
And we would assign the highest dose received by
any organ from that X-ray other than skin. So
what I mean by that is an X-ray is taken with a
collimated beam -- a collimated beam. Other
organs that are not in the field of view would be
irradiated. In this case we would have taken the
lung dose as the highest dose and assigned it, and
that ended up assigning 1.4 rem -- 1,411 millirem
to the prostate gland from the X-rays -- the
hypothetical medical X-ray.

So the results of this are that the total
assigned dose to prostate was 14,922 millirem
versus the record that was provided by Department
of Energy for his occupational monitoring of 84
millirem, which resulted in a probability of
causation of 10.4 percent at the 99 percent

credibility level. I always -- it's sort of

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
il
12
13
14

15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

84

was actually a Monte Carlo model to model the
external exposure coming off of a big biock of
uranium metal, essentially. And so that was
modeled both as a cylindrical and a rectangular
ingots, and I believe the rectangular one came off
higher, so we ended up using that one. ‘'here's
not much difference between these two. So the
worker was also assumed then to have been exposed
external at a distance of one foot from this
uranium metal for the same time period, the entire
year, eight hours a day, five days a week.

We also made provisions in this document for
external exposure from contaminated surfaces. If
you generate this huge amount of air
concentration, there's a certain settling that
happens that one can calculate with a certain
terminal settling velocity of the particles that
will accumulate on the surfaces. We assumed no
removal of that material, and then calculated,
using standard models, the external exposure from
a person walking around all these hypothetically-
contaminated surfaces.

And then we also - there's a model in here
for ingestion of contamination on those surfaces.

There’s certain assumptions for transfer factors,

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



2: 8

12

23

14

19

20

ai

23

24

25

76

revising some sections, as well, from that
meeting.

The ones down the pike are Portsmouth, Mound
and Oak Ridge, and they’re being scheduled --
currently in the process of being scheduled.

MR. GRIFFON: Jim, are these minutes
available on the web site at all or --

DR. NETON: Yeah, they will be. We did nor
do that at the Savannah River meeting, and then
after we -- you know, in hindsight we decided that
was -- probably would have been better to do and
as they come available we’ll certainly have them
on our web site.

Okay, I want to spend a little bit of the
remainder of my time talking about these two
complex-wide efficiency documents and giving you
an example of dose reconstruction for each flavor.
The first one I'll talk about is a DOE complex-
wide, and really it’s a -- it’s based on a number
of different -- and I'm going to throw another
term out at you, a technical information bulletin.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the nomenclature,
but these technical information bulletins are sort
of small versions of technical basis documents. I

don’t know how else to describe it, but they’re

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



a7,

18

i3

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

pulling these off the dose reconstruction is
there’s two classes of gamma exposure, 30 to 250
keV and greater than 250, I inadvertently only
pulled up one column, so that’s why these numbers
are higher. I apologize for that. I’m glad I
caught this looking it over last night.

So at any rate, we have these three modes of
exposure that we’ve covered for external.

In the internal dose area, no bioassay
results were available for this worker. Again we
assumed this breathing of 100 times the MAC for
the entire year. We used the claimant-favorabie
solubility class, which means that, you know, all
the activity would have been absorbed -- or the
more rapid clearance from the lung through the GI
tract and absorption. If you do the calculations
-- it’s always kind of interesting to me to put
this sort of on a mass scale -- we would have
assumed that the person inhaled 4.7 grams of
natural uranium during that year, which is quite a
bit of uranium, mass-wise, to inhale. And again
we included the dose from residual contamination.

Doing that, we ended up with 5,870 -- that
should be millirem -- boy -- to the colon. I need

to fix these, I’m sorry.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
22
23
24

25

86

typical of how we would process these claims. The
person did have -- was diagnosed with colon cancer
one year after the end of his employment at the
age of 54.

In the external dose area -- we have no
external dose measurements for this facility at
all, but as I mentioned before, there was a Monte
Carlo simulation given these large blocks uf
uranium -- natural uranium present in the
facility. What would be the continuous exposure
for one year at one foot from the uranium metal
itself -- basically that's what I said. I£ we do
this calculation, we would assign 4,100 millirem
to the colon from exposures from working right
next to this derby for the entire year. The
residual radioactivity model, which is walking
around these theoretically-contaminated surfaces
for the entire year, adds another 1,032 millirem.
And -- oh, this is from -- this is from the
contaminated surfaces, 43 millirem. This is from
residual -- ingestion of residual radioactivity.

I think these are somewhat different than
your slides. I apologize. I'11 make sure Lhat we
get copies of this out, These numbers are a

little higher. What I neglected when I was

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

19

20

Zt

22

|

24

83

than five years. So you've got a situation with a
natural uranium exposure, similar processes or
maximized -- processes that you could maximize,
and you’re actually only covering five years of
exposure, and then any residual contamination from
that exposure up to the point of diagnosis.

So in looking at a number of the AWEs that
were out there, and in particular the ones in the
early years, the seven that were evaluated early
on, it was decided that if we assumed a constant
internal exposure to 100 times the maximum
allowable air concentration during the entire
period of operation, we would overestimate the
internal exposures for these workers. What we
mean by that is we would assign -- and many of
these operations only happened for like a six-
month period, two days a week, six months,
something like that. We assumed for the entire
year that the person received 100 times the
maximum allowable air concentration, eight hours a
day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year. That
covers the internal exposure.

And the external exposure is modeled by -- it
turns out that there were maximum-size cylinders

that were handled at these facilities, and so it

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

1.

12

rs

14

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

79

Here’s an example of a claimant or an Energy
employee who worked somewhere in the Oak Ridge
reservation as a security guard for 16 years and
he worked from the late 1970s through the early
nineties. Subsequently developed prostate cancer,
which was diagnosed two years after end of his
employment, and he was 63 years old at that time.

So we requested the information from the
Department of Energy from the Oak Ridge
reservation and we received a reported DOE dose
for his entire 16-year period for external
exposure of 84 millirem.

The individual was monitored, though, every
quarter, and obviously most of those quarters came
back with a zero dose, no detectable dose. So
what we did was we reconstructed the person’s dose
assuming that all 70 dosimeter readings that were
taken for the person were equal to the detection
limit that’s in the profile -- or in the document
-- not necessarily the detection limit for the Oak
Ridge reservation, but for the highest one of the
DOE sites that we’ve evaluated. So doing so, 70
dosimeter exchanges times detection limit ended up
assigning 2,840 millirem external dose to the

prostate, just based on a missed dose calculation

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



isd

z EE

12

23:

14

is

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

the protoactinium 234-M beta would grow in and
you'd optimize that exposure, but radium'’s been
taken out of this natural uranium already. Sorry
for the confusion on that.

DR. ANDRADE: Thank you.

DR. ROESSLER: Jim, I want to I guess just
comment on the claimant-friendly aspect of some of
this. I was particularly struck when you were
talking about the DOE site occupational medicai
dose. Now aren’t most of those for the lung or
the chest -- they’re chest X-rays, aren't they?

DR. NETON: Correct.

DR. ROESSLER: So you assumed -- or what you
assume is that the primary beam includes the
prostate --

DR. NETON: Correct.

DR. ROESSLER: -- in that example, which --

DR. ZIEMER: And no collimation.

DR. ROESSLER: -- yeah, and no collimation.
To me, that's an example of being extremely
claimant-triendly or an example ot very poor
medical procedures. I just wanted to make the
comment .

DR. NETON: I agree with you. The bottom

line is that we don’t have any information about

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2s

78

where instead of having a number of different site
profiles for all these sites, we could take, for
example, the highest detection limit for any site
in 1975 and use that as the missed dose for the
worker. So we go through the whole complex and
use the maximum assumptions by default, and then
apply that to the worker, knowing that they're
more than likely above what the worker had been
exposed to,

In a similar fashion we'd use the maximum
eredible undetected intake. What is the largest
intake, given that there were some RAD protection
controls and processes in place that could have
occurred and not been detected.

And as usual, to be claimant-favorable, these
things would choose parameters that maximize
probability of causation. Examples of that are
things such as claimant-favorable solubility
classes. If you’re calculating a dose to the
gallbladder, you would assume that it was soluble
uranium, so it was absorbed from the lung and
deposited maximally in that organ.

Okay. Just to go over a little -- a single
example, and I tried to pick something which is

typical, kind of mid-range of this approach.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13.

18

1S.

20

21

23

24

25

TF

more even focused than a site pro-- a profile -- a
technical basis document talks about a major chunk
of the site. These things talk about specific
processes.

For example, technical information bulletin
002 taiks about maximum internal dose for certain
DOE claims; 008 talks about how to interpret
external dose measurements, and so forth. So
there's one, two, three -- four different
technical basis documents or technical information
bulletins that are used for the DOE complex-wide
approach.

The summary of the approach is to take
advantage of some of the claims where we have
better monitoring programs. If we limit the
applicability to more recent employment, and
specifically after 1970 time frame at DOE
facilities, the radiation protection programs were
at least somewhat more mature than they were in
the very early days of operations in the late
forties and fifties. There were some evidence of
active air monitoring programs, bioassay programs,
that sort of thing. And so we could take
advantage of that,

We can also apply these maximizing factors

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
gE
12
n |
14
=,
16

a7

22
23
24

25

88

Medical dose, we assume one annual medical X-
ray during the year of the contract. The highest
dose, again, received by any organ other than
skin, and that ended up assigning 95 millirem to
the colon.

So when you add all that up -- I’ii get to my
last slide -- the total dose to colon was 5,870
millizem for the internal exposure pathway, 5,270
from external, which resulted in a probability of
causation of almost 18 percent ar the 99 percent
credibility level. Again, I like to look at the
50 just to see the spread between these two
numbers, and it was three and a half percent at
the 50th percentile.

I believe that’s all I have to say. I’d be
happy to answer any questions.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I've got Tony and then

DR. ANDRADE: (Off microphone) I‘m curious
about why

THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Andrade...

DR. ANDRADE: Sorry about that. I was
curious as to why some of these all-ranging site
profiles, especially if you’re dealing with

natural uranium, did not include your radon

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES