This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work Group, 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

US Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Work Group

Monday, March 25, 2019

The Work Group convened via teleconference at 1:00 

p.m. Eastern Time, Phil Schofield, Chair, presiding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

2 

Members Present: 

Phillip Schofield, Chair

Henry Anderson, Member

Josie Beach, Member

William Field, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Terrie Barrie

Bob Barton, SC&A

D'Lanie Blaze

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Monica Harrison-Maples, ORAU Team

Lara Hughes, NIOSH

Bonnie Klea

Vernon McDougall, Atl

Jenny Naylor, HHS

Jim Neton, NIOSH

John Stiver, SC&A

Tim Taulbee, NIOSH
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

3 

Contents

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory Work Group Monday, March 25, 2019 1

Welcome and Roll Call 4

Area IV SEC Petition #235 5

SEC Petitioner Comments 23

De Soto Avenue SEC Petition #246 28

Adjourn 36
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

4

Proceedings

(1:00 p.m.)

Welcome and Roll Call

Mr. Katz: Mr. Katz: Welcome, everyone, to this 

afternoon's meeting of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health. This is the Area IV 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory -- well, it's actually 

Santa Susana Laboratory Work Group. We deal with 

more than Area IV.

And the agenda for today is the meeting is on the 

website, along with the one document germane to 

what we'll be discussing today, which is related to 

Area IV SEC Petition 235, for the period that that 

covers.

So we'll also be discussing briefly -- there'll enough 

data on De Soto Avenue SEC Petition 246 later in the 

meeting.

So let's go with roll call.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: Let me remind all of you, particularly 

members of the public who aren't as familiar, please 

mute your phones. You should only be off mute when 

you're addressing the group, and for this meeting the 

only person who would be addressing the group 

would be the petitioner. 

Ms. Klea: How do we mute?

Mr. Katz: If you don't have a mute button, press *6.

Ms. Klea: *6, okay.

Mr. Katz: That should mute your phone.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

5

Ms. Klea: Okay.

Mr. Katz: And then you press the same to take 

yourself off of mute.

Ms. Klea: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Okay. And also please don't put this call on 

hold at any point because that is causing terrible 

problems, but hang up and dial back in if you have 

to.

Okay. So, Phil, it's your meeting.

Area IV SEC Petition #235

Chair Schofield: Okay. Well, we're just going to follow 

the agenda that's laid out here. So we will start off 

with the internal dose topic. Bob Barton is the author 

of this, so we'll turn it over to him.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Thanks, Phil. So, as Phil said, we're 

going to be talking about SEC Petition 235. And I do 

have some discussion slides for this, based solely off 

of the report that's on the website. So, you can only 

view these if you have Skype, but what I'll try to do 

is, as we're looking at different things, I'll indicate 

where in the report we think we are so those of you 

on the line can sort of follow along.

This presentation wasn't cleared in time to be posted 

online, but it will be cleared, as soon as it's available, 

hopefully in the next couple of weeks.

And also, before I get started, I just wanted to 

recognize the significant and great effort of Milton 

Gorden, who's one of the primary researchers and 

coauthor of the SC&A report. Unfortunately, he's not 

able to make it to the call today, but I wanted to 

recognize him and make sure that that's on the 

record.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

6

So, starting with some introduction and the 

background of Petition 235. There's actually several 

SECs at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, also known 

as Area IV. SEC 93 covered January 1, 1955 to 

December 31st, 1958 and the basis was inability to 

reconstruct internal and external exposures in 

members of that class.

Now, that's how the SEC recommendations read. In 

the actual Evaluation Report, NIOSH had concluded 

that external dose was feasible using existing 

methods such as the coworker model.

After that there's SEC 156, which covers January 1st, 

1959 to December 31st, 1964. And this, again, was 

the inability to reconstruct internal exposures 

because they lacked sufficient bioassays to perform 

a coworker study.

The next SEC was SEC 234, and that covers January 

1st, 1964 through December 31, 1988, and that was 

based specifically on the inability to reconstruct 

internal exposures to americium and thorium. So, 

basically, this SEC covers from beginning of 1965 up 

through 1988 currently.

Now, the original requested definition was all 

employees of North American Aviation, to include 

corporate successors and subcontractors, who 

worked at Area IV of the Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory, SSFL, from December 31st, 1964 

through the present.

And the Class that was evaluated by NIOSH was all 

employees of the Department of Energy, its 

predecessor agencies, and their contractors and their 

subcontractors who worked at Area IV, the Santa 

Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California 

from August 1st, 1991 to June 30th, 1993.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

7

A quick note from SEC 234, which was the Class 

added just through 1988 up to 1989. In that 

Evaluation Report, one of the conclusions was as 

follows: NIOSH has not identified any data that 

suggests the possibility for significant operational 

thorium or americium exposures after 1988 that 

cannot be bounded. Therefore NIOSH has established 

an end date of December 31st, 1988 for this SEC 

Class.

So, again, the previous SEC period, which covered 

1965 up through 1988, was based primarily on the 

thorium and americium internal exposure potential.

In SEC 235 they evaluated periods from August 1st, 

1991 to June 30th, 1993 and it was based on the use 

bioassay content during the time was from Controls 

for Environmental Pollution. Essentially, that 

bioassay lab had been implicated in data falsification 

not directly related to Santa Susana but related to 

another site, but those bioassay results during that 

period Santa Susana are obviously suspect for that 

reason. So, for that period we just can't use those in 

vitro results either individually or to create a 

coworker model. And just a note here that NIOSH has 

not used those results from Controls for 

Environmental Pollution at any covered facility.

May 2017, NIOSH released the Petition Evaluation 

Report for Petition 235 and a summary of the 

feasibility determinations is as follows: No issues 

have been identified with the reconstruction of 

external exposures and medically-related exposures. 

External dose of unmonitored workers can do 

reconstructed using derived coworker external doses, 

which are contained in ORAU-OTIB-77. In vitro 

monitoring results were disqualified, as I just 

mentioned, however, an adequate whole-body count 

program was still in use during the time when the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

8

suspect bioassay results were identified.

After the period in which CEP was removed there's 

was a bioassay contractor, confirmatory bioassays 

were performed for the workers at the site and those 

showed that there were no measurable internal 

exposures.

By the way, internal coworker intakes of unmonitored 

workers have been developed from bioassay results 

during the operational period for uranium, plutonium, 

and fission products, and those can be used to 

reconstruct internal exposures during the residual 

period, which include this CEP period where the 

bioassays are invalid.

So this was discussed with the Work Group on 

December 4th, 2017 and two follow-up action items 

were given to NIOSH. So, Item 1 was to go and 

evaluate available air sampling data during this 

period when bioassay results are suspect and 

compare it to the period where you're going to use 

coworker intakes, just to compare the two values, 

see what the radiological conditions generally were, 

and what they tell us about using the coworker 

model, which, again, was developed from operational 

conditions, and how we can use that coworker model 

appropriately for the CEP period, that window in the 

middle of 1991 to the middle of 1993.

The second item was that the SEC 235 PER did not 

specifically discuss the potential of exposure to 

americium and thorium. Now, granted, the previous 

SEC, SEC 234, had that conclusion in it to justify the 

end date of December 31st, 1988. But the current 

SEC report did not really expound on that. So NIOSH 

was asked to specifically investigate and discuss the 

internal exposure potential to these two 

contaminants; that's, again, thorium and americium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

9

So, November of 2018, NIOSH delivered two White 

Papers to the Work Group that specifically addressed 

these two issues or action items from the December 

meeting. NIOSH then presented those two White 

Papers to the Work Group in December -- and that 

should say 2018; it is not yet December 2019 -- at 

which time SC&A was tasked with the review of this 

new information. SC&A delivered its review of the two 

White Papers in a single document, that's the 

document posted on the website, and it's titled 

"Review of Remaining Internal Dose Topics Related 

to the Evaluation of SEC 235 at the Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory." And that was delivered on 

February 20th, 2019.

So, what was our review approach? Essentially, 

threefold. One, go through what documents are 

available on the Site Research Database. There are 

currently over 2,700 total documents specific to Area 

IV, and of those are obviously a subset that are going 

to be directly related to the residual operations which 

started after 1988.

The second facet is the Boeing Incident Database. 

This database was provided by the petitioner, CORE 

Advocacy for Nuclear & Aerospace Workers, back in 

December at the full Board meeting in Redondo. So 

a lot of people are going to look at that and see how 

that affects SEC 235.

And then the third item was for SC&A to actually go 

in and take a second look at the general area gross 

beta and gross alpha air samples and, again, make 

that comparison between the operational period and 

the CEP period to see if there's any reason to suspect 

that radiological conditions were different, decidedly 

different and not representative, that would preclude 

the use of any coworker intakes derived from the 

operational period during the CEP period when the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

10

bioassay values are invalid.

So that first task, the review of the SRDB 

documentation, right now, if you're following the 

report, this would be in Section 2.1 on Page 9.

So what was the purpose? Identify documentation of 

radiological projects that might have involved 

americium or thorium post-'88. Obviously, if there's 

still work going on with those two contaminants, they 

need to be dealt with.

And, secondly, to identify documentation specific to 

that CEP period that might give us pause over using 

the operational coworker intakes to reconstruct 

internal exposures during that time. 

Member Anderson: I'm sorry. Let me break in. This 

is Andy. I just got on. Sorry I'm late.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Thanks, Andy, for registering. 

Thanks.

Member Anderson: Okay.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Welcome, Andy. I don't think 

you've missed too much so far. Just a little back 

story. 

So on the SRDB there's apparently a few different 

document types, and I list them here but obviously 

that's not an exhaustive list, but they include the 

general area air, breathing zone samples, 

contamination surveys, environmental monitoring 

evaluations, any accident or incident reports, 

decontamination and decommission evaluations that 

were done, or any other planning or occurrence 

report.

(Simultaneous speaking.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

11

Mr. Barton: The SRBD documentation also -- I'm 

sorry, was someone trying to ask a question?

Mr. Katz: I think someone's phone just wasn't 

unmuted.

Mr. Barton: I got you. Okay. So, the SRDB contained 

interviews with two former workers. Without actually 

mentioning what their job titles were or anything, 

just suffice it to say they were in positions that to 

have direct knowledge of the radiological conditions 

and projects that were going on.

So I pulled these quotes. And these quotes appear in 

Section 2.1 beginning on Page 13 and going on to 

Page 14, reflected on quotes as follows.

"As the various ETEC activities were terminated, the 

potential exposures to alpha-emitters reduced 

significantly. As mentioned above, the primary 

isotopes of concern became cesium-137 and cobalt60. While alpha-emitters were also part of the 

source-terms in Building 20 and the RMHF, these 

were at very low levels and were not routinely found 

in the contamination surveys of these locations."

That was one quote. The quote with second worker 

who was interviewed: "It is my opinion that 

americium-241 and thorium would have been minor 

contributors, if any, to internal dose. It is likely that 

this rationale is why there were relatively few 

bioassay requests made historically for these 

radionuclides.

"If Am-241 and thorium had been a significant 

internal dose contributor in the workplace of SSFL or 

De Soto, then it would logically have also been a 

potential environmental contaminant. This is not the 

case as demonstrated by the USEPA. The USEPA Area 

IV Radiological Study (2009-2012)."
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

12

"So, neither americium or thorium are or were an 

environmental issue. One could arguably extrapolate 

back and imply that it was also not a workplace issues 

at SSFL or De Soto, or at least less so than uranium, 

plutonium, and mixed fission products, for which we 

had more than adequate bioassay data."

So what did we conclude based on our review of the 

SRDB documentation? We did not identify any 

documents of significant thorium or americium 

operations, or unique exposure potentials which 

would represent an unmonitored exposure that could 

not be feasibly bounded. SC&A did not find evidence 

that suggests that the internal exposure potential 

during the CEP period was significantly different than 

the operational period, which would preclude the use 

of occupationally derived coworker intakes of 

plutonium, uranium, and mixed fission products.

So there's an internal coworker model in place based 

on the operational period, which is OTIB-80, I 

believe, and it develops intake rates for plutonium, 

uranium, and mixed fission products.

The second aspect of the review was the Boeing 

Incident Database, which I mentioned was provided 

to the Board, SC&A, and NIOSH back in Redondo at 

the December meeting.

So the purpose, again, to identify incidents involving 

americium and/or thorium in the post-1988 period at 

SSFL, and also identify radiological incidents 

specifically during the CEP period that might preclude 

the ability to perform dose reconstructions with 

sufficient accuracy.

Brief overview of the Boeing Incident Database. 

There are over 700, nearly 800 individual files in it. 

By my count, there were 71 files related specifically 

to the Santa Susana post-1988, 22 of which involve 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

13

a detectable spread of contamination. Ten of the files 

were related to set exams during the SEC 235 period. 

So that's that approximately two-year window in the 

early '90s when the bioassay data could not be 

trusted. Only one of those 10 actually involved a 

detectable spread of contamination.

The conclusions: after review of the incident 

database, we did not identify any incidents where 

thorium was identified. There was a single incident 

involving americium. It involved a smoke detector, 

which was an element not only at Area IV, but the 

other areas of the site at various points in time were 

using americium smoke detectors. In this case, while 

cleaning it a low-level contamination made it to the 

hands and the worker was immediately deconned 

and was negative.

I will make a note. That incident was not identified in 

our original review. That incident came to light as 

part of a separate review related to De Soto in SEC 

246.

Also, the incidents we reviewed did not indicate a 

significantly different internal exposure potential 

during the CEP period and during other D&D activities 

in the years surrounding this CEP period or the during 

the operational period, for which coworker data is 

available.

And the third part was to evaluate the air sampling 

data. I mean that was the purpose, to evaluate the 

general area air samples, the gross beta and gross 

alpha. That's what they measured. And it was taken 

during the operational period and also the SEC CEP 

period. Again, this is to sort of bridge that gap 

between the operational period where we have a 

coworker model, we have a way to assign 

unmonitored doses, and the CEP period where we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

14

cannot use the bioassay data.

And how do we do that and compare? One piece of 

evidence is to compare what are the general 

conditions in these various locations. And were they 

decidedly different in the CEP period to indicate that 

the exposure potential would not be bounded, or the 

exposure potential was not representative of the 

period where we have coworker intakes derived.?

So, the first chart in the Figure 1 in the report posted 

online -- let me see, that would be Section 2.3. That's 

Figure 1 beginning on Page 18.

So, here is a maximum gross beta measurement as 

found, I believe, it was in the hot laboratory. And 

what we have plotted here is, starting in 1976, you 

can see almost all of the values, even at the 

maximum, are either at or below the maximum 

permissible concentrations.

There are a couple towards the end of the '80s that 

are a little bit higher than that, but if you look at the 

whole, there doesn't seem to be a decidedly different 

trend compared to those values that are within the 

CEP period and denoted by those vertical red lines.

So, in between those two vertical red lines are the 

CEP period. Those are the max values, so the 

maximum observed air sample, general area air 

sample, that was recorded.

Here's a similar chart except now we're looking at the 

average. And here we can see the data begins in 

1976, and up until about the early '80s the average 

gross beta air samples all really bound that CEP 

period.

And most of them, the one thing to really point out 

is, on average, they're all well below the maximum 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

15

permissible concentration, which is one times ten to 

the minus-ninth microcuries per cubic centimeter. 

That was the gross beta. Now here again, we're 

looking alpha. These values begin in the early '80s 

from what's available. And, again, you have a couple 

years there in the '80s when the maximum gross 

alpha is sometimes well above the maximum 

permissible concentration. But, again, the purpose 

here is to compare these values with the CEP period.

And you can see, up until about 1986, they're all 

pretty significantly higher than the CEP period, and 

then from '86 to about late '87, they're pretty 

comparable. And then after 1988, they're lower, but 

then recall those years after 1988 are not considered 

collectable

Here's the same chart, but instead of maximum, 

we're looking at the average. And as we can see, 

again, we they start in the early '80s, and they're 

really all around that one -- it could have been a 

control limit of one times ten to the minus-14 

microcuries per cc. And, again, up until about 1987 

all those values bound what was derived in the CEP 

period. There's a couple of values in 1988 that are 

significantly lower.

What did we conclude from this? General area air 

samples at both the maximum and average quarterly 

levels, they help corroborate that the measured 

values for controlled areas during that CEP period 

were bounded by the operational period for both 

gross beta and gross alpha measurements.

The quarterly GA air samples during the CEP period 

were all several orders of magnitude below the 

maximum permissible concentration for both alpha 

and beta.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

16

And, based on this, we do not find any evidence in 

the available air sampling data that would suggest 

that internal exposure potential to the radionuclides 

of concern at Santa Susana would not be bounded by 

the operational bioassay data.

To summarize our review, remember there's really 

two main issues here, was there exposure potential

of thorium and americium after 1988? And during the 

SEC 235 period -- again, that's August 1991 to June 

1993 -- was there any reason to suggest that 

radiological conditions were decidedly different that 

it could not be represented or bounded by the period

for which we have coworker intakes?

For the thorium and americium, the available 

documentation doesn't indicate a source of exposure 

to thorium and americium that cannot feasibly be 

reconstructed with sufficiently bounding methods 

and assumptions.

Well, what does this mean for the dose 

reconstructions? The current NIOSH method 

assigned ambient, otherwise known as 

environmental, intakes, for thorium and americium 

during the SEC period. Again, that's the CEP period, 

the two-year window, and also the surrounding 

residual period.

These intakes are based primarily on stack emissions 

and they generally apply to non-radiological or 

unexposed workers in dose reconstructions under the 

auspices of this program.

So, one, the main suggestion that we took away from 

this, and it's contained in our conclusion section, is 

alternative occupational model may be appropriate 

for americium and thorium. And we don't have 

bioassay data, but we do have breathing zone, 

general area monitoring results. We also have the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

17

administrative airborne contamination limits that we 

could possibly use to come up with an occupational 

intake of those radionuclides, aside from the 

standard ambient doses, which, again, are generally 

applied only to workers who were unexposed but 

possibly onsite.

Specific to the SEC CEP period -- which, again, 

August '91 to June '93 -- we did not find evidence in 

evaluation of the air sampling data, the SRDB 

documentation, or the Boeing Database to suggest 

that internal dosage instruction is infeasible using the 

operational coworker analysis.

Some additional developments since the release of 

this report. CORE Advocacy for Nuclear & Aerospace 

Workers, which is the petitioner, notified NIOSH on 

January 28th of this year that approximately 1,463 

boxes of DOE records relevant -- well, that should 

really say potentially relevant -- to Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory have been identified. The exact 

contents of those boxes and their relevancy is not 

currently known, but per the information supplied by 

CORE Advocacy, these boxes are scheduled to be 

made available no later than this fall, 2019.

So, that ends my presentation. I'd be happy to 

answer any questions.

Chair Schofield: Work Group Members?

Member Beach: Yeah, I don't know how relevant this 

is, but we did note at the last meeting that the 

coworker model, there are several open findings and 

observations. Is there any date at which those will be 

addressed or --

Mr. Katz: I think that's a question for Lara.

Dr. Hughes: Yeah. So, I think they're kind of in a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

18

holding pattern until the SEC issues have been 

resolved. And, once that's done, we will address 

those. Those are all -- it's my understanding that 

those are all non-SEC. They're typical issues and 

once we, you know, once the SEC work has concluded 

that we would pick those back up and resolve those, 

if possible.

Member Beach: Okay. That makes sense. And maybe 

there's some -- and I don't know, Lara, if this is for 

you. There was some surrogate data we were talking 

about early on. Would you remind me if any of this 

would -- are we still going to use some surrogate for 

this does reconstructions?

Mr. Katz: Lara, is that -- is there surrogate data 

involved here?

Dr. Hughes: No, there is not.

Member Beach: Okay. That was a much earlier report 

I was looking, at and I didn't recall how that was --

what the conclusion was. Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Other Work Group Members have 

questions?

Member Beach: If no one else has anything right off 

the top, Lara, in SC&A's summary and conclusions 

they talked about a -- oh, gosh, where is it -- another 

way to -- let me find this and I'll ask my question 

again in a sec.

Mr. Barton: Josie, I think what you're talking about is 

one of our suggestions was, currently, the way dose 

reconstructions would be performed is they only have 

environmental or ambient assignments of americium 

and thorium, again, based on stack emissions.

So, even though we don't have the traditional 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

19

bioassays with which to formulate any sort of 

coworker intake, there might be other methods 

available using either, you know, the general air 

sample data, breathing zone administrative limits, to 

come up with a more occupational-style assignment 

of americium and thorium. You know, anything that 

might be encountered while doing D&D work on old 

ventilation systems or removing glove boxes, that

sort of thing. Because as it stands right now, there's 

really no occupational intake assigned. It's all 

ambient, which, again, it's really used for the 

unmonitored worker and who didn't need to be 

monitored because they were not exposed, but might 

still have been onsite and gotten some sort of 

ambient intake.

Member Beach: Yeah. Thank you, Bob. I guess I 

might actually started talking and that's correct. I 

was curious if Lara had looked at that or had any 

comments.

Dr. Hughes: Yeah, I have a question. So you say we 

would only assign ambient or environmental intakes 

-- you refer to what's currently the SEC period, right, 

which would be up until 1988, because in those -- in 

that period when we found that internal dose 

reconstruction is infeasible, we would not assign 

internal dose for those nuclides.

Now. from 1965 to 1988, that would refer to thorium 

and americium. In that period we would assign 

internal dose from uranium if data is available for a 

worker or from the coworker model. So if you refer 

to the CEP period, we would either assign ambient or 

the environmental intake or we would assign 

coworker dose.

So and I'm just trying to clarify what's your first bullet 

point on Slide 19, what exactly -- what exactly that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

20

means. If you go back to this rest in the breathing 

zone, yeah, I mean, we can certainly look into, you 

know, what's available on the breathing zone. You 

know, there is a fair amount of breathing zone data 

available during the CEP period. And whether or not 

that could be used for dose reconstruction or if it's 

possible to develop some kind of model. I mean, we'll 

look into it. I'm not sure, you know, what extent --

to what extent, but certainly we will.

Mr. Barton: Okay. And just to clarify, Lara, I am 

talking about that period after 1988. I realize that the 

SEC prior to 1989 is based on americium and thorium 

and is infeasible to reconstruct. We don't create a 

coworker model to reconstruct doses that are 

infeasible. So I'm strictly referring to this residual 

period after 1988.

Dr. Hughes: Okay. Thank you. And, yeah, that makes 

sense. Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Any other Work Group Member questions?

Member Beach: Well, this is Josie again. What's the 

impact of the box of records that were found? Is this 

something we need to hold off on until those are 

captured and at least have a brief outline of what's in 

the boxes?

Mr. Katz: Well, Josie, I mean, this is comparable to a 

million other situations, but, I mean, with information 

we don't have and don't know about, that's not 

normally a reason to wait on an SEC. If you have new 

information, then you can submit a new petition if 

your new information indicated something was 

unknown before. 

In this situation, it has nothing but a prospect for a 

whole bunch of boxes. We don't know what's in them. 

They don't relate, necessarily, to the matrix question 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

21

that's on our plate. So, it isn't in and of itself a reason 

to sit on the SEC petition. Because, again, if it's new 

information, absolutely, then either NIOSH can 

reopen on its own for an 83.14 if there's information 

that indicates some exposure that wasn't known 

about. And, of course, the petitioner could also 

submit a petition based on new information.

Member Beach: Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Katz: Sure.

Chair Schofield: I have just one quick question. Are 

you actually considering using stack emissions? I'm 

assuming they had good HEPA filters on all their 

ventilations, so the stack emissions would 

significantly be lower than the breathing zone, 

general area breathing side of the building.

Mr. Barton: Yeah. Hi, Phil, this is Bob. I think it kind 

of ties into what Josie's question was. When we talk 

about the stack emissions, that's for developing 

what's known as environmental or ambient doses.

And what you do with those is you assign them to 

workers who really didn't enter radiological facilities. 

They were essentially unexposed but might have 

been exposed to the ambient levels outside of the 

radiological facilities.

Now, if you're a radiological worker, it's a different 

ballgame, and that's where the suggestion to use a 

general air breathing zone or some combination 

areas outside the radiological areas as a method for 

assigning doses.

Chair Schofield: Okay. That clarifies the question I 

had.

Member Field: This is Bill. So, I had a question. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

22

thought the presentation was very well-developed 

and well-laid out and very easy to understand. I just 

have a follow-up question. Josie had similar 

questions that I had. But it says these boxes, will 

they actually be captured and will the contents at 

least in summary form be available for perhaps a 

future review as a petitioner?

Mr. Katz: And I think the answer to that is yes, the 

petitioners indicated that these would be available in 

the fall, at some point this fall.

Member Field: Okay.

Mr. Katz: And so, presumably, DCAS, in coordination 

with SC&A, would have to at least determine what's 

in those boxes at a box level, and decide whether it 

might be relevant for --

Member Field: That's what my question was, whether 

they'll be considered, at least a summary of the 

contents. That's a lot of boxes.

Member Beach: This is Lara. I would like to weigh in. 

This is something we have, when we received this list 

of boxes, we have checked with the records facility in 

Cincinnati and they basically -- they weren't quite 

clear on -- this list wasn't exactly matching with their 

list.

But it's my understanding that we have already seen 

some of these boxes and reviewed them and also 

what is happening is that if we get new shipments 

from DOE related to Santa Susana, they notify the 

ORAU data capture team. And they will go and review 

the records and pull what they feel is needed for the 

project.

So this is an ongoing operation. We just collected in 

the last month something like 4,000 pages of, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

23

know, records that we didn't have previously.

Now, it didn't turn out to be anything. It's mostly, like 

people said, like logbooks that contain bioassay data, 

and all this stuff is then put in our Site Research 

Database and it's reviewed along with ongoing work.

So whenever something becomes available, we go 

and check and collect what is needed.

Mr. Katz: The bottom line is, Lara, that you will notice 

if there's anything new in the material?

Dr. Hughes: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Thank you. Any other Work Group 

Member have questions? 

Okay. Then, Phil, I think the next on the agenda is 

the petitioner's opportunity comment. D'Lanie?

SEC Petitioner Comments

Ms. Blaze: Hi, this is D'Lanie Blaze, the SEC 

petitioner. Thanks for the opportunity to review the 

report, and I have a couple of observations. I think 

that the EPA radiological characterization study that 

was referenced by the Boeing employees that were 

interviewed is a very valuable study.

And this morning I emailed the Work Group. This is 

maybe the second or third time I submitted it to 

NIOSH, a list of approximate 50 facilities in Area IV 

where EPA identified americium-241, thorium and its 

associated progeny to be among the radionuclides of 

concern in 2011 and 2012.

These are also locations that are still missing from 

the Santa Susana Site Profile. And I also turned in 

EPA's synopsis of the Building 4023 operations 

history, which includes a lot of information about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

24

TRUMP-S processes. There are many indicates that it 

wasn't just the material storage route for this 

program at Santa Susana. There was actual research 

and processes resulting in americium-241 concerns.

Another observation that I had that might be relevant 

is in this OTIB on Page 58 NIOSH acknowledged 

monitoring up to 1993 among inspectors, mechanics, 

electricians, and other job titles that may be at risk 

of exposure. You might want to look at that.

And I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act 

request for the box contents for all of the boxes 

contained in TRUMP-S. There's a serious of, I don't 

know, six or seven boxes that indicated they 

contained transuranic TRUMP-S documentation. So, 

that's outstanding.

And I think that's about it, really, that I have. SC&A 

did a great job on the report, and thank you very 

much.

Mr. Katz: Thank you, D'Lanie. Any follow-up 

questions?

(Pause.)

Member Beach: Ted, this is Josie. I don't have any 

more questions at this time.

Member Field: I don't either.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Well, Phil, we need a Work Group 

proposal for going forward here.

Chair Schofield: Well, oh boy. I'm just -- well, I'm 

kind of worried a little bit about those boxes, but like 

you said, we can't really, -- we may have to reopen 

some at this point.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. I mean, Phil, I don't think that's a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

25

worry, because, again, if there ends up being 

something new in those boxes, that'll get attention 

and that will be a basis for NIOSH or the petitioner to 

reopen, whoever I guess wins the race on that.

Chair Schofield: Yeah, I have to agree with that.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. So I think, as with all of these sites, 

the door is never closed. It's always open for new 

information.

Member Beach: So, this is Josie. I don't think that 

what D'Lanie sent out this morning, I don't think 

Bob's had a chance to look at it. I just got it maybe 

a half hour before this meeting.

And I guess my question, I was prepared to move 

forward, but now I'm wondering if SC&A shouldn't 

look at this, these two papers that D'Lanie just sent 

to the Work Group.

Member Field: Yeah, I haven't even seen that yet.

Mr. Katz: Well, I didn't even receive it. So I'm not 

sure how this would work.

Member Beach: That's why I'm questioning it, 

because it came so late, but it deserves a glance, I 

would say, from SC&A, at least.

Mr. Katz: Well, I think what I would suggest would 

be that the Work Group move ahead with a 

recommendation provisionally. There's still time for 

SC&A to have a look at what D'Lanie had sent and it's 

--

Ms. Blaze: I apologize, you guys. I gave this to LaVon 

over a year ago in support of an SEC. So I really was 

under the impression that everyone had this 

information.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

26

Mr. Katz: Well, D'Lanie, if you did get it a year ago, 

it's probably has long past been looked at by DCAS, 

so but that's -- and SC&A has had access to 

everything that DCAS has had. So it's not necessarily 

new at all --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: So my suggestion, again, even more so 

having heard that, is that you go forward with a 

proposed action. And I still would say, Bob, by all 

means, take a look at that, and see if that raises your 

eyebrows on anything SC&A missed before. And Lara 

can have a look at that, too, in case this is something 

that somehow fell through the cracks. But, go 

forward with the plan, and then we can revise in realtime if you find something that would end up 

changing our course. 

Okay. Does that make sense?

Participant: Yes.

Mr. Katz: So I think we have -- I mean, I think I've 

heard a consensus, so I think we need a 

recommendation. And then we need a second for 

that. A motion, in other words, and a second, and 

then we can sort out who will take that and so on.

Member Field: I think, right now, I don't see we have 

enough to grant an SEC at this point, for 235.

Mr. Katz: Right. So we've closed 235. And the 

recommendation is to concur with NIOSH that dose 

reconstruction's feasible for the remaining period.

Member Field: Yes. I second that.

Mr. Katz: And Bill seconded it. And all in favor?

(Chorus of ayes.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

27

Mr. Katz: That makes four.

Member Anderson: Yeah. I still raise the use of the 

stack emissions, because hopefully -- it'd be nice if 

there were some data in the boxes that would 

corroborate that. But --

Mr. Katz: It sounds like, if I'm not confused, Lara said 

that there, and SC&A said there are other data. 

They're not necessarily in those boxes. They already 

have them on breathing zone monitoring and the 

question is whether that data is a better basis.

Member Anderson: Yeah. I mean that's --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: -- Site Profile issue.

Member Anderson: Yeah.

Mr. Katz: So, Bob, I think --

Member Anderson: We're basically saying, if that 

data can't be used, we're comfortable using the air 

emissions, the stack emissions. And I guess that's all 

we have, so I support it. I'll vote yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So, Bob, well, Lara, I think your 

report is last in this evaluation. If you would again --

not to put it all on your shoulders -- but if you would 

be fine with updating your presentation to cover this 

Work Group discussion and its recommendation in 

keeping the Class Definition related to this, in this 

case it's not to add the Class or extend the Class 

Definition, that would be great. Is that okay, Bob?

Mr. Barton: Very good.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. And Phil, if that's okay with you, then 

you'll introduce Bob and Bob will kick off --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

28

Chair Schofield: That's fine with me.

Mr. Katz: Okay. And then D'Lanie, of course, you will 

join us for that session, too, I'm sure.

Ms. Blaze: Of course.

Mr. Katz: Okay, then. Okay, and then next on the 

agenda, De Soto.

De Soto Avenue SEC Petition #246

Chair Schofield: Okay. I'll be interested to see what 

they have found. I think Bob is still the one on this 

one.

Mr. Barton: A point of context from SC&A, but what 

the timeline really is, is we submitted a report back 

in December, so it's sort of a -- the ball has been hit 

into NIOSH's court to address these things.

Mr. Katz: Right. This is for Lara to update on this.

Dr. Hughes: Yeah. So, NIOSH is working on a 

response to the findings and observations that SC&A 

has presented. And we actually have a draft of those 

responses.

They're currently going through the final review 

process. And once they're finalized I will place them 

in the Board Review System, which is our online 

system that we're dealing with findings and issues. 

That way it's an easier way to keep track and I expect 

that to be there in the next few weeks.

I'm sorry it wasn't out on time for this meeting, but 

it has kind of, you know, followed our internal 

schedule. And it is on track. We have four findings, 

seven observations, and one observation or finding 

that was from the Board passed to NIOSH directly.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

29

And, yeah, like I said, this will be out soon. There was 

a finding by SC&A that kind of suggested we do a few 

more interviews, and the task of interviewing 

additional former workers for De Soto has been given 

to a new NIOSH contractor, ATL, who has a large 

amount of expertise in this area.

So, they are currently working on interviewing

additional former workers for De Soto. And I'm not 

exactly sure what the timeline is. I think it'll be couple 

of months before we have that information.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Lara, are you saying in a couple months, a 

couple of months to have those interviews 

concluded? Is that what you're saying?

Dr. Hughes: I think so. I think we have Mr. McDougall 

on the phone from ATL who might have a better idea 

on the actual timeline. I'm not sure at this point. It 

depends a lot on, you know, trying to contact the 

workers and what their schedule and availability is.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Member Beach: So, this is Josie. Is ATL doing the 

interviews or will these be done in conjunction with 

SC&A and NIOSH, as we normally do interviews?

Dr. Hughes: Yes. They will be done as they're 

normally done. And --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Vern, could you enlighten us a little bit just 

about a rough timeline for --

Mr. McDougall: Sure. We were tasked to start looking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

30

into possible interviews on March 5th. And to respond 

first to a couple groups of people you all had 

expressed interest in before.

There were 13 people who we identified from an 

earlier Department of Energy report that had done 

confidential interviews and I guess the Work Group 

wanted to revisit. Department of Energy, because of 

their agreement with those folks, cannot give us their 

contact information.

But what they did do is send out letters and, for the 

people that that they have email addresses, emails 

asking them to call us, to call specifically Mark Lewis, 

to talk about their availability for additional 

interviews.

To date, nobody has called. One out of that 13 people 

-- a fair number of them are probably deceased and 

we don't know their names, we don't know how 

many. The Department of Energy has agreed that if 

nobody calls pretty soon they will have their 

contractor place follow-up telephone calls to try and 

locate these folks and ask them to interview.

Okay. Now, the next group that we saw was a group 

of seven that I believe SC&A had picked out of NOCTS 

that you all wanted to interview. And the ORAU CATI 

people had placed calls to them. I believe two of 

those people had agreed with for the CATI interviews 

that they'd be available for future interviews. 

Of the remaining five, three are deceased. We 

located both of the other two. One has agreed to be 

interviewed and one has -- and one's playing 

telephone tag with Mark. So we have some potential 

interviews here. Some of them are in California and 

could potentially be interviewed in person. Some of 

these folks and some of the other folks I'm going to 

talk about are all over the country: Nevada, Hanford, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

31

New Mexico, Florida.

So I think probably the first step that we're going to 

suggest is that the Work Group and your technical 

support contractors pick some dates when you are 

available to do the kind of group telephone interviews 

that you've done in the past for places such as Idaho. 

We also looked, just to look a little deeper, we looked 

at everybody in NOCTS who had indicated to the CATI 

interviewer that they had worked around either 

americium with thorium or both.

We reached out to -- we've reached out to all of 

them. Actually, a couple of these people are 

represented by Ms. Blaze. We're still working on 

seeing if any of these people are going to be 

worthwhile interviews.

We've got a bigger -- we've got the remaining 

population of probably 130 to 150 people in NOCTS. 

And we haven't done anything with that group until 

we find out -- Dave Sundin is working on helping us 

arrive at a more efficient way of telling who's 

deceased. So, until we can narrow that group down 

a little bit, we haven't done anything else with that. 

Now, finally, Lara gave us access -- and this is 

probably one of the most fruitful paths, I think -- Lara 

gave us access to some documents that she thought 

were relevant to the De Soto question. And we pulled 

some names out of that, out of those, as we've done 

with other sites in the past. And we think there's 

going to be some good -- we think there's a lot of 

people who have claims, who we think are going to 

be some good interviews.

We located the manager of the analytical chemistry 

lab that, I think, the mass spec was part of. He was 

the manager there for 15 years. He thinks he can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

32

speak to why thorium was there and how it was --

and how it was present.

We located -- there was a lot of --

Mr. Katz: Vernon. Can I interrupt? Please, just let's 

not be quite so specific about who you have located 

for the rest of this. I mean, you've given us a great 

idea how you're going about this, and that's much 

appreciated.

Mr. McDougall: Okay. Finally, we've got an HP that 

worked there in the '80s and we think we need to 

hear what he has to say, as well.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Thanks. So, and just for clarification, 

Vern, you probably know this, but once you have 

your list of interviewees you really just need to 

coordinate with SC&A on that.

And then when we have these ready to schedule then 

we'll get the opportunity for those to -- and those 

could be done by phone, certainly, if Board Members 

want to listen in on some those interviews, that's 

great.

Mr. McDougall: Thank you. So SC&A is going to have 

the lead on the interviews?

Mr. Katz: Well, so, what I'm saying is, no, you folks 

and SC&A will basically have the lead on these 

interviews. The Work Group Members, you don't 

really have to coordinate with them, though; we'll 

give them your dates and they can join in if they can.

I wouldn't want you to hold up the work to try to 

coordinate with any another individuals. So, to me, 

you want this to go forward, right? So, okay.

Mr. McDougall: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

33

Member Beach: Also, in that vein, I would like to 

know early on so that I could try to make it a priority, 

because I would like to sit in on them.

Mr. Katz: Absolutely.

Member Field: Yeah, the sooner, obviously, we know, 

you know, that would be of help.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Okay. Lara, is that it? Is that -- are 

we finished?

Dr. Hughes: Yeah. With regards to the agenda item 

of the Incident Database, I don't know if you want 

me to delve into it. Essentially, what we did is we 

went through it and compared it to what we already 

have in our Site Research Database. And I think we 

ended up with about 400 documents, or 400 incident 

reports that were not already there, and those are 

being uploaded with the regular upload schedule that 

they're doing.

Mr. Barton: And this is Bob. From SC&A's point of 

view, we had looked through that -- again, the 

Boeing Incident Database came via CORE Advocacy. 

And SC&A got thumb drives in December and was 

able to upload the files so we could access them 

without having to use the flash drive media. And 

we've gone through those.

Like I said, there's between 700 and 800 incident files 

contained in that, not all related just to De Soto, but 

to essentially all four areas out there. So you've got 

some incidents at the Downey Facility, at De Soto, 

and of course Santa Susana.

We had looked at those in the context of the SEC 235 

analysis, but because of the timeframe when we got 

them, they had not been part of our De Soto review.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

34

So we took a look through those files and we have a 

very brief, but a full characterization of what that 

database contains and anything that would be 

relevant to be De Soto that's currently in internal 

review at SC&A and in the process it's getting DOEcleared and PA-cleared. I'd be surprised if that was 

available prior to the Board meeting, but we're 

working as fast as we can to make that available.

Mr. Katz: That's great, Bob. Thank you. Anything 

more or any questions related to any of this? 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: It's okay. I hear you, D'Lanie. Do Board 

Members have any questions on this?

Member Beach: No, I don't. And this is Josie.

Member Field: I don't at this point. I mean --

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Member Field: -- we're waiting on this information.

Ms. Blaze: Last month I did have a teleconference 

with DOE about the 1,463 boxes. And they indicated 

that they were available, present, in Cincinnati, 

accessible. They can be accessed at any time. And 

we have the confidential summary of what's in the 

boxes.

I think logbooks are going to certainly be relevant to 

the De Soto facility SEC. And, as I was saying before, 

there's several boxes with the TRUMP-S transuranic 

program at Santa Susana that I had FOIA'd.

So, even if the boxes were not currently available and 

they're going to be available in September 2019, I 

would hope that this SEC would be held. I mean, 

we've seen SECs be held for up to ten years because 

records continue to be discovered.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

35

We have access to these boxes, according to the 

DOE. So I would hope that we would move on them 

and get them and investigate their relevance.

Mr. Katz: Just to be clear, we have SECs that have 

gone for a very long period, but this isn't really a 

comparable case of why they are delayed. They are 

delayed because we can't make -- we haven't 

completed all of the analyses that need to be done 

for these, for example, the Savannah River Site. 

There's been a long effort at analyses that have been 

identified iteratively as it's gone on with the SEC. It's 

a different situation than we've got here.

Ms. Blaze: Has NIOSH ever issued a new report on 

the material I gave to LaVon on the americium and 

thorium in that specific building location in Area IV? 

I don't remember seeing anything like that; I just 

wanted to double-check because I might have missed 

it.

Dr. Hughes: No, we have not issued a report on 

those. We don't issue a report on every, you know, 

supported item that is submitted on a petition. It's 

just not a -- it's not really possible to do, just from a 

work perspective. We certainly do review them and 

we file them and if anything would, you know, change 

the decision, we would certainly act on it. But we --

Ms. Blaze: One of the reasons this particular issue 

stuck out to me was because the interviews of both 

Boeing employees were included in SC&A's report 

and one of them was stating an absence of 

identification by EPA of americium and thorium.

And I believe that was an incorrect statement if you 

looked at the EPA report that was submitted, and 

again what I submitted today shows americium and 

thorium identified at 50 locations. So, that was just 

one reason why it stuck out.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Santa Susana Work 

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Santa Susana Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change.

36

In any case, I hope that the information is helpful. 

And I look forward to seeing all of you guys in 

Pittsburgh and thank you again. 

Oh, I assume -- I would hope also that NIOSH 

encourages Vernon and his team to have interviews 

with people at Santa Susana about the De Soto 

facility, because we know the workers rotated, 

shared operations, shared materials.

Santa Susana workers, they absolutely have 

knowledge of americium and thorium at the De Soto 

facility. So, hopefully, he's including those guys in the 

interview prospects.

Mr. Katz: Thank you, Delaney.

Ms. Delaney: That's it. Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Thank you.

Chair Schofield: Just a quick, brief statement. The 

information you sent to Lara is available to the Work 

Group Members.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Okay. So is there anything else? 

Chair Schofield: I don't have anything.

Adjourn

Mr. Katz: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for the hard 

work that went into this meeting, again. And thank 

you to D'Lanie and the other members of the public 

who joined us at this meeting. And we're adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:09 p.m.)