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

Argonne National Laboratory-East Work Group

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

The Work Group met telephonically at 10:30 a.m. 

Eastern Time, Bradley P. Clawson, Chair, presiding.
Members Present: 

Bradley P. Clawson, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Bob Barton, SC&A

Elizabeth Brackett, ORAU Team

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Stu Hinnefeld, DCAS

Lara Hughes, NIOSH

Vincent King, ORAU Team

Jenny Lin Naylor, HHS

Megan Lobaugh, NIOSH

John Stiver, SC&A
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 Argonne National 

Laboratory-East Work Group Wednesday, June 27, 

2018 1

Welcome and Roll Call 5

Review Findings 8

Finding 1 8

Finding 2 9

Finding 3 10

Finding 4 14

Finding 5 15

Finding 6 16

Finding 7 17

Finding 8 18

Finding 9 19

Finding 10 20

Finding 11 21

Finding 12 21

Finding 13 25

Observations for Secondary Issues 29

Secondary Issue 1 30

Secondary Issue 2 30

Secondary Issue 3 31

Secondary Issue 4 32

Secondary Issue 5 35
Secondary Issue 6 36

Secondary Issue 7 39

Adjourn 41
Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.) 

Welcome and Roll Call

Mr. Katz: Welcome, everyone, this is the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the Argonne 

National Laboratory-East Work Group. And this 

meeting is largely about everyone getting sort of up 

to speed on where things stand and the works that 

are in progress.

The materials for today's meeting are posted on the 

NIOSH website under this program, scheduled 

meetings. You can go there. You can pull up the 

agenda, which is very simple. And also the main 

document that this is based on, which is SC&A's sort 

of update on where issues stand, as well as a 

document that has -- from the Board Review System, 

which has the back-and-forth between SC&A staff 

and NIOSH staff of various issues and where they 

stand. So people are welcome to go there and pull 

those up if they want to see the background to the 

discussions today.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: So just to remind everyone to mute your 

phones, except when you are addressing the group. 

Press *6, if you don't have a mute button, to mute it 

and *6 to come back off mute.

And Brad, it's your meeting.

Chair Clawson: Thanks, Ted. I appreciate that. Like 

has been said, this is the first Work Group meeting 

for ANL-East. I'm kind of at a loss here. I guess, 

where do we -- on the agenda, I believe this is, SC&A 

has responded to NIOSH's response. So I'm just 

wondering who wants to go first.

Mr. Buchanan: Brad, this is Ron.

Chair Clawson: Yes, Ron.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, what I would like to do is just 

refresh everybody to get everybody on the same 
page. And then I find it most productive if NIOSH 

would just give a brief idea of what they want to do 

because a lot of this is they are going to revise the 

TBDs. 

Chair Clawson: Okay.

Mr. Buchanan: And SC&A can't do much until they 

see those revisions.

Now, there are a couple of findings that we would like 

to say a few words about. So may I suggest that I 

give a brief rundown of where we're at, and then 

have NIOSH just read the finding and what they plan 

on doing, and I'll put in any comments at the end if 

we want to?

Now the question remains -- there's a few that we 

have recommended closing. There are some that 

have been resolved. So I don't know if the Work 

Group wants to address those today or wait until a 

future meeting when we have addressed more of 

them and close them all at the same time. So that's 

up to you, whatever you want to do on that.

Chair Clawson: Okay, I figure we'll just take them 

one at a time there.

If you want to go ahead, Ron, that will be fine.

Mr. Buchanan: Okay. Well first of all, I know that a 

lot of us have done other things since we've 

discussed this. So I just want to give you a brief 

rundown of where we are at on Argonne National Lab 

East because we haven't paid it a lot of attention in 

the past. We've had one conference call in March of 

2017 and then we went to the tour there and the 

meeting in Chicago there in March, which was helpful.

As most of you know, Argonne National Lab East 

started out as a reactor research facility, a direct 

offshoot of the Chicago Pile at the University of 

Chicago. It became a national lab on July first of 

1946. It did a lot of reactor research and it was in 

conjunction with Idaho National Lab.

And so they then diversified into other -- a lot of 

research. So I'll just give you a little bit of 
background then of what we're looking at here. 

There was a lot of other researchers and they 

diversified into other areas now. And so this leaves 

us some legacy to work with.

They moved from the University of Chicago to the A 

Site and then to D Site, officially became a national 

lab in July of '46.

And so what we are looking at here is some findings 

that were issued in early -- in 2009 by SC&A. The 

TBDs were issued in 2006. That makes them about 

12 years old and I think it's wise that NIOSH, as they 

have suggested, we want to update some of these 

because a lot of water has run under the bridge since 

2006 when they were issued and a lot of items have 

been addressed and resolved in this program since 

then.

And in addition, SC&A initially issued their revision. 

They started about ten years ago, issued it in I think 

March of 2009, and I was not in on that initial review. 

And so both NIOSH and SC&A have had some 

changes since this was originally issued. And so I 

have taken this over in trying to address the findings 

and I think SC&A is also funding it. NIOSH has also 

had several people working on this. And so I think 

Megan, apparently, is leading it at this time.

And so what I would like to do is just to have NIOSH, 

whoever wants to represent them, just to read the 

finding and what they plan on doing on it. And then 

we can do any discussion that we want to on each 

finding.

There are 13 original findings and there were seven 

secondary findings on our original report in 2009. 

Now we do call those -- changed that to observations 

now. So we have 13 findings and seven 

observations.

And some of these, like I say, we have found that 

they have been resolved, and we'll indicate that there 

in the discussion. But most of them NIOSH is going 

to do an update to the TBDs, which they indicated 

would be released towards the end of this year. And 

of course after that's done, well we'll review those 
and give our written evaluation of those changes and 

see if they resolved the findings or if there is more 

work that needs to be done on it.

So with that, I would like to turn it over to NIOSH and 

have them just briefly go through each one and what 

they plan on doing in the revised TBD or how they 

are going to address the issue.

Review Findings

Ms. Lobaugh: Thanks, Ron. This is Megan Lobaugh 

with NIOSH.

As you said, I am the new lead for Argonne National 

Lab East, so -- and I am the one who suggested 

having this meeting, again, just as an update and 

review, like Ron was saying.

Finding 1

So let's start with Finding 1. It may be easiest -- I'll 

read page numbers from the ANL-East Work Group 

BRS responses document that was posted online, if 

you want to follow along in that document.

So for Finding 1, this is on page 1 of that document, 

it's covering the potential missed dose from the lack 

of definition of radionuclide compositions and 

radionuclides not addressed in the Site Profile.

So this is specifically talking more about plutonium, 

uranium, and americium compositions. And our 

path, so far, has been to research the SRDB and 

review the Technical Basis Document with the 

information that is currently in there and provide --

what we have provided so far to SC&A is the process 

that the dose reconstructors used in approaching the 

dose reconstruction for claims coming in.

This also covers nontraditional accelerator-produced 

nuclides. I didn't mention that.

So our path forward on this is to update the internal 

dose Technical Basis Document to add more specific 

information as to the approach and assumptions that 

the dose reconstructors are making, specifically for 

uranium mixtures, which we typically assume 
natural, unless the reports are giving us other 

information, plutonium mixtures, and the exotics. 

And those exotics are referring to the nontraditional 

accelerator-produced nuclides.

And in our discussions in the BRS with SC&A, it seems 

like we have both agreed that, you know, the next 

step is reviewing our revised Technical Basis 

Document in this approach. But Ron, if you have 

anything additional to add, please feel free now.

Mr. Buchanan: No, I agree with that. We concur with 

that approach.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So I guess, would we like -- if

there's any discussion from the Work Group, should 

we go through that finding by finding as well?

Chair Clawson: That would be fine. You know, Ron, 

what you said earlier, we're not going to be able to 

close any of this until we actually see the changes,

correct?

Mr. Buchanan: Right, except for a few that we've 

already addressed here, and mainly the medical, 

which has been -- we started using OTIB-6 on these 

others. We won't be able to close any of those until 

we see the revised TBD, have a chance to evaluate 

it, and send out a written evaluation.

Chair Clawson: Okay, I just -- I appreciate that. 

Thanks.

Okay, we'll go ahead and we'll just go finding by 

finding.

Finding 2

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So we'll move on to Finding 2, 

which is on page 3 of the BRS discussion document.

This finding refers to a potential missed dose from 

the use of gross alpha counting for bioassay for the 

time period from 1946 to 1972.

NIOSH's path forward on this is to update the internal 

dose Technical Basis Document to add more specific 

information as to the approach and assumptions the 
dose reconstructors are making for gross alpha 

bioassay results. And in our discussion with SC&A, 

SC&A pointed out that we should review some of the 

other program methodologies, specifically the

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab document that was 

recently reviewed, the White Paper that NIOSH wrote 

that SC&A gave us responses or review on.

So using that or, you know, reviewing program 

methodologies that we currently have for gross alpha 

and previous comments that we've received on 

those.

So updating the internal dose Technical Basis 

Document with more specific information about how 

we are accounting for the fact that these are gross 

counts.

So Ron, if you have any additional comments or 

questions.

Mr. Buchanan: No, we agree with their approach. 

We just, as Megan said that, we caution the use of 

gross counting. It has problems in assigning specific 

radionuclide intake because of difference in efficiency 

and what the counters were calibrated to might be 

different than the 70 possible radionuclides that 

might be out there.

So yes, I'm glad that NIOSH is considering that paper 

and we agree with that path forward.

Finding 3

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So the next finding, Finding 3 

starts on page 5 of the BRS Discussion Document or 

BRS responses document. And this finding has to do 

with the assumption in the Argonne National Lab East 

Technical Basis Document that the default pathway 

was inhalation for assigning internal doses.

So the purpose of this was that we should be 

considering ingestion along with inhalation. NIOSH's 

response was that we do that in the process of the 

dose reconstruction and that inhalation is the default 

intake mode for the NIOSH project.

So through our discussion with SC&A we have agreed 
that this finding -- that we have come to a conclusion 

on this finding and that we suggest that the Work 

Group close this finding.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron Buchanan. And 

remember, this Evaluation Report was started in 

2008, before some of the OTIBs came out and such. 

And so we find that in their dose reconstruction that 

ingestion is considered along with inhalation, when it 

is appropriate. And so we recommend that this 

finding be closed.

Member Beach: And, this Josie. The language is 

updated as well so that it's very clear that both of 

those are being considered now?

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, so we are in the process of 

updating the Technical Basis Document. And so in 

that update, we will be sure that the language is clear 

that we are considering both ingestion and 

inhalation, when appropriate.

Member Beach: Okay, great. Thank you.

Member Roessler: Megan, this is Gen.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes.

Member Roessler: On that item, I remember reading 

somewhere more details on how NIOSH handles the 

ingestion along with the inhalation. Can you give me 

the reference on that so I can look back at that? Was 

that in the current -- or not the current but the old 

TBD?

Ms. Lobaugh: So are you talking in general for --

Member Roessler: Yes. 

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay.

Member Roessler: Yes, I think there was a discussion 

by NIOSH about how, in general, ingestion is handled 

when you have the inhalation pathway being the 

primary one but I can't remember where I read it.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes. So this is -- you may be referring 

to the DCAS TIB-9 or OCAS TIB-9, which talks about 

how we apply ingestion intakes when we assume that 
the -- when we determine the inhalation intake via 

air sampling results.

Member Roessler: Yes, that sounds like it. I'll look 

back at that one --

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes.

Member Roessler: -- and I'll try to get refreshed on 

it. That sounds good. Thank you.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, so DCAS TIB-10 -- or DCAS TIB9.

Member Roessler: Nine, okay, thanks.

Ms. Lobaugh: You're welcome.

Mr. King: Megan?

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes.

Mr. King: This is Vincent King -- 

Ms. Lobaugh: Great.

Mr. King: -- also OTIB-60, the internal dosimetry 

OTIB, discusses this.

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. Thank you.

Chair Clawson: Hey Ron, this is Brad. Have we 

already done -- because of what's going on at some 

other sites and stuff like that, have we already done 

a data adequacy and completeness review of ANLEast?

Mr. Buchanan: I'd have to go back. Megan, do you 

recall if that was done and when?

Ms. Lobaugh: No, I don't -- sorry.

Chair Clawson: I'm sorry. I haven't seen anything 

and that's why I asked the question. And just 

because what's -- you know, especially one of these 

where we've done very -- I just want to make sure 

that we don't miss that portion of it because -- the 

completeness and adequacy on the data.

So I don't know who would take that on. It would 
probably be you, Ron. But I just wanted to make 

sure. I hadn't seen anything on that. And if we have, 

I'd like to, I guess, be pointed in the right direction 

for it.

Ms. Lobaugh: This is Megan. Since I'm new, I'm still 

not sure of all of the things but for data completeness 

and adequacy, what I'm familiar with is the review of 

data use in coworker models.

Chair Clawson: Right.

Ms. Lobaugh: And Argonne doesn't currently have a 

coworker model and, as of now, we're not 

recommending a coworker model. So I don't believe 

that this has been done for Argonne.

Chair Clawson: Okay --

Ms. Hughes: This is Lara. Yes, I agree with Megan. 

I'm not aware that anything has been done. There 

was an SC&A review of the TBD and what we're 

dealing with right now is still the fallout from that, 

the -- addressing the issues from that review that 

was done initially in 2009.

Chair Clawson: Okay, I appreciate that. And that is 

something that was got into in some of these other 

sites, that one of the things is that that should be 

being looked at along with this. So if you'd keep that 

in mind, Ron, I would appreciate that.

Possibly, Bob Barton, that may fall into your realm 

there but that being said, I understand what we're 

saying on this one and I just wanted to bring that up 

before we got too much further onto that.

I'll turn it back over to you guys.

Mr. Hinnefeld: This is Stu, if I could just offer one 

thing.

Chair Clawson: Okay.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Data completeness work is done when 

we are trying to determine whether our coworker 

model data set is complete enough. And so in the 

absence of a coworker approach, I don't know that 
there is a call for it.

I mean, certainly, if SC&A finds something to do or 

finds some reason to go to investigate something, 

I'm sure they will investigate it. But that specific 

issue, I don't believe is in play at the moment.

Chair Clawson: Well, and I understand what you're 

saying. If you remember what we got into in 

Savannah River, we went through this and then the 

coworker model came --

Mr. Hinnefeld: But they are coworker models. There 

are coworker models in play at Savannah River and 

we've gone through many of their sites, like you said, 

where they were using coworker models. But until 

such time as we find coworker model is warranted in 

Argonne, then it wouldn't come up.

Chair Clawson: Okay, point taken but if coworker 

model does come up, one of our first things we need 

to do is look into that so that -- we'll just discuss that 

down the road, then.

Mr. Hinnefeld: That's absolutely true, if a coworker 

comes up then that absolutely will be high on the list.

Chair Clawson: Okay, because it seems like 

sometimes we kind of put the cart before the horse 

and I just want to make sure that we don't go too far 

into it.

And if it does come up, you are correct; we'll go 

ahead and go on to that.

So, Megan and Ron, I'll let you continue on.

Mr. Buchanan: Okay, thanks, Brad. Yes, that's a 

good point.

Finding 4

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. Thank you.

So moving on to Finding 4, which is on page 6 of the 

BRS response document, this finding has to do with 

the fact that there is insufficient information on the 

calculation of the minimum detectable concentrations 

and uncertainties in the bioassay methodology.
So NIOSH's response and path forward on this is to 

update the internal dose Technical Basis Document 

with additional more specific information regarding 

the minimum detectable concentration.

In reviewing the SRDB documents that we found, 

there is some information that we can update the 

current MDCs using that information from the SRDBs. 

And you know we're currently still reviewing that but 

in the new -- in the update to the TBDs, we will be 

sure to have more specific information regarding the 

calculation of the MDCs.

Ron, if you have anything else?

Mr. Buchanan: No, that sounds like a good approach. 

We'll review that when it becomes available.

Finding 5

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So the next finding is Finding 5, 

which is on page 7 of the BRS response document. 

This has to do with the lack of guidance for estimation 

of missed dose for unmonitored workers. So this is 

specifically for internal dose, internal missed dose for 

unmonitored workers.

So NIOSH's path forward will be to update the 

internal dose Technical Basis Document to specifically 

direct dose reconstructors to use environmental 

intakes when we come upon a claim that the worker 

was unmonitored.

So in our discussions with SC&A in the Board Review 

System, we recently provided additional references 

that were requested for supporting the statement 

that all workers in radiologically controlled areas 

were monitored. So the approach for unmonitored 

workers comes about because we're assuming that 

all workers that were in radiologically controlled 

areas were monitored.

So if there is an unmonitored worker, assignment of 

the environmental intake would make sense because 

if they were in a radiologically controlled area, they 

would have been monitored.

So Ron, if you have any additional questions or 
comments.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, the reference that is provided on 

the Site Research Database, SC&A went through 

those. At this time, we did not -- could not find any 

evidence that people weren't monitored when they 

were in radiological areas. And so -- and it appears 

that the contractor, subcontractor issues we've had 

at some of the other sites did not come into play 

here, especially in the early days.

And so at this point, we will see how this is worded 

in the TBD but, at this point, we find that this has 

been fairly well addressed and agree with this 

approach.

Finding 6

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. If there is no other discussion 

on Finding 5, we can move on to Finding 6, which is 

on page 8 of the Board Response System -- Board 

Review System response document.

This finding is a finding that deals with occupational 

medical exposures. So the finding was failure to 

adequately define and assess occupational medical 

exposures in the pre-1988 years, and potentially 

misses special employment exams.

So OTIB-6, which covers occupational medical xrays, was released in 2011. So that was after the 

initial review of the SC&A -- the initial SC&A review 

of the Argonne East Site Profile. So we have agreed, 

both NIOSH and SC&A, that in our update to the 

Argonne East Technical Basis Document covering 

occupational x-rays, that we will include the current 

OTIB-6 guidance, which provides more information 

on default assumptions for x-ray frequency and 

doses that would be assigned from those x-rays.

So this is one of the findings that we've agreed, you 

know, basically is in abeyance until we update that 

document again.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron and we agree that we 

will look at that and make sure it covers the bases 

when it's revised.
Chair Clawson: Sounds good, I agree. This is Brad.

Finding 7

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, if there's no additional 

discussion, we can move on to Finding 7.

Finding 7, again, has to do with occupational medical 

x-rays. And this finding covers the lack of techniques 

and protocols for medical examinations prior to 1988, 

increases the uncertainty of the dose conversion 

factors listed in the Argonne East occupational 

medical x-ray Technical Basis Document.

Again, this was -- the SC&A review, was prior to the 

release of OTIB-6. So in our discussions with SC&A, 

NIOSH and SC&A have agreed that, once the 

occupational x-ray Technical Basis Document is 

updated to reflect the current guidance of OTIB-6, 

likely this finding will be closed.

And Ron, if you have anything --

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron. We agree that if 

they incorporate the recommendations in OTIB-6, 

the latest revision, this should address this finding 

and we will check this out for sure when that's done.

Member Beach: So this is Josie again. The wording 

on these seems to be not quite correct on number 3 

and number 7. It says that SC&A agrees with NIOSH, 

however, they still have to review those documents -

- is that correct, Ron -- before they are actually 

closed out?

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, that is really correct. As I was 

going through these, I noticed it in several places. 

We agree that this is the solution, so therefore we 

recommended closing it but, in actuality, we probably 

should check that that has been done like we did on 

all the others.

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Buchanan: So that's really true, we should have 

worded that we will -- we find it resolved but will 

check it out for sure when the TBD is issued and make 

an official written comment on that.
Mr. Katz: Right. This is Ted.

So these are -- I think Megan correctly just used the 

term, these are really actually in abeyance.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Because the solutions are well-known, 

well-trodden everywhere else in the other sites. It's 

not like we don't know what's going to be done here, 

but --

Member Beach: Perfect.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: -- so just change the wording held 

in abeyance.

Mr. Katz: Yes, exactly.

Member Beach: Thank you.

Finding 8

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, thank you for that clarification. 

So, if there are no additional comments on that, we 

can move to Finding 8, which is on page 10 of the 

BRS responses document.

Finding 8 again has to do with the occupational 

medical x-ray dose. And this one is specific to the 

frequencies and types of x-ray exposures were 

uncertain. Again, our path forward would be 

updating the Argonne East Technical Basis Document 

that covers medical occupational medical x-rays to 

include the OTIB-6 guidance, which provides default 

assumptions that we make for the project or the 

program across the board.

One area that we have discussed with SC&A was the 

potential to extend the dose, the potential dose for 

considering PFGs. So in the current Technical Basis 

Document, it was assumed that PFGs were really only 

-- the doses from -- the potential for dose from PFGs 

was really only valid through 1956. And we have 

reviewed and are going to continue to review but will 

likely extend that to 1958.
If Vince has any other comments on that, Vince King, 

he's been working on this.

Mr. King: Yes, that's all right. That's correct. And 

this is just for the default information for the TBD, 

remember, to be applied when there are no x-ray 

records for a claimant. And I don't think I've ever 

seen a claim come in that didn't have x-ray records. 

So this is just sort of the default to use in case it's 

not in place. But it's almost a moot point because 

the records, x-ray records are very good from ANLEast.

Finding 9

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, thank you for that clarification.

If there is no other discussion, we can move on to 

Finding 9. Finding 9 is on page 11 of that BRS 

response document.

Finding 9 covers external dose and this is specifically 

about uncertainties and undocumented aspects of 

the film dosimetry at Argonne East.

So our path forward on this is to update the external 

dose Technical Basis Document by incorporating a 

simple table which gives the Argonne East dosimeter 

parameters and, through our update, continuing to 

research and see if we can refine and be more specific 

on those dosimeter parameters and when we're 

applying them.

Ron, if you have any additional --

Mr. Buchanan: Yes. I don't want to go into all the 

details but I would encourage you to look back at 

SC&A's pretty elaborate reason for this finding in 

their 2009 report on what their concern was and try 

to address those in the revised TBD as much as 

possible. Some of them go into quite the detail on 

the film covering, and packaging, and that sort of 

thing. And so those are important points which I 

don't want to go into all those details. It was pretty 

lengthy.

But I just would like to remind you that that would 

be an area that you might want to look at to see our 
areas of concern with the dosimetry.

And so other than that, I agree with the path forward.

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. We will definitely review the 

initial review and make sure we address any specific 

areas that were brought up in that review.

Finding 10

If there is no additional discussion on Finding 9, we'll 

move on to Finding 10. Finding 10 starts on page 12 

of the BRS response document.

Finding 10 covers neutron dosimetry and the fact that 

it may be inadequately addressed. So as a little 

background for Argonne East, pre-1953 there is no 

neutron monitoring. Pre-1960 there was -- so after 

1953 but before 1960 there was neutron monitoring 

but the neutron dosimeters were only read if the 

photon dose was over 100 millirem. So in that early 

time frame, pre-1960, we don't have many measures 

of neutron dose.

Our -- NIOSH's suggested approach would be to the 

update the external dose Technical Basis Document 

and review the potential for a neutron/photon ratio 

for the Argonne East site. 

Now the fact that we don't have much data pre-1960 

is leading us to suggest that we look at surrogate 

sites for neutron/photon ratios. So we are currently 

in discussion with ORAU at this time to figure out the 

best path forward on surrogates, but just in our 

discussions so far, we have talked about looking at 

Hanford and X-10 as potential surrogates, given the 

time frame and the type of reactors that were in use 

at Argonne.

This finding will require likely an additional data 

capture and more effort to review what we find and 

determine -- provide justification for an adequacy of 

using those surrogate sites. So this is one of the 

findings that will take us a little more effort as far as 

time and data captures, likely.

So Ron, if you have any questions or points.
Mr. Buchanan: Yes. Unfortunately you know we 

have had to do this at other sites, use N/P values, 

and generally we find that it becomes claimantfavorable compared to any doses that you can find 

recorded. So we are okay with this path forward. 

We'll have to see what the justification is and what 

sites they use and see if it is applicable to Argonne 

during these periods.

So, we're okay with this path forward.

Chair Clawson: Megan, this is Brad. And you'll make 

sure that SC&A is involved with that data capture?

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, we will keep SC&A informed. Yes.

Chair Clawson: Thank you.

Finding 11

Ms. Lobaugh: Sorry, I was taking notes.

So if we have no additional discussion on Finding 10, 

we can move on to Finding 11. Finding 11 starts on 

page 13 of the BRS response document.

Finding 11, again, has to do with external dose. And 

this is specifically quantification of external 

exposures to unmonitored workers outdoors was 

inadequately justified for the time frame before 

1972.

NIOSH's path forward is to update the external 

Technical Basis Document to use the ORAU team 

PROC-60, ambient doses for unmonitored workers. 

So doing a quick comparison of what is currently 

assigned for ambient dose compared to the PROC-60 

numbers, PROC-60 would be more claimantfavorable and so that is the suggested approach at 

this time.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron again. We'll have to 

see how that comes out when it is put in the TBD. 

And so, we can't comment further than that at this 

point.

Finding 12

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. If there is no additional 
discussion on Finding 11, we can move on to Finding 

12. Finding 12 starts on page 14 of the BRS response 

document.

Finding 12 has to do with internal dose and this is 

specific for outdoor inhalation exposures associated 

with waste disposal operations at Site A and 

particulates released during accidents.

In our discussion with SC&A we found that waste 

disposal operations at Site A were conducted from 

1943 through 1949 and all buried waste was 

removed to a different site, Site D, in 1949. So since 

the Site A operations were all conducted during the 

time prior to 1954, which was already reviewed by 

SC&A and said to be adequate, we considered -- both 

NIOSH and SC&A considered this an agreed-upon 

path forward or you know, agreed that this finding 

could potentially be closed.

Ron, if you have any additional discussion on this.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron. And yes, this was 

mainly getting the dates straight and what site had 

waste at what time. And so reviewing the Site 

Research Database for those dates, and then 

NIOSH's input on the dates, and then the visit to the 

-- in late last March and actually seeing the sites and 

where things were done, we find that this would be 

satisfactorily addressed. And so this is one that I 

don't think involves a TBD change. And so we would 

recommend that this be closed.

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. So if there is no additional 

discussion on Finding 12, we can move on to Finding 

13.

Mr. Katz: Well before you move on, I think the Work 

Group needs to decide whether they want to do 

something now about this or whether they need more 

information to be able to act on this closure.

Chair Clawson: To tell you truth, Ted, I'm sitting here 

looking at everything that we've got outstanding on 

this. Part of my question is on this waste disposal, 

have we -- has it been accurately depicted of what 

they -- do we really know what they had there or is 
the documentation even that good?

So I know Ron has been involved with this, so this is 

one of my questions that I wanted to ask. I know 

that you said that you feel that we can close it but I 

want to look at the bigger picture on this one, to tell 

you the truth.

Mr. Katz: So Ron, can you maybe address Brad's 

questions? Because there needs to be some clarity 

about whether there is more information to give Brad 

or it's clearly -- it's not that clear what you discussed 

for Brad, and maybe the other Work Group Members, 

too.

Mr. Buchanan: Okay. Yes, I would have to go back 

-- it would probably be best if I just write down the 

situation and what we found took place and then send 

that to you for consideration, rather than try to bring 

it all -- I don't recall it all at the moment. I'd have to 

sit down and go back through the notes and some of 

the documents and such to put it all together.

So we could do that and then --

Chair Clawson: Ron, part of my thing was, was in 

the early years and when we were first starting into 

this there were some questions of what the waste 

really was and what the characterization was of it. 

And I was kind of going back to -- you know a lot of 

water has gone under the bridge since then and I just 

want to make sure that we've adequately addressed 

what was there and what we have found over the last 

little while to justify that. That's my main thing, Ron.

Mr. Buchanan: I understand.

Mr. Katz: So does that sound fine, Brad, if Ron writes 

up a summary memo on this issue, it seems like, and 

you can run that by Megan, too, and then the Work 

Group could consider this a little more fully.

Chair Clawson: Right because I hate to make a 

decision on this because I'm still, I guess in the 

earlier -- in the earlier years there were some 

questions on it and I want to find out what brought 

us to the level of confidence that we have. 
So that's fine with me if Ron would do that. I would 

appreciate it.

Mr. Katz: Okay, Ron. And Ron, that could just be a 

memo, a summary memo. And again, if you would 

run that by Megan, too, you can copy me and the 

Work Group Members when you do that. Then Megan 

has a chance to weigh in on the summary, and then 

the Work Group will know more about this issue.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, that would be fine.

Mr. Katz: Thank you.

Ms. Lobaugh: Great.

Member Valerio: So this is Loretta. I have a question 

on the same issue. Can you hear me?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Valerio: Okay. So according to the TBD and 

what Megan is stating that Site A was -- the disposal 

operations at Site A were conducted between 1943 

and 1949. And that was removed, the buried waste 

was removed to Site D in 1949.

The next statement is, consequently all waste 

disposal operations at Site A were conducted during 

the period prior to 1954.

So I guess in my mind between 1949, when the 

buried waste was removed, and 1954, was -- even 

though the waste was removed, was there any 

decontamination and decommissioning activities that 

took place at Site A?

Ms. Lobaugh: This is Megan. I, again like Ron, don't 

remember the specifics for this one. So we will make 

sure we address that, I guess, in the memo if that's 

okay with you, Loretta.

Member Valerio: That's fine with me.

Ms. Hughes: This is Lara. I believe I looked into that 

to some extent but I do not remember at this time. 

So I will be -- I'll make sure any information I have, 

if I haven't given it to Megan yet, that I do so.
Mr. Katz: That sounds good.

Member Valerio: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Katz: Go ahead, Megan.

Finding 13

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, great.

So Finding 13, this starts on page 15 of the BRS 

document. Finding 13 is associated with occupational 

exposures at Site A and Plot M not being considered.

What we found in our discussion and review was that 

the specific time frame being talked about and the 

sites being talked about would actually be covered 

under the Met Lab and that the Met Lab methodology 

and SEC would cover this finding.

So again, this is a similar one to Finding 12, where 

we and SC&A have agreed that this finding could be 

closed because it actually applies to a different site.

Mr. Buchanan: The background on this was we, 

originally way back in 2009, questioned how Site A 

would be divided up, and Site D, and Plot M as far as 

covering them. And so what we were concerned with 

was if Argonne D Site started July 1st of '46, what 

happened to Site A and Plot M before that. And we 

understand that that is covered under the Met Lab 

SEC. And so we find that that has been clarified.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Ron. And I think this really falls 

under the category of -- the way we classify things 

today, this is more really an observation than a 

finding.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, today it would be.

Mr. Katz: So you know we probably should record it 

that way for the BRS.

Member Beach: I just have a quick question for 

either Megan or Ron. Is it clear, the worker -- the 

employees that worked between Site A and Plot M, is 

it fairly clear the distinction between those now with 

this?
Ms. Lobaugh: This is Megan. In Lara's response, I 

don't want to speak for Lara but in Lara's response 

from March 8th of 2017, she said that there doesn't 

seem to be an issue assigning claims to the 

respective site by DOL based on the review that 

NIOSH has done.

So Lara, maybe you can speak a little bit more about 

that, if you remember.

Ms. Hughes: Yes. To address this, back when I 

looked at it, what I did I pulled up the claims, a 

selection of claims that we have for both of these 

sites and just looked at what is the basis that DOL 

goes on. And it seems like, that they seemed to do 

a pretty good job in binning it. Also, what you have 

to keep in mind is this is a continuation. So it starts 

out at the Met Lab. So there's a date cutoff, there's 

a pretty clear date cutoff between when the Met Lab 

ended and ANL-East started. It was -- there wasn't 

really a cutoff. It was like they changed sites, and 

that's when DOL or DOE, when they do the site 

designation, do the cutoff. So anything that would 

be before, what's the date, June 30, 1946, would fall 

under Met Lab and the rest would be ANL-East.

Member Beach: Okay.

Ms. Hughes: So there is an overlap.

Member Beach: Okay, thank you.

Chair Clawson: So this is Brad. So, thanks, Josie, 

for that question because I was trying to remember 

this distinction between these two labs. But the 

employees that were working for Met Lab then 

became part of Argonne East. There was no change, 

just a change in the name, correct?

Mr. Katz: Well there was a change in the place, Brad, 

it's a different facility.

Chair Clawson: Okay.

Mr. Katz: So their employment would be -- if they 

worked at both places that would be captured in the 

records.
Chair Clawson: Okay. Met Lab was the earlier years, 

correct, and then they --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Clawson: Okay. There's been a lot of water 

flow since we've worked on this and I'm just trying to 

get the flow of this because I remember this was a 

big discussion.

And I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot 

of the people went from Met Lab, I thought, on over 

to Argonne, just right from there. Is that correct, 

Lara?

Ms. Hughes: Yes, if they continued their 

employment, it is my understanding their employer 

was the University of Chicago that ran the initial site, 

what's now considered Met Lab, and what happened 

is that the site expanded. They were adding more 

reactors and larger reactors. And the understanding 

was that it was not a good idea to have them in the 

middle of the city. So they found a site that was more 

removed and where they could expand.

So it was really the same -- it's not the same site for 

our purpose but it is a consecutive site. So it is very 

much likely that the workers moved on if they 

continued their employment with the University of 

Chicago and it's also that -- I think we have a lot of 

claims where they have employment at both sites. 

Or we may not because Met Lab has been an SEC for 

a long time, but I'm not sure.

Chair Clawson: Right and the distinction between the 

two is because we have two different SECs. So it 

could be the same people, basically, on both sides 

that did this Site A and Plot M waste cleanup, 

basically. I'm just wondering.

We'll address this, and --

Mr. Katz: Brad, for this one I think the Work Group 

can -- this is an observation but it is very clean cut 

and resolved, I think. This is one that the Work 

Group can close this observation, right?

Chair Clawson: Yes, I'm still -- I'm trying to get my 
hands around it. But yes, I remember the distinction 

between Met Lab and Argonne East. And so I'm not 

seeing -- Ron, what is your feeling on this?

Mr. Buchanan: I felt that it is more of a concern we 

had way back in 2009. But we feel that there is a 

clear-cut boundary there and I don't see that there's 

a problem at this time. We just wanted to make sure 

the Met Lab wasn't -- the people that worked at Site 

A weren't left out. If they were just doing the 

University of Chicago and Argonne, what about Site 

A? That was kind of split down the middle. We just 

wanted to make sure that they were included on one 

side or the other. And I see that they are. And so I 

don't have an issue with it.

Chair Clawson: Well, and I remember going through 

this. My cobwebs are knocking out and I remember 

what you were saying about being able to be on 

either side of it.

I really don't see a problem with it. I think that --

but other Work Group Members can chime in, I don't 

see a problem on it because now, after talking with 

Ron, I remember the issue was, of the split there.

But if I remember right, the people basically, if they 

continued their employment, it went right into the 

Argonne East.

So what do the other Work Group Members feel?

Member Beach: Yes, I'm fine with closing it, Brad. 

This is Josie.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I'm fine with closing 

it but, as we go through this, I'm hoping somebody 

is doing some good recordkeeping on it, on all of this.

Chair Clawson: Right. I know that I remember 

reading, and I believe we covered this last time, of 

the separation between Met Lab and us, there was -

- I believe there was quite a write-up on that, the 

distinction. And the biggest part of this is Met Lab 

had an SEC earlier. Argonne is now coming into it 

but we just wanted to make sure that either side of 

this was adequately covered.
So I don't see a problem with closing this one. Hello?

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. Brad, I agree.

Chair Clawson: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Okay, Megan, so you can close it. And I 

think, again, you can close it as an observation I 

think.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So, I will work to get that closed 

and documented in the BRS System that it's 

considered an observation.

Chair Clawson: And Megan, just I remember this was 

-- and Lara you can probably help with this, but there 

was a fairly good write-up on this that would help 

justify in this. I know that we've dealt with this and 

I'm just trying to remember all the ins and outs. But 

if I remember right, there was a good write-up of it 

that could be referenced, too.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. Is that an SC&A document?

Chair Clawson: I believe it was actually you guys 

that told us of this separation and how it was. I 

thought it was something that Lara had put together.

Ms. Hughes: Yes, I do seem to remember -- Megan, 

I'll get with you and make sure you get it. I'm not 

sure. Yes, I haven't looked at it in a while and I would 

have to look through my document.

I seem to remember doing some research on it, but 

it was really -- we kind of put it as a non-issue 

because we didn't see that Site A is not falling 

through the cracks. It's just covered under Met Lab 

and I think it's discussed in the TBD as well.

Or it might be discussed in the Met Lab ER. I'm not 

sure.

Chair Clawson: Okay, appreciate it.

Observations for Secondary Issues

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. If there's no other discussion 

on that finding, then -- well, observation now -- we 

can move on to the rest of the observations for 
secondary issues.

So they start on -- let me find the page -- they start 

on page 16 of the BRS response document. 

Secondary Issue 1

And Secondary Issue 1 covers potential missed dose 

from skin and clothing contamination. This issue has 

to do with assigning dose from skin and clothing 

contamination, external dose. So the path forward 

for this is to update the external dose TBD with 

current OTIB-17 guidance. And this was agreed on 

with SC&A in our discussions.

So Ron, if you have any additional information to add.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes. And this, of course, has been 

quite a bit of discussion on skin and clothes since 

2008 and 2006 when the TBD was written. And so 

we feel that this has probably been resolved. We just 

need to see it in the TBD. And we'll review that and 

give a written evaluation of it. So, we agree with the 

path forward.

Mr. Katz: Okay, so that would be a recommendation 

for putting it in abeyance.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, correct.

Mr. Katz: Is that good with Brad and the rest of the 

Work Group?

Chair Clawson: Yes, that's fine with me.

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Valerio: That's fine with me.

Mr. Katz: Okay, Megan.

Secondary Issue 2

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, moving on to Secondary Issue 

2, starting on page 17. This has to do with radiation 

exposures from other medical equipment other than 

typical x-ray machines.

What was found in reviews and interviews with 
workers was that there were no other medical 

equipment, radiation-generating devices used in the 

medical facility or for medical reasons. So this, 

again, would be one of the issues that we would 

suggest closing at this time.

So Ron, if you want to add anything.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes. Of course this was kind of early 

on in the game and we didn't know if there was any 

therapeutic or other type of machinery there at 

Argonne National Labs. And so during the interviews 

and reviewing the Site Profile -- I mean the SRDB 

documents, we found that there's no indication. Of 

course we have found in the program, in general, that 

there wasn't that sort of therapeutical and such there 

at the medical facilities at the National Labs.

And so we recommend that this has been resolved 

and is not an issue at this point.

And so we recommend that -- this was a secondary 

finding in our original report which, in today's 

language, is an observation. We recommend closure.

Chair Clawson: This is Brad. I have no problem with 

closing this one. Other Work Group Members?

Member Beach: This is Josie. I don't have a problem 

closing this one either.

Member Roessler: And this Gen, I don't either.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I don't have any 

problems either.

Chair Clawson: Okay, it sounds like it's closed, then.

Mr. Buchanan: Okay, so Megan will you close that 

on the BRS?

Secondary Issue 3

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes.

Okay, so moving on to Secondary Issue 3, which is 

on page 18, this has to do with uncertainties for 

medical x-ray dose. And again our path forward for 

this one is update the medical -- the occupational 
medical x-ray Technical Basis Document to include 

OTIB-6 guidance.

And again, we would recommend placing either this 

in abeyance or waiting for the TBD updates, 

depending on what SC&A wants to do or the Work 

Group.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, thank you. This would be held 

in abeyance just like we did on the others instead of 

closing.

Chair Clawson: This is Brad. I agree with that, Ron.

Member Roessler: I do, too.

Member Beach: I also agree with that.

Member Valerio: I agree. This is Loretta.

Ms. Lobaugh: Great. So Secondary Finding 3 -- or 

Secondary Issue 3 would be in abeyance.

Secondary Issue 4

Moving on to Secondary Finding 4 or Secondary Issue 

4, this has to do with internal dose to workers from 

radon exposures and not being considered.

So NIOSH's current stance is that there is no record 

that indicates any worker monitoring for radon was 

routinely performed and that there were no major 

sources of enhanced radon that would cause an 

exposure.

So our suggestion is to update the internal TBD, 

internal dose TBD with additional justification for why 

we don't assign radon dose. And if in our update to 

the internal TBD we find any additional information 

that would suggest assigning radon dose, we would 

incorporate that at that time. But currently we would 

just suggest to add additional justification for why no 

radon dose is assigned.

Member Roessler: Okay, this is Gen. So you 

interpreted SC&A's concern as being radon dose, I 

assume, here. And then when you address that, it 

appears you are going to look at whether there were 

quantities of uranium or radium and by showing that 
there were not, then you would answer this question. 

Is that where you're going on this?

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, correct.

Member Roessler: Okay. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Buchanan: This is Ron. And of all the issues that 

we have here, this is one that we kind of take 

exception with. And even though it started out an 

observation -- I mean as a secondary issue and 

changed to an observation, we have looked at this 

and feel that there are still some unanswered 

questions here. And it might turn out to be nothing 

or it might turn out to be a major issue because if we 

look at the TBD-2, pages 25, 26, and 27, we see that 

there is a fairly significant amount of radon-222 and 

radon-220 released from the stacks in the 80s in the 

findings. And so that came from some place.

And so at this point, we're not sure if this is vented 

directly from inside of hot cells, if this was a potential 

exposure to the workers inside the building, I guess 

Building 220 -- or 200 area series of buildings, was 

the one that reported most of this radon and radium 

usage.

And then in TBD-4, page 19, there is some 

calculations for 100-curie radium, 220 source to the 

environment. And so we felt that this has been 

addressed more from an environmental point of view, 

rather than a worker point of view. It's been 

addressed from a TBD-4 point of view, rather than a 

TBD-5 point of view.

And so we had asked in our last reply if they had 

looked to see if there is any radon measurements, or 

bioassays, or any sort of that sort of thing in the files. 

And they said of the 95 claims, there was a number 

for radon in decay products but no indication that 

radium or radon was monitored for it.

And so at this point, we're still not completely 

satisfied that there was no potential for radon 

exposure to workers inside of buildings, especially 

around 200 -- Building 200 and such, where there 

was a significant amount of radon out the stack.
And so at this point, we're not really satisfied with 

the path forward, unless there is some really good 

justification like workers weren't present, it was all in 

the hot cells going out the stack, and that there was 

no exposure potential inside the buildings.

Member Roessler: Okay, Ron, that was very clear. 

So I think we know where we need to go on that.

Chair Clawson: I agree. I think we need to dig a 

little bit deeper on this one, Ron, and we'll go from 

there.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Can I just ask a question here for clarity 

about who is digging where?

Megan, is this issue that Ron has raised, is this one 

that you guys are going to be exploring as you 

develop the TBD? Are you doing something that is 

more data-related to this or what have you?

Ms. Lobaugh: We can. The plan was as we update 

the internal dosimetry Technical Basis Document that 

information that we review within that, if it shows us 

that there is a source, then we would bring that 

forward to SC&A and discuss it. But there wasn't a 

targeted approach for that, but we can definitely do 

that.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Well, you've heard the concerns. 

So you know where the review will be coming from 

what you have to address. 

Ms. Loaugh: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay, thanks. So then I don't think there's 

an action for SC&A on this right now except to see 

what is finally produced on this in terms of the 

support material for whatever method is 

recommended.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Thanks.

Ms. Lobaugh: So one thing I would like to ask at 

least is, would the process forward then for us be, 
present this before we write it up in the TBD? Would 

that be the ideal situation, present it to SC&A before 

we include it in the updated TBD?

Mr. Buchanan: I think that would be more efficient -

- put it in the TBD and then have to go through it 

again. Because we would like -- you know we're not 

saying red flags. We're just saying we're not sure 

where the workers were in relationship inside the 

building to a TBD-5 issue rather than a TBD-4 issue. 

So I think it would be most efficient if you would 

provide us with your direction and what you find out 

before you actually do all the work of putting it in the 

TBD.

Mr. Katz: So Megan, that would just be like a memo 

or a White Paper with references to the support for 

what you find, what you end up finding.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, great.

Mr. Katz: Thanks.

Secondary Issue 5

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, so looking at Secondary Issue 

5, which starts on page 21 of the BRS response 

documents, this is lack of treatment provided to the 

monitoring of contractors, transferees, and visitors.

So in our review of the SRDB documents and 

interviews with workers, we did not find any evidence 

of contractors, visitors, or transferees not being 

monitored. So our suggested path forward would be 

to update the external Technical Basis Document to 

include clarity or specify that contractors, 

transferees, and visitors were monitored.

This was especially brought up due to the fact that 

there was use of roving dosimeters. So especially in 

that discussion, mentioning that there is no evidence 

of a lack of monitoring for contractors, transferees, 

and visitors.

Ron, if you have anything.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, NIOSH -- since we had brought 

this up in 2009, and I've got involved in this 
discussion, NIOSH has provided a number of 

interview records and Site Research Database 

documents. And I went over those and, having 

worked with the Savannah River Site, I was looking 

for things that would indicate a problem with people 

not being badged, especially temporary or part-time. 

And looking at those documents, and the variety of 

dates on them, and the facilities, I did not find 

evidence of subcontractors and visitors being 

monitored different than the full-time employees 

and, therefore, we don't have an issue with it. And 

we will agree with that in the TBD changes and give 

our evaluation at that time.

So we can remove that. It's in abeyance. Remove 

that closure and put it in abeyance.

Secondary Issue 6

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. If there is no additional 

discussion on the Secondary Issue 5, we can move 

on to Secondary Issue 6, which is on page 22 of the 

BRS response document.

Secondary Issue 6 has to do with the human 

radiation experiments that were conducted at ANLEast and the fact that they were not adequately 

addressed within the TBD.

So the discussion with SC&A has revealed that the 

exposures, these exposures, these human radiation 

experiments that occurred at ANL-East would be 

covered EEOICPA exposures or covered program 

exposures but how we approach them is at the claim 

level.

So there is some discussion of these human radiation 

experiments in the TBD. So our path forward would 

be to provide explicit direction to the dose 

reconstructors within the TBD to include the human 

radiation experiments dose, if there is evidence in the 

claim.

So currently, like I said, we approach these on an 

individual level when there is information within the 

claim documentation that shows this person would 

have been a participant in human radiation 
experiments.

So Ron, if you have any additional discussion.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, the original question on this was, 

we wanted to make sure or we wanted to clarify, 

rather, the human experiments would be included 

under The Act. And we found out they would be. And 

then make sure that they are included in the dose 

reconstruction if they were subject to it.

Now, I realize there is a number of caveats here that 

some of the facilities were not under The Act and that 

sort of thing so it has to be separated out. I did go 

back to the SRDB references and looked at some of 

the human experiments, write-ups, and such, and 

see some of the details. And I agree that this could 

be separated out. It doesn't seem to be an issue but 

we would like to see this explicitly described in the 

TBD. And so we'll review that when it is released.

And there's no further issue with that at this time.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I have a question on 

this. I'm trying to see how do you identify, while 

these human radiation experiments involved a 

variety of people and I can see that it would include 

workers, how do you identify it, or how do you find 

out if a particular worker was involved in the 

experiments? I'm totally unaware of how that was 

handled.

Ms. Lobaugh: Vince can correct me if I'm wrong but 

I believe there is information within the claim 

documentation we received and then within the 

references that we have in the SRDB that talks about 

the experiments that were done.

But Vince, could maybe you speak a little bit more?

Mr. King: Yes, there was an SRDB document, I can't 

remember it right off, but in fact SC&A was the one 

that pointed out, where there is a compilation of 

human radiation experiments. And the only ones I 

saw in there appeared to be University of Chicago, 

like a cancer treatment, and it was separate from the 

University of Chicago, and Met Lab, and all of that. 

It was the hospital. It was a different facility and 
there didn't seem to be any employees from ANLEast that were in that compilation.

And other than that, I'm not sure how you would 

identify who was involved in radiation experiments, 

other than just documentation with the claimant file.

Ms. Brackett: This is Elizabeth Brackett. I just joined 

the call, sorry. I'm with the ORAU Team.

Actually there was a claimant that had identified in 

his record that he had been involved in some 

experimentation. And we were able to match him 

with one of the entries in that documentation, the 

DOE Human Experimentation Volume, where it gave 

the specific details of how much the administration 

was.

So there was very specific detail in his claim file that 

came over to us.

Mr. King: And that's what I would expect. It would 

come in with the claim file.

Member Roessler: So it would be the claim file, it 

would have to appear in the claim file first and then 

you would cross-check it with the documentation that 

you feel is pretty complete on the human radiation 

experiments.

Ms. Brackett: Yes, there was a big effort by DOE to 

go back and track down all of the human 

experimentation that went on. And as Vince said, 

there's not much listed that actually occurred at ANLEast but I think that that would be the case.

Member Roessler: Okay. I think this is going to be 

a question that may come up from other Board 

Members, too, so I think we need to make sure that 

the way you address it is pretty straightforward.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay.

Chair Clawson: I agree with you, Gen. This is Brad.

Mr. Katz: Okay, then, Megan. So I think that is in 

abeyance.
Secondary Issue 7

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes. Great. So the last secondary 

issue to talk about is Secondary Issue 7, which starts 

on the last page, page 23 of the BRS response 

document. And this has to do with incidents and 

accidents and our discussion of incidents and 

accidents in the TBD.

So the discussion we had with SC&A is that there is 

a section on incidents and accidents within the 

document for significant incidents and accidents that 

had happened. And we have reviewed some 

additional SRDB documents and claims that tell us 

that early on the -- early in this time period, the 

documentation is there to tell us when somebody was 

involved in an incident.

So within the dosimetry results or other 

documentation that we have for a claim or in the 

SRDB database, we will know when somebody was 

involved in an incident. Typically, we will know when 

that happens.

And then the later time period, if it is a major 

incident, there would be tracking by DOE and we 

should receive that information from DOE if there is 

a significant exposure or a major incident that that 

person was involved in.

So in our discussion we basically provided that this is 

handled, again, on an individual claim basis based on 

the documentation that comes with the claim and 

SRDB searches that are done based on the claimant's 

information.

And so our final discussion was that we recommend 

closing this issue or recommend putting it in 

abeyance until the TBD is updated with more specific 

information about how the claims are handled.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron. We looked at the 

Site Research Database documents they referred us 

to because SC&A did their own search for incidents 

that might lead to unmonitored exposures. And 

considering the badging policy and bioassay program 

overall, and the incidents that we could find, we did 
not find that there was a further issue on this 

observation.

Ms. Lobaugh: So at this time, I guess our 

recommendation is to place it in abeyance.

Chair Clawson: Yes, that would be best. I think there 

is a little more to this that will come out. But I would 

suggest we put it in abeyance right now. This is Brad.

Member Roessler: I agree.

Member Valerio: I agree, Brad. This is Loretta.

Member Beach: And I'm in agreement also, thanks.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay. So that was all of the findings 

and secondary issues for the ANL-East Site Profile.

So I don't know -- should we do a quick review? 

Would that be helpful if I go through a review and say 

basically for each finding what -- I mean quickly, 

whether it's in abeyance or whether -- what the path 

forward is for NIOSH?

Member Roessler: I don't think I need that. I took 

notes.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay.

Chair Clawson: I think we're pretty good on that.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay.

Chair Clawson: You know a lot of this is going to 

come down to the TBD and a lot of these will be taken

care of with that.

We've got a couple that are out there that we need a 

little more information on but I'm pretty good with 

the path forward.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think, Megan, as long as we update 

the BRS from this meeting, we'll be good.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, I will do that.

Member Roessler: Brad, may I make a comment? 

Brad?
Chair Clawson: Yes, go ahead.

Member Roessler: Okay. This is Gen. I just wanted 

to second what Brad said, there's been a lot of water 

flow since we worked on this before and I really 

appreciate Ron's brief update on everything. It got 

us right back to the pertinent things, and the 

systematic way that Megan and Ron proceeded here, 

it really helped I think to explain everything to us.

Chair Clawson: And having Lara here with us, too. I 

know this is kind of hard, one person starting into it 

and coming in the middle. And we appreciate Lara's 

input, too.

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Katz: Yes, and welcome, Megan, to the Work 

Group -- the Work Group world.

Ms. Lobaugh: Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Okay, Brad, are we ready to adjourn, then?

Chair Clawson: Yes, we are. I guess one of my 

things is and, Megan, I know this can be kind of a 

little bit hard, but what type of a time frame are we 

looking for to get some of the -- especially like the 

TBD and stuff, what do you think we're looking at for 

a time frame?

Ms. Lobaugh: Yes, so as scheduled right now, we're 

looking at the end of this year, beginning of 2019. 

But I will throw a caveat out there that with the fact 

that we've been discussing doing additional data 

captures for the neutron/photon ratio information, 

the external dose TBD might be a little bit longer than 

that.

But currently, as scheduled, we're talking basically 

beginning of 2019. But I will update the Work Group 

as, you know, if we see those dates changing at all.

Adjourn

Chair Clawson: Okay, I appreciate that. I don't really 

see scheduling another Work Group meeting until we 

have a little bit more information and are ready to do 
some more work.

So that being said, if there's nothing more to say, I'd 

say let's adjourn.

Mr. Buchanan: I had one question for Megan. Did 

you plan on releasing the TBDs as you get them 

revised or are you going to release them all at once?

Ms. Lobaugh: I think typically we do it as they are 

revised but they're all going to be pretty close to each 

other, given our current time line, like within a month 

or so, I would say, of each other.

Mr. Buchanan: Okay. It helps us if you release them 

when you get them done. That way we can spread it 

out a little more to work on them.

Ms. Lobaugh: Okay, great.

Chair Clawson: Good point, Ron.

Well thank you, everybody. I appreciate it. 

Does anybody want to say that we're adjourned and 

second it?

Member Beach: It sounds like you just did.

Chair Clawson: Sounds good. Thank you, 

everybody. I appreciate your time today.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:59 a.m.)