This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 10, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the Brussels 

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 8:30 a.m., 

Phillip P. Schofield, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PHILLIP P. SCHOFIELD, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A*

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A*

MITCH FINDLEY, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A*

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU Team*

LARA HUGHES, DCAS*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

MIKE MALLETT, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TIM TAULBEE, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

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

Update on DCAS follow-up/review of DCAS

 Special Exposure Cohort Definition

Tim Taulbee, NIOSH....................... 6

Bob Barton, SC&A........................ 41

Reconstruction of Doses Associated with

Work in Test Reactor Areas

Steve Ostrow, SC&A..................... 117

Reconstruction of Doses at Test Area North

John Mauro, SC&A....................... 151

Reconstruction of Doses Associated with

Fission and Activation Products

Internal Monitoring for Fission and

Activation Products 

Bob Barton, SC&A ................. 221

Use of Fission-Activation Product

Indicator Radionuclides for 

Assessment of Fission-Activation

Product and Actinide Intakes

Ron Buchanan, SC&A ............... 245

Reconstruction of Doses Associated with

Fission and Activation Products at 

Central Facility Area

Doug Farver, SC&A...................... 270

Work Group Recommendation(s)/Plans for 

November Board Meeting ..................... 280

Adjourn
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (8:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, welcome, everyone. 

4 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health. It's the Idaho National Laboratory Work 

6 Group and we're ready to get started here.

7 First thing is we'll do roll call, and 

8 since we're talking about a specific site today, 

9 for all agency-related people, please speak to 

10 conflict of interest and we'll begin with Board 

11 Members in the room.

12 (Roll call)

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So just to remind all 

14 of you on the line to mute your phones except when 

15 you are addressing the group. Press *6 to mute 

16 your phone, *6 to come off of mute. And, please, 

17 no one put this call on hold, but hang up and dial 

18 back in if you need to.

19 And with that it's your meeting. By 

20 the way there are -- All of the presentations for 

21 the meeting are on the NIOSH website under today's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting, Board Section, or almost all of them.

2 I'm not sure, is Tim Taulbee's up there, 

3 too?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, super. Okay, so 

6 they're all on the NIOSH website. You can follow 

7 along that way as these presentations are given and 

8 there is the original NIOSH ER Report, the 

9 Evaluation Report, on the SEC on there as well. 

10 And with that it's your meeting, Phil.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The agenda is 

12 also on the website for those who are trying to 

13 follow along with this.

14 So we're just going to go right down the 

15 way it's written out, so we'll start with Tim.

16 DR. TAULBEE: All right.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, and before you start, 

18 someone doesn't have their phone on mute. It 

19 sounds like a train in the background. I don't 

20 know, it probably is not a train but there is some 

21 background noise from someone's phone.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, again, everybody mute your phone. 

2 If you don't have a mute button, press *6 to mute 

3 your phone, otherwise the other folks on the phone 

4 are going to have a hard time hearing.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Thank you.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Thank you, Phil. My 

7 presentation today is really just an update from 

8 what we presented in July to the full Board to give 

9 you an update of the additional information that 

10 we received shortly thereafter the Board Meeting 

11 and I sent this out to you all in September and 

12 hopefully this will start some of the discussion 

13 about the INL SEC proposed Class for CPP workers.

14 So an overview, I'm just going to 

15 refresh everybody's memory on some background 

16 information and then give an update of where we are 

17 with review of the NOCTS claims, the data gaps, and 

18 the dosimetry report monthly comparison and then 

19 give a little bit of an update on our INL/ANL-West 

20 activity timeline.

21 So, first, again, a refresher on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dosimetry at INL, remember we proposed a Class for 

2 CPP workers and proposed to identify them based 

3 upon their dosimetry badges.

4 And in the early years from 1963, well 

5 actually all the way up through 1953 up through 1970 

6 they had a one badge, one area methodology to where 

7 if a worker was routinely monitored at MTR and they 

8 went to CPP, they left their MTR badge at the MTR 

9 checkpoint and then picked up a temporary badge at 

10 CPP.

11 Visitors picked up their temporary 

12 badges at CPP and so the dosimetry records we have, 

13 CPP main badge reports, which are the Codes 5, 53, 

14 and 55. We have the CPP temporary badges, and then 

15 the CPP construction, which are Codes 11, 113, and 

16 115.

17 These were the examples that I provided 

18 before that show the CPP main badge report and you 

19 can see some of the contractor codes of Phillips 

20 Petroleum, AEC, Atomic Energy Commission workers, 

21 even some NRF folks as well as subcontractors such 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as FC Torkelson there within that main badge 

2 report.

3 For the temporary badge report this is 

4 where you pick up most of the contractors that are 

5 out there and the example here I've got is a news 

6 reporter, other Phillips employees from other 

7 areas within the INL site, additional AEC personnel 

8 that didn't routinely go to CPP, and then 

9 construction trades.

10 They just write FC Torkelson, and even 

11 vendors, such as Coca-Cola coming in to deliver 

12 Cokes to the cafeteria and resupply vending 

13 machines and that kind of thing.

14 These people were all monitored coming 

15 in to CPP and most of the vendors are all on these 

16 temporary badge reports with a few construction 

17 trades. I shouldn't say a few, a lot of 

18 construction trades that are listed there.

19 Well CPP also had a construction badge, 

20 or dosimeter badge report as well, and this would 

21 be the CX dosimetry, and this is what we didn't have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available at the Board Meeting back in July and 

2 since then we have gotten.

3 What you will see here is the codes, HK 

4 Ferguson was the main contractor, you've got 

5 miscellaneous construction as well as H.S. Wright 

6 here on these particular reports.

7 So, again, as a background, multiple 

8 types of workers were badged upon entry to CPP. 

9 The workers dosimetry could appear on any one of 

10 several reports, and multiple reports.

11 For example, they could've been on CPP 

12 construction and then they came up on the temporary 

13 CPP dosimeter report if their construction job 

14 finished and then a month later they came back, so 

15 a worker's name can appear on multiple different 

16 variations of this.

17 And this is up through 1970. Now after 

18 1970 as we presented back in July we have proposed 

19 to open the Class to anybody who was monitored and 

20 the main reason for that was you were no longer, 

21 you could now where your MTR badge into CPP, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so we kind of lose track of who could have gone into 

2 CPP.

3 It was basically anybody who is 

4 monitored at that point. So that was our reason 

5 for doing so.

6 So now I want to talk a little bit about 

7 the follow-up of the INL claims that we have done 

8 in NOCTS. And so our first review was to determine 

9 whether the employment period was within the 

10 proposed SEC.

11 And so there is a total of 1753 INL 

12 claims in NOCTS as of April when we started this 

13 evaluation. Eight hundred and seventy-two of them 

14 did not work during the SEC time period, 881 did 

15 have employment during the SEC time period.

16 Our second review is to take these 881 

17 claims and determine if there is an indication of 

18 work at CPP. And so what we looked at was the 

19 computer-assisted telephone interview, the dose 

20 reconstruction report, and the DOE file.

21 And so as of July I mentioned that there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were 32 claims that needed following up on at that 

2 time. After receipt and review of the CX dosimetry 

3 file this got narrowed down to ten claims.

4 A lot of them appeared on those CX 

5 dosimetry reports and so then we were down to ten. 

6 In October we are actually down to seven claims that 

7 needed following up of.

8 We went back and looked at it, three of 

9 them we could put as part of the Class from that 

10 1970 to 1975 time period, so they had dosimetry in 

11 other time periods, they were part of the Class.

12 I guess we could have done follow-up 

13 with the site but it just seemed like if the Class 

14 was accepted as of today they would be part of the 

15 Class.

16 The request for supplemental 

17 information on the seven claims was sent to the site 

18 on October 5th and then a Request for Supplemental 

19 Information for 11 additional claims that SC&A 

20 identified, and we'll talk about I think in the next 

21 presentation, was sent on October 13th.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So in total right now there is 18 of 881 

2 claims, or 2 percent, that are being followed, that 

3 we've got at this time. Now the reason why we 

4 haven't received an update on these claims right 

5 now has to do with the ANL-West SEC that we are 

6 currently working on.

7 We ran into a dosimetry issue and we 

8 ended up making a request of 42 claims from the site 

9 to try and get follow-up on some dosimetry 

10 questions that we had there.

11 We submitted those back at the 

12 beginning of September. We just received all of 

13 those from the site the week before last. So the 

14 site is just now starting to work on these 18, and 

15 so that's why we haven't received anything from 

16 that. Last Thursday is when they sent the request 

17 over to INL.

18 The INL Dosimeter Records Group that 

19 responds to our claims makes a request for records 

20 over to the separate contractor actually, to CH2M 

21 Hill, I believe, and they pull previous requests 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so that they aren't sending us duplicates for these 

2 supplemental requests.

3 And that happened last Friday, is when 

4 that request went over. So she was expecting that 

5 in the next several weeks, probably by the end of 

6 the month that we would have all of these in hand.

7 So one of the questions that came out 

8 of my initial presentation to the Board was, I 

9 believe it was Dr. Kotelchuck made the comment of 

10 okay, I guess he understood that we felt everybody 

11 was monitored there, but he wanted to know do we 

12 have all of the dosimetry reports.

13 It's one thing to know that everybody 

14 is monitored, but do you have any gaps in the data, 

15 do you have all of these, so we looked for gaps in 

16 the data.

17 And so we compared the number of 

18 dosimeters reported in the Health Physics Monthly 

19 Reports, these are periodic reports that were given 

20 by the site, so their dosimetry branch they would 

21 tally up how many dosimeters from each area that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they process and report on that to their higher 

2 management and then all the way up to AC, versus 

3 the actual listing, the badge listing reports that 

4 we receive from the site. So that's what we are 

5 comparing.

6 So the first step was to look at all of 

7 our dosimetry reports and do we have any identified 

8 gaps across the time period. And after follow-up 

9 with the site the only time period that is missing 

10 in that entire grouping is December of 1970, the 

11 only month that is missing through the entire 1963 

12 through 1974.

13 It's interesting to note that the cycle 

14 end date was December 25, 1970, so I am suspecting 

15 that on Christmas Day the person responsible for 

16 hitting print to print out that dosimetry report 

17 did not.

18 These were an IBM system. The actual 

19 dosimeter result is there. We did a comparison of 

20 the annual report and then tallied up their January 

21 through November and their annual dose is higher, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so that December value is in there it's just there 

2 isn't a series of monthly reports that anybody can 

3 find for that.

4 So it's really not of a significance 

5 from a Class administration standpoint. If 

6 somebody has a dosimeter on an annual report in 1970 

7 then they could be assumed as part of the Class due 

8 to our allowance of all monitored workers from 

9 March of 1970 during that time period.

10 So that missing month really has no 

11 impact on the administration of the Class in my 

12 opinion. And that last bullet there is just 

13 talking about our check and the January through 

14 November was lower than what that annual total was, 

15 so we know the dose is there, it's just there wasn't 

16 a monthly report printed out in hard copy.

17 Temporary badges, none appear to be 

18 missing. Again we looked from 1959 through 1976 

19 and we have temporary badges for every month during 

20 that time period.

21 CX dosimetry, again after the follow-up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the previous Board Meeting in August there are 

2 no gaps of missing data in the CX dosimetry reports.

3 We did have to go back to the site. 

4 There was three months that appeared to missing. 

5 We made them go back to the records box in late 

6 August and they pulled that box and they simply 

7 didn't scan those three months of pages and so they 

8 sent them and so we now have all of them.

9 So the next part that I started to talk 

10 about a few minutes ago is comparison of the monthly 

11 Health Physics Reports, the CPP dosimetry.

12 And, again, the goal here was that if 

13 the site indicated they processed 500 dosimeter 

14 badges do we have 500 dosimeter results, names 

15 listed on these reports, and that's what the 

16 purpose here was, to see do we actually have all 

17 of the data.

18 We reviewed from 1963 through 1970 and 

19 we found very good agreement on the monthly reports 

20 and the dosimetry printouts, and this is a graph 

21 of that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Where you see the red and green is the 

2 CPP monthly reports and the CPP dosimeter 

3 printouts, and you see they track very well. 

4 Interestingly, the CPP dosimetry printouts have 

5 more names than were reported on the monthly 

6 reports.

7 So I imagine this was a few additional 

8 people per month that were coming through and they 

9 made into the IBM system but by the time the report 

10 was being written those numbers weren't tallied, 

11 so we actually have more names listed than what we 

12 have on the monthly reports.

13 The blue across the bottom is the CX 

14 dosimetry, which would be the construction trades. 

15 Interestingly, with CX nomenclature it was used in 

16 the early years for construction, then it wasn't 

17 used, and then they went back to it in April of 1964.

18 And if you look at some of the early, 

19 say January, February, March of 1964 workers for 

20 HK Ferguson you'll see them on the main CPP badge, 

21 so you'll see them up there in that green area up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there at top.

2 And then starting in April of 1964 they 

3 start appearing on the CX dosimetry, the same 

4 workers, the same badge number, it's just a 

5 different area, if you will, same contractor, HK 

6 Ferguson, and so it was a just a transition of them 

7 starting back up the CX dosimetry designation for 

8 area.

9 The next slide is just a blowup of the 

10 CX dosimetry and, again, you can see very good 

11 agreements between the monthly reports as well as 

12 the CX dosimetry printouts.

13 And, again, 1967, you'll see we have 

14 some more construction trades workers on the 

15 printouts identifying the names than what were 

16 reported in the monthly reports.

17 We also looked at the CPP TLD dosimetry. 

18 And, again, if I go up a couple of slides here you'll 

19 see in 1967 there is a big drop off.

20 Well that's the initiation of the TLD 

21 dosimetry at INL and so people who were on a monthly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 basis are now on once every three months so the 

2 actual number of dosimeters drops but they maintain 

3 some people on a monthly basis, the people who were 

4 regularly going into the cells, working in the 

5 shift laboratories, working in the remote 

6 analytical facilities.

7 The areas where we identified that we 

8 have trouble reconstructing dose, or we can't, it's

9 infeasible due to the plutonium exposures, are 

10 really those workers down there at the bottom that 

11 are maintained on that monthly dosimetry, okay.

12 Those were the ones who were most likely 

13 to be exposed, going in, doing the cell cleanouts, 

14 et cetera, and so you'll see that they maintained 

15 a level of those individuals.

16 Others, such as secretaries or other 

17 admin staff, clerks and so forth, were switched 

18 over to TLDs. And construction trades, as you 

19 recall, with the big spike there that happens in 

20 1967 that was a remodeling effort that was going, 

21 and so you'll see more construction trades for a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shorter period of time and then it drops back down.

2 So the TLD dosimetry didn't start until 

3 the mid-part of 1966, and you'll see the numbers 

4 are in pretty good comparison and they were doing 

5 quarterly initially and then they started going to 

6 semi-annual.

7 And the only one where we don't have 

8 that comparison is down there at the end with that 

9 December of 1970 in order to compare the monthly 

10 reports versus the TLD printouts.

11 So some comparison statistics here, for 

12 the CPP prime contractors from '63 through November 

13 of 1970, and remember we're missing that December 

14 of 1970 report so I really couldn't compare, the 

15 monthly reports indicated 35,000 dosimeter badges 

16 and we have 36,000 that we identified on the 

17 printouts, so the difference is a plus of 358.

18 Construction trades is actually a 

19 little closer, 6956 to 7011, and then the CPP TLDs 

20 are 3461 to 3481. So overall there is 46,000

21 badges reported on the monthly reports and on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dosimeter printouts there is 46,000 names printed 

2 there.

3 So the average monthly difference was 

4 about 3-1/2 dosimeters and if you look at some of 

5 those numbers you are looking at several hundred, 

6 so this is a very small percentage and difference 

7 between those two reports.

8 So in summary we followed up with the 

9 follow-up of claims. Between NIOSH and SC&A the 

10 number of claims to be followed up has been reduced 

11 to 18 of 881, or about 2 percent.

12 Thus, the current Definition works for 

13 at least 98 plus percent of the claims. We didn't 

14 identify any significant data gaps and we have good 

15 comparison between the periodic reports and the 

16 dosimetry data.

17 So I have put the proposed Class 

18 Definition in here again just to remind everyone 

19 that what we are proposing is for all workers, all 

20 employees at the Department of Energy, its 

21 predecessor agencies and their contractors and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcontractors who worked at the Idaho National 

2 Laboratory in Scoville, Idaho, and a) who were 

3 monitored for external radiation at the Idaho 

4 Chemical Processing Plant at least one film badge 

5 of dosimeter or TLD dosimeter from CPP between 

6 January 1, 1963, and February 28, 1970, or who were 

7 monitored for external radiation at INL at least 

8 one film badge or TLD dosimeter between March 1, 

9 1970, and December 31, 1974, for a number of work 

10 days aggregating at least 250 work days occurring 

11 either solely under this employment or in 

12 combination with work days within the parameters 

13 established for one or more other Classes of 

14 employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

15 So I'll pause here and ask is there any 

16 questions.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is Phil 

18 Schofield. I've got just one question. We know 

19 there were technicians or workers, occasionally 

20 they would have these I guess you'd call them flakes 

21 discharged from the exhaust stacks.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, sir.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And they would 

3 have workers go out outside of the building with 

4 vacuum cleaners with the filter on it vacuuming up 

5 these flakes or whatever you want to call them, from 

6 the discharge.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The question is 

9 were those people badged for CPP since they did not 

10 go in the building but rather were working outside 

11 the building or right alongside it?

12 DR. TAULBEE: If they entered the fence 

13 line then they were badged. Outside the fence line 

14 they may or may not have been badged.

15 The thing with those flakes coming off 

16 is that remember our primary end feasibility is the 

17 actinide, so plutonium and transplutoniums that 

18 were in the cells, the corridors, the operating 

19 corridors, and the analytical laboratories, that 

20 they could have been separated from fission 

21 products.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Those flakes were actually fission 

2 products and so our methodology for reconstructing 

3 that actinide exposure for other workers that, well 

4 actually throughout the entire plant, is to use 

5 fission product bioassay and a ratio method to 

6 apply to estimate what those actinide exposures 

7 were.

8 Those flakes were not the actinides 

9 that came out the stack. They were lanthanum 

10 primarily that got scavenged during the steam 

11 release coming out the stack, and so the fission 

12 products were present.

13 So their fission product bioassay we 

14 would be able to estimate their actinide dose. 

15 Within those labs and those cells is where they were 

16 doing some of the separations to recover plutonium 

17 in 1965 up and through the 1970's and those are the 

18 workers that don't have plutonium bioassay.

19 We can't use the fission product 

20 bioassay because it's been separated at that point, 

21 so that's why we can't use that as the estimate.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, Jim Melius. A 

2 couple of questions for you, Tim.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Sure.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: On the slide that has 

5 follow-up claims, well it wasn't quite clear to me 

6 why you discarded the three claims in October. You 

7 had ten and you said three, it was --

8 DR. TAULBEE: When we did a further 

9 evaluation these people were part of the Class due 

10 to the dosimetry from 1970 to 1975, and so what I 

11 was trying to do was minimize the impact on the site 

12 and since we know these people are already part of 

13 the Class the ones that we still had questions upon 

14 we would then ask for their dosimetry follow-up.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: But these people did 

16 work during the early time period and there was some 

17 discrepancy in the information you had from the 

18 earlier time period, or the lack of?

19 DR. TAULBEE: Well the discrepancy is 

20 from an annual summary standpoint.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: So I mean we could 

2 request those from that standpoint. I just didn't 

3 feel it was necessary. I felt the other ones would 

4 help answer or identify if we had any questions.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: It just seems to me 

6 that you have a relatively small sample to be, you 

7 know, sort of matching against and --

8 DR. TAULBEE: Well, and, again, we've 

9 evaluated 881 down to this, so it's not a small 

10 sample.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, no, but I mean 

12 where there is a discrepancy. If you are trying 

13 to understand what the reasons for the 

14 discrepancies are if there any?

15 DR. TAULBEE: Well I believe the 

16 discrepancies are almost always the annual 

17 summaries at this point where we don't have 

18 complete information due to that agreement with DOE 

19 that if they had less than 500 millirem we're not 

20 going to get their full record, and that's the bulk 

21 of these individuals that we've got.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 One of the other things that is 

2 important to realize when we are analyzing these 

3 claims is that some people in their CATI will 

4 indicate they worked at CPP and if they have 

5 dosimetry in that time period of 1970 to 1975 they 

6 very well could have worked at CPP and we have no 

7 record of them being at CPP.

8 So when people are indicating in their 

9 CATIs they are not necessarily specific on the 

10 dates that they are, that they worked there, and 

11 so if we don't have any CPP dosimetry from '63 

12 through 1970 and they say they worked at CPP and 

13 we have dosimetry from say MTR from 1970 to 1975 

14 they very well could have worked at CPP, taken that 

15 MTR dosimeter, and walked into CPP.

16 So I felt like if they were part of the 

17 '70 to '75 group, whether we find dosimetry or not, 

18 it really also doesn't mean that they didn't work 

19 at CPP or that there is a gap.

20 Their employment at CPP could have been 

21 between '70 and '75. Do you follow me there?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: And they're still 

2 included?

3 DR. TAULBEE: And they're still 

4 included as part of the Class.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Because they have one 

6 TLD --

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Oh, okay.

9 MEMBER BEACH: All right, got you.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: So what you are 

11 saying is they remembered wrong?

12 DR. TAULBEE: Well, correctly. In one 

13 of the cases, just to talk a little about somebody 

14 who remembered wrong, is they indicated they worked 

15 at CPP in the early years and then they went to work 

16 in the NRF and worked on the Test Area North and 

17 DOL as part of the claim requested an affidavit and 

18 the affidavit from one of their colleagues 

19 indicated that he worked with them at NRF and up 

20 at Test Area North but he didn't say anything about 

21 CPP.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When I went back and started looking at 

2 the particular claim I couldn't find any dosimetry 

3 for CPP from the time period that he said. He said 

4 he started employment out there in 1963.

5 I found his CPP dosimetry in 1961, two 

6 years prior to when he said he started working at 

7 the site for the company that he said he was working 

8 for.

9 So recall bias, you know, memory, and 

10 this is a particular claim that we're going to need 

11 to go back and redo because he clearly started 

12 working there two years prior to when he said he 

13 did and our dose reconstruction starts in 1963, 

14 which is when he said that he started out there, 

15 and his employment was verified via affidavit, but 

16 now we have CPP dosimetry for him in 1961.

17 So people's, you know, memories of 

18 dates, you know, can be wrong.

19 MEMBER BEACH: That was 54 years ago.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Exactly. Exactly, 

21 that's a long time ago to remember, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exactly when you started and I thought he did a 

2 fantastic job and I think it also speaks to the 

3 quality of the records that we can see that, you 

4 know, there is more employment there than what he 

5 indicated based upon these dosimetry records.

6 And you said you had multiple 

7 questions, Dr. Melius?

8 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. The other one is 

9 just I'm trying to understand your comparison 

10 statistic slide and that it --

11 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, sir?

12 MEMBER MELIUS: When you summarized 

13 these, Tim, did you take -- this is based on 

14 individual monthly reports?

15 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: So it's not a listing. 

17 So when you have like dosimeter printouts versus 

18 monthly reports it's not by individual it's based 

19 on how many individuals were on the monthly reports 

20 versus how many were on the dosimeter printouts?

21 DR. TAULBEE: The monthly reports are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summations that are given by the site.

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Right.

3 DR. TAULBEE: The dosimeter printouts 

4 we went through and counted the number of --

5 MEMBER MELIUS: For the month, for the 

6 same time period as the monthly --

7 DR. TAULBEE: For that same time 

8 period, yes.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: That's not necessarily 

10 clear from the way you've labeled the table.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, I'm sorry.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: You don't have 

13 reports, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

14 I was just trying --

15 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, okay.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: No, because some cases 

17 one is higher than the other. I mean --

18 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

19 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, so the difference 

20 is not always in the same direction, but that's not 

21 a major point.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct. Yes, 

2 there are some months where it can actually be short 

3 by 20 and the next month it's plus 20.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

5 DR. TAULBEE: That's where the 

6 reporting cycle changes slightly.

7 MR. BARTON: Tim, on Slide 9 I don't 

8 know if it's a typo or something has changed, but 

9 it says 1970 to 1975.

10 DR. TAULBEE: What slide?

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: What's the title on 

12 the slide?

13 MR. BARTON: Oh, we were just looking 

14 at it, it was describing the seven claims.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: The follow-up claims.

16 MR. BARTON: All the follow-up claims.

17 DR. TAULBEE: It's probably a typo on 

18 my part.

19 MR. BARTON: Okay. I didn't know if 

20 the SEC period does --

21 (Simultaneous speaking)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: No. Yes, okay, that's a 

2 typo on my part. I'm sorry.

3 MR. BARTON: All right, no problem.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Good catch.

5 DR. TAULBEE: Other questions?

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I guess we'll let 

7 SC&A do their --

8 MR. BARTON: Oh, he has more.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Or do you want me to --

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, you have 

11 more, go ahead.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Let me give you an update 

13 on where we are with the Idaho SEC activities in 

14 general.

15 We are working on the ANL-West SEC 

16 petition. We had hoped to present this in a couple 

17 weeks, or next week to the Board. This has been 

18 delayed. The Evaluation Report is, they expected 

19 late January, early February, as for our current 

20 timeline.

21 What ended up happening was we were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finalizing the report and we did a comparison of 

2 bioassay data, urine and fecal results, well let 

3 me back up a little bit.

4 We decided to a test. ANL-East has 

5 always said that they did not have any of ANL-West 

6 records since around the beginning of this program.

7 INL has claimed that they had all of the 

8 ANL-West records but we were finding some very 

9 serious gaps in monitoring from what workers told 

10 us and what we believed to be the monitoring 

11 program.

12 So we did kind of a blind testing. We 

13 took eight workers that we knew worked in the early 

14 time period, some of them started at ANL-East and 

15 moved out to ANL-West, so we knew ANL-East should 

16 have some of their early records and INL should have 

17 the latter records.

18 And so we sent these eight people to 

19 both ANL-East and ANL-West, or ANL-East and INL, 

20 I'm sorry.

21 When we did this follow-up request what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we found is that of the eight people, eight of the 

2 eight had bioassay records at ANL-East, all eight 

3 of them starting in 1952.

4 So, clearly, there was a problem with 

5 what they understood they had and what we 

6 understood them to have.

7 This is what caused the follow-up 

8 request of the additional 42 so we could make it 

9 an even 50 for our sample size, and that is what 

10 has delayed some of this follow-up here, is that 

11 both sites needed to respond to whether they had 

12 the bioassay records associated with both sides, 

13 and so it's taken us some time to do that.

14 Like I said we just received all of 

15 those follow-up records on October 28th, and so we 

16 are currently evaluating that. That is the 

17 primary reason for this delay that you are seeing 

18 here.

19 While we were waiting on the follow-up 

20 of those records we did begin work on the reserve 

21 sections of the ER. That turned out to two data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 captures, one was the week of October 19th and the 

2 second one was just last week when we were out 

3 there.

4 From our follow-up there we have 

5 identified that we need to conduct a couple of 

6 interviews and so as SC&A is formalizing their 

7 interview lists for whenever you are doing that we 

8 would like to ask that we can add a couple of people 

9 to that so that everybody can hear these particular 

10 interviews.

11 Our goal is still to have the SEC 

12 Evaluation Report for the addendum to the 

13 petitioners and to the Board in February. I am not 

14 sure that that's going to be possible, but we are 

15 going to be trying here.

16 A little bit depends upon when the site 

17 releases those records, but our current goal is 

18 still to try and present the addendum at the March 

19 Board Meeting along with the ANL.

20 ANL will definitely be ready by then, 

21 but the question is is whether the ER addendum will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be ready by March 14th.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: So say that again, 

3 what's going to happen in March?

4 DR. TAULBEE: March, the ANL-West 

5 petition will definitely be ready.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

7 DR. TAULBEE: And we are believing that 

8 we can still get those reserve sections of the SEC 

9 219, this initial one, ready by then as well.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Thank you.

11 MR. STIVER: Tim, this is John. I just 

12 had one question regarding your most recent data 

13 captures, just in the interest of, you know, 

14 coordinating everything with you guys so that we 

15 don't have any overlap in our searches and so forth.

16 When you get that data available could 

17 you please point out to us where to find it on the 

18 SRDB so that we don't have to hunt around for it 

19 and all that sort of thing?

20 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, okay, sure.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. And you did say you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentrated mainly on reserved areas, you didn't 

2 do anything like the CPP pre-'63 or some of the 

3 other areas where you can reconstruct?

4 DR. TAULBEE: No. We did not do 

5 anything on the pre-CPP era. We did look a little 

6 bit in the post-CPP era where we were looking at 

7 an 83.14 to potentially extend the Class and that 

8 is what's prompted these interviews.

9 MR. STIVER: Right.

10 DR. TAULBEE: We are seeing some 

11 concerns that we need to address from that 

12 standpoint.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay.

14 DR. TAULBEE: But that is the post-1975 

15 time period.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Would it be 

17 premature to ask what those concerns are?

18 DR. TAULBEE: A little bit, but I'll 

19 tell you anyway. Those concerns are is the 

20 implementation of that guidance from that report 

21 in October of 1974 were not implemented as rapidly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as one might expect, and so that's what we want to

2 do some follow-up on associated with that.

3 So does that answer your question a 

4 little bit?

5 (No audible response)

6 DR. TAULBEE: What I find interesting, 

7 for those of you who have sat through the 

8 interviews, is you might have recalled hearing 

9 about a major cleanup, you know, starting after the 

10 criticality in 1978, if you remember those 

11 discussions from the interviews.

12 Some of the data that we found last week 

13 begins to make that make a lot of sense as to what 

14 happened, so it's kind of an interesting thing but 

15 these are just reports that we skimmed while we were 

16 out there.

17 We haven't received them yet from the 

18 site but obviously we have some concerns and so we'd 

19 like to interview a couple of more people and try 

20 and narrow that down.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: So our Board Meeting is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 towards the end of March, so you've got some 

2 flexibility.

3 (Laughter)

4 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: In fact March 22nd 

6 we'll get the report --

7 DR. TAULBEE: You know I am trying to 

8 get them out earlier.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: No, I know, okay.

10 DR. TAULBEE: And Battelle is -- By the 

11 way, I did send the Battelle report out to everyone.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Got it.

13 DR. TAULBEE: And I learned that we 

14 actually don't have the final AEC review on that 

15 yet, so it wasn't in that, I didn't put it in the 

16 email because I didn't know it at the time, but it 

17 should hopefully be out today.

18 But, again, you know, one week before, 

19 we'll try and do better. It doesn't seem to be 

20 happening.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Any other questions?

2 (No audible response)

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, Phil.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Bob Barton 

5 is next up.

6 MR. BARTON: All right.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: What's the title of 

8 your presentation?

9 MR. BARTON: It should be called SC&A 

10 Evaluation of CPP Class Definition Requiring 

11 Evidence of External Dosimetry. If you are on the 

12 website it's sort of the in the middle of the pack 

13 on here.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm taking it off of 

15 this thing and it's -- I'll find it.

16 MR. STIVER: The actual title, the PDF 

17 is SC&A - INLCPPDEF.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: INL what?

19 MR. KATZ: INLCPPDEF.

20 MR. BARTON: D-E-F on the end.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: Just look for D-E-F.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Got it.

3 MR. BARTON: All right, thanks a lot. 

4 Admittedly, the first few slides of my presentation 

5 are very redundant to what Tim just presented so 

6 I'm going to try to breeze through them in the 

7 interest of time.

8 But this is SC&A's review of 

9 essentially that revised Class Definition from 

10 July. So here's the background. I don't want to 

11 go through each bullet.

12 This is essentially when the different 

13 reports were released. The most recent, 

14 obviously, the one that I am discussing currently 

15 which was transmitted at the end of September.

16 This lists when this issue has been 

17 discussed. The first Work Group discussion was 

18 sort of an informal, not for the public, it was a 

19 clarification and technical teleconference that 

20 involved the Work Group, NIOSH, and SC&A.

21 But it was also discussed at the July 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 8th and is currently being discussed now on 

2 November 10th, and was also first presented to the 

3 Advisory Board on March 26th and then discussed 

4 again on July 23rd.

5 And here is the currently proposed 

6 Class Definition. I won't read it in again, Tim 

7 did a great job of that, and here is a quick summary 

8 of what the rationale was for the original Class.

9 It was essentially, as Tim pointed out, 

10 exposure to the alpha-emitting transuranics that 

11 had been separating from fission activation 

12 products that could not be reconstructed.

13 And then the rationale for revising it 

14 was the change from one badge, one area, to one 

15 badge, multiple areas, and here is just a 

16 screenshot of one of the references backing up that 

17 assertion.

18 As you can see there is two sort of 

19 bullets in March of 1970. The second one is really 

20 the one that shows that you are really going to be 

21 using a single badge now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In December of '74 they even used the 

2 term one badge, one area, that they were going to 

3 return to that system.

4 All right, so as far as what we did to 

5 try to evaluate this currently proposed SEC 

6 definition is basically, one, to do a mock 

7 implementation of it, that is in a similar way to 

8 what NIOSH did.

9 We wanted to go in and look at all the 

10 claimant population of the 250 days of covered 

11 employment and see how many fit the dosimetry 

12 requirements, how many did not meet the dosimetry 

13 requirements, and then take a closer look at those 

14 plans to see if there is any reason to believe that 

15 those who wouldn't meet the current Class 

16 Definition maybe would have been inadvertently 

17 excluded were this Definition to be accepted, you 

18 know, today, which, of course, it can't be, but this 

19 is sort of a test run to try to identify claimants 

20 that might be problematic, which is different than 

21 what we did last time which was really just a sample 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of claimants.

2 We posed to look at 30 claimants that 

3 time. This time it was a lot more. So our total 

4 was 898, it's about 17 higher than what Tim said 

5 and that's just because we started our totals in 

6 August and they started theirs about four months 

7 earlier, so in four months we got 17 more claimants.

8 Out of those 898, 107 of those claimants 

9 did not meet the 250-day criteria in either SEC 

10 period.

11 I refer to them as different SEC 

12 periods, even though it's technically one 

13 Definition, just because they have different 

14 requirements and the way we went about analyzing 

15 the claims makes it easier to refer to one as the 

16 first period, from '63 to '70, or through February 

17 of 1970, and the second period or latter period of 

18 March 1970 through 1974.

19 Nineteen claims that we looked at 

20 really only had evidence of being at Argonne-West 

21 and/or NRF and we just had no real evidence of work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at INL, and that included from the CATI Report which 

2 really would only cover, many of the ones we looked 

3 at would only cover Argonne and they haven't even 

4 mentioned INL so we did not include those 19 in the 

5 study.

6 Two claims didn't have DOE monitoring 

7 records yet and that was just because they had been 

8 filed so recently that there wasn't time to get the 

9 records from DOE yet.

10 We could have included those but they 

11 wouldn't have told us much because we haven't even 

12 gotten the monitoring records yet.

13 One claim was actually withdrawn. 

14 This claim had been filed a number of years ago. 

15 It was withdrawn by a survivor prior to actually 

16 receiving those DOE monitoring records. So, 

17 again, of little value here.

18 Okay, so the way we're going to do this 

19 is we're going to first talk about that later period 

20 and the reason we did that is we split it up because 

21 the later period has the less restrictive dosimetry 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 requirements so it's a lot more efficient to be able 

2 to go through all those claims and say well here's 

3 the external dosimetry and you have 250 days 

4 therefore you meet the definition and you're done.

5 In that earlier period it's a little 

6 more difficult, you sort of have to go page by page 

7 to try to find a CPP dosimetry record.

8 So for this later period from March 1970 

9 through December of '74 we evaluated 710 total 

10 claims. About 85 percent of them had monitoring 

11 records, so obviously it leaves about 15 percent 

12 that did not.

13 As far as the breakdown of the 250-day 

14 criteria almost 87 percent fit the 250-day criteria

15 for just the latter period and 13 percent did not 

16 and the total number that met both the 250-day 

17 criteria and were monitored was about 77 percent.

18 So we had three observations based on 

19 the review of what we'll call the later period, the 

20 second SEC period, however you want to refer to it.

21 The very first observation is one thing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we noticed that the Definition itself says one film 

2 badge or TLD dosimeter.

3 I think that it has become clear based 

4 on your presentation that use of the annual records 

5 also counts and also they have career dose 

6 summaries, which I'm going to show an example of 

7 that, which I assume would also count.

8 DR. TAULBEE: If their career is during 

9 that period, yes.

10 MR. BARTON: Right, right. And I 

11 guess that would also extend to any, pretty much 

12 any radiological monitoring would fit, right, and 

13 if --

14 DR. TAULBEE: Exactly.

15 MR. BARTON: It's unlikely that you 

16 have internal monitoring, no external monitoring, 

17 but I suppose it's possible.

18 All right. So here is just an example 

19 of what one of those annual records looks like. So 

20 as we established we have '70, '71, '72 records for 

21 those years so that would count.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And here is an example of a career dose 

2 total where you can see, it doesn't go 

3 year-by-year, but it says, you know, October '69 

4 through 1975 no dose was accrued, but we just wanted 

5 to verify that that would qualify.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

7 MR. BARTON: The second observation we 

8 actually did, we found one claim that had in vivo 

9 results related to CPP but we didn't have external 

10 dosimetry from CPP.

11 So we wanted to sort of highlight this 

12 claim because we feel it was pretty important 

13 because that's one of the few instances where we 

14 feel that there is direct evidence that they were 

15 at CPP, obviously, they had an internal monitoring 

16 result there, but we don't have the film badge 

17 requirement.

18 And I'm going to talk about this claim 

19 in a second. Oh, go ahead.

20 DR. TAULBEE: No, go ahead. That's 

21 good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: But I guess as we just 

2 discussed that in vivo result would be enough to 

3 qualify for the Class.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Well for this individual 

5 the time period is the latter time period, 1970 to 

6 1974, so that could have been a worker was routinely 

7 badged at MTR, say a construction trades worker, 

8 and they wore their MTR badge over to CPP, got 

9 exposed, were involved in an incident and sent down 

10 to body counting for that particular incident at 

11 CPP.

12 And so that's part of why we expanded 

13 that Class as during that time period you can't 

14 necessarily identify this MTR worker could 

15 actually have been at CPP.

16 MR. BARTON: I agree. I believe in 

17 this case though we didn't have external dosimetry 

18 for 1970 and it was a claim --

19 DR. TAULBEE: The claim year?

20 MR. BARTON: Yes, for that year, or 

21 even after that, I believe. This claim actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did not meet the 250-day criteria for that latter 

2 period but did have the internal monitoring result.

3 So that was -- Again, we would just, we 

4 would really like to see if there is actual records 

5 for that individual.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Sure, sure.

7 MR. BARTON: Observation 3, again, 

8 it's sort of clarification and it's how temporary 

9 and/or visitor badges are used. Based on your 

10 presentation it looks like temporary and/or 

11 visitor badges would both count.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, yes.

13 MR. BARTON: The only reason I bring 

14 that up is often times the temporary badges 

15 actually specify a range of dates in which it was 

16 used, but that's certain the claimant favorable way 

17 to go.

18 Moving on to the earlier period, now 

19 this time we only evaluated 219 claims, and you 

20 might wonder why that total is so much lower. It's 

21 not because there are less claims in that period, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's because if we already established that a 

2 claimant in the latter period met the criteria just 

3 for efficiency sake we did not examine that claim 

4 closely in the earlier period.

5 Now, that's not across the board. A 

6 lot of the claims that we looked at in the latter 

7 period there would be something that tipped us off 

8 as we were going through those claims and said 

9 listen, we need earmark this and take a look at it 

10 in the earlier period, whether it was something in 

11 CATI or as you are going through trying to find 

12 dosimetry starting in 1970 you notice that there 

13 is some evidence they were at CPP, and usually that 

14 was in the form of like what they call a location 

15 file card, which this isn't necessarily a dosimetry 

16 result but it shows where you are assigned and 

17 usually gives a range of dates and sometimes 

18 indicates if you were assigned a temporary film or 

19 it will say something like "To TLD" in the margin 

20 and that gives the contractor and the area and a 

21 time period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that's a very useful piece of 

2 information because that gives you direct evidence 

3 of where a worker might have been assigned.

4 So out of 219 claims that either didn't 

5 meet the qualification in the latter period or was 

6 just solely evaluated in the earlier period about 

7 30 percent had 250 days and monitoring results at 

8 CPP.

9 About 47 percent were monitored but we 

10 did not have a CPP badge to allow for them to be 

11 included and about just under 12 percent were not 

12 monitored at all during that earlier period.

13 Then we have this curious other 

14 category. I'm going to go through a couple of 

15 examples of these, one of them being the CADRE 

16 description, another one being we had some claims 

17 that did not meet the 250-day criteria say in the 

18 first period but if you combined it with the second 

19 period now you have 250 days, which is interesting.

20 I can say that the number of those was 

21 right around ten I believe, so there were not a lot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of them, but they would be affected by the revisions 

2 of the Class Definition, obviously.

3 And the last category has to do with 

4 claims that we sort of earmarked for further 

5 investigation with the site.

6 So we have one additional observation 

7 related to this earlier period and it relates to 

8 what I just said, the location known as CADRE.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Could you, I 

10 couldn't find that acronym anywhere, what is that? 

11 Don't know either?

12 MR. BARTON: I couldn't find it either. 

13 Now I'm going to show the reference that I found 

14 it in on the next slide I believe. Yes, here it 

15 is.

16 It's a little hard to see, but this was 

17 essentially a pretty extensive list of the area 

18 codes used at INL. You can see down there Area Code 

19 71. The area description is CADRE and it says 

20 "believed to be located at CPP."

21 I could not find any through references 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the SRDB or elsewhere to say if that stood for 

2 something or --

3 DR. NETON: Bob, what is the source of 

4 this document that you are showing?

5 Well I mean is that an Idaho report or 

6 --

7 MR. BARTON: Yes, I believe the heading 

8 at the top was that it was compiled at Idaho.

9 DR. NETON: More recently or --

10 DR. TAULBEE: Well we captured them in 

11 2011.

12 DR. NETON: No, I understand that.

13 DR. TAULBEE: But there are lots of 

14 different -- How do I put this? Well I think the 

15 key words here are "believed to be located at CPP," 

16 we don't know who added that or what gave them that 

17 impression.

18 DR. NETON: That's what I was 

19 wondering. Yes, and if this was written in 2010 

20 I mean, yes.

21 DR. TAULBEE: In doing some digging a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little more on this is that this is a dosimeter 

2 printout that we've got that has CADRE up here for 

3 the contractor area and it's Area 71, right here, 

4 which is what Bob is going to be getting to, but 

5 there area is actually listed as ERC which I think 

6 is the Emergency Response Center.

7 And in looking at the five people that 

8 you sent me yesterday, thank you very much, I could 

9 go through more details, and to give a little bit 

10 of a breakdown of those -- actually, do you want 

11 to go on with your part. I'm sorry.

12 MR. BARTON: Well it may be a good time 

13 to discuss this issue.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. One of the 

15 individuals was a meteorologist in that time period 

16 and his locator card actually had Code 71 listed 

17 as Test Area North, which I don't believe to be 

18 correct.

19 Another one was a communication 

20 specialist, which makes sense if you've got an 

21 Emergency Response Center. Another was a guard 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the Warning Communications Center, which is 

2 also pointing towards an Emergency Response 

3 Center.

4 And another of the, the fourth 

5 individual there was one of the SL1 responders, one 

6 of the guys who went in and got a very large dose 

7 and he was part of this group as well, which makes 

8 sense from and emergency response standpoint in the 

9 1962 to '66 time period.

10 After the SL1 accident in '61 you would 

11 want some of your experienced people working in the 

12 Emergency Response Center. That's what I believe 

13 it to be. I don't have any proof right now other 

14 than this ERC.

15 There are some other documents, 

16 dosimetry printouts that I went through this 

17 morning in following this up some that points to 

18 October of '63 the Code 71 doesn't appear, November 

19 of '63 it doesn't appear, December of '63 it does 

20 appear and it's listed as ERC CADRE.

21 MR. BARTON: Do we know where the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Emergency Response Center would have been?

2 DR. TAULBEE: I didn't even get a 

3 chance --

4 (Simultaneous speaking)

5 MR. BARTON: -- where it's believed to 

6 be at, it might have been at CPP.

7 (Laughter)

8 DR. TAULBEE: I'm having trouble 

9 believing it would be at CPP.

10 I believe it would be CFA but I don't 

11 have any proof of that, Central Facilities.

12 MR. BARTON: Okay.

13 DR. TAULBEE: But that's where we 

14 currently are, but we can certainly follow-up some 

15 with the site associated with what this CADRE 

16 means.

17 What's interesting to me when I looked 

18 at the term is I immediately thought military 

19 personnel, because if you read all of the SL1 

20 reports every reference in there to CADRE were to 

21 the operators of SL1 and they were referring to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 military folks that were there.

2 However, the five people that Bob 

3 identified and sent over yesterday they are not 

4 military. One of them though is of the U.S. 

5 Weather Bureau and he is not the meteorologist.

6 He is not AEC, but on the dosimetry 

7 report he is listed as AEC but his employment is 

8 clearly the U.S. Weather Bureau stationed at INL.

9 DR. NETON: Can you put that sheet back 

10 up, Bob, the -- it almost seems like this was an 

11 acronym though because everything is 

12 correspondingly capitalized. It's an acronym.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: If you go on Google 

14 and look it up, just CADRE says a special group of 

15 people.

16 (Simultaneous speaking)

17 DR. NETON: Yes, it kind of makes you 

18 think that but since this is all caps it looks like 

19 an acronym because --

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, and we think 

21 it's --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: -- everything else ANP, 

2 NRF, and they're not, they are not capitalized like 

3 ECF is.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Like on this report 

5 though it's ERC CADRE.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Hmm. What's ERC 

7 stand for?

8 DR. TAULBEE: I believe it's Emergency 

9 Response Center.

10 DR. NETON: That still could be an 

11 acronym though like something response --

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: It looks like it has 

13 dose --

14 (Simultaneous speaking)

15 DR. NETON: Wonder if somebody at the 

16 site might be able to --

17 (Simultaneous speaking)

18 DR. TAULBEE: Well I plan on asking 

19 Marie Hill. She was the one who was out there at 

20 that time picking up dosimetry, so I believe -- And 

21 she is the one who you will see on many of the forms 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as the site point of contact for approving the 

2 dosimetry printouts that we get.

3 MEMBER MELIUS: Is that the Marie 

4 that's listed on this?

5 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, yes.

6 MR. BARTON: Yes, I guess my only point 

7 there was that if it does turn out that that 

8 location code or designation is associated with the 

9 CPP, to establish that we have all those records 

10 as well.

11 So that's the only reason I really 

12 brought it up and from, when I looked at it I only 

13 found five claims.

14 That doesn't mean there is not more than 

15 five because all those claims that we analyzed in 

16 the latter period I wouldn't have gone through to 

17 see if they had individual dosimetry that said 

18 CADRE.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Right.

20 MR. BARTON: But we did find those five 

21 in the earlier period. Okay, so --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: This is Joe 

2 Fitzgerald. If you Google Idaho National Lab and 

3 CADRE in capitals there is a CADRE Staffing, Inc., 

4 which is a subcontractor.

5 MR. BARTON: Oh.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Huh.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Interesting, okay.

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think I have one 

9 quick question on that.

10 If these people are like emergency 

11 response people they could have well been badged 

12 out of CFA like you say, but any time there was any 

13 type of incident that went on they could have well 

14 spent a day, two days, three days at CPP without 

15 having an exchange badge because even though they 

16 are in this early period where you have one badge, 

17 one exchange I can't imagine in an emergency 

18 response situation you're going to stop and switch 

19 badges.

20 Their badge would probably cover the 

21 entire site I would imagine so they can go in where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they need to be.

2 DR. TAULBEE: We can ask that question.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, thanks.

4 MR. BARTON: Anymore questions before 

5 we move on? Okay. Now this slide is a little 

6 outdated based on Tim's presentation but we just 

7 wanted to make a few comments about the cases that 

8 NIOSH had identified for further evaluation with 

9 this site.

10 It was originally ten claims, as was 

11 discussed earlier, it's down to seven. And we took 

12 a look at the ten claims originally that were 

13 designated for further investigation and we came 

14 up with pretty much the two types of rationale that 

15 appear to be used to select those ten.

16 One of them was direct evidence of 

17 assignment at CPP and that's generally just there 

18 was an entry in a location file card that indicated 

19 they were assigned to CPP and it may be that we only 

20 have the career dose summary or we only have the 

21 annual summaries for that worker, so that will be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one we want to follow up on. We weren't able to 

2 find them in the supplemental records that we 

3 already have.

4 And the other one, which is sort of not 

5 a strong connection but very interesting and we 

6 actually took a very similar approach, is that more 

7 anecdotal evidence was used, such as statements 

8 that were in the CATI or in the initial DOL 

9 application a lot of times there is information in 

10 there that is not included in the CATI report I 

11 guess just based on the order of events that happen 

12 and a lot of times CPP is mentioned in those 

13 documents.

14 So that's sort of a less direct piece 

15 of evidence and most of the time, unfortunately, 

16 there is no direct dates associated with them where 

17 you could say, you know, the claimant specifically 

18 says that they were at CPP in such and such 

19 timeframe, and sometimes that can be a little off, 

20 as the example that was talked about earlier.

21 So here are just a few examples of that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the NIOSH original set of ten. The first one 

2 was trades worker, their external monitoring ended 

3 in 1962, so before the proposed SEC Class even got 

4 started.

5 The CATI does list CPP as one of five 

6 different work locations at INL, but also described 

7 an incident, and in this case they gave a timeframe 

8 of about four years, 1963 to 1966, and that's all 

9 from the CATI Report.

10 Another example is a radioecologist, 

11 and we only have the career doses for that claimant, 

12 in this case a direct piece of evidence in that the 

13 location file card lists CPP in the later SEC period 

14 and the CATI with the survivor notes that they 

15 worked all over the site, which doesn't 

16 specifically mention CPP.

17 But you'll come across that in a lot of 

18 these cases where, especially where the interview 

19 is done with a survivor when they don't necessarily 

20 know when and where they worked but they knew they 

21 were all over the place. It's a very common 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 statement to come across.

2 And the third example here is an 

3 engineer. In this case the location file card does 

4 not indicate any CPP and there is a lot of internal 

5 and external monitoring at other INL locations, but 

6 in this case the DOL initial case the claimant 

7 listed ICPP and that's Idaho Chemical Processing 

8 Plant.

9 So this is a case where we actually in 

10 the records we don't really have any direct 

11 evidence of work at CPP, but it was selected to be 

12 followed up on because the claimant said they were 

13 there, but not necessarily giving dates of when 

14 they were there.

15 DR. TAULBEE: That first one I believe 

16 is the one that I was talking about where his 

17 employment actually goes back to 1961 where we did 

18 find the dosimetry at CPP in '61, so the incident 

19 that he described I believe happened in '61 is what 

20 I believe that one was.

21 MR. BARTON: Okay. I guess what I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wanted to point out here is that it's not just the 

2 rock solid evidence that was used by NIOSH.

3 As far as we can tell in selecting these 

4 claims and that a lot of times it will just be 

5 something said in the CATI or in the DOL initial 

6 case that sort of triggered that claim to be 

7 qualified for further investigation with the site.

8 All right, so moving on to the cases 

9 that we selected for further evaluation. We 

10 started with 23, two of them had already been 

11 identified by NIOSH so we didn't touch those 

12 anymore.

13 Ten of the 23 we went into the 

14 supplemental hard copy records we have, that's the 

15 CX data and the log books that might not necessarily 

16 be in the claim files themselves, and we were able 

17 to find ten of those 23 in those records.

18 So that left us with 11 and that's 

19 really where we stand right now. So SC&A has 11 

20 selected, NIOSH has seven, so 18 total as Tim 

21 pointed out.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And a couple of examples here, one was 

2 a trades worker. They weren't monitored 

3 externally, at least according to the records, 

4 until 1975.

5 It does state that badging was 

6 intermittent, but the CATI described an incident 

7 at CPP in the early 1970's, now whether that could 

8 be 1975 or later or if that's misremembered or not 

9 we really don't know.

10 But it's, again, one of those things 

11 where the claimant said it so it kind of peaked our 

12 interest to see if there perhaps are other records 

13 out there that we don't have.

14 Another one is a driver, location file 

15 card and external monitoring for locations other 

16 than CPP, but there is an in vivo questionnaire, 

17 and this is something to give you, I don't know what 

18 time period they used this, it seems not really 

19 consistent to be honest when I was looking at the 

20 record, but basically it's a questionnaire that 

21 asks, you know, what other sites you've worked at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and have you worked at another location at INL prior 

2 to this in vivo result and they had written in, yes, 

3 CPP for 18 months, and that was in 1967.

4 Now it's possible that that 18 months 

5 fell within the SEC period, it's also possible it 

6 was before if we don't know when that 18-month 

7 period of employment occurred.

8 The actual in vivo result I believe was 

9 labeled for Test Area North for a different site, 

10 but when they asked where else have you worked they 

11 said CPP.

12 Another example is trades worker, and 

13 this one, this is Observation 2, and this was an 

14 in vivo result for CPP. The external dosimetry 

15 ended in 1960, so there is that piece of information 

16 I was lacking earlier.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

18 MR. BARTON: And this particular 

19 claimant does not have 250 days in the latter SEC 

20 period when this in vivo result took place, but it's 

21 still important I think to establish whether that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 person was at CPP and was monitored and those 

2 records may be out there we just maybe don't have 

3 them.

4 So just to kind of summarize this up, 

5 several of our observations were really just 

6 clarification points, the use of the annual career 

7 records when you don't necessarily have an 

8 individual dosimeter for that later SEC period and 

9 the use of the temporary and visitor badges, which 

10 is I feel very claimant favorable.

11 And I say here there is a combined 21 

12 claims, that number is now 18, that were identified 

13 by both NIOSH and SC&A for further investigation.

14 That ends my presentation. I'd love to 

15 entertain any questions.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, I've got a 

17 question for you. A lot of the AEC employees in 

18 particular would not necessarily be assigned to a 

19 particular area because of their job.

20 They could easily be all over the 

21 facility. They might spend a few days in one area 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or in one building or even a week doing audits, 

2 whether they're safety material audits it does not 

3 -- Have you looked at the records specifically for 

4 the AEC employees at that time?

5 MR. BARTON: Specifically targeting 

6 AEC employees, no. As I kind of -- We really tried 

7 to look at almost every claim.

8 We ran out of time to do that, but we 

9 did look at every claim with 250 days that we had, 

10 so that would include I guess any AEC employees in 

11 that list, right.

12 DR. TAULBEE: We haven't looked at it, 

13 you know, from a systematic standpoint. But if you 

14 go through the temporary badge reports you'll see 

15 AEC personnel all over the place, where they are 

16 coming from other areas coming into CPP they picked 

17 up a CPP badge in that early time period.

18 Now from 1970 to 1975, no. They 

19 probably could wear their, well they could wear 

20 their AEC badge right on in to CPP, which is why 

21 anybody monitored at the site is included as part 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of that Class.

2 But in those earlier years, '63 through 

3 1970, you will see a lot of AEC people coming in 

4 as well, as a lot of Phillips people coming into 

5 CPP specifically.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, thanks.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Bob?

8 MR. BARTON: Yes?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Somewhere in you 

10 report you state that SC&A finds this new 

11 definition and I put this in quotes "effectively 

12 split," so we are agreeing that that's a very 

13 workable definition, and then you go on to discuss 

14 some claims that need further investigation.

15 I am wondering what the Work Group 

16 should present to the Board at our meeting next 

17 week? What is your recommendation? You're 

18 probably not just going to leave it like that, what 

19 is your recommendation?

20 MEMBER BEACH: And can I add on to that, 

21 what percentage in your review would be missed of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 potential claimants? Is it 1 percent, 5 percent, 

2 or do you think this covers it 100 percent?

3 MR. BARTON: Oh, I think it --

4 MEMBER BEACH: Because I am interested 

5 in 100 percent.

6 MR. BARTON: Right. We did not review 

7 in depth 100 percent of the claims. Like I said, 

8 we first evaluated the latter period because it had 

9 less stringent dosimetry criteria and it was a lot 

10 easier to sort of be able to pick out which 

11 claimants would fit the SEC Definition and which 

12 ones weren't.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

14 MR. BARTON: The ones that weren't sort 

15 of went into the next step of closer inspection.

16 Now the ones that we missed that would 

17 get you to I guess 100 percent verification, at 

18 least from SC&A's analysis, would have been claims 

19 that met the SEC criteria in the latter period but 

20 were also employed in the prior period and may --

21 We did not go back and see if they would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 also qualify based on the dosimetry requirements 

2 in the earlier period because they had already 

3 qualified for the latter period. That's certainly 

4 something we can do to get to 100 percent.

5 As it stands right now these, the 2 

6 percent list that we have, the 18, and as you can 

7 see from some of the examples I feel that both NIOSH 

8 and SC&A turned over a lot of rocks here, because 

9 some of the claims that we identified for further 

10 evaluation we have lots of dosimetry for them for 

11 other areas.

12 And it's maybe just a statement in the 

13 DOL initial case or, you know, CPP is listed among 

14 a bunch of different work sites. We said well, you 

15 know what, maybe that's enough that we need to go 

16 back and look for it.

17 As far as what my recommendation would 

18 be I think until we hear back on those 18 we're not 

19 going to really know. A couple of different things 

20 can happen.

21 The site can go look at those 18 workers 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and say well, you know, hey, we found more CPP 

2 records, which, you know, would obviously be 

3 troubling, or they might come back and say no, we 

4 just don't have any evidence they were at CPP.

5 And eventually it, unfortunately, 

6 becomes a judgement call as to what level of I guess 

7 uncertainty is acceptable when you are talking 

8 about a Class Definition like this.

9 I mean there is always the chance you 

10 could miss somebody. I would say these 18 

11 candidates that we have sort of jointly picked out 

12 represent the most likely candidates for a claim 

13 that would have been missed if this Class 

14 Definition were accepted today.

15 DR. MAURO: Bob, this is John Mauro. 

16 Given those 18 which formed this ambiguous area 

17 that requires further investigation, given that 

18 they remain in an ambiguous area is it NIOSH's 

19 intent to then assume that they were in fact, 

20 belonged in the covered group, notwithstanding the 

21 fact that this in fact has ambiguity regarding that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and does that somehow solve the problem?

2 MR. BARTON: I think what he is saying 

3 is if you had a claimant who said in their CATI 

4 interview that I was at CPP but we don't have any 

5 necessarily evidence or monitoring records that 

6 would allow it to fit the Definition, would it be 

7 enough that they stated they were there to be 

8 included.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: And that was one of 

10 my questions, too, is you talk about recommending 

11 that any evidence other than this external 

12 monitoring be accepted and certainly bioassay and 

13 other concrete things.

14 If this SEC went through and then a 

15 claimant came in that didn't have that film badge 

16 or TLD evidence what other things could be 

17 accepted, like the CATI, what is the fallback on 

18 that, you know, what would happen at that point?

19 MR. BARTON: We're not really in a 

20 position to --

21 (Simultaneous speaking)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Well, I mean my -- the 

2 Department of Labor is who makes that determination 

3 as to whether somebody is part of the Class based 

4 upon this.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

6 DR. TAULBEE: And really, to me, it's 

7 part of a weight, you know, of an evidence thing. 

8 You know, I can't foresee it occurring, but, you 

9 know, I am interested in the individual that he 

10 pointed out that has a 1967 in vivo count that is 

11 listing CPP and no monitoring records, but that's 

12 -- I mean those are some of the follow-up here.

13 I mean certainly a claimant-favorable 

14 approach would be to go ahead and include these 

15 folks as part of the SEC Class, but, yes, I think 

16 that is DOL's interpretation here, because we are 

17 talking about a very small fraction of the Class 

18 that we have evaluated here.

19 And recall that the actual people who 

20 we're having a difficulty estimating the dose are 

21 those production construction trades workers, who 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 went into CPP and were doing the remodeling during 

2 this time period when they were doing that 

3 separations activity.

4 Some of the people here that, you know, 

5 that Bob has listed here are interesting and that 

6 we should follow up on, but like the particular 

7 driver, for example, you know, do we think that 

8 person was actually going in and doing some of this 

9 work that they could be exposed from that 

10 standpoint.

11 That's up to you all to decide from that 

12 standpoint. You know, how critical are some of 

13 these? The radioecologist who is going around and 

14 taking samples outside. You know, if he was 

15 outside the fence maybe he wasn't monitored from 

16 that standpoint.

17 But as I pointed out to Phil those stack 

18 emissions, those fission products, carry actinides 

19 with them and we can estimate their dose.

20 So some of these are to try and follow 

21 up to make sure that we don't have some gap that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we didn't identify before, but as Bob pointed out 

2 we were taking pretty anecdotal evidence in order 

3 to do some of these follow-ups of, you know, 

4 somebody mentioning in a, you know, a whole list 

5 of buildings they listed CPP.

6 MEMBER BEACH: So you mentioned that 

7 it's DOL, it's going to be up to them, but isn't 

8 DOL going to look to NIOSH for a list?

9 DR. NETON: Well, but DOL, the 

10 Definition is pretty specific. DOL is going to 

11 hold to that Class Definition and it's pretty 

12 specific.

13 I don't think they have any latitude in 

14 interpreting that Definition to say we're going to 

15 accept affidavits or something like that. I don't 

16 think they would.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. No, I don't 

20 think they would either and won't they look to you 

21 guys for a list like they did in some other specific 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 DR. NETON: We talked about that. 

3 That was another part of this Class, right, was to 

4 provide DOL a master list or something like that?

5 DR. TAULBEE: We didn't agree to that 

6 with DOL. DOL felt that they could go --

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 DR. NETON: But they felt there was 

9 some way to look at the dosimetry records.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: I mean they're going to 

12 rely solely on the dosimetry records, that was the 

13 agreement that we had made, correct, or discussed?

14 I don't know how else they would do that 

15 because that's what the Class Definition says.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, but this --

17 MEMBER MELIUS: In which case having, 

18 you know, figuring out what CADRE is and some of 

19 these other, you know, people that roam around the 

20 site how they are labeled and are they really, have 

21 they been exposed and how do you determine that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think DOL has been, repeatedly said 

2 they will not do something based on an interview 

3 where, you know --

4 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, okay.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. So I mean I think 

6 that's always the problem with these is these sites 

7 are often much more complicated than they first 

8 appear.

9 But my sense is that we need to look, 

10 to understand that this may be a feasible Class 

11 Definition and it may not and let's figure out where 

12 we are after it's been pursued and I think you are 

13 pursuing and you don't have all the information 

14 back is my sense.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: But if you further 

16 investigate these whatever they are 18, or 11, or 

17 whatever, claims, that's of this group of current 

18 claimants.

19 Will that give you, if they all are 

20 clarified would that give enough confidence to say 

21 that some others who would appear not in that group 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that it's acceptable?

2 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. You 

3 know, in my mind, and it may be a little premature 

4 to have this discussion, but it becomes an issue 

5 of what kind of an error rate is acceptable, you 

6 know what I mean.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

8 MR. STIVER: NIOSH has set the bar 

9 pretty high assuming we've got 100 percent 

10 dosimetry. Is 2 percent acceptable if you're 

11 missing 18 people?

12 The worst possible case at least the 

13 among the set that we're looking at and how does 

14 that, you know, affect future claimants, you know, 

15 the next one that comes along.

16 And it's also a question of 

17 implementation as Jim said. I mean Labor is going 

18 to take a certain Definition. We've got external 

19 dosimetry in this period, part in that period, but 

20 not -- And it's got to be something they could 

21 administrate, you know, fairly effectively.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I can't see them going to the lengths 

2 that, you know, Bob and Tim have in looking at this 

3 claimant set. It's going to have to be something 

4 implementable for them. Those are the problems 

5 that I have with it.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: But when you say 

7 "error rate" that's really not a --

8 (Simultaneous speaking)

9 MR. STIVER: Well maybe that's the 

10 wrong term.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: But just they're 

13 potentially missing a certain percent of --

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think it's maybe 

15 more an unknown circumstance rather than error 

16 rate.

17 MR. STIVER: Right. But in a worst 

18 case it would be an error rate.

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

20 MR. STIVER: I mean at this point we 

21 just don't know.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Remember those people 

2 that are missed, or whatever we want to call that 

3 2 percent, you know, they lose that dose.

4 I mean they go into the individual dose 

5 reconstruction and NIOSH is going to say they can't 

6 reconstruct their dose based on the fact that there 

7 is an SEC there.

8 I think the other thing that 

9 complicates this is the fact that, you know, we've 

10 got a lot of -- the whole rest of the site is still 

11 up in the air and we're just starting to evaluate 

12 it and I don't think the whole site is an SEC, you 

13 know, based on what we've found so far.

14 But we don't know what other time 

15 periods are going to be covered and to what extent 

16 there are other potential SECs on the site.

17 We have, you know, some coworker models 

18 that I don't think have even been started yet that 

19 will need to be done and may affect parts of this 

20 group.

21 So I mean it's pretty early yet and --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: And the 83.14 you were 

2 talking about was for CPP also?

3 DR. TAULBEE: Most likely. Well it 

4 would be the CPP, yes, but it would be extended to 

5 --

6 MEMBER BEACH: So CPP, yes.

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 DR. TAULBEE: Right now, you know, 

9 we've identified, between Bob and myself, between 

10 400 to 500 claims that we have clearly identified 

11 as part of this SEC based upon this Class 

12 Definition.

13 There is the potential to be expanding 

14 the Class under 83.14 as we look at the latter time 

15 periods of CPP. As Dr. Melius pointed out there 

16 is other areas still being looked at that we're not 

17 close on decisions yet.

18 And so I am wondering what is the cost 

19 in a sense of approving this Class Definition as 

20 it is and if we find after these 18 that we need 

21 to make an adjustment or there is some other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 problem, it's changing a paper, it's changing a 

2 letter, it goes up through the Secretary.

3 But right now 400 to 500 people can 

4 begin to receive their compensation that we have 

5 already identified as part of this Class as we do 

6 some of this follow-up and as we discuss things over 

7 the next, well probably year or so, with the other 

8 areas, the ER addendum, ANL-West SEC.

9 And so, you know, we've had to make 

10 modifications before to SEC Classes. We don't 

11 like to do that, but in this case we're looking at, 

12 you know, following up 18 people and we've got 400 

13 to 500 people that are already part of this Class 

14 that could be processed.

15 And to try and point that out a little 

16 bit more, DOE, to respond to 42 claims took them 

17 almost two months, so, you know, it takes a long 

18 time for these things to come through in just 

19 processing claims.

20 So, yes, we've still got a lot of work 

21 to do with INL from the SEC standpoint and that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 why I guess my encouragement is to consider that 

2 aspect of the 400 to 500 people that we've 

3 identified as being at CPP during this time period.

4 Many of them were not compensable under 

5 the initial dose reconstruction and they can 

6 receive compensation now.

7 MEMBER MELIUS: I would just remind 

8 you, Tim, one, is that these Definitions have 

9 invariably failed and most of the revisions we have 

10 done and that you have suggested have been because 

11 of Class Definitions based on monitoring have not 

12 been workable.

13 Now this may be a different site and not 

14 to say that it's totally inappropriate to, you 

15 know, recommend this, but there's a lot of history 

16 here and a lot of revisions that had to be done 

17 because they just weren't feasible to implement 

18 under that.

19 And, secondly, I mean in some ways 

20 you're accusing the Board of delaying, 

21 inappropriately delaying on implementing this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 while at the same time NIOSH had the decision to 

2 prioritize finishing up Argonne-West and to pursue 

3 other parts of this site rather than, you know, 

4 prioritizing this Class Definition.

5 So I think be a little careful about 

6 what we accuse the Board of in this situation.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Well first I'd like to 

8 say I am not accusing the Board. I'd like that to 

9 go on record.

10 Second of all, the petitioner himself 

11 worked primarily his career at Argonne National 

12 Laboratory West and so that is why we prioritized 

13 our evaluation time period, and so we are trying 

14 to address the actual petitioner's concerns with 

15 his employment.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

17 question. You have like particularly the fire 

18 department and maybe even the guards, I don't know, 

19 if you are 6responding to something you may go in

20 and out of CPP during that timeframe 200 times.

21 Given that it's an alarm or maybe a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 medical situation there, they're not going to stop 

2 to exchange badges in a case like that. Do they 

3 have a blank code that goes with their job 

4 description for all areas at all times?

5 DR. TAULBEE: For CPP, I do not believe 

6 so. They had their own fire department, they had 

7 their own guard force, well, part of the guard force 

8 everywhere.

9 So from the response of incidents that 

10 are on CPP they would be responding there onsite, 

11 so they would be badged. Now is there any time 

12 where they had to bring other people in, I don't 

13 know the answer to that particular question from 

14 that standpoint.

15 I mean that would take a review of all 

16 of the incidents there at the site, and, yes, wow, 

17 that would be --

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't know if 

19 you would need to review all the incidents, but you 

20 might stop and take a look at, particularly the fire 

21 department because you may have five or six 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 substations but they are actually trained and 

2 cross-trained to go to other areas and be brought 

3 in other areas when there is people that are off 

4 on vacation, they're sick, whatever it is.

5 Even though normally -- we'll just use 

6 this hypothetical, we're going to name these 

7 stations one through four. People from Stations 

8 1, 2, and 3, four is the CPP station, may rotate 

9 in and out of there as they are needed, but they 

10 aren't specifically badged to CPP because they are 

11 obviously trained to respond to all areas.

12 That's one group I think you really need 

13 to take a look at how their badging works.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Thank you. You 

15 can continue now.

16 MR. BARTON: One point, it's a great 

17 question and I knew I had seen it at least in one 

18 case. There is actually an Area Code 123 that is 

19 the all area badge.

20 I don't know how often it was used or 

21 it was used for a certain time period, but at least 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in this document that we discussed earlier, let me 

2 scroll up and see if it has the heading.

3 It says 2011 inserted by area code, 

4 table of areas and codes, dosimetry, and it gives 

5 no real specific information that was captured at 

6 INL, but this is the list of all the area codes, 

7 123 was one of them and that is the all area badge.

8 But, again, I don't know if that was 

9 implemented throughout the site history, if it 

10 applies to parts of the SEC period, all of the SEC 

11 period, I don't know.

12 DR. TAULBEE: I am believing that that 

13 was implemented around the '70s time period, but 

14 we can check that.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Do we have any 

16 precedence at any other site where an SEC has been 

17 approved that's similar to this, not the split and 

18 Definition so much, but the need to validate the 

19 Class Definition like we're trying to do here, have 

20 we done that before?

21 MEMBER BEACH: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Tritium at Mound.

2 MALE PARTICIPANT: Tritium at Mound.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

4 DR. NETON: We use tritium monitoring

5 at Mound to establish the Definition of the Class.

6 MEMBER BEACH: And we had some issues 

7 with it that's why --

8 DR. TAULBEE: Right. We had to add two 

9 years where we had a gap.

10 (Simultaneous speaking)

11 DR. NETON: It was a tritium --

12 DR. TAULBEE: Whereas --

13 DR. NETON: Yes, to see who is exposed 

14 to --

15 (Simultaneous speaking)

16 DR. TAULBEE: There had been a 

17 precedence set for that type of description.

18 MEMBER BEACH: No. We had a group of 

19 people that weren't covered which came out after 

20 the Class Definition.

21 MR. STIVER: Over a 2-year period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: We modified that Class 

3 Definition, I think, based on the availability of 

4 records. We finally went back and there was a 

5 piece of the records that were missing and I forget 

6 what year --

7 MR. STIVER: Right, a 2-year period.

8 DR. NETON: Yes, a 2-year period.

9 MR. STIVER: Right.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Which was one of the 

11 reasons we did the whole data gap analysis and going 

12 through and looking to make sure that that didn't 

13 happen again.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I haven't heard of any 

15 concerns since we did that either.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: No, I haven't either.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Nothing has come 

18 through. So maybe we should take a little break?

19 MR. KATZ: It's 9:59.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I know, they're 

21 breaking down though.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Do folks want to -- need a 

2 break?

3 Okay. So we'll break for, what, ten 

4 minutes say, so till 10:10.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

6 went off the record at 9:59 a.m. and resumed at 

7 10:12 a.m.)

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Welcome back, 

9 everyone. We are ready, we're online, we're 

10 live. Live as we'll ever be, as John says.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Are there any 

12 remaining questions for Tim? Does anybody have 

13 any more, while we're beating him up?

14 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. Tim and I had a 

15 walking-across-the-lobby conversation, but -- so 

16 let me just ask for the record, the timeframe on 

17 resolving these cases? In terms of getting 

18 information back, and so forth, for these.

19 DR. TAULBEE: For the 18 cases, I 

20 expect that we will get them back by the end of this 

21 month, by the end of November. To turn those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 around, two to three weeks is what I'm thinking, 

2 which puts us right into Christmas. But we should 

3 be able to have, you know, an update to the Board 

4 by that time period, probably right around 

5 Christmas or maybe -- that time period.

6 The other questions that Phil was 

7 bringing up on emergency responders and some of the 

8 other things, those are going to take a bit more 

9 time in order to do follow up. So I don't have an 

10 estimate. Depends upon what we can find within the 

11 current --

12 MS. LIN: Hey, Tim. 

13 DR. TAULBEE: Yes?

14 MS. LIN: This is Jenny Lin. Can you 

15 move the microphone closer to you?

16 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Is this better, 

17 Jenny?

18 MS. LIN: Yes. Better. Thank you.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. With regards --

20 just to recap, with regards to the follow up of the 

21 18, the sites I believe will be able to get us the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 responses back by the end of this month, and then 

2 both us and SC&A will -- you know, we will have to 

3 process and evaluate those and go through those 

4 records in order to make some determination. So 

5 I would expect that to probably take two to three 

6 weeks' time period.

7 With regards to some of Phil's 

8 questions, with regards to emergency responders 

9 and the Area 123 badge and CADRE, that might take 

10 some additional effort out at the site in order to 

11 follow up. And I don't really have a good timeline 

12 for that from that standpoint.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: As a Work Group 

14 Member, I'd like to make a suggestion to get this 

15 moving. Not a motion but just a suggestion to see 

16 what you're thinking. You know, we could pick this 

17 Definition apart for a long time, and it seems like 

18 it's going to be months anyway, and it could be even 

19 longer.

20 And I'm thinking of those hundreds, 

21 four or five hundred, maybe more, people who could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be compensated now. And if we don't, in the 

2 meantime, there are people who really aren't well, 

3 I'd like to see them compensated now. We've got 

4 it set up. We can always go to the fallback on it, 

5 and we have a precedence for that.

6 So I just want to throw that out as a 

7 -- what I think is a very -- at least I can support 

8 a valid way of approaching this with the Board next 

9 week.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I don't disagree 

11 with that suggestion. However, I like 100 

12 percent, but that's what I wanted. And these split 

13 Class Definitions I know are touchy. I also know 

14 they are workable in a lot of ways, too. So we 

15 sampled, what -- what did you say, 92, and came up 

16 with 18 potential problems?

17 MR. BARTON: No. The 92 was related to 

18 a different study. In this one, we essentially 

19 looked at every claimant that had 250 days of 

20 covered employment.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay. So every one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of them.

2 MR. BARTON: Right. Well, the ones we 

3 didn't look at were the ones who could not qualify 

4 based on their employment. But even then, as I 

5 noted in the presentation, we looked at a bunch of 

6 those as well.

7 MEMBER BEACH: And how did the guards 

8 fall out in that? Are the guards covered with 

9 their dosimetry, or --

10 DR. TAULBEE: I see a mixed batch. The 

11 guards at CPP, yes, we see guards that have CPP 

12 badging. We see guards that have Test Area North 

13 badging. We see guards that have Central 

14 Facilities badging. So I believe the guards that 

15 were at CPP are included in that particular Class. 

16 You know, follow up with what happens when a 

17 firetruck comes, you know, they need an additional, 

18 you know, engine, I don't know.

19 I do know an instance in the 1970s where 

20 one of the initial follow up people that we were 

21 following was a firefighter from Central 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Facilities who indicated work at CPP, and was not 

2 badged at CPP, he was badged down at Central 

3 Facilities, but this was in the 1973/'74 time 

4 period. So he didn't need to be badged in CPP, and 

5 he talked about responding to spills, and so forth, 

6 up at CPP.

7 But that's in that time period where 

8 everybody was allowed, which is why I say it is 

9 going to take a bit longer to follow up those, 

10 because we are looking at that time period of '63 

11 through 1970.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I have to agree 

13 with both Josie and -- that 100 percent is what we 

14 need to achieve. But, in the meantime, how many 

15 people are we, you know, stopping? My feeling at 

16 this point is go ahead and recommend it with the 

17 caveat that, as more data comes in, we may need to 

18 reopen that and make some changes to it.

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: So moved, as part of 

20 the Work Group.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Jim, you've got 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any --

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I think we should 

3 wait. I mean, I think it's -- we're actively 

4 investigating a number of cases. I keep getting 

5 -- hearing more doubts from -- and more questions 

6 coming up than certainty about the covered and not 

7 covered, and so forth.

8 And, remember, once we -- you know, once 

9 we approve it, then this will go to the bottom of 

10 the priority list. And the way the priority list 

11 looks for investigating the site, we are 

12 potentially years away from getting anything done. 

13 I mean, it's the nature of the way this site has 

14 been approached and the amount of work that needs 

15 to be done on the site.

16 What I had talked about with Tim, while 

17 we were going across the lobby, was that we will 

18 have a report the end of -- by Christmas, nice 

19 little bow on it and under the tree, and so forth.

20 DR. TAULBEE: I can't promise by 

21 Christmas, but around then.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, East Orthodox 

2 Christmas. It'll give you an extra week.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Support staff is all on 

4 leave the second half of December.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Cancel all 

6 leave at ORAU.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, Jim --

8 MEMBER MELIUS: Let me finish up.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Oh, okay.

10 MEMBER MELIUS: We have a Board call on 

11 January, about the 20th, something like that. And 

12 if we have a report by around the holidays -- okay, 

13 how is that? But then we have the Work Group call 

14 in early January and see where we are then. 

15 If we feel that we have enough 

16 information at that point in time, then we can go 

17 ahead and decide to approve or decide to hold off, 

18 you know, what we -- in terms of recommendations 

19 to the Board.

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: My question of Josie 

21 and Jim, then, is when you say want 100 percent, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do you want 100 percent clarified on these 11 cases, 

2 is that your goal? Would that make you feel --

3 MEMBER BEACH: You know, I guess what 

4 I really want is a more clear recommendation from 

5 SC&A. And it doesn't sound like SC&A is quite 

6 ready to give that clear recommendation to us. Am 

7 I correct in that?

8 MR. BARTON: I think that -- I'm sorry 

9 you have to these 18 plans and then what comes with 

10 those. If we get more records, then we can 

11 evaluate the position then. 

12 One comment I would make on the 

13 Definition itself -- you know, there was some 

14 discussion about how we approve a Class and it goes 

15 to the Department of Labor. You know, they're by 

16 the book, they're going to stick to that 

17 Definition. 

18 And it seems like a lot of discussion 

19 today pointed to maybe expansion beyond just the 

20 notion of the one film badge, at least for the 

21 latter period, March 1970 to 1974. As we talked 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about, that would include temporary badges, 

2 visitor badges, the annual records, career dose 

3 totals, maybe even some internal monitoring. 

4 So it almost seems like the 

5 requirement, as it's being discussed now, is not 

6 necessarily just that one film badge, it's more 

7 evidence of radiological monitoring, it seems like 

8 what was discussed.

9 DR. NETON: I think that remains to be 

10 seen. I mean, you can ask questions about that.

11 MR. BARTON: Right.

12 DR. NETON: But if it works out that 

13 those questions are addressed, then maybe it's a 

14 little quicker than --

15 MEMBER MELIUS: And DOL does an 

16 implementation guidance on the SEC. So the 

17 Definition doesn't have to spell out the entire --

18 every possibility. So, for example, if we 

19 determined that CADRE was part of CPP, we don't --

20 I don't think we have to necessarily change the 

21 Definition, but we -- you know, the implementation 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 guide would -- you know, that's a subset within CPP, 

2 or something like that.

3 Or, you know, if -- it would -- if it 

4 involved other monitoring or whatever. I mean, I 

5 think there's ways to do it. It depends on what 

6 the exception is. 

7 Now, if it's like, you know, 

8 firefighters who say they worked in CPP, DOL is 

9 unlikely, I think, to implement based on sort of 

10 say so or whatever, or, you know, what's in an 

11 interview. But, you know, if it's, you know, 

12 records, if there's a determination now or later 

13 that, for example, the, you know, emergency 

14 response teams rotated through in a way, or might 

15 not have been badged in CPP, you know, that group 

16 could be added as an expanded Definition or 

17 something.

18 I mean, I -- I don't want -- you know, 

19 in the abstract, it's a little hard, but I think, 

20 you know, it depends what the evidence shows. So 

21 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: And in that latter time 

2 period, you know, as we indicated, anybody who is 

3 badged -- because you still have to wear a badge 

4 to get into CPP, so -- especially in that latter 

5 time period. The badge could come from anywhere. 

6 And so it -- it really doesn't matter from that 

7 standpoint.

8 The earlier time period is where it is 

9 more restrictive to where people coming from other 

10 areas had to pick up a CPP badge to go in. But, 

11 again, everybody going into -- everybody who has 

12 the potential to be exposed to those actinides that 

13 we talked about, those separated actinides, had to 

14 be badged to go into those areas.

15 MR. BARTON: I guess this is what I was 

16 kind of hinting at is would internal monitoring, 

17 without an existing badge, however unlikely that 

18 situation is, if we found at least one that appears 

19 to be like that, that we recommended it be followed 

20 up on. We might find badges from that individual.

21 But, again, with the internal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitoring also -- as a follow-on to that, some of 

2 the cases we identified for follow up had direct 

3 evidence via the location file cards. I know 

4 that's not an affidavit or a statement made in a 

5 CATI report. That would be what I consider a solid 

6 record. 

7 Would that be enough, if it comes back 

8 that we have some -- a few of these 18 had location 

9 file cards, and we can't find external 

10 dosimetry-specific -- not specific to CPP, but if 

11 we can't find external dosimetry to cover that 

12 latter period, would that be enough? Because 

13 that's not necessarily monitoring, but it is in a 

14 way evidence that they were assigned to that area.

15 DR. TAULBEE: My interpretation is 

16 that is enough from the evidence standpoint, 

17 because that locator card is actually from the 

18 Dosimetry Branch. It's not from Human Resources. 

19 It's their record. And so that locator card is 

20 where they would issue badges and where it goes 

21 from.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, the only possible scenario I can 

2 think of of the individual who, you know, went for 

3 a whole body count. And, you know, there isn't a 

4 record yet right now is that if a new employee, for 

5 example, goes for a pre-employment in vivo 

6 counting, and then actually decides to never work 

7 there, it would be on their locator card. That's 

8 not the scenario here, but --

9 MR. BARTON: Oh, yeah.

10 DR. TAULBEE: But I can actually see 

11 that happening, where they didn't get issued a 

12 badge. But they're not going to meet the 250 days 

13 either, so I don't know if that scenario is --

14 MEMBER MELIUS: I would add one other 

15 thing, is that I think when there are exceptional 

16 or different circumstances, I think it's important 

17 that the Board put that on the record when approving 

18 the SEC, because that adds more weight to how, you 

19 know, DOL interprets the SEC. And so, 

20 again, having an understanding of what -- how it 

21 should be implemented and what might be sort of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tricky questions, what the different circumstances 

2 would be, I think is helpful and should be part of 

3 the part of the Board deliberations.

4 And the obligation of the Work Group is 

5 to, you know, make sure that stuff gets explained 

6 in some way on the record, either as part of a Work 

7 Group meeting or a Board meeting.

8 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, because it's 

9 not real clear how that is going to be turned over 

10 to DOL, whether NIOSH is going to provide a list 

11 or if they are going to go through the records. 

12 That is a huge part of this, at least it seemed to 

13 be in the last one we talked about with Mound.

14 So I'm going to retract. And while I 

15 want to see 500 people get compensated, if Jim's 

16 argument that we get to go to the bottom of the list 

17 as importance, to me that's really not acceptable. 

18 So I think waiting a couple months is not a bad idea 

19 to make sure we're all clear, and we have a more 

20 clear recommendation coming from SC&A. I think 

21 that's important for the Board.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: So my motion wasn't 

2 seconded, so it --

3 MEMBER BEACH: No, no. It wasn't 

4 really a motion. You were just throwing out a 

5 suggestion.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This all area code 

7 for badging, that's one that really has me 

8 questioning the 123, how that will impact this.

9 DR. TAULBEE: And that's something 

10 that we can look at as -- again, my belief right 

11 now is that that is in the 1970s time period where 

12 anybody badged qualifies to go in there. But we 

13 can certainly verify that.

14 But as Dr. Melius had indicated a second 

15 ago, that -- you know, that really is part of the 

16 implementation, you know, whether we add CADRE or 

17 whether we add the all area, whether we add the 

18 firefighters, that is part of the implementation.

19 Now, if you're wanting all of that 

20 guidance by the end of December, I can't deliver 

21 all of that. So I guess I'm asking -- we can do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 18. When are you wanting the other aspects? 

2 I'm very glad Jim pulled out his 

3 notebook, so that he can take notes, because I'm 

4 not a prioritization person.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: I mean, I think some of 

6 that depends on where we are when we see the 18. 

7 And I'd like to think it's going to be definitive, 

8 but I'm not confident that it will be. But, I mean, 

9 our next meeting would be March. Is that feasible? 

10 I don't know.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Actually, yes, I think 

12 that is feasible.

13 MEMBER MELIUS: I mean, I think -- my 

14 guess is that -- Tim, is you're going to know when 

15 you get the records the end of November. You're 

16 going to have a pretty good sense of what is there, 

17 particularly if there's problems. I mean, that's 

18 --

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah.

20 MEMBER MELIUS: -- you're going to know 

21 and --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: But with the 

2 firefighters, I'm not going to know. 

3 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah.

4 DR. TAULBEE: I mean, I'm going to have 

5 to do some additional requests in order to get that 

6 is where --

7 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

8 DR. TAULBEE: -- is what I'm going at.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah.

10 DR. TAULBEE: As I would have to look 

11 at that more in detail, and that's --

12 MEMBER MELIUS: So let's say March for 

13 that, is that --

14 DR. TAULBEE: For that aspect.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

17 MEMBER MELIUS: Sure.

18 MR. KATZ: So just to clarify, does 

19 that mean we are not going to shoot for a Work Group 

20 meeting possibly in --

21 MEMBER MELIUS: I think we can --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: -- in January, or we still 

2 will?

3 MEMBER MELIUS: We are. We are.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: I mean, I -- that's my 

6 proposal. You're supposed to remind me, Ted, I'm 

7 not the Chair of the Work Group.

8 DR. TAULBEE: So for the 7 NIOSH and 11 

9 SC&A orders, the 18, we are targeting around the 

10 end of the year holidays, and then a January Work 

11 Group.

12 MR. KATZ: Right.

13 MEMBER MELIUS: And with SC&A being 

14 able to comment on that report, but not necessarily 

15 a written, you know, response from SC&A by the time 

16 the Work Group will --

17 MR. KATZ: Well, SC&A will have access 

18 when you get the records.

19 MEMBER MELIUS: Oh, absolutely.

20 MR. KATZ: You don't have access early 

21 on before, but --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 MEMBER BEACH: John has already asked 

3 to have those records made clear where they were. 

4 That's --

5 MR. STIVER: That's a little bit 

6 different, regarding the records, but, yeah, we 

7 will definitely want them as soon as you can get 

8 hold of them.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Right. 

10 MR. KATZ: Tim, are you saying you're 

11 not looking at the other 10 or --

12 DR. TAULBEE: I wasn't going to on the 

13 other 11.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: Can you at least 

15 coordinate on -- that's a good point. Can you at 

16 least coordinate with SC&A on how we look at it?

17 DR. TAULBEE: On our original list, I 

18 accidentally dropped it, so --

19 MEMBER MELIUS: Bob has like 11 people 

20 helping him, and you only have one, so --

21 (Laughter.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Phil?

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What does the 

3 calendar look like for January?

4 MR. KATZ: We'll do this by email. We 

5 don't need to --

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Sounds 

7 good.

8 MR. KATZ: -- do this right now. But 

9 I'll send something out for -- I'll look at when 

10 the teleconference is and send something out before 

11 it. If we have a week before it, we -- I think we 

12 do.

13 So that's what I'll be aiming for, about 

14 a week before the Board teleconference.

15 DR. TAULBEE: So just for my general 

16 knowledge, the teleconference is the 20th?

17 MR. KATZ: Something like -- I don't 

18 have it in --

19 MEMBER BEACH: It's the 20th. I just 

20 looked it up.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So you're looking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 around the 13th, 12th to 13th.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Probably just a 

5 teleconference?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 DR. NETON: The Board 

8 teleconference --

9 MR. KATZ: Gen meant the Work Group, 

10 yes. We'll just meet by phone.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: After the big blizzard 

12 of January in Minnesota.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No. You're not 

14 going to get it this year. Florida gets it. It's 

15 an El Nino.

16 DR. TAULBEE: By the March 4 meeting, 

17 you want us to have follow up on the firefighters 

18 and security forces.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Prior to the March.

20 DR. NETON: I mean, it may not be 

21 necessary, depending on the outcome in January. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm not prejudging anything. It's a staged 

2 process is what I'm saying.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, Doug, it 

4 looks like you're up next.

5 MR. STIVER: Phil, could I --

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What's up? Oh. 

7 Sorry.

8 MR. STIVER: I just wanted to sort of 

9 set the stage a little bit here. Back in April, 

10 we were tasked to start looking at some of the areas 

11 where NIOSH felt that they could reconstruct doses 

12 with sufficient accuracy, and we set about doing 

13 some kind of mini-studies, if you will. A few were 

14 cross-cutting, which was looking at the OTIB-54 

15 method of using ratios. It comported well with the 

16 different types of reactors that were in operation 

17 at INL, both in the test reactor area and also at 

18 Test Area North.

19 Another aspect of that study was to see 

20 how well those ratios comported with actual 

21 measurements of the bioassay that was available, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and other measurements that we were able to glean 

2 from the SRDB.

3 In addition to that, we were to go 

4 vertical in certain areas. One was the Central 

5 Facilities area. Another aspect was Test Area 

6 North. We were going to look at CPP, pre-1963, 

7 before the SEC analysis of the burial ground.

8 It turns out the burial grounds and the 

9 CPP, pre-SEC, are going to require site visits and 

10 interviews, and that's part of what we're doing now 

11 is we have an action plan in, and we're looking at 

12 hopefully getting out there probably sometime 

13 beginning of -- probably in January of 2016. 

14 That's our goal at least.

15 So today we are really going to discuss 

16 the reactors, TAN, the bioassay, and Central 

17 Facilities. But I'd like to mix this up a little 

18 bit, because I know Bob Barton has got an early 

19 flight, and he is going to talk about -- a little 

20 bit about the fission and activation products. So 

21 I want to make sure he has a chance to do that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 beforehand. 

2 So I'd like to bump the Central 

3 Facilities discussion to the end, and start out 

4 with Steve Ostrow's discussions of the test reactor 

5 area. 

6 So I can go ahead and pull that up, 

7 Steve.

8 DR. OSTROW: Give me a minute.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. Can everybody see 

10 this on LiveMeeting?

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: I can't hear him very 

12 well.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, he's not talking yet, 

14 but --

15 DR. OSTROW: Can you go to the next 

16 slide, please? 

17 All right. One of the things that we 

18 looked at, we're considering that NIOSH relies very 

19 heavily on ORAUT-OTIB-0054, fission and activation 

20 product assignment for internal dose-related gross 

21 beta and gamma analysis.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we wanted to look at, does this model

2 well the reactors that are at INL? Are they 

3 adequately enveloped by the OTIB cases, so that the 

4 isotopic ratios that I used are valid? And have 

5 off-normal operating scenarios for the reactors 

6 been identified, and are they covered by the OTIB? 

7 So we took a three-pronged approach. 

8 We looked at the OTIB, described Test Reactor Area 

9 reactors, and then we assessed whether the OTIB 

10 models the reactors. We started just in this case 

11 with the Test Reactor Area reactors.

12 And this is just -- next slide, please. 

13 And this is just a little bit of the background, 

14 and this I think is an interesting point. Under 

15 the first bullet of dose reconstruction, when you 

16 set up a Class Definition in the SEC, as part of 

17 the firm framework, you are also defining what is 

18 not in the SEC. And you are assuming that doses 

19 could be reconstructed for site areas and time 

20 periods that lie outside the SEC Class Definition.

21 That's what we're really looking at, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and we looked at just this one aspect of dose 

2 reconstruction applicability. That is the TRA 

3 area.

4 Next slide, please.

5 First, looking at what does OTIB-54 do, 

6 because I'm not going to go too much into the 

7 OTIB-54 procedure. But basically the idea is that 

8 it should apply to a really broad scope of reactor 

9 operations, and there is different cases. 

10 Plutonium production reactors, which are low 

11 enrichment and low burnup; research reactors, 

12 which have like medium enrichment and modest 

13 burnup; and high enrichment, high burnup reactors. 

14 Those are really the cases that they look at.

15 Next slide, please.

16 Specifically, the OTIB does not apply 

17 to two different situations. Operations, we have 

18 short decay times following removal from the 

19 reactor, for example, radioactive lanthanum 

20 processing. And it doesn't apply to cases where 

21 fuel has been reprocessed or the radionuclides have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been separated. It really applies to either 

2 intact fuel or cases where the fuel is dissolved, 

3 but it hasn't extracted isotopes from it.

4 Next slide, please.

5 We looked at the general -- we had 

6 looked in the past at the validity and 

7 applicability of OTIB as part of the Subcommittee 

8 on Procedures Review Group, which was a long, 

9 protracted process, a lot of back and forth between 

10 us and NIOSH. And the findings were closed, so I'm 

11 not going to do the whole history on that. A bunch 

12 of reports have been done. I'm not going to 

13 recapitulate that here. It's not really germane 

14 to this.

15 Next slide, please.

16 The OTIB applies to the case where 

17 frequently you have air samplings or urinalysis 

18 data, the mixed fission and activation products, 

19 but you only have them in the form of gross beta 

20 or gross gamma activity, and it's unattributed to 

21 specific radionuclides.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So what you want to be able to do is do 

2 what you call mathematically an adjoint problem. 

3 That given the output, the result, which is the 

4 gross beta or gross gamma, can you derive the input, 

5 which is the actual exposure to the different 

6 radionuclides. That's what the OTIB tries to do. 

7 In some sense, it works backwards.

8 And the goal of the OTIB is to reduce 

9 the large amount of possible data that they have 

10 on reactor operations to some manageable set of a 

11 few characteristic reactors and scenarios. And 

12 the hope is that a particular case will fit in 

13 somewhere within this envelope that is defined by 

14 the OTIB.

15 Next slide, please.

16 And, just briefly, the OTIB starts with 

17 the radionuclide mix in spent fuel for a bunch of 

18 different reactor types and fuel designs, operate 

19 under different conditions. The conditions are 

20 specific power, irradiation time, and burnup, and 

21 calculated at different decay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Next slide, please.

2 The OTIB starts out with seven 

3 representative reactors and -- next slide, please.

4 The OTIB used ORIGEN code, which is an 

5 isotope generation and depletion code. It's an 

6 industry standard. It's well-known. It was 

7 written at Oak Ridge, and it's maintained by Oak 

8 Ridge National Laboratory.

9 And did a whole bunch of different runs 

10 on different reactors, seven different reactors 

11 with different decay times, and produced activity 

12 data for 879 fission product nuclides and 688 

13 activation nuclides. They went through a bunch of 

14 different steps and ended up with four 

15 characteristic reactors that are on the bottom of 

16 the page.

17 The Advanced Test Reactor, ATR, which 

18 is supposed to be characteristic of high flux 

19 reactors; the Fast Flux Test Facility, which is 

20 characteristic of sodium-cooled faster reactors; 

21 Hanford N-Reactor, which is characteristic of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium production reactors; and, finally, a 

2 TRIGA Reactor with stainless steel cladding, which 

3 is characteristic of research reactors.

4 Next slide, please.

5 Finally, that was reduced even further 

6 using another version of ORIGEN, ORIGEN-S, which 

7 is part of the SCALE system, to produce the final 

8 characteristic nine cases, some of the -- there's 

9 multiple cases for a particular reactor. And 

10 NIOSH customarily, from the NIOSH documents, 

11 considers all nine reactor cases when it is doing 

12 the dose reconstruction. And if they don't have 

13 individual worker information, they might apply 

14 data from all four decay times, and basically pick 

15 the worst case of that. So that is -- we thought 

16 that was a favorable basis approach.

17 Next slide, please.

18 Just a list -- these are the nine 

19 representative cases for four reactors that the 

20 OTIB produced. And the goal is that if you have 

21 a particular dose reconstruction for a particular 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 case, that -- to go ahead and take a look at this, 

2 what the situation is, and try to pick a particular 

3 case that envelopes the actual dose reconstruction 

4 case that you have.

5 Next slide.

6 A quick look at the four representative 

7 reactors. The first is the Advanced Test Reactor, 

8 which is a surrogate for high flux reactors. And 

9 that operated at INL. In fact, it's still 

10 operating at INL. Max power of 250 megawatts, and 

11 it's the largest of the three material testing 

12 reactors that are at INL.

13 The idea was starting early in the 

14 nuclear industry, nuclear research, if you wanted 

15 to commercialize nuclear reactors, you needed to 

16 know how material would survive, how they would do 

17 under intense neutron and gamma fluxes. So these 

18 material testing reactors at INL did accelerated 

19 testing using really very high fluxes.

20 The reactor itself is a pressurized, 

21 light water reactor, beryllium reflected, uses 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 highly enriched uranium fuel, which sets it apart 

2 from commercial reactors. So it's fully enriched. 

3 And the fuel arrangement has very unusual 

4 serpentine curved plate configuration.

5 Next slide, please.

6 Fast Flux Test Facility -- this is a 

7 reactor that was at Hanford, 400 megawatts, a 

8 liquid sodium-cooled reactor that explored 

9 breeding plutonium from depleted uranium fuel by 

10 neutron capture in U-238.

11 Next one, please. Next slide.

12 Hanford N-Reactor -- this is Hanford. 

13 This is a plutonium production reactor, which uses 

14 very low enrichment, because you want it to maximum 

15 the U-238 content, U-238 to absorb the neutron and 

16 produce plutonium-239 following two beta decays. 

17 And you have very short irradiation times to 

18 minimize the plutonium-240 buildup.

19 And this is a different reactor, too. 

20 This was low enrichment and graphite-moderated 

21 pressurized water reactor. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Next slide, please.

2 And, finally, the TRIGA Reactor, which 

3 people are probably familiar with. They are all 

4 over the place. General Atomics produces them, 

5 and they came in different varieties. They're 

6 basically low powered research reactors.

7 Originally, they were highly enriched, 

8 but in the last couple of years they have only been 

9 up to about 20 percent enrichment, and the older 

10 reactors have been converted to run with 20 percent 

11 enrichment of fuel. That's for safety 

12 non-proliferation purposes.

13 Next slide.

14 Okay. Now, specifically, what's in 

15 INL, and this -- if you look at the next slide, 

16 please, this is a list -- it's a little bit tough 

17 to read because of the small print here, but this 

18 is a list of all of the radioactive facilities in 

19 the INL Test Reactor Area.

20 The first three are full-sized 

21 reactors. The first was the Materials Test 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Reactor, which operated from 1952 to 1970. Then 

2 they had the Engineering Test Reactor, which 

3 operated from 1957 to 1981, which is bigger than 

4 the Materials Test Reactor. And, finally, the 

5 Advanced Test Reactor, which went into operation 

6 in 1967. And, as I mentioned, it's still in use. 

7 Those are -- all three were -- they were full-sized 

8 reactors. 

9 The other facilities are either zero 

10 powered reactors that are used as mockups of the 

11 big testing reactors or other places we encounter 

12 radioactivity. So we just looked at the three --

13 the first three reactors, full-sized reactors. 

14 And I'll go through them one by one.

15 Okay. Next slide.

16 All right. First, the Advanced Test 

17 Reactor. In this case, it was sort of easy to do, 

18 because the OTIB itself, OTIB-54, explicitly 

19 models the Advanced Test Reactor. So it's 

20 expected that any workers exposed to Advanced Test 

21 Reactor fuel would be adequately treated by the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 methodology in the OTIB.

2 We took a look to see if could find any 

3 important material instances of the Advanced Test 

4 Reactor operating outside of this design envelope, 

5 and we didn't find that. As far as we could find, 

6 the Advanced Test Reactor event is covered by the 

7 OTIB.

8 Next slide.

9 This is just an illustration. I just 

10 put it in because it looked nice, really. On the 

11 left it shows the operating deck of the Advanced 

12 Test Reactor, and on the right, to people who are 

13 into nuclear engineering, that's a truly 

14 weird-looking core. And they have rotating drums 

15 instead of control rods to control reactivity.

16 Next slide, please.

17 The Materials Test Reactor was designed 

18 by Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge 

19 National Laboratory and sited at Idaho. This was 

20 sort of an interesting situation. Why did it end 

21 up at INL? Because there was a little bit of a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fight between Argonne and Oak Ridge where to site 

2 it, and so it ended up at INL in the middle of 

3 nowhere.

4 Now there's a second reactor built at 

5 that location. It's a relatively small reactor, 

6 maximum power is 40 megawatts. And, interestingly 

7 -- and we'll talk about this more later -- even 

8 though it's a uranium reactor, they actually ran 

9 it with a plutonium core at at least two different 

10 times.

11 Next slide, please.

12 Okay. The Materials Test Reactor was 

13 really a prototype for the current Advanced Test 

14 Reactor. It's cooled and moderated with light 

15 water, aluminum-clad curved plate, enriched 

16 uranium most of the time. The core is really 

17 small. It's only nine inch by 28 inch in core 

18 section by 24 inches high and only has like 4.9 

19 kilograms of U-235.

20 This is a little bit of a demonstration 

21 that -- how little nuclear fuel it takes to have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a nuclear reactor. I mean, it's a really small 

2 core, but very high flux, had about 100 beam holes 

3 that penetrated into the core. So, in this case, 

4 the neutron and gamma flux was extracted to 

5 irradiate things external to the reactor.

6 We will see later reactors didn't do 

7 that. Rather than having beam holes, the cores are 

8 big enough they can place experiments inside the 

9 core, which was more efficient and also safer to 

10 operate, because we didn't have the streaming 

11 problem.

12 Next slide, please.

13 Lasted for a long time, 125,000 hours 

14 of operation, 19,000 irradiations. So our 

15 evaluation -- the MTR fuel enrichment, cladding, 

16 and plate design were similar to the ATR. The ATR 

17 was much bigger but a similar idea. The way MTR 

18 was operating with uranium fuel, we concluded that 

19 the ATR case and the OTIB would correctly reproduce 

20 it.

21 Next slide.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We looked at unusual conditions. They 

2 used the MTR briefly for Radioactive 

3 Lanthanum -- that's RaLa -- extraction campaign for 

4 a few years. RaLa is really interesting but not 

5 really important here.

6 OTIB specifically moved RaLa 

7 operations from the -- from being considered, so 

8 we don't have to look at that.

9 Next slide, please.

10 Okay. I mentioned before, this is 

11 where it's interesting. The MTR, although most of 

12 the time it used uranium fuel, it's a demonstration 

13 as early as 1958 to see if you could actually run 

14 a reactor with a plutonium-239 core. In theory, 

15 you should be able to. But it wasn't demonstrated, 

16 so they ran with a plutonium-239 core.

17 Later, years later, just before the 

18 reactor was shut down actually, I think in 1970, 

19 DOE or whoever was in charge in those days, wanted 

20 to shut down the MTR, because they thought it was 

21 obsolete, and so forth and so on, to try and save 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 money.

2 They did the last experiment called the 

3 Phoenix experiment. It was a demo project for a 

4 potential high-power, compact reactor. The idea 

5 here is that plutonium-240 is fertile, which means 

6 that it can absorb a neutron and become fissile 

7 plutonium-241.

8 Odd-numbered nuclides are fissile, 

9 generally, and that would have actually two things. 

10 That would -- the plutonium-240 would act as a 

11 neutron absorber initially, so they wouldn't have 

12 to load the reactor, but they wouldn't have to put 

13 a lot of control rods at the beginning.

14 But gradually over time you would build 

15 up the plutonium-241, which would increase the 

16 reactivity available. So the idea is you can get 

17 a very compact core that way. They ran it for a 

18 few months to demonstrate it.

19 And let's go to the next slide, please.

20 Demonstrations worked fine. But 

21 although the configuration of the core with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium was similar to the configuration with 

2 uranium, these are the same five fuel sites, and 

3 so forth, the same design. 

4 The plutonium operations were 

5 significantly different. The plutonium had a 

6 different cross-section, different activation, 

7 and so forth, different from uranium, and the

8 fission product abundance distribution and core 

9 neutron spectrum would be different than a uranium 

10 core.

11 So the question is, at the last bullet, 

12 how much different and whether the differences 

13 would be radiologically significant. This would 

14 require us doing detailed comparative ORIGEN runs, 

15 which we didn't do for this report. That was a 

16 little bit beyond the question we raised to do 

17 ORIGEN too much in this case.

18 Next slide, please.

19 So we looked to see, did any of the 

20 existing four reactors or nine cases of the OTIB 

21 encompass the MTR running with plutonium core. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And we looked at the Hanford N-Reactor case, which 

2 contains plutonium, but they're not applicable for 

3 several reasons.

4 One obvious difference is that the MTR 

5 was water-moderated, while Hanford N was 

6 graphite-moderated, which is totally different. 

7 You get a different neutron spectrum, everything. 

8 And the actual loading of plutonium was totally 

9 different.

10 The N-Reactor in the first case used six 

11 percent plutonium-240, and the second case was 12 

12 percent plutonium-240, while the MTR used 23 

13 percent plutonium-240 to breed the fissile 

14 plutonium-241. So the fuel loading was different, 

15 but the Hanford-N Reactor case we don't think 

16 applies.

17 So we concluded that it's not clear 

18 which, if any, of the nine OTIB-54 cases would 

19 adequately envelope the case of the MTR with the 

20 plutonium core; hence, whether the MTR with the 

21 plutonium core could be adequately modeled with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 OTIB has not been determined at this time and is 

2 an open question.

3 Okay. Next slide, please.

4 We looked at the Engineering Test 

5 Reactor, which is similar to the MTR and the ATR, 

6 just bigger than the MTR and smaller than the ATR. 

7 And go to the next slide, please.

8 This operated from 1957 until 1981, 

9 very high flux. 

10 And next slide, please.

11 It's included here, as with the MTR, 

12 operating with uranium fuel, the OTIB-54 

13 methodology should also adequately envelope the 

14 ATR in considering the internal exposure. 

15 So last slide, please. Next one.

16 This is a little summary. The main 

17 issue that we found just looking at these three 

18 reactors in the Test Reactor Area is that the --

19 you have the question of whether the ORAU-OTIB-0054 

20 can be applied to the MTR when it operated with 

21 plutonium fuel, and we left open the area, we didn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at this. 

2 The applicability of the OTIB-54 to the 

3 more exotic reactors at Test Area North. It had 

4 different fuel compositions and arrangements and 

5 operations than the OTIB reactors. Plus, other

6 reactors at the site, which were deliberately run 

7 to failure, blown up, so forth and so on. 

8 So the -- we have a report that comes 

9 a little bit later in today's presentation about 

10 TAN, Test Area North area, but there are other 

11 experimental reactors located in several different 

12 areas of the INL site that have yet to be addressed. 

13 And I think INL had 52 reactors, and all 

14 of them were experimental. And according to some 

15 INL people, they used to refer to the reactor that 

16 was new. They had at least one of every single kind 

17 you can think of.

18 That concludes my presentation.

19 MR. STIVER: Any questions or comments 

20 for Steve?

21 MEMBER BEACH: I guess it might be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 premature for this question. What is your path 

2 forward here? 

3 DR. OSTROW: Well, I would suggest two. 

4 One, we explicitly requested that the Materials 

5 Test Reactor operating with plutonium would be 

6 adequately modeled by the OTIB. And I think that's 

7 -- we can look at it a little bit more, but I think 

8 that's a question for NIOSH to respond to, you know, 

9 with some -- not just a "yes" or "no," but with 

10 actual -- some analysis. It may be -- you know, 

11 we need to see some write-up on that. So I will 

12 do that.

13 And I think the other path forward would 

14 be to take a look at some of the other exotic 

15 reactors other than the TAN, which we have already 

16 been looking at. There is a number of 

17 miscellaneous reactors, like OMRE, which is an 

18 Organic Moderated Reactor Experiment, which no one 

19 has looked at. And there's a few others that are 

20 totally different than any normal type reactors. 

21 So we should I think continue to at least identify 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 potential problem areas.

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I ask Tim to sort 

3 of update us on where NIOSH is going in this?

4 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: More than a nod.

6 DR. TAULBEE: More than a nod. Well, 

7 first of all, Steve, a very nice presentation there 

8 with good details, and I certainly appreciate that, 

9 because it's nice to get everybody up to speed on 

10 all the reactors. So it's nice to take that time.

11 With regards to the plutonium core at 

12 MTR, I have two comments about this. Number one, 

13 I would like to ask that the Work Group consider 

14 moving this to -- as a TBD issue instead of an SEC 

15 issue. And the reason that I say this is that we've 

16 pretty clearly demonstrated we can model the 

17 different reactor cores once we know what the core 

18 composition is and the burnup times and the 

19 operating parameters, as OTIB-54 had done, and then 

20 develop this fission product mix to see if it is 

21 claimant favorable or not.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This has also been done outside OTIB-54 

2 at the Savannah River Site with heavy water 

3 reactors. An entire additional analysis was done 

4 and a comparison was done. So from my standpoint 

5 from the SEC, it's really more of a TBD issue of 

6 whether OTIB-54 is bounding, or whether we need to 

7 make some adjustments for this 19 -- January of 1970 

8 through April of 1970 core run that they did with 

9 the plutonium core.

10 Now, keep in mind that plutonium core 

11 wasn't processed until later in 1970, a long that 

12 time period. So that's when the core will be, you 

13 know, dissolved, and so forth. So I would ask that 

14 you consider it from a TBD issue.

15 Also, with the most recent Class 

16 Definition modification of March of 1970 through

17 1975, all of these workers at MTR are actually 

18 included as part of the Class due to the CPP 

19 possibility of them going over there. 

20 So those are my initial comments. We 

21 can certainly model that plutonium core and write 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a report about it. I would just like to try and 

2 do that outside of the SEC envelope. It makes it 

3 a little bit easier from our standpoint to get 

4 through the other SECs at this time.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'd like to comment 

6 on essentially the same thing Tim did. That was 

7 a very nice description of reactors. I feel like 

8 at this moment I understand them, and it really 

9 helps. When you are looking at a site like this, 

10 you need to know something. So it's done as a good 

11 teacher, I think, Steve.

12 DR. OSTROW: Thank you.

13 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian Gleckler. 

14 I'd like to make another comment regarding the 

15 MTR's Pu core. I don't think we have any evidence 

16 that indicates that any of that fuel ever failed, 

17 so there's not likely an exposure pathway.

18 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

19 Regarding that comment, one of the -- this OTIB-54 

20 approach, as I understand it, is being used for 

21 folks that handle and store fuel, and, of course, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 does not apply once you start to process the fuel. 

2 So the premise is that once you move the fuel and 

3 are working with it or place it in a hot cell, there 

4 is in fact a potential for exposure to airborne 

5 radionuclides of some mix, an OTIB-54 mix.

6 So I think notwithstanding the fact 

7 that there is no what you had referred to as fuel 

8 failure, I believe it's -- that there is still 

9 applicability of OTIB-54 to reconstruct the 

10 internal doses for that fuel, unless I 

11 misunderstood your question.

12 MR. GLECKLER: The fuel was clad, so if 

13 the cladding never failed, then no one could be 

14 exposed to the material inside the cladding. And 

15 I believe that's -- I don't think we've seen any 

16 evidence that that fuel ever failed. It wasn't 

17 ever processed onsite or reprocessed.

18 MR. STIVER: Any other questions for 

19 Steve?

20 MEMBER MELIUS: I would just -- back to 

21 Tim's comment, I'm a little reluctant to sort of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 write off an issue at this point. I'm not really 

2 that familiar with OTIB-54 and its applicability. 

3 As I repeatedly say, it's not just whether it's 

4 bounding but whether it's sufficiently accurate 

5 also. 

6 But I know you meant that, so 

7 understood, but -- and I just, you know, before we 

8 write it off, I'd like to get a better handle on 

9 it. And also try and understand this whole menu 

10 of 52 reactors, or whatever it is, that -- what 

11 we're writing off and what we're not, and so forth, 

12 so -- with that.

13 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry if I implied 

14 that we were writing it off. I'm not meaning to 

15 write it off. I just mean from the SEC --

16 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm just personally 

17 not ready to do that, but I'm not -- I'm not trying 

18 to expedite it either.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And you are just saying 

21 one, the MTR.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: The MTR for the plutonium 

2 core. There are other reactors here --

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

4 DR. TAULBEE: -- and I believe there is 

5 going to be other SC&A reports about Test Area North 

6 and some of the other ones. And, to me, all of 

7 them, because of our ability to identify the cores 

8 and look at the power distributions and the 

9 burnups, those are all things that we can evaluate.

10 It's going to take time, but it's 

11 certainly something we can evaluate. And if the 

12 Work Group wants that, that's certainly feasible 

13 and we can certainly do so and make adjustments as 

14 necessary.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you have a list 

16 of the material types of plutonium they used for 

17 the MTR reactor, the levels of enrichment?

18 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Steve presented 

20 that in his presentation.

21 DR. OSTROW: Right. I did it very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quickly. One of the -- yes, we have information 

2 on that.

3 You know, Tim, I know that -- this is 

4 Steve again. I know that you can -- you have the 

5 capability of modeling any core. I mean, your 

6 methodology is good. You guys are good at that 

7 stuff. But what would you, for example, in a 

8 practical case?

9 Suppose a worker worked at the OMRE 

10 reactor, which the organically moderated reactor. 

11 For his particular case, you would actually propose 

12 running from scratch the ORIGEN runs and, you know, 

13 creating a special case for that worker.

14 DR. TAULBEE: No. What I would 

15 propose doing is the reactors that the Work Group 

16 wants us to analyze and go through and develop the 

17 fission products inventory and compare it to 

18 OTIB-54, those are the ones that we would analyze. 

19 What we do from a dose reconstruction 

20 standpoint, from a practical standpoint, is, for 

21 example, if I had an OMRE worker, and his dosimetry 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was identifying an OMRE and his bioassay was saying 

2 it was from OMRE, then, yeah, I would apply those 

3 particular ratios to that particular person if we 

4 had -- you know, after we develop that. We would 

5 not do this on an individual type basis. 

6 But, otherwise, we would assign -- now, 

7 let me clarify here. If that worker worked at OMRE 

8 and, say, up at MTR, we take the most 

9 claimant-favorable.

10 DR. OSTROW: Sure. Of course.

11 DR. TAULBEE: That's what we've done in 

12 the past, of which one of these --

13 DR. OSTROW: I noted that. I remember 

14 from our OTIB-54 discussions, and what you guys 

15 wrote up, that you always run multiple cases and 

16 pick the worst case for each worker.

17 DR. TAULBEE: Right. Ideally, 

18 OTIB-54 should be the bounding case. It should be, 

19 because of the variation within the reactors and 

20 some of the parameters that were investigated.

21 Now, when we did the Savannah River 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 analysis with that, what we found was the iodines 

2 were not necessarily. And so we had to do some 

3 special modification for the iodines for the heavy 

4 water reactors, which really only applies, then, 

5 to the thyroid cases. So --

6 DR. OSTROW: Right. Now, I realize 

7 that. I know that you did that.

8 DR. TAULBEE: We would apply the same 

9 way.

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

11 MR. STIVER: So this is John Stiver. 

12 So I guess my question to the Work Group is, is this 

13 something you would like SC&A to take a look at to 

14 identify which reactors we think might be 

15 candidates for follow up for NIOSH?

16 MR. KATZ: Let me add to that, before 

17 we get into that, whether SC&A -- it's unclear to 

18 me whether that's an SC&A role or NIOSH to identify, 

19 suss out, those that may not be enveloped, because 

20 it seems like, I mean, SC&A has raised these 

21 possibilities that it is discussing today. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But in terms of canvassing the whole 

2 site for -- to ensure that the reactors are covered 

3 in effect, I mean, it seems like that is more of 

4 a -- that's part of -- NIOSH has to do that anyway, 

5 because it has to ensure that all of its dose 

6 reconstructions are claimant-favorable. Or is 

7 that something that NIOSH does only as the cases 

8 come forward that are apparently needing that? Is 

9 that -- how does that work, I guess is my question.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Well, our general 

11 presumption right now is that OTIB-54 is bounding 

12 based upon that's its job. That was why we did 

13 OTIB-54 instead of doing the reactor analysis at 

14 all DOE sites and all, you know, 200, 300 reactors 

15 that were ever made.

16 And so the issue is being raised to me 

17 by the Work Group of, is this valid? And so, you 

18 know, to me, the Work Group identifies which ones 

19 they have a concern about, and then we can go do, 

20 I mean, unless Jim wants to overrule me and say 

21 we're going to do all 54. This is a tremendous 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 amount of work. 

2 MR. KATZ: No. I believe that. I'm 

3 just trying to understand, because it sounds like 

4 there are some questions about whether it's 

5 bounding on these reactors, and I just would have 

6 assumed that NIOSH would had addressed 

7 questionable reactors because you have --

8 otherwise, you are just sort of running on an 

9 assumption that OTIB is good, but you haven't 

10 actually closely looked at each of the reactors. 

11 I'm just trying to understand where the --

12 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

13 MEMBER BEACH: So aren't you using 

14 another OTIB in conjunction? I thought I read like 

15 60 -- there was another one that would be used in 

16 some cases. Or are you saying that all 52 reactors 

17 are going to be covered under O-52 or O-54? I was 

18 just --

19 DR. TAULBEE: I believe from a fission 

20 product standpoint we are planning to use all of 

21 the reactors under OTIB-54. That's what my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recollection is right now.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah. This says NIOSH 

3 will assess cesium-137 intakes using OTIB-60. 

4 That was just on this other report for -- it might 

5 just be for Test Area --

6 MR. KATZ: Well, then, my question to 

7 the Work Group is, do you want sort of follow up 

8 on the ones that have been identified now first, 

9 or do you want SC&A to go hunting through all of 

10 the other reactors at this point for other possible 

11 outliers that -- what makes sense from a --

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I would prefer a 

13 prioritized list.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I was going to say --

15 MEMBER MELIUS: So that we're not, you 

16 know, grounded. And I think, you know, to the 

17 extent that those people -- you know, those time 

18 periods that would be covered by an SEC.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The different 

20 fuel loadings that you have, those are basically 

21 covered by OTIB-54, whether you're using different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 variations in the uranium loadings or plutonium.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Within OTIB-54, there 

3 are three different fuel loadings for ATR that are 

4 used, two for N-Reactor, I believe two for TRIGA. 

5 Steve had an excellent slide that goes through the 

6 OTIB-54 with the different modelings for it.

7 MR. STIVER: Tim, it was my 

8 understanding that you are going to be using the 

9 ATR for -- as kind of a default condition for all 

10 of your dose reconstructions at Idaho. Maybe I'm 

11 wrong on that.

12 DR. TAULBEE: We'll be using OTIB-54, 

13 which is the bounding of those, for the different 

14 scenarios. ATR isn't always bounding.

15 MR. STIVER: I guess our concern, 

16 really, is that, you know, this is really the first 

17 time we're given a situation where we have all of 

18 these experimental reactors and there are all kinds 

19 of crazy things. And so this is really what drove 

20 this review in the first place, and you'll see when 

21 we go through the Test Area North that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: You know, it's --

2 MR. STIVER: -- are different. And, 

3 you know, Steve, you know, we talked about this 

4 internally, you know, maybe asking you guys whether 

5 you would want us to put together some sort of a 

6 prioritized list of those that we think, you know, 

7 might be candidates for further review.

8 MEMBER MELIUS: I think the answer --

9 my answer would be yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I think that makes 

13 sense. I think it makes sense in terms of where 

14 NIOSH is prioritizing its efforts at this time.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. All right. 

16 Steve, well, thank you for a great presentation.

17 DR. OSTROW: You're welcome. 

18 MR. STIVER: Next up is going to be the 

19 Test Area North, and this will be -- John Mauro and 

20 Hans Behling will be leading this discussion.

21 DR. MAURO: Can you hear me? This is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 John Mauro.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. John, that noise came 

3 on when you came on. I don't know if that's --

4 DR. MAURO: I've been on for quite some 

5 time. I'm not on mute, so that I could listen in 

6 better and -- and it just stopped, so I'm not --

7 I think -- are you okay now?

8 MR. KATZ: It's better.

9 DR. MAURO: It's better? Yeah. I 

10 hope that's not me. Let me start, and we'll see 

11 how we go.

12 I don't -- I'm not on LiveMeeting, but 

13 I do have my slides up. I presume you're on 

14 LiveMeeting, but we will make do. So right now I 

15 am looking at my very first introductory slide with 

16 the title. And, first, let me apologize to Hans 

17 and Mike Mallett for not having their names on here, 

18 because they were major contributors to the work 

19 we did in our main report, and also to the slide 

20 presentation.

21 With that, let's go on to Slide 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Number 2, lower right-hand corner. We can follow 

2 it that way best.

3 MR. KATZ: It's not showing up.

4 MR. STIVER: It might help if I shared 

5 it. These little details.

6 MR. KATZ: One moment, John.

7 DR. MAURO: Sure.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. Here we go. Is 

9 that better? Can you see that? Does everybody 

10 see that? Full screen mode I guess. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, John, for 

12 waiting.

13 SPEAKER: Hello?

14 MR. KATZ: Someone -- whoever just 

15 called in, you're on an Advisory Board on Radiation 

16 and Worker Health meeting. Is that what you --

17 SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'll begin by first 

20 saying to Steve, thank you so much. You set the 

21 table for me perfectly, and my presentation now is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to go into I guess the next tier down in terms 

2 of some of the issues that are related, very much 

3 related, to your presentation.

4 The best way to think about Test Area 

5 North is -- and what we did, we had to be selective 

6 in what we decided to probe. And we did -- you 

7 know, on this Slide Number 2 that you're looking 

8 at here, gives you a summary of all of the different 

9 types of campaigns, research activities, that took 

10 place. And it comes directly out of I believe the 

11 Site Profile, so it's very convenient.

12 And when we decided to -- okay, how are 

13 we going to come at TAN, we decided that what we're 

14 going to look at are fundamentally two areas of 

15 inquiry. One is the completion. How complete is 

16 the external dosimetry data for the full suite of 

17 different types of investigations that took place? 

18 And a large portion of that work in 

19 compiling that data and digesting it was done by 

20 Amy Meldrum, who unfortunately is not on the phone, 

21 but I will cover for her. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the other side has to do more with 

2 internal dosimetry, but internal dosimetry is from 

3 the point of view of two perspectives. One, the 

4 fact that a lot of different types of fuel was 

5 handled in hot shops, stored and handled. And we 

6 -- but there was also a degree of processing. We 

7 didn't look at that side of it. 

8 What we did was we looked at, okay, if 

9 you're handling fuel, basically, you're using 

10 OTIB-54. And is there anything similar to what 

11 Steve pointed out about the type of fuel that was 

12 handled that was very unique, that demonstrates, 

13 that reveals that, you know what, OTIB-54 really 

14 does not always apply. 

15 And, in this case, I have to thank Mike 

16 Mallett, who is on the phone with us -- and, Mike, 

17 are you still on the line? Hope he is.

18 DR. MALLETT: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Thanks, Mike. And Mike 

20 was extremely helpful, because he did make some 

21 ORIGEN runs for us to confirm what -- or if it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not, or to demonstrate that our initial thinking 

2 about the bounding nature of OTIB-54 perhaps is not 

3 always bounding, and for -- which was a bit of a 

4 surprise to us, and we'll get into that 

5 momentarily.

6 And then, the third element, which also 

7 goes for internal dosimetry -- and Hans will speak 

8 to this -- is the very unusual nature of the 

9 Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, not only from 

10 the point of view of the type of fuel that 

11 eventually was produced and sent off to a hot shop, 

12 and its unique characteristics and radionuclide 

13 mixes, which bears no resemblance to OTIB-54, but 

14 as important, if not more important, is the 

15 airborne releases associated with each one of these 

16 initial engine tests where they allow the fuel to 

17 burn to the point where it -- of destruction. And 

18 just about all of the fission products, except for 

19 the refractory elements, went up the stack, which 

20 creates a very unusual set of circumstances.

21 But these are outdoor exposures now, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and exposures that come from releases that went up 

2 a very tall stack, and also went up at a time where 

3 NIOSH -- NIOSH, I'm sorry -- where DOE was very 

4 careful to have those experiments at a time which 

5 minimized the wind direction of such a nature to 

6 minimize off-site impacts. 

7 So think of it like this. When you're 

8 talking about external exposure and data 

9 completeness, and then we're going to talk about 

10 some of the unusual circumstances related to 

11 internal exposures. 

12 With that, let's go to the next slide, 

13 Slide Number 3.

14 And Slide Number 3 basically summarizes 

15 what I just said, so we'll go on to Slide Number 

16 4. And now we're going to first talk about 

17 external dosimetry data. Amy Meldrum, who is a 

18 health physicist and a nuclear engineer, did all 

19 of the heavy lifting here. And she went into the 

20 SRDB that was in place at the time, essentially it 

21 was as complete it could get at the time, and did 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a very thorough word search, and actually came up 

2 with the bottom line is 180,000 -- 181,000 readouts 

3 for beta/gamma dosimetry, and over 6,000 neutron 

4 readouts.

5 So there's our data set. Okay? This 

6 enormous data set. That's our starting point. 

7 So, okay, what do we have? Is this complete? Is 

8 this adequate? Is it of such a nature that we could 

9 say, yes, we could reconstruct doses, or we can't. 

10 Where are the holes? Are there any holes? These 

11 are the kinds of questions that Amy asked.

12 Next slide, Slide Number 6.

13 What Amy did here was say, okay, let's 

14 try to -- given the magnitude, the massive number 

15 of measurements, she made this picture. The top 

16 one in orange color is the beta/gamma dosimetry 

17 data. In effect, what this says is, in the 

18 aggregate, when you look at TAN as a whole, you've 

19 got a complete beta/gamma dosimetry set, except for 

20 this slight gap you see there in -- sometime in 

21 1961.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But for all intents and purposes, if one 

2 was to ask a big question, do we have really good 

3 and complete data for TAN as a whole. Now, we're 

4 getting -- that's going to be qualified in a minute. 

5 The answer is yes.

6 With regard to neutron dosimetry, we 

7 are seeing that there are a lot of gaps. Now, what 

8 we don't know, and what we have not done, is ask 

9 ourselves, well, are those gaps legitimate gaps? 

10 Legitimate in terms of, well, there was 

11 no reason to do any neutron dosimetry at those times 

12 or -- and/or if we were to do additional data 

13 capture, would we fill in places where perhaps 

14 neutron dosimetry should have been done, but we 

15 just didn't capture the data. So this is something 

16 that is sort of on the table right now that needs 

17 to be like an action item.

18 What do we need to do regarding these 

19 -- the gaps we are seeing in the dosimetry -- the 

20 neutron dosimetry data. So, and that's like a hint 

21 of what is to come in order to come to grips with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this.

2 Let's go on now to the next slide, and 

3 this gives a little bit more breakdown. When you 

4 start to look at TAN and external dosimetry data, 

5 you say to yourself -- this is a very important 

6 question. I think this is the key takeaway from 

7 the work we've done on external dosimetry data for 

8 TAN.

9 The key takeaway is, yes, we've got a 

10 very complete data set for external beta/gamma. 

11 We've got somewhat of an erratic set -- data set 

12 for neutron dosimetry. But then, when you start 

13 to ask yourself the question -- well, hold the 

14 presses. We all know that TAN is not a homogeneous 

15 operation. Over time and space, the types of 

16 activities, the types of research, campaigns, et 

17 cetera, et cetera, were very, very different, what 

18 people did.

19 And one could ask the question, well, 

20 you know, it might be desirable -- now, this comes 

21 to this issue of co-worker model. Let's move on. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I may be jumping the gun. And this gives you a 

2 little bit more information regarding the nature 

3 of the data for different subsections, 

4 sub-activities, within the -- so this is a way of 

5 visualizing the completeness of the data for 

6 different subsets of the activities at TAN, some 

7 of which appear to be fairly complete, and some 

8 which appear to be incomplete, especially with 

9 respect to neutron dosimetry. 

10 And, again, for reasons that we really 

11 can't say right now whether we need additional data 

12 capture or we could find out, yeah, there really 

13 was no reason to monitor. So there is an 

14 open-ended issue there.

15 Okay. Now, when we start to go through 

16 -- we ask ourselves a question. Okay. Here we 

17 have a person that we'd like to reconstruct his 

18 dose. And we know that he worked at a given 

19 location, one of -- at a given time period at a given 

20 location. And then we say to ourselves, "But we 

21 don't have any data for him," so this goes towards 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 co-worker models. 

2 So, really, right now the subject that 

3 I'm going to talk about is, are there any challenges 

4 in terms of co-worker models? If one decides that, 

5 you know, there is a need for a co-worker model to 

6 fill in the gaps for those workers who were not 

7 monitored but perhaps should have been monitored, 

8 you run into a problem.

9 And the problem really boils down to 

10 this. When you go into the records, the records 

11 are not clear what particular facility the person 

12 worked at. We don't know that this particular 

13 worker was where he was. And even if we did, one 

14 of the problems we run -- within TAN now, the 

15 problem we have is, okay, can we break out from this 

16 massive external dosimetry data that we call TAN, 

17 could we say, well, which subset of that can we grab 

18 and say represents one of the sub-facilities.

19 For example, the LPTF, whatever that 

20 stands for -- I'd have to go look it up -- Low Power 

21 Test Facility. Taking a guess. Can we build a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 co-worker model? The problem we run into is, the 

2 labeling of the records are such that, as best we 

3 can tell right now, are not complete.

4 So we can't sort the data set into 

5 subdivisions within TAN, at least not to our 

6 satisfaction to the point where we can say with 

7 confidence that you could build a co-worker model 

8 for people that worked at a particular facility. 

9 All we know is they worked at TAN. We have a lot 

10 of good data regarding -- we know that, you know, 

11 regarding Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program. 

12 But there are some subdivisions where the records 

13 are such that they are not labeled in a way that 

14 we could -- we could pull it out and create a subset 

15 and put them into a distribution and build a 

16 co-worker model.

17 So what I'm bringing up right now is 

18 what I consider to be an SEC issue. Namely, if it's 

19 judged that co-worker models for external 

20 dosimetry are needed in order to reconstruct the 

21 doses, external doses to all the workers, and where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're -- and all you could say is that, well, we 

2 have lots of TAN data in general, but we know that 

3 the nature of the exposures at these different 

4 subdivisions were quite different, the 

5 distributions of exposures.

6 So it's very hard to say that we can 

7 build a co-worker model for some of these 

8 subdivisions. So we have really two what I 

9 consider to be potential SEC issues that have 

10 emerged from the work that Amy has done. One is 

11 the challenges associated with building co-worker 

12 models for some of these subdivisions is such 

13 co-worker models are needed, and, second, neutrons 

14 are -- there is enough reaction in neutron 

15 dosimetry data where those gaps might be important 

16 if they are real gaps; that is, people should have 

17 been monitored when they weren't. 

18 But that problem might go away if we 

19 find that, no, there is good reason why they weren't 

20 monitored. There was no reason to monitor them. 

21 Or we find that if we do additional data records 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 search, we will find that there are data and we 

2 could fill in some of those gaps.

3 Let me page down. So, in effect, now 

4 you're looking at Slide Number 10. I essentially 

5 summarize what I would call the bottom line of our 

6 takeaway for external dosimetry data at TAN. That 

7 also goes for Slide 11. So Slides 10 and 11 give 

8 you the bottom line of our takeaway from what we've 

9 done to date.

10 Now, let me caution -- I don't consider 

11 these to be findings in the classic sense. I think 

12 we are in a process right now of exploratory where 

13 we are starting to identify areas of vulnerability 

14 with respect to dosage instructions that 

15 collectively we all need to look at and plan a path 

16 forward, as opposed to saying findings as we very 

17 often have done in the past.

18 I think I see this -- well, for better 

19 or worse, I see this as a collegial relationship 

20 at this point where what you're hearing is SC&A's 

21 takeaway from what we have done to date, so that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 together we can understand where we feel there 

2 might be problems. And then, of course, the Work 

3 Group can make judgments on how best -- the path 

4 forward for dealing with some of these issues.

5 Let me move on to Slide Number 12 where 

6 I am changing subjects now. 

7 MR. STIVER: John? You might want to 

8 give the Work Group a chance to ask --

9 DR. MAURO: Oh, absolutely. I'm 

10 sorry. Please. Any questions on that?

11 MR. STIVER: Any questions for the 

12 external dosimetry session?

13 MEMBER MELIUS: Any reaction from 

14 NIOSH?

15 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Yes, I've got a 

16 couple of reactions. One is, back on your initial 

17 slide, what records was it that you were looking 

18 at from identifying different people and different 

19 areas? Because, to my understanding, we do not 

20 have a complete complement of all of the external 

21 dosimetry records from the site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: So you're saying you 

2 believe that there are a lot more records out there 

3 that still need to be captured.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Well, captured or 

5 requested, yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Or requested. Good. 

7 Good.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: Well, that's the way I 

10 would -- I qualified my statement.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Most likely, the only 

12 electronic data sets that I know out there that you 

13 would possibly be looking at would be annual 

14 summaries. Is that correct?

15 DR. MAURO: I -- no, I believe we have 

16 also individual change-outs. But I can't say that 

17 for certain. I have to be a little cautious, since 

18 Amy is not on the line. And, as I said, she did 

19 the heavy lifting. 

20 I guess the best I could say is, for the 

21 data sets that we looked at, which on Slide 5 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summarizes what we did -- that is, we went into your 

2 SRDB, we searched on key terms, and captured 

3 certain records. 

4 Now, I cannot say -- what I understand 

5 from looking at this Slide 5 is that these are 

6 readouts. You know, 181,000 readouts. So I don't 

7 -- when you say the word "record," we have pages 

8 of records. We have 37 documents, as indicated on 

9 Slide 5. But they certainly appear to be 

10 individual change-outs.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay?

13 DR. TAULBEE: Well, this is where I'm 

14 beginning to wonder of -- and this is specific just 

15 for TAN.

16 DR. MAURO: And this is specific for 

17 TAN. Absolutely.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. And did you all 

19 code all of that data?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. They have been 

21 sorted. And if you go to our report, you'll see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an amazing set of bar graphs sorting everything by 

2 time and location and number of records, by time 

3 and location, in three-dimensional bar charts that 

4 Amy put together. So you can actually see where 

5 are the holes or the deficiencies, like -- when I 

6 say "location," I mean activity, you know, 

7 campaigns, experiments, by time and location.

8 So I think Amy has put together what I 

9 would consider to be a very nice blueprint of --

10 and visuals that gives you quickly an impression 

11 of where we may want to probe further with respect 

12 to additional data capture.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, I need to 

14 look at this a little more closer, because I'm not 

15 aware of any electronic data set in order to do 

16 this. And if Amy has coded this, I am certainly 

17 interested in looking at it. Absolutely.

18 DR. MAURO: I don't -- I have to say 

19 that I don't think it was electronic. I think she 

20 brute forced it.

21 MR. STIVER: Tim, referring to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Table 14 in the actual report, it lists the SRDB 

2 reference IDs. The area has mentioned the number 

3 of pages, the number of badge exchanges for those 

4 by beta/gamma. I'm trying to see whether she 

5 mentioned the type -- Table 14 in the actual report.

6 MEMBER BEACH: What page is that on?

7 MR. STIVER: Page 53 of 76.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, I would 

9 have to correlate with the site those SRDB numbers 

10 to verify that that is in fact all of the Test Area 

11 North dosimetry.

12 DR. MAURO: There is a table in the 

13 report that I don't have open in front of me.

14 DR. TAULBEE: We're looking at that 

15 right now, John.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay.

17 DR. TAULBEE: Because it looks like the 

18 bulk of this is the GE Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion. 

19 And some of these other areas, John, that you have 

20 identified as potential concern, I'm not sure that 

21 everything in the SRDB is inclusive of all of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Test Area North data.

2 To my knowledge -- and, Brian, please 

3 correct me if I'm wrong, but we have never formally 

4 requested from the site all of a specific area's 

5 dosimetry, except for CPP, with regards to this 

6 evaluation. Is that correct? Brian Gleckler?

7 MR. GLECKLER: I couldn't hear that 

8 last -- you're still pretty hard to hear, Tim.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Sorry. Have we ever 

10 made a request of the site for all of Test Area North 

11 external dosimetry?

12 MR. GLECKLER: No. But I -- the one 

13 thing I do specifically recall is on some of the 

14 static capture trips reviewing boxes of Test Area 

15 North dosimetry records. And I did not capture 

16 anything from those boxes, because that was not a 

17 focus at the time. However, I did scan through 

18 them and -- because I was curious about neutron 

19 doses, and the one thing I do recall is that the 

20 vast majority of neutron doses were zero.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Right. Okay. And this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is what I'm trying to communicate to John and to 

2 others is that that just -- the SRDB is not 

3 necessarily inclusive of all the records that are 

4 out there, because we never made a concerted effort 

5 to actually capture them all.

6 DR. MAURO: We appreciate that. We 

7 understand that. And that's why I made it -- I try 

8 to, you know, make it clear that I think we are in 

9 a data capture mode, to find out really, you know, 

10 are we missing information that could help us deal 

11 with the issues that I just raised.

12 So, and I think that -- as I mentioned, 

13 when Amy gets back, I think it would be a great idea 

14 for her to be available to the Work Group to discuss 

15 in a little better -- a little more granularity, 

16 you know, what she saw. Clearly, she could only 

17 work with the data that was already captured and 

18 in the SRDB, and clearly it's my understanding now 

19 from listening to you that there is still a long 

20 way to go on data capture.

21 DR. TAULBEE: That would be my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understanding.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Like I said, we -- the 

4 only site -- the only area that we made a concerted 

5 effort to try and get all of the dosimetry with CPP, 

6 and that was just between 1963 and 1974. We did 

7 not even try to get CPP data prior to 1963.

8 So, in the case of the temporary badges, 

9 they actually came as part of a box, so, you know, 

10 obviously we got that data. But that is the only 

11 area at INL where we have made a concerted effort 

12 to obtain all of the dosimetry.

13 DR. MAURO: But, please, let me point 

14 out, out of the 181,000 readouts, there were, you 

15 know, a lot of data, an awful lot we could not place 

16 that readout for a particular subdivision within 

17 TAN, which creates the potential for challenges in 

18 building co-worker models for subdivisions. As 

19 such, co-worker models are deemed necessary.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Which brings me to the 

21 second point that I was going to let the Board know 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about, is that, at this time, we do not plan on 

2 developing an external co-worker model for INL. 

3 Our understanding from the procedures and our 

4 review that we have done to date is that all workers 

5 entering radiological areas were monitored.

6 We certainly have demonstrated that for 

7 CPP. Test Area North is another example. You can 

8 find people who will indicate that they worked at, 

9 say, LOFT, for example. And when you look at their 

10 dosimetry, or you look at their record and you look 

11 at their employment time periods, it is before LOFT 

12 started up.

13 So there is going to be a lot of new 

14 construction where people will indicate that they 

15 worked at Test Area North, and they did, but they 

16 were not monitored because there was no need to be 

17 monitored, which brings me to the other point that 

18 you brought up there, John, is that with these gaps 

19 that you have currently identified, I would 

20 encourage you to look at whether there was a need 

21 for monitoring at that facility at that time.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: I agree with you. I'm --

2 that's why I qualified what I had to say, you know, 

3 regarding, you know, are these real gaps or not? 

4 But you bring up a very important point, and we've 

5 run across this before. When a judgment was made 

6 that there is no need for co-worker models -- as 

7 we all know, sometimes there are surprises, where 

8 a judgment is made as to, well, there are people 

9 that worked there that were not monitored. What 

10 do we do about them?

11 You know, it's not unlike the SEC issues 

12 we just talked about. We know, you know, everyone 

13 that worked at CPP we had dosimetry data, and, 

14 therefore, have defined your Class. And that's 

15 the struggle that we went through just now. And 

16 can we say that with confidence? In effect, you're 

17 saying the same thing. You're saying, in effect, 

18 that for all of the subdivisions, we have -- there 

19 are no gaps.

20 In other words, everyone that should 

21 have been monitored was monitored. And I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that needs to be seen. I mean, that may be true, 

2 but I think it's important that we keep our eye on 

3 that.

4 DR. TAULBEE: I would agree with that.

5 MR. STIVER: So, I would say, going 

6 forward that would be something that the Work Group 

7 would want us to take a look at, because there are 

8 these areas with gaps, neutron dosimetry, and try 

9 to correlate them, if possible, with activities 

10 that were going on at a particular time. Or is that 

11 something more of a NIOSH prerequisite?

12 DR. TAULBEE: Before that is done, I 

13 would say if the Work Group wants to do this type 

14 of analysis, then we need to make the request to 

15 the site for all of the dosimetry, so that you can 

16 actually look to see if there is a real gap, because 

17 that has not been done. What you've done is -- what 

18 you've reviewed is what we have captured through 

19 other data captures or, you know, through other 

20 activities. So we've got snapshots.

21 Many of our data captures -- and this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is important for the Work Group, I think, to 

2 understand. Many of the records that are in the 

3 SRDB were example records. When we captured 

4 surveys or air samples or things along that line 

5 in the evaluation of the SEC, we took examples. We 

6 didn't capture an entire box due to timeliness. I 

7 mean, it takes time to: a) capture it, b) for the 

8 classification folks to review every page of it, 

9 and then for us to get it and make a judgment on.

10 So, in a case like this, there are a lot 

11 more records out there. So if you want this type 

12 of an evaluation, I would first make a request of 

13 the site for those records.

14 MEMBER BEACH: So don't we normally do 

15 a data adequacy and completeness as part of our 

16 normal protocol when we are reviewing sites? And 

17 wouldn't it fall into something like that?

18 MR. STIVER: Typically, when we have 

19 what we feel is the full data set that NIOSH has 

20 been able to locate, then we could do an adequacy 

21 and completeness test. But it looks like in this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 case we just have a sampling of what's really out 

2 there.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Right. But --

4 MR. STIVER: But Brian said there were 

5 boxes and boxes.

6 MR. KATZ: There's no electronic data 

7 set for --

8 MEMBER BEACH: I understand that. But 

9 as a Work Group, don't we normally want to know that 

10 the data is adequate and complete, and that's part 

11 of the exercise we normally go through. It's huge 

12 in this case.

13 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. But let me just 

14 say, I mean, I think there's other issues with the 

15 Test Area North. And I think it's a little 

16 premature to be -- I'd say it's not a priority 

17 issue. I mean, let's get to it down the road if 

18 we need to. But I think it's -- I think there are 

19 some other issues. If this is going to be a huge 

20 request to the site, that will set back everything 

21 else that we're trying to do. I mean, it's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nature of the site.

2 MR. STIVER: I was thinking that the 

3 Work Group, at the next teleconference meeting, we 

4 could have Amy, you know, kind of lay out what she 

5 has actually found, and just kind of get a more 

6 detailed view of it. But I would tend to agree 

7 there is bigger SEC issues out there that would 

8 probably be --

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and I thought we

10 kind of charged SC&A to give us a snapshot of what 

11 the potential issues were and to prioritize those. 

12 Maybe we didn't ask for a prioritization, but --

13 for each of these sites or areas.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: I think it's hard 

15 for --

16 MEMBER BEACH: It is.

17 MEMBER MELIUS: It's a big site and 

18 there's limited information so far.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

20 MEMBER MELIUS: And we're working on 

21 it. I mean, I actually thought Amy's description 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the report was fairly detailed, and I understood 

2 what she was doing from that more than the slides, 

3 which you would expect.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: John, could I get 

6 one clarification on a point there? Did I 

7 understand in those data sets and records you 

8 looked at that there is no neutron exposure for the 

9 majority of these people?

10 DR. MAURO: No. There are gaps. I --

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: There are just 

12 gaps. Okay.

13 DR. MAURO: We are seeing gaps, and we 

14 are unable to determine whether those gaps are 

15 appropriate, because there was no need to monitor 

16 folks for neutrons at those time periods. Or that 

17 it's just a -- perhaps there is a need for more data 

18 capture.

19 So I guess, you know, at such time when 

20 TAN comes to the forefront for -- I was hoping that 

21 this presentation would identify areas for a path 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forward for TAN at such time when you feel that TAN 

2 should move forward.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thanks.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay?

5 MR. STIVER: Should we move ahead with 

6 the OTIB-54 issues?

7 DR. MAURO: Sure. I'm on Slide 

8 Number 12, which is the opening introduction. 

9 And, again, let me preface this a bit. Go to Slide 

10 --

11 MR. KATZ: It's coming. It's coming. 

12 John's working on it.

13 DR. MAURO: Let me know when you're 

14 ready.

15 MR. KATZ: Hang on just a second here.

16 DR. MAURO: Sure.

17 MR. KATZ: This should already be 

18 shared.

19 DR. TAULBEE: While John is bringing 

20 that up, if I could make an additional follow up 

21 to my statement about the external dosimetry. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have never requested all of it except for CPP. The 

2 bioassay records that he's getting ready to 

3 discuss, we actually have requested, and those are 

4 in the SRDB. 

5 There are some issues with the 

6 electronic data set that was coded, and I believe 

7 we sent over at one point to SC&A. So we are 

8 actually going back and recoding that entire data 

9 set due to some discrepancies that we found.

10 So I would caution you all to use 

11 caution with using the electronic data set. But 

12 all of the hard copy records, we do believe we have 

13 and we did request those from the site. So that's 

14 different than the external that I talked about a 

15 few minutes ago.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. Okay. John, you 

17 can go ahead.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. If you could go to 

19 Slide 13. In the lower right-hand corner, you'll 

20 see the number. And let me preface again -- now 

21 we are moving into internal dosimetry. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal dosimetry, from a very specific 

2 perspective -- namely, the use of OTIB-54 as being 

3 a way to reconstruct internal dosimetry when you 

4 are dealing with reactors and spent fuel but not 

5 processed -- or irradiated fuel but not fuel that 

6 has been processed like SNAP-9A or other activities 

7 where, you know, the isotopes have been separated. 

8 That is a separate area of inquiry.

9 And Ron is on the phone, and Ron's work 

10 and our work are very complementary. Let me 

11 explain what I mean by that. Everything you are 

12 getting here from me from now on is theoretical. 

13 That is, given the type of activity, if you were 

14 to run ORIGEN, there's four of these particular 

15 circumstances.

16 Would one's takeaway be OTIB-54 is 

17 bounding, or it's plausible? Or it's possible 

18 that for the very unusual circumstances regarding 

19 the types of irradiated/spent fuel, is it so 

20 unusual that either, one, it's not 

21 claimant-favorable for a variety of reasons. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We're going to get into that. 

2 And by the way, as a foretell, it looks 

3 like there are circumstances, as best we can tell, 

4 where OTIB-54 does not appear to be 

5 claimant-favorable, and so we are going to be 

6 talking about that.

7 So, but everything I'm going to talk 

8 about is theoretical and based on ORIGEN runs. And 

9 I'm certainly going to ask Mike Mallett, who is on 

10 the line with us, to help me out there because we 

11 moved in a territory that is, you know, beyond my 

12 world. My world is as a health physicist, not as 

13 a nuclear engineer.

14 And we will also be talking about ANP 

15 from the point of view of releases to the 

16 environment and what their implications are with 

17 respect to internal dosimetry. 

18 So, with that, let's go on to the next 

19 slide, Number 14.

20 The question we ask ourselves is this. 

21 Stay with me a little bit on this, and I could use 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some help from the nuclear engineers in the room.

2 When I first looked at this problem, I 

3 said, "Listen, we have all of this fuel that was 

4 produced from various types of activities," spent 

5 fuel, irradiated fuel. And what separates it? 

6 You say to yourself, okay, I think about it very 

7 simply. I say, well, when you talk about fuel and 

8 you say you -- especially if we're talking about 

9 various enrichments of uranium-235, U-238/235, 

10 various enrichments, what I think about is simply 

11 fissions. Okay?

12 There is a rate at which it is 

13 fissioning, which is the power level, and how long 

14 you are letting the fission go on before you shut 

15 the reactor down. And so, as far as I am concerned, 

16 you are just counting fissions.

17 And we know what the fission product 

18 distribution is that you would expect for each 

19 fission. Six percent of the oil fissions I believe 

20 are strontium-90 and about the same amount for 

21 cesium-137. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so you say to yourself, okay, when 

2 you look at OTIB-54, we know we are dealing with 

3 classic fuel which was at a -- I guess predominantly 

4 a fairly high power level, the 200 megawatts, and 

5 a fairly long time over which it was allowed to 

6 continue to burn. Okay?

7 So what does that tell me? That tells 

8 me that under -- well, that is sort of like your 

9 arena out of OTIB-54. Now, granted, every one of 

10 these reactors are a little bit different, but to 

11 me -- say a fission is a fission. But the -- and 

12 I know that's a very simplistic way to look at the 

13 world. But I almost envision it as, well, I am 

14 producing these many atoms per second, and they are 

15 going away at this rate.

16 So, therefore, over some time period, 

17 I can figure out how many atoms I have of every one 

18 of these radionuclides. And then, after I shut 

19 down, they start to decay away. Granted, it's a 

20 lot more complex than that, and I guess -- and that 

21 was explained to me by my nuclear engineering 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 friends that you're oversimplifying. But it is 

2 what it is. 

3 That's how I came at the problem, 

4 because I think those are second order phenomena. 

5 The first order phenomenon is -- and here is really 

6 the gist of what I tried to do, I said when you look 

7 at OTIB-54, you're looking at fair high burnup 

8 rates for relatively long periods of time for 

9 different types of reactors.

10 When you go to TAN, what you're looking 

11 at is very short time periods over which they allow 

12 the fission to occur. Okay. So I think about it 

13 simplistically and I say, "Well, what does that 

14 mean?" Well, that means that you are not going to 

15 be building up a lot of cesium-137 and 

16 strontium-90. Okay? Because it takes a while to 

17 build up an inventory.

18 So if you're -- you know, so your 

19 fission rate and the duration at which you allow 

20 fission to continue will have a profound effect on 

21 the relative amount of cesium-137 and strontium-90 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you have as compared to other fission products, and 

2 also activation products.

3 Now, another factor that plays in on 

4 this simplistic vision of mine regarding what we're 

5 dealing with is enrichment. If you have fuel --

6 and this is the fuel they handled at TAN that was 

7 over 90 percent enriched -- that means you don't 

8 have any U-238 in there. Right? There is very 

9 little there. It is all U-235.

10 And what does that mean? Well, that 

11 means you are not going to be breeding/creating 

12 plutonium-239. So all of a sudden the world that 

13 we live in in OTIB-54 doesn't exist anymore. So 

14 that's at play. It's so different that, wait a 

15 minute, all of the look-up tables, Tables 5-22 and 

16 23, you know, you just have to say, well, do they 

17 really apply here? 

18 And the reaction is, well, how could 

19 they? You know, you're not allowing the in-growth 

20 of the cesium and the strontium. In addition, you 

21 don't have a -- you have very little U-238, so that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you produce plutonium. So, all of a sudden, it's 

2 a different world. And that was my -- what I say, 

3 my global perspective.

4 But I say to myself hold on, that being 

5 the case, using OTIB-54 has got to be 

6 claimant-favorable, because these -- for the 

7 following reasons. If you are not building up 

8 long-lived fission products, and all you've 

9 got -- and allowing them to turn their relative 

10 abundance to other fission products, well, that has 

11 got to be claimant favorable, because as a general 

12 rule, the longer lived the radionuclide is, the 

13 higher its internal dose conversion factor.

14 You know, if you inhale a short-lived 

15 radionuclide as compared to a long-lived 

16 radionuclide, the long-lived radionuclide is going 

17 to be fundamentally higher internal dose 

18 conversion factor. Again, a simplistic concept.

19 So my first impression was, well, maybe 

20 it's okay that they are using OTIB-54 for these 

21 other burnup circumstances that we're encountering 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in TAN. 

2 All right. In comes -- I'm doing more 

3 talking than looking at my slides, because I want 

4 to give you a picture of how I thought about the 

5 problem. And the next Slide 13 or 14, 15, 

6 basically summarizes what I just said. So we are

7 moving pretty quickly.

8 And then what I did was I said, you know, 

9 this is me just thinking about the problem. Is it 

10 true? And that's wherein I called Mike. He's on 

11 the phone. Let's run some cases, some ORIGEN 

12 cases, where we basically validate what I consider 

13 to be my simplistic model of reality. And is it 

14 true that, in general, when you use OTIB-54, you 

15 are going to be claimant-favorable as applied to 

16 the circumstances of TAN.

17 And to get to that point, I'd like to 

18 turn it over a little -- there are a number of tables 

19 that are in our report that I can see they are not 

20 here in our -- well, I didn't reproduce these big, 

21 complex tables, but Mike found out some interesting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 outcomes related to burnup.

2 And think of it like this. We run 

3 ORIGEN. We say, well, we -- on a normalized basis, 

4 we say, okay, we're going to run ORIGEN. We're 

5 going to have fissioning occurring at some power 

6 level for some time period. So assuming -- the two 

7 variables are power level and duration, and the 

8 belief being that, you know, that you should be 

9 claimant-favorable using OTIB-54.

10 Well, when Mike made the runs -- and 

11 here is where I am going to hand it off to Mike. 

12 We found -- what we did is -- so what we got is the 

13 relative number of each fission product, and I took 

14 each of those outcomes, I allowed them to decay for 

15 10 days, because that's -- if you look at OTIB-54, 

16 you see that the first case I believe is a 10-day 

17 cooldown, and then they have longer time periods, 

18 but let's just go with the 10 -- I believe it was 

19 10 days.

20 And then I -- now we have the relative 

21 amounts of each fission products for these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different ORIGEN runs. And I multiplied the 

2 quantity in curies, the relative quantity, the 

3 relative amount in curies of each of these long list 

4 of radionuclides by their internal dose conversion 

5 factor, because -- to say, okay, in theory, that 

6 is a measure, an index of harm.

7 And if under all circumstances, 

8 OTIB-54, in its relatives abundance, times its 

9 internal dose conversion, inhalation dose 

10 conversion factor, is greater than the cases that 

11 we ran -- and Mike will explain in a minute -- well, 

12 that means OTIB-54 is fine. 

13 But, lo and behold, we found out that 

14 that's not always the case. There were sets of 

15 circumstances of burnup and duration times of 

16 burnup where this index of harm that we came up with 

17 -- and this is all laid out in the report -- was 

18 greater than one for these unusual -- for these 

19 other burnup circumstances that are sort of 

20 surrogates for burnup at TAN.

21 And, Mike, I hope I set the table 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correctly for my, you know, simplistic view of the 

2 world. Can you help out a little bit and perhaps 

3 describe in a little more detail what you did and 

4 what the outcome was and why you think that 

5 happened?

6 MR. MALLETT: I think you set it up 

7 great, and couple that with Steve's presentation 

8 earlier about the different reactor model. It's 

9 simply a question of, is what's in the TBD a good 

10 representation or not for potentially bounding? 

11 That seems to be the heart of the matter here for 

12 addressing claimant-favorability for this.

13 And what we saw with the reactors that 

14 are in Steve's presentation, and John mentioned 

15 they are highly enriched, what we're able to do, 

16 again, in ORIGEN, simple calculations just for a 

17 sanity check is to look at low-enriched reactors 

18 that are run for comparable times to that which is 

19 factual for TAN as compared to some of the 

20 assumptions that were made in OTIB.

21 And I don't want to steal where you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 headed here John, but Slide 17 really gets to the 

2 summary.

3 DR. MAURO: Well, good. Let's go 

4 there. Go ahead.

5 MR. MALLETT: In what you've written 

6 here in that second bullet, or first sub-bullet, 

7 actinide intake, generally do well as you described 

8 with the blackout, the uranium-238 and Pu-239 

9 growth.

10 But, on the other hand, we're a little 

11 unsure about the fission products, but we -- as 

12 being bounded by these conditions in the scenario 

13 there. It was used in the document.

14 We do see, in general, that the 

15 in-growth of those fission products is fairly 

16 stable, meaning you burn it for some period of time, 

17 you've got some ratio between cesium and strontium 

18 and the other nuclides. Say they're an order of 

19 magnitude difference, continue to run it for 

20 another amount of time, they continue to be 

21 relatively stable, relative to each other, say, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 another -- still an order of magnitude apart in 

2 activity.

3 So it seems like a well-behaved 

4 reactor. It's an easy scenario to replicate in the 

5 calculations, and these are just the limitations 

6 perhaps in the Technical Basis to consider.

7 DR. MAURO: I think, again, the 

8 takeaway -- and this is, again, as I would say in 

9 more of a collegial dialogue, and it's all laid out 

10 in our report with our assumptions and our 

11 calculations, without getting into great detail. 

12 But we are finding circumstances where OTIB-54 may 

13 not be claimant -- two things, may not be 

14 claimant-favorable for all of the various 

15 circumstances we encounter at TAN.

16 And in addition, there are places where 

17 OTIB-54 is implausibly overly conservative and 

18 where it's -- it places too high a dose to the point 

19 where one could say it's just not plausible. So 

20 these are -- you know, you say again, what do you 

21 -- how do you boil this whole thing down? It comes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 down to that. And I'd like very much to open the 

2 dialogue and our continuing discussion of these 

3 matters with the Work Group and with NIOSH.

4 For those two questions, do we have it 

5 right that there certainly appear to be 

6 circumstances where OTIB-54 might not be very 

7 claimant -- may not be claimant-favorable. And, 

8 two, are there circumstances where OTIB-54 is 

9 disproportionately too conservative related to 

10 actinide production.

11 When you only have a relatively short 

12 time period over which you are burning your fuel, 

13 you know, you don't really have -- and it's all 

14 enriched -- highly enriched uranium, you know, 

15 where is the plutonium?

16 You know, and to assume there is 

17 plutonium there contributed potentially 

18 significantly to internal dose, when it's not 

19 there, is a problem. And I think that that --

20 again, to make life simple, those are the two things 

21 that I'd like to have an opportunity to pursue 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 further with you, to talk about and to -- you know, 

2 as a next step in this process.

3 And I don't know, Mike, if you have 

4 anything else you'd like to add, but I think that 

5 tells our story.

6 MR. MALLETT: No, that's great. I 

7 think you summed it up great.

8 MR. STIVER: John, one other point that 

9 -- tried to make on Slide 17, which is going to get 

10 more into what Ron Buchanan is going to discuss a 

11 little bit later. When he actually looked at nasal 

12 swabs, smears, and air monitoring samples, he found 

13 -- he came to some conclusions that were a little 

14 bit different than what you guys determined from 

15 strictly modeling exercises. 

16 That's on Slide 17, but I just wanted 

17 to put it out there just to show that there is kind 

18 of a lead-in for that next discussion that Ron will 

19 talk about.

20 But certainly, you know, Tim, if you 

21 have any comments about, you know, what John and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Mike have done so far.

2 DR. TAULBEE: My only comment, really, 

3 at this time is to remind the Work Group that there 

4 is an open issue with regards to the Initial Engine 

5 Tests at INL and those releases and the 

6 applicability of OTIB-54 and whether we should be 

7 assigning an additional factor or correction to 

8 that.

9 So, you know, this is something that is 

10 an open issue that we are looking at under the TBD. 

11 If you want to roll it into the SEC, we can do that, 

12 along those lines. But this is something that we 

13 started addressing a few years ago. I know Brian 

14 Gleckler has been working on a report looking at 

15 the Initial Engine Test 10 in particular. So that 

16 is -- really, that is my only comment here from that 

17 standpoint with regards to the use of OTIB-54.

18 Now, for the other reactors that are up 

19 there, I believe our opinion is is that OTIB-54 is 

20 the bounding scenario like we did with the MTR, TRA, 

21 and ATR reactors. But the Initial Engine Tests 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were different than the others, and I am actually 

2 not sure where we stand on LOFT. I'd have to get 

3 back to you on that one.

4 MR. STIVER: I guess, if there's no 

5 other questions, that kind of segues into what Hans 

6 wrote up about the airborne emissions at ANP. 

7 We'll let him talk about that next.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. For those on the 

9 phone, that starts on page 18 of our slide 

10 presentation. And, at this point, I'd like to pass 

11 the baton off to Hans to talk about this very 

12 special program.

13 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. Let 

14 me go back quickly to page -- or Slide 16, because 

15 I think that's really a summary that we are 

16 discussing in more detail in subsequent slides. 

17 And if you could go back to Slide 16, the 

18 observation conclusions regarding the ANP and why 

19 OTIB-54 is really inappropriate. And it just 

20 highlights the most basic reasons why it should not 

21 be used for the internal dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 involving if you worked at -- were associated with 

2 the ANP program

3 As it starts up front, the first bullet 

4 identifies an enrichment, which you have already 

5 mentioned, John, of 93.4 percent. And that really 

6 means that the bulk of the uranium is not only 

7 highly enriched uranium-235, but the most 

8 prevalent form of uranium is U-234 by far.

9 The other issue is that the type of 

10 reactor design that identifies, and we'll go 

11 briefly into that involves the Aircraft Nuclear 

12 Propulsion System. When we talk about -- talk 

13 about more of this, conventional reactors will be 

14 fewer. That it is either lowly enriched or 

15 moderately enriched, but it's also fuel that has 

16 cladding. It sits in a water-cooled environment 

17 that allows or restricts the temperature of the 

18 fuel up to a certain level.

19 There is the reactor vessel. There is, 

20 obviously, a containment building, so there is 

21 multiple barriers that would potentially obviously 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mitigate the release of fission products or 

2 activation products. And then, you usually 

3 operate within a spectrum of parameters that do not 

4 lead to fuel failure.

5 None of these issues, obviously, apply 

6 to the ANP program, as we will discuss in a few 

7 minutes. Not to mention the fact that the fuel is 

8 also subject to extremely high temperatures. They 

9 were testing for some of the fuel tests that 

10 involved the Initial Engine Test temperatures 

11 exceeding 3,300 degrees Fahrenheit. They have to 

12 have special matrices developed that were capable 

13 of resisting such high temperatures.

14 And also, the fuel design -- we will 

15 talk about in a few minutes -- about the ribbon of 

16 enriched uranium. We're talking about uncladded 

17 ribbons of highly enriched uranium, and they range 

18 in thicknesses, weight and thickness from as little 

19 as one-hundredth of one inch, and they were subject 

20 to an air flow from the jet engine that propelled 

21 the air compressed into the reactor, and then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heated up to approximately about 1,250 degrees.

2 And so what you have, obviously, here 

3 is a fuel that has been depleted of fission products 

4 by simple diffusion and also by recoil, and you also 

5 have, obviously, an absence of transuranic 

6 materials because of the depletion of uranium-238, 

7 as John already mentioned.

8 So when we talk about exposures to 

9 people who were obviously dealing with spent fuel, 

10 and it's clear that the fuel from the ANP program 

11 was very, very thoroughly investigated because 

12 this was really a research project. We needed to 

13 understand how we can operate and aircraft reactor 

14 that was so unique and so different from any other 

15 reactor that has ever been tested.

16 Think about the logistical problems 

17 that we face or that people faced during that 

18 timeframe. This program was run by General 

19 Electric in the '50s and was terminated in '61. 

20 But one of the things you have to obviously come 

21 to conclude is that to build a reactor that would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 propel an aircraft you would obviously have to deal 

2 extremely -- with different designs based on your 

3 weight requirements that would allow such a reactor 

4 to be onboard of an aircraft, and then propel it.

5 And so, given all of these things as an 

6 upfront statement, the idea of using OTIB-54 for 

7 a host of parameters and issues that we just 

8 basically discussed here, cannot be used. 

9 And so, with that starting 

10 conversation, I will go to the first slide, which 

11 is Slide 19. And that is just to briefly bring up 

12 to date for people who are not familiar. I know 

13 I was not familiar with this program until 2002 when 

14 we were asked to do this, and I'll talk about that 

15 briefly later on.

16 But the whole concept of an Aircraft 

17 Nuclear Propulsion Program was thought about in the 

18 middle to later years of 1940s. And the reason 

19 being is that these days -- or those time periods 

20 precede our ability to really detect much in the 

21 way of oncoming missiles, which were already now 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available to the Russians, that might come over the 

2 Arctic Circle.

3 Today, we have satellites, and most 

4 recently we obviously heard on the news the blimp 

5 that was released, unfortunately, from Maryland, 

6 and then ended up being crashed in Pennsylvania. 

7 Had that information or that data and that kind of 

8 ability to monitor incoming missiles existed, we 

9 wouldn't have probably ever developed an Aircraft 

10 Nuclear Propulsion System.

11 But the whole point of this program was 

12 to allow an airplane to actually maintain altitude 

13 without refueling, and not rely on fossil fuel, 

14 which would obviously limit the ability of the 

15 aircraft to stay afloat, and circle the Arctic area 

16 for incoming missiles and to conduct surveillance. 

17 And that was the whole purpose of this particular 

18 program.

19 As I said the program was started, the 

20 active testing program started in 1952, and was 

21 terminated under President JFK in 1961 when it was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thought that this was not a feasible program and 

2 there were alternatives. And, of course, the 

3 future was obviously there to do the surveillance 

4 by other means, including satellite surveillance.

5 So then we go and talk about what the 

6 program contained or represented, and I'm on Slide 

7 20. To test the ability to use nuclear power on 

8 an airplane, they used or they developed a total 

9 of three different heat transfer reactor 

10 experiments, which really defined the core of the 

11 reactor that represent the ANP program.

12 These were -- and if you could have it 

13 changed to the handout that we have -- or the report 

14 that we received in September, you will see some 

15 information as far as descriptive information as 

16 well as schematic figures of how this particular 

17 design worked. It's an air-cooled system with a 

18 turbojet engine compressed engine gas high -- and 

19 then passed through the reactor core, as I 

20 mentioned was a fuel core that consisted of very 

21 thin ribbons that would allow a quick transfer of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the heat that was built up in the fuel through the 

2 air.

3 In many instances, some of the tests 

4 were run at fuel temperatures up to 32 degrees 

5 Fahrenheit, which in turn would heat the air that 

6 was passed beyond the ribbons to temperatures of 

7 about 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit.

8 And that compressed air or heated air 

9 would then come up through turbines and then to a 

10 rejecter nozzle, which then could control, and that 

11 would provide this peak operation. The amount of 

12 air that was passed through now was about 100 pounds 

13 of air per second, and that was the source for the 

14 acceleration and propelling of the reactor.

15 As I mentioned, there were three 

16 different designs that we used, and these different 

17 fuel designs are what are called Heater or Initial 

18 -- for the Initial Engine Test involved a total of 

19 26 -- there were 26 different tests that were done 

20 among the three different fuel cores, Heater 1, 2, 

21 and 3.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Not all have -- or necessarily resulted 

2 in any potential environmental releases, IETs 1, 

3 2, 3, 5 -- 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 did not require nuclear 

4 power, and, therefore, had no potential for 

5 environmental releases of radioactivity.

6 So, in essence, there were 21 IETs that 

7 we were going to look at with regard to what 

8 releases might have occurred as a result of those 

9 tests that might impact not only the people in the 

10 environment of INL but potentially workers.

11 The potential interest in studying 

12 these releases started in 1988 and involved members 

13 of the INL Historical Dose Evaluation Task Group 

14 people. And in 1991 this particular group of 

15 individuals issued a two-volume report that was 

16 interested in assessing the cumulative curie 

17 releases on behalf of 51 different radionuclides. 

18 And in our report that we issued, you can look at 

19 the 51 radionuclides, and of course one of the key 

20 issues that I want to point out to you is that among 

21 the 51 radionuclides there was no concern about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium or transuranics. 

2 I shouldn't say -- not uranium, but 

3 there are different entries of uranium-234, 235, 

4 and 238. And if you look at the actual assessments 

5 of the radionuclide quantities, and they have those 

6 three isotopes, you will see that the largest 

7 release fraction obviously does involve U-234, 

8 followed by 235, and, lastly, by 238.

9 And if you look at the ratio between the 

10 radioactivity associated with U-234 versus U-238, 

11 you realize that the activity of U-234 is 

12 approximately 3,400 -- 33- to 3,400 times that of 

13 U-238, and that gives you an understanding of just 

14 how depleted U-238 was in terms of the actual fuel.

15 So when we look at the exposures that 

16 would have potentially been experienced in the 

17 examination of the fuel, you realize that, again, 

18 OTIB-54 would not apply, and that policy -- the 

19 absence of plutonium and other transuranics, but 

20 also the relationship between the very fission 

21 products that are so critical in OTIB-54 in trying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to understand how to convert the gross beta/gamma 

2 ratio into actual numbers involving fission 

3 products.

4 As I said, when you have a thin ribbon 

5 of fuel that is highly enriched and is subject to 

6 tremendous stress, and in some cases intentional 

7 fuel failure, you will realize -- you will come to 

8 the conclusion that the fission product ratios, as 

9 well as the ratios of fission products to 

10 transuranics, will obviously be completely 

11 destroyed with regard to OTIB-54 and its potential 

12 use in assessing bioassays into actual doses based 

13 on OTIB-54 assumptions.

14 To go back to the particular historical 

15 Dose Evaluation Report that was released in that 

16 two-volume report in 1991, it was determined when 

17 we were asked to look at this that the radionuclides 

18 that were released on behalf of only three -- IET 

19 Number 3, 4, and 10 -- was approximately the 

20 equivalent of 90 percent of the total release for 

21 all 21. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so when, in essence, we were asked 

2 to look at this under contract to the CDC in 2002, 

3 I was able to limit my focus to IET Number 3, 4, 

4 and 10. And that is basically summarized in the 

5 report that was issued back in September here of 

6 this year. And, in that summary report, I 

7 identified the various radionuclides that we had 

8 looked at, and also the -- all of the reports that 

9 were part of the initial HDTE Task Group reports.

10 And what we found was, in our review of 

11 this particular assessment, was that there were 

12 some serious errors associated with the original 

13 task group reports, where in the case of -- in the 

14 case of IET 10, for instance, my review and 

15 assessment of all of the data that were available, 

16 I concluded that the releases from the IET 10 effort 

17 was approximately -- between seven- and eight-fold 

18 higher than the ones that were identified by the 

19 HD group.

20 And for that reason, when -- if we were 

21 to actually make use of that data, we should not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 go to the original report, but realize that those 

2 numbers have been amended, and I think our report, 

3 which is about a 220-some-odd page report, that is 

4 available on the CDC website, it should be looked 

5 at.

6 Now, that initial report that was 

7 issued by the HDTE was not intended to assess worker 

8 exposures. It was really intended to assess 

9 offsite exposures to members of the public. 

10 However, from the release quantities, those 

11 numbers could be converted to onsite doses. And 

12 I don't think that would be a major effort.

13 And when you realize that a total of 

14 somewhere around four million curies of 

15 radioactivity were released with that, it would 

16 have released a fair amount of -- or would have 

17 resulted in a fair amount of exposures to onsite 

18 personnel. And in looking at some of the original 

19 data that we had access to, there was very little 

20 information. 

21 The HDTE report really is a model. It 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is not based on a lot of empirical data. It is 

2 obviously an assessment of the fuel that was used 

3 and some of the analysis that was done after the 

4 fuel was taken in for a study, an investigation, 

5 but it is not really relying on any air sampling 

6 data or not much. 

7 Early on, there was an extremely 

8 minimal number of air samplings done, and that was 

9 mostly spot samples, very periodic spot samples. 

10 So the information that exists should not be 

11 considered based on empirical data more than model 

12 data. And, as I said, in our reports, the revised 

13 estimates may be used as a release quantity of 51 

14 different radionuclides from a stack, and it could 

15 possibly be modeled for internal exposures. But 

16 a lot of assumptions need to be made to do that.

17 And, in conclusion, I would only say 

18 that use of OTIB-54, for the various reasons that 

19 I identified, could not be used. It would not 

20 represent anything that has any high degree of 

21 credibility in terms of its applicability with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 regard to a conventional reactor, and these ANP 

2 reactors would clearly not be the conventional 

3 reactor that we normally think about, and, 

4 therefore, the issue of internal exposure, 

5 especially for those people who may have been 

6 exposed to these releases -- and all of these 

7 release quantities that you see in those reports 

8 were direct releases to the atmosphere.

9 There was no retention, there were no 

10 barriers, there was no filtration, nothing. All 

11 of the curie quantities that are cited in the 

12 report, at least for IET 3, 4, and 10, were actual 

13 curie quantities that -- or at least model curie 

14 quantities that were released directly to the 

15 atmosphere.

16 I guess, with that, I will close and ask 

17 if there is any questions.

18 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian Gleckler. 

19 I'd just like to add one more thing. At the March 

20 25, 2014, Work Group meeting, we presented a White 

21 Paper, and one of its conclusions was in regards 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to those three IET releases, 3, 4, and 10. And 3 

2 and 4 we determined -- or presented the argument 

3 that the trajectory of those releases went offsite 

4 and did not affect the onsite workforce. 

5 So that stuff is kind of moot, and we 

6 are still investigating IET 10. That's the open 

7 issue.

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes. As John had 

9 mentioned earlier on, the actual tests that were 

10 done in the different IETs were carefully monitored 

11 for the potential exposure and minimizing exposure 

12 for onsite personnel. And so I have not looked at 

13 this.

14 When SC&A was asked to conduct this 

15 study and could it review previous estimates by the 

16 HD task group, our effort was really to look at the 

17 potential exposures to offsite personnel. So I'm 

18 not going to deceive anybody that our effort was 

19 really to look at whether or not the original curie 

20 estimates on behalf of each of the IETs -- 3, 4, 

21 and 10 -- were reasonable based on available 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information.

2 And then our findings were carefully 

3 assessed, and we presented our findings to the HDTE 

4 task group, the original people -- Peterson, 

5 Wenzel, and others -- who agreed with our 

6 assessment, and they realized they had overlooked 

7 some very, very important issues that would have 

8 raised their estimates by, in some cases, several 

9 fold.

10 So we are not going to say that the data 

11 that we have presented has any intended use for 

12 worker exposures, but it's just as a way of 

13 potentially looking at the data. You could 

14 convert some of the offsite releases and convert 

15 this to onsite releases based on curie quantities 

16 and, again, go back maybe to some of the original 

17 data and look at what the radiological factors were 

18 that would have precluded significant exposures in 

19 some cases, or would have potentially resulted in 

20 onsite exposures to personnel.

21 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd like to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 add one more point. I was always a bit concerned

2 about particulate fallout. We'll go back to the 

3 old classic hot particle issue. 

4 Granted, you have an elevated release 

5 designed specifically to have -- to occur at times 

6 to minimize offsite impacts because the wind 

7 direction was in the proper direction. And one 

8 could argue if the release is elevated enough, and 

9 the meteorology is appropriate, there is little 

10 potential for these airborne plumes to touch down 

11 onsite, with the exception of particulate material 

12 that could fall out, you know, gravitationally.

13 So I guess I would just say, again, from 

14 a collegial point of view, it wouldn't be a bad idea 

15 to say if whether or not that's a scenario that 

16 needs to be explored. And that would be probably 

17 more along the lines of external, but maybe 

18 internal. I'm not sure.

19 MR. KATZ: Tim, do you want to respond?

20 DR. TAULBEE: The only comment that I 

21 would say is back before John's comment about hot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particles, but the -- you know, we recognize that 

2 the Initial Engine Test Number 10 is of concern,

3 and we are developing a White Paper to address that, 

4 to go into the TBD for an additional dose 

5 reconstruction method. This is under the TBD 

6 review process.

7 Again, you know, from our particular 

8 standpoint, we recognize everything that has just 

9 been said here. And we have discussed that under 

10 the Work Group -- or with this Work Group in 

11 previous discussions. And as Brian pointed out, 

12 3 and 4 going offsite, were closed out by the Work 

13 Group here. If you want to reopen them, you are 

14 certainly welcome to; it's your all's prerogative. 

15 But Initial Engine Test is still outstanding from 

16 the TBD standpoint, and we recognize that.

17 MEMBER BEACH: That's true. We did 

18 close those off earlier.

19 MR. STIVER: In any case, it does look 

20 like it's more of a Site Profile issue as opposed 

21 to something that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Again, that's our 

2 opinion right now, but if you all want to make it 

3 a part of an SEC issue, we can -- I'm sure there 

4 is probably --

5 MR. STIVER: Our concern is really the 

6 -- you know, the source term that we were able to 

7 develop, you know, there is some modeling to be done 

8 for onsite environmental exposures. I would 

9 recommend using that opposed to earlier data.

10 MR. KATZ: Phil, do we want a lunch 

11 break at some point? Phil, do we want a lunch break 

12 at some point?

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: Say yes.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You want to eat? 

16 Okay. Why don't we take a break.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Do we have an action out 

18 of this, then, or --

19 MR. KATZ: Well, no. I mean, I just 

20 want to --

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I didn't want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 go too --

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, yeah, let's figure out 

4 whether there is an action. It doesn't sound like 

5 there is an SC&A action under this.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Well, NIOSH is still 

7 reviewing 10, which would leave that open for SC&A. 

8 So what about 3 and 4? We did close those earlier. 

9 Do you want to go back and look at that White Paper 

10 and then maybe refine that or --

11 MR. STIVER: I don't think that we 

12 really need to do that at this point. I mean, if 

13 the Work Group has closed it out, that -- you know, 

14 the idea was that the material went offsite as 

15 opposed to onsite. Again, I don't think it's 

16 really an SEC issue. It's something that needs to 

17 probably be looked at some point in a TBD.

18 MR. KATZ: Well, if it went offsite, 

19 it's not a TBD.

20 MR. STIVER: Well, as far as a TBD 

21 issue. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking)

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. So does that --

4 MR. STIVER: And the other issue was 

5 about the neutron dosimetry, but that's, 

6 again -- you know, that's not something that --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, at some point 

8 we're going to have to start tracking these, so we 

9 can keep -- I know we always have a matrix. We 

10 don't -- we're not to that point yet, but --

11 MR. STIVER: It might not be a bad idea 

12 to start doing that now.

13 MEMBER BEACH: We need something to 

14 start keeping kind of --

15 MR. STIVER: So we can keep track of all 

16 of these --

17 DR. TAULBEE: I was going to recommend 

18 that. I'm taking some notes here, and I was --

19 MR. KATZ: And SC&A can set that up.

20 MR. STIVER: Yeah. We can set it up. 

21 We can compare our --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: The last meeting and where 

2 we've come so far up until this point. 

3 MR. STIVER: Send it to NIOSH for input 

4 from --

5 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So that's a work 

8 item.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: I guess we can take a look 

11 at the bioassay indicators after lunch. That 

12 should give us enough time.

13 Okay. So that's where we'll come to 

14 after the break. And do we need an hour? 

15 Probably. They are pretty slow at this -- if 

16 you're going to get -- so 12:30. It's 12:30. It's 

17 almost 12:40. So about 1:40 we will start back up 

18 again, for everyone on the line.

19 Thanks. And I'll close the line and 

20 we'll restart then.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 went off the record at 12:38 p.m. and resumed at 

2 1:36 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, good afternoon. This 

4 is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health INL Work Group. We are just regrouping 

6 after lunch.

7 And we're ready to go in here. So, do 

8 you need to check with anyone's attendance right 

9 now, John?

10 MR. STIVER: Maybe Ron Buchanan.

11 MR. KATZ: Ron Buchanan, are you on the 

12 line yet?

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm here.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. I mean, Bob Barton's 

15 going next.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I see that.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. And, you folks, Tim, 

18 you don't need anybody on the line, right?

19 DR. TAULBEE: No, Brian Gleckler will 

20 probably dial back in but that's it.

21 MR. KATZ: You're okay?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 DR. TAULBEE: We're okay.

4 MR. KATZ: So, Bob?

5 MR. BARTON: All right.

6 MR. KATZ: It's all right, Phil?

7 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Can Bob go?

9 MR. SCHOFIELD: We're ready.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, then.

11 MR. BARTON: All right, I just wanted 

12 to talk a little bit about OTIB-54. I'm just 

13 kidding.

14 (Laughter.)

15 No, a lot of interesting discussion on 

16 that, but for this, we're actually going to take 

17 a little bit of a step back and instead, talking 

18 about how we use these gross beta-gamma to ratio 

19 for other fission products or activation products 

20 and that sort of thing.

21 This is where we just took a look, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pretty much took a step back, looked at the entire 

2 site from a claimant perspective and those gross 

3 beta-gamma bioassays and how they will fit in with 

4 actual dose reconstruction implementation.

5 But I just want to give a little 

6 background first. Obviously, the first item we 

7 see here is the release of the SEC Evaluation 

8 Report.

9 Back in July, just prior to the last INL 

10 Work Group, SC&A released a status report memo that 

11 was entitled Interim Summary Report on the 

12 Evaluation of NIOSH's Idaho National Laboratory 

13 SEC-00219 Petition Evaluation Report. And that 

14 report was also discussed during that INL Work 

15 Group.

16 Basically, as it related to internal 

17 dose based on bioassay, SC&A had identified four 

18 essentially main assumptions with the ER in 

19 establishing that internal dose reconstruction was 

20 feasible.

21 The very first item, which was entitled 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Item A in that report, and I'm going to just read 

2 this into the record.

3 FAP bioassays. Sufficient workers' 

4 records contain fission and activation product 

5 bioassay in vitro and in vivo results are available 

6 to assign intakes and resulting doses from FAP some 

7 periods/areas may need a FAP coworker model 

8 developed.

9 And Item A is the subject of this 

10 presentation.

11 So, here's a table that's kind of 

12 derived from a couple of different tables from the 

13 SEC Evaluation Report. And, essentially, what it 

14 shows are the main areas at INL and the 

15 determination in the ER report as to the 

16 feasibility of dose reconstruction.

17 So, if we start sort of in the upper 

18 left, we see a lot of Ns in those early years. 

19 That's because there really was no radiological 

20 work going on during that time with the exception 

21 of Central Facilities which was right away 1949.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, as we can see, besides those first 

2 handful of years, NIOSH determined that dose 

3 reconstruction is feasible in each area, 

4 essentially up until 1967.

5 And, from 1967 to 1970, it was 

6 determined that coworker models are going to be 

7 required and the only exception there is the burial 

8 ground for which 1969 and 1970 were held in reserve.

9 And that's essentially what this slide 

10 says. But my take-away from that is for periods 

11 prior to 1967, essentially this current status is 

12 that internal dose reconstruction is feasible, 

13 even without the need for any sort of coworker 

14 model.

15 So, this is how the SC&A approached its 

16 review. We went with a semi-random sample of INL 

17 claimants and I'll get to what that semi-random 

18 means in a second.

19 Just to assess the adequacy and 

20 completeness of the individual records within each 

21 claimant file for the purposes of dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction. And, essentially, it leads to 

2 three main questions and these are the questions 

3 that always seem to arise when coworker models are 

4 discussed. Were all relevant workers monitored 

5 for fission and activation products? Were those 

6 monitored worker records complete? And the 

7 corollary for both of those are coworker models 

8 appropriate for areas and time periods other than 

9 those that have already been designated?

10 Continuing with the description of our 

11 approach, SC&A determined that there were 973 

12 claimants who had covered employment at INL during 

13 the evaluated SEC period.

14 And I want to be clear, when we talk 

15 about the SEC period here, it's the evaluated 

16 period, not the proposed Class Definition period. 

17 So, that evaluated period is from 1949 through 

18 1970.

19 Of those 973, about 921 has SEC 

20 employment greater than 90 days. So, we took that 

21 claimant population and semi-randomly selected 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them. And here's what I mean. We did randomly 

2 select them but when we populated our database out 

3 of NOCTS, we essentially had an entry for each 

4 claimant employment period that we were randomly 

5 pulling these numbers from.

6 So, essentially, what happens is, even 

7 though it's intended to be random, because it would 

8 essentially bias it towards workers who had

9 multiple job periods during the SEC evaluation 

10 period, those claims kind of get selected more.

11 So, we ended up with 92 claimants, which 

12 is roughly ten percent of that number, 921, that 

13 had greater than 90 days.

14 One note is that when we selected these 

15 claims, we had nine of them that we ultimately 

16 discarded mostly because the employment duration 

17 for those selected claimants was much less than 90 

18 days or, in one of those cases, the job duty was 

19 an attorney who stated outright that they weren't 

20 badged and all the records show that they weren't 

21 monitored. So, we didn't feel that was a very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 germane case to add to the study.

2 Here's a breakdown of the actual job 

3 titles we looked at of the 92 workers. That 

4 doesn't include the ones we discarded. And, as you 

5 can see, the trades workers occupy a huge portion 

6 of it. And, again, that's because of the bias 

7 towards workers who had multiple job periods.

8 It sort of was an unintended bias. We 

9 really didn't realize until we started populating 

10 the actual overall numbers for job titles, but I 

11 guess I'll try to excuse myself here and say that 

12 if you're going to bias it in one direction, that's 

13 probably the one you want to go to, towards the job 

14 types with more intermittent employment and maybe 

15 not be on a regular bioassay schedule.

16 But, as you can see, we also have some 

17 pretty good job coverage in other areas, health 

18 physicist, electronics technicians, operators. 

19 We have some administrative people in there. We 

20 have security guards and then the engineers and 

21 scientists.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, as we saw in the pie chart, over 60 

2 percent of those sampled claimants would fall into 

3 that trades worker category. But I'd also point 

4 out that when you say trades worker, that covers 

5 a lot of different professions which included, but 

6 this isn't the definitive list, obviously, but 

7 heavy equipment operator, welder, pipe fitter, 

8 plumber, asbestos insulation worker, general 

9 construction laborer, carpenter and electrician.

10 So, here's kind of an overview of the 

11 results, just to give you an idea of the numbers 

12 we're looking at here.

13 So, we have 92 total claims. You can 

14 see that's at the top row on this table.

15 The average number of years for those 

16 92 claimants was about eight years in the SEC 

17 period, evaluation period. And then I gave the 

18 average and the median samples per year per worker 

19 and also the average and the median of the number 

20 of individual employment periods that were there 

21 per worker.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, as we can see, especially with the 

2 employment periods, the average number is six 

3 employment -- distinct employment periods during 

4 the SEC but the median number is only three and that 

5 just sort of goes to show how the distribution of 

6 workers was biased towards those workers with more 

7 employment periods.

8 Then when you take the average and you 

9 look at each worker's, you know, grouping of 

10 employment periods, whether it be the six or the 

11 three or whatever the individual worker is, we 

12 found that just under 50 percent of those 

13 individual work periods did not have a fission and 

14 activation product bioassay associated with it.

15 One of the first things we observed when 

16 we got into this is that there definitely appears 

17 to be a change in monitoring frequency that 

18 occurred in 1967.

19 Basically, you see a claimant that was 

20 monitored several times per year via bioassay for 

21 gross beta-gamma. And then 1967 rolls around and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 suddenly the monitoring frequency was stretched 

2 considerably to biannual or even longer than that.

3 So, that leads to our Observation 1, 

4 SC&A fully agrees with NIOSH's assertion that 

5 coworker models are necessary for that period, 1967 

6 to 1970.

7 We also observed a number of 

8 unmonitored workers, not just unmonitored work 

9 periods. So, these are the workers that we just 

10 don't have any internal dosimetry for.

11 Now, that said, they may have had 

12 fission and activation product bioassay associated 

13 with another area such as Argonne or NRF or had 

14 bioassay taken but after the evaluated SEC period.

15 So, here's some examples, and I'd like 

16 to put these out there just to kind of illustrate 

17 what it looks like when you're actually looking at 

18 an individual claimant record and how this kind of 

19 fits into the big picture of the whole issue of how 

20 you reconstruct these internal doses.

21 So, the first one we're looking at here 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is an iron worker/laborer. The CATI interview 

2 indicated that work with radioactive material was 

3 40-plus hours a week. And there's also a couple 

4 of interesting statements here, I'll just read 

5 these.

6 The Energy Employee said they took 

7 turns going into the hot cells. They were given 

8 a certain time limit on how long they could stay.

9 The Energy Employee said some of the 

10 tools they used were taken away and could not be 

11 used again because they were contaminated.

12 The Energy Employee said sometimes when 

13 they would get contaminated, the monitors would try 

14 to use tape to get the contamination off.

15 And the reason I included those and I 

16 think they are important is because it shows that 

17 internal exposure potential likely did exist for 

18 this claimant during the SEC evaluation period.

19 This particular claim also had external 

20 dosimetry and the location file cards indicated 

21 MTR, AX, MTX and CX, so a lot of construction areas 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for some of those years during the SEC evaluation 

2 periods.

3 So, again, that's another indication 

4 that there was internal exposure potential but we 

5 don't have any internal monitoring.

6 Another example was the mechanical 

7 engineer. Unfortunately, that particular 

8 claimant did not -- declined to be interviewed. 

9 But, again, the location file cards indicate they 

10 were a TAN MTR CFA during several of the years of 

11 the SEC employment. And the annual monitoring 

12 summary indicates external monitoring didn't begin 

13 until 1961.

14 We have an electrician. I'm a bit 

15 confused by that last bullet, but we'll get back 

16 to that.

17 We have an electrician. Again the CATI 

18 was declined. External monitoring at CPM which 

19 was just another moniker for CPP, I think it was 

20 actually referring to a process within CPP in the 

21 early years, and he had external monitoring in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1950s, also external monitoring at OX, CPP, MTR and 

2 AX beginning in 1960.

3 This claimant was technically not 

4 unmonitored because they do have one bioassay 

5 result that was in 1969, but that was actually 

6 strange that they're not considered part of the 

7 covered employment.

8 But I will point out that any time that 

9 arises, NIOSH will always or at least as far as I've 

10 seen in dose reconstruction, you use that data to 

11 arrive at a PoC. So it's not like it's left off the 

12 board simply because it wasn't technically part of 

13 the covered employment.

14 So, this brings us to Observation 2. 

15 Now, I'll just read this into the record.

16 Based on SC&A's review of sampled 

17 claimants, it is not apparent that the lack of 

18 internal monitoring data is indicative of a lack 

19 of internal exposure potential.

20 Given the uncertainty in establishing 

21 work areas, activities and ultimately exposure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 potential for claimants, particularly in the early 

2 years, it is recommended that coworker models be 

3 evaluated and developed for workers who were 

4 unmonitored but likely should have been monitored 

5 during all periods for which such exposures are 

6 possible.

7 In addition to the unmonitored worker 

8 population in our sample, there's obviously going 

9 to be some partially monitored workers.

10 So, we examined these workers who did 

11 have some bioassay but also had unmonitored 

12 portions of their employment.

13 As I showed before, on average, there 

14 are about six different employment periods per 

15 worker sampled. The median number was three. And 

16 about 50 -- on average, 50 percent of these did not 

17 have associated bioassay.

18 So, again, here's some illustrative 

19 examples. First, we have a custodian and there's 

20 a single internal monitoring result in 1958 but the 

21 employment for this individual extended over a year 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 past that sample and there was no other employment 

2 after that.

3 The location file card and the external 

4 dosimetry indicate assignment to CPP and SPERT 

5 during this latter year. So, statements from that 

6 CATI report, part of a job was to clean up spills 

7 and accidents. The Energy Employee mentioned 

8 working behind lead barriers and liquid waste was 

9 seeping around. The Energy Employee wore cotton 

10 overalls and a mask or respirator. The coveralls 

11 were taped at the edges. The Energy Employee had 

12 mentioned a cleanup job where they went through so 

13 many casual laborers that they even burned out the 

14 bus drivers.

15 And, again, this is -- it's anecdotal 

16 evidence that this person was likely internally 

17 exposed. And, based on the external dosimetry, 

18 one could argue after the last monitoring result 

19 for that individual in 1958.

20 Here's another example. It's a 

21 construction/laborer. The last in period, when I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say in period, I mean during the SEC evaluation 

2 period, result was in 1961. The next result did 

3 not occur until 1980.

4 The claimant has covered employment 

5 after that 1961 result in '63, '64 and also 1966 

6 to 1970. And the external dosimetry and location 

7 file card indicate assignment to AX, MTR, CPP, TAN, 

8 CX and MTX during these latter SEC periods.

9 And then there's some other statements 

10 from the CATI that, again, indicate that there was 

11 certainly the potential for internal exposure to 

12 fission and activation products.

13 And I think this is the last example. 

14 It's, again, a laborer. Internal monitoring ends 

15 in 1960 but the covered employment extends through 

16 1970. Again, there are numerous locations at INL 

17 for this Energy Employee after that last internal 

18 monitoring result.

19 And the CATI report was actually with 

20 the survivor but they indicate that there were 

21 times when they had to take a day off because they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had reached a dose limit.

2 So, that brings us to Observation 3, and 

3 I'll read it in.

4 It appears there are credible 

5 situations where it would be appropriate and 

6 claimant-favorable to assign coworker intakes of 

7 FAP to account for unmonitored portions of the 

8 claimant's work history. Many of these examples 

9 predate the period currently identified by NIOSH 

10 as requiring coworker evaluations. So, that's 

11 really a corollary to Observation 4.

12 And the summary recommendation, here 

13 again, I'll read it into the record.

14 Based on SC&A's review of 92 randomly 

15 selected claimants -- and I guess I should probably 

16 read semi-randomly selected, as I talked about 

17 before -- it was evident that fission and an 

18 activation product bioassay is generally available 

19 for a wide variety of job titles. Thus, SC&A does 

20 not believe there are completeness issues, and 

21 that's in quotations, completeness issues with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data set of fission and activation product bioassay 

2 that would preclude its use in developing coworker 

3 models. Nor was there any indication that specific 

4 job titles were systematically excluded from the 

5 internal monitoring program. However, it is 

6 SC&A's opinion that FAP coworker models should be 

7 evaluated and developed for each relevant INL site 

8 area beginning with the start of radiological 

9 operations for each individual location.

10 And I'd like to sort of expand on that 

11 a little bit. We make some, I guess, rather bold 

12 statements about completeness and I just want to 

13 clarify. This is based on our sample of 92 

14 workers. And, you know, while there were workers 

15 that were unmonitored, there were workers that had 

16 the same job type that were monitored.

17 Usually, when we talk about 

18 completeness under this sort of a macro level, it 

19 would be something along the lines of a particular 

20 worker category that would systematically just not 

21 captured by the bioassay program and there might 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be reason to believe that their exposure was 

2 higher.

3 To really assess the completeness and 

4 adequacy essentially would have to go through the 

5 implementation guideline process that has been 

6 developed by the SEC Issues Work Group and to assess 

7 the different areas. You have samples for each 

8 area and that sort of things which is -- that just 

9 got approved for road testing.

10 So, while we say that there's no 

11 completeness issues, again, I qualified that 

12 that's based on what we observed with the sample 

13 of 92 claims and does not represent a definitive 

14 statement until -- if the coworker modeling process 

15 were to proceed, these issues would be vetted more 

16 significantly.

17 So, that's the end of a rather quick 

18 presentation. Any comments or questions?

19 DR. TAULBEE: Nice job. In looking at 

20 this, yes, this is something that we can look at 

21 in more detail.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I do like the approach and one of the 

2 things that might be a little bit of a 

3 misunderstanding, when we said that we definitely 

4 need -- we need coworker models '67 forward, that 

5 was because it was a definite scenario.

6 I wouldn't say that we completely 

7 excluded prior models, prior years, I should say, 

8 it was a change in their monitoring methodology 

9 that prompted our statement in the SEC where we knew 

10 before they were actually doing some evaluation of 

11 who should be monitored within the workforce and 

12 looking at different job titles and developing 

13 frequencies based upon that, at least from 1961 up 

14 through 1967.

15 And then, '67, they went to a 

16 random-based sampling model to where it was 

17 one-quarter of the workforce was to be monitored 

18 and the supervisor was to pick, you know, which 

19 quarter, basically, of the workforce.

20 So, that's what prompted our discussion 

21 of we definitely need coworker models from that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 latter time period because we knew certain workers 

2 that had a potential for exposure were definitely 

3 not being monitored.

4 In the earlier time period I do see, you 

5 know, with your evaluation there, we can and we 

6 should look at some of these other time periods and 

7 areas as far as whether we should be using a 

8 coworker model.

9 And so, thanks.

10 MR. BARTON: You don't have to be so 

11 effusive.

12 (Laughter.)

13 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, it was nice.

14 MEMBER BEACH: So, the action out of 

15 that is to review this paper and --

16 DR. TAULBEE: We will review that paper 

17 and respond to that and make a decision as to 

18 whether we're going to do coworker models all the 

19 way back or not.

20 So, we will be providing a response to 

21 the Work Group on that. We just need to look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it longer or a little more.

2 If you do recall from our interviews, 

3 we know that there are certain time periods where 

4 the trigger for people to be monitored for -- to 

5 be sent for follow-up urinalysis was facial 

6 contamination coming out of areas.

7 So, certain workers and I presume a lot 

8 of the trades workers that might have had tool 

9 contamination or hand contamination, the rad 

10 monitors, if you recall from the interviews, they 

11 said that they check their faces and if there was 

12 no contamination on the faces, they did not send 

13 them.

14 Does that mean we should not have a 

15 coworker model? I don't know. But that was one 

16 of the reasons that popped into my mind as to why 

17 some of these workers might not have been monitored 

18 even though it clearly looked like they went into 

19 certain areas.

20 But we will evaluate that further and 

21 we'll take on that action item.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: In the 

2 interviews, did they say the rad monitors -- did 

3 they take nasal swipes? And, if so, was there a 

4 point like 25, 50, 75 dpm where then they were sent 

5 to get sampled?

6 DR. TAULBEE: As I recall from the 

7 interviews, it was anything detectible that they 

8 sent them.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Wow.

10 DR. TAULBEE: So, it was any facial 

11 contamination and when they did the nasal smears 

12 if they saw anything, they sent them for follow-up 

13 urinalysis or whole body count.

14 But, I mean, Gen and Josie and John, you 

15 were there at the interviews as well. Do you 

16 recall anything different than that?

17 MEMBER BEACH: I sure don't.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm glad you 

19 reminded us.

20 DR. TAULBEE: So, but again, that 

21 doesn't mean that we shouldn't be having coworker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 models for some of these workers there. So, again, 

2 we'll take on the action of responding under the 

3 -- out of an issues matrix standpoint.

4 MR. BARTON: And then I'd just add, 

5 even for the partially monitored workers, I mean 

6 to have a situation where you don't need a coworker 

7 model, you would essentially need to have a 

8 termination bioassay as soon as they leave the site 

9 and never come back.

10 If you have that termination bioassay, 

11 maybe you can work backwards from it, but if you 

12 have the last bioassay and they keep working doing 

13 similar jobs, you need intakes to assign for that 

14 period.

15 DR. TAULBEE: And I believe there's 

16 quite a few people, especially the construction 

17 trades that would have termination bioassay and 

18 then, four years later, they're back and they have 

19 another termination bioassay and it's really for 

20 their individual period is what that termination 

21 bioassay was. It's not for their actual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 termination.

2 Mr. Stiver: Does anyone have Live 

3 Meeting up?

4 DR. TAULBEE: I do, but it's not doing 

5 anything.

6 MR. STIVER: Any questions? We'll 

7 move on to Ron's presentation?

8 MR. KATZ: Ron?

9 MR. STIVER: More discussions of 

10 OTIB-54 coming your way.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, put the first 

12 slide on.

13 MR. STIVER: Hang on just a second. 

14 Let me share this.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

16 Buchanan of SC&A and what I'd like to discuss now 

17 is our evaluation of using a bioassay indicator 

18 radionuclide to assign fission activation products 

19 and actinides from a little different perspective.

20 So far, we've talked mostly about 

21 calculations, computer-generated codes and stuff, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so what I want to do is actually go out and look 

2 for some measured data and see how that compared 

3 to what was being recommended.

4 So, if we could have the next slide.

5 Okay, so before we can use the ratio 

6 method to assign fission activation products or 

7 actinides, we have to -- there's four very 

8 important assumptions and one was just covered 

9 nicely by Bob there. A, that we have a marker 

10 radionuclide that we can use and we have sufficient 

11 data for that to say, okay, we have the beginnings, 

12 we have the strontium-90 or cesium-137 

13 quantitative analysis that we can use to start 

14 with, and he just covered that.

15 B, is that we know the ratios of that 

16 indicator to the other radionuclides well enough 

17 to assign other fission activation products that 

18 are significant. And maybe these always will not 

19 be exact, but you know, within a reasonable margin.

20 And C is that NIOSH use the same method 

21 to assign actinides. We know the ratios well 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 enough. And, of course, that's one reason that 

2 prompted the SEC for the chemical plant during that 

3 SEC period because they had been separated out. 

4 And so, we want to look at the rest of this thing 

5 also.

6 D is special bioassays. Now, if these 

7 ratios didn't exist and the ER says there was 

8 special bioassays were performed for advanced or 

9 there were specialized radionuclides here. And 

10 so, we couldn't use the ratio method.

11 So, we will look at that briefly also.

12 Next slide.

13 Okay, so like I say, this presentation 

14 addresses Item B, C and D and Item A was already 

15 addressed.

16 Next slide.

17 Okay, so and most of you are aware now, 

18 the recommendation is that you use OTIB-54 with an 

19 indicating radionuclide to assign fission 

20 activation products. I would like to clarify that 

21 OTIB-54 is only for fission activation products, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it is not for actinides.

2 And so, in OTIB -- in TBD-5 for Idaho, 

3 they give two tables in there where they use 

4 strontium or cesium as the ratio -- as a measured 

5 bioassay and apply a ratio to the actinides.

6 And so, we will take a look at that also. 

7 So far, there's not been too much said about that, 

8 but that's equally or perhaps a lot of times more 

9 important even in the fission activation products 

10 for some internal doses.

11 Next slide.

12 Okay, so since Idaho had a wide variety 

13 of reactors, over 50, and we wanted to see if the 

14 ORIGEN code, okay, it all boils down -- so for 

15 OTIB-54 and also the tables in TBD-5 for actinides 

16 were based upon computer simulation. And this was 

17 the ORIGEN, ran especially for the actinides, was 

18 in 1999 or 2000, around that time frame.

19 DOE asked Idaho to give them the specs 

20 on the uranium contaminates, the contamination in 

21 the uranium as it was produced in the final space.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 One of those documents around the year 

2 2000 said that there had been measurements made in 

3 the past of the various radionuclides but they did 

4 not retain the records. I hoped that maybe we can 

5 find some of those.

6 But anyway, they said, okay, everything 

7 comes to the center is over. Okay? So, that is 

8 the hopper that brings in the fuel elements. Now, 

9 we have to remember, these come off-site as well 

10 as on-site which we're going to talk about in a 

11 little bit.

12 It's a chute that comes down to a sealed 

13 vessel and it's got acid in it and it dissolves the 

14 fuel elements, the cladding, the uranium and 

15 whatever's in it. And then it goes through the 

16 cells at the chemical processing plant to be 

17 separated out and that's where we get the 

18 separation.

19 But, before that, what we want to look 

20 at is anything before that, before it's dissolved.

21 And so, we wanted to look at some actual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurements and did we have some benchmarks to 

2 say, okay, this ORIGEN run done in around 2000, does 

3 it represent what we're looking at here, actually, 

4 the workers were exposed to at Idaho?

5 And so, we search the documents and we 

6 searched the NOCTS database, we searched the Site 

7 Research Database. We searched the electronic 

8 database for some quantitative analysis.

9 Next slide, please.

10 So, what we wanted to look was for 

11 somewhere where they did quantitative analysis of 

12 particular radionuclides, not just gross count for 

13 just cesium or just strontium or just uranium and 

14 just plutonium. We needed specific isotopes 

15 measured in microcuries or something.

16 And so then, we said we didn't care 

17 about the amounts really, we just wanted a ratio. 

18 And so, we look at -- some of the things we found, 

19 we looked through probably 40,000 pages or so in 

20 the documents, and searched and found some nasal 

21 swabs.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, this is a very good candidate 

2 because this actually tells you what the ratio is 

3 of the person breathing the material in. You don't 

4 have to make any assumptions on that.

5 Urinalysis can be helpful, you can make 

6 certain assumptions there and analysis.

7 We were fortunate to find some fuel 

8 elements scale from outside the fuel that was 

9 processed. I'll discuss that, and some fuel 

10 storage contamination swipes. In other words, 

11 before the fuel's ever processed, they store it, 

12 this contamination and we got swipes from there and 

13 some air filters in some of those areas.

14 All in all, we found about 42 

15 quantitative samples that we could analyze for a 

16 radionuclide ratio. Now, not all of them had all 

17 the radionuclides we were interested in, but they 

18 had some, had at least strontium and/or cesium and 

19 then one other isotope that could be useful.

20 So, next slide.

21 Okay, so I asked how can we evaluate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this and present all this data? So, you see this 

2 is one of about 15 of them in my report. We did

3 -- I did a report in October of this year on bioassay 

4 at Idaho that addresses these three items in 

5 greater detail. But I didn't want to present all 

6 that data today.

7 This is just an example and this is from 

8 the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor, 

9 fortunately, in 1963 which is a ways back.

10 The quantitative analysis of 

11 radionuclides really didn't get going good until 

12 the '80s or so when the instrumentation came along 

13 and they realized it was important. So, it was 

14 kind of hard to find quantitative analysis, but 

15 fortunately, they did a very good job here.

16 About 3,000 fuel elements from this 

17 Brookhaven Graphite Reactor came in and were stored 

18 and it was too big to transport to the chemical 

19 plant for processing. It wasn't practical so they 

20 squished them and they compressed them and scale 

21 fell off outside.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, they, fortunately, they sampled 

2 this. They took and they measured the cesium and 

3 the strontium at the same time and then these other 

4 isotopes as I have illustrated there.

5 So, these were actual measurements that 

6 were measured and given. There was no 

7 calculations to them or anything, just determined 

8 the ratio.

9 And so, I decided the way to present 

10 this was is, what was a measured ratio? In other 

11 words, what was the uranium-234, strontium-90 

12 ratio that we measured on the actual material? And 

13 then divide that by the ratio that is recommended 

14 by NIOSH for dose reconstruction.

15 And you see strontium-90 is the basis 

16 at the top of the figure. And you see anything in 

17 green is one or less. In other words, our measured 

18 value was equal to or less than what NIOSH would 

19 assign.

20 In red, it meant that what was measured 

21 was actually larger than what NIOSH had assigned.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, you see if we use strontium-90, we 

2 assign it good for strontium-90 because that's a 

3 one, cesium-137 would be over, assigning the dose 

4 reconstruction using the recommendation within 

5 106.

6 But the other two would be 

7 under-assigned just slightly a bit, obviously the 

8 E-144 but by a factor of 10 or 12 on the uranium-234.

9 Now, the other thing that we looked at 

10 was, okay, what if you use cesium? Fortunately, 

11 they measured it at the same and you see cesium was 

12 bout an eighth of the strontium concentration in 

13 this particular reactor fuel scale.

14 And you see that while we get cesium 

15 right, we get all the other underestimated which 

16 is the recommendation of the present percent.

17 So, I did this for this or similar type 

18 plot in the same report. And so, this just gives 

19 you a snapshot. And all this is really snapshots 

20 from 1960 to 2000 or so of samples I defined for 

21 quantitative analysis from different areas.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it just gives us an idea that these 

2 ratios weren't always what we would think they 

3 might be or would hope they'd be.

4 The next slide.

5 Okay, so, the summary of this is that 

6 the fission activation products assigned using the 

7 recommendations in OTIB-54 based on strontium-90 

8 generally, but not always, there are some 

9 exceptions, equal to or greater than those actual 

10 measured values. So, this, again, is a snapshot 

11 of the 42 samples I looked at.

12 Next slide, please.

13 Now, the number two there, we find that 

14 the strontium -- the cesium to strontium ratio is 

15 not always one to one, as is the cornerstone of 

16 OTIB-54 and TBD-5 because sometimes the strontium 

17 would be higher than cesium and sometimes vice 

18 versa.

19 And I kind of looked at this to see, 

20 well, you know, you're not going to be exact, you 

21 know, with a factor of two, one half to two. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a lot of times, it was like a factor of eight or 

2 ten difference.

3 And so, this is concerning as far as 

4 using the ratio method per the suggestion. And so, 

5 you can't resort to using just strontium or just 

6 cesium because it'd be claimant-favorable because 

7 it was sometimes one way, sometimes the other and 

8 if the worker was bioassayed for cesium or 

9 strontium, would depend on which was the greater 

10 dose they assigned.

11 So, next slide, please.

12 Okay, the actinide, when we use TBD-5, 

13 Table 5-22 is based on strontium-90. Those ratios 

14 are in there, all the actinides, the plutoniums, 

15 the thoriums, that sort of thing.

16 Table 5-23 is based on cesium-137 

17 intake. And, in this table, cesium and strontium 

18 are about the same ratio. However, a lot of times, 

19 regardless of which one you used, you would derive 

20 significantly less actinide intakes than what the 

21 actual measured value was sampled.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, again, these didn't require a 

2 calculation. I found all the data and that it was 

3 already calculated out into microcuries except for 

4 the bioassays which I had to make some assumptions.

5 Okay, next slide, please.

6 Okay, now, this leads us to the other 

7 item, Item D, the special bioassays. And what this 

8 was, is, okay, in the ER, they say that there's --

9 and there would be cases where there wouldn't be 

10 a direct correlation and so special bioassays were 

11 taken.

12 And so, if you had a plutonium being 

13 worked on in a glovebox, special bioassays were 

14 taken as opposed to just measuring the strontium 

15 or cesium and using the ratio.

16 And that's very difficult to address. 

17 We'll get to that a little later.

18 Okay, so next slide, please.

19 Okay, so from this, what did we learn 

20 through all this? Okay, recommendation number 

21 one, it's necessary to see if we can find hopefully 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the analysis of some of the dissolver contents 

2 before it went through the separation process.

3 And this is important not only for the 

4 Idaho fuel elements, which we've been discussing 

5 so far today, but Idaho also processed quite a bit 

6 of fuel elements from outside as we see, 3,000 from 

7 the Brookhaven Graphite Reactor.

8 And so, we can't just look at Idaho's 

9 reactor fuel, we have to look at everything Idaho 

10 brought in. And even if they didn't reprocess it, 

11 if they just brought it in, they brought in some 

12 Rocky Flats material which went to the burial 

13 ground.

14 And so, we have to question, you know, 

15 are the recommended ratio methods useful for all 

16 of these?

17 So, our recommendation is in the 

18 upcoming data capture, we try to find especially 

19 some of the dissolver analysis or what went in 

20 before -- before it went into the dissolver, when 

21 it was in storage or when it was shipped in or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whatever.

2 Anyway, this is the area that needs to 

3 be, I think, further investigated to determine 

4 whether what we found on these samples was the norm 

5 or highlighters.

6 So, next slide, please.

7 Okay, and especially important in 

8 evaluating this and this isn't just in the 

9 dissolver, like I say, anything contamination, 

10 soil samples, anything that exposures could be --

11 workers can be exposed to anywhere on the Idaho site 

12 and especially looking at -- and look at the cesium 

13 to strontium ratio because we need to get that right 

14 before we use the ratio method in Idaho with all 

15 their special materials and stuff.

16 So, next slide, please.

17 Okay, now this special bioassays, now, 

18 it's difficult in our days, today looking back, and 

19 say, okay, special -- I'll use the term special when 

20 there wasn't connected to a fission activation 

21 product.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, if you look back 40 years ago, 

2 they weren't looking at the ratio method. They 

3 weren't even thinking about it. So, what does a 

4 special bioassay mean?

5 Next slide.

6 Okay, because it needs to be 

7 determined, now in the electronic database and on 

8 the hard copies in the Site Research Database, 

9 there are some bioassays labeled as special or 

10 non-routine.

11 And so, what we need to do is to 

12 determine does this mean like somebody working in 

13 the glovebox with plutonium-238? Or does this 

14 just mean that, hey, an event occurred, a person 

15 was exposed, we need to know what his dose or his 

16 intake was right away, so that's a special bioassay 

17 or non-routine, which gets moved to the front of 

18 the line, priority over the routine bioassays.

19 I think that probably some of the 

20 upcoming interviews, we could ask some people, you 

21 know, what was special about -- what constituted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a special bioassay in the records? And if an event 

2 did occur, how was it determined whether a special 

3 bioassay was taken, so that we can identify in the 

4 cases which we see more and more that there are 

5 circumstances where they aren't tied together to 

6 a fission activation product, were their actinides 

7 adequately monitored so that dose can be assigned 

8 when there wasn't a link to a fission activation 

9 product or that wasn't taken.

10 At that time, they probably didn't take 

11 both because if they were working with plutonium, 

12 they probably weren't necessary, they didn't think 

13 they needed to take a strontium sample.

14 So, that's our recommendation for 

15 upcoming visits.

16 And so, next slide, please.

17 That concludes a very brief summary of 

18 what we worked on, on the overall bioassay that 

19 addressed all the sites, all of the areas at INL 

20 and where we're at on it today.

21 So, open for questions and comments.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Tim?

2 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, I do.

3 One thing I would really like to caution 

4 the Work Group and SC&A on is the use of the INL 

5 electronic bioassay data set. I had mentioned 

6 that earlier today.

7 We no longer consider that data set to 

8 be valid. We are completely recoding it. So, 

9 please be cautious with anything that you use that 

10 for or conclusions you draw from it.

11 We have found significant errors in it 

12 and these are our mistakes. These are things that 

13 we made when we coded it out of there such that we 

14 are completely redoing it, is the level of 

15 uncertainty and problems we found within it when 

16 we did our own QA.

17 So, please be cautious on that. I know 

18 recommendation number three was saying to do some 

19 follow-up on that with the special in the routines. 

20 Interviews are fine to, you know, try and ask that, 

21 but please don't try and draw any conclusions from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that because that will very likely change when we 

2 get the new data set coded.

3 MEMBER BEACH: What's your time frame 

4 on the new -- on recoding? You knew somebody was 

5 going to ask that.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Actually, at this time, 

7 I don't have a real time line.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Is somebody working on 

9 it or --

10 DR. TAULBEE: They are beginning to 

11 work on it --

12 MEMBER BEACH: -- it's on the -- okay.

13 DR. TAULBEE: -- is what is currently 

14 happening.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Would you please let 

16 SC&A know when you do repost it so we won't have 

17 to keep checking for it? That would save us a lot 

18 of time.

19 DR. TAULBEE: We can certainly do so, 

20 no problem.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: The other thing that I 

2 would say is that with your data captures that 

3 you're coming up, there is a wealth of 

4 spectroscopic, spectrographic, I don't know which 

5 is the right word, scopic -- information out there 

6 on other samples.

7 If you're considering looking at fuel 

8 scale for what the isotope breakdowns are, I would 

9 encourage you to look at some of the water samples 

10 from the canals themselves, the spent fuel pool 

11 canals, as well as some of the air samples that are 

12 coming out of the building. Those are also 

13 analyzed for isotopic at different time periods.

14 As I recall, the waste reports 

15 themselves also have a breakdown of isotopics 

16 within them. And so, these are all other sources 

17 that you could look at if you're looking at other 

18 samples beyond the nasal smears and the urinalysis 

19 to draw your conclusions here.

20 I found personally there is probably 

21 more air sample and water data from the spent fuel 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pools than we cared to capture, let me tell you 

2 that. There are literally thousands and thousands 

3 of results.

4 So, you might want to look for those in 

5 their system, the EDMS system and poll some of those 

6 boxes and capture what it is that you're interested 

7 in.

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Answer one 

9 question for me and correct me if I'm wrong. But 

10 a majority of the rods are either uranium, 

11 plutonium or a mixture of the two. How common were 

12 fuel rods with thorium?

13 DR. TAULBEE: With regards to how were 

14 they with thorium or were there any?

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Were there any?

16 DR. TAULBEE: Not that were processed 

17 through the CPP. Now, there were some that came 

18 in from Peach Bottom and they were cut and there 

19 is some isotopic analysis associated with those 

20 when they were doing the analysis down in the 603 

21 building, I believe it was.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, there is that particular 

2 project from the Peach Bottom fuels.

3 The bulk of them are all enriched 

4 uranium. That was what was dissolved in the 

5 dissolvers. The plutonium fuels were not 

6 dissolved there at CPP. It was just the 

7 high-enriched uranium for the recovery process.

8 Now, from that, any time you're 

9 irradiating enriched uranium, you're going to get 

10 some plutonium and that was what they started 

11 extracting off that caused us to recommend an SEC, 

12 was they started pulling off that plutonium in 

13 order to reprocess it. Or to recover it, I should 

14 say, not reprocess it.

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: If I remember 

16 right, I was reading they had a program for a while 

17 and I don't remember the years where they were 

18 taking the spent rods and they were taking the fuel 

19 from them or, in some cases, mixing them with, what 

20 was that, a glass, boron glass and making slugs out 

21 of it to stabilize it. Was that during the SEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 periods?

2 DR. TAULBEE: I do not believe so. I 

3 do not recall running into anything like that in 

4 the -- up through 1975 time period.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I didn't 

6 know if it was after that or not.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. And there was a 

8 statement earlier, I can't remember which one of 

9 the presentations said something about looking, 

10 you know, outside of the SEC evaluation time 

11 period. You know, that, I believe the statement 

12 said something about, you know, NIOSH's okay with 

13 outside-the-SEC time period for dose 

14 reconstruction.

15 I wouldn't say that. With the SEC's, 

16 we clearly evaluate a time period. We don't go 

17 beyond that particular time period unless we find 

18 an infeasibility which is what we did at CPP and 

19 then we track that down until we find a clear change 

20 or something that might indicate a change and then 

21 we'll cut off the research.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then if we, in this particular case 

2 with CPP, we said that we were going to look further 

3 to see if these implementation things happened 

4 under the 83.14.

5 But we really haven't said anything 

6 about other operations at INL in -- outside of that 

7 1970 time period except for at CPP. CPP we looked 

8 further. The other areas we did not and have not.

9 MR. STIVER: Those being the ones that 

10 are in reserve at this point?

11 DR. TAULBEE: Correct. The reserved 

12 ones. In the current reserve ones, we're only 

13 looking up through 1970 unless we find an 

14 infeasibility and then we'll go beyond. But, 

15 right now, we are just looking up through 1970.

16 MEMBER BEACH: So then, where does that 

17 leave us with this report? Is there any actions 

18 other than waiting for the recoding to be done? Is 

19 there any -- are you going to review it and --

20 DR. TAULBEE: My preference would be 

21 for, I guess in a sense you all to update, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based upon --

2 MEMBER BEACH: So, wait --

3 DR. TAULBEE: -- your current -- you're 

4 planning to do some data capture out there to look

5 at some of that data and then when you issue a new 

6 one, then we would address that.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So, the data capture, 

8 the recoding and then this would have to be 

9 resubmitted? Is that what we're -- I'm just trying 

10 to get a sense of where we're at.

11 MR. STIVER: From an SC&A standpoint, 

12 the upcoming data capture is going to look into this 

13 issue, the issues that Ron has identified.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

15 MR. STIVER: And, actually, Joe is 

16 going to be out there next week for the Board 

17 meeting.

18 MEMBER BEACH: He's going to be polling 

19 some boxes, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: So, John, there will be a 

21 follow-on SC&A report that'll be sort of a complete 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report on this, is that what you're saying?

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, just kind of a 

3 preliminary report we've found so far based on 

4 those 42 samplings, and, you know, with high and 

5 low for additional, you know, data. And we 

6 mentioned also the spent fuel pool and the air 

7 sampling could be another good thing to look at.

8 So, we are going to be looking at a 

9 broader representative data set and actually make 

10 some recommendations.

11 Are there any other questions for Ron?

12 In that case, I guess we can go ahead 

13 and move on to Doug's presentation on the central 

14 facilities.

15 Okay, Doug, are you still on?

16 MR. FARVER: I'm still here.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay, good. We're ready 

18 to go.

19 MR. FARVER: Fine. I appreciate you 

20 bumping me to the end because everyone else set the 

21 groundwork. That means I don't need to cover much.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yours should be quite 

2 easy, then.

3 MR. FARVER: You can go on to the next 

4 slide.

5 Basically, I looked at the central 

6 facilities area. And just to give you an idea of 

7 what that is, it's probably what you think it is. 

8 It's where a lot of the common facilities were, like 

9 the medical, receiving warehouse, health physics 

10 and health and safety labs and offices. So, a lot 

11 of your centrally located facilities.

12 And of the many facilities, there are 

13 probably, I don't know, four or six that have, we'll 

14 say a contamination or an intake potential that I 

15 would think. Things like the machine shop, 

16 maintenance shop, the hot laundry, the chemical 

17 engineering lab, possibly a sewage treatment 

18 plant. So, it was just a few areas to look at.

19 And like the other folks we heard today, 

20 there's a lot of interest and concern about using 

21 your beta-gamma bioassays and going in and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigning actinide intakes. And such was the 

2 concern here.

3 So, I just propose to look at survey 

4 data that was available or whatever data I could 

5 find and then just see how it compares to the TBD 

6 values.

7 Next slide, please.

8 Pretty much what we talked about today, 

9 they proposed to use the mixed fission and 

10 activation product bioassays and fixed actinide 

11 intakes. We can move on.

12 And rather than putting the two tables 

13 on there from the TBD, these are just the maximum 

14 values from Table 5-22 and 5-23 just to give you 

15 an idea of what kind of levels we're looking at, 

16 the ratios.

17 And if you want to just keep in mind, 

18 like the U-234 and the Pu-238, you're looking at 

19 somewhere in the range of ten to the minus two, ten 

20 to the minus three for your actinide to whatever 

21 ratio.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay, next page.

2 So, I looked to see what kind of surveys 

3 I could find on the SRDB for the CFA facilities. 

4 Well, I didn't find much, now I understand why 

5 because they just were doing a sampling and that's 

6 okay; I understand.

7 I did find some contamination surveys 

8 of the hot laundry and the chemical engineering 

9 lab. It was about 70 pages of surveys and some were 

10 just beta surveys, some were just alpha surveys, 

11 some were beta-gamma surveys. It was a mix.

12 And there was a report from the D&D of 

13 the laundry. Actually, it was after the D&D, it 

14 was just some soil samples from an excavation in 

15 their final report. So, there wasn't a whole lot 

16 there.

17 There should be a document out there 

18 that talks about the characterization and decision 

19 analysis for the hot laundry, but that document was 

20 not available. So, it probably exists and 

21 probably has a lot of survey data in it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, on the survey data, I just want to 

2 look at the beta-gamma and the alpha results that 

3 were, number one, greater than background, and, 

4 two, were taken at the same location at the same 

5 time. We're trying to compare similar ratios.

6 There were 85 contamination survey 

7 results that met that criteria. There were six 

8 from a survey that just didn't look right. It 

9 looked like they got their alpha and beta-gamma 

10 results transposed.

11 And on some of these surveys, they'll 

12 use blue ink for beta-gamma and red ink for alpha. 

13 And I think they just got them mixed up because they 

14 just didn't look right, so I discarded them.

15 The other thing, the survey results are 

16 given in counts per minute.

17 Next page.

18 So, I've got the results of my counts 

19 per minute, I've got a gun to dpm. I found a couple 

20 memos that the counting equipment, even in 1972 was 

21 from the '50s. And I found some data sheets where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you gave me a counter yield for beta-gamma and 

2 alpha.

3 So, I'm hoping that things were similar 

4 and I applied those two values and converted to dpm.

5 Now, it's always very iffy when you're 

6 going back like this because I don't really know 

7 if that's the correct way to do it. The surveys 

8 are old, the information's old and this is one of 

9 the things we'd like to talk about later, is if we 

10 have more recent information with some more recent 

11 methods.

12 Next page.

13 This is just an example of one of the 

14 better surveys from the engineering lab. They're 

15 all handwritten and I'm not sure if you can see in 

16 the upper left corner, the ones that have, like, 

17 double underlines, you can see the ratios of alpha 

18 to beta-gamma just in the cpms.

19 And they can, you know, it's almost one 

20 to one where it says 18 alpha and 17 beta-gamma. 

21 And then it's much lower than the other ones.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I just wanted to give you an idea 

2 that this is kind of what the surveys look like.

3 The next one is the survey of the hot 

4 laundry. It's very similar and you can see that 

5 it can bounce around. There's that one that's 

6 about in the center of the page, it's double 

7 underlined, zero alpha, 2440 beta-gamma. It could 

8 be a particle, most likely a particle.

9 But, anyway, so you would -- I would 

10 take these values and put them into a spreadsheet, 

11 so they were taken at the same location and they 

12 were greater than background.

13 Okay, next page.

14 There were also some soil samples taken 

15 from an excavation from the contaminated sewer 

16 line. They were analyzed for alpha and gamma spec 

17 and also strontium-90.

18 They have 274 and the uranium and 

19 plutonium levels were pretty much like 

20 environmental levels. I don't think they 

21 subtracted anything out from them. So, I pretty 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 much discarded the uranium and the thorium results.

2 Next.

3 So, what we're left with is some curium 

4 and plutonium results you can look at, some 

5 strontium and cesium results. I show you the mean 

6 values. And in the second and third rows, you can 

7 see the ratios that we're looking at.

8 And, if you remember, I told you there's 

9 the plutoniums from the table below here, we're 

10 looking at ten to the minus two, which about falls 

11 in line with that plutonium.

12 It's a small number of samples but it's 

13 interesting. It's just closer than the curium.

14 Next page.

15 We go to the survey results and of the, 

16 I think there were 79 of these results, you can see 

17 that there's quite a few below the .05. And, 

18 really, if you look at the .1, I think that works 

19 out to about 58 percent of the results of below .1 

20 which is going to put you at the, you know, minus 

21 02 magnitude.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, while this isn't conclusive, this 

2 is interesting. It looks like things are trending 

3 lower.

4 Next page.

5 And when you look at the soil samples 

6 and you compare them to the NIOSH values which would 

7 be from the tables in the TBD, you can see with the 

8 curium, you're looking at the E to the minus fifth 

9 is what the NIOSH table would predict.

10 And we didn't see that, but it's a very 

11 small number of curium samples that were even 

12 usable.

13 The plutonium's closer and you can see 

14 that's within 50 percent of the NIOSH, so it's 

15 pretty close. So, it may not be a bad method if 

16 you have more samples to look at.

17 Next page.

18 So, when you look at the soil samples 

19 and the smear samples, there is some kind of general 

20 agreement in the magnitude for like the uraniums 

21 and the plutoniums, but the data's not very good. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It was only from the -- the survey data was from 

2 the early operational period of the laundry. It 

3 operated from 1951 through 1980, I believe, about 

4 30 years. And there was only three years of data 

5 that was looked at. So, that's not very good.

6 We had some problems interpreting the 

7 data into a dpm. Some more recent data might be 

8 more helpful.

9 The soil samples were collected during 

10 D&D. It'd be nice to have them prior to D&D, like 

11 characterization data or other type data.

12 I did not find any air sampling data. 

13 That could be useful data to look at and make 

14 comparisons.

15 Next page.

16 So, that's about it. We just came up 

17 with some general type of agreement and it's 

18 possible, but there's more data that needs to be 

19 looked at. I would look for more recent data for 

20 the laundry and maybe for some of the other 

21 facilities and also, if air sampling data or other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operations data does exist, by all means, put it 

2 together and look at it.

3 Any questions, comments?

4 DR. TAULBEE: The only question I have 

5 for you is why did you look at curium-244?

6 MR. FARVER: Because it was one of the 

7 values in the soil samples that was analyzed.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: I think it was only in 

10 maybe two of the samples that it even showed up. 

11 It's not very reliable, that number.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Because the vast 

13 majority of the fuels that were handled at INL are 

14 short burnup fuels. There's very little long 

15 burnup where you would end up with any significant 

16 curium-244 with any of the operations.

17 MR. FARVER: Right. I understand 

18 that's a questionable number and it was only in a 

19 couple of samples. But, like I say, it'd be better 

20 if you looked better data, but this was all I found 

21 at the time.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

2 MR. STIVER: It also raises the 

3 question as to what may have come in from off-site, 

4 too. It was longer burnup materials could have 

5 found its way through the laundries for the various 

6 exposures.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Well, generally, the 

8 things that have curium that you're starting with 

9 plutonium from your burnup standpoint, like 

10 Savannah River, for example, producing curium.

11 These fuels, even the higher burnup, 

12 you know, naval fuels that were for a long period 

13 time were starting the Q-235, so you still end up 

14 with very little curium from even their long-term 

15 burnup.

16 So, that was why I was questioning that. 

17 It makes some sense if, you know, they reported it 

18 in one of their D&D reports in latter years just 

19 because they could is really all that it was. But 

20 I certainly wouldn't be expecting it.

21 MR. FARVER: Exactly. It showed up on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an analysis from their -- and they just put it in 

2 the report. It's not real, I'm pretty sure it's 

3 not real.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So, is additional data 

5 capture needed for this to get more data points or 

6 --

7 MR. FARVER: I would recommend that 

8 either NIOSH do it or SC&A, someone look at more 

9 data. I think this -- if you can validate your TBD 

10 tables, it would be very helpful, at least to show 

11 that you're in the same order of magnitude.

12 MR. STIVER: Is Joe Fitzgerald still on 

13 the line?

14 MR. KATZ: No, he's not. He sent us an 

15 email saying he had a meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You mentioned the 

17 naval fuels. Now, the sampling for those in 

18 particular, they were lower-level enrichment and 

19 had to be extremely low americium content when they 

20 put those into the --

21 DR. TAULBEE: They were not low 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 enrichment, the naval fuels weren't.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I thought they 

3 were lower enrichment.

4 DR. TAULBEE: No, they were enriched 

5 fuels.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I know they

7 were enriched fuels, but I mean they were worried 

8 about the exposures particularly on the subs.

9 DR. TAULBEE: I believe they're highly 

10 enriched.

11 MEMBER BEACH: We were talking about 

12 maybe modifying the data capture coming up for SC&A 

13 to add maybe this parameter also.

14 DR. TAULBEE: That seems appropriate 

15 to me.

16 MEMBER BEACH: That seems reasonable.

17 MR. STIVER: That can be the EMS 

18 searches, right. Yes, so okay.

19 MEMBER BEACH: All right, is it time to 

20 go over actions or have we got more to do?

21 MR. STIVER: This is all that SC&A has.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Get some actions out 

2 before Bob leaves because he might need to pick up 

3 a few of them.

4 I've got four for NIOSH and one, two, 

5 three for SC&A.

6 MR. KATZ: Do you want to run through 

7 yours as a starting point?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so I have for 

9 NIOSH, review those 18 cases and then the 

10 firefighters is added on to that.

11 And just as a question --

12 DR. TAULBEE: Is that part of one or is 

13 that --

14 MEMBER BEACH: That's part of the first 

15 one, yes.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

17 MEMBER BEACH: And then, I wrote down 

18 the question I know you guys won't be able to answer 

19 it right away, but how will the Class be 

20 administered by DOL?

21 And I'm more curious on that one, just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because I know DOL counted on you guys in the past 

2 for a list. So, I'm curious of if you're going to 

3 do that.

4 DR. NETON: We've had a discussion with 

5 them on this already.

6 MEMBER BEACH: So, it'd be nice to --

7 DR. NETON: I can't remember when it 

8 was but we did have a discussion.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And then, White Paper 

10 for the TAN number ten item. We closed, I think 

11 we said three and four and so ten was still open 

12 and you guys were --

13 DR. NETON: Writing T-10, yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: -- committed to that.

15 MR. STIVER: Is there a possible date 

16 on there for TAN number ten?

17 DR. TAULBEE: After March.

18 MR. STIVER: After the March meeting?

19 DR. TAULBEE: And you keep in mind, 

20 we've got the INL.

21 MEMBER BEACH: And then, I have review 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and respond to SC&A's evaluation of the internal 

2 monitoring fission activation and I paraphrased it 

3 1949 to '70, and determine the coworker modeling. 

4 That's kind of what I got out of that.

5 And you guys really need to bring these 

6 headings down a little bit on your papers.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes, we can work on 

8 that.

9 DR. NETON: We're going to look at the 

10 applicability of those coworker models prior to 

11 '57.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: And then, I had let SC&A 

14 know when you updated that electronic database on 

15 the recoding when it's complete.

16 And then, for SC&A, I had, give the Work 

17 Group detailed list of issues with the 52 reactors 

18 that OTIB-054 may not cover. Did I capture that 

19 okay?

20 And put together an issues matrix or at 

21 least get one started.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Is that a list of 

2 priorities? Is that what you're talking about?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, list the 

4 priorities of the --

5 MR. KATZ: In the priority order, in 

6 other words?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I should have 

8 said priorities and not issues.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And then put together 

11 start of issues matrix. And we need to go back to 

12 what we've closed, too, and combine that from 

13 previous meetings?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Right.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, make it current --

17 DR. TAULBEE: Retroactive.

18 MR. KATZ: -- with everything 

19 including what we've covered.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And then, the last thing 

21 I had was update Ron Buchanan's evaluation of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 proposed -- so this -- his last White Paper with 

2 the data capture.

3 And then, I didn't add it, but you're 

4 going to add or modify the data capture?

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 MEMBER BEACH: For those last two 

7 items?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 MEMBER BEACH: That's all I had.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Could you go back to the 

11 beginning of the list you had for SC&A because I 

12 was making a note here and I missed that.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, to give us a 

14 detailed list prioritizing the 52 reactors --

15 DR. TAULBEE: That's what I wanted to 

16 make sure of.

17 MEMBER BEACH: -- under 054.

18 MR. KATZ: Other reactors that may have 

19 issues.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Because I wasn't 

21 sure if you covered it, so you did.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Got it, yes. Good.

3 MEMBER BEACH: That's all I had.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think that sounds 

5 right to me.

6 MEMBER BEACH: And then, we need a Work 

7 Group meeting in January.

8 MR. KATZ: We need it in January and 

9 I'll send out a notice for that because we already 

10 know sort of when we want it anyway.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, before the 20th.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, the week before 

13 basically.

14 I mean, if you guys can tell me no-go 

15 dates now for those that are here, that's fine, I'll 

16 take those and run with those and then not send out 

17 a possible date that doesn't work.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: Let me look at my 

19 calendar.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm just saying for 

21 anybody that has in hand the -- Tim in particular.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing is that 

2 data captures. They were trying to get December, 

3 but it looks like it might not be until January.

4 MR. KATZ: Or, you want them to be 

5 careful not to schedule it for when we're trying 

6 to get this Work Group meeting. You don't want 

7 data capture when we're trying to meet.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, so that's --

9 DR. TAULBEE: Have a safe trip, Bob.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Bye, Bob. Thanks.

11 MR. KATZ: Unless it's just -- unless 

12 it's someone --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Well, we're going to be 

14 determined on what the site can do. We're not --

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 MEMBER BEACH: -- going to have a lot 

17 of choice, I don't think. I mean, how's that work?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, there's usually 

19 latitude in the scheduling, right?

20 DR. TAULBEE: The site has generally 

21 been pretty -- quite cooperative from that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 standpoint.

2 Yes, I mean they're going to say, you 

3 know, please don't come the week of -- between 

4 Christmas or week of Christmas and the week after 

5 for sure.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, yes.

7 DR. TAULBEE: The fourth is getting a 

8 little bit questionable because that's right after 

9 when everybody is returning. So, they might have 

10 a lot of people out the week of January 4th.

11 We're looking to do a Work Group call 

12 the week of January 11th.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

14 DR. TAULBEE: And then --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Which would be kind of 

16 the week -- probably the Idaho -- ideal Idaho week.

17 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean it's not ideal, 

18 though, if we want to have a Work Group meeting. 

19 Right? I mean --

20 DR. TAULBEE: It's not, but well it is 

21 and isn't, really.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Because if you have 

3 multiple people out there.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, if they can get to the 

5 phone in time.

6 MEMBER BEACH: I bet they could set 

7 that up. They have before.

8 DR. TAULBEE: We could get a phone line 

9 conference. I mean you could request that of Craig 

10 and you could probably do that.

11 I don't know how many -- what are you 

12 planning to do in the January data capture? I 

13 mean, what is your goal?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Interviews I know for 

15 sure and then whatever Joe pulls now.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, the list of 

17 interviews. We're looking at burial grounds, you 

18 know, recollections as well as data, CPP, 3, 63, 

19 Ron's issues and now we're going to have this CFA.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, so you're 

21 primarily wanting to do interviews?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Primarily, yes.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. And you've 

3 notified who? I saw some of the people on the list 

4 that you provided the data capture staff when you 

5 want to.

6 Okay, have you been reaching out to 

7 contact them or --

8 MR. STIVER: Lynn Ayers is working that 

9 angle. I believe she's working in kind of 

10 conjunction with ATL.

11 DR. TAULBEE: She hasn't been working 

12 with ATL yet.

13 MR. STIVER: That was the -- I can't 

14 tell you exactly.

15 MEMBER BEACH: That's a Joe question 

16 probably to see --

17 MR. STIVER: Okay, I've heard work with 

18 Mark Lewis.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, because --

20 MR. STIVER: Along with --

21 DR. TAULBEE: -- this is where we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 getting into a little bit of contractor type 

2 issues. ATL is the contractor for us and so we have 

3 not tasked ATL to do this yet because I needed to 

4 know more information from you on when you're 

5 wanting to do this and that type of thing.

6 MR. STIVER: We'll talk to Joe and 

7 we'll get back with you on it.

8 MR. KATZ: It just seems like it's 

9 better to do that data capture the following week 

10 and leave that week that we want a Work Group 

11 meeting clear because what's the difference is a 

12 week going to make? No difference.

13 MEMBER BEACH: True.

14 MR. KATZ: Because the data capture is 

15 not --

16 DR. TAULBEE: Well, the following week 

17 is your Advisory Board conference call.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, but that's 11:00 to --

19 right.

20 MR. STIVER: And anything we're able to 

21 capture there's not going to be definitive time 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 limits for our meeting anyway.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Well, yes, absolutely.

3 MR. KATZ: Most of the SC&A staff 

4 aren't needed for a conference call with the Board. 

5 So, most of them aren't relevant for the conference 

6 call anyway.

7 So, we need Josie, of course, but we 

8 need the Board Members for the conference call.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I think just 

10 reaching out to Joe mostly to find out where he's 

11 at. I know he sent out the plan but as far as if 

12 he's contacted Lynn to, obviously, not contacted 

13 ATL. I think he was waiting for something back 

14 from the site because he kind of left it in December 

15 but he didn't think it would happen until January.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, we had talked about 

17 that. December is pretty much -- pretty unlikely. 

18 It's going to probably be in --

19 DR. TAULBEE: Well, Craig Walker from 

20 the site, he is out until after Thanksgiving, he'll 

21 be back that very next week. But, right now, he's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the point of contact.

2 So, if you're targeting the week of 

3 January 18th, that's great.

4 MR. KATZ: And if we can --

5 DR. TAULBEE: That's something that I 

6 can go back to ATL with or Grady because I think 

7 he's got to do a task order for them to go about 

8 the assist. But I needed to know dates and names 

9 of who it is you're looking at.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think the 

11 bottleneck as far as doing the December meeting is 

12 lining up all the interviews.

13 MR. KATZ: And there isn't time to do 

14 that for, like, the second week of December?

15 MR. STIVER: I have to get the other.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, that'd be nice.

17 MR. STIVER: That would be nice, but 

18 it's not going to happen beforehand.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Let me know then, the 

20 sooner the better from that standpoint.

21 MR. KATZ: I mean, that's a month out 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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 INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the standpoint of the interviewees. I mean 

2 it's a lot of time to schedule with interviewees.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds easy.

4 (Simultaneous speaking)

5 MR. KATZ: How long is your list?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Getting the schedule 

7 list.

8 MEMBER BEACH: And then you've got all 

9 the holidays and.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think that's 

11 it.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, so we are adjourned 

13 today.

14 Thank you, everybody, who hung in with 

15 us on the phone and especially for all the folks 

16 who participated and presented. Have a good day.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

18 was concluded at 2:52 p.m.)

19

20

21