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 

+ + + + +

ROCKY FLATS PLANT WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 28, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time, David Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

LAVON RJUTHERFORD, NOSH

TERRIE BARRIE, Petitioner

DANIEL W. MCKEEL

JUDY PADILLA
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

A-G-E-N-D-A

Welcome and Roll Call ......................... 3

CML Update .................................... 4

Response to Petitioner's Paper on Data

Falsification ................................ 19

Response to Petitioner's Concern with Co-60

Sources ...................................... 23

Work Group Discussion Toward RF Recommendation

and/or Path Forward .......................... 33

Discussion of WG Presentation at November Board

Meeting ...................................... 34

Petitioner's Comments ........................ 39

Adjourn
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

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

2 10:33 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, why don't we get 

4 started with roll call since it's 10:30. I can 

5 circle back and ask for Bill again at the end of 

6 that. Since we're speaking of a specific site, 

7 when we're doing roll call, everybody speak to 

8 conflict of interest that's Agency-related, 

9 please.

10 And the agenda for the meeting and one 

11 document are posted on the NIOSH website for 

12 everybody's information under the Board section, 

13 under Meetings, today's date. So you can find the 

14 agenda and follow along.

15 So, let's begin. 

16 (Roll Call)

17 MR. KATZ: Very good. Okay, so if 

18 everyone then would mute their phones. If you 

19 don't have a mute button, please press *6 except 

20 for whoever happens to be speaking at the time and 

21 press *6 again to come off of mute. And please 

22 nobody put the call on hold. Hang up and dial back 
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 in if you need to leave for a piece.

2 And Dr. Kotelchuck, it's your meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

4 actually, it's my meeting, but the first few 

5 reports are going to be by LaVon.

6 First, let's talk about CML update. We 

7 had a discussion with [identifying information 

8 redacted] the other day. I was on it. LaVon was 

9 on it. I don't know if anybody else was won the 

10 line. Well, some of the people, the staff people, 

11 excuse me, some of the SC&A people were on, and 

12 NIOSH. But I don't think any other members were 

13 on.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe I was 

15 aware of it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, well, hm. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: I wasn't online.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Anyhow, 

19 LaVon, would you give us an update, a report? I 

20 know you don't have a formal written response 

21 because the meeting was just about a week ago, 

22 right?
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 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, that's correct. 

2 And we have to go through a process with that 

3 interview where that interview will be sent to 

4 [identifying information redacted] to review to 

5 make sure that what we wrote down in the formal 

6 writings from the interview was what he intended 

7 or what he said.

8 We get agreement on that and then we'll 

9 actually issue the interview notes to the Work 

10 Group. So that does take a little while.

11 And basically what I'm going to be doing 

12 is giving an update on, okay, you know, get some 

13 background, giving a little briefing on the 

14 interview, what I can say about the interview. And 

15 then based on what we heard in the interview, where 

16 we're going to go from there.

17 As Dr. Kotelchuck and everyone else

18 remembers, we did issue a report back in July on 

19 the Critical Mass Laboratory. We presented that 

20 paper. It addressed potential exposures to 

21 fission and activation products during the 

22 operations and D&D activities at the CML. 
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 The paper modeled a buildup of fission 

2 and activation products. It focused on exposures 

3 from the post-1983 period. We focused that way 

4 because, as you remember, we're already in the SEC 

5 up through 1983.

6 SC&A reviewed the White Paper and 

7 everyone was basically in agreement with the 

8 modeled approach. The conclusion of that paper 

9 was that any external exposures would have been 

10 detected by the personal dosimeters. The bioassay 

11 program would have detected uranium and plutonium 

12 intakes, and the in vivo bioassay using gamma spec 

13 would have detected most fission and activation 

14 products, with the exception of strontium-90.

15 Our model concluded that no significant 

16 personal dose resulted from fission or activation 

17 products as a result of the criticality experiments 

18 conducted at CML.

19 After that presentation, [identifying 

20 information redacted], the associate research 

21 scientist at CML, spoke and had significant issues 

22 with the model that we developed. The main issues 
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 with the model were the average power that we

2 assumed, the 10 milliwatts, and the duration of the 

3 experiments. He had other issues, but those were 

4 the two main issues that were tied to our model.

5 Based on his comments, we committed to 

6 re-interview [identifying information redacted]. 

7 And as Dr. Kotelchuck mentioned, we had that 

8 interview on October 13.

9 I won't review the whole interview, but 

10 I will go over his main issues, or his main 

11 responses, because he provided those to us in an 

12 email before the meeting. We provided interview 

13 questions before the meeting and then [identifying 

14 information redacted] prepared responses ahead of 

15 time before the interview.

16 So, I will go over his main issues. 

17 Number one was no one can ever know the radiation 

18 levels at the CML. NIOSH cannot reconstruct 

19 radiation doses in Building 886.

20 Radionuclide intakes of workers at CML 

21 are likewise truly unknowable. And no one can even 

22 bound the neutron flux rates for the CML 
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 experiment. And one watt is not an upper bound, 

2 nor is 10 milliwatts a lower bound to the power 

3 level.

4 So those four main issues, I mean, 

5 basically he was telling us that, in his opinion, 

6 that we could not, using our existing model, 

7 reconstruct the fission and activation products.

8 However, there were things that came 

9 out of the interview that we felt that we needed 

10 to pursue that may give us additional information 

11 to come to our final conclusion.

12 [identifying information redacted]

13 indicated he sent 35 boxes of data information 

14 generated at the CML to Los Alamos National Lab. 

15 We have sent a data capture request to Los Alamos 

16 National Lab to retrieve those boxes. 

17 We're hoping to find some more 

18 information on power levels, on anything that would 

19 help us to either make us feel comfortable with the 

20 model that we have provided, or give us additional 

21 information so that we can modify that model, if 

22 necessary. So we plan to look through those boxes 
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 of supporting information.

2 Another thing is a number of workers --

3 through these interviews and through the 

4 discussions, we've been able to identify a number 

5 of workers who worked at the CML during the 1983 

6 to 1989 period. We are working to retrieve their 

7 personal monitoring data to see what they were 

8 monitored for and their frequency.

9 Basically, we want to go back, look at 

10 their personal bioassay data, whole body counts --

11 or actually lung counts, I should say -- and other 

12 data to see if we have any indication of potential 

13 exposure that occurred there.

14 We are also attempting to retrieve 

15 data. If you all remember, the high-enriched 

16 uranium solutions were shipped offsite in the 

17 nineties. We are actually looking back to see if 

18 we can go to the site that the HEU had been shipped 

19 to to see if they had data from when it was received, 

20 you know, the activity concentrations for the 

21 solutions, or if they have any additional data from 

22 when it was processed at that facility. 
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 An additional item that we are looking 

2 at is we're looking at criticality experiments 

3 conducted in the complex that may provide better 

4 information concerning fission and activation 

5 products.

6 Throughout the complex, there's a 

7 number of places that were doing criticality 

8 experiments. And so we're just looking at seeing 

9 if there's similarities that we can get from 

10 criticality experiments that were conducted at 

11 these other sites. Also, any fission and 

12 activation product levels that were generated by 

13 those experiments.

14 We did conduct an interview last week 

15 with a radiological control technician. And, 

16 again, I can't release the specifics of that 

17 interview, but I can say there is an issue that came 

18 out from that interview.

19 This individual worked in the post-1983 

20 period up until pretty much facility closure. And 

21 if you remember, one of our premises that we had

22 been working to is that there was little potential 
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 for exposure to airborne contaminants and loose 

2 contamination based on the operations and routine 

3 monitoring that was occurring.

4 Basically, we had gone across the 

5 premise that there was little chance, based on how 

6 the operations were set up at the CML, there was 

7 little chance for internal exposures due to high 

8 airborne or contamination in the area.

9 This interview identified some issues 

10 with this. So, based on that interview, we're 

11 trying to retrieve -- we actually have some air 

12 monitoring data for the facility and we are looking 

13 at pulling in other area monitoring and air 

14 monitoring data to kind of validate what the 

15 individual had said, or bring that into question, 

16 whatever that may be.

17 And the individual provided some 

18 additional information, or some additional names 

19 for individuals, technicians, radiological 

20 control technicians that worked during that era. 

21 So we are also looking to interview those 

22 individuals.
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, I believe that the long pole in the 

2 tent for coming to a conclusion on this is pulling 

3 the 35 boxes at Los Alamos National Lab. I will 

4 be out at Los Alamos National Lab next week and kind 

5 of get a feel in-person of how quickly they think 

6 they'll be able to retrieve those boxes and give 

7 us a chance to take a look at them.

8 And obviously the Work Group and SC&A 

9 can attend when we review those boxes of 

10 information, as necessary.

11 So, once I get a better feel for when 

12 that data capture can occur, I can give you a better 

13 date on when we can have an updated report on the 

14 Critical Mass Laboratory. And that's about it on 

15 that issue.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I was 

17 listening to the conversation, the interview with 

18 [identifying information redacted] . He was 

19 suggesting that they never monitored the neutron 

20 flux as such, either inside where the criticality 

21 experiment was going on, or behind the protective 

22 wall. And I was curious about that.
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 First, am I correct in saying that, 

2 LaVon? Is that your understanding as well?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think what he was 

4 saying was they had the log paper that could 

5 potentially identify the neutron flux -- could 

6 potentially be used. But, again, he had thought 

7 that -- he felt that that paper had been destroyed. 

8 And that was one of the things we want to look at 

9 when we go to look at those 35 boxes.

10 I think one of his other issues was that 

11 you couldn't estimate the radiation levels, both 

12 gamma and neutron, inside 886. But I think his 

13 point was it was inside the area because -- and, 

14 again, I don't want to get too much into the 

15 interview because he's got to make sure he's in 

16 agreement with what we're saying.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I mean, I 

18 assume that -- and, again, just correct me if this 

19 is your impression, okay? So let's not say what 

20 did [identifying information redacted] say, but 

21 what was your impression participating in the 

22 interview.
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 I mean, he did, I assume -- or put it 

2 this way, I assume that the folks were wearing 

3 badges who were working behind the protective wall. 

4 I mean, there was an area that was presumably hot 

5 near the criticality measurements.

6 But I got the impression that somehow 

7 people behind the wall were not -- were they wearing 

8 their badges? And don't we have them?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: We do have some of 

10 them. And that's actually one of the things that 

11 we are going back to do a little more validation 

12 to. A number of individuals that we have their 

13 names that worked in the area, that worked at the 

14 CML during that period, we're actually going back 

15 to try to retrieve their personal monitoring data, 

16 both internal and external, to verify that they 

17 were monitored.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

19 [identifying information redacted] suggested, 

20 though, that the log paper, running the straight 

21 line on the log paper, was a measure of relative 

22 neutron flux, but not of neutron flux itself. That 
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 is, that suggested that they were moving toward 

2 criticality. That was my understanding, at least. 

3 Again, we'll read more in the interview 

4 after the interview notes. And I'm actually glad. 

5 I was not aware that when we have an interview like 

6 this, not only is there a transcript, but that 

7 transcript is reviewed by [identifying information 

8 redacted] so we can make sure that he agrees this 

9 is what he said. And we agree.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that's lessons 

11 learned over a long period of time.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

13 No, that's very important. 

14 I mean, you know, when you're dealing 

15 with criticality there are lots of -- I wouldn't 

16 say incidents -- well, lots of occurrences happen 

17 where you have, I assume, large flashes of neutron 

18 doses as things get hot or get near criticality.

19 It does seem to me it will be rather 

20 difficult to assess the neutron exposures there. 

21 But let's wait. Certainly, we'll wait 

22 until we have the transcript, and then all of us 
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 will be able to go over it, including [identifying 

2 information redacted], and we'll go on from there.

3 One last question. You said it'll take 

4 a while, of course, for the transcript to be typed 

5 out and sent to him for review. Do you have any 

6 sense of how long that might take? Are we talking 

7 about a few months?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: I would definitely 

9 say it would be done within that time period.

10 Again, I think the thing that's going 

11 to take the longest is getting the boxes from Los 

12 Alamos National Lab and reviewing those.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

14 Thirty-five boxes.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I don't 

16 suspect, because [identifying information 

17 redacted] provided a written response to the 

18 questions ahead of time, I don't suspect we'll have 

19 that much difficulty getting his interview notes 

20 squared away.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

22 I don't recall having seen his notes on the --
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 MR. RUTHERFORD: I forwarded them to 

2 you right before the meeting. The petitioner, 

3 Terrie Barrie, had sent them to us and I forwarded 

4 them to you to make sure that you'd gotten them. 

5 I think I sent it to your CDC.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

7 That's right. Well, I guess I remember now. You 

8 did indicate you had sent it. I had not seen it 

9 yet, given that it was sent relatively soon before 

10 the interview.

11 And I was a listener in the interview, 

12 not the interviewer, so I may not have gone back 

13 and found those and read them, and I will do that.

14 Okay. Any other questions about the 

15 Critical Mass Lab and the update by any of our

16 Subcommittee members?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Not at this time, no.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I've 

20 got a question.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.
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 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: The Critical Mass 

2 Lab, do we know where and how these sources in 

3 particular were stored? You know, I mean, and 

4 particularly if they were missing the neutron

5 exposure, I would assume their film badges would 

6 pick that up.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, you are 

8 correct, the badges we suspect would measure the 

9 neutron exposure inside the Critical Mass 

10 Laboratory.

11 We have a pretty good history of when 

12 material was brought into the Critical Mass 

13 Laboratory. And during the '83 to '89 period, or 

14 '87 when they actually stopped operations, we know 

15 what was stored inside the facility at that time.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

17 Any other questions, or any of the NIOSH or SC&A 

18 folks? Okay.

19 So, next, LaVon, again, we're going to 

20 ask for you to talk to us about your response to 

21 the petitioner's paper on data falsification.

22 And those are, let me see. There was 
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 a letter, a fairly detailed letter by Terrie 

2 Barrie, who's on the phone, and also [identifying 

3 information redacted]. And there was perhaps 

4 another one from Ms. Padilla. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, Ms. Padilla 

6 is the petitioner on a different Rocky Flats 

7 petition. That's SEC-227.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now, I can talk about 

10 Ms. Barrie's and [identifying information 

11 redacted] White Paper.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Alright. And what I 

14 had really wanted to do was actually have a formal 

15 response written, but we haven't finished that yet. 

16 And I didn't want to send that out, you know, two 

17 days before the Work Group meeting and not give 

18 people time enough to review it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: So again, Terrie, on 

21 September 19th, the petitioners provided a formal 

22 response to our White Paper on data falsification 
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 and validation. The response was sent to the Work 

2 Group, NIOSH and others. 

3 The petitioner's paper identified a 

4 number of concerns with NIOSH's paper and 

5 conclusion. And we assumed -- since it was sent 

6 to the Work Group and others, we assumed that we 

7 were expected to respond to that. And so we are 

8 working on that formal response, as I mentioned.

9 It is in internal review at this time. 

10 However, I couldn't get it out. I kind of set a 

11 deadline of at least a week before the Work Group 

12 meeting to get it out. And if I couldn't meet that 

13 I wasn't going to send it out.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

15 appreciate that, because we have had problems 

16 before sending out materials at the last minute. 

17 And people were rightfully upset that they didn't 

18 have a chance to review things before.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. I can say, 

20 though, I want to say that -- I can generally say 

21 that our conclusion from the paper is the same. 

22 That paper will be out very soon, next week I hope, 
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 or shortly thereafter.

2 But we didn't feel that there was new 

3 information that would change our current 

4 prediction that there's personnel monitoring data 

5 for the time period of concern to allow for dose 

6 reconstruction. 

7 So, I know we'll discuss this at a later 

8 Work Group meeting once the paper is out, but I will 

9 say, in general, I don't feel our position is going 

10 to change.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

12 the petitioners who -- at least Terrie Barrie, 

13 who's on the line, will have time for comment later 

14 at the end of the session. But will there be any 

15 revision of the White Paper that has already gone 

16 out? On data falsification.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm glad you brought 

18 that up. Yes, there will. We are going to there

19 were some general conclusions that we made in that 

20 paper. We corrected one of those general 

21 conclusions.

22 We made that conclusion based on -- it 
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 wasn't a conclusion that we had hard facts to come 

2 to, and came to a conclusion. However, it kind of 

3 looked like that it was a biased conclusion. So 

4 we removed one of those. And then everyone will 

5 remember that one of the interviewees identified 

6 the destruction of personnel monitoring records.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: We made a conclusion, 

9 based on our other interviews, our information we 

10 had, the fact that we had personnel monitoring 

11 data.

12 However, that conclusion -- we 

13 shouldn't have made that conclusion. We shouldn’t

14 have made the conclusion that it was field surveys 

15 and not personnel monitoring data. We weren't 

16 there when that interviewee destroyed those 

17 records so we can't make that conclusion.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. I 

19 strongly agree with you that the comment about 

20 field surveys in the paper, on page 14 actually, 

21 I didn't believe there was evidence for that.

22 That may have been, but it may not have 
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 been. And there now appears to be, based on the 

2 [identifying information redacted]-Barrie letter, 

3 some additional information about materials that 

4 were destroyed, or records that were destroyed.

5 But, anyway, you'll address that in 

6 both the revised White Paper and the paper that's 

7 coming out soon.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

10 good. I'm very glad to hear that.

11 Okay. Well, do other people have any 

12 comments, other Working Group members or staff? 

13 Since this is a Working Group meeting.

14 MEMBER MUNN: No, not until the 

15 investigation is complete.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Moving 

17 right along rather rapidly, but that's fine. Onto 

18 Item 3, response to petitioner's concern with 

19 cobalt-60 sources. And LaVon, again I'm turning 

20 to you.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. As Dr. 

22 Kotelchuck had mentioned, the petitioner did have 
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 a concern with cobalt-60 sources. The petitioner 

2 provided us a file with over 287 pages of 

3 information that was retrieved from a FOIA request. 

4 A little background. As most of you 

5 know, a cobalt-60 source is typically used for 

6 industrial radiography, calibration, leveling, 

7 thickness, and to check sources for instruments.

8 Cobalt-60 releases two high-energy 

9 gammas when it decays. Because these high-energy 

10 gammas -- when you have a higher curie content of 

11 cobalt-60, because of these high-energy gammas you 

12 have a higher radiation field. And so they 

13 typically are contained within a shielding device.

14 And as with other sealed sources, they 

15 are not an internal exposure concern unless they 

16 leak. 

17 So, typically, sites that have sealed 

18 sources, or sources inside of lead containers, or 

19 different containing devices, shielding devices, 

20 they will do leak checks on those.

21 A leak check is done with a smear, with 

22 these little dip smear where they'll smear the area 
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 around it, and then they'll take those smears to 

2 a low-background area. Because if they're smearing 

3 for beta gamma, looking for a leak of the beta gamma 

4 source, if there's a high beta gamma background 

5 exposure you can't read those smears in that area. 

6 So you will take it to a low-background area to read 

7 it.

8 So, that's just giving you a little feel 

9 on that. So, typically, a source in that manner 

10 is not an internal exposure hazard. However, they 

11 do do leak checks to look for that.

12 So as the petitioner notes, there were 

13 two sources. The first source was stored inside 

14 a cabinet in Room 125. The room did contain other 

15 sources, based on our review of the other 

16 documents. So it could have been a check source, 

17 but there's not enough information to conclude what 

18 --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excuse me just a 

20 second. You said Room 125.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In what 
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 building?

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Shoot, I can't 

3 remember now. I don't have that written down.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I can get that 

6 information for you.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If you would, 

8 yeah.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: So, anyway, so we 

10 don't know the exact size of that source. But the 

11 source was found in Room 125.

12 The other source was a 600-curie, very 

13 large source. It was inside a Gammacell 220 

14 irradiator. And the documentation that was sent 

15 to us, most of it was a work package that was put 

16 together to remove this large cobalt-60 source and 

17 all the steps that were going to take place to 

18 remove it.

19 So, the petitioner's concern was a 

20 statement dated 7/6/1999 and found on page 196. 

21 Direct readings were not taken due to very high 

22 background from the presence of a 60-curie 
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 cobalt-60 source located inside the Gammacell 220.

2 So, as I noted earlier, direct beta 

3 gamma readings for contamination in the presence 

4 of high-background radiation cannot be performed. 

5 High-background radiation will interfere with the 

6 ability to directly measure contamination levels 

7 for beta gamma.

8 So, if we were going to look for loose 

9 and fixed contamination, which is typically what 

10 a lot of surveys will incur, you're doing a fixed 

11 contamination survey. That would mean you would 

12 have to measure whatever you're doing the survey 

13 on directly.

14 And in this case you cannot measure it 

15 directly because the background is too high, it 

16 gives you too much interference.

17 So, looking for the loose 

18 contamination, we can look for that. We can 

19 measure that through smears. And what they would 

20 do is, as I mentioned, they'd take a smear and then 

21 take it to a low-background area and count the 

22 smear.
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 Now, if you look at the survey that was 

2 taken, it indicated that the readings were less 

3 than 130 dpm per 100 centimeters squared.

4 And the concern was, well, okay, and the 

5 petitioner had mentioned, that it appeared to be 

6 that there was detectable contamination.

7 But less than 130 dpm per 100 

8 centimeters squared, that meant that there was --

9 the 130 dpm per 100 centimeters squared is the 

10 minimum detectable level for that instrument that 

11 they were using.

12 So, there was no detectable 

13 contamination actually found in the survey taken. 

14 But when they record the data, they record it based 

15 on the actual detection level of the instrument. 

16 So that's why it indicated that it was less than 

17 130 dpm per 100 centimeters squared. And it also 

18 appeared that that survey was actually a leak check 

19 survey on that irradiator and source.

20 The petitioner further pointed out that 

21 a large job review narrative dated August 11th, 

22 1999, had preliminary contamination surveys 
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 outside the source cask of less than 20 dpm per 100 

2 centimeters squared removable, and less than 45 dpm 

3 per 100 centimeters squared.

4 So, petitioner was concerned with the 

5 difference in the contamination levels between the 

6 two surveys.

7 So, those measurements, the less than 

8 20 dpm per 100 centimeters squared and the less than 

9 45 dpm per 100 centimeters squared, those are alpha 

10 contamination, not beta gamma. So those were 

11 completely different surveys that were taken.

12 The other contamination survey, like I 

13 said, was beta gamma. This one was alpha. You 

14 know it's alpha because of the alpha symbol that's 

15 on the top of the table of the survey.

16 And, again, by saying less than that 

17 level, that is less than 20, 20 is the minimum 

18 detectable activity that they can see by the method 

19 that they were using. So that's how you would 

20 record that.

21 So there was actually no detectable

22 alpha activity. And in reviewing that survey, 
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 that survey was actually a room survey that was 

2 taken in preparation for removing the source.

3 So, what they were looking for in that 

4 case, they weren't necessarily looking for the leak 

5 from the cobalt-60 source. They were looking at 

6 any residual plutonium or uranium that may have 

7 been in the area that had caused the area to become 

8 a contamination area, or that when they removed 

9 that source it could generate a high airborne.

10 So, again, they did not detect any 

11 activity on that survey. So in our review of the 

12 documents, we don't see any unusual exposure 

13 concern, or any potential exposure from removing 

14 that cobalt-60 source, or any indication that that 

15 source was leaking. And our review of other 

16 documentation in our Site Research Database has 

17 given us no concern as well.

18 And that's all I've got on that.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I have no 

20 comment. That's helpful and clear to me, at least. 

21 Are there other folks wanting to comment? Again, 

22 staff or Working Group members?
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 MEMBER MUNN: No. LaVon's 

2 explanation is quite clear and extremely 

3 reasonable. Those sources are a thing about which 

4 any worker that works anywhere near them is 

5 certainly aware. There was a reasonable amount of 

6 attention paid in all cases to any movement of those 

7 capsules. So certainly everything that has been 

8 related so far is in accordance with activities 

9 surrounding those sources as we know them.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

11 good. Thanks. So, any other? Well, we were 

12 asked by Dr. Melius to give a presentation at the 

13 November Board meeting. Excuse me, first, the 

14 Working Group discussion toward recommendation. 

15 I was thinking, as we made this up, that we would 

16 be moving toward a decision more quickly than will 

17 be the case.

18 If it will take us a period of weeks to 

19 months to finish the transcript and get approval 

20 for that with [identifying information redacted]

21 and the CML concern will remain, I don't see that 

22 it's reasonable to move toward a recommendation or 
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 discussion for a recommendation at this point.

2 I believe that when that is finished, 

3 I believe the group should be able to move toward 

4 making a recommendation to put forth before the 

5 Board. This means, clearly, that we're not going 

6 to make a recommendation for the November meeting, 

7 which actually I guess I did suspect before we 

8 wouldn't finish. I thought there was a possibility 

9 of completing the discussion today, but that's 

10 not the case.

11 And so I was asked, on Item 5, to give 

12 a presentation at the November Board meeting, which 

13 I plan to do. And I think what I will do, if folks 

14 are open, is I will prepare something and send it 

15 to the Working Group members for your input and 

16 advice.

17 This is the end of October, toward the 

18 end of October, so I'll have to do that in the next 

19 week or two, give you folks at least a week. So 

20 I will have something to you certainly, I guess, 

21 by the end of the first week in November. And I'll 

22 send that around to you and make a presentation at 
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 the Board meeting.

2 But I don't see that there's any useful 

3 discussion of 4 and 5 at this point. But I would 

4 wonder if other Working Group members had thoughts 

5 about that, or about a path forward and 

6 presentations. Are there suggestions, or 

7 concerns, or issues?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Not here, Dave. This is 

9 the dilemma that we always find ourselves facing. 

10 We want to be thorough, but in order to be thorough 

11 time passes. And there's always more time passing 

12 than usual.

13 And, of course, we will be pilloried in 

14 the press for that, but that's to be expected. 

15 It's been the course of action for the last 10 

16 years, and so it seems to me to be the side on which 

17 we have chosen to err, and I think appropriately 

18 so.

19 I can't see that your report would need 

20 to be particularly lengthy, but it certainly is 

21 advisable, from my perspective, to follow through 

22 on the comments that LaVon has made and the 
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 information we've received today. I think it's 

2 reasonable to update that, but I can't see that we 

3 could actually propose anything else to the Board 

4 at this time.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I agree on 

6 that. We can't make a proposal.

7 Actually, it was at our last Working 

8 Group meeting that for the first time I was aware 

9 of [identifying information redacted] presence and 

10 concerns. And so that was not something that 

11 several meetings ago I was aware that would be an 

12 important issue, but it is and we have to be 

13 thorough.

14 And that's just going to take a little 

15 bit more time. But certainly important issues 

16 were raised there. And Lavon and others have moved 

17 promptly to have an interview with him, and then 

18 of course we now have 35 boxes of records to 

19 consider. So, those certainly need to be gone 

20 over. And that will take a lot of time.

21 So, things are delayed somewhat, but in 

22 an important area.
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 MR. KATZ: Dave, this is Ted. Just to 

2 give you a hard deadline, we need the presentations 

3 by no later than, I would say, the 12th.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. 

5 So noted.

6 MR. KATZ: And if you would copy me and 

7 then I'll make sure that the staff on both SC&A and 

8 NIOSH staff can see your draft presentation too.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

10 Okay, very good. I will do that.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Kotelchuck? This 

12 is LaVon. I can also provide you just a history 

13 of some of the background for the issues that we've 

14 worked over the period of time, if you want to use 

15 that in your presentation.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

17 most helpful and I would appreciate that. So, this 

18 will be my first presentation certainly as Chair 

19 of this Work Group.

20 Okay. Thanks. And now Item 6, 

21 petitioner's comments. And Ms. Barrie is on the 

22 line, Dr. McKeel, and Ms. Padilla. Do any of you 
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 wish to speak now? You're most welcome.

2 MS. BARRIE: Hi, Doctor. This is 

3 Terrie Barrie. And I really don't have a whole lot 

4 to say. I appreciate the update.

5 I would like to give just a little bit 

6 of background on the cobalt. This has been an 

7 issue that I've heard from a former worker who was 

8 there when the unit was removed. And she said that 

9 there was a very high reading and she wasn't badged 

10 for it.

11 And I was wondering if NIOSH could maybe 

12 take another look through their records possibly 

13 to see, besides what I have. I mean, it took me 

14 years to get this information to see if there's any 

15 other readings on that. Because she was told to 

16 stand back because the readings were so high. 

17 That's her words.

18 And I do appreciate the thoroughness. 

19 My position and [identifying information redacted]

20 position is that NIOSH cannot reconstruct dose. 

21 And we've laid out all the various reasons.

22 But I do appreciate, and I'm not 
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 faulting how long it's taking. I'd much rather 

2 have a thorough investigation, and hopefully the 

3 conclusion that there's issues that are 

4 questionable and that the SEC be expanded. So, 

5 that's all I have to say for now.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. If you 

7 have concerns that a person was not badged, I assume 

8 that that cannot be checked without LaVon certainly 

9 knowing who was supposed to be badged. Or put it 

10 this way. You'll be talking with LaVon if you have 

11 any information more detailed. Obviously, you 

12 can't check for badges if you don't know the person 

13 or persons. 

14 Although maybe there are a group, if you 

15 can give a time on that, when it was actually --

16 we probably -- or LaVon probably knows the time when 

17 the cobalt-60 source was removed.

18 MS. BARRIE: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, if you send 

20 him a note, just to say when that was, and he will

21 certainly look at it.

22 MS. BARRIE: Okay, and I also know the 
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 worker's name and I'll ask if she wants to be 

2 interviewed. If that's okay.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, in a 

4 sense, I'll leave it to LaVon and the staff there 

5 to decide whether they want to actually hold a 

6 formal interview or kind of how to proceed on that.

7 So, I don't want to say yes or no because 

8 I really don't -- I would say that the 

9 administrative responsibility on that is LaVon's. 

10 Is that not right, LaVon?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Terrie, you can 

12 get in touch with me and we'll work out a path 

13 forward. 

14 MS. BARRIE: Okay, I will.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So, any 

16 other comments from the other folks? Dr. McKeel 

17 and Ms. Padilla?

18 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I was

19 just listening about the cobalt-60. And I guess 

20 my only comment on LaVon's report is, you know, it 

21 seems to me if you're investigating a 600-curie 

22 source my question about all such sources is -- it's 
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 maybe a little bit of an extension of the 

2 petitioner's concern -- but is there any record 

3 kept of that particular source and the series of 

4 leak tests?

5 You know, that would be more convincing 

6 and persuasive if that source had never leaked. 

7 And I believe that for all those sources there's 

8 a requirement in OCAS-IG-003 to actually measure 

9 and record the output of those devices for the 

10 external gamma and include that in the dose 

11 reconstruction process.

12 And I understand that you make the 

13 blanket statement that everybody exposed to that 

14 source has a film badge and so forth, but I wonder 

15 if you really can identify those individuals. And 

16 if not, you need to identify the source term 

17 certainly more conclusively than what I just heard.

18 And, you know, I'm talking about were 

19 there any accidents, were there any incidents with 

20 that, and so forth.

21 So, as far as it goes, it sounds like 

22 at some time point there was no leakage and no 
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 exposure at some time point when it was being 

2 removed. But I'm sure that source, that huge 

3 source, was there and in use for probably years.

4 So, it seems to me that this is one of 

5 those investigations that's certainly directed at 

6 the petitioner's concern, but it's not very 

7 extensive, exhaustive, or conclusive overall as 

8 far as what exposure there was from a 600-curie 

9 source.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, there of 

11 course will be a transcript of this discussion. 

12 And that will be on the record. I don't know if 

13 --

14 DR. MCKEEL: I do have a question about 

15 that; that actually is a question. You use the 

16 term there will be a transcript of the interview.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 DR. MCKEEL: And my idea of a 

19 transcript is a verbatim transcript. And I am not 

20 aware of any interview that I've ever seen, at least 

21 in the sites that I'm familiar with, where there's 

22 an actual verbatim transcript.
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 Most of the time what gets released is 

2 what I would call an interview summary. And 

3 that's really quite a different thing. That's 

4 somebody else's rendition of what was asked and 

5 answered.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. McKeel, that is 

7 correct. It is a summary, but that summary is sent 

8 to the interviewee. It's reviewed by the 

9 interviewee to verify that they agree with what was 

10 said.

11 DR. MCKEEL: That's correct, but it's 

12 not, technically speaking, a verbatim transcript, 

13 right?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Technically 

15 speaking, it is definitely not a verbatim 

16 transcript, but don't ad lib on what it is.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're talking 

18 now about --

19 DR. MCKEEL: I said it was a summary and 

20 you agreed it was a summary.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You are talking 

22 about not the discussion that we're having right 
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 now for the Working Group meeting, but you're 

2 talking about the interview with [identifying 

3 information redacted]. Is that correct? 

4 DR. MCKEEL: Correct.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. And that 

6 is a summary. Okay. Then LaVon certainly knows.

7 LaVon, that summary, I assume after it 

8 is reviewed by [identifying information redacted]

9 to make sure that he agrees that that is what he 

10 said, that will then be a public document, will it 

11 not?

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: It is maintained in 

13 our records. Obviously, anything that's released 

14 has to be gone through Privacy Act to ensure that 

15 any Privacy Act information is not released.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. And 

17 certainly for that Critical Mass Lab privacy and 

18 confidentiality issues are certainly important. 

19 So, that is to be determined based on the transcript 

20 that's agreed upon. Right? The summary that's 

21 agreed upon, mutually agreed upon.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

2 Have you finished, Dr. McKeel?

3 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I am. Thank you very 

4 much. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

6 And Ms. Padilla, since you are on the phone, and 

7 I certainly saw the material that you recently sent 

8 us and was sent out to the Board as you requested. 

9 But do you have any comments you wish to make now?

10 MS. PADILLA: No, I don't have any 

11 comments to make at this time. I don't agree with 

12 everything you said, but I also don't agree that 

13 you have the right to say them. I'll reserve my 

14 comments now for the Board meeting in November.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right, 

16 okay. Okay, thank you.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Dave, this is 

18 Schofield. I've just got one comment on those 

19 sources. I would assume that we have some kind of 

20 documentation that talks about how they were 

21 manufactured, were they double- or 

22 triple-encapsulated and stuff?
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 Point being, that gives you a little 

2 more confidence about whether they're leaking or 

3 not based upon their age and time when they were 

4 manufactured and, you know, whether they were 

5 encapsulated in stainless steel. You know, that 

6 would be a concern of leakage. But if they're like 

7 triple-encapsulated and they're only five years 

8 old then you probably wouldn't be -- any 

9 contamination on it was probably picked up from 

10 somewhere else in the lab. That's something we 

11 need to also know.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, we do have 

13 detailed drawings on the 600-curie cobalt source 

14 and the irradiator that it was enclosed in.

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, that answers 

16 my question.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, good, 

18 good. And, of course, presumably there is 

19 documentation on the leakage, on the check for 

20 leakage.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm going to see if we 

22 have additional leak check surveys that were done 
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 in the past on this. It is a routine frequency item 

2 that's done, as Dr. McKeel knows.

3 And we will see if we can generate some 

4 of those, or see if we can come up with some of 

5 those, if those records were maintained, or if we 

6 have them on file.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

8 good. I think this is perhaps a little shorter 

9 meeting than we sometimes have, but we've dealt 

10 with the matters before us. And we have a little 

11 bit longer timeframe now to look at before we make 

12 recommendations, but we are certainly moving 

13 toward that in a while.

14 Then I think we are finished at this 

15 point. Is there any -- let's see. Ted, do we need 

16 to think about another Working Group meeting after 

17 the Board meeting? Or maybe I should be in touch 

18 with Lavon as his materials come out and then make 

19 a determination in the next couple of weeks.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, Dave, I think we need 

21 to get a schedule from LaVon first to when he'll 

22 have wrapped up that follow-up work that he 
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 discussed.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I should be able to 

4 come up with a pretty good schedule on that next 

5 week when I'm out in Los Alamos.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, very good. 

7 And actually we'll have a chance to talk, Board 

8 members, I hope all of us will be there at the 

9 Berkeley meeting, or at least on the conference 

10 call. And so we might have a chance to find out 

11 a mutual date for an upcoming meeting there.

12 Okay. Then I believe we are concluded 

13 and I want to thank everyone who was on the phone. 

14 Thank you, LaVon, for being the lead 

15 speaker on most of the items on today's agenda. 

16 And thank you all for participating.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

18 went off the record at 11:29 a.m.)

19

20

21

22
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

2

3

4

5

6

7