1

 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 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON BROOKHAVEN 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY, 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened

telephonically at 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard

Time, Josie Beach, Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

JOSIE BEACH, Chair

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 
 2 

ALSO PRESENT: 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Designated Federal

Official 

TIM ADLER, ORAU Team

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

JASON DAVIS, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

GENE POTTER, ORAU Team

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

DENNIS STRENGE, ORAU Team 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

AGENDA ITEM PAGE 

Welcome and roll call ....................... 4 

- Discussion of basis for BNL SEC ..... 4 

Class end date 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 4
 

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

2 
 (3:00 p.m.) 

3 
 WELCOME AND ROLL CALL 

4 
 (Whereupon, roll call was 

5 
 accomplished.) 

6 
 MR. KATZ: The agenda for the 

7 
 meeting, which is very, very simple, is posted 

8 
 on the website under the Board under Meetings 

9 
 for today. And I don't believe there are any 

10 
 documents posted for today. And let me just 

11 
 remind everyone on the phone to mute your 

12 
 phone except when you're speaking to the 

13 
 group. If you don't have a mute button, press 

14 
 *6 to mute and then press *6 again to come off 

15 of mute. Thank you, everyone. 

16 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thanks, Ted. 

17 Good afternoon, everybody. 

18 
 - DISCUSSION OF BASIS FOR 

19 
 BNL SEC CLASS END DATE 

20 
 CHAIR BEACH: The purpose of this 

21 
 meeting today is to discuss the 1993 cutoff 

22 
 date for Brookhaven SEC. As you remember, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 5



1 
 1993 was the year BNL implemented a revised 

2 
 internal monitoring program and records were 

3 
 more centralized. SC&A sampling did raise 

4 
 some questions about the consistency and 

5 
 completeness of the bioassays, especially for 

6 
 the years 1994 through the end of 1996. 

7 
 We have four pertinent documents 

8 
 for today's topic. The first one, if you go 

9 
 back to March 2012, was SC&A's evaluation of 

10 
 Brookhaven SEC-00196, the issue of the end 

11 
 date of 1993. The next memo was issued on 

12 
 1-4-13. That was NIOSH's response to SC&A's 

13 memo. 

14 
 And then we have a document that 

15 
 was issued on 1-10-13, SC&A's evaluation of 

16 
 the NIOSH White Paper. And then the next one 

17 
 was issued on 2-7-13. That was also a NIOSH 

18 
 paper. And then the last one we received was 

19 
 a response on -- I believe, Ted, you sent that 

20 
 out on the Wednesday, Tuesday or Wednesday of 

21 
 this week, which was SC&A's response embedded 

22 in NIOSH's paper. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 6



1 
 So I am not sure at this point if 

2 
 SC&A wants to get started or NIOSH. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think, you 

4 
 know -- Josie, this is Joe. I think we can 

5 
 walk through -- I mean, we have had iterative 

6 
 responses, but the main response was to 

7 
 NIOSH's White Paper from, I guess it was, 

8 
 January 4th. Is that correct? I believe it 

9 
 was January 4th. 

10 CHAIR BEACH: Right. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And our response 

12 
 of last month was put together by Ron Buchanan 

13 
 at the request of the Work Group mainly to 

14 
 deal with the question of -- you know, the '93 

15 
 end date, which is the subject of this review, 

16 
 was based on a major programmatic change at 

17 
 Brookhaven, which was to centralize and make 

18 
 the -- certainly the bioassay records more 

19 
 rigorously maintained and available. And that 

20 benchmark or milestone was the basis. 

21 
 And the Work Group asked SC&A for 

22 
 some means of validating that, in fact, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 7



1 
 records were more complete than they had been 

2 
 before '93. And Ron Buchanan had proposed and 

3 
 went ahead and developed a sampling exercise 

4 
 based on those workers who were deemed to be 

5 
 part of bioassays on a regular basis and see 

6 
 whether or not, in fact, those records were 

7 
 available for those individual workers. 

8 
 I guess I think it would be useful 

9 
 to have Ron walk through the response that 

10 
 SC&A issued because that is basically the 

11 
 basis for our question regarding this '93 to 

12 '96 period. 

13 
 You know, even though the 

14 
 programmatic change took place in '93, I think 

15 
 our concern is that from these sampled 

16 
 workers, we were still seeing a fair amount of 

17 
 fluctuation in terms of the completeness of 

18 
 their records. And this fluctuation seemed to 

19 
 ebb by the end of '96, and you see a pretty 

20 
 constant pattern thereafter. I thought the 

21 
 set of bar graphs that Ron presented in his 

22 presentation were pretty indicative of that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 8



1 
 So that is kind of where we are at 

2 
 at this point. Ron, do you want to add 

3 
 something? 

4 
 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I can go 

5 
 through a summary because I don't know if 

6 
 everyone is aware of -- you know, it's been a 

7 
 year or so since we discussed this. I think 

8 
 it would be advantageous for me to just go 

9 
 through why this was done and the results and 

10 
 the limitations of the result if that would be 

11 okay. 

12 
 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. Ron, this is 

13 
 Josie. I think that would be a great idea. 

14 Thank you. 

15 
 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And so, just 

16 
 to elaborate a little bit on what Joe 

17 
 summarized pretty well and to give you a 

18 
 little more detail on the background of this, 

19 
 Brookhaven, as you know, is a research lab and 

20 
 always has been. And it did not lend us the 

21 
 luxury of having a production facility there 

22 
 that -- even like Los Alamos or Oak Ridge, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 9



1 
 they didn't have anything there long term that 

2 
 you could say, "Well, you know, these workers 

3 
 probably should have been bioassayed." 

4 
 And so when this came up in that 

5 
 they implemented a centralization of the 

6 
 bioassay records in the early '90s, this was 

7 
 good, but then we wanted to see, you know, if 

8 
 the results were actually there. 

9 
 And so I looked around the lab and 

10 
 looked at its history and its operation and 

11 
 everything in the '90s because this was a 

12 
 period of transition from 1990 to '99 and to 

13 
 see where I could find some facility that 

14 
 would indicate that they would require a 

15 
 bioassay or may require a bioassay. And this 

16 
 is fairly difficult with Brookhaven because 

17 they are diverse and changing manifest. 

18 
 And so the accelerators, of course, 

19 
 think they're in pretty much high-energy, 

20 
 low-current. So you don't have a lot of 

21 
 bioassay requirements there. A lot of the 

22 
 other things were just short campaigns or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 10



1 
 research projects. The only thing I could 

2 
 really find that would give us any indication 

3 
 of some routine requirements that we could 

4 
 look back from today on was the high-flux beam 

5 
 reactor that operated here in the 1990s. 

6 
 And so what I did is I went in and 

7 
 looked at some people. Of course, you had to 

8 
 have claims for them so that we could look at 

9 
 the records. And I could only find five 

10 
 people that worked at the reactor, had claims, 

11 
 and had titles that would indicate that they 

12 
 might fall into the requirement of having 

13 bioassays. 

14 
 And these five claims worked there. 

15 
 Three of them had job titles that would 

16 
 indicate they worked there pretty steady at a 

17 
 job that would indicate bioassay requirements. 

18 
 And there was a publication in the early '90s 

19 
 saying when bioassay requirements should be 

20 
 performed or when they should be performed 

21 
 when they started implementing this in 

22 bioassay programs. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 11



1 
 So they fell under that. Now, 

2 
 again, it isn't a hard and fast thing judgment 

3 
 what the worker title is that they might need. 

4 
 So it was a total of five. And three out of 

5 
 those five would indicate that they would need 

6 
 bioassay. 

7 
 So what I did is I looked at these. 

8 
 Now, I would like to explain right up front 

9 
 this is a very small sample. I normally would 

10 
 go look for other or use other bigger samples 

11 
 if it was available, but this was just a small 

12 
 snapshot into, you know, a bigger picture that 

13 
 we really don't have a full picture of it 

14 
 because we don't know what all required 

15 
 bioassay there because there was a lot of 

16 short-term work. 

17 
 And so this was what I used to look 

18 
 at the record completeness. And that's our 

19 
 subject here, is record completeness and 

20 
 availability for today's dose reconstructions. 

21 
 And so I initially did this about a 

22 
 year ago. And that is where your figures 1A 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 12



1 
 and 2 and 3 and 4A come from. And then I 

2 
 issued that last spring. And then Brookhaven 

3 
 apparently came around and got a better system 

4 
 together to give NIOSH the data. And so they 

5 
 filled in some of the gaps that were missing. 

6 
 And so when I reworked this very 

7 
 recently, I went back to the DOE files to see 

8 
 if there was more data available for these 

9 
 five workers that I was concerned with. And 

10 
 so that is the B figures. The A figures are 

11 
 last year. The B figures are this year. And 

12 
 so we really can't use A figures because that 

13 
 data has been superseded by the B figures. So 

14 
 we are looking at 1B. And I just put in the A 

15 
 figures to show how much difference it made in 

16 
 case someone was wondering, how much 

17 
 difference this means for these five workers 

18 
 for being held together, their program, and 

19 
 make it more useful to NIOSH for dose 

20 
 reconstruction. 

21 
 And so in figure 1B, we have -- I 

22 
 broke it up into tritium and whole body. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 13



1 
 looked at the monthly tritium bioassay. And, 

2 
 say, if they were bioassayed every month for a 

3 
 year, then that was 100 percent. If there's 

4 
 six months out of a year, that's 50 percent. 

5 
 And I did that for the five workers, and then 

6 
 I did it for the three workers that we were 

7 
 pretty sure should have bioassay. The other 

8 
 two might have been questionable if they 

9 
 changed jobs or worked in the target area or 

10 something like that. 

11 
 And so that's the reason that we 

12 
 have this separated up into four plots. We 

13 
 have five workers for tritium. We have three 

14 
 workers for tritium of those five. And then 

15 
 we have whole body counts for the five 

16 
 workers, whole body counts for the three 

17 workers. 

18 
 And so that is essentially what is 

19 
 one percent in those plots and to look at the 

20 
 trend. Now, really, this small a sample, hard 

21 
 and fast data, you know, it's hard to pin 

22 
 because it is just a few data points one way 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 14



1 
 or the other. But, you know, what I wanted to 

2 
 look at was a trend. Does this show that the 

3 
 bioassay records are available, you know, 

4 
 starting in '93, that there's not much 

5 
 fluctuation or how do they compare to the 

6 
 prior years in '93? 

7 
 And so in 1B, there, we see this as 

8 
 a 5 workers' tritium. And we see that the 

9 
 years '94, '95 are lower than the years for 

10 
 '90 through '93. And then it's good, better, 

11 ranges 75 percent in '96 and levels out. 

12 
 And then in 2B, this is the tritium 

13 
 for the 3 workers. We see a very similar 

14 
 trend, same thing, indication. And then in 3B 

15 
 for the whole body counts, we see a similar 

16 
 trend except that 95 looks better for the 5 

17 
 workers. If we go to the 3 workers in 4B, we 

18 
 see that it is 97 before the whole body count 

19 fluctuations level out. 

20 
 And so this is where we came up 

21 
 with a conclusion that is it a solid sampling 

22 
 a lot of workers and that? No. Is that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 15



1 
 snapshot an indication that might raise 

2 
 questions. And are there fluctuations that 

3 
 they place? Yes. 

4 
 And so I agree it is a subjective 

5 
 question as to when does the data patiently 

6 
 complete and when it is? But SC&A's being in 

7 
 -- the fluctuations do cause some shadow of 

8 
 doubt up to about '96. 

9 
 And so I responded to Grady's 

10 
 comments. The most recent one was just a 

11 
 couple of days ago. I didn't really have time 

12 
 to get out an official paper on that. But, 

13 
 again, it is just reiterating our position and 

14 responding to each case that was discussed. 

15 
 But I would like to emphasize again 

16 
 that you take the small number like just as a 

17 
 tool. The overall picture of the program was 

18 
 implemented. You had an implementation time. 

19 
 You had a work in process sort of thing. And 

20 then when did it kind of level out? 

21 
 So that is our position at this 

22 time. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16



1 
 CHAIR BEACH: Thanks, Ron. This is 

2 
 Josie again. 

3 
 Are there any questions for Ron? 

4 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. Am 

5 
 I off mute? 

6 
 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

7 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. I was 

8 
 following Ron's figures as he was talking. 

9 
 And he did qualify that this is a very small 

10 
 amount of data and so on. I guess I'm trying 

11 
 to come up with from what he said -- what is 

12 
 the conclusion? What is SC&A recommending 

13 with regard to dates? 

14 
 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Yes. This is 

15 
 Ron. What we would recommend was, instead of 

16 
 ending on December 31st, 1993, that the SEC 

17 end on December 31st, 1996. 

18 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, I have a 

19 
 hard time seeing that in the data because of 

20 
 the small sample and the fluctuations. At 

21 
 least I would like to hear some response from 

22 
 NIOSH on what their conclusion is with your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 17



1 
 proposed dates. 

2 
 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. This is Grady. 

3 
 I'll be glad to do that. Basically what I 

4 
 did was, first of all, we responded or looked 

5 
 at the first report from SC&A. And we wanted 

6 
 to separate out the SEC portion from the TBD 

7 
 section of that. So I really just looked at 

8 
 the five cases that were the subject of that 

9 
 report. 

10 And Ron is right. BNL we have 

11 
 noticed through just our dose reconstruction 

12 
 process that we're receiving many, many more 

13 
 records than we used to. And, just to remind 

14 
 everybody, the SEC was established -- the 

15 
 first one is the 83.14 -- was established 

16 
 because we just felt that we weren't getting 

17 
 records. And one of the keys was that we were 

18 
 finding records that we had captured on our 

19 
 data capture trips that weren't being provided 

20 by Brookhaven. 

21 
 Some of the recent submissions, 

22 
 it's routine for them now, but what they do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 18



1 
 now is they'll go through. They do a hard 

2 
 copy search. They do electronic copy search. 

3 
 And they provide a much more voluminous 

4 
 response to our request. 

5 
 After I looked at the first SC&A 

6 
 response, I rerequested data for four of those 

7 
 cases. I actually had written five, but we 

8 
 had one that was pretty recent. So I only 

9 
 requested it for four of the five cases. And 

10 
 we got very, very large responses back. And 

11 
 in no case did we still have data that they 

12 
 didn't provide. As a matter of fact, they 

13 
 provided data that we hadn't had up to that 

14 
 point. So that made me feel a lot better. 

15 
 And that is their standard operating procedure 

16 now for responding to our data request. 

17 
 So I went through that. And I 

18 
 think Ron feels my pain. We have thousands of 

19 
 pages to go through for these five cases. So 

20 
 we went through these five cases. And I was 

21 
 trying to make a determination of whether or 

22 
 not the data was there, number one; and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 19



1 
 whether or not they really were required to 

2 
 have been monitored. And the requirement is 

3 
 typically 100 millirem, the potential to 

4 
 receive 100 millirem, for a year. 

5 
 My response went through case by 

6 
 case. And I had to take it a little bit 

7 
 simpler because the graphs are pretty, but I 

8 
 actually wanted to know what case and what 

9 
 piece of data from each case was missing that 

10 
 has caused concern. And Ron provided that to 

11 me. 

12 
 And so I went through the five 

13 
 cases. And, you know, we can go through these 

14 
 case by case if you'd like. There are five of 

15 
 them. But in no case did I feel that either 

16 
 the person was monitored and the data wasn't 

17 
 there or that they should have been monitored 

18 
 and weren't monitored. And in all of these 

19 
 cases, I believe that the dose reconstruction 

20 can be completed. 

21 
 And so that is where we stand. 

22 
 Like I said, if you want to go through case by 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 20



1 
 case, I would be glad to give you a synopsis 

2 
 of that. 

3 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Grady, when you 

4 
 say it can be completed, to what date? Give a 

5 
 date on that. I think we are talking about 

6 
 the question of ending the period in '93 or 

7 
 possibly extending it. So tell me when you 

8 
 say it can be completed --

9 
 MR. CALHOUN: I believe the current 

10 date of 1993, the end of 1993, is good still. 

11 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. That 

12 helps. Thank you. 

13 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. This is Josie 

14 again. Any other questions for Ron or Grady? 

15 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Josie, this is 

16 
 Brad. You know, I'm sitting here looking at 

17 
 this data, too. And wasn't it true that '93 

18 
 is when they were supposed to have started --

19 
 and this is for Grady, I guess -- that they 

20 
 started this more centralized information 

21 centralizing it a little bit? 

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 21



1 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess my thing 

2 
 is I say '94, '95, '96, there's a little 

3 
 improvement but not much. You know, like 

4 
 anything you implement, it takes a while to 

5 
 get that into the process because these people 

6 
 have been going for how many years now and 

7 
 haven't really been doing this good at 

8 
 recordkeeping or anything else. 

9 
 And my question is, what are we 

10 
 going to be able to do with this data, say 

11 
 that we went with NIOSH, because to me a lot 

12 
 of this is just is the glass half full or is 

13 
 the glass half empty type of a process here. 

14 
 Are we going to build a coworker data to be 

15 
 able to use this with or what are we going to 

16 do? 

17 
 MR. CALHOUN: In many of these 

18 
 cases -- well, there aren't many because there 

19 
 are only five, but we have data before and 

20 
 after some of these holes. So we would apply, 

21 
 like we typically do, mixed dates, mixed dose. 

22 
 Now, I don't believe there are holes. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 22



1 
 believe that people shouldn't have or didn't 

2 
 require monitoring. Let me go through an 

3 
 example. 

4 
 One of the first cases -- we have 

5 
 an individual. And the issue was there was not 

6 
 tritium monitoring for '94 and '95. Okay? So 

7 
 that causes that draft to look bad in '94 and 

8 
 '95. The individual retired [identifying 

9 
 information redacted]. So I look back at all 

10 
 of his data. And he had somewhere along the 

11 
 lines of 12 to 15 tritium samples taken prior 

12 
 to 1994. All of them were zero. The vast 

13 
 majority of all the external dosimetry was 

14 
 zero. So that indicates to me that there was 

15 
 no need to monitor this individual past 1994 

16 
 because the potential for 100 millirem wasn't 

17 there. 

18 
 It just seems odd that the records 

19 
 were there since 1985 or 1989, I guess, all 

20 
 the way up through 1993 and then they would 

21 
 have stopped. So I believe that there was a 

22 
 conscious decision made to not monitor that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 23



1 
 individual. 

2 
 So that's why I had to take a more 

3 
 individualized approach and look at the cases 

4 
 and see what the person did and what the 

5 
 results of the dosimetry were that we had in 

6 
 hand and try to determine if I thought that 

7 
 necessitated some kind of thought that we 

8 
 wouldn't have data or that he was monitored 

9 
 and the data was missing or should have been 

10 
 monitored and wasn't. And that is just one of 

11 the five cases. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Grady, this is 

13 Joe. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes? 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to clarify, 

16 
 you're saying that you would interpret that 

17 
 period of time as a period of time when he 

18 
 would not have or should not have been 

19 
 monitored, but we don't know for sure? 

20 
 MR. CALHOUN: Right. I have no 

21 
 reason to believe he would have to be 

22 
 monitored. Based on all the other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 24



1 
 documentation that I have seen, it is hard to 

2 
 believe that the records were there for '89, 

3 
 '90, '91, '92, and '93 and then, all of a 

4 
 sudden, they disappeared for the year and a 

5 
 half before he retired. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I guess my 

7 
 point is we don't know. There's no way to 

8 
 corroborate that. We just would be forced to 

9 
 speculate as to what his status is? 

10 
 MR. CALHOUN: What do you mean 

11 "what his status" was? 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you're 

13 
 saying his records are missing for the last 

14 year, year and a half before he retired. 

15 
 MR. CALHOUN: No. I don't think 

16 
 his records are missing because I have got a 

17 
 data drop also that is a computer printout of 

18 
 probably all of the people but many, many of 

19 
 the people at Brookhaven and when the dates of 

20 
 their tritium analysis were taken and what the 

21 results were. And they go well beyond 1995. 

22 
 MR. FITZGERALD: So he is just not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 25



1 
 in that listing? 

2 
 MR. CALHOUN: This individual -- he 

3 
 is in the listing, but his end is in 1993. So 

4 
 it indicates to me that there was no 

5 
 monitoring of this individual. So I can't 

6 
 draw the conclusion that monitoring was 

7 
 performed and we don't have the data. 

8 
 And the SEC is based on the fact 

9 
 that the data was missing. So in that 

10 
 specific case, there's no reason to believe 

11 
 that he was monitored and the data doesn't 

12 
 exist. It's more likely that the data -- he 

13 just wasn't monitored. 

14 
 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. I 

15 
 would like to inject on that case. He did 

16 
 have whole body count records for '94-'95. So 

17 
 that could be one way or the other to say, 

18 
 "Well, if you had whole body counts or didn't 

19 
 have tritium counts," usually tritium counts 

20 
 are easier than whole body counts. But then 

21 
 they did have the whole body count records. 

22 
 So that's another issue to consider for this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 26



1 
 order, that he did have whole body counts for 

2 
 '94 and '95. 

3 
 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And those 

4 
 whole body counts were used in dose 

5 
 reconstruction. 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. You 

7 
 know, what we're talking about and who we are 

8 
 talking about here needs to be taken into 

9 
 consideration. This was, as has been pointed 

10 
 out, not a production facility, never has 

11 
 been. This is a facility that does not have a 

12 
 lot of casual workers wandering through, 

13 
 doesn't have people who are not truly prepared 

14 
 for and understand the projects they are 

15 involved in. 

16 
 This is a clean facility. We don't 

17 
 think of it as -- we have seen it. And it 

18 
 never has been considered a dirty facility, 

19 
 like the production facilities are. We have 

20 
 people that we are talking about here who are 

21 
 claimants who are people who put together 

22 
 production programs. These are folks that are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 27



1 
 acutely aware of when they should and should 

2 
 not be monitored. It's hard to imagine that 

3 
 they would have had any period of time that 

4 
 they should have been monitored when they 

5 
 weren't if for no other reason than the fact 

6 
 that, for the most part, I don't know these 

7 
 individuals. So I can't make that blanket 

8 
 statement, but I think you can make that 

9 
 blanket statement with regard to most of this 

10 
 particular laboratory's folks. They would 

11 certainly be aware of that. 

12 
 If there were incidents where they 

13 
 should have been monitored -- and let's face 

14 
 it. A hundred millirems a year? Gosh, guys. 

15 
 That's a really low cut-off for the decision 

16 
 to have been made whether or not they were 

17 
 going to be monitored. But if they weren't 

18 
 being monitored, then it seems highly probable 

19 
 to me that neither the individual nor their 

20 
 project management felt that it was reasonable 

21 to do so. 

22 
 So if you have decent records about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28



1 
 these folks and especially in cases where you 

2 
 have a whole body count and you know, 

3 
 therefore, that the concern for monitoring 

4 
 existed -- otherwise, there wouldn't be a 

5 
 whole body count -- it just does not seem 

6 
 rational that one would jump to the conclusion 

7 
 that there was a missing record or that they 

8 
 should have been monitored and weren't in this 

9 
 particular facility. It seems to me that 

10 
 there is adequate validity for the position 

11 
 that 1993 will give you the people that we 

12 
 need to be concerned about with regard to 

13 Special Exposure Cohort. 

14 
 CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie 

15 
 following up on that. I was looking -- and I 

16 
 am going to refer to Ron's bar graph because 

17 
 that is a picture that I can look at. And I 

18 
 look at the record, and I am only looking at 

19 
 the figures 1B, 2B, and it looks to me like we 

20 
 have a percentage of workers that were 

21 
 bioassayed of the 5. And we are looking at 

22 
 numbers about 55 percent up to maybe 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 
 

 

 29



1 
 percent overall, 55 to 75 percent. What 

2 
 percentage of records are adequate to do dose 

3 
 reconstruction? 

4 
 MR. CALHOUN: I think that it 

5 
 depends on what the exposure potential was. 

6 
 And in these five cases, it turns out that the 

7 
 people that were monitored -- if you look deep 

8 
 into their monitoring history and what they 

9 
 did, again, I see that in my mind, there is 

10 
 really no reason to believe that records are 

11 missing post-1993. 

12 
 So in my opinion, I believe that we 

13 
 have all of the records that were there. And 

14 
 we certainly can tap the dose and do a dose 

15 
 reconstruction for these individuals, you 

16 
 know, in the event that there was a -- let's 

17 
 just say that there was a month or a year or 

18 
 whatever of tritium data or there was a month 

19 
 or a year where there was no tritium data, but 

20 
 there was data before and after, we would 

21 
 assign missed dose between those two points 

22 
 and the same thing with whole body counts. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 30



1 
 You know, we can get the whole body counts 

2 
 from year to year. 

3 
 And when you look at the graph, 

4 
 that is good, but you have actually got to get 

5 
 down to the individual data points that are 

6 
 believed to be the problem. You know, there 

7 
 is a case in particular where it's very clear 

8 
 that the individual didn't start working at 

9 
 the HFBR until 1995. 

10 
 But it hurts that graph because 

11 
 there is no count for 1994, I believe. But, 

12 
 you know, you have got something called an 

13 
 indoctrination sheet that this individual 

14 
 signed. And I talked to the people at 

15 
 Brookhaven. And they say you don't sign that 

16 
 indoctrination -- that indoctrination sheet is 

17 
 basically training. And that allows you to go 

18 
 into the facility unescorted. Months prior to 

19 
 that, I have escorted access logs for the 

20 individual. 

21 
 And this is all stuff that was 

22 
 provided by Brookhaven in their last response 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 31



1 
 to us. You know, the same situation -- I just 

2 
 today looked at the latest -- the first whole 

3 
 body count, which was done in 1995. And it 

4 
 actually had the notation that said, "This is 

5 
 a new HP transfer to the HFBR." So that is 

6 
 another piece of information that the lack of 

7 
 data in 1994 is really -- it's not that the 

8 
 data is not there. It just was never taken 

9 
 because he wasn't working in that facility. 

10 
 And that is a different example than the first 

11 one I gave. 

12 
 So when I look at all of this 

13 
 stuff, I believe that the dose reconstruction 

14 
 is very feasible for these five individuals. 

15 
 And, like Ron said, this is a small sample, 

16 
 but in my mind, it's a good sample in that the 

17 
 dosimetry information that is there seems 

18 complete. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Josie, this is 

20 
 Joe. You know, one thing that I think we all 

21 
 agree is that before December 31st, '93, the 

22 
 inconsistency in availability of internal 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 32



1 
 dosimetry records -- that is how it is phrased 

2 
 in Grady's paper -- was due to an incomplete 

3 
 and inadequate record system at Brookhaven. 

4 
 And that was, you know, certainly 

5 
 discussed quite a bit. And I think, you know, 

6 
 everybody agrees that the inconsistency, '93 

7 
 and before, is due to those inadequacies in 

8 
 the record system. And, of course, Brookhaven 

9 
 came around and programmatically made 

10 
 improvements and put them in place in '93. 

11 That's why we are talking about '93. 

12 
 Now, the Work Group asked SC&A to 

13 
 look at beyond the programmatic basis for '93, 

14 
 which was this improvement in the records 

15 
 program. Were those improvements manifest in 

16 
 a better consistency in the records beyond 

17 
 '93? This is not an uncommon question. We 

18 
 have dealt with the same question at other 

19 
 laboratories, like Los Alamos, where the 

20 
 question is, you know, even though it is a 

21 
 programmatic improvement, can you see that 

22 
 improvement manifest in better dosimetry and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 33



1 
 better records? 

2 
 So in this case, we did what we 

3 
 could. And it is difficult at this lab 

4 
 because of the sources, meaning that you don't 

5 
 have a lot of workers -- and Wanda just 

6 
 pointed this out -- that are getting exposed 

7 
 to internal emitters to a degree where you 

8 
 have had a large sample size to deal with. 

9 
 So we took the sample that we could 

10 
 and looked at that very question, which was 

11 
 the consistency of completeness of records, 

12 the same issue. 

13 
 And what I'm hearing from Grady --

14 
 and, you know, I understand what he is saying 

15 
 -- is that, whereas, the inconsistency of 

16 
 December '93 and before was clearly due to the 

17 
 inadequacies of the records program at 

18 
 Brookhaven, the inconsistencies, which seemed 

19 
 to continue after '93, at least through '96, 

20 
 can be explained by details that are now 

21 
 available that point to things such as 

22 
 exposure potential likely being lacking in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 34



1 
 maybe orientation of new workers and various 

2 
 other explanations. 

3 
 But, again, you are dealing with a 

4 
 -- at least on this sample size -- and it's 

5 
 small, but you're dealing with inconsistencies 

6 
 which are comparable to what we would have 

7 
 seen before '93. The difference is that we're 

8 
 hearing explanations that are more traditional 

9 
 explanations as to why you have these gaps. 

10 
 I guess I am not sure where you go 

11 
 from this. We see comparable inconsistencies. 

12 
 There may be explanations. There is no way 

13 
 to confirm that. I think it's one of these 

14 
 where if we construe that the exposure 

15 
 potential wasn't there and the individual 

16 
 wasn't monitored and, therefore, that's why he 

17 
 doesn't show up with records. You know, that 

18 
 is certainly one tack one can take, and it has 

19 
 been taken at other sites, but it doesn't put 

20 
 the issue necessarily to bed. And I don't 

21 
 know if a larger sample size is even feasible 

22 
 for Brookhaven because of the number of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 35



1 
 workers that would, in fact, be given routine 

2 
 bioassays for internal emitters. 

3 
 But this sample size suggests that 

4 
 the inconsistencies continue. There may be 

5 
 some explanations, but you still see those 

6 
 inconsistencies. So I think that is all we 

7 
 can say at this point from that test that 

8 
 certainly the Work Group had us do. 

9 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Joe and Josie, I 

10 
 guess, everybody, this is Gen. To make a 

11 
 conclusion on these graphs makes me very 

12 
 uncomfortable. It just seems because of some 

13 
 of the reasons that Grady has brought up, what 

14 
 might have happened, whether a person maybe 

15 
 didn't have exposure potential and that's the 

16 
 reason they weren't included in a particular 

17 
 evaluation, it seems that that is sort of --

18 
 these graphs can really distort the 

19 conclusion. 

20 
 And I think some of the things 

21 
 Wanda said were very persuasive about the 

22 
 situation there at Brookhaven. So I am not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 36



1 
 comfortable in extending the period based on 

2 
 these graphs. 

3 
 To me, the real question I think is 

4 
 can you bound the dose. And I don't know. 

5 
 Grady kind of alluded to that. Maybe he could 

6 
 say a little more based on that. 

7 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I 100 percent 

8 
 believe we could and without coworker studies 

9 
 even. Based on the data we have on these five 

10 
 individuals and their work histories, the data 

11 
 is complete to do a dose reconstruction. We 

12 
 have multiple whole body counts on people. We 

13 
 have tritium bioassay on people. We know 

14 
 where the individuals worked and when they 

15 worked. 

16 
 One of the five individuals was 

17 
 somebody who was very, very knowledgeable, 

18 
 said they were never exposed to tritium. But 

19 
 there are multiple whole body and urinalysis 

20 
 reports because there were some incidents that 

21 
 they were involved in. So there's a lot of 

22 information here now. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 37



1 
 And one thing that I agree with Joe 

2 
 on here is that the main driver for the second 

3 
 SEC, the 83.14, is that we started -- like I 

4 
 said earlier, we were finding data that we had 

5 
 captured that they didn't. And they have 

6 
 really done, I won't say a great job, but I'll 

7 
 say a much better job in giving us records. 

8 
 And it is way more information than we 

9 
 typically would have gotten. 

10 
 So, you know, who knows if that 

11 
 would have even changed the date to be even 

12 
 earlier than '93 if we would have had this 

13 
 kind of information back when we made that 

14 
 83.14 determination? But they didn't start 

15 
 doing that until 2011, this new records 

16 
 retrieval and storage and response process 

17 that they are using. 

18 
 The main question is yes, I believe 

19 
 that, even without coworker studies, these 

20 
 five individuals, it is certainly feasible to 

21 
 do their dose reconstructions. And we have 

22 
 completed dose reconstructions on all of them. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 38



1 
 Some of them were comped based on limited 

2 
 data, some of them non-comped. And then there 

3 
 were people that were comped through the SEC. 

4 
 CHAIR BEACH: Grady, this is Josie. 

5 
 I've got a question. Did SC&A have access to 

6 
 all of that data that you are just referring 

7 
 to that you just recently got when they pulled 

8 
 the five samples? 

9 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

10 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So you said 

11 
 yes. So Ron was able to use all of that data 

12 when he came up with his percentages and --

13 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

14 
 CHAIR BEACH: -- with the five 

15 workers? Okay. 

16 
 MR. CALHOUN: As a matter of fact, 

17 
 I say, you know, neither of us -- after Ted 

18 
 kind of set this up, you know, we both kind of 

19 
 agreed that there was no additional data that 

20 
 either of us were going to pull out to use, 

21 
 but we both had access to the data. And, like 

22 
 I said, I know Ron felt my pain in going 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 39



1 
 through these hundreds and hundreds, if not 

2 
 thousands, of pages of new documents that we 

3 
 had for these five people. 

4 
 CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. And I 

5 
 appreciate the work and diligence it took to 

6 
 do that. I'm sure it wasn't easy. Is that 

7 
 you, Henry, talking or --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. Josie --

9 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: -- I was just 

11 
 going to offer, given what Gen just said, 

12 
 perhaps the way we could go forward on this 

13 
 is, you know, this limited sample size --

14 
 given the data we have, there isn't a whole 

15 
 lot more one can do with the data but just to 

16 
 provide some assurance to the Work Group, 

17 
 perhaps, you know, Grady could provide a dose 

18 
 reconstruction. Almost like, you know, we 

19 
 have three or four workers, there could be a 

20 
 bounding dose reconstruction approach for 

21 
 those workers given these gaps that would I 

22 
 think be more specific in terms of answering 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 40



1 
 some of these issues about how one resolves 

2 
 what may be lingering problems, not so much 

3 
 problems but gaps in the records for these 

4 
 workers. 

5 
 CHAIR BEACH: That sounds 

6 
 reasonable. 

7 
 MR. CALHOUN: What you are asking 

8 
 for is with these five individuals, I come up 

9 
 with what would be a somewhat generic dose 

10 
 reconstruction unless you want the actual. 

11 
 But what we would have to do is -- you know, 

12 
 there is at least one of them that was comped 

13 based on non-tritium data, you know. 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: My guess is you 

15 
 are probably going to -- you know, during this 

16 
 transition period where, you know, it's not --

17 
 it didn't turn on a dime. I think that's what 

18 
 we were saying, that you would have three or 

19 
 four years where it got better, but you are 

20 
 probably going to see gaps and maybe not gaps 

21 
 as large as they were before. But what 

22 
 specifically would you do? Given what seems 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 41



1 
 to be a wealth of information and data that 

2 
 has come your way from Brookhaven with their 

3 
 new system, does that now give you sufficient 

4 
 information? It sounds like it does, but does 

5 
 that give you sufficient information to do the 

6 
 necessary bridging of those gaps? 

7 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And, again, I 

8 
 would like to keep it on these five cases. 

9 
 One thing that we can't assume is that these 

10 
 gaps are errors. There is really no reason to 

11 
 believe that no tritium monitoring for '94 and 

12 
 '95 for a guy that had 6 years of tritium 

13 monitoring with all zeros is a gap. 

14 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Grady, this is 

15 
 Brad. That to me is you're speculating that. 

16 
 And when we start to speculate that, we can 

17 
 speculate into quite a bit of it. We have to 

18 deal with the data that we do have. 

19 
 You know, you can take the other 

20 
 side of it and say there is no reason that 

21 
 they shouldn't have had monitoring. They had 

22 
 it all the way through these years. Why 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 42



1 
 shouldn't they still have monitoring? And 

2 
 that is part of my issue that I get into this 

3 
 because the 100 millirem per year debate is 

4 
 still going on today. And we see it in the 

5 
 industry all the time. One time we're getting 

6 
 monitored and then the next time we're not 

7 
 because somebody different has made a 

8 
 different determination on it. 

9 
 So I guess my thing is I need to be 

10 
 able to look at what exactly data that we do 

11 
 have out there. And as to Wanda's comment, 

12 
 one of the things I want to bring up is this 

13 
 has been one of the worst sites that we have 

14 
 ever had for data. And this to me I was 

15 
 thinking with all the individuals we have 

16 
 there, all of the people that were there, I 

17 
 thought this was going to be far, far 

18 
 superior. And here this ends up to be one of 

19 the worst ones. 

20 
 In my eyes, we have got to deal 

21 
 with the facts that we have before us. We can 

22 
 speculate in many cases to what we want. But 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 43



1 
 to say because these people were all of 

2 
 certain knowledge or anything else like that 

3 
 that they would have known, I really don't 

4 
 think we can do that either because it goes to 

5 
 show if it was, then their data would have 

6 
 been a lot better to it. 

7 
 Myself, I thought these guys should 

8 
 have been the pearl among all of the processes 

9 
 out here that would have been the best. I 

10 
 really truly believed it was going to be until 

11 we got to this point. 

12 
 MR. CALHOUN: You're right. You're 

13 
 right that this is one of the worst sites that 

14 
 I know of so far. You know, there will be 

15 
 other national labs that are similar. But the 

16 
 fact of the matter is that the 100 millirem 

17 
 per year is, in fact, a requirement. And that 

18 is the requirement they have to live to. 

19 
 But I believe that, you know, the 

20 
 data that we have -- and, like I said, you 

21 
 have got to look at the individual cases. You 

22 
 can't just look at the graph. And I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 44



1 
 appreciate the graph, and it is a good 

2 
 illustration, but you have got to look at the 

3 
 individual cases and look at what they did and 

4 
 make a determination because this wasn't a 

5 
 place where, you know, one person stayed in 

6 
 one spot the whole time and should have been 

7 
 monitored and was monitored. 

8 
 So, you know, like I said, I would 

9 
 be glad to do what Joe suggested and try to 

10 
 throw some hypotheticals out there as far as 

11 
 these five cases because, you know, we didn't 

12 
 continue dose reconstruction. We didn't redo 

13 
 dose reconstruction on people that were comped 

14 
 through the SEC. And we didn't go any further 

15 
 with trying to calculate a tritium dose with 

16 
 individuals who were comped by, you know, 

17 
 using other radionuclides that they were 

18 
 exposed to that were determined through either 

19 
 whole body counts or other types of 

20 urinalysis. 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess, Grady, 

22 
 just a little bit more background, the reason 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 45



1 
 I'm looking at that approach is because before 

2 
 '93, the records lacked credibility to the 

3 
 point where if you had a gap, you would not 

4 
 even attempt perhaps to explain it away 

5 
 because you wouldn't be sure if that gap was 

6 
 just a reflection of the fact that those 

7 
 records went missing. 

8 
 So there was a point in time, not 

9 
 much --

10 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: -- before what 

12 
 we're talking about here where you couldn't 

13 
 even draw that judgment. Now I think you're 

14 
 saying that based on the record that you're 

15 
 seeing in that time period after '93, when you 

16 
 see a gap, you feel the records database is 

17 
 much more credible. Therefore, you can 

18 
 interpret that gap as maybe being real from 

19 
 the standpoint of either not being monitoring 

20 or whatever else. 

21 
 My concern that I share with Brad 

22 
 is that you get -- unless you have a basis for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 46



1 
 determining that that gap was, in fact, a real 

2 
 gap, it still might after '93 be a lack of a 

3 
 record. I mean, there is no way to nail it 

4 
 down unless you do have enough information. 

5 
 And that is what I am saying. If there is, in 

6 
 fact, enough information that is coming over 

7 
 from Brookhaven that wasn't coming over 

8 
 before, that you can substantiate these gaps 

9 
 as being not a gap due to a record being 

10 
 missed but actually a real gap because of lack 

11 
 of monitoring being done, then that is 

12 different. 

13 
 But I don't think I have seen that 

14 
 really provided. I think all we can go by 

15 
 objectively, which is what Ron did, was to 

16 
 highlight the gaps and, you know, without 

17 
 trying to get into a broad analysis of 

18 interpreting what that gap means. 

19 
 So what we have raised to the Work 

20 
 Group is that, you know, certainly the gaps 

21 
 persist. And what you are saying is that 

22 
 there is probably a much better explanation 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 47



1 
 because you have more information than you had 

2 
 before. And that is kind of what may come to 

3 
 the fore if you are able to provide or use 

4 
 that data to provide the interpretations you 

5 
 are talking about. 

6 
 Now, if there is simply going to be 

7 
 -- I won't use the word "speculation" but, you 

8 
 know, you were saying hypotheticals. If they 

9 
 happen to be your best guesstimate, rather 

10 
 than something based on the information, then 

11 
 I'm not sure that helps us too much because 

12 
 that is not based on any information from 

13 
 Brookhaven but more health physics judgment as 

14 
 to why somebody didn't have a monitoring 

15 
 record because they weren't monitored, if you 

16 
 follow my logic on that one. So it does have 

17 
 to be grounded I think on the information or 

18 
 the data that we have gotten from Brookhaven 

19 
 and not just simply, you know, a speculation 

20 of sorts, professional judgment. 

21 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: This is Andy. 

22 
 That kind of is my read on it. I am really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48



1 
 looking for all we at this point really know 

2 
 is that things changed in '93 with the 

3 
 program. What we don't know is the gaps after 

4 
 that, you know, how rapidly were the changes 

5 
 implemented so those gaps, in fact, are truly 

6 
 not a need for monitoring. So, you know, a 

7 
 three-year phase-in I'm much more comfortable 

8 
 and accepting things after that it's now fully 

9 
 implemented, actually been in place a while 

10 
 set of criteria, but we really have to look at 

11 
 the data that's -- I really would like to see 

12 
 this -- I hate to say it -- having to do more 

13 
 work, but let's look at how you do it and what 

14 the data actually is. 

15 
 CHAIR BEACH: And this is Josie. I 

16 
 circled and wrote down "hypothetical" also 

17 
 because I think, Grady, we need to know 

18 
 exactly if we do ask you to go back and do 

19 
 more work exactly what we're going to get and 

20 
 if it's going to be useful because I see that 

21 
 we have kind of two paths. One, you know, I 

22 
 believe in a case such as this at BNL, we need 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 49



1 
 to give the benefit of the judgment to the 

2 
 claimants and set the cut-off date at the end 

3 
 of '96, or if you can do this and give us a 

4 
 chance to look at what you are actually doing, 

5 
 then I would leave that with the Work Group 

6 
 and what your judgment would be. 

7 
 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Let me talk a 

8 
 little bit about this, then. And as we all 

9 
 know that the SEC needs to be established 

10 
 because of infeasibility of dose 

11 
 reconstruction. Now, I just want to get into 

12 
 this other case just a little bit and just 

13 
 give you the background and see, you know, 

14 what could be a possible outcome here. 

15 
 You know, we have got an individual 

16 
 who had some positive doses prior to '85, but 

17 
 between '85 and '95, and he retired in '95, he 

18 
 had 10 millirem external total. He had 

19 
 somewhere between 12 and 15 tritium samples 

20 
 taken during that time up to '93. And they 

21 
 were all zero. And he retires in '95. In '94 

22 and '95, there are no tritium samples. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 50



1 
 Now, if any of us have ever worked 

2 
 in an HP program, you determine your 

3 
 monitoring. And these individuals weren't 

4 
 done -- or were done -- there was individual 

5 
 -- I will say hazard type evaluations 

6 
 provided. And if you've worked in an HP 

7 
 program, you know that your monitoring program 

8 
 is based on risk. And if an individual had 15 

9 
 samples, tritium samples, all were negative, 

10 
 almost all of his external dose was negative, 

11 
 I am not going to be able to find a letter 

12 
 that says this individual doesn't need to be 

13 
 monitored in 1994 and 1995 for tritium. Okay. 

14 
 He had whole body counts in '94 and '95. What 

15 
 does that mean? That could mean he was 

16 
 working at BLIP. That could mean he was 

17 
 working in isotope separation and he had more 

18 
 of a fission product thing to deal with than a 

19 tritium analysis. 

20 
 I am just wondering what to do in 

21 
 that thing that is going to be satisfactory in 

22 
 that case to show other than the data that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 51



1 
 indicates no dose that he was monitored 

2 
 because right now what we're doing, we're 

3 
 assuming that he should have been monitored. 

4 
 We're assuming that he was monitored. And 

5 
 we're assuming that the records don't exist. 

6 
 And I am not sure that that is a great 

7 
 position. And that is what SC&A is assuming, 

8 
 not NIOSH. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but I would 

10 
 also point out that you're assuming in the 

11 
 other direction that because the record isn't 

12 
 there that there is an exposure-based reason 

13 
 why he wasn't monitored. But, again, I think 

14 
 we're just making a judgment, but we don't 

15 have anything to corroborate it. 

16 
 MR. CALHOUN: I believe they were 

17 
 DOELAP-accredited at that point and had some 

18 
 reasonable programs in place. So it's one of 

19 
 those deals -- and you really can't. It's 

20 
 hard to argue a negative as to why a piece of 

21 
 dosimetry that late in his career with all of 

22 
 the supporting stuff in between is missing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 52



1 
 Now, if he had positive urinalysis up to that 

2 
 point or if he had, you know, a one-year break 

3 
 with positives before and negatives after, I 

4 
 would -- my eyebrows would go up a little bit 

5 
 more and say, "Hmmm. Maybe something here is 

6 
 missing." 

7 
 But because of the way this one, in 

8 
 particular, came about, it is not a stretch. 

9 
 It is a very reasonable in my thought that 

10 those results are inconsequential. 

11 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Josie, this is 

12 
 Gen. I want to comment. I feel the same way 

13 
 Brad does, which might be a surprise to Brad, 

14 
 but I think we have to deal with the data that 

15 
 we have. And we could go on with this 

16 
 discussion for a long time, but if I had to 

17 
 vote at this point, I wouldn't know how to 

18 
 vote because I really don't have a good 

19 
 feeling for how a dose reconstruction could be 

20 
 done. How can the dose be bounded? And I 

21 
 think what I need to see is something that has 

22 
 been done by NIOSH before is to present maybe 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 53



1 
 a hypothetical but sort of a real case that 

2 
 says, "Here is how we are going to go about 

3 
 it." 

4 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

5 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Rather than just 

6 
 hearing that, "Yes, we can do it," I would 

7 
 like to see how this could be done. I'd like 

8 
 to see an example or two. 

9 
 CHAIR BEACH: I believe that is 

10 exactly what Joe asked for. And I feel --

11 
 MR. CALHOUN: I will do that. And, 

12 
 like I said, for the cases that -- you know, 

13 
 one of them I said was comped with something 

14 
 other than tritium, but tritium is the issue. 

15 
 I'll forget that I had that other dose. And 

16 
 I'll show how we would have done tritium for 

17 
 that case. 

18 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So my question 

19 
 -- this is Josie again. How many cases can 

20 
 you provide for us? One is probably not 

21 enough. 

22 
 MR. CALHOUN: The only reasonable 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 54



1 
 thing to do is these five cases. 

2 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Does the Work 

3 
 Group agree with that? 

4 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Josie, this is 

5 
 Brad. Yes, I do. I guess there is another 

6 
 part. And I agree with Gen right now, and I 

7 
 am sure that surprises her. But part of the 

8 
 thing is I also want to be able to understand 

9 
 how -- with this information, if we voted that 

10 
 these years weren't there, how are we going to 

11 
 determine which people out there need -- I 

12 
 guess my question is, how are you going to 

13 
 implement this? How would you decide who 

14 
 needed to be monitored or not? I'm still not 

15 
 at a great feeling of how you're going to 

16 
 apply the dose reconstruction for this, how 

17 
 you're going to single out the ones that 

18 
 should be redone or that don't need to be 

19 
 done. 

20 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, I think 

21 
 that's their challenge. They have to show us. 

22 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: And this is what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 55



1 
 I'm trying to talk about, Gen, is I want to 

2 
 see these cases, but I also want to understand 

3 
 how they are going to implement it to the body 

4 
 of the whole as not just these five cases, but 

5 
 I wanted to find out how they're going to do 

6 
 it to the general public of Brookhaven. 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: Well, they had such a 

8 
 low trigger for their assessment program 

9 
 anyway. 

10 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: So they should 

11 
 have been monitored. 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: No. If you are quite 

13 
 assured that your program is not going to 

14 
 produce more than 100 mR of exposure to 

15 
 anybody except 2 or 3 people and those 2 or 3 

16 
 people aren't showing that trigger either, 

17 
 then, you know, we're talking about doses that 

18 
 are really down in the weeds here. 

19 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. And I've 

20 
 got to go to my standpoint on this. I work 

21 
 with sources that are over a million R. Guess 

22 
 what. They determined that under 100 -- I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 56



1 
 don't have the potential for under 100 

2 
 millirem per year. 

3 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

4 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: So when we start 

5 
 saying that, "Well, because they didn't 

6 
 implement this," this all comes down to 

7 
 somebody's interpretation. And over the last 

8 
 seven years of my life, it has been one way 

9 
 and then back the other way, back the other --

10 
 and now we're back again to the "No, they 

11 
 don't need to be monitored." Even though we 

12 
 deal with very high sources and possibilities 

13 
 of it, they have deemed, somebody has deemed, 

14 
 that it isn't. And we debate this 

15 continuously. 

16 
 That is a judgment call that 

17 
 somebody makes. That goes back and forth. 

18 
 And for us to just say, "Well, yes. Because 

19 
 they weren't monitored, they didn't even get 

20 
 around 100 millirem," I have personal feelings 

21 
 that, no, that isn't the best defense. I'm 

22 
 not saying that I -- I understand what you're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 57



1 
 saying, but I also have to fall back on what I 

2 
 have seen throughout the industry. 

3 
 And a lot of times, it comes down 

4 
 to the bottom line is money. It costs money 

5 
 to monitor people. And if they can get out of 

6 
 it, they will. And we -- I've seen it, 

7 
 especially the last ten years of my life, back 

8 
 and forth and back and forth, because it all 

9 
 comes down to money. 

10 
 And I don't think -- and this is 

11 
 just my personal opinion. We can't hang our 

12 
 hat on that 100 millirem. I really don't 

13 think that we can. 

14 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: I am going to 

15 have to run. 

16 CHAIR BEACH: Thanks, Henry. 

17 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: My vote is let's 

18 
 look at some details in the case. I'm not 

19 
 sure I am going to be convinced that we can 

20 
 make that cut at `93, but let's give it 

21 another run. 

22 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Henry, thank 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 58



1 
 you. We understand. 

2 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: Sure. 

3 
 CHAIR BEACH: So at this point, 

4 
 then, does the Work Group agree that NIOSH 

5 
 should go back and look at those five cases 

6 
 and give us how they bounded those cases? Is 

7 
 that what we're looking for? 

8 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. At 

9 
 this time, yes, I think we have got to look at 

10 
 all of the information from all sides of it. 

11 
 And I think that this would be the best to be 

12 
 able to give us a better feeling of how this 

13 
 is going to be implemented and what they need 

14 to be able to do. 

15 
 CHAIR BEACH: And, of course, 

16 
 NIOSH, can you give us a timeline on that? We 

17 
 are on the schedule for March. And I know 

18 that can be changed if need be. 

19 
 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. I 

20 
 think it will certainly take, I would say, a 

21 
 few weeks to get all of this together, but I'm 

22 not sure. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 59



1 
 CHAIR BEACH: So a few weeks mean 

2 
 we won't make a March time frame? 

3 
 MR. CALHOUN: Well, what date in 

4 
 March is it? I forget. 

5 
 CHAIR BEACH: The 12th. 

6 
 MR. CALHOUN: I think that is going 

7 
 to be tough. You know, I mean, after I get 

8 
 off here, I will talk to my bosses and see 

9 
 what they want me to do. 

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

11 
 MR. CALHOUN: We'll see what the 

12 
 workload is, but let me just hold off and let 

13 you know in the next couple of days. Okay? 

14 
 CHAIR BEACH: I won't speak for 

15 
 Ted, but I will ask Ted the question, if you 

16 can work with Ted, I would assume. 

17 
 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. 

18 
 CHAIR BEACH: And, Ted, if you are 

19 speaking, you are on mute. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: No, I am not speaking. 

21 I was just --

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 60



1 
 MR. KATZ: I am not sure what the 

2 
 question was to me, Josie. 

3 
 CHAIR BEACH: I was just asking if 

4 
 Grady could get with you on the timeline. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Whenever. He can send 

6 
 us, the whole Work Group, a timeline. 

7 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

9 
 CHAIR BEACH: And I only suggested 

10 
 that because it is your schedule for March 

11 that is going to change. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Right. And we can deal 

13 
 with a change, even at the last moment if we 

14 need to. 

15 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Do we need to 

16 
 take an official vote to go this direction? I 

17 
 mean, we heard from Henry, Brad. And I agree 

18 
 that these five cases should be done. Gen, I 

19 
 believe we heard --

20 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, or any 

21 
 other supporting information that they can 

22 give. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 61



1 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

2 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: And I think Joe 

3 
 has some good thoughts on how this could be 

4 
 achieved. I think if I were Grady I would 

5 
 talk with Joe a little bit more to kind of get 

6 
 an idea of how to approach this. 

7 
 CHAIR BEACH: That sounds like 

8 
 sound advice. And, Wanda? 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That's fine. What 

10 
 we can do is maybe have that discussion and 

11 
 bring something back to the Work Group by 

12 
 email that would be the proposal as far as 

13 whatever analysis is called for. 

14 
 CHAIR BEACH: Does this fall to the 

15 
 level of a technical call or you can just work 

16 that out? 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I would assume we 

18 can just work it out. 

19 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And, Wanda, 

20 are you in agreement? 

21 
 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think we are 

22 
 going to get any more information than we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 62



1 
 already have, actually. But that's just a 

2 
 personal feeling. Whatever the Work Group 

3 
 wants to do is clearly going to happen and 

4 
 that if you feel there is additional 

5 
 information that is going to be beneficial, I 

6 
 just can't imagine what it will be. 

7 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you. 

8 
 Are there any other comments or 

9 
 questions, or are we ready to adjourn? 

10 
 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. I just 

11 
 think that we should lay out, you know, what 

12 
 would be achieved so that we just don't have 

13 
 more White Papers going back and forth on the 

14 
 dose reconstruction and how would we present 

15 
 it and what assumptions can be made so that it 

16 
 would, you know, prove something one way or 

17 
 the other, rather than just exchanging White 

18 
 Papers to come up with the same brick wall 

19 next time. 

20 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. That sounds 

21 
 like good information. So who would start 

22 that? Would SC&A? Would you --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 63



1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I would propose 

2 
 that we have a conference call, technical 

3 
 conference call. I think Ron, myself, Grady. 

4 
 You know, if any Board Member wants to listen 

5 
 in, that's fine, too. But, you know, within 

6 
 the next few business days, just do that. 

7 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And come up with 

9 
 the best approach that one can, understanding 

10 
 -- and, you know, I have some reservations. I 

11 
 mean, I think we have what we have in the way 

12 
 of data, but I think any way we can help the 

13 
 Work Group sort of understand some of what 

14 
 Grady has said but understand better what the 

15 
 data provides, what this new information that 

16 
 we seem to have more of from Brookhaven, what 

17 
 that can do to facilitate dose reconstruction 

18 is about the best we can do at this point. 

19 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I think that 

20 
 sounds like a reasonable approach. Thank you, 

21 
 Ron, for that advice. Ted, can you -- who 

22 
 would set up the technical call. I would like 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 64



1 
 to sit in on it. 

2 
 MR. KATZ: No. That's fine. And I 

3 
 can set it up as soon as I know. Let's give 

4 
 Grady a chance to reconnoiter and figure out 

5 
 what -- he was going to get you some timeline 

6 
 information or whatever and I'm sure Grady as 

7 
 well as Joe and Ron will be thinking about 

8 
 what they want. So just let me know when 

9 
 you're ready to meet, Joe, Grady, and I'll set 

10 
 it up. And we'll do that. And I'll send a 

11 
 notice to the whole Work Group. And anybody 

12 
 who wants to listen in can do that. And we 

13 
 can get it done early next week I guess is 

14 what we're talking about. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, maybe like 

16 Tuesday, sometime by early next week. 

17 
 MR. CALHOUN: I am, unfortunately, 

18 
 traveling to Los Alamos. I'll be there 

19 
 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Now I'll look 

20 
 at my flight schedule and see when I can call 

21 
 in if we decide Tuesday is the date. But it 

22 
 is going to be at least a little bit less open 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 65



1 
 than my typical days here are. 

2 
 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And we can --

3 
 MR. KATZ: Let me ask this question 

4 
 just before we -- how much time do you guys 

5 
 need to think about this because we could do 

6 
 it tomorrow if you wanted to? 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to 

8 
 have at least a day. 

9 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, yes. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's fine. I 

11 
 mean, Monday is Presidents Day. Grady, you're 

12 traveling starting on Tuesday? 

13 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I'm traveling 

14 
 Tuesday. I've got a meeting there Wednesday. 

15 And I'm coming home Thursday. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: So is there a time of 

17 day on Tuesday that would work for you? 

18 
 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I can look at 

19 my flight here. Let's see. Hold on. 

20 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

21 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Josie, this 

22 
 is Brad. I've got a nuclear fuel element that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 66



1 
 has my name on it, and they're waiting for me 

2 
 to go. So I'm going to sign off, but if we 

3 
 could just be apprised, the Work Group, of 

4 
 what is kind of pushing forward, I would 

5 
 greatly appreciate it. 

6 
 CHAIR BEACH: Of course, Brad. 

7 
 Thank you. 

8 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Bye bye. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Bye, Brad. 

10 
 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we either have 

11 
 to do it probably before 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 

12 which is unlikely --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

14 
 MR. CALHOUN: -- or my flight 

15 
 arrives at 2:00. And then I've got to drive 

16 
 to Santa Fe. So that's at least an hour. So 

17 
 3:00. So that would probably push me to I 

18 guess 4:00-ish on Tuesday. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. But 4:00-ish 

20 there, that's 6:00 p.m. Eastern time? 

21 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. There you go. 

22 
 Sorry. I didn't think of that. Okay. And 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 67



1 
 then the other option is I have to find the 

2 
 times of my meetings. I've got my meeting --

3 
 that's not -- the meeting date on Wednesday. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. I think Thursday 

5 
 is a Work Group meeting. So it would have to 

6 
 be Wednesday. And Josie is traveling part of 

7 
 the day on Wednesday. 

8 
 CHAIR BEACH: I don't necessarily 

9 
 have to sit in. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

11 
 CHAIR BEACH: I will try to make 

12 
 whatever is most convenient for Grady and Joe. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, Grady, I 

14 
 don't mean to put you on the spot while you 

15 
 are on the phone, but if you can shoot for a 

16 
 time on Wednesday that works that is 

17 reasonable --

18 
 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. My meetings are 

19 
 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, it looks 

20 like. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Is there a big gap in 

22 between there? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 68



1 
 MR. CALHOUN: So I guess maybe --

2 
 it depends on how far I am from -- I don't 

3 
 know. I'm going to have to check out and see 

4 
 how far I am from the meeting center, too, see 

5 
 how much driving I've got to do. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: So you think there is 

7 
 somewhere in the middle of the day that might 

8 
 work? 

9 
 MR. CALHOUN: I think that would 

10 
 probably be the best, it looks like. I can't 

11 
 imagine them lasting more than a couple of 

12 hours, you know. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

14 
 MR. CALHOUN: So it would probably 

15 
 be noonish, whatever time that is. So that 

16 would be 2:00-ish, I guess, your time. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: And that would work. We 

18 
 have a Rocky Flats Work Group meeting at 

19 
 10:00, but that will be done by then. Folks 

20 
 pencil that in. Let's just pencil in 2:00 

21 
 o'clock on Wednesday. Grady can let us know 

22 
 if that won't work. But let's help keep an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 69



1 
 eye to that, everybody, on your calendars. 

2 
 CHAIR BEACH: All right. Then you 

3 
 might look at Friday also. We do have an SEC 

4 
 call at 8:00 o'clock but maybe in and around 

5 
 that. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: No. We have it at 11:00 

7 
 o'clock, Josie. 

8 
 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, 8:00 o'clock my 

9 
 time. Sorry. 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. Sorry. 

11 
 CHAIR BEACH: I write in my time so 

12 I don't lose it. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Right. Yes. We need to 

14 
 get Grady if he's going to have a discussion 

15 
 he needs to have it early enough that he can 

16 get things done. 

17 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: But Friday, right, would 

19 
 be the only other possibility that week. 

20 
 Okay. So, anyway, we will wait until we hear 

21 
 from Grady about time. And in the meanwhile, 

22 
 Ron and Joe and Grady can think about what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70



1 
 they might do. 

2 
 CHAIR BEACH: That sounds great. 

3 
 So, if there is nothing else, I can say we can 

4 
 adjourn this meeting. And thank you, 

5 
 everyone, for your attendance and comments. 

6 
 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

7 
 was concluded at 4:15 p.m.) 

8 
 

9 
 

10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


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