NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

US Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Work Group

Thursday, July 25, 2019 

The Work Group convened via teleconference at 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, Josie Beach, Chair, 

presiding.
2 

Members Present: 

Josie Beach, Chair

Bradley Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Genevieve Roessler, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Grady Calhoun, ORAU 

Andrew Evaskovich, Petitioner

Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A

Michael Rafky, HHS

Lavon Rutherford, ORAU

Dan Stempfley, ORAU

John Stiver, SC&A

Dr. Tim Taulbee, ORAU
3 

Contents

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group Thursday, July 25, 

2019 1

Welcome and Roll Call/Introductions 4

Introduction by Chair Beach 5

Working Group Discussion – Open SEC Issues 

and LANL 1999 Radiation 

Protection/Monitoring Self-Assessment 6

Question and Answer 11

Path Forward to Address MFAP/Exotics 18

Question and Answer 19

Adjourn 24
4 

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.) 

Welcome and Roll Call/Introductions

Mr. Katz: So, welcome everyone. This is the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

It's a Los Alamos National Laboratory Work Group.

And we have a -- I think it will be a relatively brief 

meeting today. Largely to understand paths 

forward for work that needs to be done. But we'll 

see.

The substantial sort of work that's being addressed 

in this discussion, some of it is, the background for 

that is two papers back and forth that are posted on 

the NIOSH website under this program.

If you go to scheduled meetings, today's date, you'll 

find that there, as well as the agenda for the 

meeting. And also a brief presentation from LaVon 

Rutherford, DCAS, who will be giving it. So, you 

can follow along with his presentation. 

So, since -- I'm going to do roll call and conflict of 

interest since this specific site that we're addressing 

today.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: Okay then. And let me just note the 

agenda doesn't have a Petitioner's comment 

section.

This is largely not, but we'll see how this call goes. 

But it's largely again, sort of just to scope the future 

activities.

But certainly at the end of this meeting, if you have 

questions or what have you, related to the agenda 

or other, you'll get -- you'll get a chance to ask 

them.

So, I think that takes care of everything I have. 
5

And let me just remind everyone to mute your 

phones, except for when you're speaking to the 

group.

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

your phone. And *6 again to take yourself off 

mute.

And please, nobody put this call on hold at any 

point. That's a problem. Just hang up and dial 

back in if you need to.

And then it's to you, Josie. It's your meeting.

Introduction by Chair Beach

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks Ted. And thanks 

everyone for joining us. If you recall, the last 

meeting was November of 2018.

We had a couple of SEC issues to discuss. And 

LaVon, I really appreciate you putting together that 

slide presentation.

That was helpful. A great spot to get us started 

talking about this. And I know that you have quite 

a few plans that you guys have already started on 

exotics.

So, I'm looking forward to hearing what your plan is 

to get through that. And, of course, the sampling 

plan for the -- for the 1999 LANL report.

So anyway, I'm going to let you go ahead and get 

started, LANL if -- or not LANL, LaVon, excuse me.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. Can everybody hear --

Chair Beach: Whatever I said, they're related, 

yeah. So, yeah, if you jump in. And then I think 

we can hold questions until the end.

And then the Work Group discussion from after your 

report. If that's okay with everyone.

Mr. Rutherford: Alright. Can everyone hear me?
6

Mr. Katz: Yeah. You sound good.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. Alright. Well, I put the 

LANL presentation up on Skype. Hopefully it's 

there. Can everybody see it?

If not --

Chair Beach: I cannot. But, --

Mr. Rutherford: Hold on.

Chair Beach: I think --

Member Lockey: I can see it, Bomber.

Mr. Rutherford: You can see it? Okay. Alright.

Chair Beach: That's okay. I have it in front of me, 

so don't -- that's fine.

Member Roessler: Yeah, I have it. I see it.

Working Group Discussion – Open SEC Issues and 

LANL 1999 Radiation Protection/Monitoring SelfAssessment

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. Alright. Well thanks, Josie. 

And I'll get started.

I'm LaVon Rutherford. I'm the Special Exposure 

Cohort Health Physics Team Leader for NIOSH. And 

I'm going to give a little status update on LANL.

I'll very briefly summarize the NIOSH Response, the 

NC ID 484, and SC&A's review of that report. I'll 

also go over the path forward for addressing the 

potential effect on the co-worker models for workers 

not leaving bioassay samples as required.

And finally, I'll go over a path forward and schedule 

for addressing dose reconstruction for mixed fission 

and activation products and other exotics.

So, NIOSH issued our response to the NTS Report 

NC ID 484 in March of this year. In that report we 
7

went over the findings and observations of the 1999 

LANL assessment that led to the Noncompliance 

Tracking System report.

We also went over the specific deficiencies identified 

in NC ID 484, and the corrective actions LANL took 

to address the deficiency.

Then we responded to each of those deficiencies 

indicating how NIOSH felt the deficiency may impact 

dose reconstruction capability. The deficiencies of 

greatest concern to NIOSH with respect to dose 

reconstruction are Deficiencies 1, 2, and 3.

Deficiency 1 is a concern that some workers and 

supervisors were not accurately filing out the HP 

checklist. And that's important, because the HP 

checklist identifies bioassay programs the workers 

will be assigned to for the work activities.

Deficiency 2 has identified as some radiological 

workers will not be participating in the bioassay 

program as required by specific RWPs. 

They reviewed a few RWPs and in one of the RWPs, 

two out of the five workers assigned were not 

leaving the appropriate bioassay. It was a very 

short sample set; I believe four RWPs, but I'm not 

sure.

Deficiency 3, which was a concern that Johnson 

Controls of Northern New Mexico may not have 

been enrolling workers in the appropriate bioassay 

program.

So, LANL's corrective actions for all three were to 

implement a web-based Dosimetry Participation 

Verification Program that went into effect on 

October 1, 2000.

The biggest question is, what effect does this -- do 

these findings and potential gaps have on our coworker models for the period 1996 through October 

2000?
8

Our response to the deficiency was basically the 

same. We indicted that this assessment focused 

mostly on the primary radionuclides and that we 

have extensive co-worker data available through 

the program primary radionuclides. We provided 

tables in our report that show that the number of 

data available between 1996 and 2005.

We picked that -- we picked 2005 for a couple of 

reasons. One, it's the end of the petition period. 

And the other is just to see if we had large changes 

in the amount of data available between there.

So, in April of this year, SC&A was tasked with 

reviewing our report. They issued their report in 

June.

Their report concluded that they -- SC&A disagreed 

with NIOSH's assessment that the amount of 

routine bioassay data available obviates the need to 

confirm its completeness in the face of NC ID 484 

findings of potential data gaps for bioassay 

enrollments and RWP job-specific bioassay 

participation.

Their recommendation was to -- NIOSH follow up 

with LANL to ascertain whether the bioassay 

incompleteness identified in this limited sampling in 

'99 reflects a broader incompleteness in LANL 

bioassay database from 1996 through 2000.

So, I briefly discussed things with Josie and Joe --

Joe Fitzgerald at SC&A, at the Board meeting in 

April.

And we decided to interview radiological control 

staff to ascertain whether LANL did additional 

amounts after the assessment to determine whether 

there was a broader issue of personnel not leaving 

the appropriate bioassay.

So, on May of this year, Joe Fitzgerald and I 

interviewed three radiologic control staff members 

in a group setting.
9

All three were present during the assessment. All 

three said they were not very involved in the 

assessment, but were aware of the assessment.

And we asked them whether they did additional 

analysis to determine the magnitude of individuals 

not leaving the required bioassay. They indicated 

there was nothing done at the time to determine 

the magnitude of individuals not leaving the 

required bioassay.

They pretty much said they recognized issues with 

the HP checklist and decided to take corrective 

actions that would fix them going forward.

Just as a note, we did get the -- we sent out the 

interview notes to the interviewees a while back. 

And just got them back with their recommended 

changes. And we're incorporating those. And we'll 

send it out for final ADC review -–

(Telephonic interference.) 

Mr. Rutherford: -- SC&A.

So, what's our proposed path forward? As I 

mentioned earlier, SC&A is concerned the missing 

bioassay samples from individuals not leaving 

bioassays samples as required for the job-specific 

RWPs and enrollment issues, and may have created 

data gaps that could affect the co-worker model.

A similar situation occurred during the SRS 

evaluation. In order to resolve that issue, NIOSH 

agreed to develop a sampling plan, and sample 

RWPs to determine compliance with bioassay 

requirements. And that's the report that we issued.

So, the first thing we had to look at is, you know, 

we wanted to determine is it even feasible to 

conduct the sampling at LANL from 1996 through 

2001.

Are the RWPs available? You know, can we get 

them? Can we get the sign-in sheets? Can we 
10

determine bioassay requirements?

And at this time it appears we can say yes to those. 

And there's always the possibility that when we get 

deeper into this, in developing the sampling plans, 

that we may come short on some.

One good news -- good thing though is that we do 

know that the HP checklists are available 

electronically.

So, we are therefore proposing to move forward 

with the sampling plan effort consistent with how it 

was conducted at SRS. I've identified some 

difficulties that could affect the schedule as we go 

along.

As I mentioned -- I may not have mentioned, LANL 

does not have an electronic database like SRS, 

except for they do have the HP checklist as I 

mentioned, electronically.

So it's a lot of, you know, it's going through 

paperwork and boxes and looking through other 

things that way.

LANL does not have a great track record for 

releasing documents quickly. And you know, if any 

funding issues come up.

We did meet with DOE. I had a phone call with 

Greg Lewis and Gina Griego. And we talked about 

both the funding and releasing of documents. And 

they both committed to work to try to, you know, 

implement lessons learned from SRS, and to help 

this process along.

And then what the plan -- the basic major steps 

that the plan includes, and obviously this is not all 

inclusive, is: we will review collected indexes of 

RWPs; we'll develop a sampling plan and then we 

will submit that to the Work Group for approval; 

we'll implement that plan after the Work Group's 

approval; and develop a sampling plan report; and 

then we will submit a finalized report to the Work 
11

Group. And right now we've got this laid out that we 

believe we can have this done by November of next 

year.

Some of the things that I put down here, you know, 

we'll set up this -- the schedule and laid this thing 

out with a 30-day review by LANL. That could affect 

the schedule if those reviews take longer.

So, before I get into the mixed fission and activation 

products, do we want to talk about this proposed 

path forward?

Are there any questions, comments on this?

Question and Answer

Chair Beach: Yeah LaVon, I think that's probably a 

great idea. So, I see the plan laid out here.

And I was a little confused at first with submitting 

the final plan November of next year. So we're 

going to actually see things a couple of different 

times before that November.

And you're --

Mr. Rutherford: Correct.

Chair Beach: So the tough part here is that's a 

pretty -- that's a long way out, to put it bluntly.

Mr. Rutherford: Right.

Chair Beach: And it could lead into 2021, as far as 

we know. I know you've kind of laid that ground 

work depending on how it goes with LANL.

But we could be -- this is an optimistic schedule, it 

sounds like.

Mr. Rutherford: Well, you know, I think there is --

we have put in a little bit of extra room.

But, you know, it may be an optimistic schedule. 

I'm not going to lie. You know, there's no doubt 
12

that the ADC reviews could really affect this.

And we know that the effort that Savannah River 

Site took about a year and a half, I believe, Tim 

Taulbee can correct me. And --

Dr. Taulbee: Yeah. That's about right, Bomber.

Mr. Rutherford: So, you know, this is about the 

same time period. But we are, you know, using a 

lot of lessons learned from SRS.

And then this, you know, what would have helped 

us on reducing the schedule there, the availability of 

the electronic database, or the lack thereof, hurts 

us, so.

And you know, the fact of the matter is, is that 

there's travel out to Los Alamos and so on. And all 

of that is, you know, does affect the schedule 

somewhat.

But this is the plan we've laid out. And we're going 

to -- we can work through that plan.

Chair Beach: So, one more quick question and then 

I'll pass it on.

So, the third bullet on page eight is implementing 

the plan, conduct a data capture for RWPs and 

bioassay. So you need to go back to LANL to get 

those? Or have you collected everything and you 

just --

Mr. Rutherford: Well, actually what we've done, is 

we have identified all of the RWPs. And actually, the 

bioassay database is pretty much available to us.

So that's not a difficult issue at all. All the RWPs 

have been identified.

The process of going through the RWPs and picking 

out the required RWPs for the sampling plan effort, 

you know, that's got to happen. And then we will, 

once we've identified those, we can pull them. 
13

Our -- what typically happens is, we scan these 

items. We may scan all of the RWPs. But in the 

review of that indexes -- or in that review, we may, 

you know, then we'll start pulling the various ones 

that we need.

Does that help answer that question?

Chair Beach: Yes. Thanks. Go ahead Gen?

Member Roessler: Okay. Yeah, Josie, you 

mentioned the time frame. And when I first saw 

this, I thought that's a long ways out.

But then I thought back on the -- you know, we've 

been going on this site for ten years. And it seems 

like another year or so is something that we need to 

-- we need to proceed.

Plus, it seems to me that we have a decision point 

in a few months after they get through with the first 

two bullets here.

There's another point at which we, I think, discuss 

the timing of the future work.

Mr. Rutherford: I think that's an excellent point. 

You know, there is that, you know, when we submit 

the sampling plan to the Work Group, and right now 

that's scheduled in late September, you know, that 

is a good decision point.

Does this sampling -- will this sampling plan answer 

the questions that the Work Group needs answered?

So, I agree with Gen on that.

Chair Beach: Yeah. I think that's a really good 

point, too.

Member Roessler: And I do have one other 

question that's on this section. Not so much on the 

timing.

But, on the slide, on your interviews, and I don't 

know what number it is, you have a paper coming 
14

out on that. I'm wondering -- that summarizes the 

interviews that LaVon, you and Joe, did with the 

radiation controls staff members. When do you 

expect that to be out?

Mr. Rutherford: I would expect that to be out in the 

next couple of weeks, Gen. And basically we 

finalized them and then do the ADC review.

So, the time that the ADC review, you know, takes 

is about the time. So I would expect in the next 

couple of weeks that that report will be available.

Yeah, and we talked a couple of other things in 

there, during those interviews as well. So that 

would be good information for the work group.

Member Roessler: Would you let us know when it's 

out?

Mr. Rutherford: I definitely will. And I will put it in 

the Board's folder and make sure that everybody 

knows where it is.

Member Roessler: Okay. Thanks.

Chair Beach: Perfect thanks. Jim or Brad, 

anything?

Member Clawson: Yeah. This is Brad. You know, I 

understand where you guys are all at on this.

But also too, this has been ten years. And now all 

of a sudden we're looking for these radionuclides in 

this time period.

You know, at some point, and just like what we got 

into with Savannah River, this is going on a very 

long time. I understand there's no requirements for 

that. But we need to get this done.

Member Lockey: Josie?

Chair Beach: Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

Member Lockey: LaVon, I had one question.
15

At SC&A you did the review, they were -- it had a 

question about Johnson Controls staff not enrolling 

everybody who should have been enrolled.

How do you address that?

Mr. Rutherford: Well, we are going -- we are 

looking into that. And the sampling plan will -- we 

will definitely address that in the sampling plan.

We are going to look at the RWPs available for 

Johnson Controls, and the enrollment in those. As 

well as pulling the HP checklist, which the HP 

checklists are used for all individuals. Those in --

the HP checklists identify bioassay requirements as 

I mentioned, for the work activity.

So, we'll be pulling those and looking at the Johnson 

Controls personnel in that as well.

Member Lockey: Do you think that will be able to 

answer that question then?

Mr. Rutherford: I do -- I do believe so. I think it 

will point out -- if we can identify, you know, and 

then we haven't completely laid this portion out, but 

if we can identify number of Johnson Controls 

personnel and then look at the RWPs and the HP 

checklists, I think we can get a good feel for that.

Member Lockey: Okay. Thank you.

Chair Beach: Hey and LaVon, I just want to 

comment to what Brad said about the timeliness. I 

know there's a provision in the SEC regulations that 

addresses timeliness.

So, that could -- that is a concern Brad, that is 

something that is looked at in the Act, as far as how 

much time things take.

I don't think we're quite there yet, but.

Mr. Rutherford: Well, we have definitely -- you 

know, I understand that. And I definitely 
16

understand how long this has gone on.

And I definitely can say I will work very hard to 

keep things on schedule.

Chair Beach: Okay. Anything else? Any other 

questions? SC&A, do you want to go ahead and --

do you have anything Joe, to add?

Mr. Fitzgerald: No. I think LaVon did touch on the 

fact that, you know, we have the Savannah River 

experience.

And it sounds like, and you can, you know, 

reconfirm LaVon, that basically it's -- the Savannah 

River sampling approach may be tweaked with 

lessons learned from that experience.

Understanding that, you know, the LANL database is 

not, you know, it's not online. So that's just going 

to take longer.

But do you envision the approach being pretty much 

the same with that tweak? And as well as 

accommodating the question that Dr. Lockey raised, 

which is obviously another, you know, wrinkle that's 

specific to Los Alamos.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes. I -- that's correct. It will be 

very similar to Savannah River.

We may actually have to do a couple of different 

things to answer all the questions, just because of 

the, you know, the differences in how bioassay 

requirements are identified, you know, and the 

difference in how RWPs are handled. So there will 

be, you know, some different, or additions to what 

was done at Savannah River. And I think that will 

be laid out in the sampling plan for the Work 

Group's approval.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah, just going back to what was 

mentioned on Johnson Controls. I think maybe the 

major distinction with Los Alamos versus Savannah 

River, is Savannah River, the time frame was about 
17

the same, but the issue was more of a, you know, 

sort of compliance question. In other words, the 

RWPs required the job specific bioassays, but the 

workers did not provide them. And the percentage 

was pretty high. 

With Los Alamos you do have that issue, but more 

so you would have questions where workers were 

either perhaps not enrolled, those CTWs may not 

have been enrolled, the Johnson Controls issue. Or, 

because the checklists were flawed, they may not 

have even been designated for a job-specific 

bioassay in the first place. So, you know, sampling 

existing RWPs may not get you to some of those 

questions.

And just to reemphasize that certainly a sampling 

plan needs to, sort of, acknowledge that difference 

and probably augment what was done at Savannah 

River so that the subcontractors or what have you 

that should have been picked up and monitored, 

and were not, either from enrollment issues, or just, 

you know, maybe faulty checklists, somehow that's 

assessed as well.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. I agree to that. I agree that 

-- you know, I just want to remind everyone too 

that so if -- this is no different. If you have a few 

workers missing, you know, from a -- on bioassay, 

we still have other workers that have bioassay.

So, it's -- I mean, all of that will be laid out in the 

sampling plan. And we will definitely make sure 

that we address Johnson Controls specifically.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's all I have. I just 

wanted to contrast the two sites from that 

standpoint.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks. Any other questions 

for LaVon?

(No response.)
18

Chair Beach: Hearing none, I think you can move 

on LaVon.

Path Forward to Address MFAP/Exotics

Mr. Rutherford: Alright. Let's get into the 

discussion on mixed fission and activation products 

and exotics.

After the Work Group meeting last November, we 

had a lot of discussion internally on a path forward 

for addressing mixed fission and activation products 

and exotics.

What we decided was if we knew the radionuclides 

of concern, then we can calculate the air 

concentration that would potentially give an 

individual 100 millirems CEDE.

Then if we knew the areas where there was a 

potential for exposure to the radionuclides, we could 

collect air samples from those areas and compare 

the actual air concentration to the required 

concentration to get the 100 millirem CEDE.

If the actual air concentrations are lower, then we

know the 100 millirem CEDE value is bounding. If 

it's higher, then we'd have to adjust with our 

intakes accordingly.

So, our schedule and status for doing this. First 

thing we wanted to do was to actually identify our 

source terms in the different areas.

So we did a data capture on the material control 

and source term. That is complete. We have that 

information.

We also have done data capture on surface 

contamination and airborne radioactivity surveys.

We have actually captured the data, however that 

data is in ADC review now. So, as soon as that data 

becomes available to us, we'll upload and review 

that data. And then from that, we'll also -- we've 
19

also been working on the side, we've identified the 

potential radionuclides of concern. Now we've got to 

determine the air concentration required to get the 

100 millirems. And we've actually worked that 

model and it's in internal review.

So, our -- really our end date of this is November of 

this year. We believe we will have that comparison.

We will have the data in house. And we will have 

completed that comparison and have it sent to the 

Work Group.

And that's it. Any questions?

Question and Answer

Chair Beach: Well, I guess exactly how are you 

doing the review of the exotics?

Mr. Rutherford: Well, as we --

Chair Beach: Is there -- okay, so I've got this laid 

out. Is there anything that we can look at that --

because you've mentioned here that you've got --

I'm trying to go back to find my page here. Sorry.

Well, let me gather my thoughts. Anybody else 

have questions?

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. If Work Group members do 

not, I have a couple of questions, LaVon.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald: This is Joe Fitzgerald. Time frame, 

what time frame is the exotics review covering?

Mr. Rutherford: The '96 through 2001 period.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Okay. And on the air sampling 

data, clearly, you know, I think one of the 

suppositions we've been dealing with is that Los 

Alamos concluded that there weren't any workers 

that would have achieved 100 millirems CEDE from 

the exotics or what have you, after '95. And that's 
20

the premise for not monitoring them. However, --

that's personnel monitoring.

But from this, you're saying that the air sampling 

data appears to be complete as far as, you know, 

the analysis of these exotics and mixed fission and 

activation products.

I mean, that part, I guess, I'm surprised. But it 

seems to me -- you seem to have the data to do the 

comparison for the exotics and the MFAPs.

Mr. Rutherford: Well, what I said was, I didn't say 

for sure that it appeared to be complete. What I 

said was, we've captured the data from the areas of 

concern.

And until we start, until we get that data and can 

review that data, we can't really make that decision.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, you're trying -- you're 

right now in the process of capturing it.

But there's no indication yet of whether that -- what 

that data's going to tell you.

Mr. Rutherford: Exactly.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.

Chair Beach: Okay. And that's what I have 

underlined, I couldn't find it, was the radionuclides 

of concern.

I know we've discussed them. So, that was -- that 

was my question there.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay.

Chair Beach: Is what they were. But, I have that. 

So, I'm fine there. Brad, Gen, or Jim, any 

questions?

Member Clawson: This is Brad --

Member Roessler: I have no questions.
21

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I don't have a 

question. But it looks like that we're looking at 

another Work Group meeting probably after 

November.

And that will include -- or during November. That 

will include both the first part, the NC ID 484 and 

the exotics and all.

Chair Beach: Yeah. That sounds right to me also.

And then Brad, I heard you say your name, but I 

didn't know if you were asking a question or just 

said you didn't have any.

Member Clawson: What I was wondering, Bomber, 

now all these exotics, what are you using to be able 

to base these on that they were there? What are 

we using -- I'm not understanding. Maybe I 

misunderstood you.

How are you going to be able to prove that they 

were there or not there?

Mr. Rutherford: Well Brad, what we did was we 

took and did a source term, we did a data request 

from Los Alamos to help us identify the source 

terms in the various areas over that time period.

That was one of the things we used. Another thing 

was, we used the actual whole body count that we 

had.

We identified all of these radionuclides that had 

been whole body counted for and they had been 

looked for in the past.

So, we looked for those. And we looked to see if 

possibly those were a concern in a given area.

You know, just a few different things of information 

that we've done. Also, we -- you know, part of our 

interview with radiological control staff was I asked 
22

them the question, areas they felt that specific 

items were of concern.

And they gave me an answer on that. So we're 

looking at those areas as well.

Member Clawson: Okay. I was just wondering 

what we were using. Because we got into this 

before, a discussion of what was there and what 

wasn't and a lot of conflict started to come out of 

that. But, okay. I just wanted to know kind of how 

your path forward was going. Thank you.

Chair Beach: Okay. Anything else? Jim?

Member Roessler: Nothing here.

Chair Beach: Oh, I meant Jim. Sorry, Gen. Yes.

Member Roessler: That's okay.

(No response.)

Chair Beach: Okay. And then I guess I --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Lockey: Yes, I have nothing.

Chair Beach: Okay. And then for me, LaVon, I 

know you're really good about doing this, but can 

you keep giving us status reports as you do go 

along in meeting these time lines and deadlines?

If something comes up that's going to change the 

time line that you've kind of put forth here, is there 

-- can you just send out an email to Ted to send to 

the Work Group just so we can all kind of stay up on 

what's happening?

Mr. Rutherford: Yes. I can do that. No problem.

Chair Beach: And understand, we'll be meeting 

most likely in the November time frame, before the 

December meeting.
23

So, that will be a -- that will be a good time for that. 

Anything else for the good of the Work Group?

Mr. Rutherford: Nothing from me.

Member Roessler: Nothing from me.

Mr. Katz: Well then, this is Ted. Andrew, do you 

have any questions related to all of this? Or 

otherwise?

Mr. Evaskovich: Oh, I just forwarded a document to 

Josie. I sent it to Josh Kinman, but I didn't get a 

response.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. No, no, no. Andrew, I have that. 

And I circulated it to all the members and staff.

Mr. Evaskovich: Okay. I just wanted to make sure 

of that.

Mr. Katz: Thank you for that.

Chair Beach: So Ted -- Ted, would you send that to 

my CDC account? I didn't -- I don't believe I got 

that.

I think you might be sending it to the wrong --

Mr. Katz: I'll get it to you. And yeah, I did. I sent 

it to your usual email.

Chair Beach: Yeah. And I'm not there until the first 

of August. So, I'm working --

Mr. Katz: Yeah. I'll do that.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Not a problem. Not a problem.

Chair Beach: Okay. So Andrew, I appreciate that. 

Anything else?

Mr. Evaskovich: No. Not that I can think of.

Chair Beach: All right. Joe, SC&A, any --
24 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Fitzgerald: No. No, I think this is fine. Thank 

you.

Chair Beach: Okay. Well, I think we can adjourn, 

Ted.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Thank you everybody. Thank you 

everybody for being so well prepared for this.

Chair Beach: Thank you.

Mr. Katz: And take care, bye-bye.

Adjourn

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:07 a.m.)