THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


ROCKY FLATS
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Naperville, Illinois on 


December 11, 2006. 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

December 11, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


COMPLETENESS OF DATA 12 


PRIVACY ACT REVIEW 34 


OTHER RADIONUCLIDES 44 


PROVIDING INTERVIEW NOTES 55 


D AND D PERIOD 56 


LOGBOOK ANALYSIS 71 


1969 DATA GAP 72 


NEUTRON DOSIMETRY ISSUES 83 


SUPER S 84 


SAFETY CONCERNS 87 


DATA INTEGRITY 87 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 89 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BARKER, KAY, ANWAG 


BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BUCHANAN, RON, SC&A 


CLAWSON, BRAD, ABRWH 


FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 


FIX, JACK, ORAU 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOFF, JENNIFER, ORAU 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


JESSEN, KARIN, ORAUT 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


SMITH, MATTHEW, ORAU 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

6 

1 

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (9:30 a.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: Okay. This is Lew Wade and we're 


going to -- we're going to formally begin. As 


I said, my name is Lew Wade and I have the 


privilege of serving as the Designated Federal 


Official for the Advisory Board. What we're 


beginning now is a meeting of the working group 


looking at issues surrounding Rocky Flats. 


This working group began by looking at the 


Rocky Flats site profile, and has expanded that 


to look at issues related to the pending Rocky 


Flats SEC petition. 


This workgroup is very ably chaired by Mark 


Griffon, and members are Mike Gibson, Wanda 


Munn and Bob Presley. All of those members are 


present and at the table. In the audience here 


we also have one Board member, Brad Clawson. 


Brad will not participate in the working group 


discussion, but -- but he is with us. 


Are there any other Board members on the call? 


 (No responses) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

Okay, so we do not have a quorum of the Board 


and therefore we will continue. 


I would -- I would start by having people 


involved at the table identify themselves. 
I 


would also ask that when members of the NIOSH 


or ORAU team or the SC&A team identify 


themselves that they would specify whether they 


have any conflicts relative to the Rocky Flat 


situation. None of the workgroup members have 


a conflict at Rocky Flats. 


So this is Lew Wade, and I have no conflicts at 


Rocky Flats. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm Arjun Makhijani with SC&A 


and I have no conflicts. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon with the Board, and 


no conflicts. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro with Sanford Cohen & 


Associates. No conflict. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley with the Board. 


No conflict. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld with NIOSH. No 


conflict at Rocky. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald with SC&A. No 


conflict. 


 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson with the Board. No 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

conflicts. 


 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board. No conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Now let me start on the telephone. 


I know, Brant, you're with us. If you would 


start, and then I would ask members of the 


NIOSH/ORAU team to identify themselves and 


state whether or not they have a conflict. 


Brant? 


(NOTE: Transmission between telephone, 


microphone and the court reporting equipment 


failed, making transcription in some instances 


impossible. Those instances were primarily 


experienced with Dr. Ulsh, as his participation 


was the most active, but all attending by 


telephone were affected.) 


 DR. ULSH: Yes, this is Brant Ulsh. I'm in 


Cincinnati. I'm with NIOSH/OCAS and no 


conflicts. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton in Cincinnati, as well, 


NIOSH/OCAS. No conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Other members of the team? 


 MS. JESSEN: This is Karin Jessen. I have no 


personal conflicts. I'm with the ORAU team. 


 DR. HOFF: This is Jennifer Hoff. I'm with the 


ORAU team and I have no personal conflicts. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with Health and Human Services and I have no 


conflicts. 


 MR. FIX: Jack Fix, ORAU team, no conflicts. 


MR. SMITH: And Matthew Smith, ORAU team, no 

conflicts. 

 DR. WADE: Any other members of the NIOSH/ORAU 

team? 

 (No responses) 

Again, I would ask all of you when you speak to 


shout into the -- the piece for us, if you 


would. 


Are there other members of the SC&A team on the 


line? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, Hans Behling, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Hans. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Kathy. 


MR. BUCHANAN: Ron Buchanan, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. What about other federal 


employees who are on this call by virtue of 


their federal employment? 


 (No responses) 


Anyone? Are there any representatives of 


petitioners or claimants, or representatives of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

members of the Colorado delegation on the line? 


(UNINTELLIGIBLE): This is (unintelligible) 


Senator's office (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. Thank you for joining us. 


(UNINTELLIGIBLE): This is (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Could you speak up a little louder, 


please? 


 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie with ANWAG. 


 DR. WADE: Good morning. 


 MS. BARRIE: Good morning. 


 MS. BARKER: And this is Kay Barker with ANWAG. 


 DR. WADE: Kay, always a pleasure to have you 


with us. 


Anyone else on the line who would like to be 


identified? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Again, practice good phone etiquette, 


speak loudly and certainly don't use speaker 


phones. And if you're not speaking, mute. 


Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I -- the -- the purpose of 


this meeting was really to update everyone 


involved, and since -- since we're all out here 


or most of us are out here, some have joined by 


phone and are on the way this afternoon, but to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

update -- to sort of update where we're at on 


the action items from the last meeting and make 


sure we have a path forward for -- we have a 


scheduled meeting for January 9th of the 


workgroup, and we all know we have another 


Board meeting in February, so just want to make 


sure we're all in course for the February 


meeting. 


And I have -- we -- we circulated the summary 


of action items for the Rocky Flats workgroup 


from 11/6 meeting, and I think we -- we should 


work from those. In between this meeting and 


the 11/6 workgroup meeting that we had in 


Cincinnati, we did have a few phone calls on 


December 5th and December 6th to discuss 


certain technical issues. These -- these were 


not full workgroup meetings, but they were 


technical meetings between NIOSH and -- and 


SC&A to discuss the fur-- further the neutron 


issues and also the OTIB-38, the internal dose 


coworker model, issues related to those two 


things. 


But in the -- also in between the November 6th 


meeting and now we've had some ongoing progress 


on these other action items that are listed on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

this two-page summary. Once we go through 


these today, my plan is to update this -- this 


short version, the summary of actions of where 


we stand, and also to update the full matrix 


bef-- you know, well -- well before the January 


9th meeting so we all sort of have a final 


stance of where -- where we're at with a final 


set of actions. 


So having said that, I think we should just 


work through the list in order. The first item 


-- and -- and Brant, you're on the phone. Do 


you have this summary document in front of you? 


 DR. ULSH: Mark, I don't have that summary. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. It's the summary of action 


items for Rocky Flats workgroup. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah. No, I don't (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, it -- it -- I'll 


read them out so -- I'm not sure of another way 


to get -- I'm pretty sure I e-mailed it to 


everyone, but it was a while ago, so... 


 Anyway, it goes through -- it has the nine 


primary items that were discussed at that 


meeting. 


COMPLETENESS OF DATA
 

The first is completeness of data and -- let's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

see, the first item, number one, SC&A to draft 


sampling approach to be used in sampling for 


all claimant radiation files up to 1993. SC&A 


and NIOSH to review proposed approach and cases 


to assure goals of workgroup will be met. And 


I -- maybe -- Joe, can you give us just an 


update on where you stand with that? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. Certainly we jumped on 


that right after the workgroup meeting and 


began looking at the elements of the plan. We 


did have a problem with data access for a few 


weeks, and that posed a delay in terms of 


finishing that completion, but Arjun and Ron 


Buchanan have been working on the -- both the 


sampling plan as well as the data access. And 


Arjun, I don't know if you can provide an 


update. We did mention that on the phone last 


week. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, this is Arjun. Yeah, we 


-- we -- we did have a sort of (unintelligible) 


for a few weeks because we didn't have data 


access, and your instruction -- the working 


group's instruction to us was to look at both a 


random sample as well as a sample of the highly 


exposed workers, and to split it up into two 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

periods, '51 to '63 and '64 to '92, and we were 


not to look at the D and D period. 


When we did get access it was pretty easy to 


look at the highly exposed workers because 


NIOSH -- Rocky Flats already investigated 


highly exposed workers and categorized them, so 


of those, there are -- we looked at the 


claimants among them. There were ten claimants 


in the most highly exposed category, which was 


category four, and then we chose ten from the 


next category down and we looked at the 20 


cases. There don't appear to be gaps -- this 


is a preliminary evaluation -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we're still writing it up, 


and just on a preliminary basis among these 


workers and who may not fall into job types 


that were highly exposed throughout the period 


-- we're still looking at that, Roger Falk 


point-- pointed that out -- but the -- there 


don't seem to be big gaps for them, unlike when 


we did the previous more or less random sample. 


There were gaps in various periods for -- for 


the workers. There don't appear to be gaps in 


the post-'64 period, but there do appear to be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

gaps in the earlier period. And for that 


period they seem to be confined to the 1950s, 


but there are significant gaps for the 1950s. 


We're looking at the job types for that. We're 


not done with our analysis, but we think that 


maybe, Joe, within two weeks that this piece 


with the highly exposed workers will be done 


and we'll send out -- out a memo? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, most of our -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Before -- well before the 


holidays, anyway. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, most of our actions are 


directed to trying to tie up the remaining 


actions in a couple of weeks so we can give the 


Board a interim report by the end of the year, 


so I think that would be the window that we 


would aim for for this action, as well as some 


other actions -- a couple of weeks. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, the -- the other action 


is a little more complicated and lack of access 


kind of held us up more on that. We weren't 


able to dive into it because there we need a 


random sampling plan. We have asked our 


statistician to pick cases from the early 


period and the later period in a random 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

fashion. He does have access to the claims and 


he's going to give us claim numbers. I believe 


it's going to be this week. It should not take 


long to do the kind of -- but maybe that memo 


will be early in the -- in the first week or 


ten days of next year rather than this year. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, there'll be some 


supplements, but I think it'll follow. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh. I just want to 


clarify -- you mentioned ten cases among 


category four, the highest exposed, and then 


ten among category three. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 DR. ULSH: So that adds 20, and then are there 


in addition more cases that are going to be 


included as part of the random sample? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, this is -- Brant, this is 


not a random sample. The working group's 


direction was to look separately at the highly 


exposed workers so if there were no gaps among 


them then there would not be a question about 


coworker models. That was the idea -- or less 


question, you know, that coworker models would 


look more feasible. And so we've done that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

And there was also, in my understanding -- and 


Mark, correct me if -- if I'm wrong -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I think --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- but in our understanding 


there was --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you're correct, I think -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- a random sample --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think Brant's asking about 


the number. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: The total number, I think. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- the -- the discussion 


centered around the number of 19 being adequate 


for -- for a sampling, and our own statistical 


analysis also indicated that 19 or 20 would be 


satisfactory for a random sample, so I've asked 


Dr. Kemalinski* to -- to pick randomly 20 cases 


from the earlier period and 20 cases from the 


later period. It does --


 DR. ULSH: So you're saying 40 cases? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, 20 for each period, 


because each period has to be analyzed 


separately because the different distributions. 


 DR. ULSH: Because I thought the total we 


committed to at the last working group meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

was ten to 15, I could go with 19. But now 


we're talking maybe 40 or -- 40 or more? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you want a statistically 


significant result for each period, and you 


won't get -- you won't get that result unless 


you have -- you have that number for each 


period of work. We haven't started this, so 


we're at the pleasure of the working group as 


to how you want to proceed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I think we -- we -- we 


need to see this pro-- 'cause I do remember the 


number -- the total number that we were 


throwing around at the last workgroup meeting 


being lower. I -- I agree with you, Brant, 


that we were -- now how we divide these 


periods, that's -- that's another -- that's an 


issue. But I think if you can provide 


something in writing on how -- you know, how 


many, what periods, you -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Why don't --


 DR. ULSH: I'm concerned that -- I think I 


heard Arjun say that you were going to deliver 


the random sample piece in the first ten days 


of next year, but we have a working group 


meeting on January 9th. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Why don't -- why don't 


we do this in two steps. Why don't I send or 


why don't we send you the sampling plan before 


we do any analysis for approval by the working 


group, and then we will proceed with the 


analysis after that. 


By the working group meeting we -- we should 


defin-- definitely have some kind of interim 


result, as we do at this meeting, but we don't 


have -- we don't have a final memo to you. We 


have some -- a pretty clear idea of what has 


emerged among these highly exposed workers, 


that there are significant gaps in -- in -- in 


the monitoring pretty much seem to be confined 


only to the 1950s. 


 DR. ULSH: Well, I also want to go on record 


about significant gaps. I mean this is, you 


know, a report that NIOSH hasn't seen. I just 


want to approach this with caution to make sure 


that when we say gaps we're talking about 


unmoni-- periods where people were not 


monitored, and the analysis part of this can 


determine whether or not we would expect them 


to be monitored. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

20

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Yes. Well, we're not -- 


we're not making any judgment about anything 


else other than simply factually reporting 


years for which there were missing data. We're 


not -- we're not doing more than that. At --


at Roger Falk's suggestion we are adding the 


job types for those years so that perhaps it 


can facilitate those judgments that you're 


talking about down the line. But we're -- kind 


of a little bit cognizant about not exceeding 


what --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my -- yeah --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- the working group had asked 


us to do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree, Brant, with your caution 


on how to interpret that right now, that's 


correct. I guess my -- my larger concern right 


now is making sure we stay on course for having 


a -- a product in time, and I don't want to 


hold -- if we -- if -- if we wait to have a 


plan submitted to us and then we have to 


approve it and then you have to do the work, 


then NIOSH has to review it, this is getting on 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I think --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21

 MR. GRIFFON: -- out a little too far. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- we need interim results by 


certainly the end of the year, roughly 


speaking, in time for the workgroup meeting, 


somewhere in that time frame. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think -- I think -- I think 


Brant's concern is, on the flip side, if you've 


got these -- is it 20 from the production part 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 20 people reviewed, 20 


individuals? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- the analysis goes pretty 


rapidly in the way that we've set it up now, in 


contrast to the previous 12 that we submitted 


to you. The previous 12 that we submitted 


looked at the gaps and the missing data and the 


quality -- some quality issues on a quarterly 


basis, if there were weekly monitoring -- you 


know, we had a lot of detail. We eliminated 


the detail and were only looking at whether 


there are full years of data for which -- full 


years for which no data are available, and 


that's all we're looking at. Now -- together 


with the job type in that year. And so it goes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

-- it goes fairly rapidly. This is not a long 


process. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, but on NIOSH's side, I'm 


not sure it would be as rapid. And I don't 


want to speak for you, Brant, but -- is that 


one of your concerns? 


 DR. ULSH: That is -- that is my concern, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. So -- so you have 


-- I mean how many total cases are you 


projecting -- right now as it's laid out, it 


would be 20 and then 20 from each time period? 


I --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: As -- as it is laid out, there 


-- the -- the -- the highly exposed, as 


classified by Rocky Flats, that is done and 


there are 20 of those. And as I've asked Harry 


to pick 20 from each period -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- '51 --


 DR. ULSH: So now you're talking 60? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now you're talking 60 cases 


total, that --


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) the first 20. 


 DR. WADE: Sixty cases. 


DR. MAURO: Right, but the first 20 -- what I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

heard -- this is John Mauro. The process -- 


I'm sort of stepping back to the original 


meeting. By having the first 20 done where it 


demonstrates that you have a virtu-- a 


virtually complete dataset does not require 


extensive follow-up analysis, it in effect 


validates that we have a relatively complete 


dataset for the most exposed individuals. So I 


wouldn't put that in the same category as the 


follow-up level of investigation that might be 


needed for the second set of 40. Correct me if 


I'm wrong. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: We -- we could cut it back to 


ten in each category, or 12 in each category, 


but so -- I -- having seen Harry's analysis of 


how much -- how many you need, if you have two 


different distributions you need to sample from 


each distribution. Then it's the pleasure of 


the working group as to how confident you want 


to be in the result. If -- if you want to be 


reasonably confident in the result and you're 


drawing from a large sample, you need a dozen, 


15, 20, in that range, from each distribution. 


If you do a total of ten from two different 


distributions, it means you have only five from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

each distribution. That is not going to tell 


you a lot. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, a dozen or 15 or 20 is 


different. I mean if -- if we could get it 


down to a dozen in each category, I think it 


would be closer to what we were kind of 


discussing in the workgroup meeting, anyway. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's fine, we can -- we can 


do that, that's not a problem. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Ten, with a grand total of 20. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. You know I -- I -- I 


certainly want the result to be something we 


can hang our hat on, you know. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the other hand, I think we did 


-- I thought we -- you know, we -- we had 


discussions of small-- slightly smaller numbers 


at the last workgroup meeting, so I -- I'm 


worried that if -- if we -- if you product a 


product, then it's going to be a very arduous 


chore for NIOSH to review because their review 


may have to be more detailed than your initial 


-- you may find gaps and say here's the gaps, 


here's the facts. But then they have to 


explain possibly why those are there, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

that's a more -- a lengthier task, so -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure. 


 MS. MUNN: I have to apologize --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- for not having my written notes 


with me from that last meeting, the things that 


I scribbled down when we were on the phone, but 


my memory was -- I distinctly remember pushing 


for 15 as a total, not -- and -- and it was not 


clear to me at the time that I was writing my 


notes that we were talking about four or five 


different segments of -- of what we considered 


to be operational phases. I -- I was thinking 


in terms of overall, and my -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we really have two -- two ­

- two -- two time periods. I remember -- 


 MS. MUNN: We were talking --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- discussing that at length -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we were talking about -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, 'cause of the change in 


practices, but --


 MS. MUNN: Right, the practices -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- also the production workers 


was added on as a suggestion mainly -- I think 


by NIOSH -- to say those are mainly the people 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

you're -- you'd be concerned about, the high, 


most likely exposed people are not -- have a 


lot of gaps, then we've got real problems, you 


know. 


 DR. ULSH: That's correct, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And so -- but I think -- I think 


the -- the -- that two time period random 


sample needs to be a total of 20 to 25, if we 


can get it down there and still, you know -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: We can do that. I can ask 


Harry -- our previous selection of 12 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- was not strictly according 


to statistician-designed random sampling plan ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- but it was, I -- I believe, 


fairly random. Now what I could do is to 


consult with Harry to see whether we can or 


should be marrying the results of those -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Ah, yes. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- with -- with the 15 or 20, 


and that will cut things down. We could cut 


things down anyway and pick ten from -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- each period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then complement that in 


some way with what we've already done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: With the 12 that were done, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, so that will -- that will 


reduce the amount of work. We haven't begun 


this work --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- so it should be -- it should 


be fairly straightforward to -- to reduce the 


number according to whatever you -- you 


constrain us to. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you can just report to us the 


-- the confidence that you have in that 


sampling size, you know, what confidence -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that gives us in the result. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: We'll do that --


 DR. ULSH: I think what would be helpful is if, 


once it's decided which case it's going to be 


looked at, if the identity of those cases could 


be forwarded to us and we could begin to look 


at them even before we have SC&A's conclusions 


about them. (Unintelligible) -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28

 MR. PRESLEY: I think that'd be a good idea. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's a great -- a great idea, 

yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, great. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That'll facilitate the process, 


yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we had been intending in 


-- in any case, I think, to forward you those ­

- those claimant numbers, and I think now we've 


streamlined it so you'll -- you'll just be 


proceeding at the same time and parallel as -- 


as we will. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- okay. So is that okay, 


Brant, if we get that number out of the random 


-- the two time periods down to say 25 total? 


 DR. ULSH: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: Or 24? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Twenty-four. 


 DR. ULSH: -- just going back to the last 


meeting, my recollection was that we were going 


to, in addition to the 12 that SC&A's already 


reviewed, we were going to pick another ten to 


15, maybe as high as 19 total. That's what I 


remember from the last working group meeting. 


I don't know what everyone else remembers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, let's see if we can build 


the -- the 12 that you've already done and -- 


and add an additional -- say not more than 20, 


and that --


 DR. ULSH: I could work with that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that should suffice, let's 


hope. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so -- so let's -- let's 


say that the new cases will be not more than 


20, and it may be that you won't -- you won't 


have 20 separate claimant numbers becau-- 


because the same claim may work for the earlier 


period and the later period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So you won't -- won't 


necessarily have all of these separate claim 


numbers. You will have -- you'll have a sample 


 MR. GRIFFON: They may overlap. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you'll have a sample of ten 


from each period, or a sample of 12 from each 


period, so it -- the number of -- you're 


sampling each distribution, but you're not sam­

- you can sample the same claimant twice. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think you ought to from -- ten 


from each distribution, and hold it at that, 


not say grand total of 20 and take 19 from one 


and one from the other. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, no --


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, no, that's not -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that won't --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- what you're saying. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, that --


 MR. GRIFFON: A total of 20, less than -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, let's make sure that we 


get it in the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Less than or equal to 20 for the 


total of the two. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But take ten from 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay, Brant? Can you --


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, that'll be fine, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- live with that one? Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Maybe I could just repeat. So in 


the original sampling SC&A had done 12. Of the 


highly exposed workers in category five, you've 


selected ten; in category four you've selected 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

ten --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Wade, it's categories four 


and three. 


 DR. WADE: Sorry, categories four and three, 


and now the instruction of the working group is 


no more than 20 in addition to make up that 


random sample. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's correct, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. If I could go on record 


again, this is Lew Wade. I would just like to 


go on record that the data access issues have 


now been resolved and there are no data access 


issues. John, is that correct? 


DR. MAURO: That is correct. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, let's go on to -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, before you do, can you 


clarify -- I mean it sounds like, one, there 


ought to be this sampling plan that lays out 


the identity and the sample size, and then 


presumably after that, the analysis. We -- we 


covered that ground. Is that superseded now? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think --


 MR. FITZGERALD: That's the understanding. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we -- we -- do we need 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

the formality of a plan submitted -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm just trying to clarify 


that before we get too far. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If we put a specific --


 DR. ULSH: My opinion is -- this is Brant Ulsh. 


My opinion is that if you get at the identities 


of the claim, that that to me would be the 


sampling plan. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: That's what -- it's -- the 


identity is the basis for the plan then. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Either that or you -- when you 


say you're going to take X number from each 


group, then that is your sampling plan. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's reasonable. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And we will document how Harry 


has selected these numbers so that people can 


verify that they've been randomly done. 


 DR. WADE: And then the claim numbers for all 


of these as quickly as possible to NIOSH. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33

 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 DR. WADE: I assume that for categories four 


and three, those claim numbers that have been 


identified and can be supplied to NIOSH now. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe they have. 


 MR. GRIFFON: They have those. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Brant, have you got those 20 


numbers for the highly exposed? I believe you 


have. 


 DR. ULSH: Arjun, I just want to make sure 


we're talking about the same thing. I provided 


to you the identities of the claimants who are 


in category four and category three, I believe. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 DR. ULSH: If -- if there were only -- I don't 


have the details in front of me, but if there 


were only, I don't know, ten or however many in 


category four, then we know those. Or can you 


pick all the ones -- all of the claimants from 


category four? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe -- I haven't gone 


over Ron's work, but I believe that's what he 


did. He just sent me the results, and I 


haven't actually identified -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we'll -- we'll just make 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

sure that --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- all these -- all these IDs get 


to NIOSH as -- as quickly as possible, and if ­

- we'll check -- we can do this off-line, 


Brant, but you can check with SC&A and make 


sure you have everything you need as quickly as 


possible. 


 DR. ULSH: That sounds fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And if there's -- you know, and ­

- and they key I think that we've come down 


with is that out of the additional random 


samples, no more than 20. Let's keep it under 


that. Okay. Then we don't need a formal plan, 


Joe, is the answer to your question. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, just the identity. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, just the identities would 


do it. 


PRIVACY ACT REVIEW
 

The second item on completeness is SC&A to 


provide a draft report to Emily Howell for 


Privacy Act review. Let's not forget about 


this one, that -- that once you have a report 


on these issues, we have to -- and I think we 


need -- maybe I can get a clarification on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

timing on this because once a report is 


submitted to you, how -- how long will it take 


-- I know that's tough to -- to answer, but how 


long, about, might it take us before we can 


pull it out in a public meeting? 


 MS. HOWELL: Well, it's going to depend a 


little bit on the length of --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- what you're asking us to 


review, obviously. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. HOWELL: The other issue is going to be 


whether or not we have to involve the NIOSH 


Privacy Act officer, which would also extend 


it. But -- I don't really want to give you a ­

- a firm --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- deadline. I mean we can work 


with you if -- if you're giving us something 


and you know that you need it by a certain 


date, let us know that and we can expedite it, 


but --


 MR. GRIFFON: But based on like a report the 


size -- similar to the size of the last report 


that was submitted by SC&A -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36

 MS. HOWELL: I don't know how -- I'm not sure I 


saw that. I know that I recently reviewed a 


document that Arjun and Kathy DeMers had put 


together with their closeout interview notes, 


and I know that that -- the turnaround was 


probably like four to five days, and that was 


30 pages, so -- but it could be quicker, I -- a 


week. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But to be safe we should probably 


build in a week --


 MS. HOWELL: I would build in --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for this kind of thing, okay. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- a week. That would be the most 


helpful, yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Emily --


 MS. HOWELL: Yes? 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- would it help you all if you 


were given the case numbers prior -- when we 


give them to NIOSH so that you can go back and 


look in the cases to see if there are any 


problems that you might see before you get this 


report? 


 MS. HOWELL: I hesitate to say yes, just 


because it could lead to a duplication -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37

 MR. PRESLEY: Right, I realize that -- 


 MS. HOWELL: -- of work and doing thing twice. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- but I'm trying to help you 


with time, too. 


 MS. HOWELL: Right. Why don't we try that at 


first and -- this is just going to be kind of a 


process to kind of figure out how things will 


work best --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- I guess. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And if it -- if it doesn't, you 


can throw it away. 


 MS. HOWELL: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Now remember -- this is Lew Wade 


again -- let's just talk about the reality of 


this Privacy Act situation. SC&A, NIOSH, the 


ORAU team, the Board members can all see 


Privacy Act information. It's information that 


we're going to put on the table for the public 


to see, and we all like to do our business in 


full public view. If you were to find yourself 


in a situation where that information has to be 


discussed, we could close a workgroup meeting, 


there are various ways we could deal with 


Privacy Act information if this review wasn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

complete. I think we should all strive to see 


that it's complete and done and we can do our 


business in the light of day, but there are -- 


there are other alternatives if you find 


yourself in a -- a tight time frame. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I ask just a procedural 


question about that, then. When our report is 


done of course we try to exercise caution on 


our -- our side, but -- so we can distribute -- 


we can put a label saying this may contain 


Privacy Act material and distribute it to the 


working group in the interim by e-mail? 


 MS. HOWELL: You can distribute it to the 


working group. The concern is more that, you 


know, once you guys get it, it's very difficult 


when we're in that meeting for -- you guys need 


to be able to discuss things freely, and the 


concern is that what you're distributing to the 


working group may have information that should 


have been redacted in it, and then they bring 


their copies to the working group meeting and 


are reading from their non-scrubbed, non-


redacted copies, thinking that perhaps maybe it 


has been scrubbed. So I -- I appreciate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

putting the label on it, but it may not 


alleviate the problem. So I guess I'd just say 


go ahead and do that, but understand that we 


still need to see things and we still need to 


just have a heightened sense of awareness about 


this concern during the working group meetings. 


 DR. WADE: Right and cer--


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz. Let me add -- 


can you hear me? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. Let me add to that 


that we are currently reviewing the new OMB 


directive regarding the use of e-mailing 


(unintelligible) arrangements. SC&A will be 


receiving notification from the contracting 


officer regarding the new guidance 


(unintelligible) the Department is 


(unintelligible) right now (unintelligible) put 


together on that issue, so just be aware of 


that. I know that you're following the policy 


that you've used in the past, but the policy 


may be changing. 


 DR. WADE: So our goal for all of us is 


redacted information wherever possible. If 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

we're not in that situation, it doesn't 


preclude the working group getting material. 


And yes, Arjun, if you were to supply that 


material it should be clearly stamped and 


identified. 


DR. MAURO: The last point, though -- this is 


John Mauro -- I think is important to I guess 


keep in mind is it sounds like issues related 


to e-mailing --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- is still up in the air and we 


will be hearing some guidance shortly, because 


we're in the middle of the work right now, and 


you will be corresponding with Brant and the 


other members of the -- on its -- cases 


selected, perhaps some information, and it 


sounds like that we may not be able to e-mail 


that material until we get further guidance. 


Is that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, under the current policy I 


think we can. Right? 


 DR. WADE: I would do --


 MS. HOWELL: For right -- we're looking into 


the new --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 MS. HOWELL: -- OMB circular, and for right now 


just be prepared for things to change, I guess 


is what I would say, but continue as you've 


been working, but just be ready for a -- a new 


proc-- new procedure to possibly take effect. 


 DR. WADE: Until you're formally notified by 


the contractor --


 MR. PRESLEY: Question --


 DR. WADE: -- continue business as usual. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If -- if SC&A sends this report 


out on a diskette, you're not going to get it 


that day, but the next day if they do it 


Federal Express, which is going to make legal's 


headache a whole lot easier or smaller. And 


I'm just wondering about if we get a -- a 


diskette rather than putting this on e-mail -- 


I'm very much aware of what you're going 


through and I can tell you things are going to 


change drastically. 


 MS. HOWELL: In terms of supplying the 


information on CDs or diskettes, I would hold 


off on that as well because we're still unsure 


of how the OMB circular and those policies -- 


if that adequately addresses the concerns or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

not, so I guess I would just say -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: E-mail? That's fine. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- continue to do what you're 


doing until we've had a chance to let you know 


the new procedures. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Howell, it's still a little 


confusing because until -- until the earl-- an 


early November working group meeting, we were 


e-mailing to the working group. We e-mailed 


some information on Rocky Flats claims with the 


names and other things redacted, and then we 


were told that there may be Privacy Act 


concerns. And at that time we were told not to 


do e-mail, and then we were told we could -- I 


just want to be explicit -- so we suspended the 


use of e-mail, and then John and I corresponded 


with Mr. Staudt about this, and I think you 


know -- and I believe he said we could use e-


mail -- I'm not -- so I'm a little bit confused 


about what business as usual means. 


DR. MAURO: Perhaps I -- my understanding at 


this time is that we continue in the mode we 


have in the past regarding the exchange of 


information between even SC&A personnel and 


technical folks at NIOSH and ORAU as we have in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

the past until we're given the formal direction 


on that matter. So it's business as usual, but 


that may change soon. But at the --


 MR. GRIFFON: So business as usual means you 


can exchange --


DR. MAURO: We can, and business as usual means 


we can exchange --


 MR. GRIFFON: At least for now. 


DR. MAURO: Within -- within the umbrella of 


the people who have access to Privacy Act 


material, the only change that I've instructed 


our crew is that when we do that we make sure 


we have a cover on it that has the statement 


that this is Privacy Act. So we were planning 


to continue in that mode until we were 


instructed not to do that any longer. 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, that's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think we all have the 


intention to limit that kind of correspondence, 


especially over e-mail, so -- 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But we'll operate that way until 


we get final direction from you, yeah. 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or further direction. Okay. All 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

right, I'm going to move on to item three, if 


it's okay, since we're, as usual, lagging on 


our first agenda item. 


 NIOSH will provide access to all Rocky Flats 


claimant files for designated SC&A staff. 


NIOSH will assure Board members -- I think we 


just mentioned this. Lew mentioned that access 


has been reinstated, so the R drive access is 


no longer an issue. 


OTHER RADIONUCLIDES
 

On to item two, overall item two on the summary 


list, other radionuclides. The first action 


there was NIOSH will provide a semi-empirical 


validation of thorium intake model, bou-- 


parentheses, bounding intakes estimated using 


new Reg. 1400 approach. I'm not sure where we 


stand on this, Brant. Do you -- you recall 


this action? 


 DR. ULSH: Mark, I'm kind of working from the 


matrix (unintelligible). There have been a 


couple of back-and-forth exchanges between SC&A 


and NIOSH on this issue. We provided Bryce 


Rich's model, remember, and then SC&A had some 


comments on that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but at the November 6th 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

meeting we had -- I think this is what -- Jim 


Neton had brought up in discussions well, we 


can resolve this all by maybe providing a semi-


empirical validation of the thorium intake 


model. 


 DR. ULSH: Oh, okay -- now I remember, Mark, 


okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- yeah, so that was Jim's 


sort of offer on the table. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, but I'm in the process right 


now of pulling together everything we've got on 


thorium, and one piece of that is exactly what 


you're talking about, Jim's suggestion that we 


compare it to machining of other metals 


(unintelligible) mainly of uranium, and then 


use the (unintelligible) approach on that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so that -- that's in the -- 


in process. 


 DR. ULSH: That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The second item, NIOSH will 


provide available references regarding other 


radionuclide use or dose estimates, and I think 


this gets into the e-mail correspondence 


between, Brant, you and Joe Fitzgerald. I saw 


some of that on use of thorium document and -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46

 DR. ULSH: Oh --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and underlying references, I 


think that's --


 DR. ULSH: -- I guess I'll take a crack at it 


and then let Joe (unintelligible) his thoughts. 


Joe and I did have a couple of exchanges on 


this document called thorium use at Rocky 


Flats. I found out -- well, with Mel -- Mel 


and Bryce's help -- that the author of that was 


-- that document was Bob Bistline. We 


interviewed Bob Bistline and I think the upshot 


of it was we know now who the author was. We 


don't have to call it anonymous anymore. That 


document was -- I think it was a report that 


Bob prepared in response to public relations 


issues that Rocky Flats had back in the 


(unintelligible) '70s (unintelligible) related 


to a farmer who lived near the Rocky Flats site 


who was concerned about whether or not 


radiation from Rocky Flats was causing 


deformity in his animals. That was the reason 


for the report (unintelligible) the report. 


Now Joe I think was interested in the 


supporting documentation that went into that 


report. I don't think we've been successful in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

getting that. Bob Bistline, as I understand, 


couldn't really point us to any of the 


supporting documentation. However, Bob issued 


a report -- a paper that he wrote regarding 


bio-effects of thorium and I think gave that to 


SC&A, and that's really all I can recall about 


that at the moment. Joe, do you want to add 


anything to that? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, just a little 


background. Between the interview with the Dow 


Madison petitioners on their SEC and their I 


guess allegations of the linkage between that 


site and Rocky Flats in terms of thorium 


shipments, as well as this particular document 


that we uncovered in our document retrieval, we 


wanted to see if there was any way to 


substantiate the quantities and the level of 


handling for thorium at Rocky Flats. This 


particular document that we're referring to 


actually did have some numbers that were 


pertinent, we felt, to the issue, some of which 


was the parameter of -- the MUF parameter, 


material unaccounted for. Another parameter of 


normal operating loss cited 32 kilograms of 


normal operating loss. And you know, given all 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

the discussions we've had on the topic, we have 


found very little in the way of actual 


measurements. You know, there's been sort of 


expert interviews that suggested that the 


handling was, you know, a very light handling, 


very little got away. We have -- I guess NIOSH 


has gone and looked at the materials inventory 


and wasn't able to establish any sizeable 


quantities in there. So this document was 


important to us, not so much in terms of who it 


was directed at -- and you know, it was 


directed at an issue that came off-site where a 


farmer alleged thorium -- I guess thorium 


uptake in his livestock, which at the time 


would have been pretty dramatic. Now 


understand that the presence of thorium at 


Rocky Flats during that time frame was highly 


classified. It wasn't freely acknowledged, and 


therefore records for thorium use would have 


been tightly held. So this note was an 


internal assessment on that particular issue, 


just simply to characterize whether there would 


have been a source term sufficient to have in 


fact accounted for that uptake. So we weren't 


so much interested in what the paper was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

directed at, or even -- although interestingly 


enough -- who it was written by. And we would 


say there is a number of authors that 


apparently contributed to it. 


What we were interested in is the source 


documents -- you know, where did these numbers 


come from. And in conversations with Bob 


Bistline it was pretty clear these numbers did 


come from some records that were retained and 


kept by Rocky, probably classified, certainly 


now formally classified. And what we felt 


would be important to settle this thing out, 


instead of sort of having a debate between site 


experts or a debate on a qualitative term, is 


to see if we could find some documentation or 


maybe NIOSH could find some references from -- 


which would contain some of these measurements 


-- which I think would probably go a long ways 


to characterizing, you know, was this a 


significant handling of thorium or was it, as I 


think we've seen in the evaluations that NIOSH 


has provided to date, a very minimal, almost -- 


not a very significant handling of thorium. 


So that's -- that's the origin of this issue, 


which is frankly is there any source references 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

or source documents which -- from which these 


numbers were derived. 


Now talking again to Bob, as you have, Brant, 


it's pretty clear that he doesn't recall that ­

- and understandably. It's been quite a while. 


But he does believe that there were documents, 


there were records -- probably, again, 


classified at the time -- that these 


measurements would have came from. And you 


know, this -- this is kind of what we've been 


after, to find something with hard edges that 


kind of defined what the source term might be 


for thorium that would give us a basis for, you 


know, sort of letting the chips fall where they 


may in terms of the significance of the issue 


and -- and that's where we stand right now. 


And I think our last exchange was, you know, we 


certainly can't go any further on this issue 


without locating these records or documents. 


And I think what we said was in your ongoing 


search for these documents is pretty much where 


we're at in terms of these references. 


 DR. ULSH: Mark, I guess I just want to get a 


feel from you how you want this meeting to go. 


I kind of (unintelligible) is this basically 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

just to update the status. In that regard, in 


response to any questions about thorium, we 


have located a number of additional documents 


that we're going to be summarizing and 


(unintelligible) a number of other additional 


interviews. I don't know if this is the time 


to really go into the details on that, Mark. 


(NOTE: The technical problem with telephone 


participants was resolved from this point 


forward.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, I think -- I think you're 


right, but it's good to know that you've -- 


you've identi-- you know, just the status that 


you've identified that and you're working on 


the issue I guess is the -- the update. I mean 


you -- we've only got about, you know, a half-


hour here or so. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, the only question -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- I would add that for Brant 


is --


 DR. ULSH: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Just one final question is to 


-- in terms of Brant's review. Were any of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

these values coming up in the documents that 


you've been able to locate? 


 DR. ULSH: Well, no, I haven't seen anything 


that speaks specifically about material 


unaccounted for and normal operating losses 


other than the original material account 


ledgers which were reviewed by Mel and Bryce, 


and those documents are classified. They are 


located in the (unintelligible) Federal Records 


Center and they are (unintelligible) maximum 


(unintelligible) 168 kilograms, so I think that 


these quantities are probably concluded from 


the material (unintelligible) account ledgers. 


Again, I'm not an expert on how to 


(unintelligible), but that's probably the best 


source on how much thorium was at Rocky Flats 


over -- over time. Those are classified, but 


(unintelligible) working group 


(unintelligible), but we do have other records 


that don't speak necessarily (unintelligible) 


in terms of, you know, specific material 


(unintelligible) accounting (unintelligible) 


talk about quantities of thorium that were 


handled at Rocky Flats and what they were doing 


with it (unintelligible) part of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

(unintelligible) I'm preparing right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Arjun has a --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, just a couple of 


comments. We -- we actually -- you know, the 


1976 paper corresponds fairly closely with the 


NIOSH paper in terms of the inventories of 


thorium. The -- the -- the questions that it 


raises are not about what was in stock at Rocky 


Flats at any time in regard to thorium, but in 


-- in two other regards. The normal operating 


losses of 32 kilograms cumulative up to 1976 


seems rather large for the type of work that 


was described in working group meetings by 


NIOSH. That is, parts were received from 


someplace and if there were some rough surfaces 


or if they did not fit, they were lightly 


treated. Now this 1976 document does not talk 


about any light working-over of some parts. It 


talks about manufacturing for customers. And 


the light machining -- it may be compatible 


with 32 kilograms, but -- but it does seem 


rather significant. And also the 32 kilograms 


may provide some indication of the total amount 


of thorium processed. To date we don't have 


any -- any -- any estimate for the amount 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

54 

processed in the '50s, '60s and early '70s when 


most of it probably happened. And if losses 


are a couple of percent, then it -- it gives 


you -- it gives you maybe an idea of the order 


of magnitude of material that might have been 


processed. Less than Y-12, but nonetheless 


significant. And if it -- especially if it 


were manufactured. So that's the -- that's the 


specific interest in this document is -- is not 


about stocks of materials, which doesn't get 


you quantitatively to the exposure ideas or 


validation of the exposure that's needed. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, I understand your concern, 


Arjun. Do you have much more information to 


provide me not only about the quantities 


involved but the types of operations involved. 


I wouldn't want to (unintelligible) which 


version of Bryce's write-up you've seen, but I 


think the first entry in that table talks about 


machining and light machining, and -- I can't 


remember exactly, but -- but that has been in 


Bryce's write-up. (Unintelligible) and that it 


was very minimal (unintelligible) detail 


provided to you in the summary (unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55

I 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ULSH: -- and some additional information 


beyond what we had when we wrote that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that -- that's good. 


think that's as far as we can go at this point. 


We -- we need to move along on our status 


updates. 


 MS. MUNN: Refresh my memory one more time. 


The source of the 32 kilogram concern is what? 


 MR. GRIFFON: This -- go ahead. 


 DR. ULSH: It's a document issued by Bob 


Bistline, he was the primary author. As Joe 


mentioned, there were other people, other 


contributing authors, but the title of it is 


called "Thorium Use at Rocky Flats," the year 


of publication -- was it 1976, Joe? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: 1976, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 1976. 


 MS. MUNN: '70s -- '70s, Bistline's paper was. 


Thank you. Appreciate that, thanks. I 


couldn't remember where that had come from. 


remember the concern, sharply. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Is it all right if we move 


along on the agenda? 


PROVIDING INTERVIEW NOTES
 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

The next point was providing interview notes -- 


NIOSH will provide applicable interview notes 


regarding other radionuclides at Rocky Flats. 


I think that was -- was that done? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that was done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so that's completed. And 


then the fourth item is SC&A will further 


review information provided by NIOSH regarding 


plutonium and curium, and you've done that and 


you -- you're in agreement with NIOSH's -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and we'll cover that in 


the evaluation review, but yeah, I think we're 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- fine now. 


D AND D PERIOD


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, on to number three, 


which is D and D workers. The action here, 


NIOSH will provide termination bioassay data 


available for Rocky Flats worker during D and D 


period. This data will include information 


indicating whether each individual worked for 


the prime contractor or a subcontractor. And I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

think you've taken a little different path, 


Brant, on this. Is that true, or... 


 DR. ULSH: I don't want to --


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think you've -- 


 DR. ULSH: -- mix up issues, Mark, but I think 


this is -- you know, you mentioned that we had 


a conference call last week with SC&A to talk 


about OTIB-38. We have committed to extending 


the internal coworker data through an OCAS TIB. 


That was provided on the 8th of -- of December. 


We also still owe you a piece -- owe the 


working group and SC&A a piece on looking at 


termination bioassays and seeing if there are 


any differences between top tier contractors 


and subs. We have completed the analysis for ­

- for plutonium. We are currently completing a 


similar analysis for uranium. Is that the one 


you're thinking of, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, yes, I'm sorry. Yeah. 


 DR. ULSH: We still owe you that. That should 


be coming fairly quickly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But as far as -- if I 


understand from our conference call correctly, 


the -- it's going to be too cumbersome to roll 


the -- the action item says that the data will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

-- the data will be provided and will include 


whether the individual worked for the prime or 


subcontractor. Is that going to be all on the 


spreadsheet or just a summary of your review of 


the data, I think is --


 DR. ULSH: Well, what I was thinking was a 


summary, Mark, but if -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ULSH: -- you'd like more detail, I mean we 


can discuss that, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I think that -- I 


think your -- your rec-- the initial action 


says the data, so I'm just trying to get a 


clarification. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, I think -- if you recall the 


way this conversation was going -- has gone 


with the D and D era, there was originally some 


debate between -- I don't know, debate might be 


too strong a word -- discussion between NIOSH 


and SC&A about, you know, who was monitored and 


who wasn't during the D and D era, and NIOSH's 


original position was everyone who had the 


potential for 100 millirem or more was 


monitored. We still hold that position, but I 


just kind of decided that look, at the end of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

the day, I think the quickest way to closure on 


this is if we just extend -- go ahead and 


extend the data, you know, provide coworker 


data all the way through the D and D era, and 


then, you know, perform this analysis that Gene 


Potter's been working on looking at whether 


there's any statistically significant 


difference between the primes and the subs. So 


that's kind of the path that we followed to get 


to this point. 


I hope that the action items that we're 


pursuing are going to be responsive to the 


concerns, but if not, certainly let me know and 


we'll --


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I guess -- I guess the 


impression I had at the last workgroup meeting 


was that it was a fairly simple thing to do to 


-- to pull in this contractor field into the 


database and let us all --


 DR. ULSH: Oh, I see, so are -- are you asking, 


Mark, if we can put -- kind of replace the 


version of HIS-20 that we currently have on the 


O drive with one that also has the contractor 


field? Is that what you're -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that was -- that was just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

one way to allow us to see what you -- see what 


your analysis had concluded, you know. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's what I thought we 


were asking for was that that extra field be 


added in --


 DR. ULSH: Oh, I see --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then you also provide your 


analysis of, you know -- 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. Jennie, you're -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- subcontractor versus prime. 


 DR. ULSH: -- on line, right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) Brant. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. Jennie, can you mark that 


down as an action item for us? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, thanks. We'll get on that, 


Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: I gue-- I guess I have one -- 


one question, Brant. You know, this -- this 


thing originated with the comment I guess that 


the rad worker-2 training was a key 


discriminating factor as to, you know, who in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

fact was allowed entry into radiological zones 


for D and D, so these were the individuals we 


were keying in on. I think your response at 


some point was that it would be very difficult 


if not untenable to -- to actually marry up the 


rosters for the rad-2 workers with the -- with 


the termination bioassays and -- and dose 


fields, and I think that then led you to this 


next option, which was to aggregate all the -- 


I guess the termination bioassays for the subs 


and to take the -- I think it was top six top 


tier prime contractors. Now --


 MR. GRIFFON: Subs. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think it was the top 


tier -- six top tier and then all the subs. 


think there's 209 I think was mentioned -- the 


number that was mentioned at the last 


discussion we had on this and you were going to 


do the -- compare the aggregate results from 


the termination bioassays between the two 


groups. Now the only caution I would have on 


that -- and I haven't seen anything so it's 


just really a caution at this point -- is that 


-- you know, originally we were keying in on a 


certain group that was earmarked by virtue of 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

the fact that because they're rad worker-2 


trained the presumption is that they would have 


had a potential of gaining entry into these 


radiological areas where there would have been 


a -- perhaps a potential of 100 millirem or 


more of exposure during D and D. Now that 


you're suggesting Gene Potter's going to 


aggregate 209 subcontractors, that gives me 


some pause because it's not clear to me who 


those 209 subcontractors may be. And clearly 


for sites like Rocky and other sites, you know, 


you may include a lot of subcontractors who 


would never get near a radiological zone and my 


concern is, you know, you've got the vending 


machine suppliers, you've got -- you know, 


you've got workers that were probably moving 


dirt and -- and included in those might be a 


subset that were in fact these D and D workers 


that were badged and entering zones. But by 


melding them into this large group, you might 


in fact dampen down whatever, you know, data 


you might have for those and, maybe not 


surprisingly, you might have a problem trying 


to compare that with the top tier. So I'm just 


-- I'm just suggesting that maybe there might 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

be an issue in terms of over-aggregation. I'm 


not sure about it, but certainly with that many 


subs, that could be an issue. 


 DR. ULSH: Well, Joe, I guess -- I don't have 


Gene on the line to talk about the details of 


all this, but I just do want to make one 


clarification that may or may not be important. 


But when you talk about the numbers of 


contractors, I want to point out that in the 


top tier group -- I think there were nine -- 


but that's not necessarily nine individual 


corporate entities. That is nine names and 


variations of names. For instance, Kaiser 


Hill; Kaiser Hill Rocky Flats; KH Rocky Flats. 


And the same with the subs. I mean there were 


variations. But like I said, I don't know if 


that's important or not, but I just don't want 


you to expect to see, you know, 209 subs and -- 


and only find, you know, 100-plus variations, 


'cause that's what we're talking about. 


Now with regard to your other question about 


over-aggregation, I don't know. I thought the 


original concern -- and this was I think maybe 


your concern and maybe Mike Gibson's concern, 


was subs might have a different distribution 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

than the primes. And of course I know that, 


you know, the exposure potential for different 


subs may very well be different based on the 


kind of work that they do. But now you're 


talking about moving into a job-specific 


coworker analysis. I don't -- I don't know how 


feasible that would be. I don't know, like I 


say, the original concern was were subs 


different from primes, and -- and so that's why 


we took this approach. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, no, I think the -- the 


issue was whether the D and D workers were 


different than the primes since the coworker 


model is -- you know, is -- is founded on this 


database --


 DR. ULSH: Right, and (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and that was -- that was 


the reason we had gone after it with the rad 


worker-2 handle at first, and then I think you 


came back and said that was impractical, and we 


understand that, and certainly this is option 


two and I'm just, you know, suggesting that now 


the issue is just simply is there any way we 


can get back to maybe these D and D workers 


that we know are working on radiological D and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

D as opposed to taking every sub that walked on 


the site, which you know, by -- you know, 


taking that large group, I think you're going 


to change the distribution and I -- that's the 


issue I -- I'm raising. 


 DR. ULSH: All right. Well, I hear your 


concern. How about if we continue on as we 


have started, we'll give you the analysis that 


we've started, recognizing you may have this 


concern. And I don't know, I guess we can 


discuss with Gene whether or not there were 


particular subs that were identified with D and 


D work that could be pulled out and analyzed 


separately. I mean I don't want to commit to 


doing that. I just -- I'll commit to talk to 


Gene to see if that's a feasible approach. If 


it is, would that be the kind of thing that 


you're talking about? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think that and I think 


Mark's original suggestion, if we could 


actually see these demarcations in terms of 


affiliations and the subs, there might be some 


way to at least get some feel for, you know, 


who makes up the -- the distribution. I mean 


just -- when I heard the number 209 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

subcontractors, it just struck me that that's 


probably just about all of them, and -- and 


that includes a lot of what I would consider 


non-radiological personnel, which -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- certainly would be a 


difference. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Brant, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ULSH: Yes, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is there any way that you can go 


in there and separate these names out from the 


prime contractors that were doing the hottest 


jobs? 


 DR. ULSH: Bob, did you just say the prime 


contractors that were doing the hottest jobs or 


the --


 MR. PRESLEY: Or the contractors, I'm sorry, 


not prime, but the contractors. 


 DR. ULSH: Well, that's -- that's what was 


rolling around in my head that I still need to 


talk to Gene Potter about. I mean if we know 


that there were particular subs that were doing 


the actual D and D -- you know, knocking the 


buildings down, I mean if we know that Company 


X was involved in that -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67

 MR. PRESLEY: Right, or the peop-- or the 


people that were going in and actually putting 


the -- the waste products into the drums and 


things like that. If we can do that, then I 


believe that's going to -- going to help and 


lower your numbers drastically. Is that not 


correct, Joe? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: I would -- I would assume so. 


I just don't think that's as large a group as 


the total numbers --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- of subcontractors. 


 DR. ULSH: Let me talk to Gene about that, see 


how feasible an approach that would be. I 


understand what you're asking and let me talk 


to Gene and I'll get back to you on that one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Excuse me, Brant, this is John 


Mauro. Just -- I'm trying to visualize what 


the table -- the work product at the end of 


this process would look like. Is it a table 


that lists categories of subcontractors and 


contractors with -- let's say we're talking the 


results of bioassay analysis or external 


dosimetry analysis. Is it going to be a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

geometric mean and a standard deviation drawn 


from let's say 1,000 workers, or are we going 


to have a table with individual results for 


individual workers? In other words, is it a 


big roll-up where within one number, let's say 


a geometric mean and a standard deviation, they 


capture the exposures of hundreds of -- of 


workers over a number of years, over individual 


years? What's -- what -- what do you envision 


the table to look like when you're done? 


 DR. ULSH: Well, John, right now what we've 


done is we've got an analysis that covers I 


think two different time periods in the D and D 


era because there was a change in the MDA. Oh, 


and -- oh, by the way, we're talking only about 


termination bioassays here. So we've got a -- 


I -- I guess it's -- it's summary statistics 


for the primes and the subs for those two 


different time periods -- right now for 


plutonium, but we were also going to do it for 


uranium. In light of the conversation that 


we've just had, I'm going to discuss with Gene 


whether or not it would be feasible to perhaps 


break up that sub -- subcontractor category to 


see whether we can pull out -- you know, if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

there -- if there were particular comp-- sub 


companies that worked with -- you know, the 


hands-on work, if -- if there's a way to maybe 


separate those out and report summary 


statistics on -- you know, like you said, the 


geometric mean and standard deviation. That's 


what I was thinking, anyway. I'm open to 


discussion, but... 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, let -- let me -- one of the 


con-- one of the outcomes might be for a given 


group of workers, a subcontractor, contractor, 


the results are going to look like this. The 


mea-- the geometric mean is below the low limit 


of detection, and one sigma is below the low 


limit of detection. And after all this work, 


we're going to have data that says we have all 


these different groups of people and the mean 


and standard deviation are all below the lower 


limit of detection, which -- 'cause I keep 


seeing this in other datasets that I look at 


when I do have access to large numbers, and 


what happens is the vast majority of the 


workers are below the lower limit of detection, 


and then you get a handful that are up in the 


range that are -- are above the limits of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

detection. And what that means is that 


aggregate data doesn't really -- so we could go 


through all this, and when we're done we're 


really not going to have information that's 


going to help us making judgments, if that's 


what --


DR. NETON: This is Jim. I would argue that's 


not necessarily true. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, yeah, 'cau-- go ahead. 


 DR. WADE: Speak up, Jim. 


DR. NETON: I think there is meaningful data in 


-- that are below the lower limit of detection 


when you fit a distribution. And if you can 


show there's no statistical difference between 


those two populations, wherever the data may 


fall, I think you've -- we can make a point as 


to there are no difference between those two or 


there are, whatever the case may be. There's 


valuable information below the lower limit of 


detection when you're plotting a distribution 


like this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I think we should hold off 


on this discussion 'cause we have 15 minutes to 


wrap up our status report. I think, Brant, 


you're right on the actions and we can continue 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

the other discussions when we get, you know, 


more along in the process, get the product from 


NIOSH and --


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and discuss it. Okay? 


DR. NETON: All right. 


LOGBOOK ANALYSIS


 MR. GRIFFON: On to number four now, the 


logbook analysis, and the first item, NIOSH to 


post radiation files referenced in their 


analysis on the O drive. Brant, I believe 


you've done this. 


 DR. ULSH: Yes, that's correct, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Second item is SC&A to complete 


their review of this, and I -- I believe it's 


sort of ongoing, but it's -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- going to be rolled up in your 


evaluation --


 MR. FITZGERALD: They're rolled up -- rolled up 


in the evaluation we plan to draft up at the 


end of the month, right. We're working on them 


now. And by the way, we will provide a interim 


draft to the workgroup as soon as it's 


finished, just as we did with safety concerns. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

1969 DATA GAP


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Number five is the 1969 


data gap. NIOSH to post the available monthly 


dosimeter -- dosimetry reports, and that was -- 


that was done. And then this claimant file 


data, the cross-reference -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- was it posted as well? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and we -- we began that 


and then had a interruption because of the data 


access issues and have resumed doing the cross-


comparisons with the 70-some, you know, files 


that -- that NIOSH made available, that Brant 


made available to us, so we're operating on 


those 70 and doing some cross-comparisons right 


now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the -- the remaining 


question for me in this time period is the -- 


the 1969 -- one of the monthly dosimetry 


reports or quarterly, I forget if it was a 


quarterly or monthly report, does discuss this 


quo-- this practice of people that had security 


badges and had the TLD badges within the 


security badges at a certain point, after a 


certain point -- I think it was 1964 -- but in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

this quarterly report it says that there was a 


practice initiated whereby certain workers that 


were deemed at low radiation exposure risk, 


even though they had the badge in their 


security badge, the badge was not read out. 


They didn't -- they didn't read it in the 


laboratory and they -- and they did this based 


on people that they deemed in low exposure 


areas. 


Now I -- I'm still not clear -- it -- it's 


clearly in that monthly report. What I'm not 


clear on is if it was a practice that was 


initiated in 1969 and went -- and was ongoing 


for a number of years or that was just a 


practice for a short time period or -- or -- 


and I don't know if you have any -- I know, 


Brant, you provided us just recently with a 


document on badging practices, and I have not 


had a chance to review that. Maybe that sheds 


some light on this issue, but I guess that's 


the one remaining thing for me in that category 


is -- is --


 DR. ULSH: Mark, yeah, I know exactly what 


you're talking about in terms of that one 


monthly progress report -- I think it was from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

April of '69 -- that said -- I don't have it 


right in front of me, but it said that people 


judged at low exposure -- people who were on 


quarterly badges and not stationed in plutonium 


areas, they had low exposure potential, their 


badges would no longer be read unless 


circumstances warrant. And so we can make a 


reasonable interpretation there that that 


started, you know, right around the time of 


that progress report. But as to when it ended, 


I can't really say. We don't have any similar 


notations that say okay, we've rescinded that ­

- that past decision or not. 


If you look at some of the other data sources 


that we looked at, this '69 issue originally 


came to our attention because I think Kathy 


DeMers noted that there were a large number of 


zero readings in '69, and so that's how we 


originally started to look at this. We didn't 


see that trend continue. It went away after I 


think maybe '69 or '70. We didn't see those 


large number of zeroes. So from that -- I mean 


I don't know. You'd have to make the inference 


that those two facts are related. I can't 


really say that. I just don't have a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

particular piece of documentation that says 


that previous decision was rescinded. I just 


don't know. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think where this may become 


important is our interpretation of the data 


completeness questions, when -- 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- when we review and find -- if 


we find any gaps and we assume that they, you 


know, had a badge but it wasn't measured during 


a certain time period -- 


 DR. ULSH: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know --


 DR. ULSH: We do know that this was primarily 


people who were not stationed in the plutonium 


areas. And I'm also -- again, stepping out a 


bit on a limb, just going by the way Arjun 


described his interim results, that primarily 


he's seen periods where people were not 


monitored -- I think you said, Arjun -- 


external and in the '50s. Is that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, it was -- it was 


external and in the '50s that Arjun was 


mentioning that. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That is correct, and it was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

only in the '50s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now that was for the -- the 


production workers, though, they -- they -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, that's more what I -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- selected highly exposed -- 


 DR. ULSH: Oh, I see. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, so that probably wouldn't 


apply to these --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, might not apply to this 


thing, yeah, so I think -- that -- that's the 


reason I keep pursuing this is the better we 


can define this, if we have an endpoint to this 


practice, then it helps us evaluate the 


completeness issue --


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, I understand. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that -- that is underway. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we -- we are not looking 


at these other practices as part of our 


statistical data evaluation at the explicit 


direction of the working group, 'cause this 


came up in the working group meeting and that's 


where the -- as Mr. Presley said, are we 


looking at four or five different categories. 


There were four or five different categories 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

talked about and the working group told us 


that, as part of this analysis, don't worry 


about the badging practices and the people who 


were badged and the badges weren't read and the 


subcontractors who don't -- didn't go in. We ­

- we were leaving that out of the analysis, so 


it may come in when we put in the job title or 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we're -- we're leaving it 


out of the selection, anyway, yeah, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: We -- well, if we can -- if we 


can find easy information in the job 


categories, we will put it in the table. We're 


not explicitly going after explanations -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- in this analysis. 


 DR. ULSH: Well, I think that's -- that's 


really the heart of the story about whether or 


not we should expect these people to be 


monitored. I mean we do expect them to be 


monitored and their records aren't here; i.e., 


we conclude that they're missing. Or we don't 


expect them to be monitored. And that's the 


kind of data that I guess we're going to be 


looking at in terms of are these real gaps or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

are they exactly what you would -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- and that's why I'm 


asking for, you know, some -- 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, I know what you're saying, 


Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sense of when this time period 


ends. 


 DR. ULSH: I don't know, I'll poll the team and 


see if there's any -- any ideas about how we 


can I guess circumscribe this procedure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So the badging practices document 


that you just provided doesn't shed any light 


on this. 


 DR. ULSH: I don't --


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 DR. ULSH: -- have that in front of me, either, 


Mark. I don't recall that when I read through 


it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't think so, either. 


 DR. ULSH: I think it talked about what we have 


just talked about, but it doesn't provide any 


additional information beyond what I've just 


stated. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ULSH: I could be wrong. Take a look at it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 -- 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

and I'll take another look as well, and I'll 


talk to the team and see if we can figure out, 


you know, another way to come at this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I might --


 MR. GIBSON: Mark, this is Mike. This also --


you know, determining -- if they weren't 


stationed in a plutonium area, they didn't read 


their badges, it kind of gets back to 


characterization issue of the sites, too. If 


you'll look at -- you know, once they tear 


these buildings down, how many tons of 


contaminated dirt did they tear out from -- 


away from these buildings. So even though 


these people weren't assigned to a plutonium 


building, we've had people come up hot working 


in ditches at the Mound facility, so I think it 


falls in the area of how well the sites are 


characterized, too, as to whether these people 


 DR. ULSH: Mike, I need to make a couple of 


clarifications here. First of all, we're only 


talking about external dosimetry. And the 


reason they -- well, one thing that facilitated 


this decision to not monitor the people who 


were on quarterly badges in the '69 time frame 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

that were outside the plutonium areas is 


because the enriched uranium operations at 


Rocky had been shifted to Y-12 in the mid-'60s. 


There was almost no enriched uranium left in 


terms of source term. Now you know, of course 


there might have been some residual 


contamination left, but -- so the primary 


source term in these non-plutonium areas had 


been gone from the site by then. 


Now what you're talking about in terms of 


characterizing the sites, I can see where 


that's a pretty important issue in terms of 


bioassay. You know, you've got people who are 


working in putative low exposure sites and they 


come up with a high bioassay and it makes you 


wonder what's going on perhaps. But external's 


a different beast. And there was a pretty 


clear demarcation at Rocky Flats between the 


uranium areas and the plutonium areas, so I 


mean it's not -- I think it's just a little 


different situation there. 


 MR. GIBSON: If I can follow up, I'm just 


saying I can tell you that I know that there 


was dirt that was shipped out as high level 


radioactive waste, so that could in effect 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

affect the external monitoring, whether they 


were bioassayed or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, we -- I think you 


got the point, Brant, that if we can -- if we 


can, you know, put a bracket on that practice, 


that would be very beneficial in terms of the 


analysis on this completeness issue. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, I'll take it up with the team 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ULSH: -- Mark, and see what I can come up 


with. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I -- Brant, could I ask a 


question about the paper you sent on badging 


practices? There's a table there, Table 1, in 


which for '52, '53 and '54 -- '52 through '55 


it shows less than 50 percent of the workers 


were badged, and for '52 it was only five 


percent. Maybe it was because of start of 


operations or I -- if -- is there -- are there 


kind of -- is there some record for those early 


years about how that badging was done, because 


this -- this would -- this corresponds to the 


finding that we have that in those years there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

were gaps. 


 DR. ULSH: Well, it's interesting that you 


mention that, Arjun. First of all, I don't 


have that write-up in front of me but I'm 


recalling it. I've got to clarify that those 


are claimants, not just, you know, all workers; 


they're claimants. But you know, I would 


expect the distribution of claimants to look 


like the distribution of the workers at large. 


And you're right, there is an increase 


throughout the '50s, up until sometime in the 


'60s. Again, I'm just recalling this from 


looking at it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, until '64. It gets to 93 


percent in '64. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, and that's the year that they 


combined the security badge and the dosimetry 


badge. And you're right that of course there 


was a ramping up of operations. The site began 


operations in '52, and so the operations were 


ramping up throughout the '50s and it's -- I 


mean at least consistent with, you know, that 


ramp-up of activities that a higher percentage 


of your workforce would be involved in 


radiation work. And if you recall the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

interview that you conducted with Roger, he 


told you that the early years -- the practice 


was that anyone -- I think -- what was it he 


said, ten percent of the limit, anyone expected 


to be at higher than ten percent of the limit 


was badged? Of course you would expect that 


proportion to rise as the activities -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Ten percent of the quarterly 


limit you mean, not the limit of the badge, but 


ten percent of the quarterly -- 


 DR. ULSH: The regulatory limit. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, regulatory limit. 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah. So I mean what you're seeing 


-- it's funny that you mention that, Arjun, 


because when -- during that interview you had 


with Roger, I was looking right at that and I 


thought well, yeah, this is consistent with 


what we're seeing here, so... 


 DR. WADE: I think we need to move on. 


NEUTRON DOSIMETRY ISSUES


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's -- let's go on to the 


next item, neutron dosimetry issues. I think, 


Joe, maybe you can give a real brief update. 


We had a conference call on this last week. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, we had -- that was one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

of the issue-specific conference calls that we 


agreed we would go ahead and do from the last 


workgroup meeting, and we did hold that last 


week. And I think there were -- and we 


circulated amongst the Board members sort of a 


reiteration of the specific actions that would 


-- that NIOSH would provide. And I don't know 


if there's any issues. I think there were a 


number of -- of outstanding items, none of 


which were, you know, overly significant but 


certainly ones that would allow us to finish 


the -- our assessment, and I think Brant and 


his team committed to making that information 


available to us relatively soon. So I think 


that's kind of where -- in the interest of time 


I won't go through each and every one of them. 


I think the group has heard the five central 


items before. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine, yeah. 


 DR. ULSH: Those are at the top of the to-do 


list as soon as the Advisory Board meeting is 


over, so – 


SUPER S


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And item number seven is 


the super S question, and I think the remaining 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

thing on the super S discussion was the review 


of the other cases that were -- that -- that 


had high burdens after the fire. And I think 


these radiation files -- were they going to be 


provided or -- or -- I don't know what the 


status of that. Joe or Brant can -- 


 DR. ULSH: Joyce has been working with Sam 


Glover, and we have a list of the cases that 


she wants to see. I guess we're going to have 


to go to the folks at Mountain View 'cause not 


all of these people are claimants, so we're 


going to have to request their rad files and 


get those for Joyce. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So these -- and that -- is 


that a -- that sounds like it may take some 


time, or how -- what's the time line on that? 


 DR. ULSH: Yeah -- well, it might, because the 


Mountain View staff just moved offices, so that 


put them out of commission for just a little 


bit. I -- I can't really give you a date 


certain, Mark. I'll check with the Mountain 


View staff and see how backed up they are. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And -- and Brant, the only 


other question on that is to -- NIOSH doesn't 


have those -- I guess you don't have those rad 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

files in your possession from initial 


development of this TIB? 


 DR. ULSH: I'm not sure. That's the first 


thing I'm going to do is give the folks on the 


ORAU team who worked on this a call and see -- 


I think they might have the data in a different 


format. But I think what Joyce was wanting to 


look at was the rad files. Is that correct, 


Joe? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, yeah, I mean I -- I think 


she wants the raw data. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and she has looked at 


the CER and HIS-20 and found some issues there 


that we've discussed, and I think the idea was 


to look at the raw data -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right, right, 


right. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I just thought in the process 


of development of the TIB they would have went 


back to the raw data. I'm not sure whether 


that was done or not, but... 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there might be a subset, 


and I think that's something that would -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- bear Brant maybe pursuing 


because certainly there's 19, but amongst those 


19 I think maybe some of them might be part of 


the model and the case group that was used in 


the OTIB. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you can narrow down the -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Obviously --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- request. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Your -- the request might not 


be as many as 19, I guess is the point. 


SAFETY CONCERNS


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. The last two items, the 


safety concerns, SC&A is going to write a 


review of NIOSH's analysis and -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, that was circulated in 


interim form two weeks ago, and that will be in 


our report at the end of the year. 


DATA INTEGRITY


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And the ninth item is the 


data integrity issues, same thing there. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, that's almost 


completed. And again, we will provide that, as 


we committed at the last workgroup meeting, to 


the workgroup as soon as it's finished, and 


that too will go into the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

88

 MR. GRIFFON: Will be rolled into the 


evaluation report. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: We're hoping to have that by 


sometime next week. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, with that -- good, I think 


we're done. We'll take a very quick stretch 


break. This concludes the meeting of the 


working group on Rocky Flats. Just a couple of 


minutes and the subcommittee will convene, so 


those on the phone bear with us. It'll just be 


long enough for people to take a walk around 


their chair. One moment. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 11:00 


a.m.) 

______________________________ 

89 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of December 11, 


2006; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


2nd day of January, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102