NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON LAWRENCE BERKELEY

NATIONAL LABORATORY

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

FEBRUARY 3, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Subcommittee convened, in the 

Brussels Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Paul L. Ziemer, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A*

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

LARA HUGHES, DCAS

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

STEPHEN SPANOS, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Call to Order 5 

 

Introductory Remarks and Review 5 

of Agenda

 Paul Ziemer

 Chairman

Overview of LBNL and Site Profile 15

 Lara Hughes

 DCAS

 Questions and Comments 17

Site Profile Review and Findings Matrix 22

 Joe Fitzgerald

 SC&A

 General Questions and Comments 24

 Issue 1 28

 Action Item - NIOSH 37

 Issue 2 43

 Action Item - SC&A 49

 Issue 3 62

 Action Item - SC&A and NIOSH/ORAU 67

 Issue 4 70

 Action Item - NIOSH 84

 Issue 5 97

 Action Item - NIOSH 102
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Site Profile Review and Findings Matrix

(Continued)

 Issue 6 102

 Action Item - SC&A 110

 Issue 7 110

 Action Item - SC&A 114

 Issue 8 116

 Action Item - SC&A 120

 Issue 9 121

 Action Item - SC&A 122

 Issue 10 123

 Closed 124

 Issue 11 124

 Addressed in Issues 2 and 4 126

 Issue 12 126

 Action Item - NIOSH 129 

 Issue 13 130

 Action Item - NIOSH 137

General Discussion: Major Issues and 138

Concerns

Next Steps and Plans for Upcoming 138

Work Group Activities
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

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

2 (9:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 in the room and on the line.

5 This is the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health, Lawrence Berkeley 

7 National Lab Work Group. And we're just ready 

8 to get started.

9 We'll begin with roll call.

10 (Roll call.)

11 Very good. Then the agenda for 

12 the meeting is on the Board's website.

13 Paul, it's your agenda.

14 Let me just remind everyone on the 

15 line to please mute your phones except when 

16 you are addressing the group. Press *6 to 

17 mute and *6 again to take your phone off of 

18 mute.

19 And we're off.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

21 you, Ted. We will officially call the meeting 

22 to order.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 As Ted suggested, if you haven't 

2 already looked at it, the agenda is on the 

3 website. I just want to take a minute to do 

4 kind of an oversight on the agenda and kind of 

5 a roadmap of where we will go today.

6 What we would like to do is have 

7 an overview of the Site Profile and the 

8 facility from NIOSH, then a review of the SC&A 

9 findings. Within the last couple of days, we 

10 have gotten some initial responses, which I 

11 didn't have at the time that I made the 

12 agenda, but we have the initial responses from 

13 NIOSH on the findings matrix. So, we can at 

14 least go through those.

15 And the objective today really 

16 overall is to kind of orient ourselves to what 

17 the issues are for this facility with respect 

18 to the findings and the concerns and issues 

19 that may need to be resolved, mainly at this 

20 time on the Site Profile.

21 I would like to point out that 

22 there was an SEC petition, Petition 160 I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 believe is the number or 00160, or some number 

2 of zeros in front of it, but Petition 160, a 

3 petition for the early years, roughly 1942, I 

4 think, to 1961 or 1962, a roughly 20-year 

5 period. Maybe Lara will expand on that.

6 But for the early years, NIOSH 

7 found that it could not reconstruct dose with 

8 sufficient accuracy, mainly due to internal 

9 emitter issues, and that was brought before 

10 the Board in 2010. And the Board agreed with 

11 NIOSH and recommended to the Secretary of HHS 

12 that a Class be added to the Special Exposure 

13 Cohort for the LBNL workers, and I won't go 

14 through the exact definition at this point. 

15 But there is a petition and that has been 

16 approved, and that SEC Class does exist 

17 already for the early years.

18 So, we don't have an SEC petition 

19 that we're dealing with at this time, any 

20 additional petition. So, we are dealing 

21 primarily with the Site Profile and I suppose 

22 also with some of the early-year issues that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 might impact on individuals who do not meet 

2 the 250-day requirement or who do not have one 

3 of the designated cancers for whom partial 

4 dose may be reconstructed. So, there could be 

5 some early-year issues that overlap that SEC 

6 or the early period.

7 But, in any event, we're focusing 

8 mainly on the Site Profile, the SC&A findings, 

9 and then trying to develop some idea of what 

10 issues we have to focus on as we move forward.

11 So, I will give you that as kind 

12 of introductory material; also, point out that 

13 on what traditionally has been called the O: 

14 drive -- and I think it's called something 

15 else for the internal people; maybe it's the 

16 K: drive or something -- there are a lot of 

17 LBNL documents there. So, those are available 

18 to look at. Of course, the Site Profile 

19 documents are on the website as well.

20 The other thing I want to mention 

21 in that connection, on the Site Profile we are 

22 on Revision 2. The initial one is dated 2006. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 Revision 1 was April of '07. Revision 2 was 

2 May of 2010. And that latest revision, 

3 Revision 2, is the one we are working with.

4 I think, initially, SC&A had 

5 reviewed, well, I guess they had initially 

6 reviewed Revision 1 pretty much in-depth. 

7 They have, I believe, taken at least a 

8 preliminary look at Revision 2 and I believe 

9 most of the issues carried forward, as I 

10 recall, as far as the matrix is concerned.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I think 

12 maybe, with the exception of obviously the 

13 internal dose issues --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For the early 

15 years, right?

16 MR. FITZGERALD: The early years.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

18 Although I might raise this 

19 question now, because it wasn't clear to me, 

20 and I don't know why it isn't clear after all 

21 these years. But if we had an individual in 

22 the early years that didn't have the 250-day 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 or the required cancer for the SEC, I'll ask 

2 Jim Neton, let's say you had some bioassay. 

3 You are still allowed to reconstruct some 

4 dose.

5 DR. NETON: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can't simply 

7 say we can't reconstruct internal dose 

8 because --

9 DR. NETON: Correct. Yes, there 

10 is a standard statement now.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 DR. NETON: How we could adopt it 

13 at the beginning, but it was --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You couldn't. 

15 You can't do the dose for the unknown stuff --

16 DR. NETON: Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that led to 

18 the SEC.

19 DR. NETON: The specific --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The specific 

21 things on an individual --

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, but, actually, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 the letter, that determination that goes with 

2 this Class, it specifies that if they have 

3 bioassay records --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: -- for an individual, 

6 they will use those --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

8 MR. KATZ: -- in their dose 

9 reconstruction.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

11 And then, the only other thing I 

12 will mention here in a preliminary way is that 

13 SC&A identified nine generic technical issues 

14 which seemed to cross many sites. They are 

15 listed in the SC&A document. This is SC&A's 

16 document of January 22nd, 2010, on page 48.

17 SC&A has listed or identified what 

18 they believe are nine generic technical issues 

19 which are -- I think that is sort of a name 

20 that is similar to the overarching issues. I 

21 guess it means pretty much the same thing. 

22 I'm not sure they are all overarching, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 they carry beyond this site at least.

2 Joe, you may want to speak to 

3 those at some point.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I would 

6 simply point out that go beyond this 

7 particular site and it may have to be resolved 

8 in a different way, not simply for this site 

9 alone.

10 So, with that as background, let's 

11 proceed. Oh, one other thing, and I have 

12 indicated it on the agenda, but we will take a 

13 midmorning break, a comfort break. We will 

14 break for lunch at noon. I have put an 

15 adjournment time here of no later than 3:00, 

16 but in practice for the Chair, who has to get 

17 up to the Taft Center by 4:00 for a smart card 

18 update, I suppose 3:00 is pushing it pretty 

19 tight. So, we will probably have to adjourn 

20 no later than 2:30. We don't have to fill the 

21 time to 2:30 if we finish our discussion 

22 today. I will use that as sort of an upper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 limit.

2 I know that Joe Fitzgerald has to 

3 leave shortly after lunch to catch a plane. 

4 So, we will try our best to get most of this 

5 done, if we can, by noon. We may have to go 

6 over a little bit, but that is sort of the 

7 schedule.

8 So, let's proceed. Lara, are you 

9 going to be the one to kick us off here on 

10 sort of the overall description of the site 

11 and the Site Profile contents?

12 DR. HUGHES: Okay. Yes, I can try 

13 to do that. It's about 250 pages.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And I am 

15 not asking that you go through that in detail, 

16 but maybe a quick summary.

17 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now keep in 

19 mind, of course, both NIOSH and SC&A have 

20 delved into this in detail. The Board itself 

21 is not focused on this site at all. We did 

22 have a description of it when we did the SEC, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 but that was very brief. It was an 83.14 type 

2 of SEC, which means that there is not a review 

3 by SC&A typically. We didn't spend many Work 

4 Group meetings dealing with an SEC. It came 

5 to the Board from NIOSH. We had a quick 

6 overview of it and then voted to approve.

7 So, this is sort of for the 

8 benefit of the Board Members, which would be 

9 for me and for Dr. Richardson, who is on the 

10 line, and for Dr. Lemen, who is not with us 

11 today, but who will rely on the transcript as 

12 well as the documents which we all have.

13 I at least have had some 

14 familiarity with Lawrence Berkeley over the 

15 years, starting early on, because although I 

16 have no conflict, I knew some of the players 

17 there very well who worked at the accelerators 

18 and the cyclotrons, and also have followed 

19 their activities over the years. It is one of 

20 the labs that has been very important in the 

21 nuclear field.

22 In spite of that, I was amazed as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 I looked through the NIOSH document and looked 

2 at the list of activities listed, pages and 

3 pages and pages of nuclides in various 

4 buildings and rooms throughout that site, and 

5 it is a tremendous inventory of radionuclides 

6 and a broad spectrum of activities, and so a 

7 very complex facility in many ways. It 

8 includes not only the radionuclides, but the 

9 various accelerators.

10 So, anyway, Lara, please proceed.

11 DR. HUGHES: Okay. What's called 

12 the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Site 

13 for the purposes of EEOICPA is, it is a 

14 covered facility starting in 1942 or 1943. I 

15 think we start in 1943, right, is when the MED 

16 started? And it is covered to the present 

17 day, I believe, although I would have to look 

18 that up to be sure.

19 The activities at the site 

20 actually started on the campus of the 

21 University of California at Berkeley. It 

22 started out in one or two buildings, and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 I think in 1945 they started to build what is 

2 now Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on 

3 the hill behind the University. It started 

4 out mainly with radiochemistry research and, 

5 obviously, the development of the cyclotron by 

6 Lawrence, and research data was used to 

7 support the Manhattan Project in the early 

8 years.

9 Later on, it went into various 

10 fields of research involving the accelerators 

11 and really a very broad area of research. I 

12 do not have it in front of me to list it all.

13 The Site Profile for the site is 

14 about 250 pages and it is divided into the 

15 various sections that we use, the 

16 introduction, the general site description, 

17 how we deal with the medical X-ray assignment, 

18 how we deal with the environmental dose 

19 assignment, how we deal with the external and 

20 the internal dose assignment.

21 Do you have any questions?

22 (No response.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 As Dr. Ziemer mentioned, the SEC 

2 for this site was SEC 160, and it covers the 

3 years from 1943 to 1961, based on an internal 

4 dose reconstruction and feasibility. There is 

5 a lack of bioassay data in the years preceding 

6 1961, after which the site had their own 

7 bioassay program in place. Before that, they 

8 were mainly relying on other sites to provide 

9 services to them, and I think the records are 

10 a little sparse.

11 I think that's it.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

13 have a quick question. Is that where you are?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, John. 

15 Yes, go ahead, John.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, what was the sea 

17 change that occurred in 1961 that led you to 

18 the sense that, well, post-1961 we think we 

19 can do the internal dose?

20 DR. HUGHES: The presence of an 

21 internal dosimetry program that was, internal 

22 bioassay program, that was administered onsite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 and analyzed onsite and records kept onsite, 

2 if I recall correctly.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. There was a 

4 clean break there. Something changed 

5 substantially.

6 DR. HUGHES: Yes, but we are not 

7 unsure about the dates in this case. There 

8 was plenty of records that indicate that they 

9 finally decided we need to have our own 

10 program onsite, and there were several people, 

11 well-known people, that worked in this area 

12 and developed a program.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, John, if 

14 you look in the Evaluation Report of NIOSH on 

15 the SEC petition, what you find is that there 

16 was a call for a bioassay program in 1961. It 

17 started, but only in a very preliminary way. 

18 It appeared, at least to some of the folks 

19 there, that they weren't really taking it very 

20 seriously. It was a very small bioassay 

21 program.

22 At some point, and I forget who it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 was; I think it was a person onsite, maybe one 

2 of their health physics people or one of the 

3 administrators that basically said: you know, 

4 we're not doing enough. We're not taking this 

5 seriously. We need to bioassay virtually 

6 everybody and put them on some kind of a 

7 formal program.

8 There was a massive jump. I think 

9 that occurred early 1962, where they went from 

10 just a handful of people being bioassayed to 

11 virtually the whole lab, a very clean break 

12 there.

13 I don't think that NIOSH at that 

14 point -- I believe this is true -- I don't 

15 believe at that point they ruled out that 

16 there might be SEC issues beyond that, but 

17 they said it was pretty clear up to 1962 that 

18 they couldn't reconstruct dose. Even though I 

19 believe it started in 1961, there's a few, a 

20 minimal amount of bioassay. That's why I 

21 asked the other question. There are some 

22 records before 1962, but there was a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 clear break there, John.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you very 

3 much.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

5 The other thing that is in this 

6 Site Profile that I think is kind of helpful 

7 that there is a very extensive record of 

8 events that have been identified. It is an 

9 attachment to the Site Profile called "The 

10 Historical Timeline of Radiation-Exposure11 Associated Events," and a lot of them that 

12 have been characterized, I guess is the word, 

13 that we don't always have at facilities.

14 We always have cases where there's 

15 rumors or sort of reports of things that have 

16 happened, but we're not going to be sure when 

17 and where. This may not be 100 percent 

18 complete, but it is pretty extensive, which I 

19 think is helpful.

20 Let's see, let me ask David, on 

21 the line, if you have some questions sort of 

22 in general about this site, the work done 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 there, and so on.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No. So far, I 

3 am following along.

4 Just one question for 

5 clarification. There was a description of the 

6 document running to 250 pages. I'm looking at 

7 0049, Revision 2, which runs to 109 pages. I 

8 just want to make sure that there's not a 

9 longer document that I should have reviewed.

10 DR. HUGHES: Yes, I'm sorry. That 

11 was my mistake.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is the 

13 correct document. It is 109 pages.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

15 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have it open 

17 here before me, too.

18 DR. HUGHES: I was at the wrong --

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think I have 

20 been finding the different tables that you 

21 have been referring to. So, thank you.

22 DR. HUGHES: Sorry about that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Maybe we 

2 can move on to the Site Profile review. Joe, 

3 are you going to lead us through that?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have both the 

6 SC&A document plus a copy of the matrix, which 

7 really came out of the appendix of the 

8 document, because it was really set up in 

9 matrix form to start with.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there was a 

11 matrix that summarized the findings. That is 

12 attachment 3 to our review of last January, of 

13 January 2010.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: So, we simply 

16 took that attachment and annotated it to bring 

17 it up-to-date because the actual review in 

18 January 2010 predated the SEC as well as 

19 Revision 2 of the Site Profile. So, there's a 

20 lot of developments after we finished the 

21 review that would need to be reflected.

22 So, we did not go into a full 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 technical review. Obviously, the Work Group 

2 had not met and we have not been tasked. But 

3 we did reflect sort of where things stood. I 

4 think your clarification on pre-1961 and the 

5 partial assessment, I think that is useful 

6 because, again, I think there is a little 

7 ambiguity about what we do before and after. 

8 But, in a sense, a lot of the issues are still 

9 pertinent, relevant, would need to be 

10 explored.

11 We do see some changes, major 

12 changes, in the TBD that would seem to be 

13 going in the right direction, one of which he 

14 just referred to, which was Appendix A. One 

15 of our concerns -- in fact, it was the first 

16 concern that we will go through -- sort of 

17 suggested that maybe a little bit more 

18 historic operational information to put things 

19 in context would be helpful. We found 

20 Appendix A was a big step in that direction.

21 So, clearly, there were some 

22 changes that were responsive to some of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 issues we found over a year ago. But, with 

2 that in mind, our review focused on Revision 

3 1. So, a lot of the findings may be tempered 

4 or resolved in Revision 2, and we are sort of 

5 in a toggle back and forth a little bit. We 

6 have not looked at Revision 2 from an analytic 

7 standpoint.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I understood 

11 that you had some sort of preliminary --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- comments as 

14 to whether you thought, based on a preliminary 

15 reading, whether things are still issues.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, 

18 understanding that maybe they are, maybe they 

19 aren't, but --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- it seemed to 

22 me it would be helpful, if this would be a way 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 to proceed, to actually look at it issue-by2 issue.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you tell us 

5 your issue. We have Dr. Hughes' responses, 

6 and maybe preliminary discussion on each of 

7 these and sort of determine what do you have 

8 to do yet and, then, what does NIOSH have to 

9 do yet. That would give us some idea of what 

10 lies before us in terms of scoping out the 

11 future.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: All right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay? And we 

14 are looking at, this document has 13 issues in 

15 it.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Originally, 

18 there were just 12? Were there just 12?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I thought there 

20 were 13 primary issues. There are some 

21 secondary issues, but --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, when I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 looked at the first one --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, 13.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that was 

4 attached to the original report, for some 

5 reason I only saw 12 on your original report.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, attachment 3? 

7 No, the main body of the report shows 13 

8 findings. I'm just looking at attachment 3 to 

9 make sure that was complete.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, anyway, 

11 yes, there are 13 currently.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there's 13 

13 in attachment 3 as well.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, that's what 

15 we're working with.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, 13 findings. 

17 Like I said before, these are what we would 

18 term the primary findings. There are some 

19 secondary ones for information's sake.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is there 

21 overlap? I didn't lay it side-by-side. Is 

22 there overlap on the generics?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 MR. FITZGERALD: No. I mean, I 

2 think the generic ones were judgments that 

3 some of the findings seemed to have resonance 

4 with other sites, and we just listed them, 

5 one-liners, essentially one-liners.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: But the details 

8 are in the body.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: There is some 

11 overlap, but these are, by extension, 

12 judgments that were made.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And some of 

14 these are sort of site-specific even though 

15 they are part of a generic issue.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I mean, I 

17 think what we have tried to do in the Site 

18 Profiles is look beyond the site-specific 

19 findings to say, you know, we have heard these 

20 before. In fact, I will mention it as we go, 

21 that some of these, we have seen these in 

22 other sites and they would have some relevance 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 for those other sites.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, at this 

4 stage of the game, the program is mature 

5 enough that a lot of the issues, particularly 

6 when we get to neutrons and what have you, you 

7 know, we have been there before. I think we 

8 can almost use the shorthand saying NTA film, 

9 energy, dependence, and be almost done with it 

10 in a way --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: -- because these 

13 older TBDs don't reflect the thinking that has 

14 evolved at NIOSH. And so, clearly, we don't 

15 want to repeat all of that.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But that new 

18 positioning needs to be reflected in the TBD. 

19 I don't think there will be any disagreement 

20 at the table.

21 Starting with the first issue, 

22 simply put, we think the historic context, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 operational information that is provided in 

2 the Berkeley TBD could be strengthened. By 

3 comparison with some of the other multipurpose 

4 energy research laboratories, like Brookhaven 

5 and Argonne, that have been done via Site 

6 Profiles, this one seems to fall short.

7 I mean, I'm very familiar with 

8 Brookhaven's since I was involved with 

9 Brookhaven. And also, I have looked at 

10 Argonne. Those labs, those reports walk 

11 through the operations. Because these labs 

12 are very old, it gives you an historic 

13 perspective of the accelerators, when they 

14 came up-to-speed, what kind of operations were 

15 involved, timeframes, when they were 

16 dismantled in some cases, some of the source17 terms. That perspective was, I think, very 

18 helpful.

19 For some reason, we have the 

20 tables, the essential dose reconstruction 

21 tables, in Berkeley, but we are missing sort 

22 of the historic context. And I think, as I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 said earlier, Appendix A helps. That was 

2 added in Rev 2 to give you a chronology of 

3 incidents and those kinds of developments. 

4 But I think, still, what you are missing is a 

5 facility-by-facility description in a 

6 timeframe that just walks you through the 

7 cyclotron and some of the other facilities.

8 Berkeley has a very rich history, 

9 I think as you pointed out. That history, I 

10 think, just as a backdrop, would be helpful to 

11 have in there. It was helpful for Brookhaven; 

12 I know that. I think it would be helpful 

13 here. That is the essence of this finding, is 

14 that it would be very helpful to have that 

15 added in.

16 And again, we haven't looked at 

17 Appendix A in detail. I think that helps. 

18 But I think that would be an adjunct to that.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay, 

20 let's discuss that for a minute because NIOSH 

21 at least has suggested here that there is 

22 additional information that may or could be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 added, that it might require some additional 

2 data capture.

3 But, in that connection, for 

4 example, let me take -- oh, I'm looking at a 

5 section -- let's say occupational internal 

6 dose. That has been evaluated by nuclide or 

7 by major nuclides, plutonium, uranium, 

8 tritium, tritides, so on. What would be 

9 needed there? Are you talking about looking 

10 at different facilities and saying, what 

11 unique issues would they have?

12 I mean, it is one thing to 

13 evaluate bioassay data where you have it. Are 

14 you talking about clarifying exposure sources 

15 at, say, the X-inch cyclotron, whichever 

16 one --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- or a 

19 particular lab? What is the specificity we're 

20 after here?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, really focus 

22 on the site description. I mean, you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 stepping one step back from the very specific 

2 internal/external --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, it would go 

4 back to Section 2?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Site 

7 description?

8 MR. FITZGERALD: The easiest way I 

9 can describe this is look at Brookhaven, look 

10 at Argonne, look at some of the other 

11 multipurpose energy research labs, and I 

12 thought those were done pretty well in terms 

13 of providing an operational backdrop, before 

14 you get to the nuts-and-bolts dosimetry, an 

15 operation backdrop to what happened when, 

16 where. Very simply, that's it.

17 I mean, I think that piece is 

18 missing from this particular Site Profile. We 

19 found it valuable, I think, in terms of the 

20 deliberations on Brookhaven and Argonne. When 

21 you have a 50-, 60-year-old energy research 

22 lab, obviously, that has all these different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 source-terms, all of these various 

2 accelerators, all of these different machines, 

3 it is just you start getting lost in the 

4 trees.

5 I think that was almost a good 

6 roadmap before you got into the dosimetry as 

7 to when you step back and look at this site 

8 over those 50-60 years, what happened when and 

9 how did this thing develop in terms of the 

10 research that was done, and kind of some sense 

11 of the types of operations and the types of 

12 source-terms that might be associated with 

13 that in sort of a 20,000-30,000-foot level 

14 before getting into the dosimetry.

15 I think with Berkeley you sort of 

16 jump right into the room-by-room, building-by17 building dosimetry before you have that 

18 layout. I think it is more than just 

19 stylistic. I think it was helpful having that 

20 roadmap for Brookhaven and some of the other 

21 laboratories.

22 DR. NETON: I think we would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 agree. I agree. I actually agree we could 

2 benefit from some additional fleshing-out of 

3 the facilities --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

5 DR. NETON: -- when they came 

6 online, what their purposes were, that sort of 

7 thing. It definitely is different. It is 

8 lacking compared to the other Site Profiles.

9 Now some of that may be in 

10 Appendix A. Some of that actually exists in 

11 the Evaluation Report. If you look at the 160 

12 Evaluation Report, there is a description of 

13 when the original calutrons were developed at 

14 Berkeley and that sort of thing.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. That 

16 could be translated back into here.

17 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And maybe some 

19 additional fleshing-out.

20 DR. NETON: Right, the 

21 accelerator, you know, progression of the 

22 accelerators and the isolation of the various 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 radionuclides, the chemistry that was 

2 performed to extract the different isotopes, 

3 plutonium, uranium, that sort of thing. I 

4 think it does; it is helpful to have that at 

5 the beginning. For whatever reason, this Site 

6 Profile is unlike the others in that respect.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

8 DR. NETON: I don't know that it 

9 affects the dose reconstruction necessarily, 

10 but I do think, for completeness sake, it 

11 would be helpful to have in there.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John. One 

13 more point related to this.

14 In thinking about the level of 

15 granularity, I noticed that the other 

16 comments, many of them deal with external 

17 exposure. So, this issue within the context 

18 of the other issues, it would be helpful to 

19 have a level of granularity in the description 

20 of the operations and sources that provides a 

21 richness that helps in supporting the way in 

22 which the external doses will be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 reconstructed, especially during the covered 

2 period.

3 In other words, sort of like marry 

4 the level of detail that you might need in 

5 order to support those particular exposure 

6 scenarios that will be performed. Those seem 

7 to be especially true for neutron. I guess 

8 there are some penetrating/non-penetrating 

9 issues.

10 So, the degree to which the 

11 descriptive material could help support the 

12 development of the external dosimetry part of 

13 this, essentially --

14 DR. NETON: I agree, John. I 

15 mean, without sort of the source-term fleshed16 out, you really don't have -- you know, this 

17 Site Profile is geared toward the radiological 

18 monitoring operations and how we can interpret 

19 them. But, in some ways, it is hard to say, 

20 well, was that an appropriate radiological 

21 monitoring program if you really haven't 

22 established exactly what was present --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

2 DR. NETON: -- at which time. So, 

3 I agree.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, the next 

5 step on this one, it appears, then, is that 

6 NIOSH would go back and develop this for I 

7 guess what would be Rev 3 then or Rev --

8 DR. NETON: Three.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- Rev 3?

10 DR. NETON: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I notice here 

12 that it indicates that it will require 

13 additional data capture. Is that where we are 

14 lacking? Or do we have the data and it just 

15 hasn't been entered? Or do we know at this 

16 point?

17 DR. NETON: Obviously, I don't 

18 know the answer to that one. This response 

19 was just recently drafted. So, I might defer 

20 to ORAU, who put this response together, as to 

21 why we think we might need additional data 

22 capture, in other words, to describe the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 facility.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We have 

3 the records, but they really weren't fleshed4 out. Or do we really need to go back? Maybe 

5 both.

6 DR. NETON: I suspect it might be 

7 both, but --

8 DR. HUGHES: We certainly do have 

9 a lot of background information on the sites. 

10 A lot of it is available on the open 

11 literature anyway.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who has the lead 

13 for ORAU? Does Matt Smith or --

14 DR. NETON: Let's see who is on 

15 that. Who is the lead person on the ORAU, if 

16 on the call? Or is there one?

17 MR. SHARFI: I could probably 

18 answer your question, Jim.

19 DR. NETON: Yes, Mutty.

20 MR. SHARFI: Yes, this is Mutty 

21 Sharfi.

22 The main reason why we made a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 statement that we may need to do additional 

2 data capture would be depending on the level 

3 of detail that you get in. It is not to say 

4 we don't have a lot of documents that could 

5 add to the history of the site. But, 

6 depending on what level of detail, you may 

7 need to get additional information on specific 

8 operations. At that point, we may need to do 

9 additional data captures. But it is not a 

10 guarantee that we need to do that.

11 DR. NETON: Yes, I would suspect 

12 that you could do a pretty good job 

13 describing, putting together a description 

14 without an additional site visit.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it will be 

16 your call. You will decide whether you need 

17 more information. Okay. I think that is good 

18 then.

19 So, the ball is in NIOSH's court 

20 on that one, right?

21 SC&A, any further comments on 

22 that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. Again, I 

2 think that was the only observation on that 

3 one.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

6 Richardson.

7 I'm glad that you raised the 

8 point. As somebody who comes in with less 

9 familiarity about this site, I found it really 

10 hard to orient myself to, I mean, as you are 

11 saying, kind of an assessment of the 

12 monitoring program, given kind of a one13 sentence summary of what the kind of major 

14 activities were, that they were astrophysics, 

15 nuclear fusion, earth sciences, genomics, 

16 health physics, computer science.

17 Kind of in terms of the operations 

18 that were going on there, that is basically 

19 what, and then there is a table describing the 

20 buildings, which I guess is an attempt to 

21 summarize kind of the facility. But that, 

22 also, as kind of another dimension of a matrix 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 that you might describe the site history by, 

2 isn't giving me, didn't give me enough of a 

3 sense of kind of the relative importance of 

4 these in terms of kind of radiological 

5 hazards.

6 And I found the tables a little 

7 confusing. I wasn't sure how they were 

8 organized. So, I think some text to kind of 

9 describe how exhaustive this structure, as it 

10 is provided, in terms of building, how those 

11 correspond to facilities and processes where 

12 you think the monitoring should occur, and 

13 then, why so many of the -- like the second, 

14 Table 2-2, the first set of rows have some 

15 values which are sort of described as the 

16 quantities that workers could have encountered 

17 by area, which I was a little bit curious 

18 about what that meant.

19 And then, the vast majority of 

20 them are just you've got lots and lots and 

21 lots of ones where there is no sense of the 

22 scale of activity whatsoever, which means 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 that, again, I was wondering, well, I still, 

2 again, walking in as kind of a very naive 

3 reader, the idea that there's lots and lots of 

4 rooms where there may have been radionuclides 

5 and there's no idea of the magnitude of those 

6 exposures, I was left kind of bewildered by 

7 what actually happened there, "there" being 

8 pretty much the facility and how to make a 

9 judgment about the monitoring program at all.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think 

11 that is a good point, David, because, with 

12 these tables, you can't really correlate it 

13 with specific programs. You can't always tell 

14 whether it is just like a small counting lab 

15 where they might have brought in trace samples 

16 versus some wet chemical operations, or 

17 whatever.

18 Anyway, yes, that's helpful to see 

19 that. I think that would be an issue for the 

20 Board at large as well, particularly people 

21 who have not had any familiarity with that 

22 facility.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 So, okay, I think we have enough 

2 to go on to agree that we will need to flesh 

3 that out under Issue 1.

4 Let's go on to Issue 2, then, Joe.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Issue 2 was 

6 sort of the fundamental finding that the 

7 internal dose information for Berkeley was 

8 inadequate, and particularly before 1961. So, 

9 again, remembering this finding was made 

10 before the SEC, obviously the SEC comports 

11 with sort of what we saw when we looked at the 

12 bioassay information.

13 As Lara pointed out, it is pretty 

14 clear that 1961 was a threshold year in a way 

15 for Berkeley. So, we came up with the same 

16 finding. 

17 One thing that we are going to be 

18 going through -- and you will see this finding 

19 elsewhere as we go along -- is we have some 

20 concerns, and these are, more or less, 

21 traditional concerns that we have and have had 

22 at other sites on the adequacy and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 completeness of the data itself. This is the 

2 bioassay data.

3 And even though it is most 

4 prominent before 1961, it is pretty clear that 

5 is when Berkeley really started managing an 

6 internal bioassay program. We have some 

7 concerns that continue on which are relevant 

8 to this issue on the Site Profile.

9 In terms of adequacy -- and this 

10 is Issue 2 that you're looking at -- we have 

11 some concerns over MDAs and the threshold of 

12 Berkeley's ability to see some of the nuclides 

13 that were being handled. Now that gets into

14 the issue of exposure potential. I don't have 

15 to tell this group that that issue is always 

16 very pertinent. Just because the particular 

17 radionuclides existed at Berkeley and they 

18 practically had the entire periodic table 

19 doesn't mean that there was an exposure 

20 potential for internal uptake for the workers 

21 involved.

22 However, I think that is kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 the crux of what we would be looking at in 

2 more detail, would be, one, whether there's 

3 adequate means of monitoring for the nuclides, 

4 that there was, in fact, exposure potential 

5 from 1961 forward.

6 Dr. Ziemer, your comment about 

7 prior to 1961, I think there is some question 

8 in my mind as to whether we need to have some 

9 sense of that as well if you are doing 

10 partials.

11 But that's the question: what's 

12 the exposure potential for the nuclides at 

13 Berkeley? And for those that one could 

14 ascertain some exposure potential, was there 

15 an adequate means of monitoring at that point 

16 in time for those nuclides, such that you 

17 would have a sufficiently-accurate dose 

18 estimate? And is the data complete enough?

19 In other words, were there any 

20 gaps after 1961? I think you commented at 

21 1961 to 1962 there is some ramp-up period. Is 

22 the bioassay data complete for that period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 for example, such that you could do dose 

2 reconstruction? So, I think those are kind of 

3 the questions.

4 The Site Profile review isn't 

5 equipped to really start probing the actual 

6 data itself. The Site Profile review is: we 

7 look at the dosimetry procedures in place, 

8 MDAs, and things like that, and try to get

9 some sense of the adequacy. But, really, what 

10 we are talking about here is whether the 

11 bioassay database, whether it was complete 

12 enough for the years after 1961 and whether 

13 the dosimetry techniques were adequate in 

14 terms of MDA and other means at the same time.

15 Now this one here, we are focusing 

16 on adequacy, and the MDA I think is the key 

17 question that is brought up. I think NIOSH's 

18 response is that, if the MDA information is 

19 not as complete as necessary, it can be 

20 obtained from the claimant's submission. And 

21 at the same time, if there is additional 

22 information required, if I am reading this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 right, Lara, Table 5.4, which is where that 

2 information is provided, can be supplemented 

3 by more data capture.

4 So, I think there is some question 

5 whether we have a complete set of information 

6 on MDAs or at least some question on the issue 

7 of exposure potential and the ability to 

8 monitor for the nuclides of relevance at 

9 Berkeley. So, I would say that is kind of the 

10 issue in Issue 2.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it appears 

12 to me that NIOSH is saying that they believe 

13 that what they have here is adequate for 

14 individual dose reconstructions or for 

15 bounding, if I'm understanding that.

16 I suspect what we need now is a 

17 more detailed response from SC&A on this, Joe, 

18 would you think?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, you've 

21 sort of said it here in words, but I think we 

22 need that spelled out. What is it that needs 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 to be done yet?

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I think 

3 specifically I would like to, you know, I 

4 think NIOSH indicates that they have been able 

5 to identify specific MDA information in the 

6 workers' dosimetry records. I think that 

7 would be useful to sample those records just 

8 to see, because that is one source of 

9 information we have not looked at, which was 

10 the dosimeter information in the records 

11 themselves.

12 That, in addition to maybe probing 

13 the question of exposure potential a little 

14 bit more than we had, which is you do have 

15 this universe of nuclides, but in terms of 

16 what was actually relevant for exposure, it is 

17 a much smaller subset.

18 I think going further to establish 

19 with NIOSH what does matter at Berkeley in 

20 terms of being able to monitor and cut it down 

21 to that point, so that we are not talking 

22 about that large universe; we are talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 about what matters. And then, are we 

2 comfortable from the Work Group's standpoint 

3 that the monitoring that was done was adequate 

4 for those exposure pathways? That is 

5 essentially it.

6 So, for the Work Group 

7 specifically, which nuclides would be relevant 

8 to this question of adequate monitoring and 

9 also being able to look at what additional MDA 

10 information that would inform the dose 

11 reconstructor, which I don't think we had 

12 available to us when we did the original 

13 review.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: And apparently, 

16 there is more information that can be had. 

17 So, it is an SC&A action, but I think we would 

18 need to come back --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, you would 

20 have to work with NIOSH to get that.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the action
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 would be in SC&A's court at this point to 

2 probe that.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, you would be 

5 looking at what the MDAs are in the records?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and I 

7 think we would want to work with NIOSH to --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Some sample?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Because, clearly, 

10 there is more information than we alluded to 

11 in the original Site Profile review.

12 But the other part of that I think 

13 is to identify the nuclides that, based on the 

14 information that we have, would be of that 

15 large set of nuclides that were handled 

16 historically. This is after 1961. Which one 

17 of those would be relevant to this discussion 

18 in the first place?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Sort of cut it 

21 down, so we are not talking about others that 

22 are not. So, that would be something I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 prepare.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Is there 

3 any reason this couldn't get underway without 

4 Issue 1 being handled?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, no, I 

6 think --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In other words, 

8 you could get into these records and do that 

9 critiquing without --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes, what I 

11 would say is it is not going to be a large 

12 list, but I think just to figure out, beyond 

13 bench scale, beyond trace, beyond checked 

14 sources, what were the operational pathways 

15 that one would want to establish a monitoring 

16 record for?

17 If the records don't exist, then I 

18 think that would be a reasonable source of 

19 inquiry as to why they don't they exist. It 

20 may turn out the form of the particular 

21 nuclide was such that it would not have 

22 presented an exposure pathway. That is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 something I think would be useful to figure 

2 out.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I'm 

4 trying to get a feel for, is that something 

5 that NIOSH has to identify first for you guys 

6 to probe?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Either way. I 

8 mean, as part of Issue No. 1, I suppose you 

9 could come up with what would be NIOSH's list.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that is 

11 sort of why I'm asking.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is this 

14 dependent on --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Chicken-egg, yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- doing No. 1 

17 first? Or can they occur --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I will defer to 

19 NIOSH. I mean, it certainly could be done in 

20 conjunction. We could do it just from the 

21 operational records as well, but it would be 

22 done separately.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 DR. NETON: Yes, I think it could 

2 be done separately. I don't see --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Either way.

4 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know that 

5 it would have to wait for us to flesh-out the 

6 operational history.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Can you 

8 proceed on it?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you can ask 

11 the questions then?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. I mean, 

13 it is simply saying here's what seems to be 

14 the relevant nuclides that were handled after 

15 1961 that appear to have exposure potential.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: And I would 

18 certainly provide that, and the Work Group and 

19 NIOSH can respond as to whether there are any 

20 questions or issues. But rather than get into 

21 a broad discussion on MDAs and --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 MR. FITZGERALD: -- monitoring, I 

2 would like to think we could down-scope this 

3 thing, so that we can have a much smaller set 

4 to deal with. So, maybe that would be a 

5 going-in thing to do on this one.

6 MR. KATZ: And it seems to me you 

7 could even have some exchanges by email, memo, 

8 whatever --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: -- to sort of push this 

11 along to gear SC&A, so that it has the right 

12 focus when it digs deeper and to have a solid 

13 understanding --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes. I want 

15 to avoid spending a lot of time trying to 

16 figure out completeness and adequacy of data 

17 when, in fact, there is not agreement that 

18 there was an exposure potential.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. Got you. Right.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we have 

21 learned that.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 right.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me ask David 

4 if he has any additional comments or questions 

5 on this item.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, there's 

7 two things. One is this issue started off 

8 with sort of making a division between earlier 

9 and late periods based on what is covered by 

10 an SEC. I think the latter part of the 

11 discussion has focused on the period kind of 

12 1962 forward. Is that the cut point, the 

13 boundary point?

14 DR. NETON: Yes.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But there was 

16 some suggestion early on of also needing to 

17 kind of figure out kind of what is done with 

18 the earlier period. I wanted to suggest that 

19 we maybe not focus too much energy on that 

20 question. If my understanding is correct, 

21 NIOSH has said that they can't reconstruct 

22 doses for internal deposition in that earlier 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 period. And so, this is not an issue.

2 If that is the basis for the SEC, 

3 then they are not going to be put in that 

4 position. Is that --

5 DR. NETON: I agree. I think the 

6 idea was for the earlier years, if there were 

7 external exposures, that sort of thing, which 

8 we might get into a little later. But you're 

9 right, if the basis was that we can't 

10 reconstruct internal exposures, there is 

11 really not much point in evaluating what we 

12 could do there because we already said we 

13 can't.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. The 

15 only other comment I had was I do think it 

16 would be useful to kind of figure out, as you 

17 suggested, trying to figure out what were the 

18 potential intakes.

19 There is a little bit of 

20 circularity in the table that is at the end of 

21 Section 5. It is a long table listing 

22 buildings and radionuclides. So, I guess it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 is Table 5.7, Radionuclides by Facility. 

2 Because sort of the basis for the 

3 list, which is maybe a good starting point, 

4 but I just hope it is not the ending point, is 

5 what has been bioassayed for and, then, also, 

6 some contention that -- I don't know --

7 Patterson, Low-Beer, and Sargent had 

8 identified that as potential exposures and 

9 concluded that normal habits would ensure that 

10 typical workers did not receive exposures of 

11 any consequence from these sources.

12 But I think it would be useful for 

13 me to have kind of a skeptical read of that 

14 and see whether there are kind of atypical 

15 exposure scenarios of concern, just so that 

16 that list isn't based on what we look for we 

17 know we see.

18 The other thing -- and this kind 

19 of overlaps with the first point about 

20 understanding a little bit more about the 

21 history -- is I guess I am still having a hard 

22 time understanding what happened where/when, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 and the time dimension seems to be sort of 

2 lacking. Like when you've got a row that says 

3 in this building carbon-14 and tritium were 

4 used, well, kind of my impression of kind of 

5 the dynamic changing mission of a laboratory 

6 like this is that by the 1960s maybe there was 

7 very little work going on with some of these 

8 and there was a lot of work going on with 

9 other of these radionuclides.

10 And so, if the table could somehow 

11 reflect the period that we are primarily 

12 interested in, that might help to simplify 

13 things as well.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that is 

15 a good point, David. To some extent, that 

16 might come out when we get Item 1 fleshed-out 

17 because the time period, presumably, well, if 

18 you look on that table, for example, for the 

19 Donner Lab, it is 1961 to present. So, you've 

20 got a 60-year, well, let's see, 60, yes, 50-

21 year time period. You don't know whether 

22 these are used all during that or whatever. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 So, I think the point is well-taken.

2 I guess we will understand that, 

3 and Joe is making a note here, too. You 

4 understand his point there?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think 

6 that is kind of where we are coming from, too. 

7 Looking at post-1961, what's --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What's 

9 pertinent?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: -- what's 

11 pertinent for the question we are asking and 

12 making sure that we are asking the right 

13 questions in terms of the operational changes 

14 that are going on.

15 And it was a very dynamic 

16 situation. All these energy research labs 

17 were very dynamic. Things came; things went; 

18 things didn't last very long, and just making 

19 sure that they are captured.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

21 DR. MAURO: This is John. I have 

22 a process question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 While we are probing Issue 2 

2 related to post-1961 MDAs, bioassay data, et 

3 cetera, data adequacy, NIOSH, of course, will 

4 be probing Issue 1. So, they will be moving 

5 in parallel.

6 And I see a link between the two, 

7 in that when we identify, let's say, as Joe 

8 and his team identify areas that might be soft 

9 post-1962 in internal dosimetry, for example, 

10 would it be appropriate -- in theory, within a 

11 matter of some time period we will issue a 

12 White Paper or some kind of report related to 

13 Issue 2. And then, from there, of course, 

14 those matters will be discussed.

15 But since there is linkage between 

16 Issue 2 and what NIOSH will be doing on Issue 

17 1, would it be inappropriate for SC&A, for 

18 there to be an exchange as the two 

19 organizations move down this path?

20 MR. KATZ: That's what I was 

21 saying, John, about exchanging memos, what 

22 have you, calls, memos, because these are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 linked and because you may not know everything 

2 that DCAS knows as to what their holdings are, 

3 and vice versa, about your concerns. So, I 

4 think it is appropriate for you to exchange 

5 memos. If you need to get on the phone 

6 because things are complex, that's fine, too. 

7 I like memos just because it is nice to have 

8 that paper record back and forth. But 

9 absolutely.

10 That could all lead up to your 

11 producing an actual White Paper as opposed to 

12 having to produce a White Paper with a whole 

13 bunch of questions in your mind. That doesn't 

14 make much sense.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, Joe would 

16 certainly be free to make contact with NIOSH 

17 if a question arose, and vice versa.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, we are okay, 

20 then, on that one?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: David, you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 okay on that?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, that's 

3 great.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's 

5 proceed to Issue 3, which is called "special 

6 forms of tritium and plutonium not addressed 

7 by NIOSH."

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, in 

9 this particular one, we raise a question we 

10 have raised in other reviews where we are 

11 talking organically-bound tritium, tritides, 

12 and also some of, well, in this case Super S 

13 form of plutonium, high-fired plutonium.

14 And I think this was a function of 

15 the Rev 1 TBD, being an older TBD, it didn't 

16 include some of these subjects that obviously 

17 have gotten a lot of attention over the last 

18 several years. And so, we did make that 

19 comment. Of course, Rev 2 came out right 

20 afterwards that did, in fact, address OBTs and 

21 tritides and Super S, but they were added in.

22 Now we haven't gone through and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 actually performed a technical evaluation, but 

2 we are fairly confident that some of the 

3 questions that we typically have on those 

4 areas at least are certainly addressed in the 

5 revision. And I think this is pretty much 

6 what NIOSH says in their response, is that 

7 they, in fact, did address some of these.

8 Now I believe the only question or 

9 difference here was in the SC&A review of 2010 

10 we posited some questions about high-fired 

11 uranium and even possible thorium, some of the 

12 actinides. This came out in interviews with 

13 some of the Berkeley workers that have raised 

14 some questions in that area. I think NIOSH's 

15 response is there is no evidence that there's 

16 any of that behavior associated with the 

17 uranium or thorium.

18 So, that is the only difference I 

19 think we have on this, even though we have not 

20 gone through and spent some time validating 

21 what was in the second revision on the high22 fired and the tritides and everything. But, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 again, we pretty much have worked this issue 

2 for a few years, so I am pretty confident we 

3 will be okay.

4 So, the only question is uranium 

5 and thorium in high-fired forms. I have not 

6 gone any further than just acknowledging that 

7 that was the response.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Joe, does SC&A 

9 want to follow up on that point in any way? I 

10 think you are raising that as sort of a 

11 theoretical question: can there be Super S 

12 uranium and thorium? Is that what you are 

13 asking?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: We are raising it 

15 because it was brought to our attention in the 

16 interviews that we had. And those interviews 

17 are available to NIOSH. So, again, we are 

18 just sort of raising that. This is the very 

19 first response we have gotten on the subject 

20 in this matrix.

21 DR. NETON: We have seen comments 

22 before at other sites of the existence of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 high-fired soluble uranium, in particular. We 

2 have just never seen any evidence of its 

3 existence. It has been mentioned, but the 

4 biological behavior doesn't seem to support 

5 it.

6 I mean, we would be happy to look 

7 at any studies put out, but --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: We, likewise, 

9 haven't researched the subject. It comes up, 

10 and I agree with Jim, it has come up at 

11 several sites. So, it sort of makes you 

12 wonder. It seems like there is some historic 

13 reference to that, but, again, we haven't been 

14 able to pin it down.

15 It came up first, I think, at Y-12 

16 in terms of high-fired uranium. That's --

17 what? -- five years ago, and we still haven't 

18 seen anything hard in the literature to 

19 support it. But it keeps coming up.

20 MS. BRACKETT: This is Elizabeth 

21 Brackett. I would like to comment on the 

22 high-fired uranium.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Liz, please 

2 do.

3 MS. BRACKETT: Well, a lot of the 

4 information I came up previously with 

5 discusses being held longer in the lungs. It 

6 is based on ICRP-30 models. Now ICRP-66 lung 

7 model has a broader scope, and Type S 

8 encompasses more material than Class Y did.

9 And so, our response has been, 

10 while Class Y might not have addressed the 

11 longer retention time of a high-fired uranium,

12 Type S does. It was modeled such that it 

13 would incorporate that. And so, that is why 

14 we haven't seen any evidence that it goes 

15 beyond Type S material or -- yes, Type S 

16 material.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that is a 

18 point that probably should be added to the 

19 NIOSH response here. I guess the only thing, 

20 I would ask SC&A if you would just take that 

21 into consideration; just add that here now. 

22 And just as a followup, next time around just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 tell us whether you are in agreement with that 

2 or not or if you still see an issue.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. That was 30 

4 versus 60?

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sixty-six is the 

6 new lung model.

7 MS. BRACKETT: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or the newest 

9 one. Sometimes the new ones get to be pretty 

10 old fast.

11 So, you are going to follow up --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On ICRP Report 

14 66, a lung model for those and see if that 

15 satisfies --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I would ask 

17 NIOSH or ORAU if they could just provide a 

18 capsule, just like sort of you did here, a 

19 capsule. I think I got most of it, but just 

20 to get that specific point down in writing, 

21 that would be helpful.

22 DR. NETON: Yes, that's a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 good point.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I'm going to 

3 make a note here that NIOSH is going to add to 

4 the response the comments that Liz Brackett 

5 made or the equivalent.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And we would just 

7 simply come back and validate whether that 

8 satisfies --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, whether you 

10 have any concerns or not beyond that. Because 

11 it looks like, otherwise, you were okay, and 

12 that was just sort of --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- left hanging 

15 there. Or, if there is any other evidence 

16 that anybody knows about? It sounds like, as 

17 I'm hearing it, that the new lung model is 

18 sufficiently inclusive that it would cover --

19 DR. NETON: That's what we 

20 believe.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 reserve --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: We want to 

4 take --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Take a look at 

6 that.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: -- a look at 

8 OBTs, tritides, and Super S. Like I say, I am 

9 pretty confident that tracks with where we 

10 have come out in the past, and that won't take 

11 long, but we didn't actually do a technical 

12 review. We just kind of scanned it and it 

13 looked like it was pretty complete. So, 

14 you're right, this is one difference that 

15 would need some validation.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me 

17 ask Dr. Richardson if he has questions or 

18 comments on this one.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I don't.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's go 

21 on to Issue 4. This is external and internal 

22 data legacy completeness and accuracy.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think this 

2 is a broader look at the completeness and 

3 accuracy of the records system, the legacy 

4 records system, and whether or not that was 

5 addressed. 

6 I think there is a reference in 

7 the original Site Profile, I think actually in 

8 one of the responses that was provided in the 

9 matrix, where it says early on that -- oh, in 

10 fact, it's this one. The NIOSH response says 

11 that "NIOSH does not use bioassay databases to 

12 reconstruct internal doses from all the 

13 workers. NIOSH uses individual dosimetry 

14 records provided by the DOE."

15 In the past, we have said, okay, 

16 but there is a need to just make sure that the 

17 records that DOE does give you are complete in 

18 the first place. I think the essence of this 

19 particular finding is establishing that you 

20 are dealing with a complete enough set; you 

21 are not missing periods of time.

22 I think in the review we found 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 some questions as to whether bioassay 

2 submittals were delinquent by quite a long 

3 time period, up to a year, what significance 

4 that might have for the shorter-lived 

5 nuclides; also, questions of bioassay 

6 frequency and the inclusion of facilities like 

7 the Donner Laboratory and whatnot. So, 

8 questions of completeness and questions of 

9 whether or not the completeness of what DOE 

10 has provided has been looked at at all.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, 

12 part of the NIOSH response here is getting 

13 some additional records, I guess, on Donner 

14 Lab, is part of it, right?

15 DR. HUGHES: Well, we haven't 

16 really seen this from when we evaluated. I 

17 haven't gone back in a while, but we haven't 

18 seen a specific lack for a certain building in 

19 any of the records, as far as I am aware of, 

20 but we haven't specifically looked at that 

21 information, either.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I am 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 trying to get a feel for what has to be done 

2 here.

3 DR. HUGHES: Yes. I do believe 

4 this thing about the Donner Laboratory came 

5 out of an interview?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is a site 

7 interview.

8 DR. HUGHES: If we could have 

9 that --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: We have the 

11 summary.

12 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

14 original ones are available, yes.

15 DR. HUGHES: Yes, just to give us 

16 some specifics, you know, what might have been 

17 going on there, because we have done an 

18 extensive research for the SEC, which is now a 

19 few years back. So, I don't remember 

20 specifically, but I do not remember seeing 

21 anything to that effect, unless it was maybe 

22 correlated to the activities going on. But, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 as I said, we would have to go back and look 

2 at it.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, a major 

4 source was the interviews, former workers that 

5 were familiar with the activities at Donner 

6 and their expression that they were not 

7 bioassayed and they should have been, that 

8 type of issue.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Joe, from SC&A's 

10 point of view, were you looking for evidence 

11 that the bioassay database is actually 

12 complete?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think this 

14 is the question, complete from a standpoint of 

15 the operations that were under the Berkeley 

16 umbrella, for one thing, and then in terms of 

17 timeframe, whether particularly in the earlier 

18 part of that, the 1960s, whether or not you 

19 are dealing with a database.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. But it is 

21 sort of like, is NIOSH saying, "Well, why do 

22 you think it's incomplete?" And you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 saying, "Show us that it is complete." What 

2 do we need here? Is it a matter of 

3 establishing that there are appropriate 

4 bioassays for these activities in these time 

5 periods? What is missing or what needs to be 

6 looked at to confirm completeness of records?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I think, again, 

8 we went and looked at the bioassay work. We 

9 did onsite visits at Berkeley --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: -- talked to the 

12 dosimetry staff, looked at the records that 

13 were available. And not all the records are 

14 there. Now in the early years that would be 

15 expected. You are not going to have a staff 

16 function at 100 percent.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: But the question 

19 would be, are the records not just simply what 

20 DOE provides, but are the bioassay records 

21 behind what DOE provides complete enough that 

22 you could, in fact, do dose reconstruction or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 not with sufficient accuracy?

2 And the question of the Donner Lab 

3 is whether or not certain facilities that had 

4 radiological source-terms -- and this gets 

5 back to kind of the question on the previous 

6 finding, Finding 2 -- whether the locations 

7 where you had exposure potentials, whether, in 

8 fact, you had monitoring. And this is sort of 

9 tied to that.

10 In interviewing workers that had 

11 knowledge of the Donner Laboratory -- and I 

12 think there was one other facility. Oh, these 

13 are satellite facilities that were under 

14 Berkeley, whether they, in fact, were covered 

15 adequately, particularly in the early sixties 

16 as compared with the main campus. I think 

17 there was some question, based on those 

18 interviews, whether that was the case or not. 

19 But they may have come along slower than the 

20 main operational areas.

21 To answer your question, I think 

22 it is just a matter of taking a look at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 database and establishing that you have what 

2 you need for the years in question. It is 

3 really much what has been done at other sites. 

4 Is it a complete enough database? Are there 

5 years missing or facilities missing?

6 You know, if you have the 

7 facilities and you have sufficient -- you are 

8 going to miss, for an individual, you are 

9 going to miss perhaps some weeks or some 

10 months, or whatever. But if you are missing 

11 everybody for a year or missing a particular 

12 operation for a year, then I think it is more 

13 of a significant issue.

14 DR. MAURO: Joe, this is John.

15 Would you say that, at least for 

16 internal exposure post-`61 --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: -- that this Issue 4 

19 is really very much part and parcel of Issue 

20 2? In other words, is it possible that these 

21 two are really one issue?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 Issue 1 is more internal. This is really a 

2 question of data completeness.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is external 

4 and internal.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: This is internal

6 and external.

7 DR. MAURO: I agree. That is why 

8 I raised the question. With respect to 

9 specifically internal, I see a bit of overlap, 

10 if not quite a bit of overlap, between Issue 4 

11 and Issue 2, unless I am not reading this 

12 correctly.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think 

14 Issue 2 speaks probably more strongly to 

15 adequacy. In other words, do you have the 

16 monitoring techniques that marry up to 

17 exposure potential for internal?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Versus 

19 completeness.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue 4 is, more 

21 or less, yes, you can think of it as 

22 completeness. Do you have the facilities 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 covered? Do you have the years covered in a 

2 way that enables you to use the dose records 

3 without concern over integrity, not really 

4 integrity, but, you know, completeness?

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And this is kind 

7 of a little conventional. I think we ask this 

8 question, or the Board asks this question at 

9 most sites, as to, yes, you get the data from 

10 DOE, but what gives you confidence that it is 

11 complete and adequate? And someone looked at 

12 the database to come to that judgment.

13 I think, again, because you are 

14 not really worried about it until probably 

15 after `61, it is not as hard a question, but 

16 it still a question that would be relevant to 

17 ask: you know, are you confident that what 

18 you are getting from DOE is complete?

19 DR. NETON: I can understand that.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What has to 

21 happen, though?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 NIOSH, you know, you have access to the 

2 database that is behind the DOE records. Now 

3 we looked at those records, at that database, 

4 when we went to Berkeley. It is there. It 

5 can be looked at. We didn't spend a lot of 

6 time, obviously.

7 DR. NETON: We don't have that 

8 database, do we?

9 DR. HUGHES: I don't know. We 

10 have scans of the bioassay records. I'm not 

11 sure.

12 DR. NETON: I think, like other 

13 sites, what we are looking at here is some 

14 type of validation of the data that we are 

15 using. In some situations, we will go back --

16 like I think now at Paducah we are going back 

17 and pulling reports that exist that say we 

18 took this many samples in this month on this 

19 many workers, and just validating or verifying 

20 that we, indeed, have those numbers of 

21 samples, that kind of thing.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 DR. NETON: So, some sort of a 

2 data completeness validation.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

4 DR. NETON: I think, consistent 

5 with what we have done at other sites, that 

6 should be done here. I agree.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Currently, the 

8 NIOSH response seems to be that, if you get a 

9 claim, you go to the record. If you don't 

10 have it, then you have to figure out what to 

11 do.

12 Joe is asking the more universal 

13 question, what if that is true for X number of 

14 people for a year, that the records are 

15 missing or something?

16 DR. NETON: Well, or how do we 

17 know that DOE is providing us all the records 

18 that were there?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, all the 

20 records, right, right.

21 But you have some sort of standard 

22 approaches you would use to answer this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 question.

2 DR. NETON: There are several ways 

3 to get at this issue, yes. If they have an 

4 electronic database, that is a start. 

5 Certainly, if there are records in the 

6 electronic database for a modern worker that 

7 the DOE is not providing us, that would raise 

8 some flags.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

10 DR. NETON: If the records were 

11 missing from the database that the DOE 

12 provided, it would not necessarily be a 

13 showstopper.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

15 DR. NETON: I mean, the database 

16 could be incomplete.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I guess 

18 although we have the NIOSH response here, it 

19 appears to me that there is an additional 

20 followup --

21 DR. NETON: I agree, yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 would develop a -- I don't know if it is a 

2 White Paper, but a report to demonstrate 

3 completeness of records. And then, SC&A would 

4 have an opportunity to say, "Yes, that 

5 addresses our concern."

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. Now to go 

7 back to John's comment, the coupling between 

8 this or the completeness issue and the 

9 adequacy issue in Issue 2, I think you are 

10 stepping back and deciding, okay, `61 is a 

11 threshold that was acknowledged in the SEC 

12 Class because Berkeley started managing its 

13 own bioassay program, and there is certainly 

14 documentation to that effect.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: This validates 

17 that the actual data from an adequacy and 

18 completeness standpoint comports with the `61. 

19 I think the formal program and the 

20 establishment of that program speaks to a 

21 threshold in `61. This kind of validates that 

22 things didn't kind of struggle along --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: -- for a while.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's part of 

4 this, although this issue also speaks to 

5 external records, and partial dose 

6 reconstruction still may have to be done for 

7 the early years for external.

8 DR. NETON: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I think we 

10 could still ask the question for the early 

11 years or, I mean, you can just ask it all at 

12 once, I guess, in a sense, right? I guess, 

13 but I don't know.

14 DR. NETON: Yes, we'll have to 

15 think about that.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, think about 

17 that. No. 1, you are not going to get that 

18 many claims for the early years. You're going 

19 to get a few non-covered cancers and you might 

20 get a few less than 250 days.

21 DR. NETON: We will work with the 

22 data that are there. I mean, if there seems 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 to be gaps in the data, they are what they 

2 are, right?

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

4 DR. NETON: We will do the best 

5 job that we can to reconstruct the partial 

6 doses.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

8 DR. NETON: There is no other 

9 option there other than making it an SEC, 

10 which it already is.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we know 

12 that for the internal. I am talking about 

13 external. I mean, if there is a data gap 

14 simply because DOE has not provided all the 

15 records for the early years and they exist, 

16 that's --

17 DR. NETON: Oh, that is a 

18 different story, yes. Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. So, I 

20 think you can still ask that question.

21 DR. NETON: Oh, yes, we will go 

22 back and look at it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, that 

2 would be the followup on this one.

3 Again, I will ask Dr. Richardson 

4 if he has questions or comments on this 

5 particular one.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have a 

7 few.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good. Go ahead.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, one issue 

10 that I was thinking about gets at what you 

11 were just touching on of the external 

12 dosimetry information for the period prior to 

13 `61 or `61 and before.

14 There is description in table 5.3 

15 of the monitoring and storage of in vivo 

16 monitoring in terms of periods and, I believe, 

17 how this data are stored. There is no 

18 description at all of what I think this issue 

19 is talking about for external dosimetry. Like 

20 what is the data legacy?

21 I mean, kind of the response that 

22 NIOSH uses dosimetry records provided by DOE 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 is correct, and, yet, I believe, like what 

2 Table 5.3 is saying is, well, what DOE can 

3 provide is what the site stored on magnetic 

4 tapes or 8-inch disks in the 1980s and in 

5 printouts alphabetically stored in other 

6 periods.

7 That is the type of information. 

8 I mean, the fact that they provide it to you 

9 doesn't kind of describe, well, how was it 

10 archived? And particularly for the early 

11 external dosimetry data, I think that might be 

12 useful to describe.

13 Is everything available in terms 

14 of kind of hard-copy dosimetry cards? I mean, 

15 some facilities I know all you've got is 

16 quarterly green bar computer printouts. At 

17 least I have never been able to find something 

18 better than that.

19 And so, kind of to get a sense of 

20 the completeness, one way that I have seen it 

21 described before is sort of on a claimant 

22 basis and on a work-year basis, what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 proportion of the claimants have information 

2 that is available? Even that sort of 

3 information would be useful.

4 So, right now, there is a sentence 

5 that says, "Personal dosimetry records are 

6 generally available for all periods for 

7 workers who had potential for occupational 

8 radiation exposure." I mean, fleshing that 

9 out a little bit more would be useful in a 

10 sense of, what does it mean that are generally 

11 available and how has that changed over time?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For the external 

13 particularly because this is just internal on 

14 this table.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right, for 

16 that, yes, the dosimetry records. Yes, I am 

17 referring to the start of Section 611, where 

18 there is a single sentence right now that is 

19 sort of giving us a reassurance about the 

20 completeness of the records that can be 

21 provided by DOE, but in a very vague sense.

22 The figures in this section, now I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 have the benefit of having a mirror in my 

2 room, in my office here. So, I figure 6.1 I 

3 can hold up to a mirror and read and Figure 

4 6.3, but I believe they are mirror images of 

5 what would be useful to have. Everything is 

6 upside-down and backwards, which made it 

7 really hard to interpret.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Where are you?

9 DR. NETON: Oh, yes, yes. Yes, 

10 you're right.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Figure 6.1 and 

12 Figure 6.3.

13 DR. NETON: Absolutely. They are 

14 upside-down and backwards. I wonder how that 

15 happened. I've never seen that before.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I don't 

18 know how that happened, either, but it 

19 required some creativity.

20 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know how 

21 one could cut and paste something like that.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 transparency that was probably put in reverse.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, "Leonardo 

3 graphics."

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's right.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We need to have 

6 three here, don't we?

7 (Laughter.)

8 Did SC&A pick that up in their 

9 review?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Apparently, 

11 nobody has looked at the figures except --

12 MR. KATZ: Except you.

13 (Laughter.)

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay, 

15 thanks. Go ahead, David.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is, 

17 again, kind of a gestalt kind of impression of 

18 reading the report. There are 10 or 11 pages 

19 given to the assessment of the medical doses, 

20 and there are 10 pages given to the 

21 occupational exposures and the dosimetry 

22 program.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 Again, when I read this in sort in 

2 a description of what went on at the site, 

3 right now, kind of the weight, kind of the 

4 balance of attention in this Site Profile kind 

5 of document led me to think that, well, 

6 perhaps the medical exposures from kind of 

7 routine screening are on par with the 

8 occupational exposures. And so, I don't know 

9 what that means except that I think that there 

10 was a lot of enthusiasm or a lot of 

11 information available for providing a lot of 

12 detailed information in this document about 

13 the chest x-rays. But I was hoping there 

14 would be more information maybe partly along 

15 these lines.

16 Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are 

17 of equal kind of magnitude. And therefore, 

18 that is what the balance is trying to 

19 communicate. That was just something striking 

20 to me.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it is an 

22 interesting point. I think you are probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 quite right, it is much easier to elaborate on 

2 the medical. We certainly know how to do that 

3 pretty well.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, but it is 

5 sort of a balance that I have not seen in 

6 other --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, I 

8 think it is a good point, David. Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: Paul, this is John.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

11 DR. MAURO: Before we leave, when 

12 you are probing completeness under Issue 4, 

13 whoever is probing it, typically, you do find 

14 -- let's say we are talking external -- that 

15 there are always some holes for time periods, 

16 buildings, job categories, or whatever.

17 So, the other side of the coin is, 

18 once you do identify there might be some 

19 completeness issues with external, then it 

20 leads you to the question of a coworker model. 

21 I have to admit I haven't been following this 

22 so closely, but is there a coworker model for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 external dosimetry when you do have incomplete 

2 data in this TBD?

3 DR. HUGHES: There's currently no 

4 coworker model for this site.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, none 

6 currently.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I guess 

9 probably, unless NIOSH identifies in this 

10 process that it is needed, there probably 

11 won't be, right?

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: At some point, 

14 if there's a gap that is striking, I suppose 

15 that would be the next step, but there is none 

16 at the moment.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have a 

18 question that also touches on completeness, 

19 and this is a sort of general issue. When we 

20 visited the contractor and saw how they were 

21 keying-in the data, it appeared that they were 

22 keying-in kind of what were PDF versions of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 hard-copy records for dosimetry information, 

2 and they had all of the detailed kind of 

3 handwritten dose results.

4 Is that the search that DOE does, 

5 to try and locate those hard-copy records? 

6 Or, in the absence of those, do they look to 

7 electronic databases?

8 DR. NETON: Well, I think they 

9 look through any available information that 

10 they might have. It is not really the DOE 

11 that does this. It is actually the site 

12 itself, I mean, that provides the records.

13 So, there is usually a person at 

14 the site who is the point of contact that is 

15 familiar with where the information may be, 

16 and it is their job to assemble all the 

17 information that they have in their possession 

18 and provide it. I mean, we do request it 

19 through the DOE, but the site really is the 

20 one that assembles the information.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. We have 

22 had experiences where one or the other is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 available but not both.

2 DR. NETON: Yes, and we have 

3 gotten both, I mean in various forms. At 

4 Savannah River, we get computer printouts with 

5 redacted names on them because that is the 

6 only place it exists. Some sites actually 

7 provide data electronically. I think the 

8 Nevada Test Site was good with that. They 

9 would provide us with electronic records. 

10 Some sites we have actually went and got the 

11 whole database. So, yes, it depends.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We will 

14 take a 10-minute break now and then proceed 

15 from there. How's that?

16 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

17 went off the record at 10:33 a.m. and went 

18 back on the record at 10:43 a.m.)

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, we're back.

20 Let's just check and see, Dr.

21 Richardson, do we have you?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 here.

2 MR. KATZ: Great.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We are 

4 ready to proceed with Issue 5.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

6 Buchanan. Can I ask --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ron, sure, go 

8 ahead. Ron Buchanan.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I have to 

10 leave here in about 20 minutes. So, I wanted 

11 to be sure and ask this question.

12 We are running into the question, 

13 an SEC covers a certain period, say like 

14 bioassay data. Do the Site Profile issues, 

15 say with external data, still stand for that 

16 SEC period? What is the ruling on that?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

18 the answer is yes because there are cases 

19 where you have to reconstruct dose for non20 eligible cancers as well as people who were 

21 there less than 250 days. And dose may have 

22 to be, partial dose reconstructions, certainly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 for the external, NIOSH says they can do that. 

2 they might even do partials for the internal 

3 if there is specific bioassay data, I guess.

4 MR. KATZ: But I thought the SEC 

5 for part of that early period had raised 

6 issues even about external data up until `48 

7 maybe. There were provisos about external 

8 data being sparser, inadequate as well.

9 DR. NETON: In the SEC report?

10 MR. KATZ: In the SEC report, yes.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, it is that `48 

12 and onward that was available --

13 MR. KATZ: Right, right. Okay, so 

14 that's it. That's what I remembered.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I just 

16 wanted to make sure because it makes a big 

17 difference on how much time we spend on these 

18 Site Profile issues if the SEC negates 

19 everything or just the bioassay data. And it 

20 is important --

21 DR. NETON: No, no, the SEC does 

22 not negate everything. And even if we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 provisos on the external, we still have to 

2 figure out the best path forward to use the 

3 data that we have.

4 MR. KATZ: Right.

5 DR. NETON: I mean, they are what 

6 they are.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does that answer 

8 your question, Ron?

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, it does. 

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Very 

12 good. Let's proceed with Issue 5, which is 

13 called "insufficient justification for 

14 selection of IREP energy range fractions for 

15 photon exposures".

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, before we 

17 lose Ron, actually, these next couple would be 

18 ones that are dear and close to your heart, 

19 Ron. Do you want to walk through both this 

20 one as well as the neutron issues?

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Or not?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: That was a pretty 

3 notable sigh.

4 (Laughter.)

5 I can cover them, if you want.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, why don't you 

7 go ahead?

8 MR. FITZGERALD: All right.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Because I will ring 

10 off.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you have to 

12 leave anyway, but these are ones that I think 

13 are pretty straightforward.

14 Item 5 really gets into the IREP 

15 energy range fractions for photon exposures. 

16 In this case, we focus on building 5171 

17 accelerators. It appears that a single photon 

18 energy distribution is given, and 10 percent 

19 of that measured dose is assigned to certain 

20 energy range, in this case 30 to 250 keV, and 

21 90 percent is assigned to greater than 250 

22 keV. And then, again, that distribution is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 applied to the entire history of accelerator 

2 use over the years at Berkeley without any 

3 distinction during that time period.

4 This gets, I think, to something 

5 that Dr. Richardson raised a little earlier, 

6 which is, you know, there is a dynamic history 

7 of the way the accelerators came on and how 

8 they were operated. We question whether you 

9 can get by with this single energy 

10 distribution covering that length of time for 

11 these accelerators. And that is kind of the 

12 core of that particular question, whether that 

13 is an oversimplification, given sort of this 

14 rich history of accelerator use, of certainly 

15 the different energy ranges that would have 

16 been involved in that use.

17 I think we did get a response from 

18 NIOSH that they would go back and take another 

19 look at what is called The Health Physics 

20 Manual of Good Practices for Accelerator 

21 Facilities and see if that should be adjusted.

22 So, I guess I would turn to Lara. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 I think that was our concern on that one. 

2 This is on the Rev 01 TBD.

3 DR. HUGHES: Yes, I think the 

4 revision has not changed this guidance. So, 

5 yes, I mean, as you mentioned, we would have 

6 to go back and look at it. There is really no 

7 explanation we have to resolve it right now.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, and at the 

9 moment NIOSH has agreed that they need to do 

10 that. So, I guess that is where we stand. It 

11 is a NIOSH action, right?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and this is 

13 related to that first one in the sense that it 

14 is the granularity. I think, certainly, it is 

15 possible to come up with the appropriate 

16 range, but this one, we question whether it 

17 would envelope all the years and all the 

18 accelerators.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But 

20 NIOSH is saying that they are going to review 

21 this table now and compare it to the 

22 information in the Health Physics Manual of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 Good Practice.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I would even go 

3 further, even beyond that manual.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And other --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: And the source6 term review that they are talking about --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: -- the historic 

9 source-term review.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: That would also 

12 help make a decision as to whether that would 

13 be appropriate.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And 

15 then, they say, "Additional data capture will 

16 be performed" --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- which gets to 

19 that same issue we talked about in item 1, 

20 what were the operations and the time periods, 

21 and so on.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this gets to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 the dynamic question, the granularity 

2 question, and certain ones we have raised 

3 before. But this applies to how the energy 

4 distribution would be handled.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And so, that 

6 appears to be a NIOSH action.

7 And, Dr. Richardson, do you want 

8 to add to this?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No. That 

10 sounds like a good plan forward.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Are we 

12 okay on that, then? I mean in the sense that 

13 NIOSH has the action on this one. Okay.

14 Issue 6?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, issue 6 --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Neutron 

17 dosimetry.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue 6 is kind 

19 of the same issue. And, Ron, jump in before 

20 you leave if I am wrong about this. But, you 

21 know, it is sort of the same energy threshold 

22 question that we have raised in the past and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 whether the workup in the Site Profile -- and 

2 again, we are going back to Rev 01, 2007. So, 

3 I think it is a rhetorical issue.

4 Of course, it did not reflect some 

5 of the developments and the assessments that 

6 have been done, sort of this issue that has 

7 arrived at a different place that includes 

8 certainly a better recognition on the NTA 

9 cutoff use of even MCNP in some cases to 

10 address the assignment of dose when you get to 

11 the level where the NTA is not responsive.

12 There is also even, I think, some 

13 information out of the Brookhaven review where 

14 there were some questions about whether the 

15 CR-39 and other plastics, whether the 

16 dosimetry involved in that was reliable. I 

17 mean, there's just a number of questions that 

18 I think the Site Profile would benefit from in 

19 terms of reworking the neutron dosimetry 

20 section. That would be a short-form way of 

21 going through all what we put in here in terms 

22 of the details.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 We have not gone through and done 

2 a detailed analysis, but a lot of these issues 

3 are sort of the same sort of issues that we 

4 have raised in the past about reliance on N/P 

5 ratios, the NTA film threshold, and all the 

6 rest, and some of the correction factors that 

7 would have to be put in place.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

9 NIOSH has indicated that they plan to revise 

10 table 6.4, right? So, that remains to be 

11 done.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then, there 

14 are some other statements here. It would seem 

15 to me that, SC&A, you need to evaluate not 

16 only what you see in the revision, but these 

17 additional statements.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we need to 

19 look at the revision that was done in Rev 2 

20 that did add in a lot of what I just said and 

21 see whether or not that answers some of these 

22 issues. It brings the overall assessment up-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 to-date with what we have done already.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

3 Buchanan.

4 Yes, we need to go through. Like 

5 I say, we didn't do any in-depth technical 

6 review of Rev 2. So, we need to go through 

7 and see what is covered and not covered. I 

8 mean, I did a scanning of it and I see several 

9 points that were covered and several points 

10 that weren't.

11 And I guess the best way would be 

12 we can either do it one of two ways. We can 

13 go through it and then write like a White 

14 Paper on it and get NIOSH's response. Or, if 

15 NIOSH has a quick solution to some of the 

16 things they said they were going to do, they 

17 could send that to us, and then we could do a 

18 review of it plus the Rev 2 and write a White 

19 Paper on that. So, whichever way you would 

20 like to do it.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, NIOSH, do 

22 we know at this point what a new table 6.4 is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 going to look like? Or is that something that 

2 is going to require a fair amount of work?

3 You're saying at the end of that 

4 paragraph, "Table 6.4 will be revised 

5 accordingly." That is, I think, accordingly 

6 in terms of what you said above this. So, as 

7 I read that, that would be what I am 

8 understanding you are saying.

9 DR. HUGHES: Yes, it seems to 

10 refer to this issue with the LOD of the CR-39 

11 dosimeters.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

13 DR. HUGHES: And I am not really 

14 sure. I would have to go back to the people 

15 involved with the writing of the TBD and it 

16 appears to be that this involves some checking 

17 of the literature and revision of some 

18 numbers.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, maybe 

20 there's two things that could happen here. 

21 One would be for NIOSH to -- well, let me look 

22 at it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 Is the only revision going to be 

2 in the LOD value? Or do we know that? In 

3 other words, is --

4 DR. NETON: Is Matt Smith on the 

5 phone?

6 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt.

7 DR. NETON: Can you chime in here?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is it going to 

9 be the 15-millirem for all those periods?

10 MR. SMITH: Well, that is for the 

11 CR-39.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, for the 

13 CR-39 only, right. Okay.

14 MR. SMITH: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that the only 

16 revision we are talking about in that table?

17 MR. SMITH: Yes. Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

19 MR. SMITH: That would be it. The 

20 other items, you know, are addressed in the 

21 revision that is currently --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 guess, then, that is enough information, Joe.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A can proceed 

4 with their review then, knowing that the one 

5 value is going to change in the table.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. If the 

7 LOD for CR-39 is the only thing that might be 

8 revised, I think we could proceed, then, and 

9 provide a White Paper on how neutrons are 

10 treated.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I agree.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, again, Dr. 

14 Richardson, additional comments on this one?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just one small 

16 question, and this is maybe just a standard 

17 thing. It says neutron doses are entered as 

18 chronic exposures. Is that just standard 

19 practice? What is the basis for that?

20 MR. SMITH: Yes, that is a 

21 guidance that is given in the IREP technical 

22 document. It is out on the website, probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 in the same location where you find documents 

2 like IG-001 for external dose.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, it is considered 

4 to be claimant-favorable to enter them as 

5 chronic exposures, I think based on the DDREF, 

6 if I am not mistaken.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If the DDREF has 

8 been looked at by the --

9 MR. SMITH: That is the 

10 longstanding, more dramatic thing that we have 

11 been doing since inception here.

12 DR. NETON: Yes, we went through 

13 all the various modes of external exposure and 

14 triaged them based on, if we didn't know what 

15 the exposure pattern was, which mode, chronic 

16 or acute, would give the higher essentially PC 

17 value or give the possibility of a higher PC 

18 value. And chronic would provide a higher PC 

19 than an acute.

20 MR. SMITH: For neutrons.

21 DR. NETON: Yes. And it is 

22 escaping me right now; I used to know the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 function and everything, but I can't remember 

2 off the top of my head.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any other 

5 comments or questions on this one?

6 (No response.)

7 SC&A has the action on that.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, we will 

9 take that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And issue 7, 

11 "failure to justify the shallow dose 

12 assumption".

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think 

14 there we didn't see as much treatment on the 

15 subject in the TBD, at least Rev 1, where 

16 workers may have been exposed to significant 

17 shallow dose, and how appropriately would deep 

18 dose be used as an indicator. I think the 

19 concern is that, particularly for the early 

20 years, pre-`79, there really isn't any record 

21 of beta exposure that we could find.

22 So, there is some concern over an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 assumption. I guess the assumption was a 

2 factor of three, the ratio of shallow to deep 

3 dose. And there is not a whole lot of 

4 substantiation whether that, in fact, is 

5 claimant-favorable.

6 And again, I think what we 

7 documented, based on interviews and review at 

8 the site, was it appears there's certainly a 

9 number of activities, particularly with the 

10 crafts workers, where you would have had 

11 certainly more of an opportunity for skin 

12 exposure, contamination on the skin. And some 

13 of the shallow dose would have been more 

14 significant in that regard. So, that is where 

15 we see maybe a gap, if you may, in the Site 

16 Profile.

17 Now the OTIBs that are referenced 

18 in the NIOSH response I don't believe were in 

19 place at the time we did the review. Or maybe 

20 they were. Maybe we just didn't account for 

21 them.

22 But we will have to take a look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 OTIB-10, OTIB-13, and see to the extent that 

2 that would augment what is in the Site 

3 Profile. They weren't referenced and I think 

4 may not have been referenceable back in 2007 

5 anyway. But that might actually provide the 

6 answer to how dose reconstruction would be 

7 done in the shallow dose. So, we need to take 

8 a look at those, and I think that would update 

9 our review from that standpoint.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I am trying 

11 to remember if those OTIBs have been reviewed 

12 by the Procedures Committee.

13 DR. NETON: I think at least one 

14 of them has, the glove box I am pretty 

15 certain.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: One is the glove 

17 box, and the other is the geometric exposure.

18 DR. NETON: The other one is the 

19 geometry. I think that one as well, that 

20 started off with sort of a Mallinckrodt21 specific document.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 MR. KATZ: Right. They have both 

2 been reviewed by Procedures.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know if 

4 there are any open items on those, but, Joe, I 

5 think probably the action is just double6 check.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, of course, 

9 Steve --

10 DR. MAURO: Marschke.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Huh?

12 DR. MAURO: Steve Marschke.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Marschke. I 

14 blanked out there for a minute. Steve 

15 Marschke has that database readily available. 

16 We all do, actually.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this might 

18 be just a case of --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Check on that.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then, if you 

22 would go back, also, and see if you agree with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 this NIOSH response here?

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes. My 

3 sense is that, since these OTIBs were not part 

4 of the 2007 Rev 1 version of the TBD, this 

5 might go a long ways to satisfying the issue 

6 we have, which is there is just no real good 

7 treatment of how you would do it. So, 

8 assuming that the Rev 2 now references that 

9 and would include that, that would do a lot

10 toward resolving that issue.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: We will take a 

13 look at --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The action would 

15 be SC&A to --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- review this 

18 response in detail, as well as those OTIBs, 

19 and make sure that that meets your concerns.

20 DR. MAURO: I think OTIB-17 should 

21 be in that list also -- that deals with non22 penetrating radiation -- along with the other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 ones you mentioned, Joe.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: OTIB-17?

3 DR. MAURO: Yes.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: All right.

5 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt. 

6 Just a couple of comments.

7 And you're absolutely right, John, 

8 OTIB-17 is now called out in Section 662 of 

9 the current revision.

10 And with respect to the extremity 

11 dose factor of three, it is also in that 

12 section. It is being based on the historical 

13 dose limits that were in place at the time.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

15 MR. SMITH: The discussion of the 

16 rationale for that is given in that section.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Richardson?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No. No 

19 questions.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I think 

21 we can proceed then.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Issue 8, 

2 "uncertainty in beta gamma dosimetry response 

3 to radiation types and energies".

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this gets to 

5 the electroscope data issue. Yes, I think 

6 there is an acknowledgment that there are some 

7 real questions and certainly a cost-sharing 

8 note about its use.

9 There was some concern about how 

10 that data would be used in the earlier years 

11 and the fact that there wasn't a whole lot of 

12 information provided in terms of how that 

13 would be applied. We didn't see any change in 

14 Rev 2. But the response, I guess, that NIOSH 

15 provided, that there is, in fact, a statement 

16 that highlights that information, the results 

17 from the electroscope data needs to be used 

18 cautiously and should not be used 

19 preferentially in terms of film or TLD 

20 results. I think all that is helpful.

21 So, we need to take a look at 

22 that, Paul.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: But just based on 

3 that response, I think we don't see a major 

4 issue.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. And 

6 all that electroscope data had to be in the 

7 really early years.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Probably in the 

10 forties.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: And is 

12 encompassed by the SEC. So, there's a lot of 

13 qualifiers on this one.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It is apparently 

15 pretty sparse and we don't have calibration 

16 information on that.

17 You know, an electroscope is a 

18 pretty basic instrument in a way. If it is 

19 working right, you shouldn't have to calibrate 

20 it because it reads charge per unit volume, 

21 which is the way that the roentgen was 

22 originally defined. It was one electrostatic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 unit per cubic centimeter, I believe. It was 

2 a volume, not a mass, at standard temperature 

3 and pressure.

4 So, if the electroscope is working 

5 right, you don't have to calibrate it against 

6 anything because they wouldn't be reading in 

7 length and units, I guess. Or maybe the early 

8 ones just read out in ESUs.

9 But I think the problem was they 

10 got different results with multiple readings 

11 or something. I can't remember exactly what 

12 the problem was.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: There is 

14 something in the literature that suggests that 

15 they had divergent readings.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

17 Right. It didn't match up with the film or 

18 something like that.

19 But let's see. So, SC&A needs --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, we would be 

21 satisfied as long -- this is just one of 

22 these, I am not sure we need to spend a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 time on it. I think we are concerned that, 

2 clearly, there was some question about 

3 reliability. If that information is going to 

4 be used, it needs to be used with a high 

5 degree of caution. I think that language has 

6 been added in Rev 2. I'm not sure there's a 

7 whole lot more one could do with that.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I mean, 

9 it is the only information there.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: It is the only 

11 information you've got.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They might try 

13 to use it in some way for bounding a dose or 

14 something; I don't know.

15 MR. KATZ: Right. And if it is 

16 for pre-`48, you are not even doing those 

17 external doses.

18 DR. NETON: Well, we are.

19 MR. KATZ: But the SEC says that 

20 you don't have information for prior to `48 to 

21 get external --

22 DR. NETON: Does it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: Ted is more familiar 

3 with it.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, it knocks out 

5 that as well as the internal.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, `42 to `48, 

7 you had neither, and then in `48 to `60 it was 

8 -- so, it may be a moot point in that sense.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You guys go back 

11 and make sure.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we can go 

13 back, but I think the additional language puts 

14 it in better perspective. I think, again, 

15 there was some concern about having it put out 

16 there but without any additional qualifiers

17 about using it.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And in 

19 electroscope days, there aren't going to be 

20 any TLDs to compare with. They didn't exist 

21 then.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: No. No. See, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 the only thing we threw out there was in the 

2 literature -- and this is on the O: drive --

3 when they did, in fact, do some comparison 

4 studies, it was pretty divergent. I mean, 

5 obviously, they are going to be very much --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They could have 

7 compared the films, I guess.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. All 

10 right. Dr. Richardson, do you have any 

11 comments on this one?

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, no.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

14 Okay. Issue 9, "X-ray exposures 

15 are uncertain".

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I would be 

17 hesitant to ask for more on medical X-rays. 

18 (Laughter.)

19 I think we did have some questions 

20 that we raised in the finding itself, as you 

21 can see. You know, where did the workers get 

22 the exams and the rest of that? But most of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 those, if not all of them, were, in fact, 

2 treated in Rev 2.

3 I think we would want to go back 

4 and just walk through that in detail, but my 

5 read is it is certainly a more complete 

6 section on the TBD.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I guess 

8 let's just ask you to evaluate this recent 

9 response.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. But it is 

11 pretty substantive now. I think we kind of 

12 touched on that earlier, that that section was 

13 done with a great deal of enthusiasm.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, SC&A is 

16 going to come back with a finding that it is 

17 too much information?

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I would doubt we 

20 would have much more to add on Rev 2. But 

21 definitely an improvement off of Rev 1 on 

22 X-rays.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. 

2 Okay. Dr. Richardson, any comments on Issue 

3 9?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No? Okay.

6 Okay, Issue 10?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue 10, this 

8 gets tied into the SEC in a long way. Some of 

9 the uncertainties that we saw in terms of the 

10 actual dose estimation calculations prior to 

11 1961, whether it is MDAs, whether it was the 

12 actual use of the claimant files, I mean, this 

13 is sort of made moot by the SEC. So, again, 

14 this gets back to how the Work Group wants to 

15 handle it.

16 I think we did have some issues 

17 and questions about how the dose estimations 

18 would be done prior to `61 because of the 

19 problems with the lack of information. I 

20 think that has been made moot because I think 

21 NIOSH agrees and has recommended the SEC.

22 So, we really don't think we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 an issue, unless the Work Group wants us to 

2 look at something.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: From my point of 

4 view, this one is closed.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that is kind 

6 of where we are at, too.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me ask Dr. 

8 Richardson if he agrees.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that 

10 is right, yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, there 

12 is no issue here. No followup needed. So, we 

13 consider that a closed issue.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue 11 actually 

15 overlaps an earlier issue. Again, this is the 

16 diversity of nuclides that were in use at 

17 Berkeley and to the extent one had to address 

18 those in a more complete way and demonstrate 

19 that the MDAs and the in vitro/in vivo 

20 bioassay programs were appropriately done.

21 I think NIOSH's response also 

22 echos the fact that their response is the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 as it was before on the MDA. So, I think this 

2 is in a lot of ways repetitive.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, this is going to 

4 be addressed by the completeness and the --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Adequacy.

6 DR. NETON: -- adequacy --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

8 DR. NETON: -- of the modeling 

9 program.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, this was 

11 framed a little differently, but, in essence, 

12 it is a similar issue.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, almost the same 

14 issue.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: This gets more 

16 specific about certain things, like thorium, 

17 plutonium --

18 DR. NETON: Right.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: -- curium, 

20 actinium, but it is the same issue in terms of 

21 source-terms. So, I would recommend that it 

22 be subsumed under the adequacy and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 completeness piece.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Which is 

3 No. 2.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Two and 4, I 

5 think.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So, we 

7 will just indicate that addressing Issue 2 and 

8 4 will take care of Issue 11.

9 Again, let me ask Dr. Richardson 

10 if he agrees with that.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We're 

13 sailing along here.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: I tried to put 

15 the harder ones upfront.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

17 We're up to Issue 12. This is 

18 "failure to provide sufficient guidance for 

19 unmonitored workers."

20 MR. FITZGERALD: This is the 

21 coworker issue, which I think Lara mentioned 

22 there is not a coworker model per se.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 DR. HUGHES: No.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Is that right?

3 So, this is a little bit of a 

4 question whether in NIOSH's judgment there is 

5 a need for one, given the completeness of the 

6 information at hand.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Will this be 

8 partially answered by the completeness 

9 question?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I think so.

11 DR. NETON: This is about like 

12 what happened at a number of facilities where, 

13 once we evaluate all the available data, we 

14 may still have the position that we don't need 

15 a coworker model because all the people that 

16 were potentially exposed were appropriately 

17 monitored. And if not, then we do allow for a 

18 possibility here; we will have to go back and 

19 develop methods.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: And this also 

21 gets into the one where we are talking about 

22 exposure pathways. If there is one where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 monitoring was not done --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- then the 

4 question is, well, how would you -- there 

5 might be, in fact, a way to do it, but it 

6 hasn't been proposed yet.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we know at 

8 this point whether there were groups within 

9 the restrictive area of what we call Berkeley 

10 laboratory, whether there were unmonitored 

11 workers like clerical workers?

12 DR. HUGHES: We have something to 

13 show there was.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there 

15 definitely was. It was a research campus. I 

16 mean, not everybody was --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not everybody 

18 was monitored?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: That's right.

20 DR. NETON: This will be fleshed21 out in our response to those other issues.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, what will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 happen on this one, presumably, is that after 

2 the other stuff is addressed on completeness 

3 and adequacy, the NIOSH response here may 

4 change or --

5 DR. NETON: Correct.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- or be added 

7 to? So, the next step would be an expansion 

8 of the NIOSH response or you would say, based 

9 on what you found, this is our response.

10 DR. NETON: Right, exactly.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Either way. So, 

12 it is NIOSH. Okay.

13 Dr. Richardson, any additional 

14 comments on this one?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No. I think 

16 they just need to follow up with that.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I assume 

18 others will chime in if they have comments, 

19 John Mauro or --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is the 

21 logical fallout --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 MR. FITZGERALD: -- once we 

2 complete adequacy and completeness, as to 

3 whether unmonitored workers --

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have no 

5 additional comments.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Issue 13, 

7 "inadequate coverage of occupational 

8 environmental dose." Joe?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, 

10 there we felt that there wasn't as -- and this 

11 sort of ties into the very first finding we 

12 made. There is a need for more comprehensive 

13 description of the historical environmental 

14 dose that existed.

15 And this sort of gets to the lack 

16 of coverage on accelerators and the history of 

17 accelerator operations, in the sense that 

18 there were, as you know, some emissions from 

19 target areas that would have represented 

20 environmental exposures, but since there 

21 wasn't really a very granular discussion of 

22 accelerator operations in those source-terms, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 you don't get a very good perspective on what 

2 those sources might have been onsite.

3 There is a maximum sitewide value 

4 that is used, but it is difficult to know what 

5 the basis for that is without having these 

6 other things addressed.

7 Now, certainly, one issue that is 

8 very useful to have reflected -- and again, I 

9 wasn't involved in the specific finding -- but 

10 in terms of the Cobalt-60 irradiator in `74, I 

11 think the benchmarks that NIOSH provided 

12 suggest that that very minimally contributes 

13 to external exposure to workers that were 

14 outside that particular operation. I think 

15 that was one question that was highlighted in 

16 the Site Profile review that SC&A deducted. 

17 So, I think that is a response to that 

18 particular one.

19 And the question about I-131 as 

20 being a benchmark, a more suitable benchmark, 

21 I think, Lara, it looks like NIOSH agrees that 

22 maybe I-131 might be a better bounding value. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 Is that what that basically says?

2 DR. NETON: Well, for thyroid.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: For thyroid I 

4 mean.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that yet to 

6 be done?

7 DR. NETON: Yes, it says, 

8 "guidance will be provided." I think we need 

9 to modify the Site Profile here to include 

10 guidance to pay attention to the metabolic 

11 organ that might be maximized in a given 

12 exposure scenario.

13 I haven't looked at -- I don't 

14 know what is documented in their file. But I 

15 think we would agree with the statement. So, 

16 we will modify the Site Profile accordingly.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I think, Paul, 

18 this goes sort of hand-in-glove with a little 

19 more detailed operational description which 

20 would then give you a better perspective if 

21 there are environmental emissions which would 

22 be from target areas. You might get a better 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 picture on what the source-term would be from 

2 the sitewide standpoint.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are 

4 suggesting here that, once we deal with Issue 

5 1, just some question on the historical --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I think this 

7 question of whether or not you would get a 

8 better sense of what the environmental dose 

9 would be -- I wouldn't think this would be a 

10 separate enterprise. I think it would just 

11 be, are there any environmental sources that 

12 weren't picked up in that section that would 

13 obviously come from an operational review? 

14 And would that change the conclusion about 

15 what the ambient environmental dose would be? 

16 It may not.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Richardson, 

18 what comments do you have on this one?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't think 

20 I have any further. It looks like NIOSH is 

21 going to, if I am understanding this, NIOSH is 

22 going to update the guidance on iodine, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 their conclusion regarding the cobalt-60 is 

2 that it is very small.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, Joe, you 

4 were hinting at the possibility that there 

5 might have been additional environmental 

6 levels from the cyclotron operations?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. What 

8 I am saying, if you do an operational history 

9 workup on the accelerators, the question I 

10 would have, would that give you any additional 

11 information of what emissions might be 

12 relevant on the environmental side or not? 

13 Like I said, I do not know if that would or 

14 not.

15 I think the dose significance 

16 probably was relatively small from that 

17 source, but it would be a useful thing as an 

18 adjunct to looking at the accelerators and 

19 coming up with that description, to see if 

20 there was anything that would change your mind 

21 on the environmental side.

22 I think the finding here was that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 there was not a whole lot of description on 

2 what the historic environmental sources might 

3 be. And I think that is sort of the same 

4 thing that we were saying earlier. It sort of 

5 goes by the original --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am not sure I 

7 remember reading even -- was the shielding in 

8 the early cyclotrons based on the early NCRP9 recommended limits to the public? Or do you 

10 recall, Jim?

11 DR. NETON: I don't recall.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you go back, 

13 they are quite a bit higher than recommended 

14 nowadays.

15 We had a cyclotron at our place at 

16 Purdue that was one of the early ones and 

17 based on the Berkeley design. And I tell you 

18 that, when it was operating, we had some 

19 pretty high backgrounds in surrounding labs 

20 and classrooms that would not be allowed 

21 today.

22 I am just wondering, do we know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 what those were?

2 DR. NETON: No, not off the top of 

3 my head.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No?

5 DR. NETON: It's got to be 

6 fleshed-out.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, so maybe 

8 this will flesh-out as No. 1 is fleshed-out.

9 But what is going to happen here 

10 next? Is this one where, as you get into the 

11 other parts, NIOSH, you will look at this and 

12 see whether your response changes?

13 DR. NETON: Well, I think the 

14 second part would be the use of effective dose 

15 equivalence. There is a valid point that, 

16 depending upon which radionuclide a person is 

17 inhaling and which cancer they have, you know, 

18 they could be different. Effective dose is, 

19 obviously, averaged over a number of different 

20 organs.

21 So, I think we need to go back and 

22 pay a little more attention here on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 assignment of internal dose from environmental 

2 intakes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Mainly 

4 the internal dose you would be concerned with?

5 DR. NETON: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you think?

7 DR. NETON: I think so. I mean, I 

8 am looking at the Site Profile. We have 

9 intakes for gross alpha/beta tritium and 

10 carbon-14. I think the contention may be that 

11 what is included in that gross beta, is it 

12 strontium-90, is it iodine-131, you know, that 

13 sort of thing?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 DR. NETON: And depending on what 

16 nuclide it is, it could make a difference in 

17 the reconstructive dose to a certain cancer. 

18 So, I think we need to go back, do a little 

19 homework, and look at the potential mix of the 

20 different betas that could have been present, 

21 and iodine possibly being one of them.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Iodine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 and whether or not there is a significant 

2 strontium component.

3 DR. NETON: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Joe, does 

5 that seem to address what your concerns are at 

6 the moment?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, pretty much.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That gets 

9 us through the matrix.

10 Well, I have here "General 

11 Discussion: Major Issues and Concerns". We 

12 have already identified those.

13 So, the next steps and planning is 

14 what is before us. It seems to me there is a 

15 fair amount of work that has to be done here. 

16 So, this is not going to be real fast, 

17 particularly if there is additional data 

18 capture. Since we don't have another SEC 

19 before us at the moment, I don't see a big 

20 urgency on this.

21 Can you give us a rough idea of 

22 how many claims have we received from this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 site and how many have been processed? Is 

2 that a number you have readily, Jim?

3 DR. NETON: Yes, I can get that. 

4 My recollection is it may be 100-something; 

5 139 rings a bell, but it is probably wrong. 

6 Lara is getting it.

7 You're clicking faster than I can. 

8 I have a handicapped index finger.

9 (Laughter.)

10 DR. HUGHES: Okay, 199 cases 

11 total.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Received cases?

13 DR. HUGHES: Yes, received, of 

14 which 157 are completed.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. 

16 There's some still in process then?

17 DR. HUGHES: There's nine active 

18 claims and 33 are pulled.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Nine active, and 

20 what is it?

21 DR. HUGHES: Thirty-three called 

22 "pulled," which can be a variety of reasons.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does that mean 

2 it has been sent back to Labor?

3 DR. NETON: Yes.

4 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that could 

6 be SECs?

7 DR. NETON: That could be SECs, 

8 although I would think there might be more 

9 than that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You would think 

11 there would be more.

12 DR. NETON: Or maybe they were 

13 pulled -- well, yes, I don't know. Good 

14 question. Normally, about 60 percent of our 

15 cases are SEC cases.

16 DR. HUGHES: Yes, so largely SEC 

17 pulls, it seems like.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, they are SEC 

19 pulled. So, they were pulled for the SEC. 

20 Maybe they were in progress at the time or --

21 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: -- no decision had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 been made.

2 MR. KATZ: So, why would they be 

3 on hold then?

4 DR. NETON: No, pulled. Pulled 

5 means that they are off of our --

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, pulled. So, they 

7 are off the slate?

8 DR. NETON: They are off our 

9 slate, and we never return a case, but, 

10 essentially, it has been returned to the 

11 Department --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. On 

13 completed cases, if you had your usual roughly 

14 30 percent successes for meeting the PoC 

15 value --

16 DR. NETON: Right. Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that would 

18 mean you would have around 50 cases --

19 DR. NETON: Remaining.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- 50 that were 

21 compensated?

22 DR. NETON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then --

2 DR. HUGHES: They have greater 

3 than 50 percent referred to --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And usually, the 

5 rate for SEC cases is usually closer to 60 to 

6 65 percent.

7 DR. HUGHES: Right.

8 DR. NETON: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which means 

10 that, of the other 100, you would expect about 

11 60 of those to be --

12 DR. NETON: SEC.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- SEC. So, the 

14 30 doesn't seem high enough.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in any 

17 event, there's --

18 DR. NETON: I don't think we list 

19 on our website as pulled if it has already 

20 been completed and returned to the Department 

21 of Labor.

22 DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 DR. NETON: I don't think we call 

2 that a pulled case. These would have been 

3 cases that were in process at some point.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I got you. 

5 I got you.

6 DR. NETON: Yes, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, some of 

8 those that were returned could have gone into 

9 the SEC anyway.

10 DR. NETON: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you wouldn't 

12 necessarily know it?

13 DR. NETON: Right, exactly.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you. Got 

15 you.

16 DR. NETON: Exactly.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

18 DR. HUGHES: For example, the 

19 petitioner, I think she initially had a dose 

20 reconstruction that was less than the 

21 compensation value, but eventually her claim 

22 was compensated under the SEC.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you. Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: And Stu will give 

3 details on this when we do your presentation 

4 for the --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: -- Berkeley meeting.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But let me get 

8 some sort of feel from NIOSH. This is 

9 February. Are we likely to be ready to go in 

10 July or August? And I know there's a lot of 

11 priority stuff that is pushing. You know, we 

12 are trying to finish up a number of places 

13 that there are sort of more urgent --

14 DR. NETON: SECs.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And SECs.

16 DR. NETON: You mean to have full 

17 responses and revisions where we deem 

18 appropriate? I would say the August timeframe 

19 is probably more likely than July, but I am 

20 reluctant to give any definitive time.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I am just 

22 trying to -- we don't have to decide today 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 that far ahead. But probably thinking about a 

2 Work Group meeting sometime in maybe September 

3 or something like that or October even.

4 DR. NETON: I think we should be 

5 able to do something by then.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: August is six 

7 months off.

8 MR. KATZ: You want the Work Group 

9 ahead of doing any TBD actual revisions, 

10 right? You won't actually revise the TBD 

11 again --

12 DR. NETON: Right. Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: -- prior to holding the 

14 Work Group meetings.

15 DR. NETON: No, we will have our 

16 positions outlined and White Papers done --

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 DR. NETON: -- and that sort of 

19 thing.

20 MR. KATZ: And SC&A's input on all 

21 this.

22 DR. NETON: Right. Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I am going 

2 to make a note here, and then we can track 

3 this. Target mid-September for Work Group 

4 meeting, just as a rough timetable.

5 And then, if NIOSH finds that 

6 there is going to be a delay, for whatever 

7 reason, whether it is getting the information 

8 or other pressing things, you say, "You know, 

9 we're not going to be able to get you 

10 materials in time."

11 To some extent, Joe, there are 

12 some things you guys can probably do right 

13 away pretty easily, but you just do them and 

14 have them ready, and other things you are 

15 going to be dependent on NIOSH's output.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I think we 

18 would be all right. Ted, what do you think 

19 about --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, and if things move 

21 along more quickly for some reason, that's 

22 great. We will push things up.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, we won't set 

2 an actual date today. We will have to get 

3 input from Dr. Lemen also.

4 And I also want to find out 

5 whether Dr. Melius wants to have any 

6 alternates ready for Work Groups or not.

7 MR. KATZ: Alternates for this 

8 group?

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Maybe not.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think he is 

11 trying to keep them streamlined, these Work 

12 Groups.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 

14 streamlined.

15 MR. KATZ: Three Members, when it 

16 is possible.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I mean, we 

18 have made pretty good progress here.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think we can 

21 move it along.

22 Okay. I believe that completes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 our tasks for today.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. I think 

3 everybody, both DCAS and SC&A, keep the Work 

4 Group in the loop with your memos back and 

5 forth and pushing these issues along.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think what 

7 you are going to see is some of the analyses, 

8 White Paper analyses we can do now, like on 

9 neutrons and whatnot.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: So, maybe in the 

12 next couple of months or so you will see 

13 those.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And let me ask 

15 you, is John Stiver still on the phone?

16 MR. KATZ: John Stiver, are you 

17 still with us?

18 (No response.)

19 No?

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John. I 

21 just had my phone on mute.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, John, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 heard this discussion, and I just wanted to 

2 see if, from a management point of view, any 

3 issues or concerns for SC&A?

4 MR. STIVER: Based on what I have 

5 heard today, I don't see that there are any 

6 big concerns. I think we will be able to meet 

7 these deadlines without any problem.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. And do you need 

10 any support, Paul, for giving an update at the 

11 Board meeting?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I don't plan 

13 to go through the matrix and give any detail.

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, no.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am just going 

16 to report that we have met, that we have gone 

17 through the issues matrix. We have had 

18 discussions on each item, that SC&A and NIOSH 

19 have specific tasks they are following up on, 

20 and that we are moving ahead on those issues. 

21 So, it will be very brief.

22 Well, there won't be petitioners 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 there, but if there are site people there that 

2 have specific questions or want to provide 

3 information, why, we'll be there.

4 MR. KATZ: Because you are paired 

5 up with Joe, who will be covering Stanford 

6 Linear Accelerator --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

8 MR. KATZ: -- giving a brief 

9 update on that as well for the local audience.

10 Stu will cover how things are 

11 going with dose reconstruction, and so on, 

12 upfront.

13 But okay.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: And I guess all 

15 the relevant reports will be available, if 

16 they want to see them.

17 MR. KATZ: Sure.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Richardson, 

21 any further comments or questions?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 the proposed note that you have for aiming for 

2 September sounds good.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then, 

4 with that, we will adjourn.

5 Thank you.

6 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the 

7 meeting was adjourned.)

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22