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

+ + + + +

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

JANUARY 15, 2016

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Time, Josie 

Beach, Acting Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

JOSIE BEACH, Acting Chair

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member

DAVID RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

BOB BARTON, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

LARA HUGHES, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TIM TAULBEE, DCAS
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CONTENTS

Update on DCAS Special Exposure Cohort............ 6

Review of Class Definition....................... 77

Work Group Recommendation....................... 114

Petitioner Comments............................. 123

Brief Update on Other DCAs...................... 124
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:31 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: So, let's do roll call. Let 

4 me note for everybody Josie is chairing today 

5 because Phil is not feeling so well. He may or may 

6 not be on the line. But Josie was gracious enough 

7 to say she'd handle managing the meeting which is 

8 great. So thank you for that, Josie.

9 So, we're speaking about a specific 

10 site so please speak to conflict of interest as we 

11 run through the roll call. And we'll begin with 

12 Board Members beginning with our Chair.

13 (Roll call)

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, and we've heard from 

15 at least one petitioner representative that he 

16 wasn't going to be able to make it although he sent 

17 in some comments which I'll register when we get 

18 to the comments.

19 But do we have any other petitioner or 

20 members of the public who want to register their 

21 attendance?

22 (No response)

23 MR. KATZ: Okay. Hearing none, let me 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just check again. Phil, have you joined us?

2 (No response)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, I don't hear him. All 

4 right, the agenda for the meeting is posted. No 

5 other materials are posted, but materials have been 

6 sent to the petitioners.

7 And Josie, it's your meeting.

8 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thank you 

9 very much and good morning, everyone. 

10 So, we do have a report that was sent 

11 out on January 13 from NIOSH. We'll be starting 

12 with that report. 

13 We also have a report from SC&A sent out 

14 I believe this week, also early this week.

15 And the petitioners did send an email 

16 out. Everybody should have that, the one that Ted 

17 is going to read later on.

18 And I think Tim sent out an email this 

19 morning. Is that the one you were referring to, 

20 Tim, that gave us the case numbers so we could 

21 correlate them a little easier between NIOSH and 

22 SC&A?
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Update on DCAS Special Exposure Cohort

2 DR. TAULBEE: So, that was just one 

3 piece of it.

4 And then I had a table for -- regarding 

5 SC&A's observation number 1 that we can discuss at 

6 that time.

7 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay, perfect. 

8 So those should be all the documents. 

9 And Tim, I'm going to go ahead and start 

10 with your update if you're ready to do that.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Certainly I can do that. 

12 What I was planning on doing here from I guess a 

13 presentation or discussion standpoint was to kind 

14 of fill you in on what we found in reviewing these 

15 18 cases and our conclusion.

16 I wasn't going to go through every 

17 single one of them. I was hoping that I would make 

18 mine a little abbreviated and then we could get into 

19 more details with what SC&A, their observations.

20 And my reasoning for this is that many 

21 of these cases we agree on. And so I didn't feel 

22 that it would be beneficial to go through all of 

23 that, if you're in agreement with that, Josie?
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I absolutely am. 

2 Is everybody else also in agreement?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: In agreement.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, fine, go ahead.

5 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. All right, thank 

6 you. 

7 Well then where I want to I guess in a 

8 sense start with this is our Table 1 which is on 

9 page 4 where we went down and basically discussed 

10 all of the 18 in a summary.

11 And this is different than the report 

12 that we sent out last week, our interim report, 

13 where we needed to do some follow-up. 

14 And really the follow-up is what I 

15 wanted to focus on, this particular -- in the 

16 beginning here. Because it is relevant to SC&A 

17 observations 2 and 3 primarily.

18 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I'm getting a lot 

19 of static --

20 (Telephonic interference)

21 DR. TAULBEE: Are you getting a lot of 

22 static from me?

23 MR. KATZ: Yes. I'm not sure it's from 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you, Tim. But everyone else at least mute your 

2 phones and then.

3 Tim, are you working off of a normal 

4 phone?

5 DR. TAULBEE: I'm working on a 

6 speakerphone but is that any better? I just moved 

7 its location.

8 MR. KATZ: Let's see if everyone else 

9 -- has everyone else muted their -- well, they can't 

10 answer me. If everyone else is muted we'll see how 

11 it goes.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, I guess 

13 this is a test then. If this is still staticky let 

14 me know and I'll go --

15 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Tim, it's 

16 working.

17 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry?

18 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Whatever you did 

19 is working now.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

21 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: No static.

22 DR. TAULBEE: All right, good. Okay. 

23 Well, then when we went through these 18 we ended 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up with three people that we needed to do additional 

2 follow-up on. Because we didn't quite understand, 

3 especially number 17 and 18 of our cases, where we 

4 had some individuals that had some bioassay and 

5 they had no external dosimetry reported by the 

6 site.

7 Based upon our review of procedures 

8 this shouldn't ever happen. There was one slight 

9 possibility in that the site did conduct some blank 

10 analysis, in that they took workers who were not 

11 exposed and conducted a bioassay on them.

12 And we thought number 17 fell into that 

13 category, but it turns out he did not, as a 

14 possibility of having bioassay with no external 

15 dosimetry having not gone into an area.

16 So, in this case, and this was 

17 discovered really the week of Christmas, the week 

18 before Christmas. 

19 And then we were in discussion the week 

20 of Christmas with the site to try and get out there 

21 to try and resolve what was the issue here 

22 associated with how could we have somebody 

23 monitored via bioassay, and indicating CPP like 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number 18 was, and no external dosimetry records.

2 One of the things that we found in our 

3 review was, according to their procedures -- and 

4 now I'm drawing your attention to page 3 at the top 

5 where I've taken an excerpt of their dosimetry 

6 record-keeping.

7 And it indicates that if a visitor film 

8 had a positive dose, or an exposure, then this 

9 individual became a matter of record for the site.

10 And the master index was checked in the 

11 presence of an assigned health physics number. 

12 And if it was found then the necessary cards were 

13 prepared and this value was added to their dose of 

14 record.

15 And if no number was found then the new 

16 number was assigned to this individual.

17 We go onto say in the bottom half of that 

18 paragraph that approximately 98 percent of 

19 visitors received statistically zero exposures, 

20 and that these data appear only on the visitor list 

21 prepared at the time of the badge servicing.

22 These lists are retained indefinitely 

23 as well as the film in case any questions should 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 arise at a later date.

2 Actually we're at a later date and we're 

3 asking questions about these visitor and temporary 

4 badge dosimeters. And so this is where we went 

5 back.

6 Now, if you recall, in April we went and 

7 captured all of the CPP temporary badge reports so 

8 that we had a comprehensive roster there for the 

9 site, for CPP.

10 We did not capture the temporary badge 

11 reports for all of the other areas - MTR, Test Area 

12 North, Central Facilities, auxiliary reactor 

13 areas, et cetera. 

14 And so our goal going back last week to 

15 the site was to identify all these temporary badge 

16 reports.

17 Because what we were finding was when 

18 we went through the 18 there were certain people 

19 that we believed that they were monitored onsite, 

20 but the site wasn't reporting any dosimetry for 

21 them. 

22 And the only way to really verify that 

23 they were monitored was to go to these temporary 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 badge reports based upon this paragraph that we 

2 found in this Idaho report 12056.

3 And the second purpose was to do the 

4 follow-up on these three cases which were 7, 17 and 

5 18 by our numbers, and particularly 17 and 18 where 

6 we had some bioassay, to see if they appeared on 

7 any temporary badge reports at other areas 

8 indicating that they were monitored.

9 And what we found with number 18 was he 

10 was monitored via bioassay at CPP in June of 1970.

11 In scanning these records, or looking 

12 through them, and there's two types. One is the 

13 temporary badge reports that you commonly see. 

14 And the other are visitor insert cards which when 

15 you look at an individual claimant's files you'll 

16 see some of these temporary cards that are really 

17 small. 

18 They're like 1 and a half inch by 2 inch 

19 cards that list their name, their location, their 

20 company, the dates that they wore this badge. When 

21 you flip the card over the dose is on the back.

22 And so what we were looking for was in 

23 particular individual number 18. And so we found 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a box of these cards.

2 Now, most of these cards have already 

3 been scanned and indexed. One of the first boxes 

4 we opened up had not been scanned and indexed. And 

5 that was probably in the CPP era from 1969 through 

6 I believe August of 1973.

7 So, fortunately these cards were in 

8 somewhat chronological order. I won't say exactly 

9 chronologic because you have to go up a few months 

10 or back a few months. But in general they were in 

11 order and so we could start looking at the 1970.

12 And we quickly found three dosimeter 

13 badges from CPP for case number 18 here, clearly 

14 putting him in the SEC as eligible.

15 And so at that point we started to talk 

16 to DOE and were asking why weren't these cards part 

17 of the record.

18 Now, we knew because of the zero dose 

19 and the paragraph that I read to you earlier that 

20 they were not really considering them a matter of 

21 record, but they were retaining this information.

22 But in other cases these visitor cards 

23 have been indexed and we get those zero dosimetry
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 readings for individuals.

2 They didn't have a real good answer as 

3 to why this box hadn't been scanned or indexed other 

4 than early on they were not indexing the zero 

5 dosimetry reports on these temporary badges.

6 Later on in their indexing series --

7 this was going back 2004-2005 time frame when they 

8 were trying to pull all these records together and 

9 build their master database, they started to index 

10 the zeros as well.

11 And so this particular box, actually 

12 there was two boxes there, about 5,000 cards in each 

13 of the small boxes -- had not been indexed, had not 

14 been scanned or indexed. Which is how this 

15 individual was missed if you will from the 

16 dosimetry reporting.

17 It's not that he wasn't monitored, it's 

18 not that the cards are not available. It's that 

19 the cards have not been scanned or indexed.

20 Post-August 1973 time frame it appears 

21 as if all of those cards have been indexed. 

22 We requested a copy of those electronic 

23 files. We haven't received them yet so that we can 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 compare them against those particular indexes --

2 or not indexes, the actual cards themselves. 

3 Because we found multiple boxes of these cards.

4 It's easy to tell whether they've been 

5 indexed or not. If they have been indexed there's 

6 a little wrapper around a band of cards, maybe 1 

7 inch stack of cards that will have a unique number.

8 You see these 30-XXX numbers within 

9 their reports. These are 50-XXX numbers. So it's 

10 easy to tell which ones should have been indexed 

11 and which ones have not.

12 We did look at the other CPP ones in the 

13 post August of '73 and we did find those boxes, and 

14 they appear to have all been indexed based upon the 

15 little bands around the card bunches.

16 So this was a problem that we identified 

17 and talked to DOE. And DOE has committed to 

18 indexing all of those individuals. 

19 We have scanned them. We turned those 

20 files over to DOE so that they can begin indexing 

21 them.

22 While we are doing our close-out 

23 meeting with the site reps, both DOE as well as the 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contractor Battelle Energy Alliance, DOE brought 

2 in their health physicist as well and I could 

3 explain the situation to him. 

4 And they were all in agreement that 

5 these really needed to be indexed, and should have 

6 been in the past but they had not been yet.

7 And so DOE asked the contractor for a 

8 cost estimate so that they could get funding 

9 authorized in order to do this work.

10 So that's the visitor insert cards 

11 related to case number 18.

12 Case number 17 was different. This 

13 wasn't a case of the visitor index cards. These 

14 were temporary badge reports. 

15 And what was unique about this 

16 individual was he had bioassay in 1963 -- oh by the 

17 way, before I go on, are there any questions?

18 MR. BARTON: Yes, Tim, this policy of 

19 -- as you said, and was one of my main questions. 

20 Because I know I had seen these visitor -- they're 

21 like the size of a credit card or something like 

22 that, right?

23 And they have the zero written on the 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back. It kind of looks like a lower case sigma.

2 When did that policy start that they --

3 or is it a universal policy that they would not I 

4 guess enter these into the main database, or assign 

5 a health physics number, or however they were 

6 missed. Is that restricted to a certain time 

7 period? Or was that kind of universal?

8 Because it seems like some of them were 

9 included in the original DOE files and then 

10 apparently some of them aren't like you discovered 

11 last week. 

12 DR. TAULBEE: Right. It's actually 

13 not clear from the site from that standpoint.

14 If there was a page that had a positive 

15 dose on it by somebody else, then all of those names 

16 were entered. But there doesn't appear to be any 

17 consistent timeframe for this particular indexing 

18 that occurred. If an individual was on the 

19 temporary badge reports, then you may not see them, 

20 is what the bottom line was.

21 One of the interesting things, when we 

22 started going through the files we did find on there 

23 some of these 30-dash numbers that we would see in 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the file.

2 But as you're going through the entire 

3 stack you would see that all of the positive doses 

4 had been moved to the front of the stack. And that 

5 in the latter half were all of the zeros. So there 

6 was kind of a repeat, if you will, of the calendar 

7 year, because they are generally chronological.

8 And those didn't always appear in the 

9 back half of the electronic file, although they 

10 were present there in that particular folder within 

11 the box. 

12 And so this is where we've talked to DOE 

13 and requested that they index all of these. And 

14 they're concurring that these all do need to be 

15 indexed. But there doesn't appear to be a 

16 timeframe of where this was going on.

17 The temporary badge reports and the 

18 index cards, we didn't really find any, I don't 

19 believe, post-1974 that appeared not to have been 

20 indexed yet. So I believe this only pertains to 

21 prior to '74, but I can't be sure of that until we 

22 get the records and compare them.

23 Does that answer your question, Bob?
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: Sort of. I mean, this is 

2 a pretty complex thing, I guess, we're talking 

3 about here. I mean, we were talking about these 

4 visitor badges. And sometimes they're included, 

5 sometimes they're not. I mean, it was strange to 

6 me.

7 Because I remember, as I'm reading this 

8 and I'm seeing, okay, well, if they had zero then 

9 they weren't necessarily recorded in the master 

10 file, which makes sense as the site's operating.

11 But then I'm thinking, well, you know, 

12 in some of the claims we looked at they did have 

13 those visitor badges and some of them they didn't.

14 So I'm just trying to get my head around 

15 the extent of --

16 DR. TAULBEE: It is extensive. And if 

17 you recall, we captured all of the CPP temporary 

18 badge reports so that we could kind of define the 

19 Class and verify, well, at least what we thought 

20 was verified, that all of those records were 

21 available.

22 Which brings me to another point, here, 

23 associated with those temporary badge reports. As 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I indicated in one of the emails, we did not capture 

2 the other areas. We just captured CPP back in 

3 April in order to look at these.

4 So, when we were doing these claim 

5 evaluations we always had these CPP temporary badge 

6 reports available, but we didn't have the other 

7 ones to notice where a worker might also be if there 

8 was a discrepancy as to whether they were 

9 monitored.

10 MR. BARTON: So, an important 

11 distinction, I think, that the Work Group needs to 

12 understand, because, you know, both of us have been 

13 swimming through these kinds of records. There's 

14 a temporary badge report that's kind of a listing 

15 of a bunch of workers. And then there's a visitor 

16 card that is for an individual worker.

17 And what we have now is that the 

18 visitor, you know, card, we'll call it, if that was 

19 zero it was not always entered into a temporary 

20 badge report, which was a listing of all the, 

21 essentially, visitors at a specific location on 

22 that day, or that week, or whatever it is.

23 Is that correct?
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct, let me 

2 say, sort of. From the standpoint of post-1969 

3 that appears to definitely be the case, that the 

4 temporary badge reports do not necessarily contain 

5 -- even the temporary badge reports for CPP do not 

6 necessarily contain all these visitor cards. So 

7 that aspect is correct.

8 In the earlier years, prior to like '69 

9 timeframe, they appear on both. The visitor cards 

10 that we could find, they also appear to be on the 

11 temporary badge reports where they were typed in, 

12 as well. So, it's a little bit of both across the 

13 era.

14 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. 

15 Tim, on page 13 of your report, talking about number 

16 7. And it says under your first paragraph, "Please 

17 note that cards from 1968 through 1972 were not 

18 reviewed." Can you just explain that briefly?

19 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, for this individual. 

20 Because there was no indication of employment 

21 during that time period for him.

22 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: So you just didn't 

23 bother to go through those cards. Is that right?
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Right. We scanned them, 

2 but we did not sort through them looking for this 

3 individual.

4 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I just 

5 wanted to be clear on why you didn't look at those. 

6 Okay.

7 DR. TAULBEE: It was due to his 

8 employment period. That's all.

9 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Or at least his reported 

11 employment period, because there seems to be some 

12 discrepancies with that too.

13 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: -- to have a 

14 conflict, yes. Okay.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, let me 

16 continue on this temporary badge report 

17 discussion, here, because it really becomes 

18 evident in Case No. 17.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Before we move on 

20 -- this is David Richardson.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, sir.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You're moving to a 

23 different case? Can I ask about this one still?
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Sure.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So, you 

3 said that the temporary badge reports are being 

4 scanned. And I think -- did you refer to it as 

5 being indexed?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, what does that 

8 mean?

9 DR. TAULBEE: Well, what happened when 

10 the site -- when this program first started, the 

11 site really did not have an electronic database 

12 other than annual doses. And we requested from all 

13 the sites all of the dosimetry readings, not just 

14 annual doses.

15 And so in order to do that they had to 

16 go back through their reports, their monthly 

17 reports, their weekly reports in the very early 

18 years, and they had to start indexing them.

19 And so what the site did -- these are 

20 the regular reports, not temporary badge reports. 

21 These are the regular reports. And so they set up 

22 a large number of data coders, indexers there in 

23 the facility. I want to say they had about 10 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people working at one time, going through and 

2 typing in all of the names and showing that this 

3 person has a record in this file on this page.

4 So, when they got through all of it, all 

5 of these monthly, weekly reports that they had, 

6 they had a large database. And that's what they 

7 use when they respond to claimant requests at this 

8 time. 

9 They will go through, they will type in 

10 the person's name or badge number, and they will 

11 get multiple hits, and they will make 

12 determinations as to which ones are part of this 

13 person and which ones are not. Mostly it's due to 

14 name misspellings, that type of thing. It's 

15 pretty evident to see. But with the electronic 

16 records post-1958 it's pretty uniform as far as 

17 name spellings go. 

18 And so that's the database that they 

19 pull up. Then they start opening up the files. 

20 They'll go to that page. They'll print out that 

21 page. And they send it to us as part of the file 

22 for dose reconstruction.

23 Does that make sense?
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That part makes 

2 sense, yeah.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. What they did not 

4 enter into that index is these temporary badge 

5 reports and these visitor insert cards from last 

6 week.

7 Let me clarify. Those that were zero. 

8 Okay? The ones that had positive dose, those were 

9 entered. But the ones that were zero they did not 

10 enter. And so that is what we're asking them to 

11 do at this time.

12 And I think it'll become clearer on the 

13 next case that I discuss as to why.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yeah, well, I 

15 mean, I'm just looking at the reports. Like with 

16 the master file card you have the full last name, 

17 the full first name, the first middle name if it 

18 occurs. You have an AAC number. You have a date 

19 of birth. So you've got several things that allow 

20 you to verify an individual as a unique person.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Right.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And what's 

23 described as the procedure is that a temporary 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 badge number was assigned if it's not -- if the 

2 person doesn't have an assigned health physics 

3 number they're assigned this temporary badge 

4 number. If I'm understanding properly.

5 And so that's not a unique linkage to 

6 anything. So what you have is, as it appears on 

7 this form, is a last name, as you said, hopefully 

8 spelled correctly, and then sometimes one initial, 

9 and sometimes two initials.

10 So what becomes the thing to say that

11 [identifying information redacted] is the same 

12 [identifying information redacted] on a work site 

13 that's that large and you don't have a date of birth 

14 or a unique employment number?

15 DR. TAULBEE: There's really nothing. 

16 It's the name, the company, and that's basically 

17 it. The date associated with the temporary badge 

18 report.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So this person --

20 I mean, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. This 

21 person said that they worked there in different 

22 years, but the fact that there's a [identifying 

23 information redacted] who appears for a four-day 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 interval several days before, there's going to be

2 the presumption that it's that person.

3 And the other way around. There may 

4 have been somebody whose name was [identifying 

5 information redacted] and first initial was B who 

6 did appear, but we're not sure it's that person 

7 because we don't have their date of birth, or an 

8 AAC number, or anything like that.

9 So, just for me to understand, the 

10 linkage of an individual on this badge report is 

11 very, very tenuous.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. And the 

14 report that I'm looking at has a single day on it, 

15 4/28/61. And it seems to be reporting employment 

16 over a very short interval. 

17 These were temporary badge reports that 

18 span one day. And it's not quite clear why some 

19 of them are logged on 4/24. Is there a temporary 

20 badge report issued day by day, or is it issued at 

21 the end of a week? What's the periodicity of these 

22 reports?

23 DR. TAULBEE: Basically, it depends 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 upon the batch going along. You'll notice they're 

2 not all necessarily uniform as far as dates. In 

3 this particular case, when there's just one date, 

4 that means that badge was only worn for one day. 

5 And that worker went into the area for that one day.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Where you see, in this 

8 case, 4-24-28-61 means he did wear that visitor 

9 badge all week long. And each time he came in he 

10 wore the same badge. When he left for the day he 

11 hung it back up and the next morning he came in and 

12 he could pick it up again.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But in principle, 

14 somebody, the badging period for these temporary 

15 badges may be very short, and they may have --

16 DR. TAULBEE: They're almost always 

17 very short.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And they may have 

19 many of them.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Like, they could 

22 have intervals. So the issue of missed dose when 

23 you're badging on a one- or two-day interval is 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really different than a missed dose on a quarterly 

2 interval, for example.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Exactly. And that's 

4 what I was planning to get to on the next case,

5 exactly that point.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Yeah, I 

7 mean, it's just for me to understand what's 

8 happening. But I think I'm --

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, thank you.

11 DR. TAULBEE: No problem. So David 

12 gave a great introduction for the Case No. 17 that 

13 I want to discuss next.

14 This was an individual who worked out 

15 of Central Facilities. He was a [identifying 

16 information redacted] and so that was where he 

17 worked. And in talking with the dosimetry lady 

18 last week who was explaining a lot of this to us, 

19 she knew this individual. He worked in the 

20 building right next to her during this time period. 

21 And she started out there in 1961 timeframe.

22 So, what we did with this individual is 

23 we were looking for where was he potentially 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitored, because we did not find him in any of 

2 our CPP temporary badge reports that we captured 

3 back in April. But he did have bioassay during 

4 this time period.

5 So, being a [identifying information 

6 redacted], he was one of them that we were concerned

7 with, one of the candidates of monitored via 

8 bioassay because he wasn't exposed so he was 

9 considered a blank, and whether we could find 

10 documentation on that.

11 What we found in looking for the other 

12 individuals, as well as him, we looked through the 

13 Central Facilities temporary badge reports and we 

14 did not find him for the '63 through '66 time 

15 period.

16 Where we did find him was on the SPERT 

17 temporary badge reports and the MTR temporary badge 

18 reports. And we found a bunch of them for this 

19 individual. And I would draw your attention to --

20 let me see the page.

21 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Twenty on the 

22 report.

23 DR. TAULBEE: Page 20. And here I've 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gone through all of the temporary badge reports and 

2 pulled out each of the dosimeters that were issued 

3 to this individual during the 1963-1966 time period 

4 where we see bioassay. And this is a case where 

5 he had 20 dosimeters assigned to him during this 

6 time period.

7 Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, 

8 this raised a huge red flag with us in that, in his 

9 dose reconstruction, we had conducted his dose 

10 reconstruction assuming during this time period 

11 that he was only exposed to onsite ambient dose, 

12 environmental levels, because there was no 

13 reported dosimetry of him going into an area.

14 I think you can see that this is a 

15 problem, in that this person was clearly going into 

16 areas. Without having these temporary badge 

17 reports indexed we were under-assigning the missed 

18 dose for this individual.

19 In this particular case, it's not a huge 

20 amount of dose that we would be assigning, but it 

21 is significant, in that with 20 dosimeters, the LOD 

22 over 2 would be 5 millirem per dosimeter. And so 

23 his total dosimetry would be 100 millirem with an 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 upper bound of 200 millirem that we would be 

2 reporting by our standard procedures.

3 So these temporary badge reports are 

4 and can be very significant for the workers. In 

5 particular, individuals like this one who didn't 

6 routinely work in an area, but did visit them in 

7 a non-routine manner, but multiple times.

8 It can be very significant for 

9 construction trades workers from that standpoint, 

10 in that they could go into these areas. And in 

11 fact, we see some of the same issues with 

12 construction trades workers. We'll see them at 

13 MTR. We'll see them at SPERT. We'll see them up 

14 at Test Area North. 

15 They're not claimants right now, at 

16 least the ones, some of the names that kept popping 

17 up to us. But if we were to give a response without 

18 these temporary badge reports we would be 

19 underestimating their dose, as well.

20 So, this was pointed out to DOE and they 

21 have also committed to indexing and entering all 

22 of these temporary badge reports, as well.

23 But as David was pointing out, this is 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to be a particular issue with name spellings. 

2 In our tables that are on page 19 you'll see the 

3 different name spellings for this individual. 

4 The pronunciation of his last name I 

5 can't give here because of the Privacy Act, but if 

6 you pronounce the first letter as an individual 

7 alphabet letter and then the rest of his name, that 

8 was how you pronounced his name.

9 So when he's giving his name to a guard who's 

10 entering it onto these visitors inserts you can 

11 clearly see how some of these other spellings came 

12 about from that standpoint.

13 And so this is not going to be an easy 

14 task for the site to do in order to index these and 

15 link them to an individual, but it's something that 

16 is necessary and needs to be done.

17 In this particular case, this 

18 individual wouldn't be part of the SEC due to cancer 

19 type, but from a dose reconstruction, for the 40 

20 percent that wouldn't be part of an SEC, we 

21 certainly need to get these temporary badge reports 

22 indexed such that we can do the DRs correctly and 

23 include all of the missed dose.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, with that, are there any questions?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

3 Richardson.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, sir.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, what's -- is 

6 there an algorithm that's being used? How did 

7 these variations on spelling get identified as 

8 opposed to others?

9 DR. TAULBEE: By hand, myself and Mitch 

10 Findley going through thousands of these pages last 

11 week and pulling them out.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, that's -- I 

13 mean, that's admirable and it has -- it seems kind 

14 of not something you could do every day, I hope.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Oh gosh, no. No, no. 

16 They're going to have to -- once they get these 

17 indexed they're going to have to start coming up 

18 with some kind of algorithm from a search 

19 standpoint in order to pull some of these out.

20 Some of it takes some common sense, as 

21 well. You know, if you've got a worker who's --

22 Cases 17 and 18 are prime examples. Both of them 

23 had bioassay and no external dosimetry. That 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shouldn't be possible at the site and we knew that 

2 going in. We just had to find these records. 

3 Where was this coming from? And why were they not 

4 part of the system? And we found out why: these 

5 temporary badge reports and these visitor inserts.

6 So, you know, as people are going 

7 through some of this they're going to have to be 

8 flexible and claimant-favorable from the 

9 standpoint of does this person -- is this person 

10 included or not?

11 Some of the DR responses that we got on 

12 the 18 claims, some of the individuals I don't think 

13 are that individual. It's a common name and this 

14 person reported on the DOL form that they worked 

15 at the site post-1986 type of timeframe, and we're 

16 getting some dosimetry from 1957 under the same 

17 names, initials, and it's indicating a visitor from 

18 Aiken, South Carolina.

19 So, you know, you've got to use some 

20 sense as to whether this record is really part of 

21 this or not. And I think DOE can dump all of these 

22 records to us, and it's up to us dose 

23 reconstructionists to go through and sort out which 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ones make sense and which ones, especially with a 

2 common name, could be somebody else or is likely 

3 somebody else.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I mean, and 

5 you've raised the issue of common names, which is 

6 one important problem. And you identified a pool 

7 of records that were previously -- I mean, over the 

8 last extended number of years have not been used, 

9 but now because of a logical problem have been 

10 pulled in. And that's an important addition.

11 But when there's not a unique 

12 identifier, as this case is showing, I mean, it's 

13 not simply that it's even the same letters are 

14 included in these variants. So there's, what, six 

15 letters in some spellings of the name, and yet those 

16 are not even six unique things on a permutation. 

17 There's different letters added in. There's 

18 letter omitted. 

19 And if you want to be 

20 claimant-favorable and not just justify it based 

21 on what looks like it could be sound variance. 

22 Because sometimes it appears the first name becomes 

23 part of the first initial, for example. The first 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 letter of the last name becomes part of the first 

2 -- second letter of the first initial.

3 There's -- you get into these 

4 probabilistic linkage algorithms. But this is an 

5 example of one that's really hard, unless you're 

6 going to be extremely favorable on linkage 

7 variance.

8 Yeah, so I think that poses a problem, 

9 and it's not one that typically health physicists 

10 deal with but more like information scientists deal 

11 with.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Right. In this 

13 particular case there's 10 variations of this 

14 individual's name.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yeah.

16 DR. TAULBEE: But as I'd like to point 

17 out, you know, again, this is a problem for dose 

18 reconstruction that we are working with DOE to 

19 resolve because this is a significant issue really 

20 regardless of the SEC from this standpoint. This 

21 is something for DRs that we've got to go back in 

22 and deal with and redo dose reconstructions that 

23 have been done in the past.
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I agree. 

2 MR. BARTON: Tim, if I could. I'm 

3 sorry, I got temporarily cut off there. I was

4 going for my mute button and I hit off. Very 

5 clumsy.

6 But what I heard you saying was almost 

7 at the onus was on the dose reconstruction. But 

8 what we're talking about is an SEC Class 

9 Definition. I mean, this would be something that 

10 DOL would have to do the digging to, you know, as 

11 you said use the common sense and try to figure out 

12 if there's a chance the person was at CPP.

13 Maybe I was misreading what you were 

14 saying there, but this would be something DOL or 

15 DOE would send the records to and then DOL would 

16 make the determination. I mean, this wouldn't be 

17 a dose reconstruction issue because it wouldn't --

18 well, as far as I know, NIOSH doesn't really 

19 adjudicate that part of the process. Maybe you can 

20 clarify that.

21 DR. TAULBEE: If you recall, the 

22 process that we were talking with DOL and DOE about 

23 was they would send the claim to DOE, they would 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 search their records to see if the person appeared 

2 on any of the dosimetry for CPP.

3 So, with the temporary badge reports 

4 for CPP you can go through and look for these 

5 individuals within there. And indexing them, 

6 obviously, is the preferred method here. And you 

7 do have to use some logic from that standpoint. 

8 But that's just for CPP.

9 What I'm talking about from a dose 

10 reconstruction standpoint is all of the other 

11 areas. This individual worked at SPERT and MTR, 

12 clearly. He was doing a project out there and was 

13 primarily at SPERT in 1963 and then in MTR in 1964 

14 during these time periods. He went there multiple 

15 times. So, doing a dose reconstruction for this 

16 individual, we need to include these dosimeter 

17 badges.

18 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: So, Tim, this is 

19 Josie again. While that's true, what Bob was 

20 pointing out is what we're focused on is how -- will 

21 this person be included in the SEC based on these 

22 documents? And it seems pretty complicated in 

23 that sense.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, it is complicated, 

2 but it's complicated across the board here at INL 

3 that we've --

4 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Right, right.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I 

6 guess let's presume this person worked in CPP and 

7 all this gets indexed. Well, we've got to search 

8 the index under, you know, the letter at the 

9 beginning of the alphabet, or the letter towards 

10 the end.

11 DR. TAULBEE: So you use wild cards and 

12 you search from that standpoint. I can tell you, 

13 I went through all of the 1966 CPP temporary badge 

14 reports for this individual and did not find him.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm not saying he's --

16 I'm just saying about the process is pretty 

17 questionable how it would be implemented.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Well, I mean, the first 

19 thing is that they've got to be indexed. And then 

20 to determine. I mean, I understand that this is 

21 not simple. But, you know, one of the things that 

22 can be done as the indexers are doing the indexing 

23 is developing dropdown-pulldown menus for 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 individuals so it gets tagged without the different 

2 name variations associated with it.

3 There's different techniques, and 

4 David knows way more about this than I do, of

5 different ways of coding the data in order for this 

6 to happen.

7 I pointed this out to DOE last week and 

8 they are aware of it, as well, of different methods 

9 to try and streamline and get rid of the name 

10 variations from this standpoint. But it's 

11 something that we've got to work through for dose 

12 reconstruction, as well.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Tim, Joe Fitzgerald. 

14 Did you -- maybe I missed it. On the temporary 

15 badge reports, was there any way to validate that 

16 there's a complete set historically going back? 

17 And this is going back pretty far. And given the 

18 status of these kinds of records, which are sort 

19 of somewhat below the normal dosimetry records, how 

20 did you come out on that?

21 DR. TAULBEE: I have not found a way to 

22 validate that we've got them all. If you recall 

23 during my previous Board presentations, when we 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 indicated that the temporary badge reports were 

2 complete what our complete review was is we went 

3 through to see if we had temporary badge reports 

4 for every month of every year from 1963 through 

5 1974, and we did. But with CPP -- or just at CPP. 

6 We did not look at MTR's history nor for SPERT or 

7 any of the other areas, just CPP.

8 What ends up happening in hindsight of 

9 that aspect is that DOE did index all of the 

10 positive doses. So, there were positive doses in 

11 every month of every year under the SEC, which is 

12 why we went through the temporary badge reports. 

13 We saw what appeared to be a complete set that was 

14 clearly not a complete set.

15 So that was how that got missed on our 

16 end. But I have not seen any other independent 

17 numbers that are consistent across time to give us 

18 how many temporary badge reports, how many visitors 

19 were entering an area. I have not seen that.

20 MR. BARTON: Tim, this is Bob --

21 (Simultaneous speaking)

22 MR. BARTON: I'm sorry, go ahead.

23 DR. TAULBEE: If I could just point out 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here that, for some of these individuals, whenever 

2 DOE receives a request for somebody and, you know, 

3 they're doing employment verification and they 

4 don't find this person within their system, 

5 sometimes DOL is using employment verification by 

6 association. 

7 If this person worked for this 

8 particular company and during this time period that 

9 company had a contract with INL, and therefore 

10 that's how employment is being effectively set by 

11 the Department of Labor.

12 These temporary badge reports are going 

13 to help DOE and DOL identify people who worked in 

14 these areas that may not have any other indication 

15 of them working for a subcontractor.

16 MR. BARTON: Tim, this is Bob. If I 

17 might, could we explore -- I mean, I think it's a 

18 very major point, you know, one of the things you 

19 presented at the last Board meeting was the 

20 comparison or validation of the fact that we had 

21 all the records. And you just mentioned that you 

22 found temporary badge reports for every month. 

23 At least in my observations, those weren't 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 necessarily compiled on a monthly basis, but it was 

2 really like whenever they decided to put one out. 

3 I mean, you find dates all throughout a month.

4 Is there any way, in that validation --

5 I don't recall, is there any way to compare that 

6 against, for example, what you did with the health 

7 physics reports where they said, "we had this many 

8 badges issued," and then you can go and look at the 

9 actual log books and count them.

10 Is there any way to validate the 

11 temporary badge reports against something like 

12 that to make sure that -- you might have temporary 

13 badge reports in every month, but unless you know 

14 that you have all of them in that month it's -- I 

15 guess that's my question.

16 DR. TAULBEE: No, I fully understand 

17 what you're saying there, Bob. And I wish there 

18 were.

19 We can for some years, I will say that. 

20 There are some years in those monthly reports they 

21 did report the number of temporary badge reports. 

22 But it was not consistent across the time period. 

23 But for the months and years that we do have that, 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that is something that could be done from that 

2 standpoint. But I know it's not complete over the 

3 whole '63 to '74 time period.

4 MR. BARTON: Would that extend to the 

5 visitor -- again, we have two different things here 

6 which sounds the same. We have a temporary badge 

7 report which it says it right at the top. It's the 

8 heading of the report and it has a list of workers 

9 who worked in that specific time frame, whether it 

10 be a week or whatever.

11 And then you have these visitor cards 

12 which are sort of a new -- new information that you 

13 uncovered last week at INL. I mean, would that be 

14 included? See, this is where I'm getting confused 

15 because maybe we have a list of how many temporary 

16 badges were recorded, but maybe not a list of all 

17 the visitor cards. Because the visitor cards are 

18 individual. It's one individual, one name. It 

19 lists the company and there's usually a stamp they 

20 put at the top that shows the area. And the 

21 temporary badge reports are all usually for one 

22 area and has multiple people listed. And I don't 

23 believe it says the company. I think it says the 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 name and maybe an assigned badge number.

2 If you could go into that a little bit 

3 more.

4 DR. TAULBEE: One thing to keep in mind 

5 here is that some of these visitor insert cards that 

6 we're talking about do appear on the temporary 

7 badge reports even in the 1970s. Some of them. 

8 Not all of them.

9 The rhyme and reason, from what I can 

10 discern from the records, is that if they were an 

11 Idaho Nuclear Corporation employee, then theirs 

12 were entered onto the temporary badge reports. If 

13 they were Westinghouse, they were entered. If 

14 they were Argonne, they were entered.

15 But, having said that, I also do see a 

16 few from some of the construction trades that are 

17 H.S. Wright and Arrington Construction and so 

18 forth. So it doesn't seem to be completely one way 

19 or the other. It seems to be both. But 

20 predominantly in the 1970s, where these visitor 

21 insert cards are, that construction trades were not 

22 uniformly entered onto these temporary badge 

23 reports.
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, the time period of '69 through that 

2 '73 really has -- there's two records. The visitor 

3 cards are the complete record that we found, 

4 because they are all listed there in a box and 

5 they're all sequential within there. And then you 

6 have the temporary badge reports we captured back 

7 in April that you can pull up at that time period 

8 and see individuals. And those have been typed 

9 from those visitor insert cards. So it's kind of 

10 a dual record, if you will.

11 MR. BARTON: With the visitor insert, 

12 are these the originals from -- or have they been 

13 scanned?

14 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Yes.

15 MR. BARTON: They're the originals? 

16 So you have like almost a deck of cards that you're 

17 looking at with the visitor.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Many decks of 

19 cards.

20 MR. BARTON: Okay. Yeah. Oh, I 

21 imagine. Okay, thank you.

22 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So, that was what 

23 we found last week that caused us some pause, 
48

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 especially from the temporary badge reports, 

2 people missing.

3 One individual -- well, several 

4 individuals -- that we see a big issue with missed 

5 dose associated with dose reconstruction, and that 

6 is vendors who routinely went into areas, such as 

7 the Coca-Cola man or the telephone people. We see 

8 their names one day at CPP, one day at NTR, the next 

9 day up at SPERT, another day at ARA. They could 

10 have five or six of these temporary badge reports 

11 per week for the individual. So, clearly this can 

12 result in a large fraction of missed dose.

13 Now, we've been discussing inside of 

14 how do we actually assign a dose to somebody along 

15 these lines and I'm not sure that we've had to yet 

16 at INL. But we'll certainly be working on it from 

17 that standpoint.

18 But the key was we need to get these 

19 temporary badge reports entered, keyed, such that 

20 we can then perform better or more accurate dose 

21 reconstructions for these individuals.

22 MR. BARTON: This is Bob again. I 

23 completely agree with that. But I don't think 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's what we're really talking about right now. 

2 We're talking about the efficacy of these records 

3 to administer the SEC Class, as written currently.

4 So, yeah, absolutely, I mean, these 

5 will have a big impact on some dose reconstructions 

6 for missed dose. But really we're talking about, 

7 can we identify who went into the CPP during the 

8 period we're looking at?

9 DR. TAULBEE: I understand, and I 

10 believe from these temporary badge reports we can 

11 identify these individuals. It takes some effort.

12 MR. BARTON: Yeah. No, that's clear. 

13 I mean, like I said before, Tim, no one's been 

14 swimming through this stuff more than me and you 

15 trying to figure this out. And I'd like to say, 

16 I mean, if you read both reports, they're 

17 remarkably similar on a lot of the conclusions 

18 drawn as far as these 18 claims.

19 The one we're talking about currently, 

20 which I believe is case 17 in your report, and it's 

21 either observation 2 or 3. I don't have it right 

22 in front of me right now.

23 But this person who -- the draftsman 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we're talking about, they have the internal 

2 monitoring at CPP. But we only have these 

3 temporary badge reports -- these are temporary 

4 badge reports, not visitor cards -- associated with 

5 MTR and SPERT. And we have other internal 

6 monitoring, I think associated with Central 

7 Facilities, during these overlapping periods where 

8 he's monitored internally at CFA, Central 

9 Facilities. There's some temporary badges 

10 associated with MTR and SPERT. And then you have 

11 this -- it's a problem child, clearly, the fact that 

12 there's this bioassay record that says CPP.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Well, I would like to 

14 point out, or at least discuss that bioassay record 

15 here some, if now is a good time. Because on the 

16 same day that it -- and actually I would like for 

17 people to look at that particular record for this 

18 individual. And I believe it is on page -- let me 

19 find this in the report there, Bob. Just a second. 

20 This would be page 11 of SC&A's report. And it says 

21 "Facility, CPP." 

22 Now, my opinion, based upon the weight 

23 of the evidence here of him working in SPERT and 
51

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 MTR, was he was on an annual bioassay schedule 

2 because of him potentially entering areas, is why 

3 his monitoring was. There was no whole body 

4 counter at CPP, okay? The whole body counter was 

5 at Central Facilities. They did have a mobile lab 

6 that would go around, but it didn't start until 

7 around the '66-'67 time period, so right in this 

8 era.

9 But if you look at the Figure No. 3 here 

10 that you pointed out, Bob, that his present work 

11 area is CF-689, which is Central Facilities, 

12 Building 689, where the drafting department was. 

13 And it indicated his years in present work 

14 location, four years. Backing this up puts us at 

15 the same time period of the 1963 through 1966. 

16 This questionnaire that he filled out is on the same 

17 date of this whole body count. I honestly think 

18 that somebody typed in the wrong facility, or wrote 

19 in the wrong facility for his whole body count.

20 As I said, I went through every single 

21 page of the temporary badge reports looking for 

22 this individual in 1966 and did not find him, even 

23 with all the name variations that we found in other 
52

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 ones.

2 So, I don't believe this is a CPP 

3 monitoring whole body count. I strongly believe 

4 that it's Central Facilities, especially when you 

5 look at all of his other bioassay in '63, '64, '65, 

6 was all Central Facilities.

7 MR. BARTON: Except he had visitor 

8 badges at MTR and SPERT during the same time period. 

9 So, that's kind of conflicting information there.

10 Yes, I truly believe his office or what 

11 have you was probably in Central Facilities. But 

12 clearly he was going out to other areas to perform 

13 his job as a [identifying information redacted].

14 And the figure you're pointing out, 

15 absolutely. I mean, that's why I included it, 

16 because this is information that is key to trying 

17 to put this puzzle together. It does say the 

18 present work area is CF-689, sure. I actually 

19 highlighted that. I highlighted the fact that he 

20 puts in four years.

21 The one thing he doesn't check off there 

22 at the bottom of the figure is "list the other areas 

23 you work," "worked at MTRS," and there's a box that 
53

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 says "none" and it's not checked. And this kind 

2 of leads me to say that he probably didn't check 

3 that because he's like, "well, you know, what do 

4 you want me to list every other place at INL that 

5 I've gone to?" 

6 And like you said, one possibility is 

7 that it's a typo, but that doesn't honestly make 

8 me feel a whole lot better about it. Because what 

9 if you have other typos that go the other way? 

10 DR. TAULBEE: I mean, there's no record 

11 set that's ever going to be 100 percent complete 

12 with no errors. I'm sorry. We're talking 

13 hundreds of thousands of records here.

14 In this particular case, to me, he 

15 didn't check "none" because he was routinely -- not 

16 routinely, but he was going out to SPERT and MTR. 

17 And so, you know, there are other areas that he was 

18 going to.

19 But it says contractor area, 

20 consecutive months in area. Well, his contractor 

21 was the same one that he's working for, INC. The 

22 area is different ones. Consecutive months in the 

23 area. If you look at his temporary badge reports, 
54

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 he never spent a month in any of those areas. 

2 They're all one day here, one day there, or a week. 

3 MR. BARTON: I agree completely. It 

4 can never be 100 percent. That's an unattainable 

5 goal.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I'd 

7 like to make a comment on that.

8 I think that's the overriding thing 

9 that we're dealing with here. We have human error. 

10 That's always going to happen. There's never 100 

11 percent certainty.

12 And I think what we have to keep in mind, 

13 in the background of our minds, what we're really 

14 going at is that we have to accept the fact that 

15 it's not 100 percent certainty. And then come up 

16 with some way of determining how much uncertainty 

17 in these records is acceptable.

18 And this goes across the board for the whole thing. 

19 I think that's our main challenge.

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Gen, this is 

21 Josie. I couldn't agree more. I think errors in 

22 DR is one thing, but in the context of what we're 

23 talking about now, the Class Definition, we have 
55

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 to be precise and it has to be clear-cut. And 

2 weight of evidence has never been used in this 

3 situation. And I'm having a hard time with that.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Exactly. I think 

5 you've pointed out this is a new concept, I think 

6 that we've not dealt with it. We're getting into 

7 something that has probably been applied in other 

8 fields.

9 It just seems to me we need an expert 

10 evaluation on how much uncertainty is acceptable. 

11 I think we have to accept some. There's going to 

12 be human error. There's human error in 

13 everything.

14 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I think in an SEC 

15 context it's not acceptable. It has to be 

16 claimant-favorable. And in this case I'm afraid 

17 it's not, at this time.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: You can't be 100 

19 percent certain. And if we say we have to be 100 

20 percent certain, we know right away we can't be. 

21 So, we have to think about how would we err in the 

22 other direction. What are the consequences of --

23 well, the only way I can put it is erring in the 
56

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 other direction. And that would be to, it would 

2 seem, include claimants who clearly have no 

3 exposure. 

4 And I guess the bottom line that I keep 

5 thinking about is we have a responsibility to the 

6 claimants. We want to be claimant-friendly. We 

7 also have to think about what the burden is on 

8 taxpayers if we make the wrong decision. 

9 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 

10 I'd like to weigh in a little bit.

11 I mean, I think that our experience has 

12 been that the record systems at many DOE facilities 

13 are not supportive of limiting a Class Definition 

14 to monitoring or to specific work areas, whatever. 

15 Because people moved around, because records just 

16 weren't, you know, record systems weren't 

17 established for that.

18 I think we've been, you know, Idaho may 

19 be better than some, but I think what we're -- the 

20 history of working through this SEC has shown that 

21 it's not as straightforward as was first presented 

22 to us.

23 And I'm not faulting Tim, but I think 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that first we found out that what was the policy 

2 in terms of monitoring by the work area had changed. 

3 So we have a time period that can't be done by work 

4 area, the later time period of the SEC.

5 And then we have this other. We have 

6 a record system that I don't think has even been 

7 explored. These whole temporary ones. Initially, 

8 we were told that the record monitoring was 

9 complete. Well, obviously there was a whole other 

10 set of records that weren't complete. And it's 

11 going to take some time.

12 And I guess one of my concerns here is 

13 how long is it going to take to set up a system, 

14 get all this stuff done, and even for us to evaluate 

15 it as to whether -- how complete it will be, and 

16 how feasible it will be to do the kind of individual 

17 look-ups that will be needed given the absence of 

18 identifying information on many of these records, 

19 and the errors that came through for that.

20 Again, the one case we looked at may be 

21 an outlier in that maybe it's not a common name, 

22 but to have 10 misspellings of a person's name on 

23 these records over a relatively short period of 
58

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 time, and some pretty significant misspellings in 

2 terms of being able to look up within the alphabet, 

3 indicates how complicated this will be and how 

4 difficult.

5 And I don't think we can even get to your 

6 point, Gen, of how do we estimate the uncertainty 

7 because I don't think -- I think we're far from 

8 having enough knowledge of the record system and 

9 how complete those record systems are to be able 

10 to judge that.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree, Jim. 

12 That's at the back of my mind is that we cannot 

13 guarantee 100 percent. So, when do we make the 

14 decision? What is the weight of evidence here? I 

15 just think that's what we should be keeping in mind.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, yes.

17 DR. TAULBEE: If I could say something 

18 here that Dr. Roessler just alluded to, in that by 

19 -- you know, if, say, the designation were to change 

20 to all workers at the site, what you're setting up 

21 is a situation where you have people that indicated 

22 in their computer telephone interview that, say. 

23 They worked at Test Area North. The locator card 
59

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 indicates that they worked at Test Area North. 

2 Their dosimetry all indicates they worked at Test 

3 Area North on a month by month by month basis. 

4 Their bioassay indicates that they worked at Test 

5 Area North. But what you're going to be proposing 

6 is that they were exposed to plutonium in the cells 

7 and laboratories at CPP.

8 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, but what about 

9 all the claimants who've already died? There's 

10 not going to be an interview on them and I think 

11 we're not going to be able to rely on their 

12 survivors to know their work area.

13 So, I mean, I think -- like we've

14 encountered in many other sites, Tim. We're 

15 limited to what's in a record system for ensuring 

16 that people are in -- worked in a particular area. 

17 And it's not in general proven to be a very feasible 

18 system.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Well, what I'm getting at 

20 here is the weight of an evidence here. And these 

21 temporary badge reports are typically for one day, 

22 or a week. I do believe the maximum I've ever seen 

23 is a month.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, from that standpoint, when we cast 

2 the net for CPP of who would be included, we made 

3 it fairly unrestricted from that standpoint, of a 

4 single dosimeter badge.

5 And so, to me, the chances of missing 

6 somebody under one of these temporary badge reports 

7 is very low. They would not be in the CPP Class.

8 And in fact, the two that we've 

9 identified, two out of 881, one of them ends up in 

10 the Class, that would be Case No. 18. Number 17 

11 does not based upon his other area dosimetry.

12 So, that's what I think some of the 

13 uncertainty that Dr. Roessler is getting at, you 

14 know, kind of a weight of the evidence, we're never 

15 going to be 100 percent, but this is pretty darn 

16 close.

17 MR. BARTON: This is Bob. I agree with 

18 everything Tim just said. I mean, it's extremely 

19 close. But it is not 100 percent, so it sort of 

20 becomes a -- weight of evidence is a tough term to 

21 use when you're talking about claimants. 

22 But, you know, I don't think we can shoo 

23 away Case No. 17 on a typographical error. And if 
61

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 we do, then you have to consider if there are other 

2 typographical errors that are going to, I guess, 

3 hinder other claims from being accepted into this 

4 because of it.

5 And Tim is absolutely correct. You're 

6 going to have cases where all the evidence points 

7 to someone being in another area, like Test Area 

8 North. And we're never going to get to 100 

9 percent. And frankly, I'm not sure we could ever 

10 have gotten there, really, with any of these sites.

11 I mean, the record-keeping at INL is 

12 pretty incredible, in my opinion. Definitely the 

13 best that I've ever encountered working in this 

14 program for going on 10 years now. I mean, it's 

15 incredible record-keeping.

16 And it becomes, I think, a question of 

17 opinion and policy on what's acceptable. What's 

18 the acceptable error rate? And I think that's what 

19 everyone is struggling with.

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Well, and Bob, 

21 something else to add to that is, how many records 

22 of these has SC&A searched through, how many 

23 records has NIOSH searched through to come up with 
62

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 these 881?

2 DOL is going to have to be doing these 

3 searches. They're making those decisions based on 

4 the Class Definition that we give them. And it's 

5 going to be clear-cut for them. That's where my 

6 concern lies. Because professional judgment, 

7 weight of evidence, it all shifts over to the DOL 

8 side. Am I not correct in that? When this Class 

9 Definition goes through, then it's their 

10 determination.

11 DR. TAULBEE: It will be DOL 

12 determining, but they will be sending a request to 

13 DOE to ask them, "Do you see any monitoring for this 

14 individual in CPP?" 

15 And so, as soon as they find a single 

16 dosimeter within CPP, then they're part of the 

17 Class and it goes back. "This is the documented 

18 proof that this person is part of the Class." And 

19 they don't go through all of these variations.

20 MS. LIN: This is Jenny. My 

21 understanding is that this Class Definition has 

22 been vetted with DOL. And to date, DOL didn't 

23 express any concerns that they are not able to move 
63

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 through this SEC Class. So, please correct me if 

2 I'm not right on this, but that was my understanding 

3 of the -- based on our last discussion with DOL.

4 DR. TAULBEE: You are correct, Jenny. 

5 The nuances that we have found in the past six 

6 months or so of doing this evaluation are 

7 effectively that. I mean, that's part of why we 

8 modified the Class Definition --

9 (Telephonic interference)

10 DR. TAULBEE: This is something that 

11 DOL doesn't even, I guess, in a sense, consider. 

12 Because in the past they've not seen them, from that 

13 standpoint.

14 What DOL indicated during our 

15 discussions last year associated with this Class 

16 was that they felt the dosimetry records were 

17 sufficient in order to place an individual in the 

18 area. And that was all that they were looking for.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, this is David 

20 Richardson.

21 I mean, I believe DOL would say that. 

22 And I believe that they don't appreciate the 

23 complexity of what they're agreeing to.
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I mean, if you start with a master 

2 roster which has reconciled all the name variants 

3 into something which provides you with -- I mean, 

4 one approach to this is all possible "also known 

5 as" names. So, all variants that are encountered 

6 in all the records.

7 And somebody has to evaluate that those 

8 are indeed the same individual. And in this case, 

9 there's no other piece of information, like date 

10 of birth or unique worker ID number. So, I don't 

11 quite see, right at this point, how you do that, 

12 you create that unique list.

13 But that's what they want to be able to 

14 do. They want to be able to refer to a list, search 

15 all name variants, and say are they on the list or 

16 not.

17 If they have to sit down and do judgment 

18 I don't believe there's anybody -- I mean, from my 

19 experience with other parts of DOL handling kind 

20 of the non-radiological side of this, they're not 

21 staffed right now, as I understand it, to be making 

22 these types of judgments that involve, as I said, 

23 either probabilistic linkage algorithms, or 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something that's going to be fairly deep in 

2 information science.

3 Like Dr. Melius pointed out, you can't 

4 go to an alphabetical listing of names and find this 

5 person.

6 And, again, as the discussion said, I 

7 think you've done an incredible job of being able 

8 to document how, in a detailed kind of detective 

9 search, one can make sense of an individual's 

10 history with a high level of kind of logical 

11 consistency.

12 But, to me, it becomes a question of 

13 who's going to implement this given the problems 

14 with at least this section of the records. And, 

15 again, pointing out this section of the records 

16 doesn't -- is not so important for a large group 

17 of people. But I think it's going to be a large 

18 -- it's a large amount of information that has to 

19 be processed and reconciled. 

20 And that's going to be, you know, my 

21 experience working with these types of records is 

22 that's something which requires quite a staff to 

23 do. And it's never going to be reconciled in any 
66

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 way that's at a high level of certainty. It 

2 involves a lot of judgment when you have families 

3 that are working on the same site, and fathers and 

4 sons. You don't have dates of birth. 

5 So, this is why they're recording all 

6 these juniors and seniors and the thirds. Because 

7 there are a lot of people, at other sites, with the 

8 same name and first initial. And you're trying to 

9 keep track of them.

10 And here they're coming into records 

11 that don't have a clear time-recording 

12 periodicity. And there's multiple records over 

13 short intervals of time. It's a lot of data 

14 cleaning, as I see it.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: And I would also point 

16 out that the Department of Labor approved a Class 

17 Definition which has been changed once. And even 

18 NIOSH -- and I don't think Department of Labor is 

19 aware of this whole temporary file problem, 

20 temporary monitoring file problem.

21 And we still don't know how complete 

22 those temporary files are, because I think you 

23 indicated that earlier, Tim. 
67

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 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think that's true, 

2 Dr. Melius. This is Jim Neton. I was going to 

3 point that out. And I don't think the Department 

4 of Labor knows about these index cards.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, yeah.

6 DR. NETON: One thing that I'd like to 

7 point out that's concerning me, at least, is that 

8 the Class Definition requires 250 days of work at 

9 CPP.

10 And it does say based on one film badge, 

11 or visitor -- one TLD or film badge, because I think 

12 during that time period a person could have worked 

13 at CPP and only had a badge exchange once a year.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: Right.

15 DR. NETON: But now when we're looking 

16 at these visitor badges they certainly don't rise 

17 to the 250-day level, in my opinion. 

18 I don't know how one would deal with that. I'm just 

19 sort of pointing that out. You still have a 

20 250-day monitoring requirement to be eligible for 

21 the Class. And these are one-day badges, I mean, 

22 very clearly, I think. They couldn't be one-year 

23 badges.
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I don't know how one reconciles that 

2 with the 250-day monitoring requirement. Just a 

3 comment. I don't know what the answer to that is.

4 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. 

5 (Simultaneous speaking)

6 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 

7 I've raised that issue before because it sort of 

8 complications this issue. As I recall, and Tim or 

9 somebody can correct me, is that, yeah, again, it's 

10 you have one badge and it can cover a whole year 

11 or whatever, time period, one record.

12 And so in that sense, it may be the best 

13 we can do. And as I recall, there weren't any other 

14 records that would provide a way of supporting 

15 that, or alternative ways of determining the 250 

16 days, within that area.

17 DR. NETON: Right, but I think that was 

18 independent of having these visitor badges 

19 themselves, which is a slightly different 

20 situation.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. But then the 

22 corollary question is, well, you know, say we 

23 dismiss the temporary. We don't include the 
69

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 temporary badges in that. Well, what if there's 

2 somebody that went in there once a month for a week 

3 or something? I mean, we don't know enough, we 

4 don't have enough level of detail to know who's 

5 represented within those groups. 

6 I mean, I'm skeptical, but I don't know 

7 the work practices there. And there may be certain 

8 types of people that were assigned to other areas 

9 but went in there quite frequently under a 

10 temporary badge. Construction workers, 

11 draftsmen, other monitoring people. I don't know.

12 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. If I could 

13 answer some of these questions that were posed 

14 here, or provide clarification, if I can.

15 The decision for one badge was due to 

16 the potential for annual monitoring of routine 

17 people in the area, such as secretaries or clerks 

18 or somebody who did not routinely go into the hot 

19 sides or rad sides of the buildings, but they 

20 clearly worked at CPP.

21 So it would be possible for somebody, 

22 from that standpoint, to be monitored once per year 

23 that they were there. That does not really apply 
70

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 to these temporary badges, although, from my 

2 thought process, as far as the Definition, if you 

3 had one badge in the area, that was sufficient to 

4 get you in the Class. And then if you had 250 work 

5 days there on the site in that time period, then, 

6 to me, that would include you as part of the Class.

7 But nobody that I have ever found on 

8 these temporary badge reports had one issued --

9 most of them were a day, many are a week. I seem 

10 to recall once seeing one that appeared to be for 

11 a month. And that was it. Never more than that 

12 time period, certainly not a year, from that 

13 standpoint. The year was only for routine 

14 monitored people that were part of their master 

15 system.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: My concern with that, 

17 Tim, is it's a limited sample. 

18 DR. TAULBEE: I understand. I'd like 

19 to say I've been through thousands of these pages, 

20 so.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, until we get it 

22 indexed in some way it's hard to judge. And I 

23 don't necessarily think we have to wait that long, 
71

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 but I think it's -- I guess I'd like to have more 

2 assurances on that. If we're going to exclude 

3 these badges from the Class.

4 DR. TAULBEE: I would not propose to 

5 exclude them from the Class, by no means. I'm 

6 proposing that they are included. And if you 

7 appear on one of these CPP temporary badge reports, 

8 you're part of the Class. Or a visitor insert 

9 card.

10 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, then that 

11 doesn't answer Jim Neton's question on the 250 

12 days.

13 DR. TAULBEE: That's the part that I 

14 would leave up to DOL to determine whether or not 

15 they consider this person then working in that area 

16 for 250 days. That's part of employment 

17 verification.

18 MEMBER MELIUS: That's a good way of 

19 kicking the can there. You're saying DOL would 

20 determine whether they worked in the CPP for 250 

21 days?

22 DR. TAULBEE: I think employment 

23 onsite, but that's, again, up to DOL.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Oh yeah, onsite 

2 employment. So you're going back to the original 

3 Definition?

4 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Then our 

6 concerns about the temporary badge is still --

7 personally, I just don't think we know enough about 

8 how complete they are at this point in time. And 

9 how feasible it is to be able to use them, you know, 

10 the look-up issue.

11 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Hello? This is 

12 Josie again. Tim, did you have more on your 

13 report? I don't know if you covered your last case 

14 fully yet.

15 DR. TAULBEE: The last case was one 

16 that I went into a great deal of write-up, because 

17 we spent a lot of time looking for dosimetry for 

18 this individual. And we did not find him on any 

19 of the temporary badge reports during the time 

20 period of his employment, and certainly not under 

21 CPP.

22 We did look through all of the 1973 

23 cards, visitor insert cards, for this individual 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and did not find him.

2 There are some discrepancies with his 

3 employment verification with regards to the 

4 Department of Labor files that were sent over in 

5 that we're seeing some dosimetry for him, in a time 

6 period where employment was not verified.

7 And so there's -- and some work for a contractor 

8 that appears to have been an NRF contractor at that 

9 time period. 

10 And I would like to point out that, from 

11 a temporary badge report standpoint, we did not 

12 look at or capture any of the NRF temporary badge 

13 reports. So, many of the construction trades 

14 workers that would do work over there, we did not 

15 capture them, we did not look at them for any of 

16 these individuals. 

17 So, if they're onsite, as this 

18 individual had indicated, at least the survivor 

19 CATI had indicated, they worked around spent fuel 

20 pools, they very well could have been over at the 

21 NRF as well. And we just didn't find anything that 

22 indicated he worked at CPP during the covered time 

23 period.
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that really pretty much summarizes 

2 the three issues that we did follow-up on last week 

3 from that standpoint.

4 The rest of the cases I felt were pretty 

5 straightforward as far as being able to resolve 

6 whether they were at CPP or not.

7 MR. BARTON: Tim, could I ask on that 

8 third case. I'm scratching my head. How did you 

9 determine that their dosimetry was incomplete? 

10 Like, how did you flag them in the first place?

11 DR. TAULBEE: We flagged them based 

12 upon interviews. The interview indicated that 

13 when he went out of an area, he was surveyed, which 

14 is consistent with the multiple interviews we've 

15 conducted out at the site. We've conducted like 

16 60 or 70 interviews. And many of the construction 

17 trades workers indicated that exact point, that 

18 when they came out of the contamination area they 

19 were surveyed by health physics.

20 So, I felt the individual clearly had 

21 been in contamination areas. And it might be the 

22 1974 time period when he was monitored at EVR 2, 

23 or out at RWMC at the Burial Grounds that he was 
75

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 referring to, as well.

2 But since he did mention working around 

3 spent fuel pools, there are clearly some at MTR as 

4 well as Test Area North. There is the staging area 

5 at CPP, and then at NRF there's also spent fuel 

6 pools there.

7 So, that was one of the triggers where 

8 we felt that there was some additional dosimetry 

9 out there we felt we should be able to look through 

10 and find.

11 And with him, like I said, we looked 

12 through the CPP and we did not find him. He could 

13 be on one of the MTR visitor cards that we'll be 

14 scanning the week after next, but those weren't 

15 organized chronologically that made for an easy 

16 look from that standpoint. But we certainly did 

17 not see him at any of the CPP dosimetry records that 

18 would place him at CPP during the SEC time period.

19 Does that answer your question, Bob? I 

20 rambled a lot there. Sorry.

21 MR. BARTON: Yeah, no, it does. I 

22 think we kind of highlighted the -- it was a CATI 

23 with a survivor that mentioned the monitoring going 
76

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 out of an area. Thank you.

2 Well, that would strictly be for 

3 contamination. Because, I mean, it kind of seems 

4 like if they were already badged, I guess they would 

5 be looking for contamination on the shoes or 

6 something like that? Is that what the thought 

7 process is?

8 DR. TAULBEE: Well, many of the 

9 construction trades would come in, especially 

10 pipefitters in particular and insulators, would 

11 come into an area and do a job. And they would 

12 dress out in PPE. And upon exit they were surveyed 

13 out of the area.

14 But they might only be there a few days, 

15 you know, two to three days. I mean, that's it. 

16 So it wasn't a long-term thing. But it was 

17 something that came up consistently during the 

18 interviews coming out of contamination areas.

19 Josie?

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I'm still 

21 here. I was just waiting. So, does that conclude 

22 your report then, Tim?

23 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.
77

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 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And any 

2 questions for Tim? Any other questions I should 

3 say. 

4 If not, we'll move on to SC&A's report. 

5 And Bob, I believe you're going to take that on, 

6 correct?

7 MR. BARTON: That's correct, Josie.

8 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Alright. 

9 Review of Class Definition

10 MR. BARTON: Okay, so, essentially I'm

11 going to start at the end with what our summary 

12 recommendation was, which has changed somewhat 

13 considering the additional data capture that 

14 happened last week.

15 Basically, we had six observations, 

16 four of which are really pertinent to the SEC Class 

17 Definition. Two of them related to things we saw 

18 in the records that might give us pause, but upon 

19 running them down we felt we were on solid ground.

20 One of them had to do with some of the 

21 supplemental records we had were undated and do not 

22 contain headers, but they were clearly dosimetry 

23 records in two of the claims. But if you really 
78

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 started to put the puzzle pieces together on that, 

2 it appears this was just a format that they used 

3 relative to the SL-1 incident. 

4 At least that's what we found for these 

5 two cases in which we found records with dosimetry 

6 but didn't have, again, no dates and no column 

7 headers. And the way we were able to kind of come 

8 to that conclusion is you find, you know, 100 pages 

9 later, you find records that had similar numbers 

10 for penetrating and non-penetrating external dose 

11 that kind of lined up with the undated records we 

12 were seeing. And those were clearly associated 

13 with the SL-1. 

14 So, even though that's kind of a red 

15 flag when you first look at them we were able to 

16 figure out that it really wasn't a problem. So 

17 that was not really pertinent to our discussion 

18 here.

19 The other one that wasn't really 

20 pertinent is we found one record where they 

21 transmitted what I refer to as a career dose total. 

22 And it'll say something like, you know, 1963-1968, 

23 and it'll give the total external exposure.
79

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 As we talked about, and Tim has 

2 mentioned numerous times, this was sort of part of 

3 an efficiency measure in the early years where we 

4 didn't really need to see each individual dosimetry 

5 results, but as the process evolved we figured out 

6 that we did. And in one of the 18 cases we noticed 

7 that the career dose that was reported excluded a 

8 couple of years in the late '60s.

9 And so we said, well, the only point 

10 there being is you can't use those totals 

11 necessarily to administrate the Class, if it's 

12 accepted as it's written. 

13 So those were the two observations that 

14 didn't really necessarily affect the SEC Class 

15 Definition, but were sort of germane to the whole 

16 process.

17 Now we get to the four that we sort of 

18 mentioned in our summary recommendation. Two of 

19 them we have just discussed extensively. Those 

20 were Cases 17 and 18 in Tim's report. And those 

21 were the ones that had bioassay at CPP and we did 

22 not have corresponding dosimetry. 

23 One of them, obviously, is sort of, I 
80

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 guess, pragmatically adjudicated based on the fact 

2 that those visitor cards were uncovered for the 

3 claimant. And actually the dates on them really 

4 do line up nicely with when the, I think it was an 

5 in vivo result was taken.

6 The other one, again, we talked about 

7 extensively. This is the one where it might be a 

8 typographical error where we do have visitor badges 

9 associated with MTR and SPERT. We have internal 

10 monitoring over the same time period associated 

11 with Central Facilities. But then that fly in the 

12 ointment, the in vivo record that says CPP.

13 So, those two were really the big ones, 

14 where you have evidence they were in CPP and no 

15 external monitoring. One of them we found the 

16 visitor badges and one of them could possibly be 

17 an error. It's a handwritten record, so I don't 

18 know.

19 Again, as I said before, that one still 

20 kind of gives me pause, because if we're going to 

21 talk about typographical errors, the human error, 

22 as Gen pointed out, is always going to be there. 

23 You're never going to be at 100 percent.
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I guess the remaining two are the ones 

2 that would qualify for new conversation. And this 

3 would be Observation 1. And this is related to 

4 something I had never seen before in the INL 

5 claimant records. And I refer to it as a box and 

6 record number. And essentially what this is -- and 

7 Tim probably knows way more about this than me. 

8 And I think he's got some material that he might 

9 want to show the Board on this.

10 But basically it's an electronic 

11 database search. And it pops out the box number 

12 and the record number presumably within the box of 

13 where you're going to find this person's dosimetry 

14 records.

15 And these I'd never seen before. 

16 Again, when we did the supplemental dosimetry 

17 request for the 18, five of the 18 contained them. 

18 The others did not. 

19 So, one of the things we did upon seeing 

20 this new information is try to match up those record 

21 numbers that are in this listing with what we're 

22 actually seeing in the dosimetry file which was 

23 transmitted to us. 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And they're always either 30-dash-some 

2 number, or as Tim had mentioned, the visitor badges 

3 were 50-dash-something. And so you could take 

4 that listing and then go look in the actual file 

5 and say, and it's really written right on the top 

6 of the page. "Yes, there it is, there it is."

7 But for one of the claimants, and this 

8 is Observation No. 1, the very first listing has 

9 a handwritten note next to it that says "not found." 

10 And if you look in the file, you can't find that 

11 record number either.

12 Now, when you put the pieces together 

13 based on the limited five claims we had these for, 

14 you can kind of figure out, and it's written in my 

15 report, that it was just the record apparently that 

16 was not found, not the whole box. And also that 

17 it's very likely associated with records in 1961. 

18 That's based on the record number, the box it was 

19 in, and sort of neighboring records based on that 

20 cataloguing number. 

21 So it really isn't necessarily 

22 pertinent for that particular case, in the 

23 pragmatic sense, but it did give me some pause that 
83

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 we've never seen these before for other claimants.

2 So, at least from my view, we really 

3 didn't have a notion to what extent you might have 

4 a listing of all these records you should have, but 

5 you can't find them. And so that gave me some 

6 pause.

7 And I know Tim's got a response ready 

8 to go. So I'll pass it over to him.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Thanks, Bob. 

10 Let me just try and do some clarification here on 

11 this particular issue.

12 The printout that you're looking at is 

13 from their indexing database. This is what they 

14 go through for the individual, in that some people 

15 will have 30 pages of records here. And they go 

16 through each one when they pull the person's name 

17 up, and they go to that particular file.

18 The record, by the way, is a file. It's 

19 the electronic file within their system. The page 

20 is where this person's supposed to have appeared. 

21 And the document type was an area exposure report 

22 which is their routine dosimetry. The box number 

23 off to the right is what box these files came out 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of. 

2 And so when they were doing this 

3 indexing that I was describing to David earlier 

4 they would take a box of these area exposure 

5 reports, they would take a folder and they would 

6 scan it. And then they would tag that particular 

7 folder with that 30-dash, I think in this case it's 

8 -10802.

9 And then when the indexers went through 

10 the process of building the database they would 

11 enter every person's name that appeared on every 

12 page of that file. And so this particular 

13 individual was tagged on page 305.

14 So, whenever they go through then to 

15 develop a claim they print all of these out. They 

16 go through their database. They open up each of 

17 these files, extract that particular page, and send 

18 it to us for dose reconstruction.

19 Now, in some cases, some of these files 

20 aren't necessarily -- got removed, got updated, the 

21 number changed, or whatever reason that they got 

22 a "not found" in this particular case. What 

23 they're supposed to do is go through and determine 
85

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 was this person on the page or not from that 

2 standpoint.

3 The individual that you pointed out 

4 here I would like to point out had three name 

5 changes during their time period at INL, three last 

6 name changes. So they might not have found it 

7 under one name, but that person might be on that 

8 page still.

9 The box is available. The page that I 

10 put up on the shared directory this morning 

11 identifies what the title of that box is. And it's 

12 1961-1962 dosimetry files. And you go to the far 

13 right of that and it's for the MTR reactor area, 

14 for test reactor area.

15 So, as you pointed out this really isn't 

16 germane from the time period standpoint. It's 

17 also not germane from the location standpoint. 

18 This isn't a CPP file. This would be for MTR, for 

19 their work out at MTR.

20 One thing that I did want to -- in your 

21 writing that did cause me some pause here, and part 

22 of why I labeled this particular file a 

23 misunderstanding, is that you indicated that we 
86

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 went through all of the CPP dosimetry and we said 

2 that they were complete.

3 And I still stand by those particular 

4 statements from that standpoint, because we went 

5 through all of them and we compared a monthly basis 

6 the number of people monitored in the area versus 

7 the number reported in health physics.

8 But we only did it for CPP. This 

9 particular box is MTR. We did not look at all of 

10 the other areas.

11 And if you recall during my 

12 presentation to the Board -- or the discussion that 

13 we had possibly in the September time frame we found 

14 another hole back with CX dosimetry.

15 In July they provided us the CX 

16 dosimetry. This would be for the construction 

17 area at CPP. And when we went through we found that 

18 there were 22 pages that hadn't been scanned. 

19 We were able to see that, and we went 

20 back to the site. They went and pulled that 

21 particular box and said sure enough, these pages 

22 got missed from that standpoint. And they 

23 re-scanned them and added them to the particular 
87

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 files.

2 So, from that particular standpoint, I 

3 solidly stand behind all of the CPP area exposure 

4 reports, that those are complete for CPP.

5 This new hole that we found is the 

6 temporary badge reports and the visitor inserts. 

7 But the original area exposure reports for CPP are 

8 complete and have been checked. Other areas we 

9 have not.

10 MR. BARTON: I guess, and I got cut out 

11 there for a second, Tim, but I heard almost all of 

12 what you had to say.

13 Again, it was a concern from my 

14 standpoint, that, I mean, the notion that a certain 

15 record was missing. Even though, like I said and 

16 you just confirmed, it was not related -- that it 

17 was not related to CPP, I didn't know that part 

18 about it, but I could surmise, and I put my argument 

19 in our paper that it was not from the SEC period.

20 But it gives me pause that I've only 

21 looked at five of these listings, and so for the 

22 rest of the claimant population, and really the 

23 workforce in general, the potential claimants, 
88

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 it's a bit troubling when you see, oh, this record 

2 was not found. Even though it doesn't make any 

3 difference, really, for this particular claim in 

4 the pragmatic sense, you know.

5 I guess -- well, maybe it would be 

6 better if you expounded a little bit on that 

7 verification process. Because as I seem to 

8 remember, in most cases you found more records than 

9 were reported in the health physics summaries. Is 

10 that correct?

11 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct, yes.

12 MR. BARTON: Well, and you know, on 

13 first blush, it certainly seems like the result of 

14 that would be beneficial. But I guess I would say, 

15 well, how many -- if they don't match up, how many 

16 more might there be, if that health physics total 

17 doesn't really reflect the number of records that 

18 we have?

19 You know, this whole thing comes all the 

20 way back to there's some uncertainty, we can't put 

21 a number on it. 

22 DR. TAULBEE: One thing that you're 

23 not, or maybe people aren't understanding here: 
89

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 this dosimetry listing that you've got here is from 

2 an indexed database. There could be, and likely 

3 are, human errors within that database, as well. 

4 So, this person got tagged as being on this 

5 particular page within this file, and they very 

6 well may not be, from that standpoint. 

7 So, this is just one of those potential 

8 uncertainties that we run into in looking at a large 

9 volume of records here. 

10 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Tim, this is 

11 Josie. Is there any way to know if these temporary 

12 records are accurate and complete?

13 DR. TAULBEE: For certain time periods 

14 we can do that for temporary badges, yes. But for 

15 other time periods, no.

16 We could go through when they reported 

17 the temporary badge reports and go through and do 

18 a tally when they included them on those dosimetry 

19 roll-ups. Yes, we could do that. But I know I 

20 can't cover the entire time period.

21 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: So, you're saying 

22 you could do some of them, but still not all of them. 

23 You could go through and see what certain time 
90

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 periods were accurate and complete. But there's 

2 still going to be some that you're not able to do 

3 that with.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Right, because I don't 

5 have a secondary, independent method of doing it. 

6 A separate report that issues it, or discusses it.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Tim, Joe. I guess 

8 one thing that concerns me, given your description. 

9 You know, yes, there is an accepted fact of life 

10 that there will be errors in an index. You know, 

11 even with an SEC process, the records, the first 

12 order records may have errors. That's just the way 

13 it is.

14 What strikes me as a little different 

15 here, though, is that's kind of an objective 

16 process where if you are in the database, you're 

17 in, or in the index, you're in, and if you're not, 

18 you're out. And, you know, it's certainly up to 

19 DOL to police any errors that may crop up. And 

20 that's happened in the past.

21 In this case, and I think you keyed on 

22 this description in your report, one has to be a 

23 little bit more subjective and use a bit of a weight 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of evidence approach because you do have bits and

2 pieces of other records, secondary records, 

3 temporary badging reports that can facilitate 

4 locating a worker, or not locating a worker in CPP.

5 But in this case, you do have to be a 

6 little bit more subjective and exercise judgment. 

7 And I'm very familiar with that process. You know, 

8 certainly that is a philosophy and approach that 

9 guides dose reconstruction, and particularly when 

10 you don't have a black and white set of records. 

11 You have to use weight of evidence.

12 And something that, in this case, 

13 underpins an SEC Class Definition, however, when 

14 one moves toward that subjectivity as opposed to 

15 an objective approach, that's a bit unprecedented.

16 I guess I am trying to think of a 

17 situation where a weight of evidence approach has 

18 underpinned an SEC Class Definition.

19 I know it's not direct, but it in a sense 

20 is the gateway because if the weight of evidence 

21 conclusion is, and judgment is that person likely 

22 wasn't in CPP then certainly they would not show 

23 up on the SEC roster.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, you know, and this gets back to 

2 Gen's original comment of how much uncertainty. I 

3 guess I would add how much subjectivity versus --

4 which I think DOL tends to rely on a more objective 

5 basis can one have in a Class Definition.

6 And I guess I keep coming back to that 

7 because that just feels like we're walking down a 

8 different path than we have in the past. I don't 

9 know if you could comment on that.

10 DR. TAULBEE: I'm not sure what to 

11 comment on that. In a sense, you are correct, but 

12 part of what got us into the subjectivity was going 

13 through and trying to come to closure on all 881 

14 cases that worked at INL during this particular 

15 time period.

16 And so in many ways we're trying to 

17 prove a negative of whether this person worked in 

18 this area or not. And so evaluating the records 

19 is going to be subjective from that standpoint. 

20 That was what our task was, at least that's what 

21 I took it as what the Work Group wanted. And so 

22 that's what got us down into this particular path.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: But I think it's clear 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the secondary records -- and I think this was the 

2 test that the Work Group was looking to, is to 

3 whether the secondary records would provide an 

4 objective basis, since the primary records, the 

5 external dosimetry file, did not. Would the 

6 secondary records provide that?

7 And my sense is that, to a large extent, 

8 they have, but there's still a fairly high 

9 uncertainty which can only be addressed through 

10 weight of evidence judgment.

11 And, again, that's what sort of 

12 concerns me, you know, we're in dose reconstruction 

13 that makes sense because one has to exercise 

14 technical judgment. In this case, this is a 

15 gateway to an SEC Class Definition. And to me, 

16 that's a different context. 

17 And of course that's a Work Group 

18 decision, or a Work Group assessment. But I guess 

19 that's kind of where my concern comes from.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Can I ask what you're 

21 referring to as primary and what you're referring 

22 to as secondary records?

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the primary, I 
94

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 think, we started out was everybody who went into 

2 CPP would necessarily need to be badged. And 

3 certainly that was the conclusion. And then there 

4 were clearly some exceptions to that and the 

5 process has been one of evaluation whether those 

6 exceptions could be addressed through other means.

7 And those other means, of course, 

8 include temporary badge records, include other 

9 forms of records. But I'm just saying that as 

10 opposed to a level of certainty or objectivity, 

11 which is what you have in the external file, I think 

12 what we're finding is that there's still some 

13 ambiguity on several individuals.

14 And, again, this is a sample. This is 

15 not the universe of workers who may have worked at 

16 CPP. This is a sample that we're dealing with. So 

17 we don't know what that universe may have.

18 But the sample itself certainly shows 

19 that there are some exceptions, which, in terms of 

20 the evaluation, I don't disagree with you. I think 

21 looking at the preponderance of evidence you might 

22 be able to place somebody there or not.

23 But I think, since this is a process 
95

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 question as well as a technical question, the 

2 process conclusion is that you sort of get down to 

3 having to use weight of evidence when you have some 

4 individuals whose records are somewhat ambiguous, 

5 there isn't something that's firm.

6 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I have 

7 a question that steps back a little bit. I've been 

8 listening and it's extremely informative.

9 I understand that you have your 

10 Definition of your Class, and you both went 

11 through, SC&A and Tim went through a process to ask, 

12 okay, we have these 18 cases and questions. And 

13 say, okay, and at the end of the process, Tim, you 

14 uncovered lots and lots of information related to 

15 visitor badges and index cards and said, "hmm, 

16 these people might have been missed" -- that's what 

17 I'm hearing -- under the current Definition and the 

18 way in which I guess everyone deemed it would be 

19 implemented.

20 But I'd like to know, when you walk away 

21 from that, and I recognize the 18 is a sample, would 

22 you say that some of those people that emerged 

23 during this process of testing the definition you 
96

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 would have missed if you didn't go through this 

2 process?

3 And what I mean by missed is they should 

4 have been included in the Class because they 

5 probably were at CPP, or they might have been at 

6 CPP for 250 days. Or is the takeaway, "we're not 

7 quite sure"?

8 It sounds like a lot of the people you 

9 might have missed may have been relatively 

10 short-termers.

11 So, in a way, I'm asking, stepping way 

12 back and say, does the process we just went through 

13 lead you to a sense that the current Definition, 

14 or perhaps a modification of the Definition, could 

15 still leave you in a place where there's a very real 

16 possibility that you're going to miss some people?

17 DR. TAULBEE: Let me try to address 

18 this in two parts here first.

19 First, in saying that the 18 are a 

20 sample is not quite correct. We started with 881. 

21 And we were able to place them either in the Class 

22 or not in the Class based upon the records that we 

23 had in hand initially.
97

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 What we came down to was 18 that needed 

2 follow-up, that the records were not clear. And so 

3 this is not a sampling of 18 people. This is 

4 starting from 881 and working our way down, from 

5 that standpoint, to one that we needed to do 

6 follow-up on. So, that's the first point I'd like 

7 to make.

8 The second one is you are correct that 

9 had we not gone through this exercise in going 

10 through we would have missed Case No. 18 in this 

11 particular case. Actually, we would not have 

12 missed Claim No. 18 -- let me clarify that --

13 because this individual does not have a cancer that 

14 is eligible for the SEC. 

15 We would miss people like Case No. 18. 

16 So, coworkers of his that would file a claim in the 

17 future, had we not found this issue with the visitor 

18 inserts, would have been missed with regards to 

19 CPP.

20 Some of the ambiguity with the 

21 temporary badge reports was with the other areas 

22 of trying to place certain workers in other areas 

23 to do the follow-up and basically show that, yes, 
98

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 this person was monitored during this time period. 

2 They were not at CPP, they were in this other area.

3 And in doing so, that's when we found 

4 -- we kind of discovered the dose reconstruction 

5 issue of, hey, we really need these other files in 

6 order to complete dose reconstructions. So, 

7 that's how that issue got raised.

8 We had all of the CPP temporary badge 

9 reports since last April. But there is that gap 

10 of '69 through '73 that if they were not zero or 

11 if -- yeah, if they were zero -- if they were not 

12 zero, they were already in the system.

13 If they were zero and they were not one 

14 of the other prime contractors, although that's not 

15 consistent either, then they could have been 

16 missed.

17 So, people like No. 18 could have been 

18 missed from our Class Definition, yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Good, thank you.

20 MR. BARTON: If I could, at least from 

21 SC&A's side, when we talk about sort of really 

22 processing through the 800 to 900 claims that we're 

23 talking about that would be affected right now with 
99

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 this SEC Class, they were reviewed, but I want to 

2 point out that, at least on our side, it was to 

3 varying degrees.

4 When we set out with our last study I 

5 sort of did the mock SEC administration test to try 

6 to get down. And that's sort of where SC&A arrived 

7 at their claimants that we wanted to follow up on.

8 But that doesn't speak to the fact that 

9 certain claims, for example, if they had external 

10 dosimetry in that latter SEC period, we didn't dig 

11 any farther on them at all.

12 So, in a pragmatic sense, yes, 

13 absolutely, they'd either be covered or not. But 

14 even the covered claims, definitely for that latter 

15 part, weren't really investigated further to 

16 really test the Definition.

17 So I'm not comfortable saying that 

18 we've done a complete analysis on all available 

19 claims. The process that brought us to these 18 

20 involved some quick decisions saying, well, that 

21 person would be covered so we're not going to really 

22 dig any further. 

23 So we don't know if there's other 
100

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 problem children out there that perhaps would be 

2 covered, but also have evidence in their file that, 

3 you know, for that specific period they were at CPP 

4 and we don't have the necessary requirements for 

5 that.

6 So I just want to kind of qualify that, 

7 at least from SC&A's standpoint. I don't know 

8 specifically what NIOSH's process was, but for ours 

9 we sort of -- if they immediately qualified for the 

10 Class Definition as written, we didn't dig any 

11 further.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Same with NIOSH. We did 

13 the same thing that you did, Bob, in that if they 

14 immediately qualified and they had monitoring 

15 between 1970 and '74 based upon the Class 

16 Definition we did not look further, no. Because 

17 they were already part of the Class.

18 So, I totally agree with you 100 percent 

19 the review was to varying degrees as we were 

20 whittling this down. 

21 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie, if 

22 I may interrupt for a minute.

23 The website just posted both reports, 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so they are now available online if anybody is 

2 looking for those.

3 DR. TAULBEE: What you'll find with the 

4 NIOSH one is that it's heavily redacted.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: I was going to say, 

6 hopefully redacted, right?

7 DR. TAULBEE: Heavily redacted.

8 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, I know, I know. 

9 But hopefully that one was the one that was posted.

10 MR. BARTON: Yeah, I'm trying to pull 

11 it up right now. I mean, what's there, just the 

12 title page? 

13 MEMBER MELIUS: Tim, this is Jim 

14 Melius. Do you have a timeframe on the indexing?

15 DR. TAULBEE: I don't at this time. I 

16 can give a guess, which I'd really rather not.

17 DOE asked the site to give them a cost estimate and 

18 a timeframe in order to do that.

19 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

20 DR. TAULBEE: And that just occurred 

21 last Thursday. And so they were working to see 

22 what it is that they would need in order to do this 

23 indexing.
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

1 My -- well, I said I wasn't going to 

2 guess. My guess is six months to a year. There 

3 are 21 boxes still to be scanned. We had tagged 

4 them with temporary badge reports from other areas, 

5 but they have not even been scanned yet.

6 DR. NETON: Sorry, Tim, this is Jim. I 

7 missed the estimate you gave.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. My best guess 

9 would be six months to a year for them to index 

10 these. We tagged 21 boxes of temporary badge 

11 reports last week and those are going to be scanned 

12 the week of the 25th. We'll have some data 

13 scanners out there doing that. And then all the 

14 records will be available to DOE to index. 

15 They can start indexing now, though, 

16 because all of the visitor insert cards we already 

17 turned over to them and told them these were of 

18 highest priority first because those were directly 

19 CPP visitor cards.

20 MR. BARTON: This is Bob. We've sort 

21 of been using specific cases or observations, what 

22 have you, as springboards for this discussion.

23 There is one more, and it was SC&A's 
103

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 Observation 6, Case 6 for us. And it's actually 

2 NIOSH's first case. And this was an individual who 

3 we have -- this is the classical problem that we 

4 started with back in July where we have an annual 

5 external exposure record showing the person in 

6 question monitored from 1963 to 1965, but we do not 

7 have any individual dosimetry records to say where 

8 that person was actually badged.

9 And from what I'm hearing, this might 

10 become important because, if that person was part 

11 of these visitor cards that haven't been captured 

12 yet, I don't think they would make it into the 

13 system. They shouldn't have made it into the 

14 system to show that they were monitored from '63 

15 to '65. 

16 So, again, we have that gray area where 

17 we know they were monitored, we're not quite sure 

18 where. And even with the supplemental data 

19 request we don't have additional information, 

20 individual dosimetry logs, what have you, that 

21 would place that monitored worker in a specific 

22 location.

23 That was the problem back in July and 
104

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 we really solved most of them. Most of them were 

2 solved by the construction dosimetry that was 

3 captured later.

4 But, again, this is one that I was 

5 surprised at because, again, we have an annual 

6 record for this person. So they made it into the 

7 system somehow, but those files at least were not 

8 transmitted as part of the supplemental request.

9 And, again, that's Observation 6, Case 

10 6 for SC&A, and Case 1 for NIOSH.

11 DR. TAULBEE: If I may speak to this one 

12 a little bit here. Part of why this individual 

13 made it into the system was he was monitored at CPP 

14 in 1959 and he received a substantial dose as a 

15 visitor at CPP. That's in the temporary badge 

16 reports that we have. And he was actually 

17 monitored for a fission product intake at that 

18 time.

19 The in-between time period which you're 

20 referring to, in the 1963-65 time period, we looked 

21 again through all of the CPP temporary dosimetry 

22 reports and did not find this individual in there. 

23 We did not look through all of the other temporary 
105

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 badge reports of other areas. And as I pointed 

2 out, if he was a zero dose then he was not in there, 

3 or he may not have been entered.

4 The time period for the visitor inserts 

5 only applies from '69 to '73 for CPP, in that they 

6 are not currently included or indexed from that 

7 standpoint. 

8 So, I guess my -- I just wanted to make 

9 that kind of clarification there for other people. 

10 We did look through the '63-'65 temporary badge 

11 reports and did not find this individual.

12 MR. BARTON: I agree with that. But it 

13 almost makes it more troubling to me because this 

14 individual made it all the way into the 

15 computerized printout for annual doses in 

16 1963-1965.

17 And as you said, this sort of anomaly 

18 of not included in them in the main system if they 

19 had zero dose wouldn't apply to those years. So, 

20 we're still talking about an individual who was 

21 monitored that we see via the annual dose totals, 

22 which are zero, but we can't find them anywhere. 

23 So we don't really know where they were actually 
106

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 monitored at.

2 I do agree with your comment about the 

3 1959. That's pretty clear. I think he was at CPP 

4 and got monitored both internally and externally 

5 in 1959. But the fact remains we simply don't know 

6 where that individual was during those first three 

7 years of the SEC period.

8 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct. And 

9 the only way I think we're going to find where those 

10 zeros came from is the temporary badge reports for 

11 this individual. 

12 MR. BARTON: But as you said, they 

13 should be there unless we're talking about the 

14 '69-'74 time period. Before that he should have 

15 cropped up.

16 DR. TAULBEE: They're only in the 

17 temporary badge reports that we have scanned 

18 already for CPP. The other ones we have not 

19 scanned yet or reviewed. And so if they were under 

20 a temporary badge they were then entered into the 

21 dosimetry system for that particular area even if 

22 he was a zero. If they were already in the system.

23 So, it's one of the other temporary 
107

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 badge areas is where this person likely was. I can 

2 say with considerable confidence that he was not 

3 at CPP from '63 to '64.

4 MR. BARTON: I guess my concern is why 

5 those -- I mean, why the Department of Energy 

6 supplemental request for this directly from the 

7 site wouldn't have identified those temporary 

8 badge reports for the other site beyond CPP.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Because there's one 

10 index.

11 MR. BARTON: I'm not talking about the 

12 visitor cards. I'm talking about the listing of 

13 temporary badge reports.

14 DR. TAULBEE: The temporary badge 

15 reports had not been indexed either. The visitor 

16 cards were the temporary badge reports. Neither 

17 of them have been indexed.

18 MR. BARTON: I see.

19 DR. TAULBEE: And that's what the site 

20 is going to be working on, because we need them.

21 DR. MAURO: Tim, this is John again. 

22 The level of granularity that you're working on is 

23 incredible. And I've been listening very, very 
108

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 carefully. And what I heard was the 18 that you 

2 went through, you learned a lot. You learned that, 

3 yes, the Definition as used was problematic. And 

4 so used, you could have missed some people. So 

5 that was revealing. That's what I heard.

6 But then you also said something very 

7 important, that is, in the process of going through 

8 this you found so much other information in the form 

9 of boxes of index cards and visitor badges, all of 

10 which provide additional information which is now 

11 being scanned. I assume we're talking about names 

12 of people.

13 Now, granted that the names are 

14 problematic, you know, spellings and stuff like 

15 that. But what I'm hearing now is that you're 

16 loading up a database now that will add names.

17 Once that's done and that information 

18 is available to NIOSH and Labor, would you say that 

19 the people that you would have missed, you will no 

20 longer miss now because of this fix, this patch, 

21 to go in and grab things? 

22 And that would be one level of 

23 questions, that now you've made certain repairs on 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the database that now the people that you had 

2 affirmative evidence that you would have missed, 

3 now you have evidence that, no, you would have 

4 caught them.

5 But I also heard you say, however, in 

6 the process of going through this, you revealed 

7 certain categories of problems where there may 

8 still be some people out there that this new list, 

9 this new and expanded database, could still have 

10 missed because of the certain root cause issues 

11 that emerged.

12 That means that, well, even with the 

13 addition of this database and these additional 

14 data, there's still elements to things that you've 

15 learned that says that, yes, there still could be 

16 some people that the process with the new and 

17 expanded database could still miss.

18 I go back to this kind of question 

19 because it sort of steps out of the weeds and tries 

20 to get back up to what did we all learn from this 

21 process.

22 DR. TAULBEE: To answer your first 

23 question with regards to do I feel that, once this 
110

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 database has been expanded and indexed with the CPP 

2 visitor inserts ,do I feel then that we would not 

3 miss any of these people? Absolutely correct. I 

4 believe that this fix of indexing the inserts will 

5 completely -- or will fill that particular gap if 

6 you will at this time.

7 The latter one is the one that I'm not 

8 quite sure what you're asking, because I don't 

9 believe -- the additional issue with the temporary 

10 badge reports having not been entered it for other 

11 areas doesn't really apply here to the CPP 

12 standpoint. Because we have the temporary badges 

13 already for CPP. Now, granted, DOE has not indexed 

14 them, but we have them available in our hands to 

15 where we can see them at this time, and assist if 

16 an issue comes up.

17 DOE is going to index them so that's 

18 part of that larger group of indexing. But once 

19 that is completed from the temporary badge reports, 

20 I don't see where we would be missing anybody. And 

21 I believe we would actually be improving dose 

22 reconstruction as a whole across the entire INL 

23 site, and ANL, by the way, in that we've now got 
111

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 all of these visitors that are coming and going and 

2 we have their dosimetry associated with it. 

3 Whereas before it wasn't available to us.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you.

5 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay, Bob, at this 

6 point anything else on your report?

7 MR. BARTON: Those were --

8 (Telephonic interference) 

9 MR. BARTON: -- main observations pertaining 

10 to the efficacy of the Class Definition. I think, 

11 as I said before, I mean, if you read both reports 

12 I don't think NIOSH and SC&A are in disagreement. 

13 (Telephonic interference)

14 MR. BARTON: It's what you do with that 

15 information. As Tim said and we reiterate, you 

16 can't be 100 percent. And that's --

17 (Telephonic interference)

18 MR. BARTON: -- is how it was put. And 

19 it's really what do you do now.

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: That was what I 

21 was wondering, Bob. Yes. 

22 MR. BARTON: Right. And it's an 

23 incredibly tough decision. And I think both NIOSH 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and SC&A have been wrestling with it to a great 

2 extent. And, you know, you look at the writeups 

3 on these 18 claims and you see --

4 (Telephonic interference)

5 MR. BARTON: -- and there's always 

6 going to be some level of uncertainty. And again, 

7 I mean, it's a tough one. And I think it really 

8 comes down to what is going to be acceptable to you 

9 all and the Board as far as assurance that not one 

10 single claimant might be missed.

11 I think there's certainly some 

12 indications of gray areas. I mean, we still have 

13 the one claim that might be a typo. We have the 

14 annual record, but maybe those can be explained by 

15 the temporary badge reports that haven't been 

16 captured yet. We don't know that. It's very 

17 difficult. 

18 And, you know, one of the other things 

19 is the fact that we can't really validate the 

20 completeness of the temporary badge records, or 

21 when you get even to finer detail the visitor cards. 

22 Which the temporary badge report, again, is a 

23 listing of a bunch of workers who worked over a 
113

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 certain time span, usually a week or something like 

2 that. But we don't have any secondary reference 

3 that we can judge that against. And certainly the 

4 visitor cards, we don't have any reference to judge 

5 that against, whether those are all complete. So 

6 it's very difficult.

7 And, you know, I think NIOSH and SC&A 

8 are both in agreement that you just, you cannot 

9 reach 100 percent assurance, but to what level is

10 going to be acceptable to the Board.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim. I think 

12 the real dilemma, at least for me, is the fact that 

13 we're not even going to be able to evaluate the 

14 temporary/visitor completeness, or evaluate the 

15 information in it until it is indexed, and that's 

16 going to take some period of months to do.

17 And so it's not like there's a 

18 straightforward next step to do. At the same time, 

19 what has bothered me throughout this process is 

20 that we keep discovering things about this site.

21 We discovered this new set of badges 

22 that weren't indexed. We discovered a policy 

23 change that we didn't know about earlier. So it 
114

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 keeps, you know, the target keeps changing 

2 somewhat, or the basic information available keeps 

3 changing.

4 But Josie, what I would suggest is that 

5 -- I'm certainly not ready to make a decision or 

6 a recommendation at this point in time.

7 At the same time, I think it behooves 

8 the Work Group to come up with -- at least to 

9 evaluate this and report it in a way to the Board 

10 to give the Board input in terms of what should be 

11 the next step on this particular Class Definition 

12 and SEC recommendation.

13 Work Group Recommendation

14 And what I would suggest is that the 

15 Work Group plan to meet before the next Board 

16 meeting, which is at the end of March, and discuss 

17 this.

18 I mean, Tim's report we received two 

19 days ago, less than two days ago, and SC&A's about 

20 a week before that. I think based on some of the 

21 discussions here I think I understand them better, 

22 but I'd like to go back through them. And 

23 understand and go back to some of the earlier 
115

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 reports and presentations.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim, this is Gen. 

3 I'm sitting here listening to all of this the whole 

4 time and as a Board Member feeling a really huge 

5 responsibility. And I think it would be really good 

6 to, as you suggested, present this at the Board and 

7 in some way get input from other Board Members. 

8 Because it's their responsibility also.

9 We're really working on new ground. 

10 Whichever way we go on this, and we're going to have 

11 to go one way, we're going to be setting a precedent 

12 for this program and potentially other programs, 

13 and the impact that we make is rather huge. So I 

14 think the more input we can get from other Board 

15 Members and others would be very helpful.

16 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I don't disagree 

17 with both of those. I'm also interested in NIOSH's 

18 position on this. It does set a precedent for SECs 

19 that we haven't encountered before. So, that's 

20 one area.

21 So, in presenting to the Board we can 

22 give them a quick update next week -- and I don't 

23 have any problem doing that -- on just where we're 
116

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 at, a brief overview, and what our next plan is to 

2 meet prior to the March meeting.

3 Does that sound about right? Jim and 

4 Dave, of course I want to hear from you also.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think if you could 

6 draft something, Josie, in the next few days and 

7 pass it around to the Work Group Members. And then 

8 we can -- I don't know if this is acceptable, Ted, 

9 but then we can talk about it a bit.

10 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Well, the next 

11 meeting is on Wednesday so there's not a lot of 

12 time.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: I know, there's not 

14 a lot of time. But I think it should be a report 

15 from the whole Work Group. So if there's something 

16 that you could draft quickly and we could give input 

17 I think that would be helpful.

18 MEMBER MELIUS: I think a report should 

19 be sort of a process report.

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Yeah.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: We've gone through 

22 this. There's issues and we plan to meet again and 

23 discuss in more detail at the March meeting.
117

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 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Yeah, because I 

2 can't imagine that the other Board Members would 

3 have any time to even come up with any good 

4 discussion for Wednesday.

5 So I think, just like you said, a 

6 process report and then plan on meeting and having 

7 a fuller report hopefully in March. Where people 

8 have time to read some of these reports. Because 

9 there's no time between now and Wednesday.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: And there's probably 

11 not time at the meeting either now that I think 

12 about it for Board Members to absorb it and come 

13 up with anything.

14 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: No, not on 

15 Wednesday, I cannot even imagine that.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. This is Ted. And 

18 following, I think, Josie's just getting this 

19 process report to let people know where things 

20 stand. I'll send out then both of these reports 

21 directly to all the rest of the Board Members. 

22 And you can ask them, Josie, to read 

23 these and get familiar. Because it is, it's pretty 
118

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 dense, it's a lot of stuff, and it would be helpful 

2 if they had time to do their homework which they 

3 will if they get it very quickly. It'll be helpful 

4 for the discussion then in March wherever you get 

5 at that point.

6 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Correct.

7 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim again. 

8 And I would just say if there's issues as we look 

9 at the reports again and think about it, if there 

10 are issues of clarification, whatever, I think it 

11 might be helpful to pass those along to either SC&A 

12 or NIOSH or both of them prior to our Work Group 

13 meeting.

14 MR. KATZ: Yeah. And let's just do 

15 that through me so I can be sure that sort of the 

16 bases get covered. But I think that's a good idea.

17

18 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: And I think we 

19 should probably try to plan a face-to-face before 

20 the March meeting.

21 MR. KATZ: If you want. Since I have 

22 four of you, all but Phil, on the phone, if you want 

23 to look at your calendars now we can actually pick 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a date.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, let me get 

3 mine. I agree on the face-to-face. 

4 MR. KATZ: But I'm sorry, are you 

5 saying this next meeting will be face-to-face?

6 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Yes, the one 

7 before the March meeting.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's fine, 

9 whatever you'd like.

10 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. While 

11 you're looking at your calendars, I did a quick scan 

12 through the dosimetry reports to see which years 

13 I could potentially verify the temporary badge 

14 reports for CPP area.

15 We certainly wouldn't have the other 

16 ones scanned yet. They'll be scanned but they 

17 certainly wouldn't be in our possession to do an 

18 evaluation on other areas.

19 But CPP, it looks like up through 1966, 

20 so we could evaluate '63-'66, and then '72-'74. 

21 There might be one more in between that gap, but 

22 I don't know about that.

23 I do see temporary badges being 
120

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 reported for CPP in some of those areas that we 

2 could potentially provide some input to the Work 

3 Group at a meeting.

4 MR. KATZ: For dates, if you folks have 

5 your calendars out, I think this should be 

6 sufficiently in advance of the meeting, because 

7 it's going to be a lot to report on for Tim and Bob 

8 and the Work Group to the Board.

9 How about the week of March 1st? How 

10 does that week look for you folks? For example, 

11 March 1st, March 2nd, 3rd.

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm okay.

13 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I'm clear.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: March 2nd, 3rd and 4th 

15 I'm not available.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. How's March 1st? 

17 Okay for you, then?

18 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: And David? How's March 1 

20 for you? That's a Tuesday.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: March 1st looks 

22 okay.

23 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we are, just to be 
121

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 clear, we're going to plan for a face-to-face then 

2 in Cincinnati on March 1st.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

4 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: And of course, if one of you 

6 can't travel because of teaching or other duties, 

7 you know, we'll have a phone hook-up too so you can 

8 join if you can. I'm thinking especially of David.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: And I assume Tim and 

10 SC&A, Bob, will be available?

11 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, that's 

12 essential, right. So I'm assuming I would hear 

13 from you, Tim, or Bob, now if it's a problem. March 

14 1st?

15 MR. BARTON: I go where I'm told, Ted, 

16 so.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, how about Tim?

18 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, I am available. 

19 I'm very glad you picked that week because the 

20 previous week I'm not available.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, okay. So there it is. 

22 It's March 1st. And we'll let the petitioners 

23 know, too, that we have that as a date.
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

2 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And on 

3 this, I will put together, with SC&A's help, a 

4 presentation for Wednesday, mostly just a status 

5 report. And of course, that will be sent to NIOSH 

6 hopefully by the first of the week. So, Monday, 

7 Tuesday morning at the latest.

8 MEMBER MELIUS: NIOSH won't be around 

9 Monday. It's a holiday.

10 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: A holiday for you 

11 guys. Okay, Tuesday morning at the latest, then.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: And the earliest is 

13 fine too.

14 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: The earliest. 

15 Okay. So we'll get that out.

16 MR. KATZ: I'm sure you'll be fine, 

17 Josie. It's a process. You're not going to be 

18 getting into any --

19 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Right, right. 

20 Yeah. And then, Ted, could you at this time, if 

21 there's nothing else on either report or any 

22 questions, could you go through the petitioner's, 

23 the authorized representative's email?
123

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 Petitioner Comments

2 MR. KATZ: I was waiting to do that. 

3 We sort of jumped the gun and got into this matter. 

4 But let me just read this for the record for the 

5 Work Group meeting.

6 So, NIOSH had sent an email, the 

7 petitioner counselor for NIOSH, to one of the 

8 petitioners, the representative of the petitioner 

9 asking about -- who had looked at the agenda and 

10 saw what the issue is. And here's what he wished 

11 to convey at least.

12 "As the authorized representative for 

13 the INL petitioner, the proposed Class, if it still 

14 requires proof of a radiation monitoring badge for 

15 CPP, then my position is that is not a viable manner 

16 of implementation of the SEC.

17 "I'm aware that the Board has also 

18 presented this concern to NIOSH. I am concerned 

19 that if approved with this Definition then there 

20 will be some workers that are not accounted for in 

21 the SEC Definition.

22 "I know from Mr. Taulbee's presentation 

23 at previous meetings that the records were 
124

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 efficiently kept at INL. However, as an 

2 authorized representative for workers at INL, I 

3 affirm that there will very likely be exceptions 

4 and issues that will challenge that proposed 

5 Definition."

6 And that's it, that's his comment. 

7 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Thank you for 

8 that. Any other items to discuss before we move 

9 to the next brief update?

10 (No response)

11 Brief Update on Other DCAs

12 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Hearing none, 

13 then we were going to hear from NIOSH and from SC&A 

14 on updates of other activities to date.

15 So, Tim, would you like to start on 

16 that?

17 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I'm not sure what 

18 other activities you're wanting an update on, but 

19 I will give you one.

20 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: I didn't put this 

21 together so I was assuming that --

22 MR. KATZ: So, this is Ted. I'll speak 

23 for it because I did put it together although I 
125

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 shared it with everybody for their comment and got 

2 no comments.

3 But I'm assuming there was other SEC 

4 work aside from this getting done, this 

5 definitional matter getting done on both sides of 

6 the fence, both at DCAS and SC&A. And I thought 

7 it might be useful for the Work Group just to hear 

8 how the rest of that is going along.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, then, from 

10 my standpoint on the SEC side of things, since the 

11 update in November we have been working diligently 

12 on the ANL-West SEC. And I have seen an early draft 

13 of that and DCAS has reviewed it. And ORAU is 

14 implementing our comments into the report. And we 

15 are expected to get a re-draft on Tuesday of next 

16 week. 

17 So that one is rolling along to where 

18 we should definitely be able to present it to the 

19 Board at the March meeting for sure, and hopefully 

20 actually get it to you 30 days in advance, at least 

21 that is our target right now. So, that could be 

22 unprecedented in and of itself.

23 So, that's the other SEC activities 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we have been working on.

2 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: That's terrific. 

3 Okay.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Tell us where to send 

5 the bottle of champagne.

6 (Laughter)

7 DR. TAULBEE: Well, we haven't 

8 achieved it yet. Give it time.

9 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thank you 

10 for that. And it sounds like you're right on 

11 target from what we discussed last meeting.

12 Bob, or anyone from SC&A, could you let 

13 us know what you're working on?

14 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I can 

15 give you kind of a thumbnail sketch of where we are.

16 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

17 MR. STIVER: As everybody is I'm sure 

18 aware, the week of the 25th through the 28th of this 

19 month we'll be out at the site doing worker 

20 interviews and some data capture.

21 You'll recall the primary focus of the 

22 data capture is to look at Burial Grounds and also 

23 CPP in the pre-1963, the pre-SEC period. And also 
127

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 to see if we can find some actual measurements of 

2 dissolver content and so forth, anything above and 

3 beyond what Ron Buchanan was able to locate in the 

4 SRDB, to kind of try to validate the OTIB-54 and 

5 TBD-5 approaches of using the index fission product 

6 radionuclides to estimate -- based on the ratios, 

7 to estimate the potential intakes of actinides and 

8 other fission products. 

9 So, that's going to take up most of that 

10 week. In addition, we were tasked to do a couple 

11 of other activities. 

12 One was to create an issues matrix. 

13 And we have that pretty well in hand. It still 

14 needs to be fleshed out a bit for the SEC. I had 

15 a mechanical related question regarding that. In 

16 reviewing the transcript from our last meeting, it 

17 seemed to me that what you wanted, I think Josie 

18 had mentioned this, was kind of one comprehensive 

19 matrix that would cover the entire waterfront, both 

20 the Site Profile and the SEC. And typically what 

21 we do is we try to keep those separate.

22 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: No, I think I 

23 wanted those separate.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: You want them separate? 

2 Okay. So that'll make our job a lot easier. We 

3 already have the Site Profile one. All those 

4 issues are still kind of in abeyance, really, at 

5 this point, or they're kind of on the back burner 

6 until we get a handle on the SEC.

7 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: No, John, let's 

8 definitely keep those separate.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, that's going 

10 to make it a lot easier for us, then. It shouldn't 

11 take much longer than a couple of weeks.

12 Having said that, I'm not going to be 

13 around. I'll be here next week, and then the week 

14 after the trip. So, probably sometime in February 

15 we could get that out.

16 MR. KATZ: And John, are you setting 

17 these up on the BRS?

18 MR. STIVER: We will, yeah. Right now 

19 it's just in a Word format. But yeah, it will 

20 definitely be up on the BRS once we get it all 

21 fleshed out.

22 And the other thing, I believe, was you 

23 wanted the prioritized list of the 52 reactors, 
129

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 which ones that we felt were probably the most 

2 pertinent for the SEC discussion determinations. 

3 And that report is in the works and should be also 

4 done sometime in February.

5 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: So, possibly 

6 we'll have both of those before the --

7 MR. STIVER: That would be the goal, to 

8 have them before our face-to-face meeting.

9 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Before the 

10 March 1st meeting. Terrific.

11 MR. STIVER: Right. And that's all I 

12 had. Unless anybody else -- Bob, do you have 

13 anything else to add to that?

14 MR. BARTON: No, I think you covered 

15 the waterfront there.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And then, 

18 Work Group Members, any additional comments, 

19 clarifications? 

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: Nothing here. Good 

21 job, Josie.

22 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thank you. 

23 And Jim, anything from you or Dave?
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: No.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

3 ACTING CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So we've 

4 already discussed the petitioner comments and the 

5 worker recommendations. And I would say, unless 

6 there's something else, we are at a point we can 

7 close.

8 MR. KATZ: Very good. Thank you, 

9 Josie. Thank you, everybody else.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 was concluded at 1:02 p.m.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18