1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

+ + + + +

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY-WEST/

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

AUGUST 2, 2016

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the 

Montreal Boardroom of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Phillip Schofield, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member
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

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A*

YVONNE CARIGNAN, SC&A*

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A*

MITCH FINDLEY, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A*

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU Team*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JAMES NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TIM TAULBEE, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
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 

Contents.......................................... 3

Welcome and Introduction.......................... 4

White Paper on Temporary Badge Completeness....... 8

Follow-up from Last Meeting – Discuss and Address 

Any Further Questions Regarding the 18 Cases..... 16

Analysis on Additional 32 Claims Since Last Summer. 

Evaluation of New Claims Filed Since the Summer of 

2015 for Idaho National Laboratory............... 41

Discussions or Concerns the Work Group Has With 

Regards to Sufficiency of the Data............... 52

SC&A Updates – Data Capture Efforts, Burial Ground 

CPP Pre-1963..................................... 96

Review of Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00224, 

Argonne National Laboratory-West Regarding the Use 

of General Air Sampling for Internal Dose 

Assessment...................................... 118

SC&A’s Evalution of Cs-137/Sr-90 Values and 

Actinides Using INL Waste Reports in Relation to 

Assigning Intakes............................... 162

INL SEC-00219 Reactor Priortization for Evaluation 

of ORAUT-OTIB-0054 Applicability................ 195

NIOSH Update on ER Addendum and Provide a Tentative 

Schedule........................................ 233

Status of OTIB’s Identified in Section 4.2 of 

Argonne National Laboratory-West Special Cohort 

Evaluation Report............................... 246

Integrated Status Report of Site Profile and SEC 

Issues Related to INL and ANL-W................. 256

Evaluation of Monitoring Practices for Claimants at 

Argonne National Laboratory-West................ 277
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 (9:00 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Introduction 

4 MR. KATZ: So, welcome, everybody. 

5 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

6 Worker Health, INL/ANL-West Combined Work 

7 Group. 

8 And we have almost everyone -- we 

9 have all the Board Members we are going to have 

10 in the room and then I will check on the line.

11 Dr. Melius, are you with us? Are 

12 you on mute? And Dr. Richardson is the other 

13 Member of this Work Group.

14 So, do we have Dr. Melius and Dr. 

15 Richardson on the line? 

16 (No response.)

17 No. So, let's hang in there a 

18 little bit. Actually, we could do the rest of 

19 roll call. The Work Group Members are all --

20 none of them have conflicts with either of 

21 these sites. So, I will speak that for them 

22 and that will cover them. We will come back 
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 around to see if Melius and Richardson have 

2 joined us.

3 (Roll call.)

4 MR. KATZ: Alright, then. So I will 

5 just remind folks on the phone to mute your 

6 phones except for when you are addressing the 

7 group. That will help with the audio. 

8 And it's Tim, why don't we get 

9 started with you? Well, I mean, Phil, if you 

10 have anything, or Josie, you want to say up11 front?

12 MEMBER BEACH: I don't think so.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Has the new 

15 order been posted to the website?

16 MR. KATZ: So, the agenda slightly 

17 revised. And, John, I guess, can speak to that 

18 briefly before Tim gets started, but it's not 

19 much different from the agenda on the website. 

20 And I would just also note that most of the 

21 materials that are being discussed are also 

22 posted on the website in PA-cleared form. 
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 That's the NIOSH website. Go to the Board 

2 section, today's meeting, today's date, and you 

3 can pull up from there all of the documents 

4 that will be discussed.

5 And we do have a Live Meeting 

6 session for Board Members and SC&A staff who 

7 want to follow whatever might be posted there, 

8 if anybody is going to use it.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I guess the one thing 

10 that we can mention is the two-page site 

11 overview handout that we requested is not ready 

12 yet. So, it is on the agenda but it's not 

13 available at this time. So, that should be 

14 posted.

15 DR. TAULBEE: That's correct. I 

16 hope within the next month or so. I do 

17 apologize for that. Things got kind of hectic 

18 and we did not to get to that in a timely 

19 manner. So, I apologize for not providing that 

20 for this meeting.

21 MR. KATZ: John, do you just want to 

22 talk about the minor revisions to the agenda?
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 MR. STIVER: Yeah, sure. This is 

2 John Stiver. There have been a couple of 

3 changes to the agenda, just minor stuff. 

4 Under the heading "SC&A White Papers 

5 and Discussion," bullet items two and three, 

6 which are reactor prioritization and the 

7 evaluation of cesium/strontium values and 

8 actinides, basically those two were combined 

9 for INL and ANL-West. Instead of having two 

10 separate discussions under different headings, 

11 it made more sense to streamline everything and 

12 just put them together. So, Steve Ostrow and 

13 Ron Buchanan will just kind of discuss that as 

14 one overall, overarching topic.

15 Let's see. Under the ANL-West, what 

16 had been number five on the list, Hans 

17 Behling's presentation on the general air 

18 sampling for internal dose assessment for FCF, 

19 we are bumping up to number one because Hans is 

20 going to have to leave early this afternoon and 

21 we wanted to make sure he had a chance to 

22 present.
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 And that's it.

2 MR. KATZ: And just a note on that, 

3 we will be adjourning by no later than 3:30 

4 today for catching planes.

5 Okay, Tim.

6 White Paper on Temporary Badge Completeness

7 DR. TAULBEE: Alright. Well, thank 

8 you. The first item here on the agenda is to 

9 discuss our report on the completeness of the 

10 INL Chemical Processing Plant badges from the 

11 SEC Class Definition. At the last Board 

12 meeting, or at the last Work Group meeting, we 

13 discussed that the temporary badges, the Board 

14 has asked whether these were complete or not. 

15 And we believed that they were after we found 

16 the additional badge inserts back in January of 

17 this year at the site. 

18 But at the time, we didn't have a 

19 way of verifying whether they were complete or 

20 not. We had some monthly reports that were not 

21 complete and others that were complete to where 

22 we could do a comparison.
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 So, back in March, I showed you a 

2 graph that had a 1963, 1964, and 1965 

3 comparison. Fortunately, during SC&A's data 

4 capture in the middle of March, I was able to 

5 locate the other monthly reports that had the 

6 temporary badge information in them. So, with 

7 that additional information that we captured 

8 from the site, then we could go back to all the 

9 temporary badges that we captured and compare 

10 and see, do we have the same number of badges 

11 that they said they did: 400 in this month, do 

12 we have 400 to do some kind of independent 

13 verification?

14 And so that is the purpose of this 

15 first report that I have got up on here on the 

16 Live Meeting for you all to see.

17 And one of the things that I wanted 

18 to try and emphasize at least a little bit, 

19 with the Class Definition, the way we currently 

20 proposed it, was to have -- the requirement was 

21 to have one dosimetry badge at CPP between 1963 

22 and March of 1970 -- or February 1970 -- and 
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 then any badge on site from 1970, March 1970 

2 through December 1974.

3 Now, the second part, the Board has 

4 already taken action on. So we are really just 

5 talking about this first part of January 1963 

6 through February of 1970.

7 One of the reasons that we used that 

8 one badge -- or the primary reason we used the 

9 one-badge methodology was that somebody could 

10 be issued an annual TLD and only have been 

11 issued one badge and have gone to work at CPP. 

12 With these temporary badges, that wasn't the 

13 case. They never issued, during this time 

14 period, TLDs as temporary badges. They were 

15 still film through that time period. So the 

16 maximum wear period was the one month. Now, 

17 sometimes -- well, nobody went over a month, 

18 but you see up to a month in the records.

19 So, most of the badges are typically 

20 a few days, one or two days or a week type of 

21 time period within these temporary badges. So, 

22 in reality, to have worked at CPP for 250 days 
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 and been monitored, because everybody had to be 

2 monitored going in there, we would need to be 

3 missing 12 badges for an individual -- 12 

4 temporary badges, if you will.

5 So, based upon our follow-up here 

6 that I'll get to, I feel very confident that we 

7 are not missing anybody who worked at CPP for 

8 250 days. And due to the completeness that 

9 I'll be pointing out to you here, I believe 

10 that we've got all of the temporary badges.

11 And to go through a little bit of a 

12 recap here, like on page four, this is one of 

13 the graphs I showed you of all the CPP regular 

14 badges and how well they matched on a monthly 

15 basis. The Figure 2 there that you see, the 

16 large drop in 1967 is, again, a transition from 

17 monthly film badges to TLDs. This is when they 

18 partitioned the workers who were heavily 

19 exposed remained on film, workers who were more 

20 lightly exposed transitioned to TLDs, and then 

21 eventually the whole site when to TLDs. But 

22 there you can see the very good agreement.
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 The graph below is the agreement 

2 between what's in the monthly reports and the 

3 TLD dosimetry. And, again, we see good 

4 agreement. These are on the regular badged 

5 workers at CPP.

6 Figure 4 here is the CX dosimetry. 

7 These are construction trades workers. These 

8 are people who entered out in a different date 

9 and were badged out of that same date going 

10 into CPP, but these are just construction 

11 workers. This is the CX dosimetry. And, 

12 again, you see good agreement between the 

13 monthly reports and the dosimetry reports. You 

14 can see the spike in the 1967 time period when 

15 there was a lot of renovation work going on and 

16 a lot more construction activity, and then it 

17 drops back down to kind of a normal level.

18 Figure 5 is the new graph. This is 

19 the temporary badges. This is what we've been 

20 working on. And when we're doing this, what we 

21 initially found was very good agreement up 

22 through 1967. 1968, 1969, and 1970 were 
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 initially in good agreement. Now, what you see 

2 here is good agreement. What we found -- I'm 

3 sorry?

4 DR. NETON: I don't see Figure 5.

5 DR. TAULBEE: It should be down here 

6 at the bottom. 

7 DR. NETON: You've got to scroll 

8 down.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, I have it on the 

10 large screen. I'm sorry. I apologize. Is 

11 that better? Can everybody see that?

12 (Off the record comments.)

13 DR. TAULBEE: But what we learned 

14 was the temporary badge reports -- if you 

15 recall, there's two sets of information here. 

16 One is the temporary badge reports. These are 

17 the sheets with the names listed. And the 

18 second thing is what you guys saw when you were 

19 out there in January, is those little cards 

20 that we found. 

21 And so the two are actually 

22 comprised -- the total temporary badges is what 
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 we learned. When you add them together, the 

2 temporary badge reports appear to be mostly the 

3 Idaho Nuclear people only, and the temporary 

4 badge cards is everybody else. And so when you 

5 add them together, then we saw good agreement 

6 between the two.

7 So, you actually have to use both 

8 sets in order to evaluate the temporary badges 

9 for that CPP in that latter -- in that time 

10 period of 1968 through 1970.

11 Now, keep in mind, March of 1970, 

12 it's any badge onsite, but in that '68 to '70 

13 time period, this is what we found, is that you 

14 actually have to sum up those two different 

15 report sets.

16 And so based upon this, we do feel 

17 that we have very good agreement and kind of 

18 complete dosimetry.

19 These other graphs are just an 

20 annual summary so that you can see, it's a 

21 little cleaner and you can see on an annual 

22 basis. In general, there is more dosimeters 
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 listed in the printouts than what the monthly 

2 reports listed. And I think that's really more 

3 of an artifact of the reporting cut-off time 

4 periods when the temporary badges are on a 

5 daily basis, including weekends. People were 

6 working continuously, it was 24/7, and so some 

7 of these dosimeter reports made it in -- some 

8 of these dosimeters made it into the printouts 

9 and the dosimetry records but not into the 

10 monthly reports. That's why I think you see 

11 this small one percent type of difference 

12 between the monthly reports, where the 

13 dosimeters generally are larger. They had more 

14 data than what they reported. So, this last 

15 one here that I just pulled up is the temporary 

16 badge reports.

17 So, when you look at the totals, 

18 overall through the entire time period, the 

19 monthly reports from 1963 through 1970 

20 indicated 83,698 badges. And what we've 

21 counted up between the regular dosimetry, the 

22 construction dosimetry, and these temporary 
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 badge reports, which include people delivering 

2 for Coca-Cola or telephone, et cetera, we've 

3 got 85,405. So, we have got slightly more. 

4 So, based upon our analysis, we 

5 believe that we have a complete set of the 

6 dosimetry for CPP during this time period. 

7 Follow-up from Last Meeting – Discuss and Address 

8 Any Further Questions Regarding the 18 Cases 

9 So, the next topic that we'll get 

10 into is the evaluation of cases, the 18 

11 additional ones. And the point that I wanted 

12 to try and tie in here is, some people have 

13 indicated work at CPP and we weren't able to 

14 find them between 1963 and 1970, but some of 

15 these individuals we've found at CPP outside of 

16 this time period. 

17 So, clearly, they worked at CPP, 

18 just not in the '63 to '70 time period that 

19 we're currently recommending. And so to do a 

20 full evaluation of some of them, it takes a lot 

21 more effort, and a lot of these temporary 

22 badges have not been coded yet. We went 
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 through manually and looked for people within 

2 this time period. This information has not 

3 been indexed. The site is currently working on 

4 indexing that and now is probably a good time 

5 to relay this information to you all.

6 We talked to the sites the last week 

7 of June to see how they were progressing. If 

8 you recall, in March, I gave an update and they 

9 estimated it would take six to nine months. 

10 And so from March, then we are estimating the 

11 maximum that it would be November for them to 

12 have this completed, November/December.

13 Unfortunately, the site reported to 

14 me they didn't receive any of the money to 

15 start indexing this until the third week of 

16 June. So they didn't get the money transferred 

17 from DOE headquarters, Greg Lewis's group 

18 didn't get the money physically to the site to 

19 start coding. So they were geared up to do it, 

20 but what Craig reported to us, Craig Walker, 

21 our point-of-contact out there, is that they 

22 have started indexing, that they got the money.
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 All of those physical cards should 

2 be coded by October 1st, and at which time they 

3 will need additional money from Greg Lewis' 

4 group to start coding those individual 

5 temporary badge reports. So, how long it's 

6 going to take, I don't know. It's a money 

7 issue right now as far as them getting money to 

8 code this data. And it's coming from DOE 

9 Headquarters, which is under the program. So, 

10 that's something that you might want to take up 

11 with Greg Lewis.

12 MEMBER BEACH: So, this is a two13 part process. They have the money to start the 

14 first part of it but they're going to have get 

15 the second part. So, really, we need to get 

16 that money moving forward so there's not a gap, 

17 possibly?

18 DR. TAULBEE: I would think so, but 

19 I'm not sure that that's going -- you are going 

20 to have to talk to Greg Lewis about that 

21 because it has to do with end-of-year money and 

22 carryover and that type of thing from the 
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 October 1st fiscal year. And that was why they 

2 could only go up through October 1st. But I 

3 don't know what Greg's situation is from that 

4 standpoint.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I think we will see 

6 him next week, right?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes.

8 DR. TAULBEE: We certainly will.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, a key in here 

11 is that, if one temporary badge is missing, 

12 it's not significant, because in order to 

13 comply with the 250-day minimum work period, 

14 they would have to have at least 12 badges.

15 DR. TAULBEE: They would have to 

16 have 12 missing. The reason that I mostly 

17 bring that up is that there were some 

18 discussion at the last Board meeting about 

19 misspellings of names and whether a record 

20 wasn't legible and that type of thing.

21 And so that's the main reason that I 

22 am bringing that up, is that if there is one 
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 person who does happen to be misspelled and it 

2 does get missed, on a temporary badge only and 

3 they only had the one, they clearly weren't 

4 there 250 days. But I mean, obviously, we are 

5 going to try and do our best, and DOE is going 

6 to do their best, to make sure everything is 

7 indexed and everything is complete and so 

8 forth. A single badge missing I don't think is 

9 really significant, from that standpoint, along 

10 the temporary badges.

11 Now, in the TLD era, that could be, 

12 but those are all printout records. Those are 

13 all IDM coded. The spellings should be 

14 correct. They are something that was double15 checked, that type of thing. So, that 

16 shouldn't be an issue along with the electronic 

17 records for the construction workers and for 

18 the regular operations folks.

19 These temporary workers who came in 

20 there occasionally, it could be an issue with 

21 the spelling. If you recall, the last time I 

22 pointed out, there was about 12 different name 
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 variations for one individual. And so that's 

2 where that could become -- that's why I bring 

3 that up.

4 And so we're not really -- I don't 

5 believe we would be missing anybody that worked 

6 there for 250 days. Do I think we could end 

7 up, through a misspelling or something, missing 

8 somebody who had one badge there? Well, 

9 possibly. I couldn't 100 percent rule that 

10 out. So, just from what I've seen on the 

11 spellings.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Just so I have it 

13 clear, so they're indexing and then they are 

14 coding. Is that the two different variances?

15 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry. It's the 

16 same word.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Same word, okay.

18 DR. TAULBEE: There are two sets of 

19 data. One is the cards that you all saw 

20 physically that they were compiling together 

21 and putting into little groups to be scanned. 

22 That's the part that they are currently 
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 indexing into their database.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, scanning them. 

3 Okay.

4 DR. TAULBEE: They've already 

5 scanned them.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

7 DR. TAULBEE: The time period was 

8 the indexing, reading the names off of them and 

9 getting them into their system.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, that's a 

11 challenge.

12 DR. TAULBEE: That's the challenge. 

13 That's the hard part. I believe, as Bob 

14 pointed out in one of this reviews, there is S15 numbers on many of these. These are security 

16 numbers. They can also be used. And I believe 

17 the site is also indexing them based upon those 

18 because that does really help with 

19 misspellings, is to just enter the number and 

20 then you get this person and so it is all 

21 indexed for the same person. So, that does 

22 help. That's the indexing that I'm talking 
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 about. Indexing and coding I use 

2 interchangeably. It's the same thing.

3 Once they get done with those cards 

4 through October 1, that's the time period that 

5 they're going to move on to those temporary 

6 badge reports that you see.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

8 DR. TAULBEE: That's the part that 

9 they don't have funding for right now in order 

10 to do.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do you have any 

12 numbers for personnel, some of these people 

13 that have temporary badges that might have been 

14 sent for either in vivo or in vitro analysis?

15 DR. TAULBEE: We don't, until we 

16 get, really, the index done. When we get the 

17 indexing done and then we can do a comparison 

18 from it. That does kind of get into the 

19 question -- shoot, I just lost my train of 

20 thought -- on the bioassay, our current coding 

21 efforts.

22 Do you want to make an announcement 
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 that Mitch is now here?

2 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Mitch Findley from ORAU 

5 has joined us.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, thanks.

7 MR. KATZ: And no conflicts?

8 MR. FINDLEY: No.

9 MR. KATZ: No conflicts for either 

10 site, okay.

11 DR. TAULBEE: And so from the in 

12 vivo or in vitro data set, we are in the 

13 process of recoding that entire data set, re14 indexing, if you will. That effort got 

15 underway at ORAU the third week of June. There 

16 was a significant lag as far as getting the 

17 database set up. It took a lot of effort but 

18 it's a very good product that's currently being 

19 done so that it can be reviewed easily and we 

20 have really good assurances of quality 

21 assurance on this data set.

22 To give an idea of the magnitude of 
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 this effort, Phil, is there are estimated 

2 181,000 lines to be entered. We have currently 

3 entered 26,000 in the past month and a half. 

4 So, we are underway, but our initial completion 

5 date is going to be around November 9th for the 

6 in vitro data set, and that looks like it is 

7 going to be about three months longer. So, 

8 that will be sometime in late spring, most 

9 likely, for that data set to be available. And 

10 that was something that Josie had mentioned to 

11 me just before we started, did I have an update 

12 on that database of when that would be 

13 available. My best guess right now is that it 

14 will be sometime in March, early March, that 

15 that would be available to you all.

16 At that point, hopefully DOE will 

17 also have this index done to answer the 

18 question that you just asked as to how many of 

19 these temporary badge people might have 

20 bioassay monitoring. We just don't know 

21 because there may not be any record, other than 

22 the bioassay, currently in any system to look 
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 at from that standpoint.

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, another 

3 question. I know it's been a practice at some 

4 facilities that if you have a contractor, say, 

5 come in and doing some work, their people 

6 aren't necessarily cleared. So, they use a 

7 person as an escort who is cleared but they may 

8 be the only one who's actually got a badge.

9 DR. TAULBEE: At CPP, everybody had 

10 to wear a badge coming in. 

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Including the 

12 non-cleared.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Including the non14 cleared, and the non-cleared were escorted. 

15 Interestingly, when you look at the physical 

16 cards, they're different colors, based upon 

17 whether they were cleared or not and at what 

18 level. And so when you physically look at 

19 them, you can't tell it in the SRDB because 

20 it's all black and white, but when you 

21 physically look at them you can tell who had 

22 clearances and who didn't. So that was how 
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 they visually did that to make sure somebody 

2 was escorted along those lines. Everybody had 

3 a badge going in to CPP.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, thanks.

5 DR. TAULBEE: So, kind of in 

6 summary, with regards to the completeness, we 

7 have looked across both across the regular CPP, 

8 the CX group, which is CPP construction, and 

9 the CPP temporary badges. Overall, there's 

10 slightly two percent more badges identified 

11 that we have found than what is reported in the 

12 monthly badged -- or monthly reports. 

13 The longest wear period is, again, 

14 approximately one month, with the vast majority 

15 of one day and one week amongst what we saw. 

16 Thus, a minimum of 12 badges would be needed 

17 for 250 days exposure. We are not requiring 

18 that. The goal in our SEC Class Definition was 

19 to cast the net wide to make sure we got 

20 everybody who had that potential. And so we 

21 recognize there are some people that don't work 

22 there 250 days but they would make it into the 
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 Class, if they had a badge in that area. 

2 The goal there, the primary goal, 

3 was that person who had that one TLD that 

4 actually started on that first day of the 

5 monitoring period and quit on that last one. 

6 Most people, even if they worked a year and one 

7 month, might have two, or should have two TLDs, 

8 along that type of line. So, that was our goal 

9 of the one-badge requirement was purely for the 

10 TLD. So, it really doesn't affect the 

11 temporary badges.

12 MR. STIVER: Tim, let me just 

13 interrupt you for one second just so I get it 

14 clear. So, even if a guy that just had one 

15 temporary badge and he can verify onsite 

16 employment for 250 days, he'd be in.

17 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. And again, we 

20 cast the net wide to make sure we didn't miss 

21 anybody. That was our goal, recognizing that 

22 we are including more people than clearly 
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 worked there 250 days. So it was designed to 

2 be claimant-favorable along that line.

3 Again, TLDs were not issued as 

4 temporary badges during this time period. 

5 Thus, there's no way somebody could have worn a 

6 temporary badge for 250 days, a single one.

7 And with that, I will be happy to 

8 answer any questions that you guys might have.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I guess first 

10 impression from SC&A?

11 MR. BARTON: Yeah, and thank you for 

12 sending along the Excel file. That was really 

13 helpful just to kind of get an idea of what was 

14 done for this meeting.

15 My question is about the era, I 

16 guess, looking at the files, it was '68 to '70 

17 where you had to add the count from the 

18 temporary badge report to the visitor cards. 

19 So, I guess, mechanistically, in the earlier 

20 time period, were they just throwing the 

21 visitor cards away once they created the 

22 temporary badge reports or did they keep those 
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 as well?

2 DR. TAULBEE: It appears to me that 

3 they just -- the primary record was the 

4 temporary badge reports. I have not physically 

5 seen those cards but I don't know that I've 

6 searched for them directly from that 

7 standpoint.

8 MR. BARTON: Okay.

9 DR. TAULBEE: We did search for them 

10 in that latter time period, especially when we 

11 were looking for those three follow-up cases 

12 last January, which is how we discovered that. 

13 So, I don't know if those cards are actually 

14 still there or not. We have not looked for 

15 those.

16 But based upon what we see from the 

17 monthly reports, and some of the same names 

18 with the vendors, we see them on the temporary 

19 badge reports up through 1967. 1968 is when 

20 you begin to see those Coca-Cola guy, he 

21 disappears off of the temporary badge reports, 

22 and they are mostly INL or Idaho Nuclear 
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 Corporation people or Allied Chemical 

2 Corporation and Argonne-West for some reason. 

3 You begin to not see the telephone guy, the 

4 Coca-Cola guy, but then you see them on those 

5 cards that we found. So that's where we saw 

6 that transition. It appears from around 1968.

7 MR. BARTON: Right. No, you have 

8 the reference in your report. It looks like 

9 it's dated 1966. I guess the policy of if you 

10 had a zero dose and you didn't already have an 

11 HP number, they kept the card but you didn't 

12 make it on the report. And that kind of 

13 transitioned, I guess, to where it was fully in 

14 effect by '68, it looks like.

15 DR. TAULBEE: That is my 

16 interpretation, yes.

17 MR. BARTON: Okay. And also just, 

18 as I was kind of looking through the data, how 

19 were the temporary badges, when you were 

20 counting them, physically off the report, like 

21 a "not in area" designation? Or if there 

22 wasn't actually a numerical result listed, was 
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 that still counted in the listing? Like, 

2 you'll see some that it doesn't have a result 

3 and it just says NIA next to the person's name. 

4 Do you know if those were actually counted?

5 DR. TAULBEE: On the temporary 

6 badges?

7 MR. BARTON: On the temporary badge 

8 reports, when you're doing the tallies to 

9 compare against the monthly reports. Because 

10 I'm wondering if --

11 DR. TAULBEE: I remember seeing them 

12 more on the CPP dosimetry than on the temporary 

13 badge reports but --

14 MR. BARTON: I wonder if that would 

15 account for the fact that you sometimes see 

16 more temporary badges than --

17 DR. TAULBEE: That is possible.

18 MR. BARTON: Just a thought.

19 DR. TAULBEE: That is possible. I 

20 mean, in many cases, when we were counting 

21 these up -- well, let me just speak a little 

22 more to that.
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 When I counted some of the earlier 

2 ones, it was there's 25 names on this page and 

3 so I write that down and go on and kind of 

4 create a spreadsheet tallying from that 

5 standpoint. When you got to the temporary 

6 cards, it became really hard, really hard, 

7 because there wasn't a report date up at the 

8 top to go off of.

9 MR. BARTON: Just the days they 

10 worked?

11 DR. TAULBEE: It was just the days 

12 that they worked. And so you're looking at a 

13 handwritten date. And, okay, it looks like 

14 they were mostly in chronological order, but 

15 not always. So that's some of the variation I 

16 think you see.

17 That's part of why I wanted to look 

18 at the annual total, because you see one month 

19 to one month, there could be some slight 

20 variation.

21 MR. BARTON: Sure.

22 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got 
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 another question on that. Say you have a 

2 temporary employee or a contractor, doesn't 

3 matter. They come in, say, in the month of 

4 June. Maybe they worked two or three days part 

5 of the month. Then you don't see them onsite 

6 for a while and then they come back. Maybe 

7 they are having to do, maybe like cement or 

8 something, they were letting it sit and cure 

9 and then they come back and do a few more days 

10 work and then they're offsite again. So, they 

11 can actually have been in three different 

12 times, four different times in one month.

13 I assume every time they came in 

14 they didn't give them a different badge, 

15 whether they held that temporary badge for them 

16 or would they give them a new badge each time 

17 they walked in?

18 DR. TAULBEE: No, they were given a 

19 new badge. They were given a new badge each 

20 time they came in. And so as long as we can 

21 identify one badge, and they have 250 days of 

22 DOL employment verification, they are part of 
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 the Class. But they were given a different 

2 badge each time.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That 250 

4 days, are you counting the time they spent out 

5 at the site, INL, or just at CPP?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Employment, however 

7 DOL defines their current employment for 

8 employment in general. And in many cases, it's 

9 based upon they were working for a company and 

10 that company had a contract for a year or two 

11 years. And they might have only been on-site 

12 for a week during that entire time period and 

13 we have that one dosimeter, but there wasn't 

14 any other verification DOL could do as far as 

15 their employment, and, therefore, they said 

16 that this person worked there for two years, 

17 even though when you look at some of their 

18 Social Security Administration records, you can 

19 see that they were also working at other places 

20 because they were earning money for other 

21 companies during that time period. Their 

22 employment is verified as two years and they 
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 have the one badge, they are part of the Class.

2 Like I said, our design was to cast 

3 the net wide.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Jim, 

5 have you got any comments?

6 MR. KATZ: That's directed to Jim.

7 MEMBER MELIUS: I was on mute. I 

8 have no comments.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody from 

10 ORAU or SC&A who's on the phone, do you have 

11 any comments?

12 MR. BARTON: Well, I would say, 

13 based on the last meeting when we only had, I 

14 think it was, 66 of these reports to look at, 

15 and I think one of the big concerns was that we 

16 didn't have any of these monthly reports to 

17 look at in that latter period. So we really 

18 had no way to tell if we had a complete set of 

19 temporary records after '66. And about two 

20 weeks after that meeting, Tim was doing victory 

21 laps around the INL facility.

22 (Laughter.) 
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 MR. BARTON: So, this was kind of 

2 what we were looking for. I think it's 

3 positive that overall we generally have more 

4 actual physical dosimeters or dosimetry reports 

5 than what is actually in the HP report. If it 

6 had gone in the other direction, that would be 

7 a concern.

8 And, obviously, when you start to 

9 look month-to-month there's some fluctuation, 

10 there will be a few months that have more 

11 reported in the health physics report than we 

12 actually have in hand, but then the next month, 

13 you have more dosimeters. And that's, I guess, 

14 kind of washed out in the uncertainty of when 

15 you actually report it, when the health physics 

16 office reported that badge being read or 

17 whatever their criteria was. 

18 I think, at the end of the day, when 

19 you look at the entire big picture, what was 

20 it, two percent, two percent more badges in 

21 hand than what was actually reported by the 

22 health physics department over that entire 
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 period. I see it as fairly positive, positive 

2 results.

3 MEMBER BEACH: So, I guess we need 

4 to talk about path forward, whether we need 

5 here -- I know we haven't looked at the 

6 temporary badges, correct? So, well, we've got 

7 the visitor badges --

8 DR. TAULBEE: Well, no, those are 

9 all the same, temporary and visitor are the 

10 same. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: Temporary and visitor 

12 are one and the same?

13 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah, the site is 

14 currently working on coding those cards, which 

15 are temporary badges. And then they're going 

16 to be coding the temporary badge reports, the 

17 paper where the names are listed. So that's 

18 that distinction, but they're both the same 

19 thing. They're both temporary badges.

20 That was how, for the monthly 

21 reports, we had to add those two together in 

22 order to match what the monthly reports were. 
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 And we did some cross-checking to make sure 

2 that they weren't listed on both, and they 

3 don't appear to be. It appears to be INC and 

4 everybody else.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I'm looking 

6 for what does the Work Group need now? Do we 

7 need to do a sampling or what's the thought 

8 process?

9 MR. BARTON: Well, I mean, I think 

10 the validation of what was done here is sort of 

11 the gold standard for what we could do. As far 

12 as a sampling, I guess we could, for that 

13 earlier period where the visitor cards were all 

14 put on the temporary badge reports, we could do 

15 some sort of elevation on those earlier ones. 

16 But the latter ones, it's a little bit 

17 difficult because the process changed to where 

18 if you're on a sub-sub-subcontract, like the 

19 Coca-Cola guy, you probably aren't going to 

20 make it into that actual listing of temporary 

21 badges unless you had a positive result. I 

22 think it was pretty much based on if you 
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 already had a health physics number.

2 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah.

3 MR. BARTON: If you already had a 

4 health physics number, then you made it on the 

5 report. If you didn't and you didn't have a 

6 positive dose, then they kept the card but they 

7 didn't put you in the main report.

8 So, in some ways, for those first 

9 couple of years when everybody who got a 

10 visitor card made it on the temporary badge 

11 report, you can kind of validate that those two 

12 match up reasonably well. But I'm not sure 

13 that really gets us any closer than we are 

14 right now, as far as validating that we have 

15 all the temporary records.

16 DR. TAULBEE: The temporary records 

17 that we have, those are all in the SRDB. 

18 That's how we tallied these up.

19 MR. BARTON: The visitor cards are 

20 not, though, right?

21 DR. TAULBEE: No, the visitor cards 

22 are, too.
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 MR. BARTON: Oh, they are, too?

2 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah, both are there. 

3 The site is taking those and currently indexing 

4 them.

5 MR. BARTON: Oh, for claims, 

6 individual claims.

7 DR. TAULBEE: For individual claims. 

8 We have not done that. We've just simply 

9 tallied the numbers.

10 MR. BARTON: Right.

11 Analysis on Additional 32 Claims Since Last Summer. 

12 Evaluation of New Claims Filed Since the Summer of 

13 2015 for Idaho National Laboratory 

14 DR. TAULBEE: Now, in the evaluation 

15 of additional claims, which we can go on next, 

16 it's kind of the next topic, we went through 

17 and searched those reports. But that's a 

18 manual search, if you're looking for a name and 

19 going through, and it's very tedious and time20 consuming. But we can certainly go on to that 

21 report, if that is what you want to do next.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Sure. Seems 

23 reasonable.
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 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I think getting 

2 both of those two pieces together then for you 

3 all to discuss I think would be beneficial.

4 Okay, give me just a second here to 

5 look that one up. Okay, I'm going to use the 

6 non-PA-cleared version of the report here. So, 

7 people, please be cautious and let's refer to 

8 them as claim number instead of name. I'm 

9 telling that to myself as well here. And I 

10 guess the first thing I'll bring us up here to 

11 is kind an overview of what was done. 

12 Back in March, I believe it was Dr. 

13 Melius asked, we had evaluated 881 claims and 

14 he asked what about the claims that have come 

15 in since then. And so Bob and Mitch both 

16 searched Optis and found that there were 32 

17 additional claims that came in that we could 

18 evaluate and add to that 881 that had 

19 previously been done.

20 And so that was done. We went 

21 through the records. Now, unfortunately, only 

22 22 of these had complete dosimetry records at 
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 the time when we were doing this report. So, 

2 some of them are new claims and we haven't 

3 gotten the full DOE response yet. You'll 

4 notice that with some of the higher claim 

5 numbers in this particular file. So these 

6 would be claims above number 20; 22 through 32 

7 is where I believe most of those fall.

8 And so we went through and did the 

9 same thing with the 881 with these additional 

10 32, and what we found that was that we could 

11 continue to identify individuals, whether they 

12 worked at CPP or not. And pretty much for 

13 everybody. I won't go through each one of 

14 them. 

15 There was one claim that was 

16 considered indeterminate due to a lack of 

17 individual dosimetry results. At this time, we 

18 hadn't gotten individual dosimeter results from 

19 the site. The individual clearly indicated 

20 that he worked at CPP. And in going through, I 

21 believe, as Bob pointed out in his report, the 

22 individual worked at CPP in the 1980s time 
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 period. There are multiple CPP badges that 

2 confirm from his CATI as well. I went through 

3 some the early CPP temporary badge reports and 

4 I actually found him in 1959 working at CPP as 

5 well. So, we found him in 1959 and we found 

6 him in the 1980s. During the 1960s, I located 

7 him at other areas.

8 Live Meeting is not public, correct?

9 MR. KATZ: Correct.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, so I'll pop up. 

11 Here is one. This is the particular 

12 individual. This is 1958 out at MTR. This is 

13 a worker who bounced around to different areas. 

14 In 1965, he was at Test Area North. And so we 

15 do see temporary badges for him in other 

16 locations during his work career, but we don't 

17 see him at CPP from 1963 through 1970.

18 MR. BARTON: Tim, which case are we 

19 on here?

20 DR. TAULBEE: Let me pull that up 

21 again. I apologize. This is claim number 21 -

22 - or case number 21.
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 And, you know, we went through a 

2 pretty exhaustive search of the CPP dosimetry 

3 to see if he was there and do not find him.

4 Now, based upon this individual only 

5 appearing on multiple temporary badge reports, 

6 I believe he's probably going to end up as part 

7 of the Class once all the temporary badge 

8 reports in the cards are coded, because he pops 

9 up at different time periods in different 

10 areas. And so during the 1970 to 1974 time 

11 period, he could have worked at CPP. And if he 

12 pops up on any temporary badge report, he will 

13 be part of the Class, is how that particular 

14 time period works.

15 So, he could have been exposed at 

16 CPP in that 1970 through 1974 period but then 

17 badged at MTR and wore that into CPP. So, that 

18 is already included as part of the Class 

19 Definition. But until those temporary cards 

20 are coded and those temporary badge reports are 

21 done, I don't think we are going to find this 

22 individual.
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 So, that's one of the anomalies. 

2 So, it's kind of indeterminate at this time. 

3 But considering all of his dosimetries on 

4 temporary badges that I've seen, it appears 

5 that he did go into areas at times but his 

6 routine work was not generally in the area.

7 The only other individual that is 

8 still outstanding that I want to talk about 

9 briefly here is the same individual we 

10 identified back in March that we had difficulty 

11 with. And this is an individual -- let me get 

12 the number here. Well, actually he's not part 

13 of that group.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Wasn't he part of the 

15 original?

16 DR. TAULBEE: Yeah, part of the 

17 individual one. This is the one who has a 

18 whole body count designated as CPP. And we 

19 have looked for this individual throughout the 

20 temporary badge reports for CPP and we do not 

21 find him on there in that time period. We do 

22 see him out at SPERT, at MTR, at ETR, from 1963 
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 through 1966.

2 I have really no explanation as to 

3 why the whole body count says CPP. To me, it 

4 should have said CFA, because the individual 

5 had follow-up, clearly routinely worked at 

6 Central Facilities. If you recall, this was a 

7 [identifying information] who worked out of the 

8 Central Facilities, who would go into areas 

9 occasionally and then be badged. Like I said, 

10 we have seen him on temporary badge reports, 

11 just not CPP temporary badge reports. 

12 And so why his whole body count 

13 lists CPP, I don't have an explanation. Is it 

14 a typo? I don't know. There wasn't a whole 

15 body counter at CPP. The whole body counting 

16 was at CF, at Central Facilities. So, was it 

17 somebody writing down something incorrectly? 

18 Was he planning to go to CPP at some point and 

19 just never did? We don't know.

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But the 

21 possibility that he might have actually been 

22 exposed to something, potentially, when he was 
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 at CPP and when they were looking at something 

2 that they wanted done, work for him to do, and 

3 maybe they discovered they had some loose 

4 contamination or something in that particular 

5 area.

6 DR. TAULBEE: He should still be 

7 showing up on the temporary badge reports. 

8 Everybody going into CPP had to be badged.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But he has 

10 bioassay there.

11 DR. TAULBEE: He has bioassay from 

12 other areas, too.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, but how 

14 can you discount when it says CPP for this 

15 individual, how can you discount that?

16 DR. TAULBEE: I can't.

17 MEMBER BEACH: And I don't think he 

18 said he was. He was just trying to figure out 

19 the puzzle.

20 DR. TAULBEE: We have looked through 

21 all of the CPP temporary badge reports. We 

22 believe we have a complete set of the CPP badge 
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 reports. We do not see this individual on 

2 there.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: But it is 

4 possible that his badge fell through the cracks 

5 somehow, right?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, we will put it 

9 that way. Now, did he work 250 days in there? 

10 No.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right.

12 DR. TAULBEE: There is no way that 

13 he worked 250 days in there without us seeing 

14 him. We cast the net wide. So, is there a 

15 misspelling? Did this one actually get missed? 

16 I don't know. Is there a typo in his whole 

17 body count? Possible.

18 I mean, Central Facilities is where 

19 he worked. That's definite. That's clear from 

20 his work description and other records. His 

21 primary work location was Central Facilities. 

22 And he went to other areas, individually, and 
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 like I said, we see him on -- oh, gosh, there 

2 was 13 to 15 temporary badge reports in other 

3 areas that he appears on. So we know he was 

4 doing a job out at SPERT. We know he was doing 

5 a job at MTR. We know he was doing a job at 

6 ETR. We have no indication -- by the way, all 

7 of those areas, he has got multiple temporary 

8 badges at, but he's not on CPP.

9 MR. BARTON: You know, interesting 

10 to that specific case, too, is a lot of times 

11 they would give you what is called an in vivo 

12 questionnaire. And basically they'd ask you, 

13 you know, where were you working? Where have 

14 you been the past few months, years, whatever 

15 it may be? And I think he had marked down four

16 years at CFA and he hadn't listed SPERT or MTR 

17 either. So it might be just the fact that for 

18 a day or two, he would be headed out here, 

19 here, and here to look at possibly new 

20 construction happening so he could do his draft 

21 work.

22 So, I mean, the fact that it doesn't 
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 list CPP, it doesn't say he didn't go there, 

2 but it also indicates to me he probably wasn't 

3 there for a full year.

4 So, there was that. And that 

5 exposure questionnaire was associated with that 

6 in vivo count that was listed as CPP. So when 

7 he actually filled out the form, he put in CFA. 

8 But on the actual in vivo count, it was written 

9 CPP.

10 It's one of those confounding ones 

11 where we don't really have an answer whether he 

12 actually entered there or not. It's certainly 

13 possible, like you said.

14 DR. TAULBEE: So, that is the only 

15 claim that we have found where we have this 

16 problem, out of the 913 that we've looked at. 

17 So, 99.9 percent we've been able to resolve, 

18 and this individual, 0.1 percent, we have not.

19 MR. STIVER: Yet the weight of 

20 evidence would surely indicate that he probably 

21 wasn't at CPP for a whole year.

22 DR. TAULBEE: So, that's kind of a 
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 summary. I didn't go through each individual 

2 claim. I mean, you guys have that in the 

3 report, both ours and SC&A's, Bob's. I'll give 

4 the credit here to both Mitch and Bob here. 

5 You both did the lion's share of the work here 

6 -- all of the work, really. So, I think they 

7 did an outstanding job of coming to resolution 

8 on virtually everybody.

9 So, part of the agenda here is for 

10 us to give our interpretation and then Bob to 

11 give his.

12 Discussions or Concerns the Work Group Has With 

13 Regards to Sufficiency of the Data 

14 MR. BARTON: If it's amenable to the 

15 Work Group, we have eight observations 

16 associated with these. One of them we just 

17 quickly discussed, which is the one where it's 

18 indeterminate at this time whether we can place 

19 them in CPP. And it's largely going to be 

20 reliant on when those temporary and visitor 

21 cards get coded so that we can more directly 

22 associate him with any temporary badges there. 
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 Like I said, the position we're in now is 

2 basically a line-by-line search, or going from 

3 visitor card to visitor card, since we have 

4 those.

5 But anyway, let me -- I took our 

6 report, and I'm actually going to usurp Live 

7 Meeting here. 

8 DR. TAULBEE: Let me disable mine, 

9 if I can.

10 MR. KATZ: You should be able to 

11 just take over.

12 MR. BARTON: No, I've got it now. 

13 Alright. So, this one, this one was Case 3. 

14 If you have the White Paper in front of you, 

15 that was discussed on page 14, Section 2.3. 

16 And it was the subject of Observation 1, which 

17 I'll just read in here now. 

18 "The EE indicated several times that 

19 they would conduct tours of uncleared personnel 

20 through CPP and has evidence of assignment to 

21 CPP in 1964 and 1974."

22 So, basically the location file 
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 cards indicated they were at CPP in '64 and 

2 '74. And while we found records in '74, we did 

3 not find monitoring records in '64. And this 

4 is one of those times when we had to go back 

5 and manually search through to capture 

6 temporary badges. And we turned up multiple 

7 entries for the claimant.

8 Basically, the observation is we 

9 didn't know why these records were not included 

10 in the DOE response. And it was possible the

11 claim was researched utilizing the efficiency 

12 process, but it's also clear it could be 

13 because -- and when I say we couldn't find 

14 them, we couldn't find them in the NOCTS 

15 records that we got from DOE. We could find 

16 them in the captured records that NIOSH has 

17 captured from the site. 

18 So, that was kind of our question. 

19 That's why it's an observation. It's probably 

20 more likely that it wasn't an efficiency 

21 measure but rather than those visitor cards and 

22 temporary badge reports hadn't been coded yet 
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 so DOE didn't have a way to directly link this 

2 person to those records.

3 So, once those get coded, it'll 

4 probably clear up that one. What you're seeing 

5 right here is the location file card, and we 

6 circled the area code; 5 and 55 are both for 

7 CPP.

8 MEMBER BEACH: I'm not seeing 

9 anything right now.

10 MR. KATZ: Why don't you just close 

11 out your Live Meeting?

12 MR. BARTON: If you try right 

13 clicking and maybe remove and then share.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. STIVER: There you go.

17 DR. TAULBEE: There we go. Sorry, 

18 Bob.

19 MR. BARTON: Alright. So, what's in 

20 front of you right now is this person's 

21 location file card, and we can see the two 

22 entries there that indicated 1964 and 1974. 
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 And again, we couldn't fine '64 yet. But 

2 hopefully when all those temporary badges get 

3 coded and uploaded so that DOE, when they -- if 

4 they were to process this claim today, if they 

5 get all their monitoring workers, they would be 

6 able to identify that worker. We'll just have 

7 to wait and see.

8 This figure is actually from Tim's 

9 report. I just lifted it right out. And this 

10 was a temporary badge report that they found 

11 for the individual, actually in 1966, which 

12 wasn't even indicated on the location file 

13 card. So it kind of shows you that while those 

14 location file cards are very useful, they are 

15 not exactly complete either.

16 So, that was Observation 1. 

17 Observation 2 was for Case Number 18, and this 

18 is in SC&A's White Paper, Section 2.18, page 

19 24. And I'll read the observation. 

20 "While the majority of EE's work 

21 appears related to reactor operations, the EE 

22 does describe having to go into CPP to clean up 
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 spills on at least a few occasions. One such 

2 occasion resulted in the claimant being 

3 restricted from radiation work. While it is 

4 apparent that he was monitored externally 

5 throughout the SEC period, individual dosimeter 

6 information was lacking."

7 So, basically, that means we have 

8 information that they -- annual summaries, 

9 essentially, that they were monitored 

10 externally. But if you don't have the 

11 individual records, you can't tell from that 

12 where they actually were.

13 So what we're looking at here is 

14 another location file card. This one is 

15 actually from the early '50s. And it's not 

16 circled, but you see up here, the second entry 

17 there is for 5. That's CPP. Four is MTR, I 

18 believe. 

19 Interestingly, and I'm going to have 

20 another observation about this later, you see 

21 one of these area codes is "all." Basically, a 

22 site-wide badge, I guess, apparently. And I've 
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 seen that before in the 1950s. And one 

2 question is, you know, we need to make sure 

3 when they stopped that practice, going to one 

4 badge/one area. Because that's very important 

5 to the SEC Class Definition.

6 Here is the other half of the 

7 locator file card for this individual. There's 

8 really no indication of Chemical Processing 

9 Plant in that one.

10 And then here are the annual 

11 summaries for this worker starting in, you see, 

12 1956. And I guess the point here is the 

13 temporary badges that we do have were outside 

14 the SEC period. It was the late '50s and I 

15 think 1975. But what I found curious is that 

16 in the CATI statement they said that when they 

17 went in to clean up the spill, they got zapped 

18 to the point that they were restricted from 

19 radiation duty. 

20 Now, those years in which it could 

21 be what he's talking about, going in and

22 cleaning up spills and getting restricted, 
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 those years actually list zero as the annual 

2 doses. And the period '63 all the way through 

3 the SEC period, those are all zero, too. 

4 So, it's just a question of when was 

5 this guy actually here? And you can see at the 

6 bottom here, the claimant had temporary badges 

7 in '56, '75 and '76. They are all zero in the 

8 annual summaries.

9 The location file card indicated TAN 

10 beginning in 1966, but from '63 to '65, we 

11 really don't know where that individual was 

12 because we don't have the individual dosimetry 

13 logs. We only have these annual summaries.

14 And yet you can see that there are 

15 positive doses in that '63 to '65 period. So 

16 it's possible that that person might have 

17 entered, that is what he was talking about with 

18 the spills. But we don't know at this point 

19 because of sort of the efficiency -- this is 

20 the efficiency method, but you only get the 

21 annual summaries. That is something that I 

22 think changed October of last year, that they 
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 have to really go in and give us everything 

2 they've got and that these annual summaries are 

3 not appropriate.

4 Observation 3 was the one we just 

5 discussed. NIOSH and SC&A are in complete 

6 agreement. I think this is the statement. 

7 Yeah, I will just read it out of your report 

8 there, Tim.

9 It's in summary draft status at the 

10 time of this report. It's not finalized. 

11 There is indication of work at CPP because, 

12 quote from the claimant, there was a piece of 

13 equipment that needed to be serviced. He had 

14 to go to it and service it in that area. The 

15 DOE monitoring records and medical records 

16 indicate Central Facilities was the primary 

17 work location. 

18 And Figure 30, which was right here, 

19 as we can see, indicated INL '61 through '65, 

20 which is part of that SEC period. But, again, 

21 since we don't have individual dosimeters to 

22 determine where this person was, at this time -
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 - this is the concluding statement from the 

2 NIOSH White Paper -- at this time, the 

3 determination for inclusion in the SEC Class is 

4 indeterminate. And that's definitely one we 

5 agree on. And as we just discussed that, so I'm 

6 not sure we need to go back and do it. 

7 So, I will move on to Observation 4, 

8 which was for Case 24. And that can be found 

9 in Section 2.4, page 28 of 41.

10 The LOC for the claimant indicates 

11 that he was assigned to all areas from 1970 to 

12 1974. This is a broad example of the badging 

13 policies at INL changing in 1970 from one 

14 badge/one area to one badge/multiple areas.

15 It's not clear if any all-area 

16 badges were issued in that earlier period, but 

17 I'll also add that SC&A has found no evidence 

18 that they were, that we found a claimant that 

19 had an all-area badge, because that would be 

20 very important.

21 MEMBER BEACH: As early as when?

22 MR. BARTON: Well, for the 1963 to 
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 1973 period where you need a CPP badge.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Well, there's one --

3 and I was just looking, because I knew I'd seen 

4 all badges. On Tim's report, there is one --

5 DR. TAULBEE: In the 1950s.

6 MEMBER BEACH: In '57, yeah.

7 MR. BARTON: At some point, they 

8 must have switched over.

9 DR. TAULBEE: In the earlier years, 

10 I have seen some people badged out of Central 

11 as all areas in the 1950s. But like Bob was 

12 saying, I have not seen that in the 1960s.

13 MEMBER BEACH: None at all, yeah.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Honestly, I can't 100 

15 percent rule it out. I just haven't seen it 

16 yet.

17 MEMBER BEACH: But then again, in 

18 the '70s there were.

19 DR. TAULBEE: In the '70s we know 

20 there was. And in fact, it didn't even have to 

21 say "all-area." They could wear their MTR 

22 badge into CPP.
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 MEMBER BEACH: It might be a 

2 question of why they would go -- in the '60s, 

3 why they wouldn't use all areas, if they were 

4 using them on either side of that.

5 MR. STIVER: I'd like to know what 

6 the basis for that decision was.

7 MR. BARTON: Well, that was a 

8 curious point, though. I mean, why even have 

9 an all-area badge if you could just have an INL 

10 badge and go into any area you wanted?

11 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry?

12 MR. BARTON: For that '70 to '74 

13 period, you could just take your badge 

14 anywhere. So why would they even issue all15 area badges? It was kind of curious.

16 But the reason I really brought this 

17 up is because there's sort of an ongoing issue 

18 about emergency response personnel and whether 

19 they might be the exception. You know, if 

20 there's an emergency, they're not going to stop 

21 at the gate and fill out a temporary badge that 

22 they may have had, like an emergency badge. 
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 And I think that was something that was brought 

2 up both at the January and March meeting. And 

3 I think you guys are still sort of working 

4 through that to come up with a response on 

5 that.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

7 MR. BARTON: This is the 

8 firefighters' potential for that. So, that's 

9 why I brought that up as an observation.

10 If anyone has any questions, just 

11 stop me. Otherwise, I'm going to keep motoring 

12 on.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Go for it.

14 MR. BARTON: Okay, Observation 5. 

15 This is Case 26, Section 2.26, page 31 of 41.

16 So, SC&A observed -- and actually 

17 Observation 5 and 6 are for the same case. 

18 SC&A observed visitor badges for 

19 which the area designation was illegible or cut 

20 off on the DOE response records. It is SC&A's 

21 understanding that the individual visitor cards 

22 are grouped by site area. Therefore, DOE will
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 be able to identify the work area, even if that 

2 particular section of that particular visitor 

3 card is illegible or unable to be read. 

4 And you sometimes see handwriting 

5 on some of these records where it is a little 

6 bit illegible. Or, you know, some of the 

7 bioassays will say MTR, ETR, CPP, and you're 

8 like, okay, well, which place was he? But they 

9 will circle one in pencil.

10 So, that was Observation 5, and 

11 basically saying, well, you might have 

12 legibility issues with the actual area, but 

13 that doesn't necessarily mean we don't know 

14 where that area is going to be, for the 

15 purposes of assigning it in a dose 

16 reconstruction context or an SEC context.

17 So, again with the same case, was 

18 Observation 6. And as Tim alluded to this 

19 earlier, we observed that many visitor cards 

20 contained an S-number, a security number, which 

21 is a unique identifier for an individual 

22 worker. This allows for a second piece of 
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 information beyond the name of the worker, to 

2 allow for identification of the worker with a 

3 given work area. 

4 So, even if you might have some 

5 spelling issues, you might have some legibility 

6 issues. That doesn't mean you are not going to 

7 have legibility issues with the S-number as 

8 well, but it just adds to that extra layer of 

9 information to sort of allow us to get around 

10 these records. They were really handwritten 

11 visitor cards. There was considerable 

12 uncertainty and discussion, both in March and 

13 January, about the issues of legibility and 

14 different name spellings. And in the case of 

15 the name spellings, you are not going to, 

16 hopefully, misspell that security number.

17 So those were both -- these are the 

18 two visitor cards I alluded to. You can see 

19 here, this top one in Figure 2. I don't know 

20 what area that is. It looks like somebody 

21 punched a hole through it. But as you can see 

22 down here, there's an S-number. I crossed it 
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 out just to be safe for Privacy Act reasons, 

2 but I don't know why, no report like this ever 

3 gets fully distributed anyway.

4 And this one down here, again, the 

5 area is cut off. And this one did not actually 

6 have an S-number, I don't believe, but it had a 

7 name up here, which I also blacked out.

8 DR. TAULBEE: If I could point out 

9 here --

10 MR. BARTON: Sure.

11 DR. TAULBEE: With these areas, you 

12 know, where it's kind of cut off there: that's 

13 a scanning issue. The card is still available. 

14 So, this I can go back and get that. And 

15 hopefully, whenever they are indexing these, 

16 they will.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Make sure that those 

18 were visible, yeah.

19 MR. BARTON: I mean, I would think 

20 if you have a box of CPP records you'd say just 

21 get them coded as a CPP record.

22 Okay, moving along to Observation 7. 
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 This is for Case 29, Section 2.29 at page 34 of 

2 41. Some correspondence with the EE's survivor 

3 indicated three different name variations, two 

4 of which were observed in the available visitor 

5 cards. And nearly all of the visitor cards 

6 included an S-number to allow for positive 

7 identification. At least one example only 

8 contained the name, but, again, this is another 

9 instance of you have that S-number there to try 

10 to get past some different name variations. 

11 And you see this first bullet here, 

12 those were the three that were mentioned in the 

13 DOL case file by the survivor of the Energy 

14 Employee. And you can see some of them are 

15 similar. That last one is a little bit 

16 different, and there's even a Junior thrown in 

17 there. But the survivor indicated they would 

18 spell their name differently, depending on 

19 whether it was a birth certificate or a 

20 driver's license or marriage certificate, or 

21 what have you.

22 And this is the one example we found 
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 where we just only had the name, but the name 

2 was the more common spelling you would find in 

3 them. So it's very likely that DOE would be 

4 able to say, alright, we understand that that 

5 is this person up here, who I will not say 

6 their name.

7 And finally, Observation 8, which 

8 was for Case 32, this was the very last case. 

9 This is in Section 2.32, page 38 of 41. At the 

10 time we reviewed this claim there was really 

11 only a DOL initial case, but that often 

12 contains a lot of useful information. This is 

13 one is particularly interesting, maybe only to 

14 me. We didn't have CATIs or DOE yet, but what 

15 we found buried in this thing is a report of 

16 occupational medical or first aid case. 

17 And as you can see, it is very 

18 illegible. I circled the area here and then 

19 blew it up 800 times. And as you read this, 

20 what I see is CPP and "on loan" in parentheses. 

21 I might have a vivid imagination there. So we 

22 noted that one and said it looks like there's 
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 evidence.

2 And I'll also note, at the bottom of 

3 this form, there's a much more legible date of 

4 1966. So, again, we're like, alright, well, 

5 that seems like clear evidence this person was 

6 there. And in NIOSH's report, they actually 

7 went and found records in '67, '68, and '73, 

8 all associated with CPP. 

9 So we just recommend, really, 

10 closing that observation. We brought it up 

11 because we knew we were doing CPP and didn't 

12 have the records yet. And I guess additional 

13 information came along and records were found. 

14 So we can close that one.

15 And that's the end of sort of the 

16 conclusions of our review of the 32 claims. I 

17 would be happy to field any questions.

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody on the 

19 phone got any questions?

20 (No response.)

21 MEMBER BEACH: Hearing none? Okay, 

22 so this kind of brings them together. Is there 
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 more work? Because you mentioned a couple of 

2 different times that there was some other 

3 observations that you would actually add to 

4 this report.

5 MR. BARTON: No, there were more, I 

6 guess you could call them observations in 

7 progress, until we know that DOE has all of 

8 these temporary badge reports coded and they 

9 can add them into the claimant files. That was 

10 really one of our concerns. It's like, well, 

11 if we were going to go based strictly on what's 

12 in the DOE response for the claimants, there's 

13 some uncertainty in some of the claims. 

14 What we've been hearing is that it's 

15 really a problem that they weren't indexed 

16 completely. And so as this indexing process 

17 wraps up, what I would assume would happen is 

18 that DOE would be sending additional files, 

19 additional responses. And you'll see this in a 

20 lot of claim files, where they'll send an 

21 initial response and sometimes it only has an 

22 X-ray record in it, and then they'll send sort 
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 of addendums as the information becomes 

2 available.

3 So, I would say that those are 

4 claims where there is still some question -- I 

5 can't say for sure that they're going to find 

6 them once they index those records, because we 

7 just don't know. But I will add that only that 

8 one single claim or case that Tim talked about, 

9 and that we agreed with, is the only one that 

10 really seems really outstanding at this time, 

11 pending getting all those temporary badge 

12 reports.

13 And the other claims either would be 

14 compensated or didn't meet the 250-day criteria 

15 anyway. That's kind of, for me, that's one 

16 part of it: they're either in the SEC or you're 

17 not, but the other part of it was just sort of 

18 testing the Class Definition with this, too. 

19 It's not just, well, we think they were in CPP 

20 but we don't have a record. They may already 

21 be included because they were monitored from 

22 '70 to '74 at TAN. So they might already be 
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 included in the Class, but there's still some 

2 question about the evidence that they were at 

3 CPP, and we don't quite have the information 

4 yet in the DOE files that say that they have a 

5 badge.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

7 DR. TAULBEE: And if I could add to 

8 that, keep in mind that if they worked from 

9 March of 1970 through December of 1974, they 

10 very well could have been monitored somewhere 

11 else and worked in CPP. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

13 DR. TAULBEE: So, from the CATIs and 

14 from the other information, we can never rule 

15 out that they were not at CPP in that time 

16 period. That's why we've expanded that Class.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, do we have to 

19 wait until the temporary badges are coded to 

20 make a decision on this?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Well, we had, 

22 originally, our last meeting we had asked for 
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 maybe some sampling and some verification, and 

2 a proposal of how to verify. So, I guess we 

3 are still not to that point where we can even 

4 do that yet. Is that correct?

5 MR. BARTON: Well, as far as V&V 

6 goes, I thought that the comparison of the 

7 totals that we have in hand that haven't been 

8 necessarily coded yet so we can associate them 

9 with a particular claim, but we know how many 

10 in a particular time period, and then pairing 

11 that against how many HP actually issued, that, 

12 to me, is sort of the V&V activity.

13 I'm not sure what we can do beyond 

14 that, except maybe, once those visitor cards 

15 are obtained, compare them against the 

16 temporary badge listings to see if those both 

17 jive together, but I don't see why they 

18 wouldn't.

19 I mean, the process really is, so, 

20 if you're going to get a visitor card, you get 

21 your card, you go in, you do your work. The 

22 card comes out, and then those cards go on the 
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 temporary badge reports, and then those 

2 temporary badge reports went into the HP 

3 reports.

4 So, the visitor cards are really the 

5 first step in the process. And that's one 

6 thing we haven't looked at, is comparing the 

7 visitor cards or doing a sampling of the 

8 visitor cards and make sure we see all those 

9 people in the temporary badge reports that have 

10 been captured. 

11 I'm not sure if that brings us 

12 significant new information that would be 

13 beyond what we have today as far as the V&V 

14 approach goes, but it's certainly something I'm 

15 perfectly willing to do, if that's what the 

16 Work Group wants.

17 DR. TAULBEE: My thoughts on this is 

18 that we've gone through and we looked at how 

19 many temporary badges we have. We compared 

20 those to the monthly reports and we believe 

21 them to be complete.

22 We've gone through and looked at 913 
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 claims that we've currently have found, and 

2 there's one that we had difficulty with. So, 

3 for the vast majority, this Class Definition 

4 really works. We have a lot of other open 

5 issues to still deal with for the site.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

7 DR. TAULBEE: I guess I would ask 

8 that the Work Group consider approving this 

9 Class so that we can move on to be working on 

10 the other aspects of the site. 

11 The more that we get into more and 

12 more details on this, it does take away some 

13 resources that we have for other things. So 

14 I'd ask that you all consider that.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: And that is what I 

16 was thinking, too, based on the very small 

17 percentage that's not resolved, and, based on 

18 Tim's report, that we ought to move this 

19 forward.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I'm curious 

21 to hear from Dr. Melius. And Dave Richardson 

22 is not on the phone. Is that correct?
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 MR. KATZ: Well, he hasn't been. 

2 David, have you joined us?

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I don't think he is 

5 joining us.

6 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim. Can 

7 you hear me?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. My 

10 understanding is that this Class can't be 

11 implemented until all the keypunching and the

12 database is completed.

13 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

14 DR. TAULBEE: That's true.

15 MEMBER MELIUS: Right. And I don't 

16 know, Tim or anybody, if there are specific 

17 plans already in place to validate the database 

18 once it's in place, but it would seem to me 

19 that any remaining questions could be addressed 

20 through the database. And that I think what we 

21 want to do is have something in place so that 

22 can be done relatively quickly and effectively 
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 and efficiently in order to be able to move 

2 forward.

3 And secondly, I think there are 

4 still some issues that keep coming up that have 

5 been sort of put off, and one is questions just 

6 about the practices of the plant. What about 

7 the emergency response group? How were they 

8 badged? What was the practices for dealing 

9 with them?

10 I get a little concerned when we end 

11 up with potential inequities in terms of the 

12 Class. Well, if a person's in there, one 

13 misspelling and we missed a badge, that means 

14 that they wouldn't have been in there for 250 

15 days in a year, but at the same time, we're 

16 allowing other people in knowing that they are 

17 not in for -- without any evaluation whether 

18 they've been there for 250 days.

19 So, I think there's more work that 

20 needs to be done, certainly before I'm 

21 comfortable with implementing the Class 

22 Definition. But I'm not sure a lot of it --
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 you know some of it could be done ahead of 

2 time, but I think some needs to await until the 

3 database is complete or near complete. 

4 I don't quite understand the 

5 process, and I don't think Tim has -- I 

6 remember what you said earlier Tim is that you 

7 don't have a date when that will take place.

8 DR. TAULBEE: I don't, because we 

9 are going to need to talk to Department of 

10 Energy. It is their database.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: No, no, I'm not 

12 doubting you with that. It just seems to me 

13 that we have time and we ought to be getting 

14 prepared.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim, I'm not clear 

16 what work or what things you're putting on the 

17 table to be done beyond what's already been 

18 done. It's just not clear in my mind what work 

19 needs to be done to validate the database.

20 MEMBER BEACH: One that's clear is 

21 the emergency response group. We saw, some of 

22 them were all badged. It's not clear how the 
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 firefighters were badged. That's one area.

2 DR. TAULBEE: And that's one area 

3 where, in doing some follow-up, I think we're 

4 going to have to conduct some interviews. One 

5 of the individuals that I think I definitely 

6 want to talk to, if you recall, is the 

7 individual who responded that night to SL-1, 

8 who is a [identifying information redacted], 

9 and ask him how he was badged. So, to do 

10 follow-up with him to try and identify some 

11 other firefighters and ask them. Because I 

12 don't think we're going to find this in the 

13 records explicitly written for these particular 

14 workers. So we're going to need to identify 

15 some of the firefighters and actually conduct 

16 some interviews.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and I'm 

18 wondering, if you had some of the firefighters' 

19 or the emergency response personnel's names, 

20 could you just go in and look for their 

21 particular badging and see how they look?

22 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Yes, we can. 
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 And that's one of the things I wrote down here, 

2 that we can do some follow-up on the 

3 firefighters.

4 But from the database standpoint, I 

5 think back to what Gen might be asking here, is 

6 DOL -- or DOE, this is their index. This is 

7 their database. Once they get this, again, the 

8 cards themselves, the 1968-forward cards will 

9 be done by October 1st, and then they are going 

10 to start, if they get funding, on those 

11 temporary badges.

12 So, how long that is going to take, 

13 I don't know.

14 MEMBER BEACH: And they are going to 

15 start on those, those are from '63 on or --

16 DR. TAULBEE: 1963 up through 1968 -

17 - actually, up through '70.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I guess we'll 

19 definitely bring that up to Greg Lewis at the 

20 meeting.

21 DR. TAULBEE: And I don't know how 

22 long that is going to take. I do know that 
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 there are claims currently that can move 

2 forward in this time period that we've 

3 identified from the regular dosimetry, both 

4 construction trade, CX, as well as CPP. So, I 

5 mean, the Class is kind of being held for a 

6 validation of temporary badges, at this time.

7 To me, I could see a phased 

8 implementation by DOL of basically people who 

9 are already part of the Class, moving those 

10 people forward, and those that are 

11 indeterminate because we don't know from the 

12 temporary badge standpoint, they don't deny it 

13 yet, but we wait until they get that done.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, and I suspect 

15 if the Work Group were to vote on them, it 

16 would be a split decision. And it might be 

17 something that needs to be brought up to the 

18 Board, and the Board needs to decide if they 

19 are comfortable waiting or if they want to push 

20 forward with those cases that are available.

21 So, I mean, it's a tough call. I 

22 don't know that this Work Group -- like I said, 
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 it would be split and we'd probably -- I don't 

2 know what you think, Jim, if it's something we 

3 should just make a decision to wait, make a 

4 decision to go ahead, or bring it to the Board 

5 and let the Board decide on this portion of it.

6 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I just would 

7 add that, in my recollection, we have never put 

8 forward an SEC where we're deliberately leaving 

9 out a whole class of --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Individuals.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: -- yeah, a 

12 significant part of the Class.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: And I'm very wary of 

15 doing it when we don't even have an estimate of 

16 when the database will be available.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Correct.

18 MEMBER MELIUS: So, we're telling 

19 some people they get compensation now and some 

20 people can wait a year or two or years? I 

21 don't know what the --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, that is a good 
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 point.

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Given that it's 

3 dependent on DOE funding cycles and end of year 

4 issues and so forth, that makes me even more 

5 leery.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Aside from 

7 security and the fire department, do we know if 

8 there was any other, like maybe a special 

9 response group from the crafts or --

10 DR. TAULBEE: All indications are is 

11 that everybody walking into CPP had to be 

12 badged, whether they had a permanent badge 

13 there, whether they were construction for CX, 

14 going in through CX dosimetry, or on a 

15 temporary badge. That's the indication that we 

16 have right now.

17 We do have indications of all-area 

18 badging in the 1950s, and we don't know about 

19 the firefighters and so forth. My guess, at 

20 this point, is that we're going to find badges 

21 for the firefighters on temporary badges, 

22 through where they went and did fire 
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 inspections. So they're already part of the 

2 Class. The people that wouldn't be would be if 

3 there was a fire, and that's something that we 

4 will ask how did they respond during a call-out 

5 type of scenario to the site. Was there a 

6 badging that was there for them coming through 

7 the gate? And I don't know the answer to that. 

8 I just don't know.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: See, that kind 

10 of concerns me, both for the fire department 

11 standpoint and from the security standpoint, is 

12 not knowing if they had, like, classified 

13 vaults or alarmed doors or something where the 

14 response, you're not going to stop to exchange 

15 a badge.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Now, keep in mind, 

17 this plant operated 24/7. So the site had 

18 security there onsite. So the vaults and so 

19 forth, they had people. We know there were 

20 security guards there. I've seen their badges. 

21 We know they were there. The same with 

22 firefighters. They're on within CPP. 
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 It's did central or did some other 

2 fire department come and respond? I don't 

3 know. So, from your alarms that you're seeing 

4 locally, there was onsite folks to do that.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, but my 

6 concern there is most facilities, your security 

7 people, you may have some of them working in a 

8 certain area most times. But if they're short9 handed or something, they would bring people 

10 who were also qualified to come to that area, 

11 maybe in a response to a situation.

12 DR. TAULBEE: When they were loaned 

13 out from another facility, they got a temporary 

14 badge for the facility. That's what we have 

15 learned through the interviews, is that they 

16 got a new badge coming in for that facility, up 

17 through 1970, every time.

18 MR. KATZ: Jim, were you trying to 

19 say something?

20 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I was just

21 saying we can sort of speculate one way or the 

22 other. I'm not saying Tim's wrong, but the 
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 simple thing is let's interview them.

2 DR. TAULBEE: I mean, in the 70 

3 interviews we've conducted so far, that's what 

4 everybody has told us. Now, we have not 

5 specifically interviewed firefighters, that I 

6 recall. We have interviewed some security 

7 folks and we did not ask them -- well, we asked 

8 them about going into the area, that they did 

9 pick up a badge.

10 The one that I want to do the 

11 follow-up on was the guy who responded at SL-1 

12 and he --

13 MEMBER BEACH: He spoke at our 

14 meeting last year?

15 DR. TAULBEE: I don't think so. A 

16 different guy. Different guy, yeah.

17 And so he's one that we know we can 

18 follow-up with and find out, if this were to 

19 have happened, what would you have done, and 

20 what were your procedures from that standpoint?

21 But the other 70 people that we have 

22 talked to, they went into that area in that 
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 time period, they picked up that facility's 

2 badge. And that's been reflected through all 

3 of the interviews that we've conducted.

4 MR. KATZ: I think on the question 

5 of -- Jim, the question of timing with respect 

6 to DOE and funding the second phase, I think we 

7 can, in advance of the Board meeting so Greg is 

8 not blindsided, shoot him an email and say this 

9 is an issue that the Work Group, the Board, 

10 will be concerned about. When would all that 

11 work be completed? And ask them to work on 

12 that before the Board meeting.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Good idea.

14 DR. TAULBEE: That is a very good 

15 idea. Ask them to include it in their update.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: And who would do 

17 that, send the email?

18 MR. KATZ: I think the program can 

19 do that, since they talk with them regularly 

20 anyway.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 DR. NETON: Yes, it will come 
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 through our -- we have a chain we'll talk to 

2 Greg through.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Alright, so I put 

5 down some action items. Please add to them. 

6 Funding, Greg Lewis, I just added NIOSH as 

7 sending a pre-email. And then NIOSH, I put 

8 down interviewing emergency response personnel, 

9 firefighters, that. 

10 SC&A, any actions that you think 

11 that you can accomplish in the interim or it is 

12 pretty much waiting for those all to be loaded?

13 MR. BARTON: Yes, it is kind of too 

14 fast. The coding is really to see if sort of 

15 these claimants that -- a lot of them we 

16 identified and said well, we have evidence that 

17 they were at CPP but we don't have a badge. 

18 But then NIOSH captured the badges and we 

19 manually searched. So, the test would be once 

20 those things are coded, I'm not sure how we 

21 would access DOE's database or if we would just 

22 request like our -- you know, run this guy -- 
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 MEMBER BEACH: They would have to 

2 give you them.

3 MR. BARTON: -- run this person again 

4 and then we could see if those temporary badge 

5 reports that we found manually are all included 

6 in the file that would kind of, in a way, be a 

7 sample validation to say that they did the 

8 coding correctly. The badges we found are now 

9 getting transmitted kind of thing.

10 MR. KATZ: I mean let's talk about 

11 that because I am sort of -- what Bob was 

12 saying earlier is we are not getting a lot of 

13 value added by doing -- that is really not more 

14 validation that is that useful.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. But we wouldn't 

16 do that now, though.

17 MR. KATZ: No, I'm not sure that --

18 I just want clarity as to whether it is worth 

19 doing and spending money on at all is what I am 

20 raising as question because we don't need to 

21 just throw money at a problem that is already 

22 as good as it is going to get, in a sense. So, 
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 I need clear direction from the Work Group 

2 before we task that or don't task it, whatever. 

3 But it sounds to me like it is not useful.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: What I was 

5 suggesting is that we have SC&A develop a 

6 protocol on how they will do an evaluation with 

7 some options. Then, we have a Work Group call 

8 to go over that.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Which we discussed at 

10 the last Work Group meeting, correct?

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think a lot 

12 of this also kind of depends on waiting on what 

13 DOE can do before we really know where we can 

14 go.

15 MR. KATZ: DOE is just -- they are 

16 just entering data.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right, they are 

18 entering data but then I mean once that data is 

19 entered, then we can --

20 MR. STIVER: -- just trying to see 

21 how we can really do anything of any use until 

22 that data is all entered.
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 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's my 

2 point. I don't see how we can do much until we 

3 can have access to that data.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, I guess what is 

5 useful for you is not -- you don't have to wait 

6 on the data to tell us what is the value added 

7 of whatever you might do with that data. You 

8 don't have to see the data for that.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, so you can 

10 develop a plan, whether it be a one-page or 

11 what, to tell us how you would validate it and 

12 that would be just a simple call.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay, we can do that.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think both 

15 NIOSH and SC&A are kind of dead in the water 

16 until this data is available.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Other than developing 

18 that plan.

19 DR. TAULBEE: We will try and set up 

20 some type of interview.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Some interviews. 

22 That is something we can go ahead with.
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 DR. TAULBEE: We are going to be 

2 running into timing and travel issues here. 

3 So, we will probably -- we might try and do 

4 some of these via phone. But if we can't, 

5 because we have had some interviews refused, if 

6 you recall, due to they wanted them more to be 

7 face to face, they can't handle -- they can't 

8 do the phone.

9 But we are nearing end of year. In 

10 fact, we are past time for setting up trips and 

11 interviews, at this point.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, well, you can 

13 certainly let the Work Group know what the 

14 disposition of that is.

15 DR. TAULBEE: So, we will be working 

16 on this over the next few weeks and we will see

17 where we are.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I suspect we are 

19 going to hear from Joe, too, that he was 

20 talking about some interviews for some of the 

21 other areas of inquiry, the burial grounds and 

22 things like that, too. So, it might be 
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 something we could combine and --

2 DR. TAULBEE: And do a full week out 

3 there like we have done in the past.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, do something so 

5 it is more useful and beneficial.

6 So, anything more on this topic?

7 DR. TAULBEE: Can I ask, does early 

8 November tend to work for folks, if we were to 

9 do that?

10 MEMBER BEACH: I think so.

11 MR. STIVER: That would probably be 

12 the soonest you could, given the funding and 

13 end-of-year restrictions.

14 DR. TAULBEE: The first two weeks of 

15 October is pretty much out and I happen to be

16 out the third week of October.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So, can I call for a 

18 break at this time? Is everybody amenable to 

19 that?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, good idea.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Alright, let's do 

22 that.
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 MR. KATZ: So, we will go for just a 

2 ten-minute break. Folks on the phone, I am 

3 just putting the phone on mute, but still here.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 10:29 a.m. and 

6 resumed at 10:45 a.m.)

7 MR. KATZ: So, we are back here in 

8 the room. Dr. Melius, are you back with us on 

9 the line? Jim Melius, are you with us?

10 (No response.)

11 MR. KATZ: Who is up next on the 

12 agenda?

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think it is 

14 the White Paper discussion.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Actually, Joe was 

16 going to --

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, we leapfrogged 

18 over to Joe.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Joe Fitzgerald?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, hi.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, so you are there, 
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 Joe. I am just waiting for --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm going to be 

3 just running through and it will be brief.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, one second, Joe. We 

5 are still waiting on Dr. Melius to rejoin us.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Alright.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 10:46 a.m. and 

9 resumed at 10:50 a.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius, are you with 

11 us?

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm back now, yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Joe.

14 SC&A Updates – Data Capture Efforts, Burial Ground 

15 CPP Pre-1963 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, good morning. 

17 I think we have done this update before but I 

18 think it helps, you know there is so much focus 

19 on the Class Definition, it is useful just to 

20 remind people that there is a lot of intensive 

21 work going on in a more traditional evaluation 

22 process for those facilities and time frames 
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 for which I think the ER indicates that dose 

2 reconstructability is feasible.

3 So, back in the fall, we focused on 

4 what those time frames in facilities that for 

5 which the documentation, the records, perhaps 

6 some of the monitoring information was not 

7 complete but for which NIOSH was indicating 

8 they felt they had enough -- maybe it is 

9 weighted evidence or other aspects that they 

10 could in fact do dose reconstruction.

11 So, over -- I would say about six 

12 months -- we have been in the process of going 

13 out to the site doing onsite data captures. 

14 This is in addition to what was a rather 

15 intensive effort that NIOSH undertook last 

16 year. So, this complements that, more focused 

17 on what the Work Group and SC&A thought were 

18 issues of importance. 

19 And we focused on the burial grounds 

20 and the pre-'63 CPP and even a couple of 

21 aspects of the reactors primarily because the 

22 records weren't complete and we had some 
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 indication of issues that we felt were 

2 important to run down. And because the records 

3 proved to be incomplete, we did I think a 

4 rather intensive sweep of interviews for which 

5 I think Josie and Gen were pretty much involved 

6 in all of them. So, this has been a pretty 

7 complete effort.

8 Where we stand now, at this point, 

9 is we have I think captured just about all the 

10 documentation that is available for the burial 

11 grounds. And I might add that isn't -- that we 

12 didn't complement what was already there by 

13 much. We did get certainly additional 

14 information on contamination surveys, even some 

15 air sampling data. But I think it is safe to 

16 say there wasn't a whole lot of record keeping 

17 associated with the burial grounds. 

18 At that time, in the early years --

19 we are talking before '70 -- it was operated 

20 pretty much as a landfill. It got a little 

21 better as time went on. But essentially, had 

22 pits and trenches for which radioactive 
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 packages, drums, and cardboard boxes were 

2 disposed of and essentially overburden was put 

3 on top and that was the process. 

4 So, not very sophisticated or 

5 technologically sophisticated but we were 

6 concerned about walking down the basics, the 

7 source term, the exposure potential. Is there 

8 enough basis for concluding that one could 

9 ascribe either no exposure or minimal exposure, 

10 which is where the ER is pointing toward, at 

11 least for the burial grounds.

12 I will let Bob Barton talk about CPP 

13 pre-'63, but essentially, we have been trying 

14 to walk that down to the burial grounds with 

15 the primary concern that because of the nature 

16 of the operation, you essentially dropped drums 

17 in, you dropped cardboard boxes in, everything 

18 onsite, including Rocky Flats waste went into 

19 the pits and trenches.

20 Certainly, the source term was 

21 there. Certainly, there were still 

22 contamination. So, the question we were trying 
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 to track down is to what extent the workers 

2 involved were exposed and how would you be able 

3 to characterize what they were exposed to and 

4 to what degree? So that has been most of that 

5 process, and we have talked to quite a few 

6 people and have even gone so far as the 

7 National Archives to walk down some of the 

8 documentation.

9 I might add we have a couple more 

10 interviews. This isn't with burial ground 

11 workers but the interview process continues. 

12 We are talking to two more workers in 

13 conjunction with the Board meeting next week.

14 The bottom line -- I will let Bob 

15 jump in on CPP for a minute -- but the bottom 

16 line is that we are still waiting because of 

17 the indexing delay that you heard about from 

18 Tim, waiting for some of the final 

19 documentations from the latter data captures to 

20 be uploaded so we can actually reference that. 

21 As soon as we have that 

22 documentation, we are going to be in a position 
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 to, I think, put a bottom line to our 

2 assessment on the burial grounds and pre-63 CPP 

3 so that we can inform the Board sort of what 

4 the final analysis of what we could find and 

5 what we did hear from the interviews. What 

6 does that seem to mean in terms of our 

7 assessment of the ER in those areas?

8 But I think, again, it has been a 

9 pretty intense effort from January through --

10 actually through April, and not too many rocks 

11 left unturned as far as records.

12 Bob, do you want to add something on 

13 CPP?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well before that 

15 happens --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

17 MEMBER BEACH: I think Tim had a 

18 question, I think and then I have one.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, not so much a 

21 question, more of a clarification, Joe.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
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 DR. TAULBEE: The indexing the DOE 

2 is doing has to do with the dosimetry cards. 

3 The delay in getting our records that we have 

4 requested from these previous data captures is 

5 actually just reclassification. It is not 

6 reliant upon the indexing that is going on. It 

7 is a delay with the Classification Office 

8 looming and kind of being short-staffed. That 

9 is the reason for that delay. The two are not 

10 related at all.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, thank you. 

12 That's right. There is another conduit that is 

13 holding that piece of it up.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Right. And to give a 

15 little bit of an update on that, I have been 

16 talking to the site. They are anticipating 

17 releasing some of those documents to us this 

18 week or next and the remainder of them by the 

19 end of the month. So, their goal is to 

20 actually get us all of the documentation that 

21 we have requested from capture to us by the end 

22 of August. Whether they meet that or not, I 
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 don't know but I will keep you posted along 

2 that lines.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I might 

4 add based on what is in the documentation, I 

5 should say that we may have some additional 

6 interviews related to the burial grounds and 

7 pre-63 CPP that we might want to shoehorn into 

8 November just to have a complete set of what we 

9 can get.

10 At this stage, we have a lot but 

11 when we look at this final set of 

12 documentation, there may be other names that 

13 are associated with those documents. And if 

14 they are available, we would certainly want to 

15 talk to them.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Josie, did you have 

18 a question?

19 MEMBER BEACH: You answered my 

20 question. I was going to ask you if there was 

21 any other interviews.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think we 
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 have got to look at that. We were out in March 

2 and that is the documentation that is being 

3 held up in classification. I think, as I 

4 recall, there were some very interesting pieces 

5 in there that may lead to a few additional 

6 interviews.

7 DR. TAULBEE: And Joe, one other 

8 thing I will add with this, the site is 

9 tracking down for us, at least from ER addendum 

10 standpoint, that one drum retrieval in 1969. 

11 There are some records that we found 

12 out at Rocky Flats and they are classified 

13 holdings that were sent to INL. I have looked 

14 at those and we are getting those transferred 

15 to Germantown so that you can look at those as 

16 well. But this is really related to the ER 

17 addendum.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: That's excellent. 

19 Just the big picture on the burial grounds, 

20 before I leave it. I think most of our 

21 concerns is a lot of the late -- I would say 

22 mid- to late-'80s concerns over what they 
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 considered mishandling of alpha source of 

2 material at the burial grounds, we did a 

3 complete overhaul of how that was done. 

4 So, we wanted to look backwards in 

5 time to assure ourselves that those exposure 

6 pathways and that management wasn't so 

7 inadequate in the early years that you would 

8 have these exposures happening without 

9 appropriate monitoring. I think the key thing 

10 is that there is very little bioassay in those 

11 early years. There is some but not very many 

12 at all.

13 And in talking to the workers 

14 involved, it was pretty clear that they had

15 some contamination that they had to wash off 

16 every day. Certainly, there was some exposure. 

17 The question is whether it was beyond 

18 negligible and certainly whether it involved 

19 radionuclide concerns. So, there are still 

20 some questions clearly, in that area.

21 Bob, did you want to add something 

22 on CPP? I thought the March onsite survey had 
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 a number of documents that were a bit 

2 interesting in that regard.

3 MR. BARTON: Sure, Joe, thanks. 

4 Yes, I remember the SEC and CPP in the '63 to

5 '74 time period was really based on the fact 

6 that you had alpha-emitting material, actinides 

7 and whatnot that was separate from fission 

8 product material. The current approach is 

9 to reconstruct those alpha exposures you would 

10 sort of use the fission products as an 

11 indicator. But if you have material that is 

12 there that is only the alpha-emitting, then you 

13 really can't use a fission product because it 

14 is simply not there. So, that was really the 

15 focus of the data capture efforts, at least 

16 from my perspective, as related to CPP, is was 

17 it possible that you had material there prior 

18 to 1963, in this earlier period where you would 

19 you have possibly situations where there is 

20 alpha that is separated from the fission 

21 products that could have been a source of 

22 inhalation or ingestion, an internal source. 
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 And we went through a lot of boxes 

2 focusing on boxes that hadn't been necessarily 

3 looked at in earlier data captures. And I 

4 think what we pulled are really several 

5 examples. I mean there were piles three feet 

6 high of health physics logbooks of daily 

7 activities. They would log, you know, I went 

8 to this area and there was a Cutie Pie, which 

9 is a radiation monitor. I took measurements 

10 here. I took swipes here. And so there was 

11 some interesting information there. And again, 

12 we are still kind of waiting for that to be 

13 uploaded to the SRBD.

14 There were also the actual survey --

15 there were some survey maps that would actually 

16 show you alpha and beta, if it was measured. 

17 So, it is really the question of do we have 

18 evidence that there was a source term there 

19 that can't be reconstructed using a tracer such 

20 as the fission products.

21 And again, it is tough to say where 

22 we are going to come out on that. It looks 
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 like there may be some interesting things going 

2 on in the shift laboratory, where there might 

3 have been small quantities. Obviously, that 

4 wouldn't be a widespread source term. But 

5 again, we need to take a look at those survey 

6 reports and the bioassay logbooks. Now, we 

7 didn't capture all of them because there were 

8 just so many that --

9 MEMBER BEACH: We did a bunch of 

10 pages on --

11 MR. BARTON: Yes, we essentially did 

12 individual example pages out of those. So, 

13 once we get those, we can start to put the 

14 pieces together and get a better picture of --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Something I recalled, 

16 we came across a lot of different names 

17 associated with a lot of those pages that we 

18 hadn't talked to in the past for future 

19 interviews.

20 MR. BARTON: Those could be resources 

21 -- yes, they agree.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: I was going to add 
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 other thing that was helpful, and I think 

2 Tim and folks were with us on that, we would 

3 test the hypothesis of visitors and transient 

4 workers/subs. We did talk to a number of them 

5 and any who had indicated work at CPP, we 

6 tested this notion of how they were badged. 

7 So, that was, again, sort of a side validation 

8 that we did along the way that was useful.

9 MR. BARTON: And along those lines I 

10 remember specifically I came across one sort of 

11 procedural report. I believe it was in the 

12 early '60s, possibly before the SEC period of 

13 1963, where it spells out that you will get, as 

14 a subcontractor, the same exact HP coverage as 

15 the prime contractor workers but you also have 

16 to play by our rules. 

17 So, if we tell you to do something, 

18 you can't just go up and do it by yourself. 

19 That was a very interesting thing that we 

20 captured. It is not necessarily related 

21 directly to the early period of CPP but certain 

22 an interesting report that we came across.
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 We also came across a bit of alpha 

2 air sampling data, I remember, for CPP in the 

3 earlier period that we are going to want to 

4 take a look at.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: And sort of 

6 similarly, given the SEC question that arose at 

7 Hanford, we also, I think, quizzed the workers 

8 we talked to about the relative treatment and 

9 management of subcontractors versus operating 

10 workers, in terms of the equality of how health 

11 physics coverage in management and monitoring.

12 And I think, unlike Hanford, what we 

13 heard pretty universally was that everybody was 

14 afforded the same level of monitoring if they 

15 were doing certain jobs but it was helpful to 

16 kind of make sure that inquiry was done. Any 

17 questions on that? 

18 As I indicated, we are going to keep 

19 going on this and as soon as the documents are 

20 available in the SRDB, we intend to put up a 

21 White Paper. It may be sort of time to take 

22 advantage of maybe a final set of interviews in 
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 November.

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, this is Jim. 

3 One question that came up -- it was an 

4 observation I think that Tim mentioned earlier 

5 I am just curious about is -- trying to 

6 understand is as I understand from what Tim was 

7 saying earlier, we know there was this 

8 transition where for a period of time badges 

9 were by area. And that is the whole basis for 

10 our struggles with the CPP area. Then, it 

11 transitioned to a single badge covering 

12 multiple areas or the entire site. 

13 But Tim, I think you mentioned 

14 earlier that -- or Bob did -- that there was an 

15 earlier time period where there also appeared 

16 to be sort of a single badge for the entire 

17 site or for at least the workers got the -- a 

18 significant number of workers got sort of all19 site badging rather than -- you know through a 

20 central facility of some sort, rather than by 

21 area. 

22 It just seems to me that as you are 
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 doing the interviews and sort of documenting 

2 what went on there, it would be helpful to 

3 know, you know try to pin down the history and 

4 the timing of some of that. And I didn't know 

5 if it was something you had run across, Joe, in 

6 your interviews.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean I think 

8 we have asked badging questions to almost 

9 everybody that we have interviewed, even 

10 specific to the burial grounds or CPP, just 

11 trying to paint that picture.

12 I think we did talk to a few 

13 individuals that went that far back. I just 

14 don't recall off the top what their response 

15 was. I guess Bob or Tim?

16 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. That is 

17 correct. We haven't run into anybody that has 

18 indicated they had an all-area badge in that 

19 early time period prior to 1970 but we have 

20 found some of those all-area badge reports in 

21 the 1950s.

22 I will clarify a little bit on 
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 those. When we found them and the time period 

2 I am talking is like 1953, '54, '55, '56, '57 

3 time period where I have seen those. The 

4 number of people on that all-area badge report 

5 typically is around 20 to 30. It is not a very 

6 large number. So, it doesn't seem like it was 

7 something that was done a great deal, which is 

8 why I think in our interviews it has been 

9 confirmed you got a new badge when you went to 

10 each area. 

11 But at least in the late 1950s, 

12 there was a group of people who appear to have 

13 had an all-area badge. And if we can identify 

14 any of those to interview, I think that is a 

15 great idea and then we will certainly try and 

16 do that. In fact, I think I will try and pull 

17 the '57-'58 time period -- actually, I am not 

18 sure there is one in '58 -- and see if we have 

19 got anybody that we can identify from that to 

20 talk to.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, great. 

22 Thanks.
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 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Tim, I have got 

2 one quick question for you on those interviews 

3 about the film badges in the early days.

4 Was there badges for certain people 

5 that are biased towards like the potential 

6 neutron exposure or was one badge used for all 

7 areas and they didn't differentiate between 

8 those who might have neutron exposure versus 

9 those who don't?

10 DR. TAULBEE: How do I answer this? 

11 There are certain people who are identified as 

12 being potentially exposed to neutrons and they 

13 had a neutron insert within their badge. And 

14 so when their badge was exchanged, both the 

15 beta-gamma and the NTA film were exchanged at 

16 the same time. But there are other people in 

17 the same area who were not designated as being 

18 neutron exposed. So, you have got both in the 

19 same area. So, it is not just all 

20 CPP or all MTR. It depended upon what their 

21 job was within that area and what they were 

22 doing.
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 From my understanding, what I can 

2 tell is that the local area health physics 

3 decided who would be neutron monitored and who 

4 would not be neutron monitored in that time 

5 period.

6 When you get into the late 1960s, it 

7 actually changes a little bit in that at MTR 

8 they started relying more on neutron surveys 

9 type of -- they reduced their NTA film usage, 

10 in a sense, so that we do see a decrease from 

11 that standpoint in that time period. So, it is 

12 a mixed bag with neutrons across the different 

13 areas.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, thanks.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Back to the other 

16 issue, we will try and find some of those 

17 interviews. We will try and see if we can't do 

18 that. It seems like we are getting quite a 

19 grouping of potential interviews for November, 

20 at this point.

21 And Bob, did you want to add 

22 anything?
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 MR. BARTON: No, I think that is a 

2 pretty good characterization of it.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, I guess that 

4 is about it. Again, I think the Work Group has 

5 been pretty involved the whole way as certainly 

6 Tim and his folks have. So, it has been a 

7 pretty good effort.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, anyone 

10 have any questions?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, next on the 

12 agenda.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, we are in 

14 the reactor. Steve Ostrow, I guess, is up.

15 DR. OSTROW: Hi, this is Steve. I 

16 think, didn't we decide that Hans is going to 

17 go first because he had some travel 

18 commitments?

19 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans and I 

20 did want to break in. Thank you for doing 

21 this, Steve. I do have a doctor's appointment 

22 that has been on the records for a couple 
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 months and I can't afford to allow this to go 

2 and ignore this. So, I have to leave by 

3 somewhere close to one o'clock. And if we go 

4 through our lunch period, I can hardly assume I 

5 can still fit in.

6 But if we do take a lunch break at 

7 12:00, with at least two other papers, I don't 

8 know how long they are going to take. I may 

9 not be able to stay.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, Hans, why don't you 

11 go now?

12 DR. H. BEHLING: I didn't hear what 

13 --

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, Hans, go ahead and go 

15 now and that way you won't have to worry about 

16 that.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I am going 

18 to have to go to my other phone because I want 

19 to be able to speak without having to hold the 

20 phone.

21 MR. KATZ: Sure.

22 DR. H. BEHLING: So, if you give me 
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 a second or two, I will go to this other phone. 

2 Hold on.

3 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So, what we are doing 

5 is moving up number five on the agenda, the 

6 review of Petition Evaluation Report of SEC7 00224, Argonne National Laboratory, regarding 

8 the use of general air sampling and internal 

9 dose assessment. So, that is where we are 

10 going if you want to find those files while 

11 Hans is changing phones.

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, can everybody 

13 hear me?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, Hans.

16 Review of Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00224, 

17 Argonne National Laboratory-West Regarding the Use 

18 of General Air Sampling for Internal Dose 

19 Assessment 

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I guess I am 

21 obviously jumping ahead of the other speakers 

22 and so I just want to quickly backtrack because 

23 I realize there was going to be some 
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 discussions regarding the issue of the ten 

2 percent MPC versus the use of the mixed process 

3 way of assessing internal exposures to uranium, 

4 thorium and plutonium. 

5 But anyway, in my discussion I want 

6 to obviously be sure everyone understands that 

7 the discussion regarding use of air sampling is 

8 limited to issues that involved exposures to 

9 the three actinides uranium, thorium, and 

10 plutonium in the absence of fission products. 

11 We can quickly go through the second slide that 

12 talks about what the potential relationship is 

13 to the air sampling. So probably most of the 

14 assays that were, going back, pertains to the 

15 use of mixed fission products, those would 

16 probably be the majority of cases. There is 

17 only going to be a limited number of instances 

18 when the exposure to uranium, thorium, and 

19 plutonium occurs in the absence of fission 

20 products.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Hans, can I 

22 interrupt? 
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 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, sure.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Are you the one on 

3 the screen? Can you maximize that? Mine's 

4 pretty small.

5 MR. STIVER: Actually, I am doing 

6 that right now.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Could you just make 

8 it bigger?

9 MR. STIVER: Okay.

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MR. STIVER: Okay, yes. Is that 

12 better?

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, we're on 

14 slide 3 here. We have skipped the other slide 

15 that I feel is really not necessary. 

16 But the issue here that we want to 

17 talk about today are incidents when workers at 

18 the ANL-W were potentially exposed to uranium, 

19 thorium, and plutonium, in the absence of 

20 fission products. And the way it was intended 

21 or NIOSH proposes to assess these people was to 

22 use general air monitoring and assessing the 
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 air monitoring data for gross alpha activities. 

2 And the way they would tend to do that was to 

3 use stationary or fixed air sampling data with 

4 relatively low flow rate and then, essentially, 

5 using, which we will show in the next slide, 

6 that data to assess the potential exposure for 

7 the actinides.

8 And for alpha activities that was 

9 mentioned in the general air samples, there was 

10 usually the presence of other alpha emitters. 

11 Obviously, we know the presence of short-lived 

12 alpha-emitting radon daughters but in the case 

13 of the thoron, you also have other alpha14 emitters that have to be removed because they 

15 really do not contribute to the actual 

16 exposures of concern. And as you will see in a 

17 couple of slides from here, I will point out 

18 that particular issue out and look at one of 

19 the actual air sampling data that will be out 

20 for discussion.

21 Go to the next slide, John.

22 Again, just quickly, you can read 
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 what is on the slide but the focus here is the 

2 fact that the intentional exposure for or the 

3 exposure associated with these three actinides, 

4 in the absence of the mixed fission products, 

5 will be then on the basis of alpha activity 

6 that is measured in these particular air 

7 samples and using ten percent of the maximum 

8 permissible air concentration for these three 

9 radionuclides as a bounding value for internal 

10 exposure.

11 As you see here, there are three, 

12 basically, issues cited for uranium, thorium, 

13 and plutonium. But the point that I wanted 

14 just laid out here is that we are talking 

15 about, generally speaking, the use of ten 

16 percent of the MPC value of the air 

17 concentration that you would expect to see as 

18 the bounding value for some of the air 

19 concentration of an exposure to the three 

20 radionuclides uranium, thorium, and plutonium.

21 Let me go to -- the next slide 

22 provides some samples of the air concentrations 
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 that we can expect to be used here. And I want 

2 to point out a whole number of areas that are 

3 important. This particular air sample data was 

4 taken, as you can see, on the upper left-hand 

5 corner, was taken at the FCF and it was in Room 

6 25. And this particular slide as taken out of 

7 NIOSH's SEC Evaluation Report. And so I chose 

8 that one as an example to use for this 

9 presentation.

10 And what you will see here, there is 

11 a number of things. In the upper top left-hand 

12 corner you will see the actual date that this 

13 particular air sample was taken. It was taken 

14 in September of 1963 and you will see, 

15 obviously, a time frame. The 1420 represents 

16 2:20 p.m. in the afternoon and the time off was 

17 on 9/18 at 1138 as is shown here.

18 For the entire duration of this air 

19 sample, it is next to that, it corresponds to 

20 1,289 minutes. And when you translate that to 

21 actual hours, that is quite a bit of time of 

22 the duration.
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 Next, I guess I want to point out 

2 that the flow rate for that air sampler is just 

3 below that value and it shows that the actual 

4 flow rate for this particular air sample was 

5 one cubic foot per minute. You also see next 

6 to that the total value of 39 cubic meters were 

7 taken. And the data now -- I am going to 

8 switch to the bottom -- involved the fact that 

9 the air sample was monitored for beta/gamma and 

10 you will see at the lower portion what those

11 values are, based on the time frame and the 

12 activity. It was 37 dpm per cubic meter. That 

13 was the combined beta/gamma. 

14 And then you will see three 

15 different time frames for measuring the alpha 

16 that starts out at 27 dpm per cubic meter and 

17 then goes to 14 and ultimately to 4. And there 

18 are three time frames, 15 minutes that 

19 corresponds to the 27 counts per minute, then 

20 there was 240 minutes that correspond to 14 dpm 

21 per cubic meter and after over 1,500 -- 1,513 

22 minutes you end up reducing the alpha count to 
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 four. And that is the issue that I have just 

2 mentioned. You have to wait that long when you 

3 talk about thorium in order to get rid of some 

4 of the short-lived alpha activities that you 

5 have to rely on. 

6 I guess I will go to the next issue. 

7 Also, when you look at the top right-hand 

8 corner you will see the alpha activity and then 

9 you will see the values that the three counts 

10 per minute of alpha activity at 1,512 minutes 

11 post the collection time corresponds to, 

12 obviously, an alpha activity that is always 

13 considered to be less intensive than of the MPC 

14 value.

15 And when I looked at the data and I 

16 have to inform you that this particular data 

17 point, this data sheet was one of 11 routine 

18 air samples taken during the month of September 

19 1963, along with three special air samples 

20 which selected because that is one of the 

21 thorium floor spill in Room 25 on 9/18/63. And 

22 all these particular air samples that are 
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 valued, in addition to other ones that are not 

2 mentioned in my report and I am not going to 

3 get into here.

4 But one of the things that I wanted 

5 to point out is that these particular air 

6 samples do comply with what NIOSH has stated in 

7 their assessment reported in the SEC Petition 

8 Evaluation Report is that when these air 

9 samples were routinely evaluated, the actual 

10 air samples were consistently below the ten 

11 percent MPC value. And on that basis, NIOSH 

12 concluded that the use of the ten percent MPC 

13 value would, in fact, be a bounding assignment 

14 for personnel exposed to uranium, thorium, and 

15 plutonium without the fission product as a 

16 surrogate value. It is a bounding value.

17 And on that basis, we conclude the 

18 following. Go to the next slide, John. And 

19 you can read it. I will just mention although 

20 most of the reported air sampling data for the 

21 ANL-W typically showed values below ten percent 

22 of the MPC air, SC&A questions whether these 
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 fixed air sampling data actually represent 

2 levels of their contamination breathed by the 

3 workers themselves, as opposed to just an air 

4 sample.

5 And the assumption that the measured 

6 air concentration from GA air sampling 

7 represents air concentrations respired by 

8 workers during facility operation, has to be 

9 questioned at two levels and that is really 

10 what I want to talk about today. One, the long 

11 air sampling times and two, the limitations and 

12 uncertainties associated with general air 

13 sampling in order to assess people's exposure 

14 from these particular data.

15 And let me just briefly go over what 

16 the other air samples that I mentioned for the 

17 month of September in 1963. For the general 

18 routine air samples, the flow rate of one cubic 

19 meter per minute corresponds to approximately 

20 1.7 cubic meters per hour, which is really only 

21 marginally greater than the respiration rate of 

22 1.2 cubic meters per hour that we generally 
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 assume for a given worker. 

2 So, that in order to sample a 

3 sufficiently large volume of air, sampling 

4 times during the air sampling measurement that 

5 was taken for the ones that I assessed for the 

6 month of September at Room 25 of the FCF, the 

7 average times range from the low value of 1,289 

8 minutes, which corresponds to 21 and a half 

9 hours, up to 5,690 minutes or essentially 95 

10 hours with a mean duration of 2,400 minutes or 

11 40-some hours for any given sample in that 

12 particular set.

13 So, when you look at that data, you 

14 come to some understanding as to what may be 

15 the problem. And one of the things that I did 

16 check was exactly which day of the week of a 

17 given week that they were taken. And when I 

18 looked at the 11 air samples that were part of 

19 this particular sample set, at least three of 

20 them were initiated on a Friday and terminated 

21 on the next work day. In two of the cases it 

22 was the following Monday.
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 The longest length of time for 

2 collecting that air sample which I mentioned 

3 was 5,690 minutes for essentially 95 hours. 

4 Actually, I looked at the calendar and I found 

5 out that that, essentially, corresponded to the 

6 four-day time period that corresponds to the 

7 entire Labor Day weekend in 1963. And on that 

8 basis, I came to the assumption that, and it is 

9 an assumption I think that is relatively safe 

10 to make that these time frames, even a single 

11 time frame of 24 hours would, in essence, 

12 correspond to eight hours of work time at the 

13 facility, operational time, and at least two14 thirds of that 24 hours or 16 hours would not, 

15 in the case of the one particular case where I 

16 identified sample time that involves 95 hours 

17 and the entire Labor Day weekend. One would 

18 assume, essentially that air sampling data 

19 corresponds to time when the workers were 

20 probably not there and work, operational work 

21 that would potentially contribute to airborne 

22 activities was essentially reflecting time of 
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 not purely operation but basically of downtime. 

2 And so the thing that I felt was an 

3 issue here was the issue of the long time, the 

4 long air sampling time which corresponds to 

5 time periods during which there was not any 

6 operation. And when we talk about operation, 

7 we talk about not necessarily people being 

8 there but people who are doing activity that 

9 would contribute to the release of 

10 contamination in air in the distribution.

11 So, the issue that I wanted to 

12 discuss here is the concern that I have 

13 regarding the long sampling time and the fact 

14 that much of that time represents time periods 

15 during which workers who were engaged in 

16 general operations were probably not present. 

17 Now, I think Bob Barton can talk a 

18 little bit about some of these things that he 

19 checked into. And I believe, if Bob wants to 

20 talk about it after I am done here, we can talk 

21 about the type of activity. That is one of the 

22 things that I do want to point out. There may 
131 

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 be have been people present during non2 operational time frames, that is time frames 

3 that are not part of the Monday through Friday, 

4 9 to 5 time slots but perhaps afterwards or 

5 even weekends. There may be people there and I 

6 am sure there are records that would suggest 

7 that people were there during these time frames 

8 but they were probably not people that you 

9 normally consider as being operational people.

10 For instance, it might be that you 

11 have a lot of people there who have doing work 

12 in the absence of the operational time such as 

13 health physics people who were doing air 

14 sampling or other sampling kinds of situations 

15 that are not necessarily considered 

16 operational. So, I will state the position 

17 that the sampling time of air monitoring data 

18 values being used or at least projected to be 

19 used for assessing internal exposure may 

20 correspond to, in large part, periods when 

21 operational activities did not exist.

22 
132 

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 second issue that I think needs 

2 to be look at, and that is a much more 

3 important one is in the next slide. And that 

4 involves the actual use of general air 

5 sampling. We all have talked about this in 

6 other situations. We really have two types of 

7 air sampling that we can rely on for measuring 

8 air contamination levels. One is the general 

9 air sampling that is usually at a fixed 

10 location in a given area that may be a very 

11 large area and, therefore, you are only taking 

12 one point space for sampling the air. And the 

13 other one, which is one that is usually 

14 preferred, if you really want to assess the 

15 contamination that is being breathed in by 

16 workers, is the personal breathing zone or BZ 

17 air samplers, which are devices that are worn 

18 by the individual worker where the filter is 

19 located on the lapel and the air that is being 

20 assessed is essentially in proximity to the 

21 area that the individual is breathing at any 

22 given time. And as we know, when you introduce 
133 

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 contaminant into an environment, usually it 

2 is something that is not uniformly dispersed 

3 but they are usually, depending on distance 

4 from that source term, there is a greater 

5 concentration that is very significantly over 

6 both space and time. And so it is not just the 

7 kind of thing that we have been studying based 

8 upon a personal BZ air samples to general area 

9 air samples that shows that there is usually a 

10 poor correlation between what you actually 

11 measure by a GA air sampler as opposed to a BZ 

12 air sampler. 

13 And what I want to show in the next 

14 several slides is that the studies that I have 

15 looked at seem to support that particular 

16 concern. And the studies that I will show you 

17 in a couple minutes are two studies that were 

18 published, and it is important to note the time 

19 frame, it was in 1967. Both of these studies 

20 were published in 1967 and that particular time 

21 frame corresponds with the issue that is our 

22 concern here with it used for air sampling data 
134 

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 surrogate for actual bioassay data for 

2 the three actinides.

3 And both of these studies involve 

4 nuclear facilities where workers were exposed 

5 to uranium and thorium. The first study on the 

6 next slide involves the study that was done at 

7 the Windscale/Springfields Works of the United 

8 Kingdom, the Atomic Energy Agency. 

9 And just a summary, the position 

10 that they took was that the air samplers were 

11 invariably consistently greater than the 

12 integrated exposures that were identified from 

13 the GA samples. And they said the ratio of 

14 values between BZ and air samplers was 

15 something that was consistently shown that the 

16 actual BZ samples were higher, invariably 

17 higher than was assumed from the actual GA 

18 samples.

19 In the next slide, you will see 

20 examples for the plutonium laboratory. Here, 

21 you have the scatter diagram that shows on the 

22 y-axis you have just strictly the ratio between 
135 

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 activity divided by BZ measurements as a 

2 ratio to the activity that was measured by the 

3 fixed area air samples. And you see that the 

4 values range essentially from the ratio of 0.1 

5 all the way up to 10 to the third. And you 

6 have to realize that the ratio, therefore, is 

7 the log scale because when you look at these x8 axis result, the values there are indications 

9 of the actual average disintegrations per cubic 

10 meter hours for the BZ. That is considered the 

11 more active value.

12 So, what you are seeing is how the 

13 ratio between the activity measured by BZ 

14 samplers over the general air samplers on the 

15 y-axis increased as a function of the actual 

16 air concentration that is measured by the BZ on 

17 the x-axis.

18 And there are a couple of a things 

19 here that I need to point out. When you look 

20 at that for most data points that are shown in 

21 this particular -- and this is for the 

22 plutonium facility, for most data points, the 
136 

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 ratios of the BZ air concentration to GA air 

2 concentration is greater than one. The BZ 

3 samplers measured higher worker intake than 

4 would have been associated with GA samples.

5 For instance, when you look at the 

6 data set here, only a small number of data 

7 points reflect ratio values that are less than 

8 one percent, which GA samplers would have 

9 predicted higher worker intakes than the BZ 

10 samplers. And what you see is that the 

11 difference between the ratio increases as a 

12 function of the air concentration is measured.

13 So, when you look at the data here, 

14 on average, the people at the UK facility 

15 generally made a statement that if you have to 

16 rely on GA samples data as an approach to at 

17 least estimate what the workers would have been 

18 exposed to would be to multiply on the basis of 

19 these data the GA sample data by a factor of 

20 ten, at the minimum, to say what on the basis 

21 of the GA samples would you expect the BZ 

22 samples are yielding in terms of air 
137 

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 concentrations.

2 And by and large, the results for 

3 both the uranium and plutonium areas 

4 investigated shows that fixed air general air 

5 samples are, for the most part, incapable of 

6 indicating the true exposure to the operators 

7 and a multiplier of ten was their 

8 recommendation to correct that particular issue 

9 in the absence of BZ air sampling data.

10 The second study that I want to 

11 briefly point to was the one that was also 

12 taken, as I mentioned or issued in 1967 and it 

13 involved the Nuclear Materials and Equipment 

14 Corporation. John, can you go to the next 

15 slide?

16 And I think most of us will recall 

17 the NUMEC facility is also the AWE facility 

18 with 700 workers. And there we saw an approach 

19 of a comparison between BZ and air samples 

20 shows a similar pattern. But the study that 

21 they conducted involve 594 BZ samples at the 

22 plutonium facility and 459 BZ samples at the 
138 

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 uranium plant. 

2 And most of these data sets were 

3 compared to the GA sample data both in time and 

4 location. And in this case, the BZ samples and 

5 the general air samples were only operated 

6 during actual operational time frames, not 

7 beyond that. So, in most cases, those were 

8 normal hours of an eight-hour shift.

9 The next slide shows one of the 

10 samples that are part of the plutonium data. 

11 Again, you have on the y-axis the ratio of BZ 

12 to GA samples and you realize, for instance, 

13 when you go to ten, what that means is that at 

14 that point, and this is within the lower rate 

15 range, the factor of ten says that the GA 

16 samples would have under-predicted the BZ 

17 samples by a factor of ten and as you progress 

18 further up the line that is there, the center 

19 line, you will see, obviously, data where the 

20 ratio shows that ratio values where BZ samples 

21 was considered the true exposure, it is 100 

22 times higher than the GA samples.
139 

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 Also let me point out that one of 

2 the things that was discussed in this 

3 particular study is the high variability of the 

4 BZ to GA ratio for any given BZ air 

5 concentration. When you look at, for instance, 

6 the first column of data where you have the 

7 value, the BZ value concentration that ranges 

8 between 40 and 50 dpm per cubic meter, that is 

9 in the first block at the lower left-hand side, 

10 you see dots there that go all the way from 

11 near zero to all the way up to 800 times 

12 higher. In other words, where you had air 

13 concentrations measured by BZ air samplers, the 

14 GA data would have been we find that ratio that 

15 ranged everything from essentially near zero 

16 all the way up to 800. In other words, you 

17 cannot -- they conclude you cannot conclude 

18 that a value of ten, as the UKAEA recommended, 

19 if the driver means a lower concentration 

20 because of the high variability.

21 Secondly, as the BZ air 

22 concentration increased, and again, as you see 
140 

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, there is an upward trend that would 

2 increase between the BZ and the GA ratio so 

3 that, for example, the BZ is between 4 and 480 

4 dpm. If you move slightly to the right and you 

5 look at that column, there is only a couple of 

6 points there, the fixed air concentration 

7 varied from about 100 to about 300 of the BZ 

8 concentration. Again, when you realize the 

9 high variability that the GA would under10 estimate the actual air concentrations, it 

11 would have under-estimated by a factor of 100 

12 up to 300 to get that rate of high air 

13 concentration.

14 And thirdly, the line that is a 

15 solid line, that particular solid line this 

16 figure represents the line where the fixed 

17 general air samples which indicate the soluble 

18 MPCa value for plutonium. And above the line 

19 the GA value was less than the MPC and only 

20 below the line indicated that it had an air 

21 concentration. In other words, this is the 

22 error that you would introduce if you only 
141 

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 relied on the actual GA air sampling to warn 

2 people that at least to your knowledge if a 

3 situation where the MPC level has been 

4 exceeded. In that line we find the dividing 

5 point where that error then would have occurred 

6 in terms of warning workers that the MPC level 

7 has been exceeded.

8 But let me just quickly go to the 

9 other study here and that involves uranium at 

10 NUMEC. And I will just briefly, it doesn't 

11 mention it there but 409 BZ air samples that 

12 were matched against GA values and, again, here 

13 the majority, and that is essentially 73 

14 percent of the time the GA sampling network 

15 failed to warn personnel that greater than 

16 permissible exposure conditions existed. And I 

17 will point that number out to you in the next 

18 slide, where you see what the 73 percent 

19 represented.

20 If you look at the far left column, 

21 you will see the differences in terms of 

22 numbers when the BZ in the first line, the BZ 
142 

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 greater than MPC but the GA was less than 

2 MPC. And you see out of the 469 samples that 

3 were matched against the GA, 300 showed values 

4 that were greater than MPC when the GA sample 

5 would have predicted less than that.

6 In the next column, you have the BZ 

7 again showing greater than 10 MPC and none of 

8 the GA samples that you were afraid of in MPC. 

9 So, again, there is a factor of ten difference 

10 in 33 of the matched samples.

11 When you go to the next one, that is 

12 the only time that is when out of 54 examples 

13 that were actually GA which showed a BZ value 

14 that was less than MPC also had GA samples that 

15 were less than MPC. And in only two cases, 

16 where you have the flip-flop or the opposite 

17 arrangement, where out of two samples BZ that 

18 show less than MPC, GA would have predicted 

19 something higher than MPC.

20 And lastly, you have 70 samples that 

21 were matched where the BZ is greater than MPC 

22 and GA is greater than MPC.
143 

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, again, you realize that the 

2 differences between the various sample 

3 measurements that represent higher BZ values, 

4 as I said, out of the 459 matched pairs, 73 

5 percent of that is the 300 plus the 33 that 

6 represents, but by and large, the 73 percent 

7 value that says you would have been very 

8 definitely under-estimating worker exposures.

9 And in the final slide, again, the 

10 summary conclusion is that when we considered 

11 the use of ten percent MPC value as a bounding 

12 value that would estimate the exposure to 

13 workers based on a general air sample, you have 

14 to look at it in context with empirical data 

15 which suggests that the potential for using the 

16 GA data may seriously underestimate the true 

17 worker exposure, had it been measured in terms 

18 of BZ air samples.

19 And the statement that NIOSH had 

20 introduced into the SEC Evaluation Report that 

21 this would be a bounding value because most of 

22 the air sampling data that was based on alpha 
144 

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 activity by means of a GA samples were less 

2 than ten percent MPC has to now be questioned, 

3 in light of the issues that I just showed you 

4 with regard to the two studies that show that 

5 ten percent MPC is maybe not the true meaning, 

6 especially if you multiply a factor of not only 

7 ten but up to 100 or even greater so that it is 

8 not a bounding value.

9 And on that basis I think it is our 

10 conclusion that use of general air sampling and 

11 assigning a ten percent MPC value as a bounding 

12 value is really something that we have to raise 

13 a question about in terms of its credibility.

14 I guess that pretty much covers what 

15 I wanted to say.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you, Hans. 

17 Before we get to questions, did you make that 

18 slide show available to everybody or can you?

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, it is part of 

20 the paper, the White Paper that I issued --

21 (Simultaneous speaking)

22 MR. STIVER: That was subtask five.
145 

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. H. BEHLING: It should be. If 

2 it is not, I think this will also be presented 

3 at the end at the full Board meeting. And so I 

4 don't know what you have available right now 

5 but you will probably receive a copy of this 

6 particular presentation at the full Board 

7 meeting next week, I guess. And that should be 

8 a handout as well, I believe.

9 (Simultaneous speaking)

10 MEMBER BEACH: So, thank you. Yes, 

11 I do have your report. I just must have missed 

12 that part of it.

13 Any question for Hans?

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I have a quick 

15 question for you, Hans. How well do we know 

16 the configuration of their air monitoring 

17 program, where they just put a fixed head for 

18 every so many cubic feet of floor area or were 

19 they portable fixed heads, giraffes that can 

20 move around?

21 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, again, I don't 

22 have a full understanding but the data set that 
146 

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 reviewed and there multiple data but the one 

2 that I chose for this presentation was in fact 

3 cited in the NIOSH SEC Evaluation Report. In 

4 fact, this particular sample that I used as one 

5 of slides which occurred, as I said, on 

6 September 17 and 18 was illustrated in the 

7 NIOSH report and you set it as an example.

8 And I believe all these particular 

9 air samples were probably portable air samples 

10 but they were, obviously, taken into a 

11 facility, in this case Room 25 of the FCF, and 

12 they were left for 24 hours and, in one case 

13 like I mentioned, over a four-day holiday 

14 weekend over a Labor Day of 1963. And I assume 

15 it was not moved about; it was essentially 

16 there in a fixed location. It may have been a 

17 representative location, a central location but 

18 again, as I have said, one of the things that 

19 was identified in both of the studies, both the 

20 UK study and the one at NUMEC is that even when 

21 you have a group of workers at a given area 

22 that is being monitored by a single GA sampler 
147 

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 then you compare separate workers who each 

2 wore a BZ, you will see not only a major 

3 difference between the average of the BZ sample 

4 data and the GA but if you just look at the 

5 actual independent BZ, at any given let's say 

6 eight-hour work time period, if we had ten 

7 people wearing a BZ and you compared the BZs 

8 and they were all in the same area, which in 

9 the absence of their BZ would have now been 

10 assessed by one single GA counter. But if you 

11 look at the ten different people's air sample, 

12 they also varied significantly.

13 So, in essence, you realize that the 

14 exposure that people are exposed to, even for a 

15 given area, will vary among individuals because 

16 of their location, their movement, whatever it 

17 is. But you cannot rely on a single GA air 

18 sampler and say one size fits all because that 

19 is also demonstrated by the fact that people 

20 within that given area for the same time 

21 period, when you compare their BZ data, they 

22 also vary significantly by large factors, by a 
148 

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 factor of ten or even more.

2 So in essence, what you have to 

3 conclude is that the BZ samples are unique to 

4 the individual. And what is shown here is 

5 strictly the average BZ as opposed to the 

6 individual GA sample.

7 And as I said, you can obviously 

8 come to a conclusion that a GA sample is maybe 

9 has some limited value but cannot be used as a 

10 replacement for actual air sampling involving 

11 the given individual. And then in response to 

12 what was recommended by the UK, even a factor 

13 of ten might not be adequate as I showed you at 

14 the NUMEC level. At the lower end of the 

15 spectrum when you have less than 80 dpm per 

16 cubic meter, the individual ratios between the 

17 GA and individual BZ samples were a range as 

18 high as over 800-fold difference. 

19 So, you realize what the problem is. 

20 And if you assume that ten percent MPC value, 

21 is a bounding value, I think you have to raise 

22 questions based on these data.
149 

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. MAURO: Hi, this is John Mauro. 

2 We have discussed this before and I think it is 

3 something that is worth raising here is that I 

4 think one of the reasons that we are seeing 

5 this has to do with the type of work the worker 

6 is are involved in. 

7 And when we discussed this, one of 

8 the thing that you pointed out to me is that if 

9 you have a worker that is working let's say he 

10 is grinding something or there is a pinhole 

11 leak in let's say a glove box, where there 

12 could be a very localized release occurring, 

13 and he is, himself, working not far from where 

14 that localized emission is occurring, the 

15 aerosol is being generated, that is when you 

16 run into real problems between what the 

17 localized BZ exposure is, concentration and the 

18 GA.

19 However, there are other 

20 circumstances where the nature of the 

21 activities with the one where you don't have 

22 this type of localized exposures but things are 
150 

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 more or less uniform as might very well be the 

2 case like during the residual period, when the 

3 kind of airborne activity you have is due to 

4 things like resuspension, which is more of a 

5 general, where let's say a general air sample 

6 be might more representative of individuals. 

7 Do we know, in the examples you have 

8 given here, which are an incredibly powerful 

9 story, whether or not the types of activities 

10 that would be ongoing were of a nature where, 

11 yes, the workers were working in places where 

12 you would expect them to have localized high 

13 concentrations? Do you see my point?

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, and I get that 

15 in Room 25 was where they coded some of the 

16 materials, the thorium. And I would expect 

17 that to be a very highly localized source term. 

18 And any time you have multiple and maybe 

19 localized source terms, the potential gradients 

20 exist and they will vary, obviously, 

21 extensively from one portion of the facility, a 

22 room that you are trying to cover with a given 
151 

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 single general air sample will vary 

2 significantly. There is no doubt in my mind.

3 But we are not talking about a 

4 residual period here where the source term may 

5 be a more or less uniform contamination of the 

6 floor that is subject to resuspension and, 

7 therefore, may have a more uniform 

8 distribution, as opposed to what was being 

9 monitored here in Room 25. And I am only using 

10 that as an example. I am not saying this is 

11 necessarily the same for all.

12 But I guess one thing that has to be 

13 stressed is that, as a rule, and this is the 

14 conclusion that the people of NUMEC came to is 

15 that you have a very difficult in trying to 

16 come to the assumption that a GA sample can 

17 properly protect workers from exposure, even 

18 when you are limited to an air sampler that 

19 signifies the concentration as being above MPC 

20 level. You will fail to understand that 

21 threshold in a number of instances, in a large 

22 fraction of instances, based on BZ air data 
152 

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 you have just exceeded MPC and the general 

2 air sample would not have recognized it. That 

3 was the data I showed with the plutonium 

4 facility at NUMEC.

5 And so when we come full circle, 

6 there were two issues that I addressed in my 

7 write-up. One is the very, very long 

8 collection time of air sampling that in the 

9 minimum time frames involved approximately 24 

10 hours and in a maximum time frame, involved, as 

11 I said, the four-day weekend over a holiday in 

12 1963. And one has to question now when you 

13 take an air sample of a building that is more 

14 or less in a quiescent state, there is no 

15 workers going around, there is no operational 

16 activity that would potentially increase or 

17 change the air concentration, the air 

18 concentration measurement during that time 

19 would be at the absolute minimum, as opposed to 

20 activity levels which potentially introduce or 

21 resuspend activity during normal operational 

22 hours. That was the first issue that I 
153 

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 identified. 

2 And the second issue, the generic 

3 limitations we have all known that the GA air 

4 sampling data are not necessarily going to give 

5 you the exact exposures of individual workers 

6 because of the contamination gradients that can 

7 be very, very significant and sometimes vary by 

8 orders of magnitude.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, are you 

10 done there, Hans?

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, Tim.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Well, we will 

14 prepare a written response to this report. 

15 Just a few notes that I would like to point out 

16 and remind especially Work Group Members who 

17 participated in the interviews, we have asked 

18 numerous RCTs about the positioning of these 

19 air samples. And one of the comments that they 

20 all indicated was that they tried to position 

21 them, whether they were portable or whether 

22 they were fixing them in the stream from the 
154 

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 work to where the exhaust was so that they 

2 would be in the flow of the -- in the air 

3 stream, effectively, with the intent of trying 

4 to maximize. And so some of the air samples 

5 you will see are right there with the grinding 

6 type of operations with uranium. 

7 In Room 25, the thorium room, it is 

8 not a very big room. It is in there. The 

9 molding operations were in there. That is one 

10 of them that we believe to be positioned to 

11 where it would be representative. So, is it BZ 

12 sampling? No. Is it GA sampling like in the 

13 examples that Hans has pointed out here? I 

14 don't think so. The operations in these other 

15 areas here are much larger facilities, much 

16 more -- well, they are just much larger than 

17 what these rooms were where we have the issue 

18 with the thorium, as well as the uranium and 

19 small amounts of plutonium.

20 So, from our initial standpoint is 

21 that it is somewhere in-between what Hans has 

22 pointed out here. And certainly the initial 
155 

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 part of some of the work time not being in 

2 there, that is something that we will consider 

3 and use. But like I said, we will write a 

4 formal response up here. 

5 So, those are some of my initial 

6 thoughts.

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Can I ask one 

8 other question?

9 DR. TAULBEE: Sure.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I believe it 

11 was about the early to mid-'80s the UK put out 

12 a paper where they did a fairly in-depth study 

13 of this at Aldermaston, general air sampling 

14 versus personal monitors that they would wear 

15 on the belts and have it connected to their 

16 lapels there.

17 I know the bottom line of that study 

18 was they went from general air sampling to all 

19 personnel who worked in those areas had to wear 

20 personal air monitors. I was wondering if you 

21 have seen that study? I would be curious to 

22 see if --
156 

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: I have not. What is 

2 the name of the facility?

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Aldermaston.

4 DR. TAULBEE: How do you spell that?

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't 

6 remember right off the top of my head but 

7 basically it is the sister facility to the 

8 plutonium facility in Los Alamos. They took 

9 those blueprints. They built one there. They 

10 did improvements upon the facility where things 

11 failed, where things didn't work quite right.

12 DR. TAULBEE: We will look at that.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

14 DR. TAULBEE: But I mean just to try 

15 and reemphasize, this is a pretty small pilot 

16 plant. If you haven't been there, you should 

17 take a tour of it, to walk around where the hot 

18 cell is and to see Room 25 off to the left as 

19 you are walking around the circle. And then 

20 the room that they were using temporarily 

21 before the -- what is that name of that 

22 building, the fuel --
157 

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. FINDLEY: The fuel cycle 

2 facility?

3 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, maybe. The new 

4 one that they built to do the uranium work when 

5 they moved it from those rooms.

6 MR. FINDLEY: The FASP?

7 DR. TAULBEE: FASP, yes. So, I 

8 would recommend that you go and do that because

9 it is not this huge large plant that you are 

10 thinking of. It is not that at all. This was 

11 a pilot test facility to show that you could 

12 reprocess fuel internally. And during that 

13 time period, 1963 through 1967, for the 

14 thorium, anyway, in Room 25, until they got a 

15 better method of coding the molds, that is what 

16 they was what they used in that room and they 

17 took air sampling in that to control the air or 

18 to monitor it for the workers.

19 MR. BARTON: As a side note, Google 

20 seems to think it is spelled A-L-D-E-R-M-A-S-T21 O-N, Aldermaston. 

22 MR. KATZ: If we're done with that, 
158 

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 should just look at our path forward for the 

2 day today because it is noon now. I just want 

3 to figure out what you want to catch when, if 

4 you want to get another agenda item in before 

5 we break for lunch. Lunch here is notoriously 

6 slow to actually get fed, if you are trying to 

7 get fed here. We will probably need an hour 

8 break. And again, we have to break at 3:30, no 

9 later.

10 MEMBER BEACH: So, is this a good 

11 lunch break then are you thinking?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, it is just a 

13 question. We were going to look at the agenda 

14 and see what -- or SC&A give us some advice for 

15 what we can get done when.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, I would say that 

17 the two big things we need to look at are 

18 Steve's reactor prioritization and then Ron's 

19 cesium/strontium evaluation.

20 MR. KATZ: And how long do you think 

21 Steve's --

22 DR. OSTROW: Ted, my two 
159 

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 presentations, the INL and the ANL, you know, 

2 the presentations together, they shouldn't be 

3 more than half an hour.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, good. That's 

5 helpful.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron. My 

7 presentation won't be long. I will give mostly 

8 an overall view of the three papers that I have 

9 submitted but I won't go into great detail.

10 MEMBER BEACH: So, is that something 

11 we can do maybe between now and 12:30 and do 

12 Ron's before lunch, unless you guys are ready 

13 for a break.

14 (Simultaneous speaking)

15 MR. KATZ: So wait, so what are we 

16 doing?

17 MEMBER BEACH: I was just wondering.

18 MR. KATZ: Are we doing Ron's and 

19 then lunch break?

20 MEMBER BEACH: That is what I was 

21 wondering.

22 MR. KATZ: And then move to Steve's? 
160 

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 Is that what we are saying?

2 MR. STIVER: That would be fine.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Would that work?

4 MR. KATZ: And close with Steve's?

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That would be 

6 only a half an hour after lunch.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, well whatever 

8 response and discussion there is. Well, you 

9 can go on from there for sure until -- we can 

10 run the clock down.

11 DR. TAULBEE: I guess I would prefer 

12 to break for lunch now and then do Ron's and 

13 then Steve's so that we could have a little bit 

14 more time to respond. If we did the half hour 

15 now, then we won't really have any response and 

16 I do have some questions for Ron.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's fine. 

18 So, then let's break now. And 

19 please, so it is noon now. Let's keep it to an 

20 hour. We can tell the folks here that we need 

21 to scram.

22 And if everyone else will be back on 
161 

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 line in time to start at one, that would be 

2 great.

3 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Thanks. Okay.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record at 12:04 p.m. and 

7 resumed at 

8 1:02 p.m.)

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we've got all 

10 our Board Members back, and we can get rolling.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Let's 

12 see. It's going to be -- Bob is up next, 

13 right? Ron.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Who's going first? 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Ron.

16 (Simultaneous speaking) 

17 MR. KATZ: Ron, are you there? 

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, okay. Good to 

19 go.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you. 
162 

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 SC&A’s Evalution of Cs-137/Sr-90 Values and 

2 Actinides Using INL Waste Reports in Relation to 

3 Assigning Intakes 

4 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron Buchanan 

5 with SC&A. And what we're going to look at, 

6 I'm just going to give you a summary of three 

7 reports that I had issued, one in November, one 

8 in June, and another one in July. First, it 

9 was for Idaho, and the last one was for Argonne 

10 National Lab-West. 

11 And the way this came about was that 

12 when we started looking at the site, the Idaho 

13 site, they had many reactors and a lot of 

14 different operating conditions and various 

15 source terms compared to other sites we've 

16 looked at because the recommendations mainly 

17 used at the other sites a similar method where 

18 you use an indicating radionuclide, such as 

19 cesium-137 or strontium-90 from a bioassay to 

20 determine the intake of the fission activation 

21 products, the FAPs, for the actinides, which 

22 are your alpha emitters, your plutonium, 

23 thorium, and americium, and such.
163 

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 so I looked at this to see if 

2 there was some, you know, reasonable match 

3 between what was recommended and what was 

4 actually measured. And when I got looking into 

5 it, I found that the fuel that was actually 

6 processed there in the year 2000, DOE wanted 

7 Idaho to give them an idea of the RU, the 

8 recycled uranium content and uranium product. 

9 And at that time, they stated that there had 

10 been a lot of analytical measurements made on 

11 the fuel in the different processes, but due to 

12 record-keeping practices, they were no longer 

13 available. And so even Idaho had to go to a 

14 computer program using ORIGEN as the basis and 

15 the root of that where you simulate what the 

16 elements you think are in the fuel element.

17 Now, you have to realize that, also, 

18 Idaho received fuel from other sites, Rocky 

19 Flats and also Brookhaven. So not only do they 

20 have all the different reactors, but we had 

21 material coming in from other sites, too. And 

22 so what I looked at was, when I started looking 
164 

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 this, I said, well, there's not much 

2 information on the fuel, the ORIGEN runs have 

3 been made, but I'd like to look at some 

4 benchmarks, you know, actually measurements 

5 done, the quantitative analysis of the 

6 radionuclides, to see what it shows. We know 

7 they're not going to match exactly because of 

8 experimental issues and such, but I want to see 

9 if, you know, it's a reasonable match. 

10 Now, what I did find when I first 

11 started looking at this is that there's very 

12 little quantitative data of paired 

13 radionuclides and especially in early years. 

14 And then when sodium iodide and such came in, 

15 they started doing more quantitative analysis. 

16 But then again, he's interested in one thing, 

17 usually strontium or cesium or some other 

18 product, and so it was hard to find matched 

19 pairs. And I was looking for, like, cesium20 137, not just cesium, or strontium-90, not just 

21 strontium, to really see that the ratios, what 

22 they were with that radionuclide that we were 
165 

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 concerned with in OTIB-54 and the tables at 522 

2 and 523 of TBD-5 for Idaho and Argonne. And so 

3 that eliminated a lot of the data because it 

4 didn't have quantitative analysis. 

5 I did find some, though. Now, we 

6 have three major compartments here. We have 

7 the fuel as it's cut open or dissolved and what 

8 could be in the fuel. Now, we also have the 

9 general environment, what gets out into the 

10 environment, what's the smears, what's the air 

11 samples, what's the soil, water, air, in the 

12 workers' environment, not out in the general 

13 public but in the workers' environment. And 

14 then we had the third compartment is the worker 

15 himself and what the intake is. And so, of 

16 course, breathing zone and, just as we've heard 

17 already this morning from Hans, he had a gave a 

18 very good report on breathing zone and also 

19 nasal swipes are a good indication of what's 

20 being taken in.

21 Now, the bioassays didn't prove to 

22 be as useful because most of them were less 
166 

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 than detectable or a whole-body count would 

2 just say natural or background. So it didn't 

3 give you much information. Very few had 

4 isotopes greater than the minimum detectable, 

5 and, if they did, there wasn't anything to 

6 match it with usually. And so I'm kind of 

7 limited to that middle ground of the workers' 

8 environment. And I'm not saying that this is 

9 better information than what's being 

10 recommended. I'm just saying these are some of 

11 the benchmarks I looked for, and I'll present a 

12 summary of the results of those three reports. 

13 And these spanned samples I was able to find 

14 some quantitative analysis on, spans the time 

15 period about 1960 to 1990, so a pretty good 

16 span. And it spans several of the different 

17 facilities at INL and also Argonne, and so it 

18 gets somewhat representative.

19 Now, I did not include any data 

20 there in the SEC period at the Chemical 

21 Processing Plant because that's the whole 

22 reason of the SEC was that the ratios wouldn't 
167 

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 hold. And so I eliminated that from any data 

2 set I took.

3 MR. KATZ: Ron, Tim has a question. 

4 DR. TAULBEE: I have a question 

5 about that. The reason for the SEC was that 

6 the ratios don't hold for the actinides. The 

7 ratios still hold for all the mixed fission 

8 products, and we are still planning to do dose 

9 reconstruction for those who do not, who are 

10 not part of the SEC due to their cancer type to 

11 use their bioassay and these ratios to those 

12 people at CPP.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That's good to 

14 know. Now, eliminating that data didn't really 

15 change my results, but we'll keep that in mind.

16 Okay. So what I wanted to look at 

17 first of all was the strontium-to-cesium ratio 

18 because, in both the OTIB-54 and the TBD-5, 

19 it's based on the assumption that the ratio is 

20 about one. Now, again, you know, it's not 

21 going to be exactly that, so I said, okay, 

22 well, if it's 0.5 to 2, let's look at that. 
168 

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'll give them a green spot if it's 0.5 to 2. 

2 And in these three reports, you'll see there's 

3 a number of plots, and what I did is I plotted 

4 the measured value for cesium and strontium or 

5 strontium to cesium. It should be around 

6 unity, so it doesn't make any difference which 

7 ratio you use. And gave it a green dot if it 

8 was 0.5 to 2. You could do, you know, 0.1 to 

9 10, whatever you want to choose. I just chose 

10 that as reasonable experimental error. 

11 And then for the fission and 

12 actinides, what I did was look at the 

13 recommended ratios for strontium or cesium and 

14 I took the measured value that I found, divided 

15 it by the recommended value. So if the ratio 

16 was around 1, 0.5 to 2, that would be an 

17 acceptable ratio, and so the measure would 

18 pretty well match the recommended. If it was 

19 greater than 2, well, then the measure showed a 

20 greater concentration than the recommended and 

21 a person would not be in as much dose as they 

22 should have. If it was less than 0.5 and the 
169 

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 measure was less than what was recommended, a 

2 person would receive an over-amount of intake 

3 compared to what they received. And so this 

4 holds for the fission activation products and 

5 actinides when you use an indicating 

6 radionuclide.

7 So looking through the data on the 

8 Site Research Database, and this is the last 

9 six months or so, over a period of a year 

10 really, I found about 250 matched pairs for 

11 cesium to strontium at Idaho and about 33 

12 percent of those agreed within .5 to 2. And 

13 this was information from nose swipes; 

14 urinalysis, which there wasn't much information 

15 there; fuel element scale, which was at 

16 Brookhaven Graphite Reactor scale, fuel that 

17 was crushed there, fuel storage, contamination 

18 swipes, air filters, liquid, solid soil and air 

19 waste from Idaho and Argonne waste records, and 

20 that's where I found most of the data. And, 

21 really, the waste is a step closer to what the 

22 person is exposed to it is compared to what was 
170 

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 in the fuel element. It might not be exactly 

2 what he takes in because it's on such -- you 

3 know, even air filters don't represent 

4 everything, but I wanted to see what the ratios 

5 were. And so the cesium and strontium, about 

6 30 percent for Idaho; and for Argonne, there's 

7 about 66 percent matched to a factor of 2. But 

8 I only had 20 samples from Argonne. Argonne 

9 didn't do much quantitative analysis, and so 

10 that's an area that, you know, perhaps there's 

11 more data there. We'll discuss that in a 

12 minute.

13 The cesium activation to cesium or 

14 strontium, I had about 25 pair for Idaho, 15 

15 pair for Argonne. And they were in the few 

16 percent, 5 to 10 percent match, because there 

17 wasn't a whole lot of data. And for each one, 

18 like cobalt-60, there might have been only 

19 three points for something else or it might 

20 have been five points. So there wasn't a whole 

21 lot of data matching there.

22 The actinides had about 60 points 
171 

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 for Idaho and about 17 points for Argonne. 

2 And, again, you had a fluctuation. You had a 

3 couple of green points that were, you know, 

4 around the unity, and then you had some below 

5 and above.

6 Now, the main thing on the below and 

7 above, if you look at these reports, you'll see 

8 a number of plots and I don't want to go 

9 through all those today, but just to tell you 

10 when you look at these reports that some of 

11 them range fairly large, you know, some of the 

12 actinides especially. It might be an order of 

13 100 or 1,000 or 10,000. And same way with 

14 cesium to strontium. And so the issue there 

15 is, even on the cesium and strontium, if two 

16 people were working with the same material and 

17 had the same intake and the strontium and 

18 cesium weren't approximately equal and one was 

19 bioassayed for strontium and another bioassayed 

20 for cesium, they'd be assigned different values 

21 of dose because the mix in what they was 

22 working with wasn't around unity. 
172 

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 so this is where I'm at at this 

2 point. And like I say, this is detailed in 

3 those reports. And so, at this point, there's 

4 three levels, you know, that we could look at. 

5 It would be useful to find some fuel data to 

6 compare it to, and I know that Steve is going 

7 to talk about the reactor prioritization here 

8 in a little bit, and it would be useful to see 

9 how the ORIGEN runs duplicate some actual data 

10 that was taken that could be found. It doesn't 

11 really represent what the worker was taking in, 

12 but it would be useful.

13 The second is if more work 

14 environment data could be found like I mostly 

15 analyzed so far, except that INL didn't have 

16 very many data points to work with there. And, 

17 of course, the third one, the best thing is if 

18 we could find more nasal and breathing zone 

19 data that is a direct indication of what the 

20 worker was taking in.

21 And so, at this point, that is where 

22 I'm at on this investigation, and I'll open it 
173 

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 for questions. 

2 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Ron. 

3 DR. TAULBEE: Ron, in looking 

4 through the data, I do have a question for you. 

5 This is one of the reports that I have looked 

6 at a little more closely than some of the 

7 others. I had noticed that, in some cases, you 

8 selected annual data instead of monthly. Was 

9 there a reason for that? 

10 DR. BUCHANAN: I don't know which 

11 data you're talking about, but, generally, I 

12 had to take, well, on some of the air data, the 

13 waste data, I felt that this was more 

14 representative than trying to plot all the 

15 individual monthly data on the waste data. 

16 That could be done. I think you'd get similar 

17 results. In fact, you'd probably get more 

18 fluctuation than doing the average, but the 

19 idea was it would give us more indication on 

20 what happened over the year. It could be done 

21 on a monthly basis. I think you'd see similar 

22 averages, just more scatter. 
174 

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: Okay. Well, I guess, 

2 from my limited review of this, I'm not sure 

3 that we're going to see more scatter. I do 

4 think, well, some of the data did surprise me 

5 where I did go through and break out some of 

6 the annual data. It just seems like there's a 

7 mixture here. In the 1960s, the data was kind 

8 of reported on a monthly basis. And then when 

9 you get into the latter years, the 70s and the 

10 80s and 90s data that you used, you kind of 

11 switched to the annual. And I've seen it go 

12 both ways in the analysis. 

13 In one particular case, the ratio of 

14 144 dropped down to 1.73 when you take an 

15 average of all of the values. But then in 

16 another case where the ratio you've reported is 

17 2.33 and the combined average goes up to 14.55. 

18 So I think it will go both ways, but 

19 where I'm mostly concerned is some of the upper 

20 tail or the extremes within your analysis. In 

21 particular, the one ratio of 2,587. That is 

22 one where, if you go through the data and you 
175 

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 look at just the monthly component of that, the 

2 strontium, those aren't reported for any of the 

3 months, except for one month, during that year. 

4 And so when you pair that one strontium 

5 measurement to the paired cesium measurement, 

6 that ratio of 2500 drops to 6. And so that's 

7 where I'm concerned with not using all of the 

8 monthly data in a uniform manner.

9 So I would recommend that that be 

10 done. I mean, if you want us, I mean, if 

11 that's something you want us to do in our 

12 response, we can. But, you know, if you're 

13 looking to build on this or to analyze other 

14 things, I would really ask that you consider 

15 that because I think some of the variance that 

16 we're seeing on the extreme side is possibly

17 due to that. I will say not all of it. The 

18 next highest result is 550, and that one is 

19 legit. That's a monthly analysis. 

20 But this gets me to my next question 

21 of, in the ANL report, you looked at other 

22 radionuclides, like cerium-144, and compared it 
176 

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 OTIB-52. Are you planning to do that with 

2 this one? Because that one result where I just 

3 talked about the 550 for strontium, the other 

4 radionuclides are all stable associated with 

5 the cesium. But then if you ratio off of the 

6 strontium for that particular month, yes, 

7 they're higher. But the other months are more 

8 in conjunction with what the cesium was, so it 

9 seems like that that's just kind of an outlier 

10 measurement, which is okay. That's going to 

11 happen when you have a large data set. 

12 So my question is are you planning 

13 to look at other radionuclides and compare it 

14 to OTIB-54? 

15 DR. BUCHANAN: I looked at all the 

16 radionuclides that were available. So many of 

17 these -- it's been a while since I did it,

18 sometimes there was, some of these months there 

19 wasn't both of them available. Other times, 

20 they didn't analyze for everything every month. 

21 And so sometimes I didn't use that data. It 

22 didn't have enough radionuclides quoted. And 
177 

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 cesium activation products, unfortunately 

2 they don't do a breakdown very often, usually 

3 cesium or strontium. Sometimes it would just 

4 be strontium and not strontium-90, and 

5 sometimes it would just be cesium and not 

6 cesium-137, so I didn't use that. 

7 So I used all that I had seen were 

8 valid specific radionuclide values that I could 

9 use to determine paired ratios. 

10 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. For that paired 

11 ratio. I'm meaning other radionuclides to 

12 compare to OTIB-54 from the standpoint of the 

13 zirconium, strontium-89, cerium-144, ruthenium14 106, because those are all typically reported 

15 in these waste reports with the cesium and 

16 strontium values. 

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Right. So that's the 

18 reason I used those. If they weren't reported 

19 or they weren't reported with cesium or 

20 strontium, I couldn't use them. And so any 

21 data I found or will find that has the paired 

22 information, I'll use with regards to what it 
178 

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 is. Now, some of the really short fission 

2 activation products, I don't know how long it 

3 sets, so I don't think I looked at anything 

4 less than about, you know, a little under a 

5 year, a half a year to six months. Anything 

6 less than that, I didn't know the conditions, 

7 so I couldn't do a ratio on it. 

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I'm not sure --

9 DR. BUCHANAN: I'll use anything I 

10 can find. If it was available, I tried to use 

11 it. And in the future, I'll use anything I can 

12 find. But if it's a short-lived, I don't do 

13 that because that really wouldn't be good ratio 

14 information.

15 DR. TAULBEE: I understand that. In 

16 doing, I guess, a different search of the SRDB, 

17 I did identify ten additional references that 

18 have this type of information in them. If I 

19 send you those references, will you consider 

20 looking at them? 

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Sure will. Yes, 

22 anything I can get because that's a long 
179 

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 process finding those quantitative analyses 

2 with specific radionuclides. It's a long hard 

3 process finding them.

4 DR. TAULBEE: I agree. My next 

5 question has to do with your definition of the 

6 .5 to the 2.0. And I guess my reasoning for 

7 this is is that, did you consider looking at 

8 doses? Because in some cases, some of these 

9 resulting doses are very low. You know, if 

10 you've got a resulting internal dose of 10 

11 millirem and here we're talking about 10 

12 millirem versus 20 millirem, even if it's an 

13 order of magnitude, then it's 10 millirem 

14 versus 100 millirem, those are really not large 

15 doses when you consider the missed dose that we 

16 apply from external and from other things 

17 during the year. So I guess I would ask that 

18 you consider to look at the doses and consider 

19 expanding that range that you've got of .5 to 2 

20 because I do think that that is important.

21 The final comment that I would make 

22 is that, when you take all of the data that 
180 

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've got, the median value is 2.1, 2.13 

2 actually. And it actually seems to follow a 

3 log normal distribution. And I've got that 

4 plotted if people want to see that. I can pull 

5 it up on Live Meeting if you want, or I 

6 actually had a handout, too. But that's up to 

7 you all whether you want to see that or not, 

8 but it does kind of show that -- well, sorry. 

9 (Simultaneous speaking)

10 MEMBER BEACH: Might as well. I 

11 mean, I don't know if Ron, Ron can't see it. 

12 But maybe -- 

13 DR. TAULBEE: Ron, do you have Live 

14 Meeting? 

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I've got Live 

16 Meeting on. 

17 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I'll bring it 

18 up on there. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and then back 

20 to your first point about adding or -- you 

21 asked if you wanted to do it, the monthly 

22 versus the yearly. You said NIOSH can do it or 
181 

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 SC&A can do it. Ron didn't really have a 

2 chance to respond on -- 

3 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry.

4 MEMBER BEACH: -- what his thoughts 

5 were on that, if it was something he could do 

6 or if it would be something that you would want 

7 Tim to do. Ron, I just wanted to make sure we 

8 didn't lose that point and you've had a chance 

9 to respond to Tim's first question there. 

10 DR. BUCHANAN: No, I'd like to, I 

11 would like to address that because I think 

12 there were reasons I had for using the data 

13 points I did. And I can go back and look at 

14 the months that it has valid data and add that 

15 in. I would prefer to do that since I'm very 

16 familiar with it.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And there may 

18 be something, I don't know if a technical call 

19 would be in order for some of this stuff or if 

20 Ron is not finding the stuff that you think is 

21 available, Tim. I just -- 

22 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, that would be a 
182 

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 real good idea. 

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, and you can 

3 trade emails, if it's simple enough that you 

4 could trade emails. You don't even need a call 

5 for that, and then timing isn't a problem. 

6 DR. TAULBEE: Are you all seeing a 

7 plot up on the Live Meeting? 

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm seeing it. 

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. This is all of 

10 Ron's data. I have truncated those above 50, 

11 50 to 1. There's 15 data points that are off 

12 to the right that go all the way out to 2500. 

13 MR. DARNELL: If you could make it a 

14 slide so they can view the screen. Only part 

15 of it is showing.

16 DR. TAULBEE: I'm not sure. It's 

17 not a slide. It's the top one on the handouts. 

18 Scroll down.

19 (Simultaneous speaking)

20 MR. KATZ: Everybody viewing can 

21 scroll on there. 

22 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I didn't know 
183 

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. Okay. But what this looks like to me 

2 is, clearly, a log normal distribution of the 

3 data that we see, which is actually very good 

4 and very comforting from my standpoint. 

5 Now, if you look at a plot of it on 

6 a probability scale, which is what I have down 

7 here at the bottom. And, again, this is all of 

8 Ron's data. The geometric mean, I'm sorry, the 

9 2.53 in this case with a GSD of 5.91. So, you 

10 know, it looks like about 80 percent of the 

11 data is less than 10 from this standpoint. 

12 So there are some outliers up there 

13 at the top, but I think some are associated 

14 with the use of annual data instead of monthly 

15 data. So I do think that some of that upper 

16 tail will drop in a subsequent analysis, but 

17 maybe it won't. I really don't know because I 

18 saw it go both ways when I broke apart the 

19 annual data. So I think we won't know until 

20 that gets done, from that standpoint.

21 The final draft that I would show 

22 you is that, in looking at this and looking at
184 

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 some other areas, and this is where I primarily 

2 was using CPP data a lot, Ron. And I didn't 

3 know that you had excluded that intentionally, 

4 but a large number of the data points were from 

5 CPP. So these are 60 additional data points 

6 not in the SEC analysis, and you can see it's 

7 not as linear and not a straight line as what 

8 Ron's plot is. But the GM drops down 1.95 and 

9 the GSD cuts in almost half. So I do think 

10 there's more data out there that give a more 

11 broad picture of the whole scenario here that I 

12 do think should be looked at. 

13 And I'll be happy to share this data 

14 with you, Ron, as well as these other resources 

15 that I have found. And I think that's a good 

16 way to go. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: So to move forward on 

18 that, you would exchange emails, Ron could 

19 determine what he might need, and you could 

20 provide that? 

21 DR. TAULBEE: Absolutely. 

22 MEMBER BEACH: And Ron can update 
185 

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 his White Paper, and then, NIOSH, are you 

2 planning on a response White Paper? Of course, 

3 not until Ron is done. 

4 DR. TAULBEE: I would like to hold 

5 off on our response until -- if Ron is willing 

6 to update and consider this additional data, 

7 then, once that revision comes out, then, yes, 

8 we'll respond from that if that's acceptable.

9 MEMBER BEACH: That makes sense to 

10 me. 

11 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

12 have a question for both Ron and Tim. I'm sort 

13 of stepping back a little bit and thinking 

14 about all of this data, these ratios, where 

15 they break down and how they break down, where 

16 they were talking actinides to cesium or 

17 cesium/strontium. In the end, and correct me 

18 if I'm wrong, what we're really trying to do 

19 probe here is the validity of OTIB-54 in terms 

20 of a technique to reconstruct internal doses, 

21 and the idea being that these ratios hold up. 

22 That means OTIB-54 holds up.
186 

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 If they break down and, apparently, 

2 you know, certainly looking at a spread on the 

3 cesium to strontium-90 that we're looking at 

4 here, I have, it's really more of a question. 

5 If they break down, the implications, I 

6 believe, are that your use of gross beta-gamma 

7 as your measurement along with OTIB-54 

8 protocols, that you're going to somehow 

9 reconstruct dose incorrectly. And it's not 

10 immediately apparent to me whether the 

11 breakdown in the ratios means that you're going 

12 to overestimate the dose or underestimate the 

13 dose, and I think that's an important -- if 

14 what I'm saying is a correct perspective, I 

15 think that that context needs to be introduced 

16 into this work, the implications of these 

17 distributions. I realize you're trying to 

18 refine the distributions and use the data as 

19 best you can, but I, quite frankly, don't know 

20 what to use, how to use this information in 

21 terms of thinking about are we doing good dose 

22 reconstructions using OTIB-54 or not. 
187 

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: This is -- 

2 DR. BUCHANAN: John, let me respond 

3 to that first. If you look at plots in my 

4 report, you'll see that there's a band in the 

5 center, which is 1. And then if it's above 

6 that, if what we measured, and that's what the 

7 person was exposed to, is greater than the 

8 recommended value, then obviously you would 

9 underestimate the dose using a recommended 

10 value. If it was less than what the 

11 recommended value was then you would assign 

12 more dose using the recommended value than what 

13 the person is exposed to. And in this case, 

14 there's a similar amount of scatter on both 

15 sides of the unity line, and so, you know, 

16 roughly half the people would be assigned 

17 excess dose and half the people would be 

18 assigned too little dose. Now, I didn't do a 

19 mathematical analysis of how many fell above 

20 and below, but, just looking at the plot, it 

21 isn't one side, greatly one-sided one way or 

22 the other. 
188 

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. MAURO: Oh, good. Thank you. 

2 That does help a great deal. 

3 DR. TAULBEE: And if I could add on 

4 to that, that was part of why I asked the 

5 question about the dose and taking this all the 

6 way to dose at the end because OTIB-54 was 

7 designed to be claimant-favorable, reasonable 

8 but claimant-favorable. So the release 

9 fractions were kind of maximized from the ones 

10 that would deliver more dose than other fission 

11 products, which is why I think taking this data 

12 that you've got, Ron, and taking those that are 

13 above and calculating all the way out to dose 

14 both from the strontium and the cesium and then 

15 applying OTIB-54 to those, to both of those, 

16 and then comparing that to what the other 

17 radionuclides in that particular measure are. 

18 In these monthly reports, there is zirconium, 

19 ruthenium, strontium-89, and cerium-144 that 

20 could be compared then to both the calculated 

21 strontium dose, the final dose calculated based 

22 on a strontium bioassay and calculated based on 
189 

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 cesium bioassay, and that's what I think 

2 should be compared in the end is that final 

3 dose. And I think it's going to be a little 

4 different mix, but that's just my impression 

5 because of the way we tried to maximize OTIB-54 

6 from a dose standpoint and that's actually the 

7 input that goes into IREP is beta-gamma total 

8 dose. It's not, you know, cerium dose or 

9 strontium-89 dose.

10 So I think that really has to be 

11 carried all the way through, as you're 

12 suggesting there, John, as to what happens from 

13 this analysis of these two ratios being 

14 different. 

15 DR. MAURO: I think that's a really 

16 important point because what -- as I 

17 understand, what you're explaining is, okay, we 

18 recognize we've got this distribution of values 

19 and it does go in both directions, which the 

20 implications are in some cases you might be 

21 high and in some cases you might be low, in 

22 terms of estimating the dose using OTIB-54. 
190 

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, of course, the ones that are high where 

2 you, the places where you would underestimate 

3 because the data are suspect, in other words 

4 the assumption of OTIB-54 has been shown. 

5 I think we're in a very important 

6 place here. It's clear that there is quite a 

7 distribution of values that seem to offset to a 

8 degree, but that would mean for at least some 

9 of the workers, using OTIB-54, you may be 

10 underestimating, which brings me to what I 

11 think is how you close the circle. When that 

12 happens and you actually wanted to reconstruct 

13 the doses using OTIB-54 and then you say but if 

14 we correct for, let's say the fact that there's 

15 this uncertainty in these mixes, we're going 

16 from 1 millirem per year to 3 millirem per 

17 year. And so it means that the difference 

18 makes no difference. I think that's a very 

19 important point.

20 But in the cases where the 

21 differences do make a difference, and, of 

22 course, this is a subjective answer, but that 
191 

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 context that the OTIB-54 approach is what I 

2 consider to be an innovative and a very 

3 thoughtful way to come to grips with a very 

4 difficult situation and the fact that some of 

5 the data is not holding up in terms of ratios, 

6 if you could couple that with a demonstration 

7 that when we actually do apply to real data 

8 we're still talking about doses that border on 

9 the insignificant. That's a very important 

10 point that needs to be brought home that I'm 

11 not aware of. To the degree to which that 

12 could be done, that would really add value.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, of course, it 

14 depends on the isotope and the organ. And I 

15 did do some calculations. I don't know if I 

16 did put it in that report. I know I sent them 

17 to John Stiver on some of the actinides and how 

18 much difference it would make, and it was, you 

19 know, significant enough that you wouldn't want 

20 to -- it wasn't like 1 millirem or 10 millirem. 

21 It was significant enough in the total dose 

22 that it would be effective, especially the 
192 

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 actinides. Now, the fission 

2 activation products, there's not as big of an 

3 impact usually from them. But, again, it 

4 depends on the organs. You have to look at the 

5 organ. 

6 MR. STIVER: Ron, this is Stiver. I 

7 remember we did that I think as an exercise 

8 back before the November 2015 meeting. I think 

9 I still have that information around. 

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I have that 

11 information somewhere, but it did show, I think 

12 I assumed lung, liver, and some other cancer 

13 and looked at if you got the wrong factor for 

14 some of the actinides and I believe fission 

15 activation products and what difference did it 

16 make, and it did make enough that you wouldn't 

17 want to ignore.

18 DR. TAULBEE: I would also add in 

19 some of these reports, Ron, where they don't 

20 necessarily indicate plutonium straight-out, 

21 especially in the 1960s, they do have a gross 

22 alpha measure that you could assume to be 
193 

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 plutonium or uranium and calculate out what 

2 that, you know, what that component is for 

3 those actinides in those early years and really 

4 bump up the number of your fission product-to5 actinide ratios that you have available to 

6 analyze. 

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, it's true. I 

8 tried not to use any data that I didn't know 

9 for sure if they stated, you know, what 

10 specific isotope, so there wouldn't be any 

11 question on the ratio. 

12 DR. TAULBEE: I understand that, but 

13 that would expand your current, one of your 

14 plots, plutonium-238 to strontium-90, you know, 

15 is kind of limited on the number of points from 

16 the 1975 time period and 1985 time period, and 

17 you could go back into the 1960s to look at 

18 that. And, also, if you break out the monthly 

19 values on that, as well, I think you'll also 

20 have some data that you can pull out of there. 

21 But I'll put that in an email to you. 

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Can you send me 
194 

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 those references especially?

2 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, no problem.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: And I don't know if 

4 you can send me those plots that you just did 

5 here.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, absolutely, 

7 absolutely.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: That would be useful.

9 DR. TAULBEE: That's not a problem. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody else 

11 got any questions? 

12 MR. KATZ: Somebody's kitchen sounds 

13 are coming through the phone. Pots and pans. 

14 So are we ready for Steve?

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think we're 

16 ready for Steve. Jim, do you have any 

17 comments?

18 MEMBER MELIUS: No, I don't.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So Steve -- and 

20 someone else, we can hear pots and pans and 

21 water in the background, so please mute your 

22 phone.
195 

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 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You're making 

2 us hungry. 

3 DR. OSTROW: Hi, this is Steve. I'm 

4 trying to put up something on the screen here 

5 in Live Meeting. Bear with me a second. 

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

7 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Can everybody 

8 see this, my INL report?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes, it's up, Steve.

10 INL SEC-00219 Reactor Priortization for Evaluation 

11 of ORAUT-OTIB-0054 Applicability 

12 DR. OSTROW: Fantastic. Alright. A 

13 little background first. I'm going to be 

14 discussing my INL and the ANL-West reports that 

15 I did on prioritizing reactors to look at the 

16 details in comparison to OTIB-54. I'm going to 

17 combine them since it's basically the same 

18 process for different tests of reactors. 

19 So a little bit of background first. 

20 As part of our review of the two SECs, the 

21 Board asked us to investigate the issue of dose 

22 reconstructability. Inherent in the SEC 
196 

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 framework is the dose needs to be reconstructed 

2 with sufficient accuracy to areas and time 

3 periods that lie outside the SEC Class 

4 definitions. And as we've been discussing for 

5 the last half-hour with Ron's presentation, one 

6 of the main tools that NIOSH uses for dose 

7 reconstruction is OTIB-54.

8 Now, we did two reports on it, one 

9 for INL and one for ANL-West. And what you see 

10 on the screen is the first one we did for INL. 

11 You might notice this is revision one. We had 

12 done rev zero, and we had some comments we 

13 should get some other criteria when we're doing 

14 the prioritization. So we revised our earlier 

15 report and came out with a new. We divided 

16 things in high, medium, and low categories for 

17 characterization.

18 One of the reasons that we're 

19 looking into this is that, as we'll see a 

20 little bit later, the OTIB assumed four 

21 different reactors that were supposed to be 

22 representative of the whole universe of 
197 

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 reactors, and they ran nine cases, four 

2 reactors and nine cases total. But as everyone 

3 knows, the operations at the INL and ANL-West 

4 reactors were very much different than a lot of 

5 the other reactors because it was the INL site 

6 with the testing stations to test different 

7 concepts. So there were things like fuel type, 

8 different types of fuel type, like fissile 

9 materials, chemical forms, cladding, and 

10 physical arrangements, and we looked at 

11 blankets. Some of them didn't have a blanket, 

12 some had reflectors, and some had breeding 

13 blankets, like U-238, to breed more fuel. 

14 Moderators ran the whole gamut, light water, 

15 heavy water, organic coolants. We had 

16 coolants, light water, heavy water, liquid 

17 metal, gas, organic.

18 Operating scenarios. Some were 

19 steady-state reactors, some were intermittent 

20 in that they ran in batches that they'd run 

21 full power for a certain amount of time and 

22 then they'd be taken down and then run again. 
198 

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 few of the reactors were pulsed where they 

2 have a steady state, fairly low power, but they 

3 could be pulsed to huge power with very short 

4 periods of time, and they shut themselves down 

5 automatically. 

6 Some of the reactors and experiments 

7 were run inside design limits, and some were 

8 deliberately or inadvertently taken outside of 

9 design limits. In a few cases, as you know, 

10 the fuel was melted on purpose. In a few 

11 cases, the fuel was melted inadvertently.

12 And, finally, with operating 

13 burnups, most of the reactors had fairly low 

14 burnups, as compared to the OTIB cases. And 

15 the consequence with low burnups, the long16 lived decay products didn't have the 

17 opportunity to build up in the fuel, which 

18 might have resulted in different isotopic 

19 ratios than in the OTIB characteristic reactor 

20 cases. 

21 So that's a little bit of 

22 background. So we decided to take a look at 
199 

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 the reactors and prioritize looking at 

2 them.

3 Okay. Let me go down the report 

4 here. Bear with me a second here. Okay. So 

5 briefly on the OTIB-54, we've been hearing a 

6 lot about that. It's probably one of the most 

7 complex OTIBs that are out there. We had 

8 reviewed this in the Procedures Work Group in a 

9 lot of detail over a lot of months, and I think 

10 John Mauro mentioned earlier that SC&A is 

11 generally satisfied that the OTIB is worked as 

12 claimant-favorable for situations where it 

13 applies, but it probably doesn't apply to every 

14 situation. So this just shows the four stable, 

15 the four representative reactors in the OTIB, 

16 the Advanced Test Reactor which is an INL 

17 reactor, high-flux reactors, fast-flux test 

18 facility, the sodium-cooled fast reactors, and 

19 plutonium production reactors, and, finally, a 

20 trigger reactor which represents old research 

21 reactors.

22 Just in short, NIOSH ran ORIGEN 
200 

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 code. We talked about that. The isotopic 

2 build-up and depletion code and came out with 

3 nine cases listed here, three for the ATR, two 

4 for the Fast Flux Test Facility, two for the 

5 Hanford reactor, and two trigger reactors with 

6 different power levels and burnups. And the 

7 thought is, if you're looking at a particular 

8 reactor on any of the weapons facilities 

9 complexes, not just INL, you try to 

10 characterize the reactor and then pick 

11 whichever one of these was closest, seemed to 

12 be closest, and to use that as a basis. I 

13 think NIOSH had clarified at one point that 

14 they actually, in practice, run all nine cases 

15 and did the worst case if they can't determine 

16 exactly which is the best fit because that's 

17 claimant-favorable. 

18 In all, there are 52 reactors on the 

19 entire site, and this agrees with the same list 

20 that NIOSH is using. All of it comes out of 

21 this book Stacy wrote in 2000. It's like a 

22 history of the layout of INL. So 52 reactors. 
201 

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 There's ANL-West reactors, there's the reactors 

2 that are in the INL area, there's a few that 

3 are in the Naval Research facility reactor 

4 area, so 52. 

5 We took a look at it first, all 52. 

6 And for the INL consideration, we eliminated 

7 the 12 ANL-West reactors. That was a separate 

8 paper we looked at it. The four NRF reactors 

9 are not in the program. We had already 

10 evaluated, SC&A, six of the reactors in earlier 

11 studies. One I did was the test reactor area. 

12 It had three reactors. And John Mauro looked 

13 at the three header HTRE reactors in another 

14 report, so we didn't look at those again. Two 

15 of the 52 reactors never operated.

16 So for the first report, we were 

17 left with 24 candidate reactors. We excluded 

18 24, so we were left with 28 candidate reactors 

19 to look at, and we prioritized high, medium, 

20 and low. And that was a little bit subjective, 

21 but we had some criteria that we looked at. 

22 Well, first, this is our 
202 

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 categorization. We ended up with seven in the 

2 high category, six in the medium, and fifteen 

3 in the low category of the 28. Of the high 

4 category, the reactors we were left with was 

5 the LOFT, Loss-of-Fluid Test reactor; OMRE, 

6 which is the organic reactor; and then the four 

7 power burst reactors; and then the four SPERT 

8 reactors. That was the high category.

9 What criteria did we look at when we 

10 were doing this characterization? We looked at 

11 things that might affect the estimate of 

12 internal doses. We looked at the type of fuel, 

13 the enrichment, cladding, moderator coolant, 

14 operating mode, and the overall burnup as best 

15 as we could. It's sort of difficult to find 

16 this information. 

17 As we revised the reports --

18 subsequent to revising reports on rev zero, a 

19 few other things like duration the reactor was 

20 in operating, the frequency of operation, 

21 incident, a few of the reactors were 

22 deliberately melted and a few inadvertently 
203 

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 melted; and the approximate number of workers 

2 potentially exposed. I think as John Mauro 

3 alluded a little bit earlier, it's one thing to 

4 be academic, but also you've got to consider 

5 does it really make a difference as far as 

6 exposures go?

7 Unfortunately, we weren't able to, 

8 at least in the screening study, to really 

9 estimate the number of workers potentially 

10 exposed to any of these reactors. That would 

11 have to be a follow-on study.

12 So this is what we finally ended up 

13 with, and our recommendation was to look at 

14 these reactors for the INL cases to start off. 

15 And just attached to this report I'm not going 

16 to go into now, we had, for each of the 

17 reactors under high priority leading to low 

18 priority, we had summary description of each of 

19 the reactors and some comments about how we 

20 reached our conclusions. 

21 After we did this report, which was 

22 in June, we did also one very similar for ANL, 
204 

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 is this one, which came out in July, July 

2 13th. And the front part is all the same, the 

3 same considerations. We just looked at 

4 different reactors. And the results are down 

5 here. We finally came up with seven of the 

6 ANL-West reactors in the high priority. Let's 

7 see. Which reactors are they? It's the BORAX8 VI, VII, VIII, and IX, oh, and X, the BORAX-I, 

9 II, III, IV, V, and 17 and 18 are EBR-1 and 

10 EBR-II. 

11 So that was our recommendation we 

12 looked at, and we had the same thing at the end 

13 here where we discussed each reactor 

14 individually. Then just recently, I think it 

15 was on Friday, NIOSH responded to this. Okay. 

16 I guess the Work Group have seen this posted, 

17 and I hesitate to go through it since it's 

18 actually a work product of NIOSH, not us. But 

19 Tim Taulbee and company, on Friday, responded 

20 to our two White Papers with their proposal for 

21 the next steps forward. 

22 We intended, SC&A, to take a closer 
205 

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 look at these reactors to get a more detailed 

2 characterization of the high priority we had 

3 looked at. NIOSH proposed, though, they 

4 discussed with -- Tim, is it okay if I show 

5 this you think? 

6 DR. TAULBEE: Sure. If you want me 

7 to go through it, I'm willing to do that, but 

8 it's up to you.

9 DR. OSTROW: Let me just skip ahead, 

10 and then you can, you know, amplify. I don't 

11 want to speak for you guys, but let me just go 

12 ahead. 

13 So they looked at our two reports, 

14 and the first couple of pages sort of 

15 summarized what we had done. And NIOSH had 

16 various reasons for changing some of the 

17 priorities that we had. They proposed -- 

18 MEMBER BEACH: So, Steve.

19 DR. OSTROW: Oh, here we go. Let me 

20 go down to the end here. Okay. On the 

21 conclusions proposal --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Steve?
206 

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. OSTROW: -- I'm not going to 

2 read the whole thing, but they decide, just for 

3 practical purposes, which I totally agree with, 

4 merging the INL and ANL-West high priority 

5 category reactors for evaluating OTIB-54. It 

6 doesn't make sense to do them as two separate 

7 exercises. It's the same, physically, bunch of 

8 reactors in the same place.

9 And for those reactors, NIOSH wants 

10 to run --

11 MEMBER BEACH: Hey, Steve, can I 

12 stop you for just a sec?

13 DR. OSTROW: Sure.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Wouldn't it be better 

15 if we just let NIOSH go over their paper, and 

16 then we can discuss the different aspects of 

17 both of them and decide where to go? It just 

18 seems odd that you're addressing their paper. 

19 DR. OSTROW: No, I'm not really --

20 okay. That's fine with me, Tim, if you want 

21 to. I don't want to put you on the spot since 

22 I know you weren't planning to present this. 
207 

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: No, actually, I was, 

2 so that's fine. 

3 DR. OSTROW: Oh, you were? Okay.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, I was. 

5 DR. OSTROW: Do you want to control 

6 this, or should I continue controlling it? 

7 DR. TAULBEE: Right now, it's 

8 jumping all over on us, but that's fine. 

9 Actually, if you'll control it, that will save 

10 us a little bit of time of trying to bring one 

11 up.

12 If you could jump down to -- let's 

13 see. Scroll down, please, to maybe about page 

14 three. Oh, I'm sorry, it would be page -- on 

15 page three. Let me just start with our 

16 discussion of the reactors. 

17 So to kind of summarize, we've got 

18 14 high-priority reactors. At NIOSH, we just 

19 looked at the high priority because to give you 

20 a scale of what this is going to take to 

21 evaluate is we have to go back to the site, we 

22 have to get more information about the 
208 

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 reactors, their operating times, their power 

2 levels over time, to plug into ORIGEN to run 

3 these codes, so it's not trivial to do one of 

4 these reactors. This is a significant effort.

5 But we do feel that some of these 

6 reactors do need a look at. If you recall back 

7 a while ago, this issue of OTIB-54 

8 applicability came up at Savannah River and we 

9 went back and we looked at other, we looked at 

10 heavy water reactors specifically and we found 

11 some surprises with regards to iodine. And so 

12 it has its own OTIB-54 now.

13 So we do feel that some of these 

14 reactors need to be followed up a little 

15 closer. So we looked at the high-priority

16 reactors. Fourteen. That's a lot of reactors 

17 to try and go back and do this for, and so this 

18 is why we wanted to try and take the priority 

19 and condense them down to something manageable, 

20 something that we could put into a report. 

21 And so let me go through the 

22 discussion here. And I'm just kind of going 
209 

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, and you'll see a mixture of both INL 

2 and ANL-West reactors.

3 The first one is Loss-of-Fluid Test 

4 facility. This one we're proposing to exclude 

5 at this time, and the reason is is that it's 

6 operating time period is outside of the current 

7 SEC. The SEC ends in December of 1974, and we 

8 have, this particular reactor didn't start 

9 nuclear operations until December of '78. 

10 We're not saying that this shouldn't be 

11 discussed or shouldn't be evaluated at some 

12 point. I do think that it should just be 

13 outside of this particular SEC component of 

14 evaluation, and so that's why we're asking that 

15 that one be pushed to the side at this time for 

16 what we're proposing.

17 The next reactor is OMRE. We agree 

18 with SC&A on this one that we should look at 

19 this one. This is an organic reactor. It has 

20 very different operating characteristics. And 

21 going through some of Ron's data of the 

22 different mixtures of radioisotopes and the 
210 

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 cesium and strontium, we're seeing some 

2 radionuclides that we haven't seen as a 

3 potential issue. And so we definitely feel 

4 that Organic Moderated Reactor needs to be 

5 looked at, and so we are proposing that that is 

6 one of the first ones we look at.

7 The Power Burst Facility is also the 

8 same thing. We agree that this is a unique 

9 fuel type and a unique facility where you've 

10 got power spikes going on, and we feel that 

11 this one should be evaluated, as well.

12 Next gets into the SPERT, the 

13 Special Power Excursion Test, and here's where 

14 you've got four reactors, one, two, three, and 

15 four. These were all very similar, similar 

16 type of operations. They do have different 

17 power ranges that they did at different bursts, 

18 but what we were proposing to do here is to 

19 combine them into one, to look at one 

20 particular, kind of our worst-case scenario, if 

21 you will, from a fuel standpoint, or most 

22 unusual. And we'll evaluate that one and then 
211 

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 apply it to the other SPERT reactors and see 

2 where we fall with OTIB-54. If this one is, 

3 you know, for example, way outside --

4 MEMBER BEACH: That would five of 

5 them. There's five SPERTs?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Four, four SPERTs, but 

7 we're going to combine them into one is what 

8 we're proposing. Now, if SPERT is the one 

9 outlier that we find in this whole thing, then 

10 maybe we want to expand it out into all four. 

11 But right now, we'd like to try and look at 

12 SPERTs combined but look at a particular kind 

13 of worst-case fuel, if you will, for them.

14 This gets us next to the boiling 

15 water reactors. BORAX-I, II, and III. There's 

16 an SEC already for BORAX-I, II, and III. This 

17 was one of our problems that we had early on. 

18 We don't have internal bioassay for these 

19 people. We know they went, and we know they 

20 picked up core pieces. This is part of our 

21 designation for making the early time of 

22 Argonne-West an SEC. So I don't see what's to 
212 

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 be gained here by going through and trying to 

2 model these particular reactors. We've already 

3 said we can't do dose reconstruction. We're 

4 going to use whatever bioassay is available, 

5 which is incredibly limited for these workers. 

6 And we will apply it to OTIB-54 in general, 

7 from a boiling water reactor standpoint; but 

8 there's really not much that we can do for this 

9 time period. We know people are exposed there. 

10 We know we don't have bioassay data to apply. 

11 So those I would like to propose that we don't 

12 evaluate.

13 BORAX-IV and V. Actually, BORAX-IV 

14 is one that is unusual. It has a uranium15 thorium oxide fuel for a particular time 

16 period, and so this is something that hasn't 

17 been evaluated, it's not in OTIB-54. It's a 

18 different mix, and we do feel that that one 

19 should be evaluated.

20 BORAX-V, on the other hand, is 

21 really just a standard reactor. The difference 

22 between IV and V was they went back to a 
213 

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 regular type of fuel and added super heat 

2 systems to it. So it's not really a nuclear 

3 change, and we feel that the type of reactor 

4 style would cover the BORAX-V scenario.

5 Which gets us to EBR-1. There's 

6 four different core configurations associated 

7 with this. And for this, we are proposing --

8 let me see -- that we just use the most 

9 bounding of the last two EBR-I cores. The 

10 first two cores are 1951 through 1955. Again, 

11 this is under the SEC time period where we 

12 don't have internal dosimetry or internal 

13 bioassay, or external for that matter, for that 

14 reactor. Starting in '57, though, we do. We 

15 do start seeing bioassay to where we could 

16 apply OTIB-54 to it.

17 So for the Mark III and Mark IV, 

18 we'll pick whichever one has the configuration 

19 that would be most bounding. And this is going 

20 to involve taking some initial runs. This 

21 isn't something that's straightforward that you 

22 can just look at and say, oh, Mark IV is worse 
214 

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 than Mark III. We're going to have to do some 

2 preliminary modeling to see which one seems to 

3 be the more problematic of the two.

4 Finally, this gets us to EBR-II. 

5 And this is one where we agree that we should 

6 be looking at. Initially, we thought that this 

7 would be covered under the Fast Flux Test 

8 Facility because they're both sodium reactors. 

9 But the difference is FFTF, correct me if I'm 

10 wrong, was a plutonium core that was modeled, 

11 whereas EBR-1 only had uranium core. So we 

12 need to look at that one from a sodium 

13 moderation and blanket standpoint.

14 So from this particular kind of 

15 summary, if you will, we're proposing to go 

16 from 14 reactors down to six analyses with 

17 having the Organic Moderated Reactor; power 

18 burst facility; combine all of the SPERTs; 

19 evaluate BORAX-IV; the EBR-1 core, either core 

20 three or four, most likely core four; and then 

21 EBR-II. So that's our proposal to the Work 

22 Group as a starting point to see where we're at 
215 

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 after we get those six done and how they hold 

2 up against OTIB-54.

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

4 quick question for you. Wasn't Brookhaven's an 

5 organic reactor, too? Brookhaven?

6 DR. TAULBEE: I don't believe so. 

7 OMRE was an organic reactor at Piqua --

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That's 

9 the one I'm trying to think of. Okay.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Piqua actually 

11 put into operation and used for a number of 

12 years.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I was 

14 trying to remember --

15 DR. TAULBEE: It's the predecessor 

16 to Piqua.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- one we've 

18 dealt with before that's organic.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, it's Piqua. 

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'd like to hear 

21 Steve's comment. I assume he agrees with your 

22 evaluation on this. 
216 

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. KATZ: No idea, but Steve? 

2 Steve, do you have a take on -- 

3 DR. OSTROW: Okay. I haven't had a 

4 chance to go into much detail. I agree with it 

5 in general. I think it's a good approach to do 

6 detailed ORIGEN runs of, you know, this set. I 

7 haven't had a chance to really look into 

8 NIOSH's, you know, reducing the number of 

9 reactors.

10 There's a few that were sort of 

11 obvious where the reactor operation was outside 

12 the time period we're looking at. That's like 

13 a no-brainer. But, for example, I haven't had 

14 a chance to really look at the SPERT reactors 

15 where they're just going to, you know, say all 

16 four or five, I forget which, are similar but 

17 to go look at the worst case. So I expect that 

18 we'll shortly make a comment on that, but the 

19 overall plan I think is a good one. 

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. I have a 

21 perspective that I'd like to introduce because 

22 I keep my eye on the dose always. While the 
217 

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 nuclear engineers, the nuclear physicists are 

2 looking at the differences there are in these 

3 reactors and places where they are very 

4 different, of course that's important. But I'm 

5 thinking more along the lines of OTIB-54, and I 

6 say, okay, where do I get myself tripped up? 

7 In other words, where will I fool myself? And 

8 the way you fool yourself, it may not exist, 

9 but I don't know, and that is you take a urine 

10 sample, you do a gross beta or you do a gross 

11 gamma analysis, and embedded in that analysis 

12 is this assumption that most of those betas are 

13 strontium and most of those gammas are cesium. 

14 And once you've sort of hooked on to those --

15 of course there are others. That's what your 

16 mix is. And then you also have some alpha 

17 emitters.

18 And, in general, OTIB-54 works 

19 because you're working with reactors where the 

20 amount of cesium and strontium inventory into 

21 the core is relatively high because they have a 

22 long burnup. And then you're using -- and 
218 

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 the fuel. And then you're using 

2 partition factors, which really bring airborne 

3 a lot of radionuclides at a higher level than 

4 they probably expected. For example, the 

5 transuranics, et cetera, you're going to put 

6 them airborne at a ratio that's comparable to 

7 cesium, which is the secret to OTIB-54. That 

8 is putting more of that into the air, which 

9 gives them a lot of, gives them more weight 

10 than they probably deserve which tends to 

11 overstate what might be inhaled by the worker.

12 Now, the real question, the place 

13 where you would get tripped up, and so when 

14 you're asking yourself questions about what 

15 reactor I should use, I end up with a situation 

16 where I have very low levels of beta-gamma 

17 emitters relative to alpha emitters. It sounds 

18 like a strange circumstance, but that's the 

19 thing that's going to break it down. That is 

20 because what happens then is if that's the mix 

21 that's in the air and then you go look at 

22 what's in urine, that's what's going to turn it 
219 

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 such that you're going to grossly underestimate 

2 the dose. When that mix -- so it's not so 

3 much, it's when you have a reactor, and I can't 

4 tell by looking at this, when you have a 

5 reactor whose fuel, after whatever the cool6 down time is, creates a circumstance where you 

7 don't really have a lot of beta and gamma in 

8 the air or in the fuel, but, for some reason, 

9 you're going to have a lot of alphas, and 

10 that's when I think, and I'm thinking this 

11 through as I'm speaking to you, that's where 

12 you could be tricked into thinking OTIB-54 is 

13 claimant-favorable when it's not.

14 And I wanted to bring that up 

15 because that's the test we're about to go 

16 through. So I was very happy to hear that 

17 you're actually going to run ORIGEN for these 

18 unusual reactors and conditions, but I would 

19 ask, and this would be very helpful to all 

20 concerned I believe, because OTIB-54 is an 

21 enigma to a certain degree and the only reason 

22 I got close to it is I actually did a dose 
220 

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 reconstruction by hand to say what is this 

2 thing, how does it really work, and I was able 

3 to match your numbers. So, I mean, I almost 

4 fell out of my chair because I figured it out. 

5 And it's complicated, and it's nuanced. The 

6 degree to which -- this is a request really --

7 when you finish making your ORIGEN runs, it 

8 would be very helpful to show the steps that's 

9 taken and must hold the reader's hand, how do I 

10 go from the mix of radionuclides that I have in 

11 the fuel after you run your ORIGEN run and let 

12 the cool down or whatever you're using, how do 

13 I get from there and use that information to 

14 get into a dose using a gross beta analysis for 

15 some worker? And maybe just do one case and 

16 walk the reader holding their hand through the 

17 process. And I found that, as I did that, and 

18 it wasn't easy to do, the lights started to go 

19 on because, right now, I'll tell you I 

20 guarantee you most folks who are not intimately 

21 involved in OTIB-54's construct, these are very 

22 elusive and why these ratios work and why OTIB-
221 

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 54 could work and why OTIB-54 should be 

2 claimant-favorable under most circumstances. 

3 And what we're really doing right now is to see 

4 can we find circumstances where we're fooled 

5 and OTIB-54 is not necessarily claimant6 favorable?

7 So I'm making this request which I 

8 think will raise the sea level in terms of 

9 everyone getting a much more comfortable sense 

10 of what OTIB-54 is, how it works, and why it 

11 works well. So I'd like to make that request 

12 to NIOSH when you're going through this 

13 process. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

15 DR. TAULBEE: If I understand your 

16 request correct, John, and correct me if I'm 

17 wrong because I'm trying to go from my memory 

18 here, is that you're wanting us to, as part of 

19 this once we get done, to walk the reader 

20 through OTIB-54, how you use it in dose 

21 reconstruction; is that correct? 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. And in a way -- 
222 

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: So the people can see 

2 the different parts.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, because when you 

4 read OTIB-54 now, it is a challenge. And to

5 actually do an example and walk through it by 

6 hand, you see the wisdom embedded in it. And 

7 when you're doing your cases now, the a degree 

8 to which you could bring the results of your 

9 analysis to a real case and show why, even for 

10 this unusual fuel and circumstance, that it 

11 works well there. In other words, by using 

12 OTIB-54 even for that fuel, you're going to get 

13 a claimant-favorable result. It's not always 

14 immediately apparent, you know, by just looking 

15 at the fact that you picked these unusual 

16 fuels, that, in fact, the outcome is going to 

17 be a mix that will result in something that is 

18 either claimant-favorable or claimant19 unfavorable. It's just not intuitively 

20 obvious. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: So, John, so you would 
223 

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 want an example for each of the reactors that 

2 end up in the final comparison analysis?

3 DR. MAURO: I mean, if that's 

4 possible, that would be great. But if not, you 

5 know, pick a couple that, based on certain 

6 judgment, seem to be good ones to walk through 

7 because those are the ones that could create 

8 circumstances that I just described that could 

9 really fool you. And by fooling you, I mean, 

10 holy mackerel, we've got a lot more 

11 transuranics here relative to beta-gamma than 

12 we would expect to get if we were to use OTIB13 54. See, that would be the ones that you would 

14 want to find out. That's where OTIB-54 will 

15 fail if such a circumstance can even exist. 

16 I'm not even quite sure. 

17 MR. STIVER: John, this is Stiver. 

18 You're trying to get at a situation where there 

19 was a reactor that probably was not run 

20 continuously to where you would have a buildup 

21 of strontium and cesium that you can use as 

22 markers? Is that the kind of what you're 
224 

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 looking at here?

2 DR. MAURO: But, but for some reason 

3 --

4 MR. STIVER: So I guess kind of 

5 inherent in the modeling parameters when you go 

6 about to do the ORIGEN runs, how long are you 

7 going to assume these burnups took place, how 

8 long was it going to be running, and so forth? 

9 So it seems like there might be an initial 

10 period of time where OTIB-54 might not be 

11 claimant-favorable for a lot of the reactors, 

12 you know, just given the amount of time it 

13 would take for those products to build up. 

14 DR. MAURO: But bear in mind, on the 

15 other hand, if they're not there, if the cesium 

16 and the strontium aren't there yet, well, but 

17 you're assuming the beta-gamma that you do see 

18 in the urine are cesium and strontium, that, in 

19 itself, is claimant-favorable. What is the 

20 twist is, for some reason, you're getting a lot 

21 more alpha emitters than you had expected -- 

22 MR. KATZ: John, may I interrupt a 
225 

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 sec, both Johns? This is sort of getting to be 

2 inside baseball for most people, particularly 

3 the Work Group Members. And I think what would 

4 be useful -- Josie and Phillip, if you agree --

5 would be for -- SC&A, you didn't have a chance 

6 to respond formally. You know, you have sort 

7 of said orally, in general, you think what Tim 

8 has proposed makes sense, but if you have a 

9 chance to fully consider it and then respond so 

10 that we can move forward on this item. And we 

11 can move it forward in terms of what comes next 

12 for SC&A or NIOSH, however it is, without 

13 having another Work Group meeting, I think, if 

14 there's agreement there needs to be work that's 

15 done in this area.

16 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim. I want 

17 to interrupt this. I have some questions on 

18 that. I guess the one thing that sort of 

19 bothers me because I think we all know we've 

20 got sort of resource constraints, at least in 

21 terms of, you know, what can get done first, 

22 and it seems to me that what we seem to be 
226 

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 missing from this prioritization, at least I 

2 don't see it, as Steve Ostrow will mention, is 

3 really, you know, how many workers are involved 

4 in being exposed at these different reactors? 

5 It seems to me if we put a lot of our available 

6 technical resources into a reactor that maybe, 

7 you know, the health physicists may get excited 

8 about doing the work, it may be interesting, 

9 but it really doesn't move us very far along in 

10 terms of dealing with, you know, the people at 

11 the site and getting the dose reconstructions 

12 done. The only information we sort of have is, 

13 I think it was at least in, it was probably in 

14 the SC&A writeup and I saw it in Tim's is, you 

15 know, the years of operation. But, again, a 

16 lot of that was intermittent and so forth.

17 So I'm, like, trying to understand 

18 that part of it in terms of, you know, should 

19 that play a part in prioritizing what gets done 

20 immediately. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: I can make a 

22 suggestion there, Dr. Melius, and that is the 
227 

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 reactor years are one component, but the 

2 monthly dosimetry reports that we use back for 

3 the CPP to determine how many badges were 

4 issued, those are all available for each of 

5 these areas, for OMRE, for Power Burst, for 

6 SPERT, for EBR-I and II. So those numbers 

7 could be easily looked at to see how many 

8 workers are monitored in those facilities.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, could we get 

10 that relatively quickly and put that together 

11 or at least for the, you know, potential high 

12 priority -- 

13 MEMBER BEACH: So I guess that 

14 brings us to, like, who's going to do what at 

15 this point. I know Steve -- 

16 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, that was my 

17 second question. I'm a little confused that 

18 SC&A was proposing, seemed to be proposing work 

19 for you to do, Tim. I'm not opposed to, you 

20 know, a joint effort and so forth, but it just 

21 -- 

22 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I'm wondering, 
228 

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 Jim, on that if SC&A can give a response based 

2 on Tim's report, which would be the logical 

3 next step, and, in determining that, if Steve 

4 would be able to look at the numbers of people 

5 that were in those areas because I know we 

6 asked that early on of those reactors. Is that 

7 something --

8 MR. STIVER: Steve, I thought that 

9 we had looked at those initial characteristics.

10 MR. KATZ: There's only one reactor 

11 where you actually gave any real information 

12 about that, though. Steve, I mean, you can 

13 fill it in but --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, in revision one, 

15 we looked at all those other characteristics. 

16 The potential -- 

17 DR. OSTROW: We looked at mainly 

18 physics characterization and got our list of 

19 many reactors down to just a few. The next 

20 logical step, as everyone has been talking 

21 about here, is to look and see whether anybody, 

22 you know, how many people were actually exposed 
229 

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 it. That's like another level of looking 

2 into this. 

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, I thought we 

4 already did that, though.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, we asked for it, 

6 but I don't think -- 

7 MR. STIVER: I thought it was kind 

8 of inherent in rev one. That's why we produced 

9 rev one was to look at that -- 

10 DR. OSTROW: Yes, we did that more 

11 qualitatively than quantitatively. We looked 

12 at the years of operation. 

13 MR. STIVER: Oh, okay. So kind of 

14 indirectly. 

15 DR. OSTROW: Yes, we didn't go in16 depth.

17 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, at least we 

18 could do that for the high-priority list.

19 DR. OSTROW: Okay, sure. We could 

20 do that, combine it, respond to NIOSH's 

21 proposal that Tim put out on last Friday, and 

22 also, you know, put in as much as we can the 
230 

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 potential for exposure that people would have 

2 to these reactors. 

3 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Yes, I mean -

4 - yes. Then I think it would be helpful to 

5 have another Work Group meeting, if only a 

6 brief call, so we all understand where we're 

7 going forward with this.

8 MR. KATZ: So, Steve, so you'll 

9 include what Tim suggested, dosimeter counts, 

10 so you actually get real numbers?

11 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So what kind of 

14 agreement are we going to have here between the 

15 priorities, Steve, that you want on the 

16 reactors and NIOSH, what their priority is. 

17 MR. KATZ: Well, he's going to look 

18 at that. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: And I don't know if 

20 you caught this, Steve, but Bob said that would 

21 be real easy to do, so you might enlist his 

22 help. 
231 

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. OSTROW: Okay. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Bob is looking for 

3 work. 

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Bob said real 

5 easy. Okay. We put that down. 

6 (Simultaneous speaking)

7 DR. OSTROW: So, Tim, does that make 

8 sense to you? DR. TAULBEE: 

9 Absolutely, absolutely. Yes, this makes 

10 perfect sense to me because you will see some 

11 big differences in the number of workers across 

12 some of these facilities.

13 DR. OSTROW: Yes, just in terms of 

14 workers because I think we need to seriously 

15 pare this down, but I can be convinced 

16 otherwise, maybe even from Tim. So at least we 

17 need to stage it, but maybe there's 

18 efficiencies in doing, you know, several at 

19 once or whatever.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, SC&A, once you 

21 get a handle on how much time you need, let me 

22 know and we'll schedule a call. 
232 

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. OSTROW: Okay.

2 MEMBER BEACH: So then once SC&A 

3 responds and the Work Group agrees, then it's 

4 back to NIOSH. You'll take the ball to do the 

5 reports, right? 

6 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, that is correct.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So just stepping on 

8 Phil here, is everybody in agreement? Are we 

9 finished with this, the reactors? I was going 

10 to propose a break and then try to regroup on 

11 what we have left in what time we have left. 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, a comfort break? 

13 That makes sense. So how about just try to 

14 keep it brief. Ten minutes or less. At 2:30, 

15 and we'll reconvene.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record at 2:22 p.m. and 

18 resumed at 2:30 p.m.)

19 MEMBER BEACH: Alright. So we've 

20 had a couple of different requests, so we need 

21 to prioritize. We have several agenda items 

22 that we're not going to get through. NIOSH 
233 

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 like a list of what our priorities are as 

2 a Work Group, so Jim and Gen and Phil and I 

3 have, do we have some ideas of what our 

4 priorities are for NIOSH?

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, the one 

6 I've got right off the top of my head is 

7 actually kind of a combination. I'd like SC&A 

8 and NIOSH to look at the reactors and make a 

9 determination which ones they want, they feel 

10 have the highest priority to be looked at, as 

11 far as personnel and types of exposures.

12 (Simultaneous speaking)

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We discussed 

14 this earlier, but I think that's kind of, yes, 

15 give it a higher priority, and then we can know 

16 where we can go from there.

17 NIOSH Update on ER Addendum and Provide a Tentative 

18 Schedule

19 DR. TAULBEE: Alright. Just to give 

20 a little bit of an idea of where we are, 

21 because this was one of the agenda items that I 

22 don't think we're going to be getting to, is we 
234 

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 are working on the ER addendum currently. 

2 We've got those parts that we need to finish 

3 up, and our current target is to try and get 

4 that done November in order for the Board 

5 meeting the first couple of days in December. 

6 So that's where we are currently targeting. 

7 That's kind of our top priority that we've got 

8 on our plate.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And it should be.

10 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I just want to 

11 make sure you all are aware of that. Okay. 

12 The next item that I wanted to bring up, and 

13 this is where it gets gray for me, is to what 

14 is the next priority of do we tackle some of 

15 these White Papers and issues that SC&A has 

16 raised, or do we move, do you want us to move 

17 forward on an 83.14 for the CPP Class post18 1974? That's where it's a gray area. We know 

19 we've got a potential deficiency there that 

20 we'd like to go and address, but we've got a 

21 lot of, you know, these other issues that have 

22 come in now from the side, and so looking for 
235 

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 some direction from you all as to which you 

2 want us to pursue. I'm not saying we can't do 

3 them both at the same time, but one is going to 

4 be, they're going to be both slowing down a bit 

5 and I want to know which one you want us to 

6 focus on more of. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: There are several 

8 topics on here that are Site Profile in nature. 

9 I think those should all go to the bottom of 

10 the list personally.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Which ones are 

12 they that you're considering Site Profile in 

13 nature?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well, integrated 

15 status reports of Site Profile and SEC -- well, 

16 I don't know because that does have some SEC --

17 MR. STIVER: Well, that's really 

18 just sort of a crosswalk of the --

19 MEMBER BEACH: A crosswalk, yes.

20 MR. STIVER: -- Site Profile and the 

21 SEC issues, what commonalities there are 

22 between, so that's not really an actionable 
236 

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 type --

2 MEMBER BEACH: No, it's not.

3 MR. STIVER: -- thing.

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: My feeling is 

5 on the Special Exposure Cohort, until we get 

6 this, we really can't go much until like the 

7 first responders until we have kind of, where 

8 we know where we're going with that issue. 

9 DR. TAULBEE: Well, that one we're 

10 actually going to be pursuing in conjunction 

11 with the ER addendum with trying to do the 

12 interviews, especially the first week of 

13 November type of time frame. So those are kind 

14 of going in parallel along that one. 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. That 

16 --

17 DR. TAULBEE: But that does limit, I 

18 mean, for us to be able to respond to some of 

19 these other issues, like Hans' issue with the 

20 general area air sampling that came up. Ron 

21 Buchanan and I will send him the information 

22 that we have, you know, that we've come 
237 

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 together on that, but a more formal response, 

2 if I'm understanding you correct, you want to 

3 hold off on our response to Ron's until after 

4 he gets this other data and he writes a 

5 response, right? 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Alright. So that one 

8 we'll put on hold until we see a revision then 

9 from Ron, so that's fine.

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, so I don't 

11 see us voting on an SEC at the full Board 

12 meeting in a few days. I mean, I think it's 

13 got to be put off for a while. 

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. That leads to 

15 the general area air sampling one which where 

16 does that fall? 

17 MEMBER BEACH: I would say it falls 

18 under the ER addendum, the 83.14, the 

19 interviews. That's just me. I don't know how 

20 much you can do at the same time, though. 

21 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim. I 

22 think that has a potential to be an SEC issue. 
238 

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 mean, these are hard to judge. I don't want 

2 to sort of jump to conclusions on it, but, you 

3 know, it could go either way. And I think the 

4 interviews and more information on, you know, 

5 the areas we're talking about will be important 

6 there. So sorting that out I think is 

7 important. Where it ends up, it's hard to say.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So you're 

9 wanting to add that one to the list of 

10 important --

11 MEMBER MELIUS: To me, that's a 

12 priority because it's potentially an SEC.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So the one 

14 that you already agreed to the action, for the 

15 very first topic, the general air sampling and 

16 internal --

17 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, there's follow18 up, but that follow-up could play as a 

19 priority. That's all. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

21 MR. STIVER: Could you say that 

22 again, Josie?
239 

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 BEACH: So the very first 

2 topic that NIOSH agreed to prepare a response 

3 was the review of Petition Evaluation Report 

4 for SEC-224 Argonne National Lab-West regarding 

5 the use of air sampling for internal dose 

6 assessment, the one that Hans reported on.

7 MR. STIVER: Hans' general area.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay.

10 MEMBER BEACH: It's really hard to 

11 say on some of these since we haven't really 

12 talked about them, but some of the issues -- 

13 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Then I guess, 

14 from my understanding of kind of our top then, 

15 it's the ER addendum, which we're doing in 

16 conjunction with the first responders.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Once that's done, then 

19 we'll do this general area paper response; is 

20 that correct? Is that what you're requesting? 

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

22 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.
240 

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 BEACH: And that falls ahead 

2 of the 83.14? 

3 DR. TAULBEE: That's my 

4 understanding.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't think 

6 we can do the 83.14 until those questions are 

7 kind of answered and fleshed out.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Well, they're actually 

9 two separate areas. One is Argonne-West and 

10 the other is INL for CPP.

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. But, I 

12 mean, those are issues that we've got to -- 

13 MR. KATZ: But those aren't in the 

14 way of the 83.14. 

15 MR. STIVER: I thought they were 

16 combined, but they're separate issues.

17 MEMBER BEACH: And then the 

18 reactors. Once you get SC&A's report on the 

19 reactors, then that would require a phone call, 

20 or would you be able to just go to work on 

21 those? Ted, what do you think?

22 DR. TAULBEE: Well, we wouldn't, we 
241 

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 actually wouldn't go to work immediately on 

2 those. My guess is is that SC&A will probably 

3 respond in the next month or so. We'll have a 

4 Work Group call in September or maybe early 

5 October. We'll get it finalized, and so it 

6 would be later this fall before we can tag 

7 people free to start going to get that reactor 

8 data that is necessary.

9 So that one right now, from our 

10 standpoint, isn't a big drain on our resources. 

11 It's more you guys responding, and then us 

12 participating in a call. So we should be able 

13 to do that, from that standpoint. 

14 So that can all be done, I think, as 

15 we're working on the ER addendum. And then 

16 once that gets done, we will jump first then on 

17 the general area air sampling paper and the 

18 reactor prioritization will follow that. Does 

19 that sound reasonable, Dr. Melius? 

20 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. Again, I'd 

21 like to see what you come back with on the 

22 reactors, you know, later this fall and then 
242 

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 decide should there be other priorities that 

2 are ahead of that.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Makes sense.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. I mean, how we 

5 handle -- again, it could be a big resource 

6 draw, and I think, once you get started on some 

7 of it, you want to be able to continue and 

8 follow-up.

9 MEMBER BEACH: What about the 

10 evaluation of monitoring practices for 

11 claimants? Is that something that needs to be 

12 on the priority list? 

13 MR. BARTON: We didn't really talk 

14 about it today.

15 MEMBER BEACH: No, I know. That's 

16 why I'm asking.

17 MR. BARTON: Part of it might be an 

18 issue similar to INL where you might have a 

19 coding issue based on some of the findings we 

20 had, but also, if you read the report, there 

21 appears to somewhat of a gap that may sort of 

22 require, I think, a coworker evaluation looking 
243 

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 why we're suddenly seeing what appears 

2 to be a gap in the mid-70s for at least this 

3 random sample. I don't know where that falls

4 as far as the priority. It might be just a 

5 simple -- because we were talking about the 

6 fission product bioassay, so, even though there 

7 appears to be a gap, there might be enough 

8 there just to go in and make a coworker model, 

9 or if we look at the operations there and say, 

10 you know, that's what's happening and we don't 

11 have a bioassay to cover it, that would then 

12 become an SEC issue. But I don't have any 

13 indication that that is, in fact, what 

14 happened. It might just be a policy decision 

15 at the time that wouldn't come back on our 

16 bioassay program because maybe they were seeing 

17 a lot of non-detects or something like that. I 

18 really don't know. 

19 DR. TAULBEE: This is just a perfect 

20 opening for me to mention again where we are 

21 with the data coding on the in vitro analysis 

22 because ANL-West is part of that. Once we get 
244 

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 data coded, it will be very easy to see 

2 whether we've got a monitoring gap there or 

3 not. And the site might actually have a gap 

4 where they're not reporting some data. There 

5 could be a set of records that didn't get 

6 tagged properly from what you showed there, 

7 Bob, or it could be that they pared back. Once 

8 we get this data coded from the site, it will 

9 be clearly evident as to whether, you know, 

10 which way it goes from that standpoint. So I 

11 would think that holding off on that until we 

12 get that data coded, which will be after the 

13 first of the year, it would be very beneficial, 

14 at least from my standpoint. There could be an 

15 issue; I don't know. But we won't know until

16 we get the data coded.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Sure, sure. 

18 MR. BARTON: And that would just go 

19 in tandem with the other --

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So does that 

21 seem like enough right there to -- 

22 DR. TAULBEE: It does. It gives me 
245 

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 direction of where we need to go, so thank 

2 you. It helps.

3 MEMBER BEACH: And the other thing I 

4 want to bring up, I know Kathy did a report on 

5 all the OTIBs associated with INL and the one 

6 that stood out to me and SC&A recommended, and 

7 I know -- Kathy, are you on the phone --

8 recommended -- 

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I am, Josie. 

10 I'm here. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: -- recommended 

12 reviewing, SC&A reviewing is the OTIB-54. So I 

13 guess my question to the Work Group in general 

14 is is that something that we should task to 

15 SC&A to start that process, or is it something 

16 we should wait on? 

17 MR. KATZ: Is that an SEC matter? 

18 What is the -- 

19 MR. STIVER: These are just, Kathy 

20 went and prepared a list of the OTIBs that are 

21 relevant that were basically cited in the SEC 

22 Evaluation Report to see which ones had open 
246 

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 findings and so forth. This particular example 

2 is a revision that we have not looked at yet.

3 MEMBER BEACH: But it's one that's -

4 - 

5 MR. STIVER: But it may be pertinent 

6 to --

7 MEMBER BEACH: -- pertinent because 

8 of --

9 MR. STIVER: I don't know if it's a 

10 SEC context or a Site Profile context.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know either. 

12 Status of OTIB’s Identified in Section 4.2 of 

13 Argonne National Laboratory-West Special Cohort 

14 Evaluation Report

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, this is Kathy. 

16 We had reviewed, obviously we reviewed OTIB-54. 

17 What had happened is there was a revision two 

18 that came out where NIOSH corrected some 

19 errors, and it was in two tables, specific 

20 tables. And so I had just recommended that we 

21 could possibly do a very highly focused review 

22 of those corrections just to ensure that they 

23 were, the intake fractions are correct and were 
247 

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 entered into those tables correctly.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. But that then 

3 doesn't sound like an SEC matter at all. It 

4 sounds like, that sounds like a Site Profile5 type level review. 

6 DR. OSTROW: It's actually a 

7 Procedures Work Group -- 

8 MR. KATZ: Right. All I'm saying is 

9 it doesn't sound like it's somewhere where we 

10 may find an SEC issue. The fractions are 

11 correct or not, and, if it's not, then there's 

12 a course for correcting it. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Because of the 

14 reactors and OTIB-54, I wasn't sure if it was 

15 pertinent. So thank you. 

16 MR. KATZ: Kathy, that sounds like a 

17 good one to put on the list to discuss at the 

18 Site Profile, I mean at the -- 

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. That's fine. 

20 MR. KATZ: -- the Procedures Review 

21 Subcommittee. 

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 
248 

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. OSTROW: The latest revision of 

2 the OTIB is revision four. But I'm looking at 

3 a revision log now. It seems like revision 

4 two, three, and four are just created, excuse 

5 me, corrected minor errors in some of the 

6 tables, so they probably should be looked at, 

7 but it's probably not a big deal. 

8 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Steve. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: So are there any 

10 other items that we haven't discussed that we 

11 need to discuss with NIOSH on the agenda today? 

12 NIOSH, any questions or anything you want to go 

13 over with some of the reports that are out? 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. Particularly for 

15 NIOSH, if some of these items you need 

16 clarification from SC&A related to their 

17 papers.

18 MEMBER BEACH: We still have 45 

19 minutes.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. But I'd rather not 

21 be the last one to --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, yes, yes. Forty 
249 

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 minutes. 

2 MR. KATZ: I mean, I can run but.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. So while you're 

4 doing that, we should also talk about what 

5 reports are going to, who's doing what 

6 reporting at the meeting. 

7 MR. KATZ: Right. We do need a plan 

8 for the Board meeting. We have an hour and a 

9 half set aside, I think, for INL and ANL-West. 

10 At this point, it seems it's going to be 

11 updating the rest of the Board on where we are 

12 with everything. So you want to plan a part to 

13 deal with the SEC proposal, the Class proposal, 

14 and then part to deal with the work going 

15 forward. 

16 Are you still considering, Tim? 

17 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, I looked at the 

18 listing, and I think we're good.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So the White 

20 Papers you've received, you understand them. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, yes, yes, we do. 

22 And the understanding that Ron is going to be 
250 

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 updating his and that we're going to be getting 

2 a response from SC&A on the reactor 

3 prioritization one. The general area one is 

4 the one that we need to respond to once we get 

5 our addendum done, and so I think we're good, 

6 at least for the next few months. 

7 MR. KATZ: So, Josie, I guess if you 

8 and Phil want to let John know or discuss now 

9 what parts of the presentation you're 

10 comfortable preparing or whether you want them 

11 to draft all and what you want them to cover. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: I guess Phil is going 

13 to be at the meeting so --

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I'd kind 

15 of like to see what SC&A feels that -- where 

16 they can go or what the assignments we've given 

17 you, the data stuff, they're looking at. Kind 

18 of a timeline. 

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. I can do that.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Can I go back to 

21 NIOSH? Can you put that brief description on 

22 the top of your list, too, as a priority? 
251 

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: The brief description?

2 MEMBER BEACH: The two-page 

3 overview.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, yes, yes, yes,

5 yes.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Let's add that to the 

7 top because I know you already started working 

8 on it. Yes, once we've got these, we've had 

9 INL and ANL and then we combined them back 

10 together, so, I mean, it would be just nice to 

11 --

12 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know if it 

14 will help. 

15 MR. KATZ: We need an update for the 

16 rest of the Board on the Class to start with, 

17 right? Because that's sort of one item that 

18 might have been actionable that was clearly 

19 possible as an action. So we need a sort of 

20 update on that, and then let's say, I mean, 

21 again, you may have some folks there from INL 

22 that will want an update on where we are on, 
252 

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 well, SEC stuff being the priority, not TBD, 

2 yes. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: Maybe just a real 

4 brief overview of how we're going to do the 

5 reactor status. I don't, I mean, that's one of 

6 the big things we discussed today. 

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, I mean, we can 

8 certainly talk about, just brief for the rest 

9 of the Board. 

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, and they don't need 

11 to process so much. 

12 MR. STIVER: Exactly.

13 MR. KATZ: Right? 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Right, no process at 

15 this point. 

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Definitely I don't 

18 think we need an hour and a half, unless Tim 

19 wants to talk about maybe some stuff that's 

20 ongoing. Are you prepared to talk about the 

21 83.14 or is that something that's totally not 

22 out there? 
253 

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: Totally not out there. 

2 MR. STIVER: So were you planning on 

3 doing the -- 

4 DR. TAULBEE: No, because I wouldn't 

5 list it on the agenda, so I didn't -- 

6 DR. NETON: It's getting kind of 

7 late in the game for us to give presentations 

8 through a review process right now. 

9 MR. KATZ: Well, the start time for 

10 that session is stuck because it's an SEC 

11 petition and we've put it out there, the 

12 agenda. So we have the time to do what we can, 

13 but, yes, you don't need to make up material --

14 MEMBER BEACH: No, no.

15 MR. KATZ: -- to fill the time. 

16 MR. STIVER: I think we have enough 

17 to put down without making any -- 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well, do you want to 

19 do a presentation? I've got all the slides 

20 from the last one, but I don't think we've 

21 really changed much since the last 

22 presentation. There's not a whole -- 
254 

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 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't think 

2 so.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: But I think -- 

4 MR. KATZ: Well, there's been quite 

5 a bit done on the Class. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Since we'll have 

8 the Board there that need reminders, and there 

9 may be local people there, I think a five10 minute, maybe, summary of the whole picture 

11 just to bring everybody up-to-date on -- 

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, because 

13 people are going to wonder what's happening 

14 with the SEC. I mean, they're going to want to 

15 know. 

16 MR. KATZ: Well, you have to SECs.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. But, I 

18 mean, people are going to want to know, okay, 

19 is anything being done. 

20 MR. STIVER: So you want me to do 

21 the actual presentation, or are you guys going 

22 to do that or -- 
255 

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 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: So that's what I was 

3 asking Phil if he was going to do one and then 

4 you were obviously -- 

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. He can give the 

6 five-minute cameo, and then I can kind of -- 

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, whatever. If you 

8 prefer to just introduce John, that's fine. 

9 MR. STIVER: I'm amenable to 

10 whatever you guys want to do. 

11 MR. KATZ: Is that what you want, 

12 Phil?

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, it sounds 

14 good to me. He's a better speaker than I am. 

15 DR. TAULBEE: So just going to give

16 an overview of kind of where you all are. 

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, and then just kind 

18 of open it up for responses. You guys can tell 

19 me where I went wrong. 

20 MR. KATZ: That works.

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Hopefully, 

22 we'll have some questions coming from the 
256 

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 public. 

2 MR. KATZ: Or the other Board 

3 Members. 

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Or other Board 

5 Members.

6 MR. KATZ: The petitioners will have 

7 an opportunity to speak, as well, comment, or 

8 both. I think it's the same petitioner. 

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think there's 

10 so much still out there on that site that's 

11 kind of overwhelming for a lot of people. 

12 MR. STIVER: Many sites in one.

13 MR. KATZ: So then, now that that's 

14 settled, is there another, we have time if 

15 there's more to present that can be fit -- 

16 MR. BARTON: This was the ANL 

17 monitoring practices? 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

19 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

20 Integrated Status Report of Site Profile and SEC 

21 Issues Related to INL and ANL-W 

22 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I'm 
257 

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 online and was listening. It sounds like 

2 you're closing down. I just wanted to bring 

3 something up. Can everyone hear me? 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

5 DR. MAURO: I just want to bring 

6 something up. There was one report that I 

7 worked on. It was called the "Integrated 

8 INL/ANL-West Matrix." To a certain extent, it 

9 almost is the big picture, and there's a report 

10 there that everyone has. I just wanted to draw 

11 everyone's attention. You don't need to do 

12 this now, but Table 4 in that report on page 41 

13 is my effort to go back in time, from 2007 and 

14 go back and revisit the history of the entire 

15 program for INL through where we are, not quite 

16 to today but to a few weeks ago, and identify 

17 all of the active issues, all the issues that 

18 have been closed, all the issues that have been 

19 recommended to be closed by SC&A, but all of 

20 the issues that are still active. And those 

21 issues that are still active, which ones apply 

22 to INL in general, which ones apply to ANL-
258 

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 West, and, of those, which would be considered, 

2 in SC&A's opinion, potential SEC issues?

3 So we spent most of today really in 

4 the weeds, you know, looking at very specific 

5 issues, very important issues. But at the same 

6 time, we've never really stepped back because 

7 this program has been going on since 2006 where 

8 we have had meetings on all of these matters 

9 that are dispersed in there with the SECs that 

10 jump in and sort of closed down some of the 

11 dialogue. So I'd just like to alert everyone 

12 on the phone that there is this integrated 

13 matrix report and there is this Table 4 that's 

14 in there that tries to capture the big picture. 

15 And it would probably be helpful to maybe, 

16 John, take a look at it, especially in light of 

17 today's conversation, make sure that all of the 

18 issues, I didn't miss anything and that they've 

19 been properly characterized as which have been 

20 closed, which ones are open, and which ones 

21 everyone sort of, more or less, agrees, yes, 

22 this is an SEC issue.
259 

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 see John is bringing it up on the 

2 board right now. That might be helpful in 

3 terms of getting the big picture, and then you 

4 work your way into the specific items and where 

5 we are in those items. 

6 MR. STIVER: Hey, John, I think a 

7 lot of those in Table 4, those are the Site 

8 Profile issues that we kind of put in the kind 

9 of, you know, part of when we were sort of 

10 working through the SEC ERs. But you're right. 

11 I think there were some that were still never 

12 really run to ground and may have some SEC 

13 potential associated with them. So that -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, that was the reason 

15 I put this together. 

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, the table really 

17 does lay it all out there.

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I got one 

19 comment on that. If we put this table out to 

20 the public, people are going to ask, well, like 

21 issue number six, SC&A recommends closing, what 

22 was issue number six? 
260 

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: Yes, you need to have 

2 the original matrix as kind of a companion to 

3 that table. 

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

5 Otherwise, it doesn't -- 

6 MR. KATZ: I mean, that paper is, I 

7 don't know if that paper is one that's cleared 

8 yet. It doesn't really matter. But I think, 

9 John, I mean, you can just work that into your 

10 presentation. You don't need to get into the 

11 weeds about all these that are recommended for 

12 closure or whatever, but if there's some -- 

13 DR. MAURO: The answers to those 

14 questions you raise of what was closed and why, 

15 that's part of the main body of the -- that's 

16 why it's a large report. 

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. But, I 

18 mean, I'm just thinking if we put the table out 

19 to the public -- 

20 MR. STIVER: It's going to raise 

21 more questions -- 

22 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- it's going 
261 

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 raise a lot of questions. And those that 

2 are kind of closed and are no longer open, I 

3 don't --

4 MR. KATZ: It's just more detail 

5 that --

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: It's just more 

7 detailed, and they really don't -- 

8 MR. KATZ: Right. 

9 DR. MAURO: I didn't mean this as 

10 something for the meeting. It's something that 

11 we didn't cover today, and I just wanted to let 

12 everyone know it is out there for your use as 

13 you see fit. 

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Appreciate 

15 that. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, good job on 

17 that, John. I think the big thing for SC&A is, 

18 if there are SEC issues, we need to make sure 

19 that we capture those and we're moving forward 

20 with those items. 

21 MR. STIVER: We have it in the SEC 

22 issues -- 
262 

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 BEACH: Yes. Just so it's 

2 captured there. 

3 MR. KATZ: Before we move to Bob, 

4 can I just check and see do we have either the 

5 petitioners for INL or ANL-West on the line 

6 yet? Okay. I just wanted to give them a 

7 chance if they were and they had any comments 

8 they planned to give today. Tim? 

9 DR. TAULBEE: I do have a question 

10 on this Table 4 from John. There are some 

11 things there that are asterisked there. If I 

12 interpret this correctly, whenever there's a 

13 yes and an asterisk, those are things that SC&A 

14 considered to be SEC issues? 

15 DR. MAURO: The answer to that is I 

16 wrote that report and I was the one who made 

17 that judgment, and it was intended to be used 

18 by the Work Group for discussion purposes only. 

19 So it's simply my perspective on what's still 

20 active and, of those, which ones do I feel have 

21 the potential to be SEC issues? So the answer 

22 is, yes, that's what those asterisks mean for 
263 

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 both INL and ANL-West. The degree to which, 

2 you know, the Work Group and the Board and 

3 NIOSH agree with that of course is a matter for 

4 discussion. But I put that in so that, to kick 

5 off the discussion. 

6 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Because that 

7 should be something that I think should be 

8 discussed here. 

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, I mean, you can use 

10 this time, instead of Bob, if you want to 

11 discuss that now. 

12 DR. TAULBEE: It's up to you all. 

13 MR. KATZ: It's relevant to John's 

14 presentation at the Board meeting anyway. 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Why don't we 

16 give it to Bob and let him do his thing? 

17 MR. KATZ: Well, Bob's is a separate 

18 issue.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. I mean 

20 --

21 MR. KATZ: So John Mauro is just 

22 saying, raising issues, some of which may have 
264 

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 SEC -- 

2 DR. TAULBEE: I mean, because some 

3 of these we're not working on. 

4 MR. KATZ: -- significance -- 

5 MR. STIVER: A couple of years ago, 

6 before the ER came out, we had prepared a 

7 series of papers. We never delivered them 

8 because, you know, once the SEC came along and 

9 put all that stuff on the table, and we never 

10 looked at it. Now, a lot of these things that 

11 John is talking about are related to those 

12 papers that weren't related to the worker to 

13 begin with. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, understood. Right. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Which are in archives 

17 until we get to Site Profile. So my comment is 

18 somebody needs to decide if these are SEC 

19 issues and they need to be brought forward. So 

20 we can't just forget this report. It has some 

21 merit in that aspect. 

22 MR. KATZ: Right. So do you want 
265 

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 Tim to respond to any of those now as part of 

2 this discussion? 

3 MEMBER BEACH: If Tim is prepared to 

4 or, if not, you can put that on your list. 

5 DR. TAULBEE: I have some questions 

6 regarding that. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Let's do that.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's a good use 

9 of the time. 

10 DR. TAULBEE: It looks like, if I go 

11 through the INL listing here, the ones that are 

12 applicable to INL where there's yes and yes and 

13 an asterisk, number 16 is the first one for the 

14 need for an external coworker model.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 DR. TAULBEE: And that is one where 

17 we had responded that we do not intend to do an 

18 external coworker model because people going 

19 into the reactor facilities were all badged. 

20 And so now, especially with these temporary 

21 badges that are now being coded and we will 

22 have that data with each claim, we still stand 
266 

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 by that. But if there's a reason that SC&A 

2 feels that this is an SEC issue, I would like 

3 to hear it and consider it. 

4 MR. STIVER: Now, remember this 

5 came, we talked about this in a lot of detail 

6 back in November, and we had gone ahead and 

7 looked at this in relation to TAN and the 

8 quality of the dosimetry, whether there was 

9 enough there to make a coworker model. And we 

10 were kind of going on the presumption, because 

11 you guys could determine that you could do 

12 reconstruction, that that was the full data 

13 set. It turns out, you let us know it was just 

14 a sampling, but you still feel that there's 

15 probably enough there that you can do a dose 

16 reconstruction.

17 And we discussed this, I believe, 

18 and Dr. Melius said that, you know, going after 

19 and doing a big data capture and review at this 

20 time was probably not a high priority, and so 

21 it was basically tabled. So I think it's 

22 really not an SEC issue at this time. It would 
267 

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 be one of those situations where, if you did 

2 determine they needed to make a coworker model, 

3 would you be able to do it for all the 

4 different subcategories within TAN, and that's 

5 kind of where we left it.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So that's 

7 really more for kind of a TAN-specific -- 

8 MR. STIVER: Yes.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, alright. So 

10 that's a -- 

11 MR. STIVER: John, correct me if I 

12 garbled that up for you. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, you didn't, but let 

14 me just say a little bit more. At the time of 

15 the review, as you recall, there was certain 

16 areas held in reserve that might still become 

17 SEC issues. But one of them wasn't external 

18 dose. For my case, I looked at TAN, and, when 

19 I looked at TAN and we looked at the data that 

20 were available, it was clear that it was not, 

21 the data was such that many at the sub22 facilities within TAN, you could not determine 
268 

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 where the worker worked. You had a very 

2 complete data set, but you didn't know where 

3 the worker worked. And there was some 

4 uncertainty was, in fact, everyone badged? 

5 Now, we were at a place at that time 

6 where we did not have the evidence that 

7 everyone was badged. And, second, we were at a 

8 place where, if they were badged, is it 

9 apparent that if everyone was badged that's the 

10 end of the problem? But it wasn't apparent 

11 that was the case.

12 Now, what you know now is that, and 

13 I don't know if this is the case, if everyone 

14 was, in fact, badged, there's no need for a 

15 coworker model; and, therefore, there is no 

16 issue related to the need for a coworker model, 

17 and that asterisk goes away. Is that where we 

18 are now? That is, are you at a point where 

19 you've collected enough data, in this case it 

20 would be TAN because that was the one I was 

21 familiar with, where you could say with 

22 confidence that, you know, we have a complete 
269 

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 data set and we don't need a coworker model? 

2 DR. TAULBEE: I guess I would ask 

3 you all that question. And the reason that I 

4 say that is because, since those discussions 

5 back in November, we have captured all of the 

6 area exposure reports for all areas from the 

7 site. We now have that in the SRDB there 

8 uploaded by area, and so you can go through all 

9 of the TAN data yourself if you want. That is 

10 now available in the SRDB.

11 DR. MAURO: I think a good way to 

12 get rid of that asterisk is for SC&A to do just 

13 what you said. I do not believe we've been 

14 authorized -- 

15 MR. STIVER: We were not authorized 

16 as of November, and I know Dr. Melius didn't 

17 want to turn this into a -- yes, it wasn't 

18 really a priority. Now, the fact that these 

19 reports are out there and easy to access, there 

20 may not be such a big effort involved. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: And what we did, we 

22 didn't ask for just TAN. We asked for all 
270 

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 those dosimetry reports for the whole site, and 

2 it came on a terabyte drive. 

3 MR. BARTON: Is that for Argonne, 

4 too, or just Idaho? 

5 DR. TAULBEE: Argonne, too. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: I honestly don't know 

7 if it's --

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, we may be kind of 

9 teed up for future review. 

10 MR. BARTON: I know, as far as 

11 Argonne goes, two of the findings in the 

12 monitoring practices report were based on what 

13 were perceived deficiencies in two workers' 

14 files where they were monitored internally, but 

15 we had no external dose in those same periods. 

16 So, I mean, that could potentially be a 

17 deficiency at Argonne. I don't know that we 

18 came across something like that at INL. 

19 Nothing really comes to mind. 

20 DR. TAULBEE: When I saw that in 

21 your report, I flagged it in my notes that 

22 we're going to be following up on that. 
271 

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: Beautiful. 

2 DR. TAULBEE: Argonne-West, as well, 

3 from those dosimetry reports because I believe 

4 he's in there and, for some reason, the site 

5 didn't provide it. I have no idea why. 

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So I've got a 

7 quick question on 19 on the angular dependence. 

8 We've run across that on film badges, you know, 

9 TLDs at numerous sites. It seems like to me 

10 we've had a lot of work done on that for an 

11 OTIB or something that might be applicable in 

12 this case.

13 DR. MAURO: I do not consider it to 

14 be a potential SEC issue, but I don't believe 

15 the issue has been completely closed. There is 

16 an OTIB that presents correction factors when a 

17 person is working -- I think it's OTIB-10 I'm 

18 guessing, where a person is working at a hot 

19 cell or a glove box and there is, you know, 

20 there's an angle of exposure where, you know, 

21 he may be wearing his film badge on his lapel, 

22 but the concern is maybe a cancer that's in the 
272 

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 lower part of the body. And that OTIB accounts 

2 for that. It does a very nice job.

3 What it does not do, and correct me 

4 if I'm wrong, I could not find any guidance 

5 where when the angle of incidence coming in is 

6 interacting with the cadmium shield on the 

7 front of the film badge that's sitting on your 

8 lapel, it's going to behave in a way that has 

9 been very well researched in the literature, 

10 but there's no accountability for how the badge 

11 is going to react to this angle of incidence. 

12 The only thing that's accounted for is the 

13 inverse square law in the OTIB but not the fact 

14 that you're going to be coming in at this angle 

15 striking the covered shield for, you know, the 

16 cadmium shield on the front of a film badge, 

17 and that could have a substantial effect on the 

18 reading.

19 As a matter of fact, Hans Behling 

20 wrote a very nice report on this. And I have 

21 to say, when I worked on this piece of this 

22 product here, I did the best I could to see if 
273 

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 there was anything out there. I went through 

2 the transcripts, and I went through the 

3 procedures, and I could not find a place where 

4 that particular aspect to angle of incidence 

5 has been addressed, so that's why I left it in 

6 as a yes.

7 Now, there's no asterisk on it 

8 because I think this is a tractable problem, 

9 very much so. But it has not yet been 

10 addressed, and it could result, if not taken 

11 into consideration, an underestimate of the 

12 doses to a worker. 

13 MR. KATZ: So thanks, John. So, 

14 Tim, are there any other issues you want to 

15 touch on for clarification or what have you? 

16 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, 31 and 34. Those 

17 are the other two that have asterisks here. 

18 And my question is is what is the SEC concern 

19 with regards to these? 

20 MR. KATZ: Can you just -- 31 is 

21 what?

22 DR. TAULBEE: It's the neutron 
274 

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 dosimetry completeness issue.

2 MEMBER BEACH: And adequacy of 

3 neutron exposure models. Those are 31 and 34.

4 DR. MAURO: This is not unlike the 

5 last one we talked about. When we reviewed TAN 

6 and the Site Profile in general, the position 

7 was that neutron exposures can be 

8 reconstructed. But in our review, and we did a 

9 careful review of the records at the time, and 

10 what we found was that it appeared that there 

11 was deficiency in the completeness of the 

12 dosimetry records. And as a result, we felt 

13 that, until that deficiency was cleared up --

14 now, the response again, and appropriately so, 

15 by NIOSH was that, well, wait a minute, hold 

16 the presses, you know, we're still doing a lot 

17 of data capture. And so this may be in that 

18 regard. That is, you may be at a point right 

19 now where, as a result of your data capture, 

20 you have completed your data set and the gaps 

21 that we observed in the neutron dosimetry have 

22 been filled. And if that's the case, those 
275 

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 asterisks again go away. So it's the same type 

2 of question we had before when we discussed the 

3 earlier matter on the need for a coworker model 

4 for gamma. 

5 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, alright. I 

6 think I'm understanding. I'm still having a 

7 little problem. I mean, to me, I see this as a 

8 TBD issue from a standpoint of, given the vast 

9 amount of neutron records that are available 

10 for the site. As to whether we end up applying 

11 a coworker or a ratio type of methodology to 

12 this workforce or not I don't really see as a 

13 TBD issue. It's more of a methodology -- or 

14 SEC issue but more of a TBD issue. 

15 DR. MAURO: It becomes an SEC issue 

16 if there's no way -- let's think TAN. You've 

17 got all of these different sub-areas where the 

18 operations are quite different. And let's say 

19 you do have a fairly complete data set, but 

20 it's not, you know, but there's a need for a 

21 coworker model again, you know, the need for a 

22 coworker model, and if the data set is such 
276 

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 you don't know where the worker worked, 

2 then you have a problem. You cannot pull all 

3 the neutron data, let's say for TAN, and from 

4 that create a coworker model because each areas 

5 are different.

6 So the reason this is here is 

7 premised on two things: one, that there may 

8 very well be a need for a coworker model 

9 because we did find data gaps at the time that 

10 we looked at the data. Now, that may no longer 

11 exist, and the problem goes away. And the 

12 second part is, if there are data gaps and 

13 there is a need for a coworker model, then it's 

14 important that the data set that you do have 

15 identify where the workers worked because you 

16 will need, if there are data gaps, you will 

17 need coworker models for the different sub18 areas within TAN alone, just within TAN, 

19 because of the enormous differences in the 

20 nature of the exposures. 

21 So that's the reason why the 

22 asterisks are still there. The extent to which 
277 

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 problem has gone away, that may very well 

2 be the case, but SC&A has not reviewed that 

3 aspect of it, of the latest work.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: Thanks, John. I think 

6 that conversation is useful for John Stiver for 

7 his presentation. 

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, we did touch on 

9 this last November, but it was before Tim and 

10 the additional data. Again, I think it's 

11 something, unless you guys want us to go ahead 

12 and pursue that and tee it up for -- 

13 MR. KATZ: I think it's worth just 

14 presenting at the Board meeting. Hello? Who's 

15 this? Hello? I thought someone was trying to 

16 -- we're about running out of time for Bob's --

17 do you have a five-minute version that you want 

18 to give or -- 

19 Evaluation of Monitoring Practices for Claimants at 

20 Argonne National Laboratory-West

21 MR. BARTON: Let me just, quick, go 

22 through the -- can you all see this on Live 
278 

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 Meeting? Okay. Well, I just wanted to quick 

2 go through they were 50 random, and when we 

3 looked at them we got a nice bell curve of

4 employment dates, but the employment span in 

5 the actual SEC '57 to '58 was kind of, we 

6 didn't have a lot of information on that. So 

7 we went and got ten more focused that weren't 

8 part of the random sample, and we looked at 

9 those. They're mostly ANL-West workers. There 

10 are some subcontract workers, and these other 

11 workers are from Aerojet, which I think they 

12 were just borrowed from INL because I think 

13 that was mostly at INL. 

14 We got a lot of different job 

15 titles. I'm on page 11. Maintenance and 

16 construction were the biggest chunk of that, so 

17 we covered a lot of those types of workers that 

18 are sometimes problematic, but also engineers 

19 and technicians.

20 The first finding was related. And 

21 Tim mentioned he's got in his notes to go look 

22 at them, but, basically, we have a worker who 
279 

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 has internal dosimetry and no external 

2 dosimetry, and there seemed to be some 

3 confusion at the site about the location file 

4 card saying two TLD, which they had interpreted 

5 as two long-term disability instead of two 

6 thermoluminescent dosimetry. So, again, we 

7 kind of present that argument through page 24, 

8 so that was, basically, we need to figure out 

9 what went wrong there because there's like a 

10 decade-long, decade-plus long period where we 

11 have internal dosimetry and no external.

12 Finding two was a gap observed in 

13 the 70s, mid-70s, for fission and activation 

14 product monitoring, something that's been 

15 mentioned as the coding effort to get a better 

16 handle of what's going on there. There's a 

17 Table 6 on page 42 which kind of really 

18 illustrates, and this gets into Privacy Act 

19 information, but you can see why this kind of 

20 piqued our interest. You have a lot of workers 

21 who were monitored, and then it stopped, and 

22 then a lot of them picked up later on in the 
280 

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 late-70s. So you're like, well, what happened, 

2 the job probably didn't change that much.

3 Finding three and four were related 

4 to those ten additional claims where we were 

5 focused on the SEC period. And the first one, 

6 finding three, was again another worker who had 

7 internal dosimetry in the mid-1950s, but then 

8 we didn't see external dosimetry until about 

9 1963.

10 The other finding, for these ten 

11 workers we noticed that really the change in 

12 external dosimetry appeared to have a little 

13 further into 1958, specifically you have 

14 sporadic external monitoring for these workers, 

15 and then, you know, end of March 1958, suddenly 

16 they're on a weekly external dosimetry exchange 

17 schedule and, like, witnessed that for six of 

18 the ten relevant claims and a bunch of them 

19 didn't even apply. And also in some of the 

20 randomly-sampled claims, we also observed that. 

21 It's maybe something we should consider. It's 

22 a small, small portion. You have one-quarter 
281 

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 could potentially be added.

2 Observation one, this is just simply 

3 that we observed in a lot of cases they only 

4 had the annual external dose summaries, and so 

5 we really need to get the extra information so 

6 you can do dose reconstructions because you 

7 need to know how many badging cycles. That's 

8 not an SEC issue because you can bound it by 

9 just saying 52 cycles or something like that, 

10 but it is also important for neutrons because, 

11 normally, in the annual, they would just report 

12 neutron of zero, so now you'd be assigning a 

13 whole lot of missed neutron dose. And, again, 

14 it's an observation, not an SEC issue.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Let me interrupt. Is 

16 that the difference between your findings and 

17 your observations? 

18 MR. BARTON: Yes.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Because, really, SEC 

20 issue versus TBD-type issue?

21 MR. BARTON: Yes.

22 DR. TAULBEE: Excellent, thank you. 
282 

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 the first time I've heard that. Go on.

2 MR. BARTON: Let's see here. 

3 Observation two was really just I wanted to 

4 inform the worker that when you go through 

5 these individual workers and you see a gap in 

6 external monitoring, sometimes it's not because 

7 they weren't monitored. A lot of times it's 

8 because there are other reasons.

9 So page 23, observation two, talks 

10 about a case where the person was employed from 

11 basically 1960 all the way through the 2000s, 

12 but there were only two years that had missing 

13 data, '78 and '83. We found evidence that in 

14 '78 it was probably over at NRF, the reason why 

15 he doesn't have dosimetry in ANL. And also the 

16 survivor indicated several other locations that 

17 this person would travel to, which could 

18 explain some of those gaps. So it was pretty 

19 much a lesson that just because you see a gap 

20 doesn't mean there is a deficiency in the 

21 external monitoring program, but in other cases 

22 there is evidence, such as the internal 
283 

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 monitoring, that you really have to be able to 

2 track it down to figure out if there's a 

3 problem.

4 Observation three was again another 

5 situation where the difficulty in establishing 

6 the actual employment periods at a given site 

7 is very difficult. It's a very difficult job 

8 for DOL, so a lot of times -- 

9 MEMBER BEACH: And while you're on 

10 that, is there some reason why finding three 

11 didn't make your summary and conclusions? Was 

12 that just a process thing or -- 

13 MR. BARTON: I thought I had tied it 

14 in with one of the other -- are you talking 

15 about the end section of the report? I thought 

16 I had tied it in possibly with finding one 

17 about where it appears -- 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, you sure did. 

19 Thank you. 

20 MR. BARTON: Okay, excellent. 

21 DR. TAULBEE: So some of your 

22 observation three, again, this could be 
284 

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 partially alleviated once DOL codes all those 

2 temp badges. Then you could try and find 

3 people.

4 MR. BARTON: Yes, absolutely. 

5 Observation three was, again, how difficult it 

6 is sometimes, especially if they're subcontract 

7 workers, to say, they actually have to say, so, 

8 again, when you see this person had 15 separate 

9 covered employment periods at ANL and another 

10 11 at INL that didn't overlap, and they had 

11 security records, but there was also some 

12 indication he might not even be there. So, 

13 basically, it was something I wanted to point 

14 out to the Board that, oftentimes, when you see 

15 a gap, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a 

16 deficiency. It could be for any number of 

17 reasons. And that's not a knock on DOL at all. 

18 When you look through the job they do to try to 

19 establish employment, it's pretty admirable. 

20 Main observations. This had to do 

21 with extremity monitoring. It's very sparse. 

22 You can look at some of the charts in there. 
285 

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, basically, what we concluded is, you know, 

2 in these cases, I think NIOSH often employs, I 

3 believe it's OTIB-13, and so we thought it 

4 would be instructive to go back where you have 

5 data of a regular dosimeter and an extremity 

6 ring badge and compare those ratios to see how 

7 OTIB-13 stacks up and if it's applicable and 

8 bounding to INL. We thought that would be 

9 instructive.

10 DR. TAULBEE: I might also add about 

11 that extremity monitoring data, we run into a 

12 lot of that during our data capture, so we 

13 could not capture it. And so it sometimes 

14 provided with claims but not always. If it's 

15 skin cancer, then we might go after and request 

16 more. 

17 MR. BARTON: Usually, it's paired 

18 with external dosimetry. It's like dosimetry 

19 code six, as opposed to dosimetry code one. 

20 And so you'd have two measurements for one 

21 worker on the same badging schedule, so that's 

22 why I say you could use those data points to 
286 

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. It's an observation. I don't think 

2 it comes to the level of an SEC issue. 

3 This one about neutrons which we 

4 kind of just discussed with John Mauro and, 

5 basically, the ER made a curious statement. 

6 I'd actually like to read this. The available 

7 information also indicates that ANL-West 

8 investigated neutron exposures to unmonitored 

9 workers and estimated doses for those workers. 

10 That's something that I think should really be 

11 explored a little bit more and also the 

12 protocols used to assign neutron dosimetry, you 

13 know, which workers, what types of jobs would 

14 be very instructive to know why neutron 

15 monitoring is so sparse. But the fact that 

16 they investigated unmonitored workers, to me, 

17 suggests that you had unmonitored workers that 

18 were actually exposed or potentially exposed. 

19 DR. TAULBEE: I think the 

20 interpretation should be neutron unmonitored. 

21 They were film badge monitored --

22 MR. BARTON: Neutron unmonitored, 
287 

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 yes. 

2 MR. KATZ: And we're down to 30 

3 seconds. 

4 MR. BARTON: I think that's it. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: We may ask you to do 

6 that again. 

7 MR. KATZ: A repeat performance. We 

8 are adjourned. Thank you, everyone, for 

9 hanging with us on the phone. 

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 3:21 p.m.)