NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

+ + + + + 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 The meeting came to order at 

9:30 a.m. in the Zurich Room of the Cincinnati 

Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron, Kentucky, 

Phillip Schofield, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman 

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

Official 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor* 

HANS BEHLING, SC&A* 

GRADY CALHOUN, NIOSH 

PETER DARNELL, NIOSH 

BRIAN GLECKLER, Dade Moeller & Associates 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS* 

JODI JENKINS, Dade Moeller & Associates 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A 

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS* 

JOE ZLOTNICKI, SC&A* 

*Participating via telephone 

 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

9:33 a.m. 

 MR. KATZ: Good morning. This is 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. It's the INL Working Group, and we 

are just convening at this point, and we will 

start as is usual with roll call, and if 

people would address conflict of interest at 

the same time, and we'll begin in the room 

with the Board Members with the Chair. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Phillip 

Schofield, Chair, working group. 

 MR. KATZ: And conflict? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No conflict. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, Board 

Member, no conflict. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Jim Melius, Board 

Member, no conflict. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board 

Member, no conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and for the record, 

Gen Roessler, I believe, cannot make it. Gen, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you're not on the telephone, are you? Are any 

other Board Members on the phone? Okay, and 

then going around the room, NIOSH ORAU team? 

 MR. DARNELL: Pete Darnell, health 

physicist, NIOSH, no conflict or bias. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Grady Calhoun, team 

leader at OCAS, no conflict at this site. 

 MS. JENKINS: Jodi Meyer Jenkins, 

Dade Moeller & Associates, no conflict by INL 

or ANL. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Brian Gleckler, Dade 

Moeller & Associates, supporting NIOSH, no 

conflict or bias. 

 MR. KATZ: How about on the 

telephone? NIOSH ORAU team? Okay. You're 

not expecting any folks, NIOSH ORAU? Okay. 

Okay, and then SC&A in the room? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

conflict. 

 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, SC&A, no 

conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: And SC&A on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

telephone? 

 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, no 

conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Hans. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Joe Zlotnicki, no 

conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you say your name 

again? 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Joe Zlotnicki. 

 MR. KATZ: Zlotnicki. Okay, thanks. 

 Okay, and then we don't have any members of 

the public in the room. Are there any members 

of the public or staff of congressional 

offices on the line, on the phone? Okay, and 

then federal officials, NIOSH, HHS, DOE, DOL 

on the telephone? 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no 

conflict. 

 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS, no 

conflict. 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor, no conflict. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome all. All right, 

then. I'm going to just remind everyone on 

the telephone to please mute your phones 

except when you're addressing the group here, 

and if you don't have a mute button, use *6, 

and then to come off of mute just hit *6 

again. Thanks very much, and, Phil, it's all 

yours. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Rather than 

follow the matrix as laid out, the first issue 

I really want to kind of address is what all 

went on and how it's laid out, because my 

feeling is on the technical basis document and 

that map, you really don't get a good feel of 

everything that went on there. 

 Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, 

but there was 52 reactors plus the SL-1 on the 

facility. They have different -- they have 

different facilities for fuel pin storage, 

processing of those fuel pins, so it has, you 

know, a very extensive history of working with 

about every known radioactive isotope there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is. 

 They've had numerous releases, 

accidents, but I found the technical basis 

document as far as the layout in how the 

facilities were -- what facility was where to 

be pretty much lacking. If anybody else has a 

different observation on that, please feel 

free to speak to it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I wasn't there. I 

can't comment. 

 MR. MAURO: I'd like to add one 

thing. You know, each of the sites and their 

history almost like their own world, not 

unlike an individual facility having its own 

site profile, and, in fact, that's why I 

recommended the other day how about we include 

Argonne National Laboratory West, because 

that's one of the more important facilities 

with its 11 reactors on site, and there's a 

lot of overlap with regard to the kinds of 

things we're going to be talking about at INL, 

and you'll have direct applicability to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Argonne West. 

 So, in a way, I mean, you know, 

Argonne West is a good example of if you 

wanted to develop each location and operation, 

in theory you probably could. So, yes, this 

is one of the more complicated sites in terms 

of kinds of things that were going on 

historically. 

 So, yes, I agree, but I would also 

like to add that I think that the way in which 

the report is written tries to, as best it 

could, cover the landscape where there is a 

commonality on how they came at external 

dosimetry, internal dosimetry, and 

environmental. So you can talk in 

generalities, and I think that's good, but at 

some point we probably want to go vertical on 

individual facilities. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now, correct me 

if I'm wrong, but DOE was actually the ones 

who managed some of the dosimetry and the 

reading of some of the film badges for both 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Argonne and INL? 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know. I don't 

know if anyone online knows who ran the 

programs. 

 MR. KATZ: I believe so, up until 

fairly recently, I think, is when that 

transition occurred. I'm not exactly sure on 

the dates, but when I was talking to the DOE 

folks that provided us the dosimetry records, 

they indicated that that was -- because they 

have a lot of the records for the early years, 

actually going up to at least the -- probably 

early 1990s for INL West, as well, but it's 

sometime around that time frame that there is 

a transition where it changed over to where 

ANL-West is independent. 

 MR. DARNELL: INL actually houses 

the entire Department of Energy's dosimetry. 

That's where the DOE regulations for the 

entire complex are promulgated, where they're 

developed, where they do research for the 

systems. That's why they have most of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dosimetry run through DOE. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Also, in 2005 I 

think it was, basically they combined Argonne 

National Labs and West, INL and -- I'd have to 

look it up. I don't remember the name -- into 

one facility I believe is what's stated in the 

technical basis document, so they are no 

longer considered separate entities but as 

one. That was in 2005 in the document. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I remember seeing 

something on that. They changed their name, 

as well. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, they 

changed the name. They combined them all into 

one facility, so this is -- where we're going 

with this discussion is Pete and John Mauro 

and I were on the phone on another matter with 

Senator Nelson's office, and we were 

discussing this, and there is so much of the 

facility. People interacted with one another. 

 Releases and stuff, you know, they 

don't care about a barbed wire fence or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

anything else. You know, they obviously would 

affect everybody onsite or potentially affect 

others, and there was a lot of just 

interactions between the different 

contractors, and this is the reason why we 

discussed the possibility of combining the 

Argonne National Labs West and INL into one 

basic package. 

 It would also save time, save 

money. This is kind of another aim we were 

coming from. Peter, John, either one of you 

got anything to add to that? 

 DR. MAURO: I just, when I was 

preparing for this meeting, I read both our 

reviews of both INL, and I noticed that what 

we have here is the INL site profile in our 

review is more overarching, and then when you 

go into Argonne West, you can actually see how 

the Argonne West information is a subset of it 

and plugs in nicely, but it goes to a higher 

level of granularity, and it's a good example 

of, you know, what you would realize if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

decided to dive vertically into a facility. 

 I think perhaps the best one where 

you would want to go vertical would be Argonne 

West, given the 11 reactors and the different 

kinds of activity besides reactors, the other 

activities that took place. 

 So I think it's a good marriage, 

because we get a good picture of the 

overarching site profile and some of the 

issues and then how some of the issues might 

actually require a more in-depth evaluation 

when you start to dive into Argonne West. 

 MR. DARNELL: Argonne in Idaho 

technical base documents at one time were one 

document. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, originally it 

came out of INL and then got split, but we're 

kind of looking at combining them again, as 

well, because there's just so much of an 

overlap. 

 DR. MAURO: There's a lot of 

overlap. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: A lot to where it's 

like the -- when they created the Argonne West 

one, they didn't take the Argonne West stuff 

out of the INL TBD, and they've been updated 

and revised at different periods. So there's 

some stuff that's out of synch, and the way to 

just keep it all synchronized and that is just 

to recombine them and just take what's in the 

Argonne, the additional information in the 

Argonne West one, and combine it or add it 

into the INL TBD. 

 MR. DARNELL: You just have to 

realize that if we do combine them, you're 

already worried about the complexity of the 

TBD and the picture that it paints of the 

site. It'll actually get worse, because we're 

going to add more to this. 

 I think John's suggestion about 

looking at it basically as a stovepipe, you 

know, TRN, TRA, ANL-West just specifically by 

themselves is a lot better way than trying to 

understand the entire site's complexity across 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the board. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Particularly 

when we get into like the environmental dose 

and some of that, I don't see how we can 

separate the two facilities at all. I mean, 

that's just my personal opinion, you know. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's the one 

place where the environmental program as 

implemented is, I would say, overarching, that 

is actually designed where the way in which 

it's laid out captures the whole site and the 

impacts of individual sites. 

 So I do think that's one place 

where we can talk in generalities about how 

the design of the environmental surveillance 

program, which includes the modeling for 

effluents and the places where their TLDs are, 

where their samplings are, can be looked at in 

a macro scale. 

 Then eventually, of course, we do 

want to dive in and say, "How good a job does 

it do to allow you to reconstruct doses to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers that might have been up close and 

personal?" to one of the specific facilities. 

 That's going to be a subject, I guess, very 

much a subject of our environmental section. 

So there's -- I think it's -- I think it's 

very workable to marry it to -- 

 DR. BEHLING: John? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes? 

 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans 

Behling. Let me just add to that in support 

of what just was stated by John and that is 

the fact that the commonality exists because 

of one thing. The whole environmental 

assessment of exposure was based on the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory Historical 

Dose Evaluation Report, and so that served as 

the basis for both the INL as well as the ANLW exposure for environmental as a technical 

source, so there is commonality here, and it's 

the identical report that was used for both 

facilities. 

 DR. MAURO: And then the subsequent 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

RAC report. John Till wrote a report on the 

offsite impacts, associated airborne 

effluents, where he basically stood on the 

shoulders of the Header report. This is the 

DOE work that they did site-wise. 

 In the beginning, the interest with 

all of that environmental work was more what 

were the emissions from the entire complex and 

what the potential impacts were on the public 

outside the fence line of the whole facility, 

so from that perspective it was treated as a 

single large complicated site and looking at 

the source terms, airborne, and that 

information becomes the starting point for the 

environmental part of INL and ANL-West. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The other thing 

that I couldn't find an answer to -- this is 

something else -- is a lot of the crafts, I 

mean, I don't know if they actually had 

boundaries of which buildings they were 

allowed to work in. Even though they were 

employed by one facility, did they go in other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

facilities? 

 I mean, like, you know, some of the 

crafts from INL who were under contract then, 

did they actually do some of the work for 

Argonne National Labs, West Lab? I didn't 

find an answer to that. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Typically -- I'm 

trying to remember if there is much 

interaction with Argonne-West. I don't think 

there is much, but a lot of the crafts were 

stationed at the central facilities area, and 

they went out. 

 Especially like maintenance 

workers, you see on their -- they've got 

dosimeters for every facility on site quite 

often. It's like they'll have multiple 

dosimeters for the same periods for all the 

different areas that they might have worked 

at, and we have to account for those zeroes in 

a special way per the TBD instructions, and 

some of them will go over to NRF at times, as 

well, but those historically haven't been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

counted. I guess that might be changing. 

 MR. DARNELL: Which is another good 

reason for looking at it as a stovepipe. If 

you have Worker A who came out of almost like 

a union shop, he'd work at one facility one 

day. The next day, he could be someplace 

completely different. 

 Dosimetry was separate for each 

one, so they didn't wear dosimetry when they 

were in the central place. They wore that 

particular facility's dosimetry each different 

time. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The same would 

be for the security people, whatever 

particular contract was in place at that time. 

 I didn't find anything that would tell me 

they would limit it to one area, but rather 

they would be -- and probably the same thing 

with the fire department. They would be all 

over the facility, even though they're 

employed by one contractor. 

 DR. MAURO: As an overarching 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effect, I would like to pose this question 

also to Joe Zlotnicki, and Joe emphasized the 

external aspects of the overall program, and 

Hans emphasized the internal, and when I read 

through it, the sense I got was that there was 

a single overarching program where everyone 

was issued film badges, and so, therefore, no 

matter where they went, you know -- now, of 

course, the setting to which they were exposed 

is going to be a little different. Some may 

have neutrons. Some may not, et cetera, but 

there was sort of like an overarching program 

 where everyone had issued a film badge. 

 Also, everyone was on some type of 

bioassay program, but it sounded as if, and 

correct me if I'm wrong, that it was basically 

they pulled a urine sample periodically and 

did gross beta/gamma. 

 And the question is how do you 

convert the gross beta/gamma reading that 

you're getting off the urine sample and 

convert that into a meaningful dose intake for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the particular activity, because it would be 

different at different sites with the mix of 

radionuclides, and I have to say that -- 

 Well, one of -- we'll get into 

this, of course, so I think that's what I 

mean. You can talk about it in generalities. 

 Okay, how well would a universal film badge 

program and universal urine sampling program 

serve you if you're trying to get now a little 

more granular and say, "Well, wait a minute. 

How do things change from site to site, and do 

you take that into consideration in doing a 

dose reconstruction for a real worker that may 

have spent some time here and then some time 

here?" and I think that we're going to get 

into that a little bit. 

 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. I 

hope we do get into that, because that, I 

believe, is the single most important concern 

that I have. As Phil already mentioned, we 

have a very, very complex site. We have mixed 

fission products. We have mixed activation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

products. We have transuranics. 

 We have all these different areas, 

the ICPP that released huge quantities of 

halogens of noble gases, et cetera, et cetera, 

and yet when we talk about the ability to 

assess doses, when we go back to the 

historical dose evaluation report, the 

methodology there was based on public 

exposures, and there the criteria was the use 

of selecting of the many, many radionuclides. 

 In some instances they had as many 

as 56 radionuclides that they were considering 

as contributing to offsite doses, but to 

expedite the issue, in many instances they 

selected for periodic or episodic or 

operational releases either at nine 

radionuclides or seven radionuclides, and 

those radionuclides were selected on the basis 

of their total contribution to the committed 

effective dose equivalent for 60 years. 

 And I went through this for my ANL 

review, and when you look at those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radionuclides, you realize how they may affect 

the potential for estimating organ doses as 

defined under the OICA, and you realize. I 

gave one example where the radionuclides, yes, 

they do contribute to committed effective dose 

equipment, but the selection would handicap 

many, many dose reconstruction for select 

tissues. 

 In one case, I gave an example of 

the use of those radionuclides for, let's say, 

a gone surface cancer or even a leukemia 

and/or liver dose, and when you look at the 

mix of 50-some-odd radionuclides and the 

selection from that that is defined by CEDE 

for offsite dose assessment, you realize the 

grievous potential error you're going to make 

when you try to do dose reconstruction based 

on the radionuclide mixes as proposed 

currently by the INL site profile. 

 I have to say I'm looking at many 

of the different facilities where they say 

even the seven or eight radionuclides such as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in Table 5-18 are too many, and so will even 

further reduce that, and that to me is the 

single biggest problem here. 

 We have such a heterogenous 

facility, and the radionuclide mixtures are so 

variable between one facility and the next, 

and to assume that one radionuclide mix that 

has been identified in table, either the 

default table in 5-26 or 5-18 or even some 

subsets of that, that they will suffice for 

specific organ dose reconstruction as defined 

for the 22 compensable cancers, to me it's 

impossible. We cannot do this. 

 MR. DARNELL: Are you applying those 

radionuclides site-wide or to the individual 

facilities? Table 5-18 is for INTEC. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I know, but as 

you go to all the other sites, you will find 

that they will even reference, say, "Oh, that 

5-18 is also applicable here," or even a 

subset of that, and the truth is, when you 

realize what the variability is among the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

different cancers and how they're affected by 

different radionuclide mixtures, the 

assumption of one-size-fits-all or nearly all 

is one that's going to create a tremendous 

amount of uncertainty in establishing specific 

organ doses. 

 And, as I said, when we get into 

this, I will give you an example, as I already 

pointed out in my review of the ANL-W 

facility, where I selected radionuclides that 

were identified as 95 percent contributing to 

 EDE values, and realized that the exclusion 

of many of the others, for instance, the 

radioactive lanthanum, would be a critical 

radionuclide for liver cancer, and if you look 

at the table that I supplied, it is basically 

the only one that contributes significant, but 

it's not included among the seven or nine 

radionuclides for episodic or operational 

releases. 

 DR. MAURO: This is going to be an 

important issue, because I think that what we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have here is -- there was an attempt made, and 

this is especially applicable to the work done 

by the Risk Assessment Corporation, John Till. 

 His mandate, his mission, was to 

reconstruct offsite doses, and the metric that 

was used is the committed effective whole body 

dose. So he really is concerned about what is 

the sort of overall burden on the collective 

public, and the metric, and appropriately so, 

would be the committed effective dose 

equivalent. 

 Now, in order to make it a 

manageable problem, rather than work with an 

enormous number of radionuclides, it's 

convenient and appropriate for his purposes, 

John Till's purposes, to narrow it down to 

some more manageable number of radionuclides, 

I think nine or whatever the number was. 

 Now, one of -- now, this is -- one 

of the general overarching observations that 

we made, as well, taking -- now, if you work 

with that set of nine, that may be fine for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doing offsite collective burden on the public, 

but now we're trying to apply that same source 

term, which has been culled down, to the 

reconstructing the doses to individual organs 

where -- 

 And I think Hans has made an 

example that may turn out that some particular 

radionuclides which you have screened out 

because it really doesn't contribute very much 

to the effective whole body dose may very well 

be an important contributor to the dose to the 

liver, and that's what's of interest here if 

the person has liver cancer. 

 So there might be some problem is 

introduced by that simplification process, and 

I think we need to discuss that. It may turn 

out it's not a big problem. It may turn out 

it's a manageable problem where it could be 

fixed. I'm not sure, but I think that this is 

one of the overarching observations that -- 

universal across the whole complex. 

 MR. DARNELL: It sounds like an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

appropriate comment to make, but the one thing 

that you need to give us for us to be able to 

even start looking at this type of comment is 

the calculations and the other examples so 

that we can look at it. 

 I was just looking through the TBD. 

 I mean, there are a lot of nuclides for ANLWest that are listed. The same thing goes -- 

is true for INL at the different many 

facilities that they had. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I think that's why 

I say it's very useful to have the ANL-West as 

part of this, because we go vertical there, 

and it's at ANL-West where Hans' report -- 

Hans authored, I think, the vast majority of 

the ANL-West piece -- gives specific examples 

of, "Here are the radionuclides that have been 

screened out." 

 But perhaps when it comes to a 

person with liver cancer, you should not have 

screened this radionuclide out, because it 

could be an important contributor to the liver 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose, certainly maybe not an important 

contributor to the committed effective whole 

body dose, but you may miss that, and that 

could be -- 

 Now, that doesn't mean it's not a 

manageable problem, you know. There may be a 

way that you can go back and say, "Wait a 

minute. We better go back and look at that," 

but I think, you know -- 

 MR. DARNELL: We're trying to 

entertain it, but we need the calculations to 

these. 

 DR. MAURO: They're in here. 

They're in the ANL-West site profile report 

for that particular -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Where? 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, can you -- I 

remember I read it Friday, Hans. I'm not -- 

 MR. DARNELL: It's not in the matrix 

or in the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Not in the -- it's not 

in the -- oh, no, the -- see, one of the -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean, the matrix helps us try to keep track 

and keep accounting, but you've got to -- I've 

got the two -- I mean, there are two big 

reports. Unfortunately, you've got to go 

through it. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Before we get into 

specific issues, is NIOSH or its contractors 

doing any work, more work in terms of updating 

the site profiles or other technical 

documents? 

 MR. DARNELL: Since the initial 

technical basis documents came out, there's 

been two revisions. I don't know -- I don't 

know if you have any idea? 

 MR. GLECKLER: ANL, I think, is the 

one that needs to be updated, because the INL 

ones got updated on some things that should 

affect the ANL-West TBD, but the internal TBD 

is one that I started working on revising, but 

it's kind of put on hold for some other stuff, 

so I'll get back to doing that. 

 MR. CALHOUN: So the answer is yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we're in the process of it but not actively. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We recognize a few 

areas where we need to do some updates and 

everything, but -- 

 MR. KATZ: Only for ANL. INL is upto-date? Is that what you're saying? 

 MR. GLECKLER: INL internal needs to 

be updated. There are some changes for the xrays. 

 MR. DARNELL: Is there ongoing -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, what 

specifically? I mean, it makes some 

difference in terms of how this review gets 

organized. 

 MR. OSTROW: On the -- I didn't look 

at the ANL part, but I worked on the INL one, 

and this is where we were a little bit behind 

the curve for a while, because originally TBDs 

came out in 2004. We did our review in 2005, 

and we did a Rev 1 in early 2006. 

 The NIOSH issued the revised TBDs 

in 2007, and some of these are Rev 1. Some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are Rev 2. Some are Rev 3. It depends on 

which TBD it is, and in December of 2008 we 

did a quick look. That's when you started 

your work group again. 

 So we did a quick look at the 

revised TBDs. That's when we came out with our 

sort of supplemental report, but we -- and 

that's with the matrix we produced. We added 

a couple of issues and changed a few things, 

but we never did a really deep look at the 

latest set of INL TBDs. 

 But from what I just heard about 

the ANL-West that Hans did, we encountered the 

same issue like with the internal doses with 

the idea of using the Till report, and for 

offsite dose it was fine to exclude five 

percent of the radio -- five percent of the 

dose and reduce the set of radionuclides from 

the large number down to seven to nine, which 

was manageable. 

 We didn't do the calculations that 

Hans did, but we also noted that this is an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issue, too, for specific cancers and specific 

radionuclides that you might have thrown out, 

so it's sort of a common issue for both 

things, which makes sense. It's the same 

physical facility. You know, you're calling 

it, you know, two different names. 

 DR. MAURO: To add to this, it was 

my understanding that there is a periodic 

process where you update your site profiles. 

Like a two-year review you refer to it as. I 

would imagine it is what it is, right? 

 So what happened here is that there 

was an original 2004/2005 site profile. Then 

when the -- you recall when the Board 

authorized this work group, one of the things 

I suggested, "Listen, we are aware that the 

site profile had gone through one of its 

revisions in 2007," and the Board authorized 

us to do what I would call a mini-review. 

 I called it a refresher, because so 

much time had passed, and we did, and we 

issued a report December 30, 2008, which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically our attempt to sort of catch up and 

get up to date so that we could initiate this 

work group meeting in a way that is as close 

as possible to the latest thinking regarding 

INL. 

 Now, what I'm hearing, though, 

there may be even another -- in other words, 

the 2007 version is about to perhaps enter 

into a 2009. In other words, are you -- is 

there another revision coming out? 

 And the question -- because, in 

light of that, that there might be another 

revision being issued, the question is, you 

know, would it be -- is it beneficial for us 

to go through our findings that reflect our 

findings on the 2007 version of the TBD, and 

would that add value to the process you're 

about -- you are into or about to enter into 

your next revision? 

 And that's really where we are, or 

is there so many changes going on that it 

would be premature for -- it would be -- well, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

maybe it's less than efficient, because, you 

know -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Brian is like -- 

 DR. MAURO: What do you want to do? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Brian gets to tap 

dance on that one. 

 DR. MAURO: What do you want to do? 

 MR. DARNELL: Before Brian starts, 

just to let you know, the latest revision to 

the matrix that you sent me I compared with 

the 2006 version of the matrix, and there was 

no significant change. 

 DR. MAURO: In fact, the matrix 

shows where things have changed, and I don't 

know if you folks -- has any -- this is 

important. Does everyone have the -- we have 

a deliverable that's dated December 30, 2008. 

 Does everybody -- 

 Now, if you go to the back of it, 

you'll see an Attachment 1 and a matrix, and 

the matrix -- in that matrix, Steve -- thank 

you -- identifies where we have new issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that have emerged from the updated. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think there's only 

one. 

 DR. MAURO: And there's maybe only 

one and which are basically -- and which ones 

are basically unchanged. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: John, this is Joe 

Zlotnicki. Can I jump in there for a second? 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. Please. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: I did that review, 

and I think what was remarkable to me is that 

not one of the original SC&A observations and 

findings was rendered moot by the subsequent 

update that was issued by NIOSH. Every single 

finding and observation stood, so although 

there had been a change in I think it was 

2007, which probably occurred while the SC&A 

original site profile review was undergoing 

review and, you know, approval, so they may 

not have had access to it, but nonetheless the 

update -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, Joe -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Not one of all those 

30-odd findings and observations changed. So 

I'm only saying that because, you know, the 

reality is as of today, as I understand it, 

all of those findings and observations are 

still, you know, valid, and the subsequent 

changes to the site profile documents have so 

far not addressed any of them. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And then you added 

three, so, actually -- 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Another few were 

added, yes, because, you know, I looked 

through it, and a fresh set of eyes normally 

would, you know, find a few things, which I 

did. I mean, none of them were too dramatic, 

but, yes, that is -- that did occur. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I thought when we 

went through that, didn't we identify a few 

original comments that were moot because of 

the changes to the TBD? 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, we think there 

are a couple. When we start going through the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issues we'll point those out. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Just one other 

thing, John. We were talking on a high level 

about the combination of INL and ANL-West and 

whether or not they should be combined in some 

way. Let me just make two quick points from 

an external dosimetry point of view. 

 The first one is that I did not 

review the ANL-West, and I don't have access 

to whatever stage the SC&A review is at, so I 

can't comment on that too much except to say 

that in the ANL-West site profile it clearly 

states that the dosimetry system was the same 

for both, so I would concur with the comments 

 on internal does that it may make a lot of 

sense to combine them. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, Hans performed the 

review of ANL-West, so, yes, we do have the 

marriage. I think we have all the people 

sitting at the table at SC&A that can speak to 

both ANL-West and the INL versions. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, with regard to -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this is Hans. With regard to the external 

radiation issues that I had critiqued for the 

ANL-West, I think I may have some additional 

comments that you may want to look at, and I 

am addressing this to Mr. Zlotnicki, so I may 

want to send you my version of it and see what 

additional things that I've identified that 

you may want to look at and either comment on 

or incorporate into your comments section. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Okay. Thank you, 

Hans. 

 DR. MAURO: Jim, you asked a simple 

question and got quite an answer. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'd just kind 

of like a little input from the other Board 

Member, because if they're comfortable with 

this, this is what we're going to propose at 

the next Board meeting, that these two be 

combined, you know, on the basis of 

commonality and kill two birds with one stone, 

effectively. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think it's a great 

idea. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: You're talking about 

the two reviews, not the two documents. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. There's 

really -- the two reviews for all purposes are 

going to become one because of some of the, 

like I say, internal and external exposure 

data was managed according to the TBD by 

Department of Energy itself. 

 Then we have the environmental 

dose, which, you know, depending on where you 

are in the facility. The site, obviously, has 

application across the board. There may be 

some areas, like John says, we may have to -- 

 We'll have to obviously break this 

down in smaller slices to look at these 

different areas for potentials for mis-dose or 

other problems that we have, but overall they 

seem to mesh to me real well, but that's my 

own personal opinion. 

 MR. DARNELL: Actually, in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

future, I don't know if this is scheduled or 

not, but if we combine the two documents 

again, I don't think that there would be a 

significant impact on any of the comments. 

They'd just be rolled together. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that is -- 

combining makes it a more efficient product, 

so there is no redundancy, because there is 

redundancy between the comments that are made 

because there is so much similarity. So, yes, 

so when you read both of these, oh, no, and, 

in effect, it's interesting. It sort of 

reenforces each other. 

 That is, the same comments that are 

made regarding ANL-West are also in the INL 

review, so I don't think we're going to lose 

anything by right now having these two 

separate documents, and in the process, we do 

have the people all here that are familiar 

with both documents, so we could have a 

seamless discussion even though the products 

themselves are separated. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: From ORAU's 

standpoint, like the internal TBD revision 

that I was in the process of doing a few 

months back, it's like I had gotten approval 

to combine them, and so I was going to combine 

the two internal TBDs at that point, and then 

as we update the others we were going to 

invite you, because from a dose 

reconstructor's standpoint it was causing too 

much headache for us to go back and forth, 

because TBDs were getting updated at different 

times. 

 It's like where -- and the sites 

are so interrelated to where we have so many 

claims to where you've got INL and ANL-West 

employment both in different periods, and 

we're using the same tool, spreadsheet tool, 

to work those claims. 

 It's like -- and things were -- you 

know, there's subtle -- one of the best 

examples of a subtle difference between the 

two, they're virtually identical TBDs and that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

except the environmental external. The early 

years where they didn't have any dosimetry 

data, they based it off of some of the later 

years. 

 It's like where the approach used 

for the INL TBD was slightly different than 

the approach used for the ANL-West TBD, and I 

think it was just how they averaged it or the 

period of time that they averaged over to get 

that assumed value. 

 It's just like an ever so slightly 

different value, but it really makes it a pain 

in the butt when you've got a TBD, the INL TBD 

that still has ANL-West numbers in it and an 

ANL-West TBD that has slightly different 

numbers for those years. 

 You've got to watch what reference 

you use when you work those claims that have 

both ANL-West and INL , so it just -- it does 

make things easier for us to combine them from 

a dose reconstructor's standpoint. 

 DR. MAURO: I would argue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

notwithstanding whether the documents, both 

the TBDs or the SC&A, are combined or not, 

it's the issues that are at the heart of it, 

and I think the issues that we raise are 

essential, and perhaps this is the perfect 

time to discuss them, before you engage in 

putting an issue in a new -- 

 I mean, we can make a lot of 

progress in going through the issues, and then 

you could make a judgment, and certainly the 

work group could make a judgment which of the 

issues really is something that may be 

something you may not be looking at right now, 

and it's an opportunity to air them out. 

 And if we could agree in principle 

that, "Yes, I think you made a good point 

here. I think we're going to adopt that when 

we come out with the next version," or, "No, 

we don't agree with this. We have the problem 

well in hand, and we've come to agreement" -- 

 So I think that I'm either -- I 

guess I'm asking myself the question is it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

worth getting together and discussing this, 

and I would say yes. I think the timing is 

right, especially if you have not yet issued 

your next version of the various TBDs. 

 MR. GLECKLER: There's a lot of work 

to be done yet. 

 DR. MAURO: Right, so I think the 

fact that these are going on in parallel is a 

benefit and not a detriment. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think it's a very 

good idea to go through the issues. Part of 

NIOSH's response that we do have ready for you 

is how some of the issues -- how you're 

conveying some of the issues. For example, 

you use in some of your comments the Tiger 

Team report -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. DARNELL: -- and there are 

comments based off the Code of Federal 

Regulations that have no applicability to the 

site, and so we need more information on how 

you're viewing those types of comments -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

 MR. DARNELL: -- as being applicable 

to NIOSH. 

 DR. MAURO: I completely agree with 

that, because when I read through it, there 

are certain Tiger Team commentaries that are 

offered by the Tiger Team as a compliance 

issue. That is, did you do all these good 

things? And you didn't do them. 

 And it's important to make a 

distinction between comments that are made for 

that purpose and the degree to which that 

comment has teeth as it applies to dose 

reconstruction, and sometimes it does, and 

sometimes it doesn't, and I think that's a 

very good point. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, some of the 

comments may be sort of administrative. 

Administratively they didn't comply with DOE 

regulations, but it may not have had an actual 

effect on the dosimetry. 

 MR. DARNELL: The Tiger Team report 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- well, for the first comment, the Tiger Team 

report refers to 40 CFR Part 50 and Part 58, 

which are EPA regulations for ambient air. It 

has no bearing whatsoever for how we are using 

the data that was collected, yet the comment 

is saying -- it is basically saying because 

the site didn't meet EPA regulations, we can't 

pick up the program, which is not correct. 

 DR. MAURO: But I'm going to -- in 

defense of our report, on the other hand, 

there were many Tiger Team commentaries that 

had to do with deficiencies in the health 

physics program, whether it's internal 

dosimetry, external dosimetry. 

 MR. DARNELL: Sure. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, you say to 

yourself, "Well, how is that relevant?" Well, 

when I read all this material, it became clear 

that a lot of trust was given to the soundness 

and completeness, reliability of the health 

physics program and that the bioacid program 

was implemented in a very, I guess, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

conscientious way, the film badge program. 

 But we are finding that -- well, 

the Tiger Team found, well, no, there were 

some problems with those programs, and that 

does bear back on the completeness, 

reliability, and adequacy of the data. There 

were certain deficiencies in the program that 

will affect, so I would say it's both. 

 MR. DARNELL: In some cases, that's 

absolutely true, but I would say for the 

majority of the cases you need either more 

technical basis behind the comment or some 

definite examples so that we can move forward 

with trying to answer the comments, and I 

think that's going to be the biggest benefit 

to this meeting is to be able to hash through 

that type of comment. 

 I don't think we're going to get a 

lot of comments where we will either agree or 

disagree or have an answer. I think what 

we're going to have to do is come to a meshing 

of the minds to be able to move forward. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think that's going to be the biggest benefit. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Phil, I'm sorry Dr. 

Melius isn't in the room, but in answer 

partially to your inquiry and to his, we 

haven't heard anything up to now that would 

cause anyone to believe there is not a good 

reason to combine these two. 

 They occupy the same geography. 

Individuals who work there have the same 

shared potential for exposure, whether it's 

actual exposure or not. 

 It's clear that for the individual 

dose reconstructor where these individual 

worked would have a difference in their 

approach, but for purposes of what we're 

speaking of doing here, there does not appear 

to be any reason why we should not recommend 

to the Board that these be combined. 

 Now, in terms of how we approach 

it, it would seem logical that because both of 

these separate entities have already been 

reviewed and some matrix of issues has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

set forth, it would appear to be logical to 

take a look at those matrices so that we can 

see whether there is unreasonable duplication 

in them or whether solutions of any of these 

items that are before us have already 

essentially been resolved or at least make it 

easy, much easier for NIOSH to complete their 

next review of the documentation that's there. 

 As long as the issues have been agreed to 

from the matrix, then there is a much better 

basis for NIOSH to proceed with this new 

document. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Have you got 

anything to say, address that to, Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: Excuse me? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'm going to 

put you on the hot seat here. Do you have any 

comment? 

 MR. KATZ: No, I think it makes 

perfect sense to me for the working group to 

get charged with addressing these together. I 

have absolutely no uncertainty about that at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

all. That makes perfect sense to me. 

 Also, on the question of when to 

dip in this moving stream, I'm going to have 

you dip in when you're ready, which is now, so 

the fact that NIOSH has some work still 

underway to make changes, NIOSH may always 

have some stuff underway to make changes, but 

it seems perfectly right that the Board get 

engaged on these now. We've waited a long 

time for the Board to be engaged on these 

sites. 

 MR. DARNELL: Just to point out, 

again, these are living documents. There is 

always going to be work on them. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I just don't want us 

to spend two hours discussing something and 

the end of it you say, "Oh, well, we've 

changed that, anyway," and so that's -- and, 

frankly, that's happened before, and that was 

the reason for the question. 

 We understand that there's always 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

changes going on, but we don't want to waste 

time arguing and reviewing something that's 

sort of a moot point because you've already 

come up with a new approach. 

 MR. DARNELL: On our initial 

vetting, we looked for that. Right now I 

think we're actually beating a dead horse by 

forcefully agreeing that we're going to 

combine them, so, you know, I agree with you 

wholeheartedly. I don't want to have a twohour discussion on something that's -- 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'd kind of 

like to see a roadmap. I mean, I hate to use 

that term, but you've done this for other 

facilities and sites, just so we have a better 

feel of what went on where and what are the 

players in that particular area. 

 I'll be honest with you. I haven't 

been all through the Argonne National Labs 

West TBD documents yet. This idea kind of 

just got germane to us this last week, so 

personally don't feel I have a good grasp on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what all went on where, what the potential 

hazards were. If that is something possible -

- maybe you already have something like that, 

a little better breakdown. 

 DR. MAURO: The beginning of the 

site -- one of our feelings about the 

strengths of your site profile was you did a 

nice overview of all the different activities, 

so they're all there, I mean, not all, but 

there's a lot there. I think you probably 

could do a lot with more. There's always 

more. 

 This thing goes off the -- it's a 

complicated site, but I have to say I felt 

that by reading their site description, it set 

the stage for me to get an appreciation of the 

complexity, the different nuclides, the 

external issues, the airborne emission issues 

and how different they were, the different -- 

the TAN facility, the Aircraft Nuclear 

Propulsion, the different reactors, EBR-1, 

EBR-2. There was all -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: Even the storage cans. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, you're right, so, I 

mean, it's tedious, but I did read it, so I 

said, "Okay, I think I've got a feel," and 

that's all I can say I got out of it of the 

incredible complexity. I don't think there's 

any place more complex than this. 

 MEMBER BEACH: John, that was the 

site description for Idaho or for the lab? 

 DR. MAURO: Idaho. Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I just didn't 

-- okay. 

 DR. MAURO: The overall one, yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I just downloaded 

that. 

 DR. MAURO: And I believe -- I'm not 

sure. Somehow I believe that one of our 

sections even repeats excerpts from beginning-

- 

 MEMBER BEACH: It does. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm trying to see where 

it is. It's someplace in here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: ANL-West TBD is 

almost identical to the INL. There's just a 

little bit of added background information, 

and there's a few differences regarding x-rays 

and those environmental TLDs. 

 MR. DARNELL: The site description 

is much smaller for ANL, which makes sense. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Other than that, 

they're almost word-for-word. 

 MR. OSTROW: You know what's -- the 

history -- I just sort of remembered now when 

we did our site profile review of INL, one of 

the documents we read sort of a background, 

it's not a reference list. 

 There's an actual book that was 

published that was actually quite good that 

gives like the whole history of the lab from 

it's early days before it became a nuclear 

lab. It's well written, and it's a great 

place if someone wants to get into it, just an 

overview of everything that went on. 

 MR. KATZ: What's the name of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

book? 

 MR. OSTROW: Do you remember? 

 MR. DARNELL: Jodi has it. 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes, Proving the 

Principle by -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's referenced above 

the document. 

 DR. MAURO: We referenced it, yes. 

 MS. JENKINS: The author is Stacy, I 

believe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's referenced 

both in the text and in the references. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Would that 

really be more of a change just to combine 

those two in there, the site profile issues? 

 MR. CALHOUN: We're not talking 

about -- oh, the issue. I think we're talking 

about you guys combining the issues. We're 

not talking about committing to combining the 

site profiles. Now, we may do that if it 

becomes more efficient for us, but we're not 

going to say we're going to do that now. We 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

may be doing some of it. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Depending on if we 

get back to the revision on the TBD. 

 MR. CALHOUN: But we don't want to 

run back and say we're going to combine them, 

though. We've got five million other things 

to do. 

 MR. DARNELL: Things like the site 

description probably wouldn't be combined, 

because it makes more sense to keep them 

separate. The introduction to the site 

probably would be separate, because we need to 

take the time to put them together. 

 DR. MAURO: I would offer that if we 

go through the issues on the overall INL 

document, what will happen is we'll come to 

some resolution and pass forward on those 

issues, and then when we then -- if we then 

after that say, "Okay, now let's take a look 

at the Argonne West," we're going to find, 

well, Issue 1, Issue 2, well, we've already 

discussed that, but then there's going to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one or two issues in the ANL-West that are 

very specific to ANL-West and give you greater 

granularity, and then we'll hit those. 

 So I think that in terms of the 

process, it makes -- I was thinking about this 

when I was reading it. I said, you know, 

it'll work. It'll work. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It'll work. 

 MR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I was 

looking at our site profile review while 

everyone else was talking, and the book I was 

referring to before was Stacy, Proving the 

Principle: A History of the Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 

1949-1999. It's year 2000, and it's a DOE 

book, and it's sort of a popular book. It's 

not really deeply scientific but is a great 

overall reference work. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And an easy read. 

 MR. DARNELL: Is it? 

 MEMBER MUNN: It really is. I'm not 

a really technical person. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: It's got pictures 

from various facilities and stuff. It's kind 

of neat to see. 

 MR. DARNELL: All it's missing is 

pop-ups for guys like me. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No commercials. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. Well, I 

think in principle we've all pretty much 

agreed we'll go forward with that, and we'll 

make a formal proposal at the Board meeting, 

but otherwise I don't expect there will be any 

problem with that. Do you see a problem, Jim? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: No. No. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And I would just add 

I don't see any need to combine the two 

documents or do anything. Maybe for other 

reasons keep them separate and so forth. 

 DR. MAURO: In fact, one of the 

things that could come out of this meeting is 

you may want to go vertical on some other 

locations. The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

program, we have a real problem with that 

section, by the way. 

 We'll get into that, and we think 

that the RAC missed the boat when they did 

their source terms, and that's -- I mean, 

there may be other facilities and activities 

that took place where we think going vertical 

might be very helpful. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Just a quick 

observation before we get into the matrix that 

SC&A released, and that's the propulsion 

program there. I think that gets into the 

environmental dose where I just don't see how 

you can state not putting these two together 

and looking at them as one unit. 

 MR. OSTROW: Especially since the 

environmental dose is basically derived from 

the offsite dose, which is basically for the 

whole facility. 

 DR. MAURO: The 30-second sound bite 

is the computer program, the MESODIF type, not 

only the source terms, which were selected for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concern over doses that could have occurred 20 

miles away and not 100 meters away plus the 

atmosphere and dispersion models that were 

used, and this is -- 

 This is boiled down to with the 

environmental dose, if you want the 30-second 

sound bite, is that you don't have the right 

mix of radionuclides, and you used the wrong 

atmospheric dispersion model. You didn't, the 

HEDA report and then following that the RAC 

report, and to take that and then apply it to 

dose reconstruction onsite. 

 Now, I'll preface that. Those 

doses probably are not all that large compared 

to the internal and external doses from 

occupational exposure. Nevertheless, they're 

there, and you say, "What is our simple 

concern?" 

 You don't use this kind of 

atmospheric transport code and this mix of 

radionuclides if you're concerned about a guy 

who is 100 feet downwind from the source term. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 You use it when the guy is 20 miles away but 

not when he's right next to it, and that's 

what, when you say, you know, from the 

environmental part, there it is. We could get 

into some fine structure. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I've been looking 

forward to the discussion about meso as 

opposed to macro and micro. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We'll only use 

robust statistics. 

 MR. OSTROW: John and I were 

discussing this two days ago, and we just made 

the observation we both worked a long time ago 

in the World Trade Center. A high floor, 91st

floor, whatever, 89, and you could see there 

were such local wind and weather effects for 

the local environment where it would be clear 

outside and clear all around New Jersey. It 

would be raining around the World Trade 

Center, and the raindrops would actually be 

going up the side of the building just because 

of the wind pattern. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So when we're dealing with 

environmental, and say on the site here you 

have these high stacks all over the place. 

All the buildings had fairly high stacks, 

which had structures around them. 

 Someone standing on the ground in 

one particular spot, depending on how the wind 

patterns are going, vortex effects that you 

have from the stacks, vortex shedding and 

things like that, you really can't look at 

offsite or site boundary environmental 

exposures and use that to predict the local 

environment exposures. A lot of local effects 

have to be taken into account. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, should we 

go ahead and go on to the matrix here, 

starting with the difference between the thick 

and thalamines? That would be issue 25-3.1, 

on the matrix you issued, John. 

 MR. OSTROW: Where are we starting? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: The 

discrepancies between the thick and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thalamines. I assume that's going to apply to 

both Argonne and -- it's issue 25-3.1, page 

11. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So we're going to 

start with Argonne-West? 

 DR. MAURO: I would suggest we start 

with INL. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is INL. 

 DR. MAURO: That is INL. Okay. 

Let's start with Issue 25 rather than issue 1. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, you guys 

laid it out this way, so I thought, well, 

there must be a logical reason for it. 

 DR. MAURO: No, this is what 

happened when we laid it out. I've got it 

now. We reproduced in the back Attachment 1, 

the entire bunch of issues, you know, like 

starting with Issue 1 and going up to Issue -- 

what have we got now, 38 of them? 

 What we did -- where we -- we added 

the -- we took this out of the original site 

profile review we did in 2006, and we added 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two columns. The second to the last column 

indicates whether this is the original 

comments are unchanged from the original 

review, whether we changed the comment or we 

added a new one. 

 So, for example, Issue Number 1, 

which was airborne release, is unchanged from 

the original, but we never really discussed 

it. You know, after we issued our original 

report, that was it. There was no more 

discussion ever on this stuff. 

 Where I think -- where we added new 

issues or changed some of the issues, that's 

where we had the text up front that you were 

just referring to. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So a question. If I'm 

on page 18 of your December document, that's 

the matrix that I was looking at. 

 MR. OSTROW: That's the matrix. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Are we working from 

some other matrix? 

 DR. MAURO: That was my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understanding. 

 MR. OSTROW: That's is their matrix, 

but I think -- 

 MR. DARNELL: How do you think is 

best to go? 

 MR. OSTROW: I think just start with 

Issue Number 1 and work our way through. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I just thought 

maybe there was some special logic to the way 

it was started out that way -- 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, there was some 

logic. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- to go into 

the next thing or something. 

 MR. OSTROW: There's some logic. 

The up-front text that we had just elaborated 

on the comments that were changed from our 

original site profile review, so we should 

probably just start off on Issue 1. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I just thought 

it may start on health physics or something, 

which, you know, I'm not real strong on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Maybe that was -- 

 MR. OSTROW: Nothing like that. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: -- a logical 

thing, that you saw that as a logical way to 

progress, so I thought, okay, well, I'll go 

with you guys. 

 MR. OSTROW: Nothing that 

complicated. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: That was John 

Mauro's lottery ticket. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Too late. That 

little rancher got it. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay. I guess we'll 

have to point out that also in this matrix, 

for example, we have an Issue 1, and then we 

have in parenthesis after that 5.1.1.1. The 

5.1.1.1 refers to the section in our site 

profile review that we did in 2006 where it's 

elaborated. 

 These issues in the matrix, like 

all the matrices for all the different sites, 

are basically sound bites. These are just a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

little reference which sort of jogs your 

memory about it so you can talk about it, but 

the full discussion is actually in the site 

profile review. It can go on for pages for 

some of these things. 

 I'll just, as a way to start out 

here, just say first three issues, 1, 2, and 

3, all on the first page, have to do with 

environmental, and they're sort of 

interrelated. 

 I think a good way to approach this 

is to sort of do it by types of exposure, so 

we should discuss issues 1, 2, and 3 sort of 

together. Then, after that, we get into the 

internal, which a lot of them can be discussed 

together, and then the external is a separate 

group. 

 So, going -- okay, that's a longwinded explanation here. Issues -- so the 

environmental issues, 1, 2, and 3, the short 

story is on here, but the long story is what 

we were just talking about, what John, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically, and I were talking about, that the 

used offsite exposure data in the RAC report 

in the monitoring basically to try to 

extrapolate to get the onsite doses to workers 

from the environmental, and we think that's 

basically a flawed process, and that's what 

these three capture. 

 So the Issue 1 is stated a little 

bit generally here, that the data NIOSH used 

does not take into account the deficiencies in 

environmental monitoring equipment in the 

locations, and NIOSH doesn't assess the 

uncertainties associated with the 

meteorological dispersion model used for the 

INL site. So that's what John was talking 

about, this meso model. 

 DR. MAURO: You know, would you mind 

if I go up to the blackboard? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Please. You need to 

draw this. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, certainly jump in, 

because you have a higher, a more detailed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understanding, but, I mean, when I went over 

this originally, originally wrote it, and I 

helped out a bit with the environmental piece, 

and then we reviewed it again, it becomes -- 

but I'm just going to say, okay, you know -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Shaped like a potato. 

 DR. MAURO: Shaped like a potato. 

I don't know. I don't know, Hans, but what 

I'm getting at is this. Okay, you've got -- 

the idea, you've got all these little 

locations, okay, and they've got fences around 

them, I guess. I'm giving you the model I 

have in my head, okay, and what happens is 

this. Every one of these locations, a lot of 

them, okay, have information on what was 

released to the atmosphere. 

 So you have chronic episodic 

releases, okay, so every one of these 

locations by year, year one, year two, year 

three, year four, has an estimate of a list of 

radionuclides in curies per year, and there 

may be 52 of these radionuclides that are at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

play, different mixes from different 

locations, different times, and what happened 

was there was a big movement about ten years 

go to reconstruct offsite doses around the 

weapons complex, and DOE reconstructed all -- 

 And the way you do that is you 

figure out what were the radionuclides 

released and curies per year, complete list. 

Then you apply some -- say, okay, given that 

those radionuclides were released into the 

atmosphere, then you apply some atmospheric 

transport code, so you could figure out what 

the doses were at Atomic City. 

 There were all these population 

centers around, and you want to figure out 

what kind of health burden you may have put 

these people to, and on that basis, if the 

doses, the collective burden, was 

theoretically large, they would follow up with 

epidemiological studies. 

 That was the whole idea behind the 

whole offsite dose reconstruction, which went 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on for years, and DOE first started to do it, 

and then it was transferred over because of 

potential conflict issues to -- and a lot of 

the work was done by private contractors. The 

number one private contractor in the country 

to do this work was John Till and Risk 

Assessment Corporation. Great. 

 So you have this vast amount of 

material, a tremendous volume upon volume of 

work where you've got for each facility the 

curies per year by radionuclide, and then they 

applied what I consider to be a great model. 

It's called a meso. 

 Think of it like this. You're 

interested in the big picture. You know, 

we're talking I don't know how many miles 

across this. It's 50 miles, whatever it is, 

and so you're thinking in terms of transport 

of these puffs coming out, plumes, and they're 

moving in a wind field on a meso-scale. 

That's what we did. 

 It's, you know, a fairly large 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scale. Medium. There are bigger scales, and 

it's the right selection for the kinds of 

distances you're interested in. 

 And so what John Till did and what 

the -- they said, "Listen, we've got to make 

this thing simpler." I've got this movie in 

my head, and my criticism comes from that, and 

it's great if you're doing offsite doses. 

 Now, where did things go wrong? 

Where does this thing break down, because they 

-- basically what happened, my understanding 

is we took that good work and said, "Now we're 

going to apply it to calculate the doses to 

people in the area," okay, when, in fact, this 

thing you just did was for people over here. 

 And what happened is they used the 

same atmospheric dispersion models, and they 

took the 52, and they said, "That's too many 

radionuclides. We don't need all that." 

 So what Till did is said, "We're 

going to screen out all the radionuclides that 

really don't contribute very much to the dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and get rid of that, because if we capture 95 

percent of the dose by straining down to, say, 

nine radionuclides, we didn't lose anything. 

We're dropping five percent of the collective 

whole body dose." Remember, the metric is the 

whole body dose, and that sort of made its 

way. 

 Now what we're doing is we're 

calculating the doses to these people of those 

radionuclides using a meso-scale atmospheric 

dispersion model, and that's for the purpose 

of both chronic and episodic releases. 

 So, right off the bat, our 

criticism comes down to -- and this is like a 

collective way of looking at it, because we do 

break it down, and there's a lot of more fine 

structure, which you can get by looking at the 

report, but we're saying they can't do that, 

because, first of all, as we mentioned 

earlier, if you're talking about -- 

 You know, this is fine if you're 

doing the committed effective dose equivalent, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but what we're doing here is an organ dose. 

That's what we really want, and there are 

radionuclides that might have been screened 

out that are important contributors to 

particular organ doses, maybe not important to 

the committed effective dose, so that's 

concern number one. 

 Now, that doesn't mean you got 

wrong. You've got to demonstrate that you 

didn't miss anything, but Hans in his review 

of Argonne-West, where we got vertical, said, 

"Yes. I can show you several radionuclides 

that are not in your list that should have 

been there, because it would completely change 

your liver dose, and if a guy happens to have 

liver cancer, we missed it," okay, so that's 

like one of the findings, so right off the bat 

we're saying -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: And is that -- that's 

in the details of the report? 

 DR. MAURO: That's in the -- that's 

in the Argonne-West report. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. 

 MR. DARNELL: That's in the ArgonneWest? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. But, you see, it's 

also -- see, we went vertical, because we 

could. Now, we didn't go that vertical, but 

in theory that concept, that idea, applies 

everywhere, and I think the onus is on NIOSH 

to demonstrate it was okay to do this for all 

radionuclides, and we were able to 

demonstrate, no, it wasn't, at least not at 

Argonne-West. Now, maybe you were okay at the 

other locations, but certainly not at ArgonneWest. 

 DR. BEHLING: John, let me just jump 

in. 

 DR. MAURO: Sure, please. Please. 

 DR. BEHLING: One of the key 

concerns for doing the offsite public 

exposures was really the concern from the 

release, massive releases of radio-iodines 

that were part of the ANP program in the ICPP, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and so heavy emphasis was obviously focused on 

the iodine exposures, and that obviously, 

therefore, required the inclusion of iodine131 and the other short-lived iodines, which 

may or may not necessarily, obviously, impact 

those exposures where the concern for cancer 

does not involve the thyroid. 

 So it's clear that the objectives 

that were part of the historical dose 

evaluation report are very different from the 

ones that we are addressing here in trying to 

reconstruct specific organ doses involving 

cancerous tissues. 

 MEMBER MUNN: How are you going to 

have it both ways, though? On the one hand, 

we hear people say over and over again all 

these people have the same potential, because 

nobody stayed home. Everybody wandered all 

over the site or at least had the potential to 

wander all over the site all the time, and 

therefore they could have picked up anything 

anywhere. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Your concern, as I understand it, 

is, but, at discrete locations for specific 

individuals, the doses could be much higher or 

be inclusive of radionuclides that were sorted 

out of the Till report. 

 DR. MAURO: You just went to the 

next tier. The first tier, I guess, has to do 

with radionuclides. By using just a limited 

number of the 52 radionuclides, is it possible 

you could have missed some important doses to 

particular organs, notwithstanding where the 

person was? 

 Okay, so that's like the first 

level. There needs to be some level of 

assurance that the -- I'll call it a shortcut. 

 In other words, to make things more 

efficient, we don't have to -- we don't want 

to have to process 52 radionuclides, but there 

is no guarantee that by eliminating a whole 

bunch of radionuclides from explicit 

consideration you may not have -- you may have 

eliminated some radionuclides that could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

been important contributors to certain organs 

at certain doses. 

 One example give, I believe, is the 

liver for I forget which isotope that was 

eliminated at Argonne-West that probably 

should not have been. We're not saying this 

is universal at every one of the facilities, 

but at least in that case we show that it was 

an important -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, of course, 

that's the only one for which we have a 

discrete report. 

 DR. MAURO: No, we know the 52 

radionuclides. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: So we could go back to 

them and say, "Wait a minute. You know, what 

are the releases for each radionuclides, as 

opposed to just looking at the nine, and are 

any of those important?" And this is a 

tractable problem. 

 You know, you could say, "Okay, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we were to redo some of these doses for 

particular organs with the full suite of 

radionuclides, all 52. Do you find a holy 

mackerel? Yes, this guy's liver dose could 

have been pretty high, and we would have 

missed it, because we screened out this 

radionuclides when we originally started the 

process." 

 So we just have to be assured that 

we did not miss any important radionuclides 

when all of a sudden your interest is not the 

whole body dose. Your interest is some 

particular dose to a particular organ, and 

that evokes the other question. 

 Now you tier down and say, "But, 

hold on. We're modeling over here." All of a 

sudden, you know, predicting what the 

concentrations are -- now, this is for 

Argonne. This is still environmental, by the 

way. We haven't gone into -- we're just 

talking, you know, you run an atmospheric 

dispersion model and you come up with -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 What happens is this. It'll be 

fine. As far as I'm concerned, the MESODIF 

program is fine. You know their source. 

Let's say you finally get to the point where 

we're happy with the source term, the curies 

per year by radionuclide, and you know what 

they are from here, from here, from here, from 

here, and if you were interested in 

calculating the dose from those places to 

here, you're fine. You're far away, and 

that's the MESODIF scale, because these are 

miles. You know, very often these are miles 

way. 

 MEMBER MUNN: They are miles. 

 DR. MAURO: But I'm more worried 

about the releases from here, and you didn't 

do that. You didn't break them down. Here's 

the releases from this facility, from this 

facility, and the isotopes that were released 

from each facility and what were the 

concentrations and the exposures that workers 

who were working onsite next to this, whatever 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that was. 

 I am concerned that that is never 

captured. Now, I'm not saying that's a big 

dose. Remember my preface. When you're 

talking environmental, you're always talking 

about small doses, so it may turn out this is 

a lot of concern about something that might 

not be that important, but, you know, our job 

is to point out places where we think there 

may be certain flaws in your approach. 

 How important it is needs to be 

demonstrated. I don't know how important it 

is. I suspect it's not that important, 

because we're talking about millirems per 

year, maybe hundreds of millirems per year. 

Well, when you get inside the building and 

we're doing occupational dose inside of 

building, we're talking about rems per year, 

so the scale changes. 

 So I'd be the first to admit, but, 

nevertheless, listen, you know, one of the 

chapters is environmental, and the first three 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comments, in effect, that's the concern I 

have. You can't -- how are you going to do 

that guy's dose from this source term? 

 MR. CALHOUN: And certainly it would 

be much more of a concern with people who did 

not have bioassays -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: -- because if 

somebody's been full body counted or 

urinalysis, the dose that we end up assigning 

is -- we oftentimes will pick the highest dose 

or the one that will result in the highest 

POC, organ-specific. 

 DR. MAURO: And if you can 

demonstrate that, you're great, but, of 

course, remember, you're assuming there's only 

these radionuclides. Now, imagine if -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, if they weren't 

monitored and we were assigning environmental. 

 DR. MAURO: Your answer may very 

well be, "No, we're okay, because everyone 

that worked onsite had monthly bioassay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

samples, gross beta/gamma, and we know the mix 

of radionuclides that were released from that 

facility, and on that basis we could pro-rate 

the gross beta/gamma according to that mix and 

reconstruct their dosing. You're done. 

 DR. BEHLING: Can I jump in? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, sure, Hans. Yes. 

 DR. BEHLING: First of all, looking 

at the numbers I'm not convinced that the 

bioassays, routine bioassays, were more than 

once a year or perhaps up to twice a year. 

Secondly, when you deal with gross beta, which 

in the early days was the principal or 

dominant method, you're really only dealing 

with a count that you can't really assign to a 

specific radionuclide. 

 So you're faced with the same 

problem. What do we assign this radionuclide 

mix to? And that will be highly variable 

depending on where that individual worked, 

which may or may not even be decipherable 

prior to 1989, because you may not have an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understanding of where that individual worked. 

 So the dilemma will be to take 

gross beta counts or gross gamma counts and 

assign a radionuclide mix that represents 

truly what that individual was exposed to. 

And I think you're back in the same situation, 

especially since in the early years, fifties, 

sixties, even up into the 1970s, before whole 

body counting became the more routine bioassay 

protocol, you're kind of up for grabs in terms 

of interpreting how that information will be 

assigned to specific radionuclides, especially 

when you have only one or two -- one or two 

bioassays in a given year where you're 

obviously not going to catch a lot of these 

radionuclides but a short list. 

 MR. DARNELL: Depending on the 

specific claim that is being looked at, I'm 

not actually sure that getting the specific 

radionuclides for that specific person based 

on a specific job location is actually 

something for the vast majority of the claims 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that we need to do. 

 In just trying to be expedient 

about getting the dose reconstruction done, 

most of the time for most of the workers you 

throw a large number intake at them, see if it 

goes close to 50 percent. If it doesn't, 

you're done. 

 You're not going to be looking for 

specifics, and for the vast majority of the 

claims, that's the true case. You're not 

looking for the specifics that you're talking 

about. 

 When you get to a claim that's 

closer to 50 percent, where you have to become 

more accurate with the dose calculation, then 

we'd be looking for those specifics. Really, 

the things that you guys are talking about 

with trying to find whether methenam was done 

or a specific radionuclide is done, for the 

vast majority of the claims, it will never 

matter. 

 DR. MAURO: I would -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So you're saying you 

just throw out those other claims then? 

What's your argument? 

 MR. DARNELL: No, no. You're not 

throwing them out, but for the vast majority 

of the claims you don't need to go to the 

level of detail that SC&A is talking about. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So what's your 

point? I don't understand your point, because 

if you have to do it for some, it's a valid 

criticism. 

 MR. CALHOUN: If you have to use it, 

it is. I agree. However, one of the things 

that we do, and I have to get -- I haven't 

been into an ANL-West case for a while, but 

one of the things that we do, and I don't know 

if Brian knows, is that if we just have -- 

let's just say we have a gross urinalysis and 

it's 50 picocuries. I'm just throwing numbers 

out, okay? 

 We'll look at what -- and it's 

gross beta. We'll look at the cadre of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

isotopes that are available to us, and based 

on the limit of detectinon of that isotope and 

the probability of causation and the dose, 

which can be kind of different depending on 

what nuclide it is, we assign the most 

claimant-favorable nuclide. So we don't 

eliminate any activity. 

 DR. MAURO: But that's not what's in 

your -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. I don't 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: Your report doesn't say 

it. I mean, I hear what you're saying. 

 MR. CALHOUN: For whole body counts, 

we know cerium-144 is going to give you the 

highest lung dose of any of them, because it's 

a very low MDA on a whole body count, and so 

we will routinely assign that as the only 

radionuclide, because the dose is huge. So I 

don't know the details of how it works. 

 MR. GLECKLER: But the whole body 

counts the TBD has uses cesium as the default 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unless like there is like a positive, you 

know, for a misdose calculation or there's a 

negative where there's -- all the results are 

below the MDA, but if there's a positive for a 

specific nuclide, we'll use that specific 

result in that nuclide that's been identified, 

but for the misdose calc we'll assume that all 

-- 

 We'll use the MDA or half of the 

MDA for cesium, calculate a misdose for that, 

and then use or calculate intake rate for that 

and use that intake rate with some ratios to 

calculate the other nuclides, which do include 

cerium. 

 DR. MAURO: You're -- right now 

around the table we're inventing a solution, 

and I think you're fine. That's great, but 

right now that report doesn't say all this. 

I've got a couple of solutions that I was 

thinking about. I mean, I know I'm not 

supposed to -- 

 MR. DARNELL: But what we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

describing is how the dose reconstruction 

process works. 

 DR. MAURO: But it's in the report. 

 MS. JENKINS: But the reports aren't 

necessarily meant to describe the minutia of 

how dose reconstructors do their work. They 

give technical information on the site. We 

have other documents and procedures and 

protocols that tell us how to do a dose 

reconstruction. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So the response to 

these comments, actually, is to codify that by 

having a written NIOSH response as to how 

these specific items are addressed when you 

address them and where they are addressed. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Right, and especially 

since there is an example that they've given, 

a real detailed example, to make it easier for 

us to give a response. 

 DR. MAURO: Two cautions. The 

sources of data that you didn't take advantage 

of in your report -- and Hans pointed this out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- is you've got data characterizing the 

radionuclide isotopic mix in here I think as a 

result of Superfund kind of work. 

 You relied heavily on the 

atmospheric releases and dispersion modeling. 

 You've got some real measurements in here 

that could help tell you what the mix of 

radionuclides is. Now, those would be the 

long-lived radionuclides. 

 MEMBER MUNN: John? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Our transcriptionist 

says he can hear you well, but your soft voice 

is not carrying very well to the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm 

saying that -- I was thinking about two things 

that came to mind when you were describing 

your strategy for dealing with this. Two 

things came to mind. One, there are already 

nuclide concentrations in the soil that I 

think have been characterized, not unlike 

Nevada Test Site, where they have that kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information where now they're starting to use 

that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: There might be some 

value there. Also, I am concerned about a 

point that Hans made is that, if you are 

taking annual bioassay samples where you've 

got gross beta/gamma, and some of these 

emissions, the mixes, these radionuclides 

mixes, there are some very short-lived 

radionuclides that could be large quantities 

that you missed, and they're not there. 

 Now, that could have occurred as a 

result of the episodic release and then, okay, 

let's say a year later you go pull a urine 

sample. What happens to all of those shortlived radionuclides that may have gone away in 

the interim that could possibly -- I'm not 

saying that it is. Don't get me wrong, but 

I'm saying that there's -- you know, you've 

got to put these issues to bed. 

 Demonstrate that the approach 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you're using, where are the vulnerabilities, 

where, if we did that, we could be wrong, and 

I think that one of the places is if you're 

basing it on a gross beta/gamma that's 

collected once a year, is it possible that 

there were some lists of radionuclides that 

that person could have been exposed to 

outdoors, now, still outdoors, that were 

missing? 

 Short-lived iodines. Iodine-132, I 

think, was screened out. Now, I think iodine132 has a relatively short half-life. You're 

going to miss it in any kind of bioassay or a 

thyroid scan a year later. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But how significant is 

it going to be in this particular case? 

 DR. MAURO: I'm not saying you can't 

put this to bed. All I'm saying is if I -- 

seriously, if I was doing this, I always look 

for how can I be wrong. You know, what is it 

that could trick me here where I'm going to 

miss something important? And I think that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there are a lot of these little -- this is a 

tough one. There are a lot of places where if 

you're not careful you could fool yourself in 

thinking you've got it when you don't. 

 MR. GLECKLER: See, one of the 

things that we take credit for with doing the 

INL dose reconstruction is there is a strong 

indication that they used a lot of workplace 

indicators for their bioassay program. So if 

there was like a camel arm or someone got 

contaminated or something, it's like that's 

where you suddenly see bioassay procedures, 

and they'll usually check that it was a 

special bioassay. 

 So they're using other indicators, 

and the thing that we're relying heavily on is 

that the people most likely exposed or that 

receive the highest exposures were the most 

likely monitored, and so, thus, it's like any 

of the other people at the facility that were 

farther away or weren't directly involved with 

an occurrence, it's like, you know, they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

typically didn't get bioassayed, especially 

when these bioassay results quite often come 

back negative, which -- 

 MR. DARNELL: You have to remember 

that for a lot of those co-located workers 

within the facility, we use a coworker dose 

approach to where the same types of doses that 

the monitored workforce are getting are being 

used to determine the doses for a coworker 

that may not have the same -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Pete, your voice is as 

soft as his is, and when you turn your back to 

me, I can't hear what you're saying. 

 MR. DARNELL: I have a hearing 

problem, too, so I don't know how loud to 

talk. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, no, I don't 

believe I have a hearing problem. I think 

it's acoustics. 

 DR. MAURO: I agree. I mean, there 

are ways of making this a tractable problem. 

It's not in your report. It's not -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: By report you're 

talking about the technical -- 

 DR. MAURO: -- in your site profile. 

 In other words, what you're doing is there is 

some very troublesome complexities about this 

site that, you know, need some, I guess, need 

some very careful consideration on how can I 

be fooled? You know, how can I miss it? 

 MR. DARNELL: Sure. 

 DR. MAURO: You're bringing up some 

good points. There are other ways you can get 

a hook that allows a dose reconstructor, you 

know, if he has the wherewithal, to sort of 

navigate his way across all these challenges, 

but none of that is explored or discussed. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Do you want me to 

give like a quick overview of how most INL 

dose reconstructions get worked? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Please do. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That might help. For 

the external dose, it's usually pretty simple. 

 It's like basically when they go inside the -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- 

 MR. DARNELL: Why don't we just 

limit to the environmental until -- 

 DR. MAURO: We're on environmental 

right now. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: In other words, we're 

trying to find, listen to a strategy, and 

Hans, you're more familiar with this than I 

am. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Well, when we're 

crossing into like bioassay and that, it's 

like it's kind of opening up the door to -- 

 DR. MAURO: Your answer to my -- 

see, I didn't think you were using the 

bioassay for outdoor workers. I thought the 

indoor workers got it, but if the outdoor 

workers were bioassayed as well as, you know -

- 

 MR. DARNELL: We have bioassay 

records for both sets of workers, but not 

everybody on the outside has bioassay records, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

so their would be a coworker sharing of that 

dose. 

 MR. OSTROW: I have a little bit of 

a philosophical problem with that in a couple 

of places. It's this matter of trust we 

talked about before. It's like, you know, the 

document is sort of saying and INL was saying 

that, if they didn't think that somebody was 

going to be routinely exposed, then they 

weren't monitored, but then you don't know if 

they -- but we don't really have a way of 

showing that they actually weren't exposed. 

You know, it's assuming ahead of time that 

they weren't exposing him. 

 MR. DARNELL: We can't prove a 

negative. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, the Tiger TCS 

we've seen -- the Tiger Team said there's a 

problem here, and so what I'm getting at is -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, but the Tiger 

Team, especially for this particular issue 

with the environmental, was basing their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comments off of requirements and Code of 

Federal Regulation that had nothing to do with 

what we're using this data for, had nothing to 

do with actually what the site was collecting 

data for. They were looking at ambient air 

standards for different chemicals, different 

types of equipment, and that part of this 

comment has no technical basis. 

 DR. MAURO: I disagree. The Tiger 

Team said the stack monitor is -- I know 

you're familiar with what isokinetic sampling 

is. They're saying you weren't doing 

isokinetic sampling. Therefore, these curies 

per year numbers you can't trust. I mean, 

it's such a layered problem. 

 Now, you have to somehow 

demonstrate that, notwithstanding the 

limitations there were and the criticism of 

the isokinetic samples from the Tiger Team 

report, you're still going to be okay. Right 

now, I'm not convinced of that. 

 I mean, you know, the Tiger Team 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

says no, you didn't really -- how wrong could 

you be? Maybe not too wrong. In other words, 

the clean air standards, 40 CFR 196 -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Fifty, fifty-eight. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Require very, 

very prescriptive requirements on how you pull 

your air samples, isokinetic sampling, the 

test, and you're right. The auditors on those 

rarely take out their magnifying glass. Did 

you do it or not? But the question becomes -- 

it's an issue that was raised by Tiger Team, 

and I would argue you have an obligation to 

say, notwithstanding that, we still think we 

could place a -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Show us where in 

isokinetic sampling they weren't meeting the 

needs for what we're doing with the data, not 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: You've got to show that. 

 MR. DARNELL: You're casting an 

aspersion saying we didn't do uncertainties on 

equipment, which could mean fence line 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

equipment. It could mean the local equipment. 

 It could be the cans. You know, there's a 

lot to looking at 40 CFR Part 50 if you start 

looking at individual pieces of equipment, 

which is something that you can't do and we 

don't need to do for how we're using the data 

that was collected. 

 DR. MAURO: I would argue that when 

the Tiger Team comes in, they say, listen, 

we've got a problem with your isokinetic 

sampling. We think that you're not doing it 

the way you're supposed to it. Therefore -- 

and the reason they raise the question, it 

means that there is some question about how 

much trust we could put into your source 

terms, okay. 

 Now, my argument is this. Okay, I 

believe you that notwithstanding that 

criticism -- and they're very specific about 

what it is. There's some very, very fine 

structure here. You could argue that 

notwithstanding that, we still think we could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

place a plausible upper bound on the curies 

per year, notwithstanding that certain -- that 

criticism, because -- 

 MR. DARNELL: You have to remember 

we're balancing the stack emissions against 

what was actually measured out in the field 

with the field equipment. 

 DR. MAURO: Far away. Far away, and 

by the time it -- all the short-lived 

radionuclides have decayed away, deposited 

out, and what you see offsite at the site 

boundary and what's going on right over there, 

two different things. 

 MR. DARNELL: And, like I said, we 

cover right over there a different way. 

 DR. MAURO: No, you don't. 

 MR. GLECKLER: They didn't have any 

onsite environmental monitoring? 

 DR. MAURO: You didn't use it. The 

only monitoring that I saw was -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: They say that 

correlated to monitoring results in the TBD, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but they don't really identify where those 

monitors were. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I get -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I think on this 

particular issue we both need to be a bit more 

specific. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean, our report 

is very specific. I'm being general right now 

because there's so much stuff there, but the 

whole intent of all of this monitoring was to 

make sure there wasn't lots of curies leaving 

the site and exposing Atomic City, and there 

were a couple of other cities outside the site 

boundary, and that was the mission. 

And then the whole RAC thing was what kind of 

burden, the collective burden that was placed 

on the general public outside the site 

boundary. 

 When you read that stuff, there was 

no intention ever to say, wait a minute. 

Let's try to figure out what kind of doses the 

workers might have gotten that were working in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here, and I think that that marriage has to be 

-- you have to build a bridge between the two. 

 That bridge was not built. 

 DR. BEHLING: John, can I jump in 

here for a second? 

 MR. OSTROW: Go ahead, Hans. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I think it's 

probably a good time to also mention something 

else. In the TBD offsite profile for INL, the 

reference is made to the historical dose 

evaluation report and, of course, the John 

Till RAC report. 

 What is blatantly missing is an 

investigation of source terms that was done by 

S. Cohen & Associates, and I happen to be the 

principal author of a dose assessment, or, 

actually, not dose assessment but source term 

 reassessment for the ANP program. 

 And we were asked by the CDC to 

look into this, and this was part of a review 

that the CDC was doing both for the ANP 

program and the CPT program, and we provided a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

very comprehensive reevaluation of the -- in 

my report, I provided a very comprehensive 

review of the ANP program. 

 That report was issued in July of 

2003. It was presented to the Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

Health Effect Subcommittee at two locations in 

two times, one of which was at the -- this was 

in July. The other one was in August. 

 In that report, which I evaluated, 

three IETs, which were the dominant initial 

engine tests -- it was engine test 3, 4, and 

10, and I presented that information, and 

there were people there including Mr. Wentzel. 

 Let's see. The other one, Henry Peterson, 

who happens to be also the principal or site 

expert for the environmental TBD here for INL. 

 They were all part of that 

discussion, and they presented their side. I 

presented mine, and I think it was universally 

accepted that they had missed a lot of 

exposures and releases as a result of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

underestimating releases for IET 3, 4, and 10, 

which were the dominant ones, and I'll just 

give you the summation of it. 

 For IET 3, our initial engine test 

Number 3, the total radionuclide releases that 

were estimated by the historical dose 

evaluation report were underestimated by a 

factor of three. For IET 4, the noble gases 

that were released were estimated by a factor 

of 16, and solids were up to a factor of two. 

 For IET 10, the total radionuclide releases 

were underestimated by a factor of about 

seven. 

 So notwithstanding the issues that 

we're discussing here about radionuclides 

mixtures that travel offsite, a big concern is 

also one of were the source terms correct, and 

in my review of the ANP program, the three 

major IETs that I looked at were considerably 

underestimated. And I think it needs to be 

looked at, and, of course, the TBD is totally 

silent on that particular report that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

under contract to the CDC, and I think it 

would be nice to at least acknowledge what the 

content of that report is showing. 

 DR. MAURO: And Hans, I'd like to 

answer one thing. However, that very same 

investigation we found that the releases, 

episodic and chronic, from the chem plant, 

ICPP, were good. In other words, we came down 

saying that those were numbers you could hang 

your hat on, but the -- 

 And, by the way, these two 

locations, these two were picked for 

investigation by CDC, the radiation studies 

branch -- I don't know if you know those folks 

-- because this was where the big releases 

occurred. In other words, from the point of 

view of the impact on the general public, if 

we got those wrong, we missed the boat on the 

doses to the general public, and so we were 

asked almost like a third tier. 

 First, DOE did it. Then RAC did 

it, and then we were brought in to say, wait a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

minute. Let's take a closer look at these 

two, the ICPP emissions, in fact, over a 

particular time period, because that's when 

they were doing the Green -- no, it was the 

RaLa runs, the RaLa runs, and the Aircraft 

Nuclear Propulsion Program, where they were 

literally melting down the fuel. 

 MR. DARNELL: What's the point? 

 DR. MAURO: So those source terms 

are fine for ICPP, which is a positive 

outcome, which means we think that source term 

is probably pretty good, but the ones for the 

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, which are 

the second largest releases from the facility, 

are probably underestimated several-fold, and, 

by the way, Wentzel and Peterson sat in on 

those meetings, and after a lot of haggling 

they go, you may be right. So from the source 

term point of view, you know, I think that has 

to be looked at, because they were the big 

contributors. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Now, does your report 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say that -- and, I'm sorry, I haven't read it, 

but does it say that they are underestimated, 

and here's the calculations that show why? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, because I don't 

want to really get into, they may be. Go 

look. 

 DR. MAURO: No, no. We're saying 

they are. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. That's going to 

take too much time. 

 DR. MAURO: I think we concluded 

that, of course, standing behind that 

statement in the brief summary that's in the 

report that we gave out. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, so we can look 

at the actual specifics and see if we -- 

 DR. MAURO: The numbers. 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's perfect. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, it's actually 

two places to look. For the INL review that 

we did, it's on page 56 of our review. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our Issue Number 2 that we have down here. 

 That's what we just referenced, 

Hans's report that he was just talking about, 

so the INL report just has a short reference 

to that. The original calculations that 

you're asking for are in the 2003 report that 

we did that's referenced. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. I just want to 

make sure we have something specific to look 

at. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and I think I 

would recommend that the people from NIOSH and 

their contractors may want to talk to, not 

only Henry Peterson and Doug Wentzel but also 

Richard Dixon. I assume he's still with INL. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So it appears from 

what we've heard that the actual calculations 

that are currently taking place may be done 

properly and accurately but that there is 

nothing in the TBD that would cause a close 

observer to feel any comfort that it was being 

done correctly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The answers to some of the issues 

may simply be a discussion from NIOSH -- a 

description from NIOSH as to how these issues 

are addressed when you encounter them during 

dose reconstruction. In other cases, if -- 

 I've just pulled up the references, 

and since Hans says there is no reference to 

the work that they had done earlier with 

respect to these emissions, it might be wise 

for NIOSH in its response to take that earlier 

work into consideration and include it in the 

reference material that they're producing for 

the next go-round. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

quick question on this very issue with the 

exposures. You have a laborer that, by all 

accounts, probably isn't badged. He's 

probably not under bioassay, because he's 

never expected to go inside any of these 

buildings, but he's over on the chem plant 

mowing weeds on a tractor one day. 

 Then, maybe a few days later, he's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

farther out near the perimeter fence doing a 

similar thing. How are you going to address 

that issue of what he may or may not have been 

exposed to? 

 MR. GLECKLER: I can explain that. 

Like with the INL, which is a little bit 

different than a lot of facilities, these 

other operating facilities onsite, it's like 

they basically had a perimeter fence line for, 

I think, security reasons mostly, but they 

have typically a central badging area. 

 In order to get inside that fence 

line, you had to have your dosimeter badge, 

and that is like -- and that's why you'll see, 

like, people have multiple dosimeter badges, 

especially like maintenance workers that go 

from area to area, and each time they go into 

that area, they'll get their dosimeter badge 

upon entry. 

 So, basically, if they're 

unmonitored, they were not inside the 

radiological areas onsite, but anyone that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in there, any sort of maintenance or like a 

yard worker, you know, mowing or even bus 

drivers, when some of the bus drivers went in, 

it was like they would have a dosimeter on 

that occasion. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Was that true 

for the majority of the employees anywhere on 

the facility? 

 MR. GLECKLER: As I understand it, 

that's the case for the entire site. They're 

basically like islands that have control 

points where the radiological area was 

controlled at a central point to where they 

took -- their badges were centrally located. 

In order to get into that area, they had to 

have a dosimeter badge assigned to them if 

they didn't already have one. 

 MEMBER BEACH: That's just to go 

into the facilities, though. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's to get in the 

fence line. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was over 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there about two months ago, and the badges 

were on the inside of the guard shack, but I 

think he's talking about outside, working just 

directly out at the fence line, aren't you, 

Phil? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I'm 

talking about like, you know, you gave the 

illustration here. This guy's mowing, say, 

here, and then maybe a few days later he's 

mowing down along here, along this outer fence 

line, and the fact that realistically they're 

not going to expect this person to get, say, 

more than 100 millirem external exposure a 

year, so they don't badge him. He probably 

is, since he's not badged, probably isn't on 

the bioassay program or whole body count. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, he's got a 

badge to get into the gate -- 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: He's got a 

badge to get into this gate. 

 MEMBER BEACH: -- and work around 

all the facilities. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: Like to give a 

specific example for a specific facility, 

you've got the ICPP, and it's like it'll have 

a fence line around it for those facilities, 

and there's a number of buildings other than 

just the ICPP associated with that facility to 

where, in order for them to get inside the 

radiologically controlled area, which is 

including those ancillary buildings and 

everything, they have to go through a central 

checkpoint, from what I understand, and get a 

badge. 

 I've never actually been out there 

to see that first-hand, but that's my 

understanding, and so, upon entering that 

fence line or to get into those other 

buildings and like to mow the grass around 

them, it's like they would have a dosimeter 

badge assigned to them, but if they were 

mowing the grass outside that facility 

boundary, no, they would not have a dosimeter 

assigned to them. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That's 

what I'm getting at is they're not actually 

going in there. Maybe they're the ones who 

basically, you know, mows along major roads in 

the facility or along the perimeter fences, 

keeps things down on the site or even these 

different locations within the site, and, like 

I said, I mean, realistically they probably 

aren't going to get, you know, more than 

probably 150 millirem external exposure. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's where the 

perimeter dosimeter data would be claimantfavorable for those individuals that were 

outside those fences, because that's the 

closest point that they could get to the 

facility without having their own dosimeters. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And those people would 

almost by definition be included in the 

mesoscale exposures, which are pretty well 

thinned out. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm not concerned about 

outside that fence line, the big fence line. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I'm concerned inside and how they -- by the 

way, this is not unlike NTS. Nevada Test Site 

has a very similar problem. 

 It's broken up into area, Areas 12, 

13, 14, 15, and there is some question about -

- and there are people that work out in the 

flats, which is the opened areas, as opposed 

to people that went into controlled areas 

where they had a fence inside the fence, and 

there was access controls and egress controls. 

 

 The question became, and this was 

only resolved recently -- the solution is 

we're going to find the worst location onsite 

where people could have been working. We 

don't know who was there, when they were 

there, and how long they were there, but the 

worst thing you could assume is that these 

people worked 2,000 hours per year over here, 

and they assigned that dose. 

 Now, it turns out it's not that big 

of a dose, so they have the luxury to do that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and since they don't know any better, we don't 

know whether there was a person, who was there 

and when they were there and how long they 

were there without making some heroic efforts, 

and even then there's some uncertainty. 

 So they're taking the approach that 

we're just going to assign the highest 

plausible dose that a person might have 

experienced working in the flats, where, you 

know, they were not under the direct health 

physics control as they would be when they 

entered the restricted areas, okay, the fence 

inside the fence. 

 So that strategy is what was found 

acceptable during the NTS work group. Whether 

you want to have something similar to that 

here, you know, certainly. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I think that's 

actually what we're -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: There is a bit of a 

difference between those two sites to where 

like NTS, to get on to the main body of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site, you know, which would be equivalent to 

the main body of the INL site, it's like they 

had to go through mercury, and I think that's 

where their central badging or the majority of 

their central badging was. They had to have a 

badge issued to them just to get on the site, 

period. 

 It's like -- but, because of that, 

it's like they don't have any detailed 

information typically where those individuals 

went. Every once in a while, we would get 

more detailed information for that site, but 

it's really hard to figure out exactly -- 

pinpoint where those workers were, whereas the 

way they handle it at INL, you have these 

islands out there with fences around them, and 

it's like -- and central badging points for 

those specific islands to where they've got 

dosimeter codes where almost 100 percent of 

the dosimeters we can tell exactly where that 

worker -- what facility that worker was at 

during that time frame. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What about the 

internal, I mean, because, you know, here 

we've got a problem with -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: Internal is a little 

different. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We know there 

is some of this resuspension going on, because 

we've been told there's telephone poles out 

there that have had the tops cut off, because 

they got contaminated by resuspension. This 

goes on to this day, so that means there is 

airborne resuspension, and if these people 

aren't on a regular bioassay program, how are 

the potential for intakes going to be 

addressed? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Environmental ambient 

is the sum. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what I 

was assuming. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And until we determine 

that that's not claimant-favorable, you know, 

that's part of our whole discussion that we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

having here. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I mean, the one thing 

that the environment TBD does indicate that it 

did correlate it with the environmental 

monitoring reports, which, based on my Hanford 

experience, that included what they call nearfield monitoring at the Hanford site, which is 

the onsite environmental monitoring. So I'm 

assuming they had a similar program, because 

it was all driven by the same DOE order, so 

that could be an incorrect assumption for that 

site. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Maybe Josie can 

help me on this. Not being really familiar, 

having been on the ground and actually seeing 

how this facility is all laid out entirely, 

there are some areas, obviously, that are 

going to be more prone to this resuspension 

issue with the potential of internal intakes 

than other areas. 

 You're talking about this 

monitoring again. Were those areas 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

specifically monitored for this problem, or 

just in general terms, they were looking at 

the external possible exposure and basically 

not looking for the possibility of internal 

exposures? 

 MR. GLECKLER: I have no idea 

exactly what their onsite environmental 

monitoring program entailed. I've never seen 

any information, but just in general, if they 

had an environmental air sampling station 

inside one of those facilities or at the 

perimeter boundary, which they almost 

certainly had to have some just based on my 

familiarity with the DOE orders and what we 

had to do with the Hanford site, to where that 

would -- those air sampling stations would 

account for what's being resuspended. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So on that 

basis, they could use that to give a bounding 

dose? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, or validate the 

models that they used, and that's kind of what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the TBD indicates how they validated, you 

know, the use of those models and the 

atmospheric, you know, basically the gaseous 

effluent emissions, which all go out in the 

stacks, typically, is all they used, and it's 

like for those models, but then the TBD 

indicates that it's been correlated to the 

data in those environmental monitoring 

reports. 

 I assume -- I am purely assuming 

that those environmental monitoring reports 

contain similar things as what the Hanford 

did, Hanford site has, and that's a bunch of 

near-field or onsite environmental monitoring 

samples or air sampling stations, so we could 

pick up stuff like that. 

 MR. DARNELL: We'd have to go back 

to the source and have a look at it. This is 

part of the reason. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, so this 

is -- I think we need to look at a little more 

is the environmental monitoring, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exactly how it was done, just because of this 

issue of resuspension. 

 Particular -- you know, I don't 

have a problem with, you know, them having 

instrumentations around saying, well, external 

dose we can pretty well figure there was this 

much at this point, in this area, you know, 

but the internal dose potential would have to 

be based upon that monitoring. 

 MR. DARNELL: This particular topic 

that you're discussing is part of why I get 

heartburn relying so much on the Tiger Team 

report, because the original data that we used 

to develop what's in the TBD looked at the 

releases only to the monitoring station, to 

the data that was there that we have 

available. 

 So going back and saying, well, 

the instrumentation was wrong, doesn't really 

matter, because you've got instrumentation at 

the boundaries. You've got instrumentation 

near-field, far field, whatever you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

call it, that you correlate the data to. If 

you weren't doing isokinetic monitoring inside 

the stack, it doesn't really matter. 

 DR. MAURO: So you're protected. 

You're saying the environmental measurements 

are there as a backup to supplement your 

source terms. 

 MR. DARNELL: Sure. 

 DR. MAURO: I remember the emphasis 

was placed on air sampling and film badges, 

but I think you might have had them over here, 

too. In other words, the idea being -- I 

think the philosophy was we want to make sure 

what's leaving the perimeter of each of these 

areas -- this might be one, two, or ten. I'm 

not sure which, and also we're very interested 

in what's going on over here. 

 So the question becomes, okay, 

let's say we've got film badges, TLDs, at 

these locations, and let's say we have air 

sampling stations that are pulling particular 

air samples. Let's say that's there. Right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

now, I think that might -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I believe the Tiger 

Team report talked specifically about those 

air sampling stations, because it casts 

aspersions on the type of equipment that was 

used in the field versus talking about flow 

rate, even tent sizes. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, it talked about 

high volume versus low volume air, and, now, 

I'm not -- I don't know if they're doing 

those. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: But now I say to myself, 

okay, let's say under the best circumstances 

you've got, I'm not sure, but I think -- these 

are the ones that I know about. These I don't 

really care about so much. This is 20 miles 

away. This might be -- I don't know what kind 

of businesses they're talking about. Here's a 

stack or some ground-level source. 

 MR. GLECKLER: And those may not 

have been limited to the facility boundaries, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

either. It's like with the Hanford site, I 

know they had them inside and right at the 

perimeter around the site, so they -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, and this might -- 

this might be a couple of miles. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I don't know if they 

did the same thing there. 

 DR. MAURO: This could be a couple 

of miles. Now, 100 meters away, and you 

wouldn't do it. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think what we need 

to do is go back and take a detailed look at 

the data we did use to develop it, and I think 

that's actually the only way we can move 

forward with these three items is we have to 

be a little bit more sure of how we use what 

data we have, and then we can come back and 

talk about the issue some more, probably 

between this, between now and the next Board 

meeting. 

 I don't see us getting any further 

with these issues, because we need to have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

little bit more data about our -- more 

knowledge about our own data that was used, 

and please recognize I'm not trying to pass 

anything off. Both Jodi and Brian are the 

second people, second or third generation 

people that have been working on INL, so this 

was done prior to them. That's why we don't 

have it all at our fingertips. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Neither of us has 

been involved with the site profile until just 

recently. 

 DR. MAURO: One of the recurring 

themes doing this now for five years is, and 

this goes across the board, is it seems that 

you grab the data you have, okay, and you say, 

"Okay, how do we use the data we have to 

reconstruct doses?" and you do the best you 

can with what you've got, as opposed to 

saying, "How is the right way to do this, and 

what data do we really need to do this right?" 

and there we would -- 

 In other words, I would come at it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as vulnerability. In other words, I think 

that given that the whole design was intended 

to protect offsite environment and the data 

you have is oriented that way, I would ask 

myself the question, "Where in that -- where 

does that create vulnerabilities, and how are 

we going to deal with it?" 

 MR. DARNELL: This monitoring has 

nothing to do with protection. It's a 

monitoring problem. It's not protection 

 DR. MAURO: No, no, when I say 

protection, we want to know what kind of -- 

what kind of exposures the general public got 

offsite, and that's the overarching story. 

It's really for the -- 

 You know, outdoor environmental 

exposures, I did not get the sense that the 

design was primarily there to see what kind of 

exposures workers who were working onsite 

outdoors next to these facilities, what 

exposures they would have, no. 

 The data that was collected was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there mainly to be able to write an 

environmental report to satisfy EPA that we 

understood what the emissions were and what 

the impacts were to people offsite, and I 

think that somehow a bridge has to be brought. 

 If you're going to use that data, 

you have to show why that very same data, 

together with anything else you might have -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I think that where 

we're at now, we probably should table any 

more discussion on these three issues and find 

out what our data was, how we used it, and 

then we'll get back together and have a 

conversation in between the meetings. 

Otherwise -- 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Would people 

like to take a break now or go to lunch? What 

time? I didn't realize it was this late. 

 MR. DARNELL: Sounds like lunch to 

me. 

 MEMBER BEACH: It's too early for 

lunch. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Too early for 

lunch? 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think it's too 

early for lunch. 

 DR. BEHLING: Phil, this is Hans. 

Can I just quickly ask questions? Have we 

touched on anything that relates to fence line 

external dosimetry and how it impacts the 

assessment of external exposure to workers? 

This was actually comment Number 3 or finding 

Number 7 on the first page. Have we discussed 

that at all or at least in a level where we 

understand what some of the concerns are? 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, I'll answer that. 

 No, we haven't. I think it's important that 

you bring it up before we close this aspect of 

our discussion. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I would like to, 

because I think there are certain aspects to 

that that have not been even introduced in our 

review comments, but I did address them in my 

comments section for the ANL-W. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: Didn't I kind of 

touch on that? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I thought you 

addressed that completely. 

 DR. MAURO: The film badges? 

 MR. CALHOUN: The issue was fence 

line TLD measurements are not adequate for 

reconstructing direct gamma doses to personnel 

working outdoors, and the explanation was that 

everybody working indoors in that fence was 

badged. 

 The TLDs were on the outside of the 

fence, so people working on the outside of the 

fence would get a higher dose that would be a 

claimant-favorable approach. That was -- is 

that what you said? 

 MS. JENKINS: In addition to the 

fact that we applied a correction accounting 

for overtime. We give them -- we account for 

working overtime more hours than the union 

standard and apply current 2.13 also, and that 

is in conjunction with our procedures. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: So that all now needs 

to be said in written response to the comment 

so that it's of record. 

 DR. BEHLING: Can I ask then a very 

stupid question? What is the purpose of Table 

4-13 if we're saying that anyone who was 

onsite wasn't, in fact, monitored? 

 MR. DARNELL: Which document? 

 DR. BEHLING: Therefore, that table 

has no purpose. 

 MR. GLECKLER: No, not anyone 

onsite, anyone in a radiological facility in 

that site. The INL site as a whole has 

basically a bunch of island facilities 

throughout that whole site. 

 All those radiological areas for 

the most part are surrounded by fence lines to 

where they've got like a single badging area 

that they have to go through and get a 

dosimeter badge to get inside that operating 

area. 

 So like the example that I gave 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

earlier where it was like the ICPP, well, 

you've got a bunch of ancillary buildings with 

that facility, but you've got a perimeter 

fence around it and a central badging 

location, so to get inside that fence line 

they have to have a dosimeter badge, and if 

they didn't have a dosimeter badge, that means 

they were outside that fence line. 

 Thus, the perimeter dosimeters for 

that facility are either representative or 

claimant-favorable of any workers' doses that 

worked outside that fence line, depending on 

how close they were to the fence. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I think we need 

to discuss, because I do have some questions 

about that whole Table 4-13, and if we can do 

-- set aside a few minutes after lunch, I 

would appreciate it. 

 MR. DARNELL: Are talking about 

Table 4-13 in INL or ANL? 

 DR. BEHLING: INL. 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: And they are both -- 

those tables are common to both site profiles. 

 DR. MAURO: Do you want to do that 

now or after lunch? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We'll do it 

after we address it, since we haven't had a 

break this morning. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Breaking or lunch? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I guess it's 

majority. If people are hungry, we'll just go 

to lunch. Otherwise, we'll take a 15-minute 

break. 

 MR. CALHOUN: If we're going to take 

a break, are we going to go eat lunch at noon? 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, why don't we just 

work until we're going to go to lunch and call 

it done. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That's 

fine. We're sitting down for 30 minutes. 

 MR. DARNELL: Go to lunch at noon? 

Sounds good. So what don't you understand, 

Hans, about Table 4-13? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, as I get -- I am 

not still sure for whom is the table intended. 

 DR. MAURO: Could you describe the 

table? I don't think we all have it in front 

of us. Could you say the kind of information 

that's in it? I don't have it in front of me. 

 MR. DARNELL: It's the INL Facility 

Fence Direct Gamma Values, TLD minus 

background. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I understand what 

it says, but are there people that -- 

 MR. DARNELL: It's for people that 

don't have -- 

 DR. BEHLING: -- would be exposed to 

radiation onsite who were not badged? And if 

the answer is yes, there were people onsite 

within the site itself but not necessarily 

within a restricted area within that site. If 

they were there, they may have been exposed to 

 external radiation, obviously from internal 

exposure from plume emersion or resuspension 

and/or from external radiation that emanates 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from outside the body. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Table 4-13, the most 

common use for, you know, the type of person 

that's on the INL site proper that doesn't go 

into the facilities that I can think of is 

like a bus driver. 

 Also, those individuals do not go 

into the facilities and thus never were 

badged. On occasion, they'll have one or two 

dosimeters, and they'll even indicate in their 

caddy on some occasions that they had to go 

into the facility on one or two occasions or 

whatever. 

 Other than that, the majority of 

the use of that table is because of the 

inappropriate subtraction of elevated 

background or controlled dosimeter results. 

For the INL site, even monitored individuals 

get assigned these onsite ambient doses, which 

are also representative of the location where 

the control dosimeters were at, which was at 

the control points where the badge racks were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 located. 

 So, in addition to their dosimeter 

results, all INL personnel get these ambient 

doses assigned on top of that, because those 

control dosimeter results have been subtracted 

out of their reported doses already. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Well, that's 

one issue, but I have a couple of other 

issues. One is the assigned doses for 52 

through 72 for which you have no data, and the 

assumption is that they will take -- among the 

six-month values for each of the sites there, 

they will take the higher of the two, multiply 

it times two, and then end up with that 

particular value, and I believe that's what 

we're looking at for that column 52 through 

72. 

 Now, the scientific basis for that 

assumption, that is, we'll take starting from 

1973. We have two measurements for each of 

those locations that were six-month 

measurements. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We'll take the higher of the two 

measurements, multiply it by two to make it up 

for a 12-month exposure period, and then 

assign it. That was the -- that was the 

basis, and I believe that it was justified by 

the following statement, and I will read it 

from Section 4.3. 

 It says, "In general, beta gamma 

radiation from the facility increases with 

time, because the general contamination of the 

area increases. In addition, as the facility 

ages, radioactive sources tend to accumulate 

at the facility, which causes the general 

background to increase with time." 

 That's possibly true but not 

necessarily true, and I say that because I was 

looking at -- in my particular ANL-W write-up, 

I have Exhibit 3.4-8A, which is taken from the 

historical dosing evaluation report of 1991, 

and it shows the annual releases of 

radioactivity prior to 1972, and they peaked 

during the `60, `61, `62 areas. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I mean, they skyrocketed, and most 

of those releases were obviously short-lived, 

so I don't believe that statement and 

justification of assuming that we can take `73 

data, take the higher of the two biannual 

measurements multiply by two, and then assume 

that that applies to all years prior to `72 as 

a legitimate way of saying we have basically 

capped the potential exposure for the 20 years 

for which we have no data. 

 And I'm sure you don't have access 

to that particular exhibit that I have, but I 

have two exhibits, a graph exhibit that shows 

the actual curie levels that were released and 

also the actual -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Hans, I don't mean to 

interrupt, but further discussion about this 

is moot until you give us those exhibits. We 

can't -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, you have them. 

It's in our report. They're all in our ANL-W 

report. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: I'm looking for it. I 

don't see what he's talking about in the ANL-W 

report, the exhibits, and he -- 

 DR. MAURO: Do you have a page 

number? 

 DR. BEHLING: No, they're in the 

historical dose evaluation report of 1991. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, they're -- oh, 

they're in the header report. You didn't list 

them? I thought you listed them and put them 

in your report. I remember seeing them. 

 MR. DARNELL: It's not here, nothing 

I'm finding. 

 DR. MAURO: It doesn't -- okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: In the ANL report. 

 MR. DARNELL: The ANL report. 

 DR. BEHLING: No, it's not in the 

ANL report. I wrote it in my review of the 

ANL-W report, and I included information that 

I had taken from the historical dose 

evaluation report that the DOE wrote in 1991, 

but don't look at the ANL-W report itself. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

You won't find it. 

 DR. MAURO: Your report. Okay, I 

have a simple question. Does your review of 

the ANL-W report contain that graphic? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. BEHLING: My review contains 

those two exhibits. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Do you have the 

page number? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I have it on page 

50. 

 DR. MAURO: Page 50. Okay. Now 

we're getting somewhere. 

 MS. JENKINS: The doses, the 

background doses used in the dose 

reconstruction are also increased by 20 

percent, and, like I said before, it's assumed 

1,400 hours work per year, as opposed to -- 

it's 50 hours per -- it's assuming 50 hours 

per week. 

 MR. GLECKLER: It gets adjusted from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this differently. I think these are 2,000-

hour doses. 

 MS. JENKINS: Right, but then we 

take those doses and adjust them. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We adjust them to 

2,600-hour doses for overestimates and 2,500 

for best estimates. 

 MS. JENKINS: So those are the wrong 

numbers that then get adjusted in a claimantfavorable fashion. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I mean, I'm 

just looking at the figure. I understand 

Hans's point. 

 MR. DARNELL: I understand it now, 

too. 

 DR. MAURO: In other words, yes, let 

me show you. Hans, not everyone has the 

figure, and I'm sort of walking around the 

table showing it. On page 50, the 

measurements, I think your measurements 

started in the seventies. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, `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 

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: `73, so basically what 

you're saying is you've got a TLD sitting on 

the perimeter there in `73, and you're saying, 

"Okay, here's my reading," and that's going to 

give you a pretty good idea of the annual 

exposure, but we know that the releases that 

occurred were much, much higher in `60, so the 

extrapolation -- by multiplying by 1.3 doesn't 

really cover the kinds of differences we're 

talking about. 

 Now, whether or not the TLD 

measurement is driven by the direct gamma from 

the facility versus the airborne emissions, 

that's another question, but this is -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's probably an 

indicator that there might be -- 

 DR. MAURO: There might be a 

problem, yes. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It's worth looking. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Thank you. 

 DR. BEHLING: Are we through with 

that issue? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: We think so. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Next question, 

if you look at Table 4-13, and you look at -- 

and I'm going to -- and there will be two 

things. I want to look at Figure 4-7 and then 

also Table 4-13. 

 DR. MAURO: In which report, Hans? 

 DR. BEHLING: In the INL, our 

report. 

 DR. MAURO: Our report, ANL-West 

report, page number -- 

 DR. BEHLING: No, no, no. INL. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, the INL. Okay. 

 MR. GLECKLER: The environment TBD. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'm getting there. 

 Okay. And you have a page number? 

 DR. BEHLING: Let's see here. 

 MR. KATZ: 38 and 39. 

 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, 39, and there is 

also the figure the page before that, Figure 

4-7, but let's go to Figure 4-13, and I will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

give you an example. Look at TRA. That's in 

the center at the top. 

 You'll see among the sites looked 

at is TRA, and then below that you have TLDs 

used, and you will see for assessing the 

annual exposure based on TLD reads, the TLDs 

1, 7, 12, and 13 were used. That's on Table 

4-13. Does everybody see that? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Then let's go 

to Figure 4-7 and then look at that, and you 

will see at the very bottom the facility TRA, 

and there you see a total of 13 TLDs that were 

available for readouts, and you realize that 

TLD 1, 7, 12, and 13 are among the lowest. 

 For instance, TLD Number 7 for the 

year -- no, TLD Number 5 for the year -- for 

the first half of `75 read 2,434 millirems, so 

that multiplied times two, you would be 

talking about 5,000 millirem. 

 I guess the question is why were 

these TLDs selected for Table 4-13 when you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had potentially all these other TLDs that 

would have given you a much higher dose? 

What's the basis? 

 MR. GLECKLER: My guess is that they 

were not perimeter TLDs. They were probably 

in closer to the facility somewhere. 

 DR. BEHLING: Would somebody have 

been exposed to those levels that was not 

necessarily monitored? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Only monitored 

workers would have been in that area, so they 

would have had their own dosimeter results. 

 DR. BEHLING: Those are hefty dose 

rates there for many of these TLDs that 

involve the TRA facility, and I guess not 

having a very, very definitive understanding 

as to where they were located, the question is 

were there people who could have been exposed 

to such high dose rates who were possibly not 

monitored but whose exposure will now be 

assigned on the basis of Table 4-13? 

 MR. GLECKLER: You know, without 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

looking at the source document to see what 

locations those dosimeter numbers were 

associated with, it's really hard to tell for 

sure, but I'd be willing to bet money that 

those are inside the perimeter fence line for 

that facility or that area, and all the 

individuals in that area would have been 

monitored. 

 So it's hard to say why they were 

monitoring that location. I'm not -- I mean, 

it's probably a combination of what you would 

call like an area dosimeter versus an 

environmental dosimeter, but it's kind of 

strange that it shows up in this sort of a 

report. We'd have to look at the source 

document to verify that. 

 MR. DARNELL: Check the source 

document for what specific -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: You can get back on 

that one. 

 MR. GLECKLER: For Figure 4-7. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Let's keep rolling 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here. 

 MR. GLECKLER: The locations for the 

TRA, Test Reactor Area. 

 MR. DARNELL: Well, right now I 

don't know. Are you done, Hans? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I mean, that was 

-- I had three questions. You answered the 

first one regarding the high background that 

was subtracted, and, of course, I had the 

other two that related to pre-1972 

extrapolation from a single year backwards in 

time, and, as I said, I looked at the actual 

releases in the fifties, sixties, and I sort 

of came to the conclusion that maybe that's 

not the good way to do it. 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay. So, to recap 

then, just for these first three issues, I 

have three things written down. We need to 

look at the -- capture the data for the 

environmental exposures that we calculated at 

SC&A, and NIOSH will discuss that before the 

next Board meeting. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Review environmental ambient versus 

Exhibit 3.4-8A and see how that affects the 

doses that we're using, and we're looking, 

checking the source document for Figure 4-7. 

Those are the three things that we need to get 

done for these three issues. 

 DR. BEHLING: Also perhaps look at 

our ANP report that we did on the contract 

with the CDC for the changes and perhaps 

source term for the aircraft nuclear 

propulsion test. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Is that brought up 

specifically in the matrix as an issue so we 

know how to target that? 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, it was -- I 

think it was both in the -- 

 MR. OSTROW: It's Issue Number 2. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- writeup for INL as 

well as for ANL-W. 

 MR. DARNELL: Could you say that 

again so I could write it down? Hans, restate 

that so I could write it down, please. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, the report in 

question, I'll give you the title, and the 

title of the report is "A Critical Review of 

Source Terms" -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- "For Select Initial 

Engine Tests Associated with the Aircraft 

Nuclear Propulsion Program at INL." 

 DR. MAURO: Is that on the CDC 

website? They published that. 

 DR. BEHLING: It's possible that 

it's on the website, but I'll give you the 

date. We submitted it on July -- in July of 

2003. 

 DR. MAURO: How about we just send 

them a copy? 

 DR. BEHLING: I can do that. 

 MR. DARNELL: That would be better. 

 MS. JENKINS: Action item. 

 DR. MAURO: We have an action item. 

 MR. CALHOUN: A CD would be better 

than a hard copy. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: CDs, you got it. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I have a question. 

You keep saying you're going to report this 

before the next Board meeting. Is this 

actually going to be in a white paper, or is 

it going to be in a memo? Will it just come to 

the work group? 

 MR. DARNELL: What we'll do is have 

a discussion between the technical folks so 

that we have something to report either for 

resolution or for a pat forward on this. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So are you suggesting 

a technical call? 

 DR. MAURO: The next meeting is like 

mid-July, right? 

 MR. DARNELL: I'm sorry? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Are you suggesting 

like a technical call, or is that -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I'm just trying to 

figure out what's going on. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, a technical call. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 MR. DARNELL: Phil will know when 

it's going forward. 

 MR. CALHOUN: What's the normal 

mechanism? 

 MR. KATZ: The normal procedure is 

for us to get written responses to the matrix, 

all the matrix issues, so that's, I mean, I 

think that's an easy way. Let's capture it on 

paper, and then when that -- then that'll 

trigger us to have another work group meeting. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Regardless if you 

have a technical call, it still needs to be 

captured on paper. 

 MR. KATZ: The technical calls are -

- you have them -- generally, you have them 

because you need clarification about an issue, 

and it's complex, and it doesn't make sense to 

work it out with the whole working group, and 

then the working group members are invited to 

listen in on the technical call, but that's 

usually why we want to use technical calls. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, and I think this 

issue is complicated enough that -- 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, because I 

remember we did this on Linde work group, 

where we had like one specific thorny issue, 

and we had technical calls on just one issue 

back and forth, you know, not on a bunch of 

issues, but then we wrote it down, you know, 

as a conclusion. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that, as Ted 

pointed out, normally there would be a list or 

action items that come out of this meeting 

where SC&A would have certain things to do, 

and you folks would look into certain things 

to almost try to keep a running account of it, 

and hopefully it keys back to the matrix. 

 Then the next step would be, if you 

have some brief response, if you fill in the 

matrix under the NIOSH column, if it turns out 

it's an analysis, it's a white paper, and 

that's filed. 

 Now, prior to doing that, putting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that paper into the system, if it turns out a 

conference call helps because you're not quite 

sure what our concerns were and what the 

issues are, whatever it is, then we have a 

conference call. So as you work your way 

through -- 

 MR. DARNELL: With some of this, we 

need to know if there is actually a concern 

there or not. I mean, we don't -- we don't 

have off the top of our heads right now enough 

knowledge about the data that was used to 

develop the environmental model, so we can't 

even begin to come to that common ground until 

we come to the common ground on what the data 

was. We'll need to talk with you about it. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, we are in an 

unusual circumstance on this environmental 

work, because you've sort of rested your work 

on the RAC work and the HEDA work, which is 

really not your work. 

 MR. DARNELL: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: You've sort of accepted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it, because it was peer reviewed. It was 

published, and so, yes, and we were -- we 

benefitted from the fact that we were asked to 

-- we spent a lot -- we spent a year studying 

that data. 

 MR. DARNELL: And we're going to 

have to go back and check some of it, check 

what we used it for, how we used it, and then 

come to the common ground before we can move 

ahead with answering these things, answering 

these issues. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Is somebody keeping 

track of the action items? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I think Pete just took 

those three. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Pete took them? 

 DR. MAURO: I have to say that I've 

been in the situation where things are this 

complex on Fernald, and what I ended up doing 

was going back to the transcript and spending 

a lot of time working my way through it and 

writing it up in a way that -- and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

communicating it to everyone. "This is my 

understanding of where things are." That was 

very helpful to me. I know you folks have 

been putting out the transcripts pretty 

quickly, about a month? 

 MR. KATZ: About a month. Well, 

yes, by the time it hits the website, it's 

probably 40 days or so. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: If there are simple 

questions like, "Where do I find a document? 

What document was your basis for this?" then 

there is no reason why that can't be 

communicated by email, any method. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Absolutely. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine, but if 

there is an extended discussion about 

technical issues, once you identify what the 

technical issues really are, once you've 

identified that -- 

 MR. KATZ: Definitely. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- then it's helpful 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for us to -- for anyone who is on the Board 

and wants to be involved in the technical call 

to sit in, but that invitation is usually -- 

 DR. MAURO: Let me say something in 

our defense. Everything we're talking about 

is written up in agonizing detail in our 

detailed review of INL and ANL-West, so the 

first place is that when you see the brief 

summary that's in the matrix, and you may want 

to go back. 

 Let me take a look at the chapter, 

because Hans wrote the very detail, the 

tables, the excerpts, where they came from. I 

think it's all there, but certainly if there 

is any ambiguity or uncertainty or you need 

something, certainly we'll provide you 

whatever you need. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, definitely. I 

find it much easier to work with rather than 

against, so that's why I said once we get some 

more of our own data together, let's talk 

about it a little further and try to answer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, it shouldn't be a 

guessing game like what our comments mean, 

exactly. 

 MR. DARNELL: And I still think, and 

no offense, John, but I think we're rather far 

apart about the applicability of the Tiger 

Team report until we see -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't -- I don't 

-- I agree with what you're saying, but I 

think that, well, it's all -- there are places 

where I would say right now when I read this 

over I said, "You know, we probably should not 

have included this," and I agree with that, 

but there are other places where I felt the 

Tiger Team comments were, in fact, valid, and 

we can talk about that. 

 That's something that's very much 

worth a conference call, because that's not in 

our writeup. Right now we have this whole 

list of all this Tiger Team stuff, some of 

which I would agree with you we probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

should not have put in. 

 MR. OSTROW: But I think to resolve 

that both sides have to go back and actually 

read the Tiger Team reports and see, you know, 

what is actually -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I will admit I didn't 

have a chance to do that, but I'm ex-DOE. I 

worked for them, and I know what the Tiger 

Team reports were all about. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Don't admit that. 

 MR. DARNELL: I have to. I do know 

what the Tiger Team reports were all about, 

and it wasn't always to be helpful to the 

site. So I've got four items then, looking 

for the source document for Figure 4-7 with 

the third one, and then taking a look at 

Hans's report, the critical review of source 

terms and so on, so I think we're okay with 

the first three issues then. 

 MR. OSTROW: I think, you know, just 

echoing what John was saying just a couple of 

minutes ago, keep track of these things. If 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you're keeping track of what you think you 

should be doing with these four issues, I 

would suggest sending an email, you know, when 

you get back or whatever, when this is over, 

"This is my understanding. These are the 

things that we're supposed to do." 

 MR. DARNELL: Actually, I was 

recapping for the benefit of our 

transcriptionist so that it would be in the 

report. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, but that takes -- 

that takes, you know, a month before it hits 

the street, but if you do like an email when 

this is finished, you know, to the group or 

whatever, "This is my understanding." 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay, I'll do that. 

 MR. OSTROW: This way we can look 

and add or subtract things so we have a set of 

items. Otherwise, it's difficult to track. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Ultimately, our 

response is going to be a written response to 

what's in here now. If there's any updates to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that, those will be provided by you guys. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That'll come back. If 

there is an issue after you've responded, then 

you'll get another comment back from SC&A. 

 MR. CALHOUN: So we're not taking on 

additional tasks for the matrix based on 

these. These are in support of responses. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Correct. 

Absolutely. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Absolutely. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, these are there 

for response to the matrix items. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, and it may come 

down, if we look at the data and say, "Oh, 

they're right," you'll get an email that says, 

"We don't need a conference call." We'll get 

an answer. 

 DR. MAURO: And places where you 

think the Tiger Team findings are really not 

applicable, please say so. 

 MR. OSTROW: We may just say, "Yes, 

you're right," you know, too, so that's why 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you reduce the number of items. 

 MR. DARNELL: Right now, as far as 

NIOSH is concerned with these issues, we don't 

have a prepared response for any of them right 

now. We do have some talking points but not a 

prepared response. 

 DR. MAURO: By way of process, in 

the past we didn't hold these meetings until 

NIOSH had a chance to fill in the column 

called "NIOSH Response." I guess that hasn't 

happened, but that's okay. I mean, I think 

this is complicated enough. We needed to talk 

about this stuff. 

 MR. DARNELL: Well, that was kind of 

our point of view, too. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So that's the reason 

nothing's happened for two and a half years on 

this? This is from 2006, the original review. 

 I'm trying to understand. 

 MR. DARNELL: I got an email out of 

the blue a couple of months ago that this was 

going to happen. Otherwise, all I knew was my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

name was assigned to the site, had no idea 

anything had gone on prior to this. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And how long have 

you been assigned to the site? 

 MR. DARNELL: I don't know. When 

did that happen? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, probably 

within probably two years, but if we don't 

know that a working group or something is 

imminent, we're not going to go respond to 

everything, because we've got too many other 

things to do, and, as you know, there are so 

many things going on with us responding to 

Board issues that we've got to pick and choose 

and prioritize when we've got upcoming 

meetings. Then we'll do the -- then we'll 

respond as we need to. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm going to step out on 

a limb a little bit, but we've got about 33 

site profile reviews, only half of which have 

engaged in the site profile process. 

Nevertheless, they're sitting on the shelf. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 If you folks are about to engage in 

an update, a two-year update on one of your 

site profiles -- X-10 would be an example -- 

take a look at it. Read it. 

 MR. DARNELL: Good suggestion. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But, of course, this 

work group has not been active, either, so 

having a work group active often is an 

initializing event. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Pushes things to the 

top of the list. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Such things as this. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And, to tell you the 

truth, Jim, we didn't even actually get the 

most updated matrix that we're talking about 

until Friday before this meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: Not true. 

 MR. DARNELL: Pardon? 

 DR. MAURO: The matrix was part of 

the product. Every -- the two reports we're 

talking about, the original, the revised, and 

the ANL, all had an attachment which had a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

matrix. 

 MR. DARNELL: The most updated one 

you sent me Friday said this -- 

 DR. MAURO: It was there when we 

originally distributed it. It's sitting on 

your shelf. You have a hard copy. In the 

back there's the matrix. 

 MR. DARNELL: I got an email. 

 MR. OSTROW: The original matrix -- 

we just added -- in our December 2008 we added 

to the matrix, but the original one was 

January 2006 on the report. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, that's the one I 

have is January 2006. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay, and the latest 

one, which was the -- we updated it somewhat, 

supplemented, we call it. That came out in 

December of last year, 2008. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, I didn't have 

that until John emailed it to me Friday. 

 MR. KATZ: Just to clarify for my 

understanding, because, you know, I haven't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

been at this that long, but I thought that the 

resolution process with the matrix really 

doesn't begin until you have a working group 

and a -- because the resolution process is a 

Board process of managing resolution and 

identifying issues that can't be resolved, et 

cetera. So not having had an INL working 

group until now, in effect, I mean -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: When did we establish 

it? 

 MR. KATZ: We established it -- we 

established it last year in September, I 

believe. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And requested NIOSH 

to do the review. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So it's been eight 

months. 

 MR. KATZ: So it's been eight 

months, absolutely. 

 MEMBER BEACH: We requested SC&A to 

issue a new -- 

 MR. OSTROW: If I remember, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thought we sent that. 

 MR. KATZ: And we tasked -- 

 MR. OSTROW: We sent that around 

September. You guys reconstituted your -- 

what we -- you created the work group. You 

asked us to do a supplemental review, and then 

we produced in December our supplemental 

review. That's what got the process moving. 

 MR. KATZ: So really the refresher, 

your supplemental refresher or whatever you 

want to call it, is what kicked off then, you 

know, the scheduling of the working group 

meeting. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And now it's lunch 

time. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, I second that 

note. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And I don't know 

what's going to -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Is this room secure 

for us? 

 MR. KATZ: No, we can lock it. If 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

no one's staying in here, we'll lock it. So 

it's noon. Phil, are you ready to close the 

meeting until after lunch? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it's noon, so 

1:00, is that good for you? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's fine. 

 MR. KATZ: 1:00. For everyone on 

the phone, thanks for participating. We'll 

cut the line now and start back up around 

1:00. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:01 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:07 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, everyone 

on the phone. This is the INL working group 

of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, and we are just reconvening after a 

lunch break. I don't think I need to check on 

anyone on the phone. I can tell that there 

are folks there. It's all yours, Phil. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I guess 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we're going to move on to Issue 4. We have 

the four items from this morning that I think 

we've got those settled as to what needs to be 

done, so Issue 4 is about the completeness and 

quality of INL internal dosimetry programs. 

Do you want to take that one first, Pete? 

 MR. KATZ: Do you want SC&A to 

present? 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: SC&A, present the issues. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, this is what we 

were talking about this morning. This has to 

deal with -- this deals with missed internal 

doses for workers and the assumption of 

confidence, you know, that procedures, but 

were they actually followed correctly? 

 This is where we reference the DOE 

Tiger Team reports, and the Defense Nuclear 

Facility Safety Board, DNFSB, also did a 

series of audit reports where they had a 

whole, you know, litany, laundry list of 

criticisms of the actual practices at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site. 

 They said they were going to do one 

thing but didn't really do it, and your 

comment from this morning, I guess, still 

stands that a lot of these comments weren't 

really applicable to what we're doing with 

dose reconstruction. So, I mean, that's not 

the general problem, that's your response, I 

suppose, also. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, I would like to 

add to that. Other than feeling that way 

about the audit reports that you guys are 

referencing, we're more based on taking the 

numbers that the site generated and then 

correcting them to current standards and 

basically using as many claimant-favorable 

ratios in other assessments -- excuse me -- 

other assumptions to bring those numbers up to 

what they should have been. 

 So NIOSH in its approach is 

basically taking steps to -- I can't say 

improve the data, but correct the data I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be a better way of stating it. Again, 

we use -- we take the monitoring results, 

bring it up to current ICRP standards, 

recalculate the doses, apply correction 

factors, use ratios where appropriate, and 

bring the data up. 

 And, again, as we were discussing 

offline between the meeting, it's a set of 

procedures that we use that does that more so 

than what's completed in the technical basis 

document. The technical basis document, 

especially for this stuff, is more of the 

background information. It doesn't tell you 

exactly how the dose reconstruction was done. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, in addition to 

the Tiger Team and the -- I was also looking 

at our actual site profile reviews. As we 

said, what we have in this matrix is just a 

little sound bite that sort of points you to 

the issues, and we have a couple of pages of 

this where we go into a little bit more 

detail. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 In addition to the official 

reports, we also had site interviews, and we 

quoted some of them. We have some attached 

where past and present workers were saying, 

you know, pointed out some of the deficiencies 

of the programs, and we have some particular 

examples that we give in our report. 

 So in addition to just saying that, 

you know, that the Tiger Team and the DNFSB 

didn't pertain exactly to the program and you 

guys improved their measurements or their 

calculations or whatever, we have some 

specific examples here, too. 

 MR. DARNELL: I'm looking at one now 

where it talks about the internal dosimetry 

program was found to be deficient because 

compliance with DOE Order 5480.11 couldn't be 

demonstrated. It's at the bottom of 74, top 

of page 75 of the report, and they're talking 

about -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: I only have 29 pages. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, this is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

original site profile, which is 249 pages. 

 DR. MAURO: You're talking about our 

review of the site profile. 

 MR. DARNELL: The 250-page report. 

 MR. OSTROW: Right, and you're at 

page 74? 

 MR. DARNELL: Bottom of 74, and 

basically what it's saying is that logs 

weren't kept to maintain the information for 

the purpose of the bioassay schedule, bioassay 

-- that one in particular has no effect at all 

on how we use the data, and there are 

examples, I would assume, on both sides where 

it could have an effect or wouldn't have an 

effect. 

 MR. CALHOUN: But we are going to 

look at the individual comments. We're not 

just blowing it off right now and saying that 

it didn't happen. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay. You know, I 

understand what you're saying. I mean, that's 

basically it, you know. We pointed out where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we thought there was some deficiency, and you 

guys say, "Well, this is not a deficiency, 

because we didn't use this, anyway," or -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: We'll give you a 

response. 

 MR. OSTROW: That's the -- 

 MR. DARNELL: We're not using the 

data in the same manner that the site used the 

data. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay. 

 MS. JENKINS: The thing about 

deficiencies in site experts, I mean, our site 

experts wrote the -- the initial documents 

were written by our site experts, and they 

obviously have a different opinion. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, that happens very 

often with these sites, but generally you 

can't dismiss, you know, like half the site 

experts because you use the other half. You 

still have to give them some credence. 

 MR. DARNELL: We're not trying to 

say that there's no credence in what you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

saying here. It's just what we're going to 

have to do is balance out what we used versus 

how those reports could affect us. My own 

personal thought is that that report will have 

very little bearing, but I also recognize we 

need to go ahead and do the research and get 

through that. 

 DR. MAURO: On a -- and I'm going to 

ask Hans this -- Hans, are you on the line? 

Is Hans here? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I just wanted to make 

sure. I want to make an opening statement, 

and then maybe you could elaborate on it. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: My sense is that the 

data for internal dose, the data you're 

hanging your hat on primarily, are bioassay 

urine samples that were collected periodically 

from lots of workers and analyzed primarily 

for gross beta, gross gamma, and from there, 

that's hour hook into, okay, from there we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

could reconstruct doses because we know the 

mix of radionuclides that the worker might 

have been exposed to, and on that basis we can 

figure out what the intake was of some mix of 

radionuclides. And in principle that's a 

reasonable thing to do, but I think during our 

review we had some concerns whereby, you know, 

if you take it once a year and the person is 

exposed to a mix of radionuclides, some of 

which might be short-lived. 

 In other words, that fundamental 

approach has the potential for some 

weaknesses, and that's the level of, I guess, 

granularity that I understood the concerns. 

Now, Hans, do you want to go into some of 

these as -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, let me just 

elaborate, and I think you hit it pretty much 

where I would have started out in my 

discussion, and that is you do have in many 

instances a very limited number of bioassays. 

 I think in the TBD there is some reference to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the fact that multiple bioassays would have 

been given per year for a given individual, 

and support for that comes from the graphs 

that, one of the tables that shows that in one 

year or for a given year there were 11,000 

total urinalyses, 8,000 and change for gross 

beta, 2,000 and change for gross gamma, and 

then there were some radionuclide-specific, 

and then there was also the comment that that 

same year there were 3,500 or so people badged 

with film or TLD dosimeters. I think it was 

film dosimeters for that year. 

 And then on that basis one would 

conclude that dividing 11,000 by 3,500 that 

the average individual would have had three 

bioassays, but I have a suspicion that's a 

number that's somewhat inflated because I 

believe -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I wouldn't agree with 

that at all. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- that many of the 

people may have had both a gross beta and a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

gross gamma. In addition, you would have 

probably had a baseline bioassay for people 

who just entered into employment, which really 

doesn't count. It's just basically we'd say, 

"This is what you came to us with, and we 

don't have any reason to assume that this was 

an exposure received here," and there were 

other factors, you know, termination 

urinalysis maybe. 

 So in total I would say perhaps 

using those numbers that a person may have had 

on average somewhere between one and two 

bioassays in a given year, and that may still 

have some reasonable value for doing dose 

reconstruction, except if we have to deal with 

the fact that they may not indicate exposure 

to radionuclides that either have short halflives or short effective half-lives if you are 

having intervals of bioassays at six months or 

a year. 

 Now the question still in addition 

to that comes from the fact that I'm not sure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to what extent early bioassay data would 

identify the location of exposure because I'm 

looking at table in the INL TBD, Table 5-4 and 

5-5. If you guys can look at that, I will 

point to something that I looked at and sort 

of came to conclude maybe that's going to be a 

problem. Those two tables appear on page 17 

of TBD 5. 

 For those who may have already 

accessed those tables, one of the things that 

concerned me in Table 5-5 is that unlike Table 

5-4, which contains employer and exposure 

location, that is not one of the fields that 

is likely to be had in bioassay data before 

1989. 

 So as John started saying, we may 

have a whole wide range of exposure conditions 

depending on where an individual worked, and 

the radionuclide mix would certainly reflect 

that location of exposure. If, as suggested 

by Table 5-5, that potential bit of 

information may be lacking up to 1989, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be hard pressed to look at that 

potential bioassay and assess it for the kinds 

of radionuclides that that individual might 

have been exposed to. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We can pretty much 

tell where the workers worked at INL 

throughout their history, not because of their 

dosimeter codes, the location codes on their 

dosimeter badges. It's like the only time we 

have any real difficulty is in the very early 

years of operation. It's a different format 

of record, and because we've got black and 

white photocopies of those records, it was 

color-coded to where the different areas were 

represented by different colored cards. 

 And now we can't tell for those 

early years in the fifties, but after like, I 

think, starting like in 1957-58 time frame 

they used location codes, and so we can from 

that point on tell for sure where they worked. 

 There's other ways that we find out for the 

early years where they were at, and they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

didn't move around as much in those years, 

either. 

 DR. BEHLING: So what you're saying 

is that the use of film or TLD data would give 

you that information that may not be there on 

bioassay data sheets. Is that correct? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Correct, as far as 

the location stuff. It's like there's another 

type of record, not just their dosimeter 

results, that tells us that. They have like a 

summary of when they're assigned dosimeters, 

for what periods that they were assigned 

dosimeters for various areas. I forget what 

that record is called, actually. 

 The external TBD might have an 

example of it in there, but it'll tell you 

when they were at a certain facility between 

which and which dates and that they had a 

dosimeter for that facility if they were 

routinely monitored for that facility. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I think that 

that really resolves the major concern that I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had is the ability to place a worker prior to 

`89 in a location where you could make use of 

the bioassay data in the most efficient way, 

and that is understand what nuclide mix he 

might have been exposed to for a given period 

of time. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Unlike a lot of 

sites, we can narrow that down at INL pretty 

easily and pretty consistently for nearly 100 

percent of the claims. 

 MR. DARNELL: The other thing you 

need to remember, Hans, is that your 

assumption that you just take the total number 

of bioassay and divide it by the workers and 

come up with a number per worker really does 

not fit not only INL but none of the DOE 

sites. The radiation workers, in other words 

the ones who were to get the bioassays, are 

always a much smaller subset of the general 

workforce, so you can't assume that 11,000 

people working at INL, that all 11,000 of them 

would have bioassay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The number of people needing 

bioassay and requiring bioassay generally runs 

a third of that total at the DOE sites. I 

don't know what that exact ratio is for INL, 

but, you know, along those lines it's going to 

be a much smaller subset. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I was basically 

using that because it is stated in the TBD 

using those values. I'm trying to find the 

exact location. The implication was that on 

the basis of 3,500 people who were given 

external dosimeters and the total of 11,000 or 

some-odd bioassays, that would provide a 

strong indication that people were assayed 

multiple times in any given year. I'm trying 

to find where that actual statement is. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Also, something to be 

aware of is that the INL, even though they 

didn't bioassay a lot of the individuals on a 

regular basis, it's like the ones that were 

routinely dealing with the radioactive 

materials or routinely had potential for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposure were being monitored, and the ones 

that only had the potential for intermittent 

exposures that may not have received anything 

but an annual bioassay, odds are if they were 

doing any radiological work where that 

potential exposure was is more than likely, 

the routinely monitored folks in that area are 

working directly with them to where when they 

have an event there, they will -- 

 It'll show up on their bioassay 

results, and then they kind of typically -- 

you'll see groups of individuals being 

bioassayed all together, especially if it's 

like a suspected iodine release and that. 

You'll see a whole series of urine samples 

collected in a very short period of time. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and, as I said, I 

accept your explanation, but it is a statement 

I just found, and it's on page 22 of TBD-5, 

and it's in the middle of the page, the second 

paragraph, and I'll read it to you. 

 "The total number of urinalysis in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1959 was 11,066; 3,524 people had radiation 

badges, and 715 received external doses above 

500 millirem," and then it concludes, "These 

numbers demonstrate that workers provided 

urine samples multiple times during the year." 

 That's where I got my statements from. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think that you can 

assume that workers provide multiple samples, 

but you can't assume it's 11,000 divided by 

3,524. 

 DR. BEHLING: No, and this is what -

- this was my comment is that among all those 

are probably baseline assessments, 

termination, and, in some instances, if you 

have a very strong positive response in a 

bioassay, you would probably monitor that 

person multiple times in the days that follow 

all for the same exposure so that these 

numbers in themselves do not provide a 

technical basis for coming to that conclusion. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I've got a 

question. The documentation you researched, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

does it show who was assigned bioassays, say, 

quarterly, semi-annually, annually? Is there 

an actual -- are the records -- 

 MR. DARNELL: There is a program 

document that covers that generally, but you 

just -- the records for each individual just 

has what's there. There's not necessarily a 

correlation between the two. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I don't think I 

remember seeing any records in an individual's 

dosimetry records saying that they were on a 

quarterly frequency or a biannual frequency. 

I don't think we get anything like that other 

than you get the results, and you can tell 

that, okay, they're on a quarterly basis based 

on all the dosimeter or the bioassay results 

that you have, and that's the only way that we 

can usually tell. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Would they have 

a radiation work permit? Was that a standard 

practice for them to do bioassay after they 

finish a job or not? I mean, I don't know if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

INL, that's why I'm asking. 

 MR. DARNELL: I haven't heard of 

that practice for INL. I know that Mound they 

used that practice, and some other sites have. 

 I haven't heard that for INL. I don't know 

if the operations -- most of the general 

operations would require that level of detail 

in monitoring. Now some of the jobs, you 

know, maybe the aircraft ANP test, things like 

that. That probably could have required 

something like that, but I don't know off the 

top of my head. 

 MR. GLECKLER: One thing that you 

might want to be aware of is that the majority 

of the bioassay results at INL are negative 

results or below the MDAs, which implies that 

they are performing bioassay measurements more 

frequently than they need to, aside from 

individuals. 

 They're being fairly -- it's an 

indication of how cautious they are and how 

well they're using workplace indicators to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say, "Okay, yes, these individuals need to be 

bioassayed to make sure that they're not 

getting intakes." 

 If there was a significant number 

of them with positive bioassay results, not as 

a total population, it's like, you know, every 

time that they bioassay someone it tends to be 

a positive result, that would imply the 

opposite, that, A, there's a problem with this 

program. 

 The same is kind of true with, you 

know, the external dosimeter results, and it 

really comes down to where there's -- I don't 

 want to say a handful. It's clear that a 

decent number of individuals that received -- 

you know, where their external dosimeter 

results are always positive and their bioassay 

results are always positive, but they are 

routinely monitored individuals, as well. 

 DR. MAURO: If you get -- let's say 

you're doing a dose reconstruction for a 

worker in 1956 who worked there for several 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

years. He's been, let's say, bioassayed once, 

twice a year, and they all come back less than 

the MDL. 

 It is my understanding that, okay, 

we assume the person was, in fact -- we're 

talking missed dose now, the missed dose 

procedure, your procedure, of course. You 

assume one-half of the MDL. That's what he 

was at. 

 I'm not quite sure which 

radionuclides you would pick. Would you go 

back to where he was working and say, "Okay, 

at this location at this time, this was the 

mix of radionuclides that were likely in the 

environment," or would you pick the worst? 

Because I know in some places you say it's - 

 MR. GLECKLER: The TBD, the internal 

TBD for INL, is actually pretty prescriptive 

on that compared to other sites. Let me get 

the table number. 

 DR. BEHLING: It's 5-24. 

 MR. GLECKLER: There it is. We can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

pass it around. 

 DR. MAURO: And, Hans, is there a 

simple answer to that question I just posed? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. No, it's a onesize-fits-all. It's a generic protocol, 

especially in the early years prior to 1960. 

You'll see if you look at 5-24, Table 5-24, 

you'll see a generic prescription for 

assigning radionuclides and quantity. 

 MS. JENKINS: Would you do that, 

Brian, or would you -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: They eventually break 

it out a little bit more. It's like it starts 

out -- the early years, it's one-size-fits 

all. Then you had like -- even for the early 

years they have special stuff for the test 

reactor areas because of the certain nuclides 

that were present, but then they start to 

break it out as the years progress, because 

they become, I'm assuming, a little bit 

different as time goes on. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, so you drop a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

worker in that box, and you're feeling pretty 

confident that those default assumptions will, 

in fact, place a plausible upper bound 

depending on the organ, I guess, or do you 

just assign no matter what organ it is? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Well, ideally the 

first step we would take if all those bioassay 

results are negative on that route, we'd skip 

the missed dose approach and use a more 

claimant -- an overestimating approach, which 

is typically -- 

 DR. MAURO: The coworker model? 

 MR. GLECKLER: No, we'd use the 

OTIB-18 approach. 

 DR. MAURO: OTIB-18? 

 MR. GLECKLER: That is the -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Limiting air 

concentration. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Limiting air 

concentration. 

 MR. CALHOUN: So whatever limiting 

air concentration was -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: But that's more -- only 

for denial. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Not like ten percent 

back. 

 DR. MAURO: That's only for denial. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Right. 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's correct. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, no, that's fine. 

We're fine with that, for denial purposes 

operating near the NPCs, but for granting we 

know that you're not supposed to do that. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And you fall back to 

033, then, which is infraction? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Well, that's how we 

use it in conjunction with OTIB-33. 

 DR. MAURO: I remember - 

 MR. GLECKLER: Because then if 

there's positive bioassay results, what we'll 

typically do is a set -- because typically 

with INL you don't see any indication of 

chronic intakes, and the vast majority are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

like iodine intakes, where you see a big 

spike, and they'll take a whole bunch of 

bioassay samples, and it drops down in a real 

distinctive peak when you graph it. So we'll 

assess typically each of those intakes, assign 

-- figure out the dose for that and add it on 

top of the OTIB-18 dose, which is part of what 

you can do under 33. 

 DR. MAURO: See, that would have 

been episodic. In other words, you have 

records of when the episodics occurred, and 

the person was in the area when the episodic 

occurred. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Even if it's not one 

of the episodic releases, there's a number of 

intakes that occurred that aren't part of the 

document. The episodic releases in the TBD 

are the major incidents, where there's a bunch 

of release incidents that you'll see, and some 

are documented in the dosimetry records. 

 We've got -- you know, like some 

will have like 100 pages that affect a number 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of individuals onsite to where it's like we -- 

like some of us have printed off those copies 

just so we don't have to keep looking through 

them, and we've highlighted the key parts of 

those reports. There's like a strontium 

incident that they investigated that involved 

a number of workers and that we actually 

processed claims for a good chunk of the 

workers that were involved with that incident. 

 It's like it keeps popping up, 

like, "Oh, yes, there's another one involved 

in that incident," stuff like that, and I 

don't think that incident is actually in one 

of the episodic releases because it's like I 

think they determined that they couldn't 

figure out the cause of it. 

 It was one worker that caused all 

that. Basically, one worker had a, if I 

remember right, had a positive bioassay, and 

it was a fairly significant bioassay for 

strontium, and they investigated everyone that 

was working with him to figure out where this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

came from. 

 DR. MAURO: So the gross beta/gamma, 

one of the things I was going to ask is if 

gross beta/gamma was the currency at the time 

for determining the dose reconstruction, then 

it looks like you have a bunch of alpha 

emitters that you also assume, depending on 

the facility at the time, as being an assumed, 

so you wouldn't necessarily depend solely on 

your bioassay data. You also have a default 

set. 

 For example, if the person wasn't 

monitored or if you didn't see anything, you 

still have a default. If he was monitored, 

then you deal with the mix that applies to 

him, but let's say he was only monitored gross 

beta/gamma. You still might very well assign 

some alpha, even though he wasn't monitored. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We always assign some 

alpha. 

 DR. MAURO: You always assign it. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: The alpha comes off the 

table. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because they 

didn't routinely, especially in the early 

years. It wasn't until the later years where 

they did any monitoring for alpha-emitting 

nuclides, and in the early years, I guess the 

reason that they didn't do it is because they 

never separated out like the plutonium. 

 They separated out the uranium, and 

I can't -- I don't think we have any bioassay 

specifically for uranium. I'm not sure on 

that on the early years, but the later years 

they do, but because like plutonium being one 

of the key nuclides of concern for internal 

dose, it's like it was never separated from 

the irradiated reactor fuel or the spent 

reactor fuel. 

 So that source term works for the 

reactors, and then it also works for the ICPP 

and that, and the only other thing to look at 

for the ICPP is when they separated out the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

uranium from the spent reactor fuel and that 

the plutonium all went with the fission 

products on that, so it's always associated 

with the fission products, which were much 

easier to detect. So from what it appears is 

they didn't bother with the Pu bioassays 

because they could detect more readily using 

like a gross beta. 

 Well, initially, in the early years 

they just did gross beta, and then they went 

to gross gamma, and then in that era they 

started doing strontium-90 analyses, and so if 

they didn't see anything on those indicator 

nuclides, then they didn't have any intake of 

the others. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Is there any 

correlation in any of the data you found 

between positive urinalysis and whole body 

counting in the later years? 

 MR. GLECKLER: You usually don't get 

too much of the same type of data in the same 

era. It's like they basically have a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

distinct era where they transitioned from just 

doing gross beta and urine to gross gamma and 

urine, and the only overlap is there is some 

strontium-90 in urine that's usually in the 

gross gamma in the urine, and then once the 

gross -- it basically transitions. You know, 

once they start the whole body counting for an 

individual, you usually don't see any urine 

sample results. You only have the full body 

count results. 

 In the later years, some 

individuals will get like plutonium analyses 

and uranium analyses and a wider variety of 

stuff depending on what specifically -- what 

they're -- they're usually working on 

something special, though, like the SMC 

project where they have depleted uranium, for 

instance, and then you'll see some lung counts 

and stuff like that for specific individuals, 

but those are still relatively rare. 

 They mostly rely on whole body 

counts after, what is it, around 1961 and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

later? There's like a couple of years that 

some of the individuals transitioned close to 

`61 and some after `61 time frame, but usually 

by 1963 or later it's almost all whole body 

count data, period, very little urine data. 

 DR. MAURO: So, Hans, what I'm 

hearing is that as long as you could place the 

person at a particular location at a 

particular time, and you had some gross 

beta/gamma urine samples, you're in pretty 

good shape in order to be able to reconstruct 

-- 

 DR. BEHLING: I would say generally 

speaking, but I'm going to come back to the 

issue that we discussed earlier this morning, 

and that is the use of or the choice of 

selective radionuclides for doing that 

analysis, and I'll ask you to turn to, I 

guess, page 32 of TBD-5, which has the first 

set of radionuclides that are likely to be of 

concern for the ICPP in the area of highly 

enriched spent fuel storage. There we have or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the TBD in Table 5-18 identifies ten 

radionuclides, and, again, just above the 

table it says that these ten radionuclides can 

be assumed to account for over 95 percent of 

the dose and therefore will obviously be 

assigned to a person's exposure. 

 But, again, to what extent do they 

necessarily always end up being claimantfavorable to certain types of cancers with the 

radionuclide mix in question? Even though it 

will be one that will give you the highest 

CEDE value, at least for 95 percent of the 

dose, but for certain select cancers those 

radionuclides may or may not necessarily be 

claimant-favorable. 

 And the same thing applies when you 

go further to the next page where we talk 

about, again, spent fuel processing and the 

identification of -- intakes of most limiting 

radionuclides. Again, the numbers of 

radionuclides are even more restricted because 

on page 34, middle of the page or two-thirds 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

down the page, it says -- the paragraph starts 

with, "Table 5-18 contains too many 

radionuclides for efficient dose 

reconstruction. Rather than include all of 

the radionuclides in the default summary table 

from this dose, i.e., Table 5-24 later in this 

document, only strontium, cesium, cerium, and 

plutonium are included for aluminum zirconium 

fuels." 

 The question that I have is when 

those select radionuclides are used for dose 

reconstruction of specific organs, are we 

short-changing some people for certain types 

of cancer? 

 MR. CALHOUN: My question would be 

do you know that we are? 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, again, when we 

go to the next step on that same page where we 

have the green fuel in the RaLa runs, we know 

that, for instance, barium-140 and radioactive 

lanthanum-140 and 142, they're very shortlived, and they may not even show up in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bioassays depending on when they're taken, and 

to what extent they will contribute to certain 

doses such as, obviously, liver cancer would 

not be included in that select series of 

radionuclides. 

 MR. DARNELL: Actually, I think part 

of the answer is the process that we use to 

overestimate the dose for claims that are not 

compensable. They are well overestimated, as 

we've discovered with using OTIB-18 process in 

doing the dose calculations. I think the only 

time that your comment or question about the 

specific nuclides would be when we would have 

to do a very accurate assessment. 

 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

 MR. DARNELL: And I think that, you 

know, for that time -- for those times only 

would we ever need to even look at this, and I 

think that by the way that we do dose 

reconstructions they would be looked at. I 

don't know if that's in the procedure or not. 

 Do you know, Brian, off the top of your head? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: As far as for those, 

there's nothing really that would call out to 

identify those specific nuclides, but 

something to be aware of is in that time 

frame, if they were -- well, if they were 

involved with the RaLa process, RaLa process, 

whatever you want to call it, it's like they 

should have been -- they were probably 

routinely monitored during that time frame. 

 And just, if it's a more radio 

sensitive cancer, you know, it'll generate a 

higher POC such as, I believe, a liver cancer 

will generate a pretty high POC. Odds are 

it's going to go comp on missed dose alone 

just for the cerium and plutonium missed doses 

that would get assigned. 

 MR. DARNELL: That is the other 

thing that we do have to remember. When you 

start looking at workers where you have to get 

the very accurate dose reconstructions, 

they're not going to be the ones that aren't 

monitored. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 These guys will -- these people 

have real dose. They'll have monitoring 

records because that's the nature of the work 

and that's the nature that's putting them 

close to the probability causation of 50 

percent or greater. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I think that we're 

talking about one -- we have a worker. We 

have some gross beta/gamma, and here is the 

mix of radionuclides, and Hans brings up a 

point. Well, there are certain exposure 

scenarios where that mix may not be limiting 

for that worker for a realistic dose best 

estimate. 

 Then we move out of that and go to 

the coworker model. Now the presumption that 

the person that was not bioassayed therefore 

did not have potential exposure, that is a 

longstanding debate that we've been having 

through folks, and that sometimes goes toward 

some of the findings from the Tiger Team. 

 To automatically make that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

presumption I think is not claimant favorable. 

 If you could -- if you take a position that 

the person wasn't bioassayed and therefore 

probably was not -- did not need to be 

bioassayed, I think the onus is on you folks 

to take it a step further and what his job 

category was, what he was doing, and why that 

judgment was valid, as opposed to just -- it's 

almost like a tautology. 

 MR. DARNELL: Well, my personal 

thought is that when we make the statement 

that there is no bioassay, so he didn't need 

it, I don't believe that's actually true in 

the older days of DOE. It's not a decision 

basis that we're using. We'll say that 

statement in a dose reconstruction and then 

say, "However, we applied OTIB-18," or we 

applied all this. 

 DR. MAURO: No, that's okay for 

denial. We're on -- we're fine with you folks 

on denial. 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: I'm more concerned that 

when you try to do a realistic best estimate 

dose reconstruction. 

 MR. DARNELL: You won't find that 

statement in a best estimate. 

 MS. JENKINS: In a best estimate 

case, we would have to justify why we were not 

assigning internal dose. We would have to 

have good justification for why we didn't 

assign any internal dose. We would have to 

have good justification why we decided to 

assign environmental internal dose, or we 

would have to have very good justification as 

to why we would assign coworker dose. 

 We can't just arbitrarily say in a 

best estimate case that, "Okay, he wasn't 

monitored. Therefore, he had no internal 

dose." We have to justify, and we do justify 

our conclusions. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And we've placed 

plenty of people that weren't monitored 

internally based on coworker dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, that's why I 

asked the question. 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes, we just -- we 

don't just say no -- in a best estimate 

situation, we don't just say, "No bioassay, no 

internal dose." Now -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: We need to be careful 

when we say coworker dose for INL because -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: We don't have a 

coworker model. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, we never 

compiled the coworker data. 

 DR. MAURO: But you do have a 

generic coworker - 

 MR. GLECKLER: We might have 

compiled it, but we never processed it. 

 DR. MAURO: Right now, you do have a 

generic model for coworkers, internal and 

external, and Jim and I have been discussing 

it because this emerged on many occasions, and 

this goes to -- it's complex-wide on 

philosophy, and I think that the philosophy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that I -- and Jim, of course, can confirm this 

or not, but the philosophy being here you have 

a worker that doesn't have any bioassay data. 

 You look into his work history, and you feel 

that maybe he could have received some 

exposures, internal exposures, and we'd like 

to do a best estimate dose reconstruction for 

his cancer. 

 At that point in time, a judgment 

has to be made whether or not we're going to 

assume he probably didn't get any exposure, 

and we're going to assign environmental, or 

you can -- 

 MS. JENKINS: We also -- well, we'd 

look at his external dosimetry results in 

conjunction with his internal. No external, 

no bioassay, that lends itself to being able 

to support the fact that maybe you give him 

environmental internal. If he's got positive 

external dose and no bioassay, then, well, he 

obviously was somewhere, so then you start 

looking at assigning him some type of dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: And in comes the 

coworker model at that point. 

 MR. DARNELL: It could, yes. 

 MR. GLECKLER: The internal TBD 

specifically tells us to assign something 

above and beyond environmental internal if 

they've got positive external dose for a given 

year. 

 DR. MAURO: And, see, you're using 

external dose as an indicator of whether or 

not you want to assign a coworker dose. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's essentially a 

claimant-favorable assumption. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. DARNELL: But you're not going 

to get an exposure if you're not around the 

radioactive materials, which gives you the 

idea, lends credence to the idea that if 

you're getting an external exposure, you're 

around the materials, so therefore you maybe 

should have been - 

 MS. JENKINS: There could be an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

internal. 

 DR. MAURO: All right, so at that 

point you're saying you have to make a 

judgment. Are we going to assign to this 

person the full distribution for the coworker 

model, whatever that distribution is, or some 

upper end value, 84th percentile? 

 Do you have that in your writeup 

right now, that is, this is the radionuclide 

distribution mix and intakes that are going to 

be used, either a distribution or a geometric 

mean, when we believe the guy might have been 

exposed because he has some positive external 

or we don't believe he's at the upper end on 

the distribution? 

 In other words, I'm really bringing 

you back to -- 

 MR. DARNELL: There is a procedure 

that covers that in these notes? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, there is, and how -

- but that procedure does not give you 

explicit coworker model. It's a philosophy of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

how you -- 

 MR. DARNELL: It doesn't give us 

explicit coworker data, but what it does have 

in here or prescribes in here for us to do for 

-- let's say we have the situation where we've 

got a worker that doesn't have any bioassay 

data, but he's got -- a couple of weeks he's 

got positive external dose. 

 Per the internal TBD, we can't just 

assign him environmental internal for those 

years. However, for this site -- and I think 

it's probably the only site where we have it, 

where we can do what they call a default 

missed dose calculation -- basically we use 

hypothetical bioassays as if they were 

monitored and assign a missed dose based on 

that. And we'll use that Table 5-24 and get 

the nuclides list, or, depending on the later 

years, it's like they have -- they refer you 

back to Table 5-18, which is a more detailed 

list of nuclides. 

 DR. MAURO: And did that table give 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you the mix or gives you the -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: Well, basically, for 

instance, for like prior to 1960, you would 

assume that he only had a gross gamma or a 

urine sample analyzed for gross beta, and so 

then you would calculated it assuming that it 

was a strontium intake, and then you'd take 

like .4 times that. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And the intake would 

be based on LOD. 

 MR. GLECKLER: But then you get 

ratios to get the other nuclides like cesium, 

plutonium, 238, and cerium. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'm with you. 

That's assuming he's got a measurement. 

 MR. CALHOUN: No. 

 MR. GLECKLER: No, we'd assume that 

there was a measurement, because he at least -

- if he was monitored, no. Under the 

assumption that if he was monitored and all 

his bioassay results were zero -- 

 DR. MAURO: I've got it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. GLECKLER: -- he would get that 

much, at least -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. GLECKLER: -- for a monitored 

worker and thus get -- so it's something that 

it's actually these early bioassay results, 

because the MDA values that we have are very 

claimant-favorable in this TBD right now, and 

 it's like we might look at reducing those. 

These doses, these missed doses come close to 

TIB-18 doses. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm with you, so you 

have a urine sample below the limit of 

detection, and you have a default set of 

assumptions and still get less than the MDA. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. Well, we assume 

he had a urine sample. We would assume that 

there was a -- 

 DR. MAURO: Assume. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because this is 

an individual -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: This is your guy that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you said got external dose, no internal 

dosimetry. 

 DR. MAURO: And that's why -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: We assume they had -- 

he was monitored and got zeroes, and we assign 

him this dosimetry with that. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because ideally 

what we would do is just use the 

overestimating approach with OTIB-18 and 

overestimate it, but if it's closer than that, 

we could make the case compensable on missed 

dose based on a hypothetical bioassay result. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, I just heard 

something that is a first for me. You do a 

lot of these. What I just heard is that I 

have a worker. I have no bioassay data, but I 

do have some positive external data, so 

therefore there is reason to believe he might 

have gotten some internal, some intake. 

 However, there is no -- we don't 

have any samples, and they're not going to -- 

they just -- they're going to assign the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

missed dose as if there was a sample that came 

up with less than the MDL. 

 That is new to me, because it's my 

understanding it's at that point when you have 

no bioassay data where you have to have a 

coworker model, not operate on the assumption 

that he had a bioassay sample, and it was 

below the MDL. This is disturbing to me. 

 Hans, what's your -- you know more 

about this than I do. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I'm going back 

again to Table 5-22, and the first series of 

calculatable approaches that define the 

startup to 1960 do, in fact -- at least, this 

is my interpretation -- require that you do 

have a positive urine gross beta bioassay. 

 Am I correct? Because the first 

thing it says, "Based on urine gross beta," 

and then you calculate chronic sontium 90 

intake that results in the urine activity that 

is equal to 0.4 times gross beta. If gross 

beta is below MDA, you don't have a value, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I suppose you can take half of MDA and 

substitute that for an empirical value. 

 MR. DARNELL: And that's what's 

being done. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Let's just say, though 

-- let's change the terminology here a little 

bit. Let's not just -- let's not say -- we 

assume he was monitored. We don't have the 

results. 

 What we're doing is we're assigning 

a dose that is equivalent to a monitored 

worker who received less than MDL. Now, this 

is supported, because there are so many 

negative internal dosimetry results at the INL 

that, number one, we can assume that it's 

likely that he would have been monitored 

should he have had the potential to have been 

exposed, but since he wasn't, and he has had 

some external, we're going to give him 

internal dose, anyway. 

 It's kind of like a coworker model 

at the lower end. We're not assuming he was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

monitored. We don't have results. We're 

assigning a dose that would be equal to 

someone who was monitored and received no 

positives. 

 MR. GLECKLER: But it really hinges 

 on the fact that the majority of those 

bioassay results were typically negative, and 

if it was a site to where the majority of the 

results were positive just like for the 

monitored workers, then, yes, you really 

couldn't get away with that. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, what you're really 

saying is your coworker model is that if, in 

fact, you do take -- because so many people 

have less than the MDL that were monitored, a 

reasonable coworker model is that if this 

person were monitored, he would have -- 

 Now, my experience is -- my 

experience is that you build a graph. You 

take all your bioassay data, and you construct 

a distribution from the bioassay data, which 

is usually logged normal, and you assign the -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- now, what you're saying is there are so many 

zeroes or less than the MDLs. 

 I've got to say I'm not sure what 

you do when your -- when you make your big 

table, here we have 10,000 bioassay samples, 

and 9,000 are zero, and 1,000 are above the 

MDL, not assay zero, below the MDL. I'm 

making that up. What do you do to build a 

coworker model when you have a circumstance 

like that? We -- 

 MS. JENKINS: That's a totally 

different study. A team is commissioned to do 

a coworker study, and a coworker study has not 

been commissioned for INL. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, so it sounds like 

that's something -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: It would have been 

independent of the TBD. 

 MS. JENKINS: That's not a TBD 

thing. That's a coworker study. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Sometimes you'll see 

population data in the TBD's quota, but that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kind of something we've gone away from, 

because it can't be used for dose 

reconstruction. They need to have coworker 

data, which accounts for missed doses. 

 DR. MAURO: I mean, you actually 

have a coworker model in all where over 90 

percent of the workers have a bioassay sample, 

so it was deemed, even though only ten percent 

of the workers have no bioassay, we still felt 

we had to use a coworker model, and we have 

one, and it's a good one, and right now we're 

looking at it, and there are certain questions 

that are being posed to it, but I think it's 

looking pretty good. 

 What we have here is the same 

circumstance. You're saying lots and lots of 

people have had their bioassay samples, but 

there are a certain percentage that possibly 

had gotten some external exposure but were not 

sampled. It sounds to me you need a coworker 

model. 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's possible. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. JENKINS: That's a decision that 

we don't get to make. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It couldn't hurt. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, but, I mean, 

that's -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, there's other 

sites out there that, you know, I mean -- 

 MS. JENKINS: Some sites have them. 

 Some don't. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It's always best to 

have a coworker model, too, but it's probably 

on the list somewhere. 

 MR. GLECKLER: The INL ones have 

been taken off the list, because based on our 

input, you know, it's like basically we don't 

see a need for it, because the TBD covers it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, if there's 

really, really extensive bioassay and 

dosimetry, they won't do a coworker model. 

 MR. OSTROW: I just have a basic 

problem, sort of philosophical, maybe, with 

what I'm hearing is the approach, that if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have a worker without a -- without the data, 

you assume that he didn't need to have the 

monitoring, because he had such a low exposure 

to it, and therefore you're assuming that 

you're assigning him half the MDL without 

really knowing what he really got. 

 MR. DARNELL: We are assuming that 

he could have had an exposure, because he had 

a positive external exposure, so because of 

the large number of zeroes and probably 

because it's done individually but most likely 

based on where that worker worked and the type 

of work he was doing, as well as the bioassay 

for that facility, they assign one-half of the 

MDL. 

 It's not just where you've got a 

guy with a positive TLD, and we're going to 

give him internal dose. It's not just that. 

There are other factors that go into that 

decision. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's potentially 

claimant-favorable compared to other sites, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because a lot of the other sites don't have 

that if there's a -- you know, you have to 

have a fairly significant positive external 

dose before they really, you know, have you 

look at something other than environmental 

internal. Odds are the individual only got 

environmental internal, but giving them 

anything above that is likely going to be 

claimant favorable -- 

 DR. MAURO: What you're saying is -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: -- and this is a big 

-- this is a big plus. 

 DR. MAURO: What you're saying is 

true. However, I still have a problem with 

it, because that's like dealing with on the 

average, probably, and all that. It may not 

necessarily be claimant-favorable for a 

particular person. 

 MR. GLECKLER: But you have to have 

something that indicates that that person 

received an exposure out of the ordinary. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Right, and that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to be based on -- that's going to be 

based on the CATI. We're going to take that 

into account. We're going to take his 

employment records into account. We're going 

to take monitoring history into account. 

 DR. MAURO: You do all that, and you 

walk away, say, "Listen, I think we've got to 

assign this guy some internal." 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. You walk away. 

Either you do, or you don't. Once you decide, 

"Yes, we do. We're going to give him 

something," there is some question about, 

"Well, what do we give him?" Do we give him 

an intake that corresponds to environmental? 

Do we give an intake that is the full 

distribution for the data that you do have? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Do you give him an 

intake which is assumed to be one-half of the 

MDL, or do you give him an intake that's at 

the upper 84th percentile of the distribution? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CALHOUN: Well, there's only two 

options, as far as I know, and correct me if 

I'm wrong here. You've got environmental, or 

you've got this dose that's equivalent to 

being monitored and not -- 

 DR. MAURO: You're not seeing it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, and that includes 

the distribution of those radionuclides in 

that table. 

 DR. MAURO: I understand, but you're 

-- 

 MR. GLECKLER: It's outside OTIB-18. 

 MS. JENKINS: It's best estimates 

based on -- 

 MR. KATZ: One at a time, because 

the poor transcriber cannot transcribe both of 

the voices at the same time. 

 MR. DARNELL: What you're basically 

looking at, if you don't do -- if you try to 

do a coworker model, you've got thousands of 

samples down here at zero, and then you get a 

big shoot up, okay, so what is the correct 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thing to give somebody? It's going to be 

zero. 

 MR. OSTROW: Is it? No. 

 MR. DARNELL: If you get -- the same 

thing happened at Pinellas. At the upper 95th

percentile, it was less than 100 millirem for 

no matter who the worker was, so we gave them 

up to 100 millirem. You get enough bioassay 

at zero or below, you're going to get to the 

point where 95 percent of the people are at 

zero or a very, very low number, and that's 

what you would give them. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And by zero we mean -- 

 DR. MAURO: Less than the MDL. 

 MR. DARNELL: Less than the MDL, 

okay, so you stack up the number of bioassay. 

 You have less than the MDL, and then shoot 

up. What we're doing is basically giving them 

credit at that point for being less than the 

MDL when most of the workers are already less 

than the MDL. 

 DR. MAURO: I think the onus is on -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- we've seen this before. In other words, 

this is ringing a bell. We had our 

statistician, and we looked at -- what we're 

really saying is, you know, there is a 

distribution out there, and it's almost like a 

policy decision. 

 When we're in this circumstance, do 

we make the assumption you made or whatever 

we've done in the past? I think there is a 

consistency issue. We've seen this before on 

other sites where you've got just this 

circumstance, and I'm not quite sure how it 

was dealt with. 

 MR. KATZ: I may have recollected 

incorrectly, but I thought a couple weeks ago 

at our work group meeting -- and I was 

thinking it was Mound, Josie, but I could be 

confused about that. 

 I thought it was there where we had 

a coworker model. It was built on the data, 

but it comes up to lower than the MDL, and so 

they did -- but they built -- they actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

did the work, constructed the coworker model. 

 The results ended up at the MDL or 

whatever, so they were applying that, and you 

were asking questions about, "Well, is that 

right to be applying the MDL?" and Jim Neton's 

response in effect was, "Well, if that's what 

the data tell you is correct, it just happens 

to be that that's what it is. That's where 

you get to." 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: But in that case, they 

did the work. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would say that, 

you know, I mean, if it turns out that 95 

percent of the numbers of the bioassay samples 

in the worker population were below the MDL 

when you did take the sample, I can understand 

the rationale, and this is the class we're 

going to assign to this guy. 

 MR. DARNELL: I just threw out the 

number 95 percent. I don't know what the 

actual percentage is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Whatever number they 

get. I know we've been there before. It's 

probably important that whatever we do here, 

we do what we did before. 

 MR. GLECKLER: It shouldn't be over 

50 percent based on what I've observed. So 

many of them are just zeroes on that. 

 MS. JENKINS: And based on faith in 

the dosimetry program, you know, the 

assumption is also made that the people who 

needed to be monitored were monitored 

appropriately. 

 MR. OSTROW: See, that's a little 

bit going back to taking, putting faith in the 

monitoring program, that it actually worked, 

not that it didn't, but there's been a lot of 

evidence in looking at all the different 

sites, especially in the early days. What was 

written down on paper, how they actually 

monitored -- 

 MR. DARNELL: She's not saying that 

the program was right. She's saying that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

monitoring was done appropriately. In other 

words, if they needed samples, samples were 

taken. We're not talking about calculations, 

not talking about uncertainties, not talking 

about any of the other stuff. It's just that 

the right people should have been monitored. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Also what we need is 

evidence specific to the INL site. So what if 

it happened at other sites? We know that 

happened. Did it happen -- do we have 

evidence that indicates that this occurred at 

the INL site? 

 If it occurred as our -- if it only 

occurred for a specific period of time, you 

know, unless we know details of a specific, 

you know, scenario, it's like we really can't 

even investigate it or do anything. What do 

you do about it? 

 It's like, you know, it's something 

out there that's -- you know, unless we have 

some evidence that indicates that that 

actually happened, it doesn't do us any good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to debate it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, INL was always 

unique in many respects, not the least of 

which is that it came online later than the 

other large complexes did, and its mission was 

different than the other large complexes. 

 It was more of a research and 

testing status than it was a production 

facility, which makes it very different in a 

number of ways and may give some legs to the 

concept of a monitoring program that had the 

advantage of some previous history in the 

complex to help it get started. I don't know 

that anyone needs to make that assertion, but 

it's a historical fact, I think. 

 MR. DARNELL: And the other part of 

this with the dose, especially with the 

internal dosimetry program, is you need to 

remember that this was the home of the entire 

DOE complex's internal dosimetry program. 

 They had more focus. They had more 

interest. They had more money to do that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

stuff at INL than they did anyplace else. 

While you do have to take into account the 

negative factors like you guys are discussing 

with the Tiger Team report, you also have to 

take into account the positive factors. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What year did 

the accreditation program start? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Eighties, wasn't it? 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, early eighties. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Internal? 

 MR. DARNELL: Eighties or nineties. 

 58-480.11 came into effect in 1989. It was 

for the entire program, but the voluntary -- 

the DOE lab accreditation program predated 

that. I'm just not sure how long. 

 DR. MAURO: I would agree with that 

approach if population workers that you were 

going to pull -- see that graph? In my mind, 

that graph is different as a function of 

location and time. That is, if you were 

working at TAN, or you were working at ABR, 

wherever it is you were working, there is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

population of workers, and that graph might 

very well be different in different places, 

and so I think if you were going to do that, 

it would be a little bit more justifiable if 

you're building your coworker model, that, 

from the population in which that worker 

belongs. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think Table 5-24 

pretty much does that, because it's four 

different nuclides, four different places. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And I'll bet we 

haven't crunched the numbers, but I would -- 

it's likely that the people on the high end of 

that, you're not going to find it's the case 

very often where they don't have internal 

monitoring. I don't know that. 

 DR. MAURO: No, I'm saying there 

might be a -- there might be a facility where 

the graph isn't like this. If the graph is 

like this, fine, but let's say the graph is 

like this. Like this. 

 Let's say this is one facility, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

BORAX, but ABR is like this, okay, I don't 

know, where you don't get so many zeroes. 

You're getting a lot of positive hits. In 

other words, you don't have a large number. I 

guess this is number of workers. This is the 

peak occurrence per liter or something. I 

don't know. 

 MR. DARNELL: Sure, the dose 

consequence, or it can be whatever you -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm trying to justify to 

myself what makes sense to me, and I think 

that there's probably a lot of great 

variability depending on time and operation of 

the facility where the kind of graph that you 

would plot like this when you do have bioassay 

data and you apply a frequency distribution, 

how many zeroes do you have? How many zero to 

ones do you have? I mean, you know, less than 

the LDLs? 

 MR. GLECKLER: For example, in 1961, 

not just because of SL-1 but because of a 

number of other occurrences that happened to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

happen that year, there are a much larger 

number of positive results for that year. 

 DR. MAURO: You have to deal with 

that, right, and to me it's almost like, if it 

was me, and I was having my dose 

reconstructed, what would make me feel 

confident and comfortable that you did the 

right thing by me? And let's say you use the 

universal data all the bioassays -- let's say 

there's 100,000 bioassay samples taken across 

the complex over 50 years, and they're all 

plotted. I wouldn't like that, because I am 

certain to be rolled into -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Could you speak up? 

 DR. MAURO: What's that? 

 MR. DARNELL: We can't hear you. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I would be 

uncomfortable if you sort of rolled me into 

global bioassays, and I happened to work there 

during a three-year period in 1957 to 1960 at 

the BORAX facility. I would be a lot more 

comfortable if you assigned to me some, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, some value from this distribution -- 95th

percentile. 

 I would be very -- I would be 

comfortable if you said, "We're going to 

assign to you the upper 95th percentile amongst 

all the workers that worked at BORAX in this 

decade or in this time period," and then I 

would say, yes, I think you did right by me 

and not just roll everything up. Do you see 

what I'm getting at? 

 Otherwise, you sort of homogenized 

the whole place, and I think that would be 

unfair to that particular worker. "Wait a 

minute. No, I worked over here in this time. 

 That data doesn't represent the world I lived 

in. That represents the world the whole 

complex lived in for 50 years." Do you see 

what I'm saying? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes, but in lots of 

situations it comes down to that based on 

information given to CATI. We do make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

professional decisions like that. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So you're going 

to have to look at a coworker model almost in 

some respects, depending on location, if 

during the CATI interview they said, you know, 

"I worked at the chem processing plant area"? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I think maybe the 

first step is to better define the proportion 

of non-positives to the overall population or 

something. I dump it into a coworker study 

right now. There's a reason we haven't done 

one, and I don't want to commit to doing that, 

but, you know, I don't know what else we can 

to do to make people feel more comfortable 

with this. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I think the urine 

data might be entered into a database. That's 

all the farther we've got. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I haven't dug down 

into the weeds that far. 

 MR. DARNELL: I don't know if 

they've got the data. The raw data's got -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the sheets have facility location tags, but I 

don't know if they capture that as part of it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And how big of an 

issue is this? I don't know. I don't know 

how many people are involved. 

 MR. DARNELL: Again, we're talking 

about a subset of a subset of the radiological 

workers. You know, we're really down to the 

weeds point of how do you do a best estimate 

in discussing this. Otherwise -- otherwise, 

this is moot, and I'm not absolutely sure that 

for a TBD review this conversation is really 

germane. 

 You know, there are procedures that 

we have in place -- we discussed those earlier 

-- that tell the dose reconstructor how to do 

this stuff and how to come up with the best 

estimate doses. That's not part of the TBDs. 

 I'm not saying we should kick this out, 

because I think it's a worthwhile discussion, 

but I just don't know how germane it is to 

what we're trying to do with the TBD. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Just a little context, 

Pete. I mean, I understand that this has come 

up, actually, recently in another meeting, 

too, this issue of, you know, all across the 

complex most of the dose reconstructions, you 

know, are worse, you know, are in effect 

overestimates or underestimates, but with the 

site profile reviews, as with all of the work 

that SC&A is doing, I mean, the point of it is 

 not those cases, because generally there is 

agreement that, yes, these things are being 

done well. 

 The overestimates and the 

underestimates are doing the job they need to 

do, at least, but, I mean, all of, really, the 

real important grist is about the best 

estimate case, because you want to be certain 

that there is justice done to those cases, so 

it doesn't really matter. 

 That's what I think, why Jim got a 

little frustrated earlier with your response 

about, "Well, most of the cases this doesn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

apply to," but that's not -- that's not -- 

that's not the matter for which the Board's, 

you know, reviewing these, you know, putting 

most of its meat into these reviews. 

 It's really for these, and with all 

the site profiles it's germane, as well as 

petitions, to be certain that those best 

estimate cases are doing fairness to the 

claimants. 

 MR. DARNELL: Yes, I'm not trying to 

kick something out because it doesn't apply to 

most cases. I'm just trying to understand 

where we're all coming from. 

 DR. MAURO: As a matter of process, 

when we engage in this process and we bring up 

an issue and don't necessarily agree, okay, 

maybe there's something that needs to be 

thought about, and if it's, you know, your 

judgment, of course, at some point we are 

going to agree in principle, this seems to be 

a reasonable strategy for dealing with this 

concern. I know we didn't get to that point 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

yet, but at some point we'll get to that point 

whether, you know, it's a kind of agreement. 

 Then it becomes a matter of your 

call. You stated in your response in the 

matrix, and usually it's a commitment to do 

one of two things, write an OTIB that will 

provide additional guidance to the dose 

reconstructor on how to deal with this 

particular issue when it arises, or a 

commitment that the site profile will be 

amended at some point in the future, maybe at 

the next two-year round. I mean, this is your 

call, but -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Or that we stand by 

what's in there completely, and we're not 

going to do anything. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and that's fine, 

and that's your call, but that goes in the 

matrix, and then, when that hits the matrix, 

we meet, and we talk about it, and, you know, 

we knock heads and we see where we come out. 

 MR. DARNELL: I don't think we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

actually far off on agreeing on this issue. 

We just -- I think we need to provide a little 

more detail on the best case estimates, 

really. 

 DR. MAURO: That's what we're 

talking about. That's all there is to it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That appears to be the 

case. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Next? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. We're 

still basically on the same subject, the highrisk jobs' internal exposure issue. 

 DR. BEHLING: Hello? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, Hans? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Is he muted? Are we 

muted? 

 MR. KATZ: We are muted, and I don't 

know why, because it's not -- the mute button 

is not affecting it. Did someone kick the 

phone, perhaps? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Well, there's not one 

down here. There could be a plug over here, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but I'm going to blame it on John. 

 MR. KATZ: It just went mute. Let 

me -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Did you hit the -- oh, 

yes. Sorry. 

 MR. KATZ: I just moved my thing, 

and -- Hans? 

 MR. GLECKLER: I just moved it just 

now, yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you hear us now? 

 MR. GLECKLER: It was sitting right 

here. 

 MR. KATZ: Is Hans the only one on 

the line? Is anyone on the line right now? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Way to go, Brian. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, we're still 

on the line. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I told you not to do 

that until 3:30. 

 MR. GLECKLER: This was sitting like 

off, and once we switched to the next thing, 

it's like I put it there, and it was right on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

top. 

 DR. MAURO: I would say -- I think -

- I hate to say this, but we talked about some 

very, very important concepts. We're coming 

to closure, and Hans was not part of this, and 

Hans is my go-to guy. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think you just -- 

did you just mute it within the last -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, because I just -

- 

 MR. KATZ: We're reconnected on the 

-- 

 DR. BEHLING: I'm back. I got 

disconnected. 

 MR. KATZ: Hans, how long were you 

disconnected for? 

 DR. BEHLING: Oh, just a few 

minutes. Yes, as quick as I could redial, I 

was reconnected. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank goodness. 

 MR. DARNELL: So just in a quick 

recap, NIOSH needs to provide more detail on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

how we do the best estimate for internals. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Where there is no 

monitoring data. 

 DR. MAURO: Where there is no 

monitoring data. 

 DR. BEHLING: And I would add to 

that when there is monitoring data, because 

one of the major concerns I keep expressing, 

both for environmental as well as internal, 

when there is data and especially if the data 

 is confined to gross beta or gross gamma or 

some other generic bioassay that does not 

necessarily identify the radionuclides that 

may be very critical in that organ dose 

assessment. 

 And, as I said, I looked at all of 

the different facilities, and before we 

perhaps close the door to this whole issue, I 

looked at a couple other facilities including 

the Rad Waste Management Complex, including 

the transuranic storage area, and, again, in 

Table 5-20 the dose reconstructors provided a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

table that gives the ratio of various 

radionuclides, transuranics, plutonium and 

uresium, and uranium and curium. There's 

very little information provided that would 

allow that person to say, "Okay, this is what 

I need to do here." 

 I would assume that that table is 

to be used in conjunction with a urine 

analysis that specifically identified one of 

the several radionuclides in question, either 

plutonium, uranium, or curium, and on that 

basis, once you have one of those 

radionuclides for which there is either below 

MDA or MDL or a positive measurement, you 

would then use this table to assign all of the 

other transuranics to that particular 

urinalysis. Is that correct? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that's my 

understanding. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and the problem 

is that that kind of information isn't given 

when I look at it and I read it, and if I were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 a dose reconstructor, I would say, "Oh, 

that's very cute. You have a waste facility 

here, and it tells me that there are 65,000 

cubic meters of solid TRU waste," and then you 

give a breakdown and say, "Okay, 44 percent of 

that is plutonium-241." 

 There should be some additional 

information that says, "Okay, if a person was 

assigned to that facility, TSA facility, and 

there was, in fact, a bioassay for that 

individual which shows one of these 

radionuclides as a positive value, this is how 

you do it." 

 Right now, obviously, I would 

assume all of your dose reconstructors are 

smart enough to put those or connect those 

dots, but I'd like to see a few additional 

comments to that effect. In fact, most of the 

TBDs that we've had in the past, there's 

usually an appendix that says, "Okay, here you 

are, and here's what you need to do in order 

to make use of the data in Table 5-10." 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 This is lacking right now, and I 

would put -- I would say that the dose 

reconstructor at times will kind of be 

scratching his head and saying, "What do I do 

now, and how do I use the data as I see it?" 

 MR. GLECKLER: If I understand 

correctly, you're saying that we've got 

isotopic data versus just a generic gross 

beta/gross gamma type stuff? 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, there is, in 

fact, I believe, if you go back to at least 

one of the tables, Table 5-10 in the TBD, they 

do, in fact, show that there was a limited -- 

at least for the years `59, `60, and `61, 

there was a limited amount of alpha analysis 

for thorium, uranium, plutonium, and uresium, 

as you can see on -- 

 What's the page here? It's on page 

-- it's on Table 5-10, and I would assume, if 

that's an example, you would expect to have -- 

this would be page 23 in the TBD. You would 

expect to have, perhaps, data all the way back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to the time of 1952, because that's when the 

Rad Waste facility started operation. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think one of the 

things that you're looking for, Hans, that 

you're not seeing is the actual procedures on 

how this information is used and how the dose 

reconstructor takes this data that's presented 

in the TBD and turns it into a dose 

reconstructor, and that is not in this TBD. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, most times, in 

most TBDs, usually they are given specific 

instructions that make reference to various 

tables. 

 MR. DARNELL: You're absolutely 

correct. You're absolutely correct, but this 

particular TBD was one that was developed 

later in NIOSH's TBD cycle, for lack of a 

better word. 

 They were already going back to the 

first TBDs and developing the, I guess, the HP 

instructions or whatever you want to call it. 

 In other words, how the HP was putting the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose reconstruction together was being put 

together at the particular time that this TBD 

came out. 

 So I think what we're seeing here 

is that there is -- some of the information 

that you would normally have seen in a TBD is 

now actually included in the HP procedures and 

instructions, rather than all in the TBD. 

What you have, the TBD here is providing more 

of a generic -- more generic information than 

what you're used to being seen. 

 MR. GLECKLER: A lot of the 

specifics aren't covered by -- I think it's 

OTIB-60 is our internal, if I remember right 

on that. We've got a number of procedures 

for, you know, dealing with the medical and 

the onsite ambient doses, and that's all dealt 

at a higher level that's complex-wide, 

whereas, you know, part of the instructions 

that I've heard recently on the TBDs is like, 

yes, it's like if it's -- 

 They don't want -- we don't want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the TBDs to be too prescriptive of how to do 

the dose reconstruction, because we have 

upper-level procedures and documents that 

dictate that, and what you run into by putting 

in too much prescriptive information on how to 

do that, you run into conflicts with those as 

all these documents get revised. So, ideally, 

it's like if there's anything real 

prescriptive in our generic procedure, we 

should yank it out of the profile. 

 MR. CALHOUN: On Table 5-24, doesn't 

it do that? I'm at a loss. 

 MR. GLECKLER: What's that? 

 MR. CALHOUN: It seems like Table 5-

24 does what he's asking. 

 MR. GLECKLER: I keep thinking that, 

but -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I mean -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: It gives the other -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: I understand the 

argument that not all the radionuclides are 

included, but 5-24 is very prescriptive as far 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as how do you assign the mix of dose. It's 

not even a whole lot of thought that goes into 

that. 

 It's, "Here's what you do," and one 

of your points that you've come to twice here, 

at least, is the point regarding another 

radionuclide and how it may affect a certain 

organ differently, but what I'd like to see, 

and maybe it's in your total writeup, is that 

if there is another radionuclide based on what 

its relative abundance would be, compared to 

the strontium or whatever the key radionuclide 

in this table is, you know, show me where that 

would have a significant impact on a certain 

organ, and maybe it will. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, let me go back 

here, and with regard to 5-24 for the period 

of `52 through 1960, you know, obviously have 

prescription here that says, "Okay, you can 

take these protocols," and they list, 

obviously, the various radionuclides that 

basically start out with strontium-90 and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cesium-137, plutonium-238, cerium, and so 

forth. 

 But let's assume the guy worked at 

the transuranic storage area where the 

radionuclides in question are defined by Table 

5-20. So now you have a complete reversal of 

assigned radionuclides that are not 

necessarily -- do not necessarily reflect 

what's on Table 5-24. 

 MR. DARNELL: So what's your point? 

 DR. BEHLING: The point is you're 

going to be calculating an organ dose based on 

a radionuclide mix that doesn't apply. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It would sound wise 

for NIOSH to respond to the specific issue 

that's been put before us in writing so that 

if it does not respond adequately to the 

concern that's being raised, then SC&A can in 

turn respond back, "No, we don't see it that 

way. This is the way we see it," so that this 

entire discussion will not just be on the 

transcript. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It will be in the written record of 

this group as to how the issue was resolved. 

Trying to solve it in this kind of setting may 

be productive here, but it has not been 

productive in other places, so perhaps the 

wisest course would be for us to consider 

looking at the written response from NIOSH. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and that goes 

to all of them, not just this one. 

 MR. DARNELL: Oh, yes, we're going 

to respond. 

 DR. BEHLING: I think Phil in his 

opening statement this morning basically set 

the stage for everything that I meant to say 

or maybe already have said, too, and that is 

that this facility is a very, very complex 

facility, unlike so many others that are in a 

production mode of enriching uranium and other 

things. 

 This facility is a very complex 

one. It has 52 reactors. It has different 

processes, and each facility had its every 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unique radionuclide mixture, and when you go 

to a certain default value, you obviously have 

to make a compromise, and as I see it here, 

that compromise could certainly affect select 

cancers for which we are doing dose 

reconstruction by virtue of the radionuclide 

mixture that may not necessarily be claimant 

favorable. 

 MR. DARNELL: Well, what I hear you 

saying is it may do this. It may do that. Do 

you have a calculation, say, for the liver? 

 DR. BEHLING: Of course, I haven't 

done that yet. I mean -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Well -- 

 DR. BEHLING: All I can say is that 

in all likelihood the assigned dose will 

change based on which radionuclide mixture you 

will assume or apply. That's a given. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think NIOSH's 

position is that the isotopes that we selected 

and the way that the dose reconstruction is 

done covers it. I mean, show us where we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wrong. We'll be glad to look at it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: There's too many 

possible radionuclides -- I mean, you know 

that -- in fission products that were 

dissolved in fuel or whatever they were doing 

there. There would be way too many to try to 

prove every single radionuclide is going to be 

specific to every single organ. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, as I said, if 

you use the criteria that you take the 

radionuclide mixture that represents 95 

percent of the CEDE, that in itself will 

obviously tell you that it's not likely to be 

one that will always be favorable to the 

actual dose that a particular tissue may have 

received based on the type of radionuclide 

mixture to which that individual was exposed. 

 That's something you can almost conclude 

without doing any calculation at all. 

 MR. OSTROW: You know, I'm being 

maybe simple-minded in this, because I don't 

actually do the dose reconstruction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

calculations, but since you're doing this on 

computer, anyway, what's the practical problem 

just using all the radionuclides? You're not 

doing it by hand. What do you care about 

cutting it down to 12 nuclides and 9 -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: It's huge. 

 MS. JENKINS: I mean, that involves 

multiple, multiple runs. 

 MR. OSTROW: You can't just input 

all the radionuclides? 

 MR. CALHOUN: No. 

 MS. JENKINS: No. 

 MR. OSTROW: I'm being simple-minded 

here. 

 MS. JENKINS: No, it's huge. 

 DR. MAURO: My experience is you put 

more than one radionuclide in -- like I try to 

put a mix of uranium sometime, different -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's the only one 

that you can even mix. You can't put uranium 

and thorium together. You can't do it. 

 MR. DARNELL: You'll have a dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction with a section for plutonium, a 

section for uranium, a section for thorium, 

and on and on and on. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Individual runs for 

each one. 

 MR. OSTROW: I didn't know that. 

Okay. 

 MS. JENKINS: I mean, it will 

significantly increase the time it takes to do 

a dose reconstruction. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Is there any 

uncertainty associated with the input of the 

data from Table 5-24? 

 MR. GLECKLER: What do you mean? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Is it put in as a 

constant? Is it put in as a normal 

distribution? 

 MR. GLECKLER: This dose is 

triangular, right? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Sometimes it is. 

 MR. DARNELL: Sometimes it is. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 258

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't remember what it is for INL. I've seen 

it both ways, I think. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I mean, that's 

something to look at, too, if we're saying 

it's 95 percent. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, for INL it's 

kind of like being treated as a -- actually, 

if they don't have any bioassay data, it could 

be entered technically as a normal, because 

it's an unmonitored dose at that point. 

 DR. MAURO: I've got to say it's not 

-- you're putting something on SC&A and the 

Board and the work group, that really isn't 

yours to court. You've made a judgment that 

you can go with those nine radionuclides or 

those radionuclides because you feel that 

that's bounding based on the CDE argument, and 

we're saying, well, there are some flaws to 

that argument that really have to be explored, 

and we gave our rationale. 

 Now, if the work group wants us to 

research that, we certainly will do that, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this -- I mean, time and again we're always -- 

it is explained to us this is not our job, and 

we'd be certainly more than happy to do it. 

You know, we'll do it, but, quite frankly, 

this is, in my opinion, this is something that 

if it's a reasonable inquiry that needs to be 

put to bed, this is something NIOSH usually 

does. 

 MR. CALHOUN: We just want to try to 

get away from, "There's something wrong with 

this. Prove us wrong," and we'd like to get 

into, "Then tell us exactly what's wrong, and 

we'll evaluate it," but with this one, we're 

really not getting there. Now, we may come 

back with, "We're not going to do that." 

 DR. MAURO: You know how I would do 

it? I wouldn't work them in, though. I would 

put a spreadsheet out, okay, and I would say -

- I would put down the organ dose conversion 

factor for all the 52 radionuclides and then 

weight them and then say, you know -- and at 

the end you say it's obvious that these nine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will always be limiting. 

 MR. CALHOUN: My first step is going 

to be to go back and see why we picked those 

nine, and, you know, that very well may be 

there, you know. 

 DR. MAURO: Did this nine come out 

of the RAC work? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I couldn't tell you. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I think most of 

them will come out of an evaluation of what 

does this contribute to the committed 

effective dose equivalent, 50-year effective 

dose equivalent, which may not always reflect 

the benefit to a specific organ for the total 

radionuclide mixture. 

 You know, for instance, I'm looking 

at Table 5-22, where we have the gaseous 

radionuclide mixture for the advanced test 

reactor, and you will see the overwhelming 

contribution to that dose is iodine-131, and 

that's probably true for when you talk about 

contributing to a CEDE value, and if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

obviously have a case where a person has a 

thyroid cancer, that would be a very, very 

relevant mixture of radionuclides. 

 But what if the individual has 

another cancer, lung cancer or colon cancer or 

something? To what extent is this an improper 

radionuclide mixture, especially when -- and I 

did look at the basis for it. Obviously, we 

used codes, and we used certain release 

fractions based on serious damage to the fuel. 

 However, in one of the statements 

above on page 37, one of the things that 

caught my eye was the statement that goes as 

follows. "Several factors contribute to 

unusual amounts of fission products in the 

coolant system of the MTR and ETR during early 

operations." 

 And then it says, "With cladding 

technology in its infancy, the quality of the 

cladding was not the best, and fission 

products leaked through it. Another factor 

was trans fuel, which was contaminant on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outside of the cladding." 

 So here we are with a situation 

where we have a potential fuel failure, given 

the fact that this was a technology that was 

not very well managed at that stage in our 

history of fuel development, but we also have 

probably fuel that was perhaps heavily 

contaminated with trans fuel, which does not 

require you to leak out, and the assumption 

was 100 percent of the noble gases were leaked 

out of the fuel, 50 percent of the halogens, 

and one percent of the particulates. 

 Well, that ratio, first of all, 

would not necessarily apply to trans fuel that 

is already basically on the exterior of the 

fuel matrix and therefore available for 

release right there into the coolant water. 

 I'm just looking at the 

radionuclide mixture for that particular 

situation and saying, "Would this mixture 

necessarily be favorable to a person who has 

certain types of cancers that are not going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

benefit from this selection of nuclides?" 

 MR. GLECKLER: The ratios in Table 

5-24 are based on irradiated reactor fuel for 

the various types of cladding on that, so it's 

like it would account for any trans fuel, so 

I'm not sure what the issue is. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, you would 

obviously see a lot more fission products that 

are available, including cesium. 

 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, it would be the 

more volatile type fission products, which are 

usually the lesser dose contributors like 

iodines and cesiums and that, and by assuming 

-- by using the ratios in Table 5-24, we would 

also assign PU-238 dose and cerium-144 dose, 

depending on -- some years, yttrium-91 and 

zirc-95, which would more than likely not be 

present there, so that's a claimant-favorable 

in that aspect, because in those situations 

they were probably only exposed to iodine and 

cesium and noble gases, which only contribute 

to the external dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I'm still 

somewhat confused about the use of Table 5-24. 

 It's my -- am I wrong in assuming that that's 

only to be used for missed dose, people who 

don't have bioassay data, as opposed to those 

who have a positive bioassay data and -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: No. It's used for 

people -- well, we use it for both the 

unmonitored workers where we need to assign a 

default missed dose based on hypothetical 

bioassay data, but it's also used for the 

monitored workers, as well. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, let me go back 

and restate my question. What if a person you 

know for a fact based on external dosimeter 

data that he was in 1953 or `54 assigned to 

the advanced test reactor, and you have in 

Table 5-22 the various radionuclides mixes. 

Wouldn't you use that? Or, conversely, if the 

person was assigned to the transuranic storage 

area, wouldn't you assign those radionuclides? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Well, let's stick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with one facility. For the ATR, it's like as 

long as they don't have a thyroid cancer, it's 

like we'd use Table 5-24, because it's much 

more claimant-favorable for him. 

 Table 5-22 is dominated by your 

iodines, and it's like they just don't -- you 

can -- I've had monstrous iodine intakes for 

workers, and it's like unless they've got a 

thyroid cancer, they're not going to get any 

significant dose out of it. 

 DR. BEHLING: No, of course not, and 

that's exactly my point. 

 MR. GLECKLER: And so then we 

typically will default to 5-24. We just need 

to watch out for the thyroid cases, and 

they've got stuff for default iodine intakes 

in Table 5-24, but they're very claimantfavorable and will push a case comp, so we 

can't use them, because they are too claimantfavorable to use for a comp case. 

 MR. DARNELL: The questions that we 

keep going back to and circling around to over 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and over again seem to apply specifically to 

procedures and how this documentation, how the 

data is being used. 

 Let's get to the procedures. 

Nobody here is prepared for that. We're going 

to need to do another discussion on 

procedures. Otherwise, we're just going to 

keep talking about this dead horse and beating 

it. 

 DR. MAURO: So we'll wait for your 

response. It's simple as that. I mean, 

you're going to answer these questions, and in 

so doing you'll probably make reference to the 

procedures that apply to these various 

circumstances, and then we'll take a look at 

it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Hopefully, most of the 

questions that are being asked. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree with you. 

 MR. DARNELL: Jump ahead to Number 

5? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, let's do. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: Basically, if that's 

the tack we're going to take to talk about 

procedures and bring procedures up, the same 

issues in Number 5 and Number 6, Number 7, and 

Number 8. 

 DR. MAURO: No, no, no. We're going 

pretty quickly. I would agree with Issue 5, 

Issue 5, but Issue 6, now we're getting into, 

I guess, ultimately your lower limits of 

protection and calibration. 

 MR. DARNELL: It goes back to the 

Tiger Team report and the applicability, and 

we're going to have look at the procedures on 

it. I don't -- form NIOSH's point of view, I 

don't agree with your comments, and until we 

give you the procedures on how we're doing 

this, we're going to talk about Tiger Team 

comments saying we don't have proper 

equipment, proper uncertainties, and all that. 

 DR. MAURO: I mean, just to make it, 

you know, why this is an issue is if you 

determine that a particular -- you took a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bioassay sample. It was below the limits of 

detection, and, as a result, you're going to 

assign whatever you decide to assign, that 

mix, but whatever that lower limit of 

detection is that's specified is in question 

because of the Tiger Team comments saying, 

"Listen, we have a problem with what you did 

here," what was done then, what was your -- 

 So whatever is reported in the 

literature as their lower limit of detection 

back then, 1956, `57, whatever the time period 

is, the Tiger Team is saying, "Well, listen, 

we've got a problem. We don't know if you 

really got a good handle on what your lower 

limit of detection is." 

 So that puts you in a difficult 

position. How are we going to -- what are we 

going to assign when we decide we want to 

assign one-half the LOD if you don't know what 

a good number is for the LOD? 

 MS. JENKINS: Well, that's basing it 

on the Tiger Team report. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 MS. JENKINS: I looked around and 

found other audits that say the program was 

adequate. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MS. JENKINS: There were not 

problems. There is information referenced in 

some of the reference documents in the TBD 

that talk about calibration procedures and 

what they were doing. They had a whole 

instrumentation group that worked on this. 

 DR. MAURO: So, basically, you have 

an answer. The answer is you don't agree with 

the Tiger Team findings. We do believe we 

have a good handle on the LOD. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Do we have the site's 

response to the Tiger Team findings? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I doubt it. There 

ought to be one other point that needs to be 

made as long as we're talking about Item 

Number 6. 

 We need to notice that Item Number 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

6 is an observation, rather than a finding, 

which means in terms of significance for this 

group, it's a secondary level. It's just an 

observation. 

 MR. OSTROW: It fits in with the 

other ones, but it's -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Yes. 

 MR. OSTROW: We don't feel it's as 

important. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The need to respond to 

it with the same kind of rigor as you do a 

finding is not there. 

 MR. OSTROW: Backing up one, though 

-- backing up, though, I think we went too 

fast over Issue 5, which is on a high-risk 

job. This also came out of the Tiger Team and 

DNF as the findings, but, anyway, the finding 

was basically -- I'll just read one sentence 

that we had in our site profile review. 

 "Instead of merely using inhalation 

dose defaults the worker missed doses from 

generic facility operational source terms, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH should develop a list of high-risk jobs 

for different categories of workers at each 

facility based on bioassay data and sampling 

data, air survey data, and RWD data." 

 It's basically that should have 

broken it -- we think you should have broken 

down the defaults to identify high-risk jobs, 

different facilities with certain high-risk 

jobs. 

 MR. DARNELL: Why? 

 MR. OSTROW: Because not everybody 

was living on the average. There were 

certainly particular facilities and certain 

occupations that were higher risk. 

 MR. DARNELL: Define a high-risk 

job. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, you define the 

high-risk job. I mean, who had the potential 

of getting the highest exposure? 

 MR. DARNELL: We don't have to 

define a high-risk job to calculate a dose for 

a worker. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. JENKINS: It goes back to the 

CATI, too. 

 MR. DARNELL: It goes back to 

documentation the worker gives us. It goes 

back to documentation that exists from the 

Department of Energy and whether or not there 

was an incident reported. 

 The Department of Energy treated 

basically every job life or death. You know, 

if you had the possibility of getting 1,000 

bpm of contamination on your skin, they 

wrapped you up in a bubble suit and piped your 

air from Australia. 

 MR. CALHOUN: At least in the 

nineties. 

 MR. DARNELL: I mean, that was the 

mind set in the later time frames, and it 

started by the late sixties, where they were 

wrapping these workers up like they needed to 

be in Saran Wrap. Why do you think that NIOSH 

needs to go and define what a high-risk job is 

and pretend that we know that this particular 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

worker was assigned to this particular pretend 

high-risk job? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Then you're not on a -

- 

 MR. DARNELL: This is what you're 

asking us to do. 

 MR. CALHOUN: You've got to assume 

that the high-risk people weren't monitored, 

because if they were monitored, it doesn't 

matter. 

 MR. DARNELL: Done. 

 MS. JENKINS: And if it was a highrisk -- 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, if they were, 

yes, if they were monitored. If you have the 

data. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Well, so what you're 

assuming then, to make this a valid comment, 

is that people on high-risk jobs weren't 

monitored, and that's not very likely. 

 MR. GLECKLER: That's the only way 

it becomes relevant. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's not very 

likely. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. That's the only 

way it becomes relevant. I agree with that. 

So here we have a worker that has no bioassay 

data. We know he worked over at this facility 

at this time period, and you're going to make 

a judgment what we're going to assign to this 

guy. We believe he probably got some internal 

exposure. 

 You're going to have to make some 

judgment of what you want to assign to this 

person, and I guess the idea being the nature 

of his job and where he was and when he was 

there indicates that he may have been in the 

circumstance where he could have got -- 

 They didn't have bioassay samples, 

but you're saying that if there was a problem 

and he was, you know, working in the thing, he 

would have had bioassay data, and therefore by 

definition it makes sense to assign to him 

less than the MDL, and that's your answer, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 275

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

if that's your answer, that's your answer. I 

guess we'll worry about it when you write it 

up and send it back. 

 MR. GLECKLER: If he was -- if the 

worker was routinely exposed at INL, it's 

highly unlikely that they would not ever have 

been monitored. We're really only talking 

about potentially individuals that may have 

only had an intermittent exposure, you know, 

due to some circumstances, which would have 

been like an occurrence. So we rely heavily 

on their CATI information, their California 

interview information, as to whether they were 

involved. 

 MS. JENKINS: And if they tell us 

they were involved in an incident, then we 

evaluate that incident, and we evaluate what 

they say and figure out whether or not, you 

know, in our professional opinion, being 

claimant-favorable or as we depict claimantfavorable, it's going to be non-comp or as 

realistic as possible if we're going to be on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 276

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the edge. We evaluate what they say and 

figure out how to assign them some dose or 

whether we don't need to, and we justify that 

in the report. 

 DR. MAURO: Is OTIB-60 the one that 

deals with the Complex Y coworker internal 

dosimetry model? I'm going to -- I think that 

-- 

 MR. CALHOUN: I think that TIB that 

you're talking about is how to make coworker 

models. I don't think it's -- it's not a 

complex -- 

 MR. GLECKLER: OTIB-60, I believe, 

is our procedure on how to assess internal 

dose based on bioassay data. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I have not seen, 

lately, at least, an overall OTIB that covers 

assigning internal dose at all sites. Is 

there one? 

 MS. JENKINS: I don't see how we 

could do it. 

 MR. GLECKLER: It's just -- yes, not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: There is a guidance 

document that Jim put out about, I think, how 

to develop coworker models, but I don't think 

that there is a Complex Y coworker model. You 

know, there is for some of the AWEs in that, 

whatever it is, the 6000 document for uranium 

facilities, but I don't know. I may be wrong 

on that, John, but I'm not sure. 

 MR. DARNELL: I see this issue as 

very similar to hot particle issues that SC&A 

has brought up in the past. Unless there is 

something to document in that claim that 

something like a high-risk job that would 

require special consideration went on, there 

is no way we can do it, because you're asking 

us to guess about the job, guess if the worker 

did it, and then assign something, and that's 

less reasonable than the approaches that we've 

already laid out on how to do dose 

reconstruction. 

 MR. GLECKLER: If there's something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the dosimetry records that indicates that 

that might have occurred, then we'll assess it 

carefully. If there's something, you know, or 

if there's something in the CATI or in the 

information provided by the claimant, then 

we'll look into it, but if there is absolutely 

no information and nothing indicating that 

anything out of the ordinary happened, we're 

not going to look into it or assume that we 

don't have a basis for assigning that dose. 

 MR. DARNELL: Let me put it to you 

this way. I'm a laboratory worker. Am I in a 

high-risk job? Am I not in -- 

 MS. JENKINS: It depends on how good 

a lab worker you are. 

 MR. DARNELL: Exactly. 

 MS. JENKINS: How many -- how many 

incidents -- 

 MR. DARNELL: I mean, I could walk 

through one of the test areas where rabbits 

bringing in samples that have just been 

irradiated from the reactor, and I could be in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 279

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

an extremely high-risk job, or I could be just 

walking by, and I'm not in any high-risk job. 

 DR. MAURO: I like the question. 

Let's say we were reconstructing your dose, 

and you worked for five years at a particular 

site and no bioassay samples taken. This is a 

story that we hear time and again from the 

evening sessions at these -- and I'm 

sympathetic to these concerns. 

 "Listen, no one ever took my 

bioassay sample." That's very common at NTS. 

 "I was working out in the Flats with my nose 

in the dirt, and no one ever gave me a 

bioassay sample." Now, you're about to 

reconstruct my dose, and what are you going to 

assume was my intake? I don't have any 

bioassay samples. 

 MR. DARNELL: You talk to the 

claimants from NTS. 

 DR. MAURO: What would you want them 

to do for you? 

 MR. DARNELL: I talk to claimants 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 280

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from NTS and from INL. "They never took my 

bioassay." I'll open their file, and there's 

bioassay. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, no. That's a 

different story. I'm saying you know for a 

fact that you never had a bioassay sample in 

five years while you were working at this 

location at this time period, never had a 

bioassay sample. All of a sudden, we're going 

to do a dose reconstruction for you. 

 What do you think would be the 

reasonable thing to do if you were working, 

and you never had a bioassay sample? We can 

create any scenario. You know, what would 

make you feel confident that you were treated 

right? That's really what we're asking. 

 MS. JENKINS: We can't answer that 

question. We're health physicists. 

 DR. MAURO: You can't answer it. 

You could answer that better than anybody. 

 MS. JENKINS: No. 

 MR. DARNELL: What I would say -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes, I can answer it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Then we'd say that 99 

percent of all of our doses are overestimated. 

 DR. MAURO: Right, now, maybe your 

answer -- maybe your answer is that if you 

assigned the upper 95th percentile for all the 

workers that worked at my time period in that 

facility with that intake, I would be more 

than happy with that, and I would agree with 

that. 

 MR. DARNELL: That's good for you. 

Upper 95th percentile is not reasonable for all 

workers. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We'll have to 

remember that at tomorrow's meeting on 

Pinellas. 

 MR. DARNELL: But we have to 

remember these percentiles aren't reasonable 

for all workers, and we -- 

 DR. MAURO: But we're not doing it. 

 We're doing just you. We don't know where 

you fit in on that distribution. For all you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, you've been working in a place at the 

upper end of that distribution, unless you 

feel confident. 

 MR. DARNELL: Your methods are 

really going to bomb, because I am a claimant 

who has been, all right. 

 Okay, in bringing it right to the 

table, I would want my dose to be as close as 

possible, and I get this from claimants all 

the time. I want it close as possible to what 

my dose is, and if you sit there and you tell 

me, "I overestimated it by ten or 20 times 

because it's never going to get close to POC," 

I don't care. It's never going to get close 

to the POC, and I'm done. 

 I may complain. I may say, "I got 

more dose. I did this, and there should be 

more dose," but I'm not going to complain, 

because you overestimated it, and from time 

and time again from workers, that's what I 

hear. "Oh, you overestimated? How much more 

dose do I need to get there?" And you start 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

explaining about orders of magnitude. 

 DR. MAURO: I didn't realize this. 

I asked a question that was very personal. I 

didn't realize. 

 MR. DARNELL: No, no. Please don't 

think I took offense. I didn't. 

 DR. MAURO: Every time I come into a 

situation like this, I always ask myself the 

question, "What would give me peace of mind 

that I feel that the government did the right 

thing by me?" and I keep coming back to the 

same place. 

 MR. DARNELL: But you need to answer 

it from the ignorance of the worker. You know 

a lot more than the worker does, and I'm not 

casting dispersions on the worker by saying 

ignorance of the worker. He does not know 

about the statistics. He does not know about 

the competence. He doesn't know -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's why I posed the 

question, sir, because I do know. 

 MR. DARNELL: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: And I know -- and if it 

makes -- if I walk away saying, "I feel like I 

was treated right," then I believe the workers 

have been treated right. Do you understand 

what I'm saying? Right now I'm not hearing 

it. 

 MR. DARNELL: I see that you're 

projecting your thoughts onto the workers, 

okay, and I can't do that, because it's not 

fair to the worker. I look at it this way. 

You've got those guys at Y-12 that went 

through the criticality that got prostate 

cancer and have not been compensated, but they 

were in a criticality accident. 

 They were right on top of the 

criticality accident, got prostate cancer, and 

they're not getting compensated, but that 

30,000 guys out at NTS who played golf in the 

desert, and they're getting compensated on 

skin cancer. 

 You know, where do you draw the 

line about fairness? Where do you draw the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

line about reasonableness? And I think that 

the approaches that we have are reasonable. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I think we just need 

to respond to this question and move on. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think that we could 

both be very good debaters. 

 DR. MAURO: That's what we're doing. 

 MS. JENKINS: I can honestly say 

that based on my monitoring history and what I 

used to do, if these methods were used to 

assign my dose, I would be very confident that 

it was overestimated. 

 DR. MAURO: You're getting a fair 

deal. 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That's all it comes down 

to, isn't it? 

 MS. JENKINS: But I have a lot of 

knowledge that the average worker does not, 

and I understand lots of things because of my 

schooling and everything that someone who is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

trained in something else just doesn't know. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And like we've talked 

about, if you're not getting paid, you're not 

going to be in. That's what it all comes down 

to. 

 DR. MAURO: That's absolutely true. 

 MR. DARNELL: But I think that for 

Number 5, and there are other issues listed 

that are very similar to this one about highrisk jobs, high-fired jobs, or what. We're 

going to -- it's going to have to be done on a 

case-by-case basis, and records are going to 

have to be there for us to be able to look at 

this type of approach at all, and it's just -- 

there is no reasonable way for us to do dose 

reconstruction for the entire population and 

include this stuff unless it's in that claim, 

that specific claim. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Is there an incident 

section in this TBD? 

 MEMBER BEACH: That was my next 

question, but I was waiting for a cut-in. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DARNELL: Sorry. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Because I don't think 

all the incidents that I know about are 

listed, but I don't know for sure. I know 

there's eight of them. 

 MR. GLECKLER: All the major ones, I 

think they're probably listed, but it's like 

there's a lot of minor ones that are -- 

 MS. JENKINS: How many major ones do 

you know that are listed offhand? 

 MR. GLECKLER: Oh, they're covered 

in two separate TBDs for the INL profile. The 

environmental one goes into it, and I'm trying 

to remember if it's the internal or the 

external. It's probably the internal that 

covers -- 

 MS. JENKINS: I was just curious 

offhand. 

 MR. GLECKLER: -- some of that, but 

they're in a couple, but even the site 

description I think touches on some of them. 

I'd say it's definitely less than 20, if I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

remember right. That's just a guess. I 

haven't really counted them. 

 MR. DARNELL: You get into a problem 

with a site like INL, long history, huge site, 

a lot of people. You start listing incidents. 

 If you don't hit the ones you consider major 

and say, "This is just a partial list," you'd 

never get them all. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And we address them 

all as long as somebody brings them up in the 

TBD. You've got to say something about it. 

 MS. JENKINS: Or we find 

documentation. 

 DR. MAURO: You know what they're 

doing at Fernal? 

 MR. CALHOUN: Nothing at all. The 

place has been closed, John. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. We have Building 

1 and 2 up to 9. Here's the building numbers. 

 This is 1952. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Don't forget the waste 

pits and the -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 289

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, they're all there, 

okay, and what they're saying is, "We know how 

many bioassay samples. We've got 5,000 

bioassay samples in that box, Building Number 

1 in 1952." 

 MR. CALHOUN: Five thousand? 

 DR. MAURO: I'm making this number 

up. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: We looked at numbers. 

Okay, what they're saying is every single one 

of these boxes we could make a distribution, 

okay. 

 From that distribution, we know 

that in certain years a lot of people had 

their bioassays. The ones that don't have any 

bioassay data, they're saying, "Okay, we 

dropped the guy into the box." 

 Okay. Let's say we've got a guy 

who doesn't have a bioassay available. We 

know he worked in Building 2 in 1952. What 

are we going to assign as his concentration in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

his urine? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Be loud and obnoxious, 

John. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, yes. What are we 

going to assign? We've got to assign 

something. We've got to assign kind of a DPM, 

probably, okay, a concentration, average 

concentration in the course of that year. 

 All right, so you've got a 

distribution. They take a look at the guy and 

look at what his job history was, and they 

find out that -- and we know the job types in 

the buildings where there was a higher 

potential for exposure. 

 What they do is they're going to 

assign the high end of the distribution for 

that year for that guy, and other guys where 

they know, "We know what the job was. No, 

we're not going to assign that. We're going 

to assign the full distribution," and that's 

what's being done. You can't do better than 

that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 291

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I think this site is a perfect 

example of where the same exact thing is being 

done, because now we're talking the same thing 

with the time, and we're talking the same 

thing across the top to EBR-1, EBR-2, TAN, 

whatever, BORAX, all these. 

 Same thing. Same thing, and if you 

could tell me right now I could make a table 

that says I know how many bioassays samples. 

I could make a plot like that for every single 

one of them, and my process is going to be 

using prudent judgments based on the CATI and 

everything else you know, I'm going to pick 

off someplace in that distribution for that 

year for that guy and what his mix of 

radionuclides are. 

 I don't see that in the writeup. I 

think that's -- and if I was -- and that's the 

way you come at every problem. Every one of 

these sites, you come at it this way, and I 

don't see it here. 

 MR. CALHOUN: INL is a lot different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

than Fernald. 

 MR. GLECKLER: But is it -- so 

you're saying it's not appropriate to like 

group all the reactor sites versus like 

processing sites? 

 DR. MAURO: I'm not -- I'm not 

disagreeing. If it turns out there are 

certain -- I used this as an example, because 

there were enough differences in time and 

space at Fernald. 

 Now, you're telling me that 

whatever X, Y, and Z is, those X, Y, and Z 

weren't really an X, Y, and Z. They were all 

the same, so who -- I made your case. That's 

all I'm saying. 

 You're creating boxes, and from 

there you move forward. I think, time and 

again, if that approach could be adopted, 

you're standing on a rock. You can't be 

touched. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We can only hope. 

 MR. DARNELL: I think the only thing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- we need to agree to disagree and give you 

an answer in writing and move on. 

 MR. CALHOUN: We don't know 

completely if we're disagreeing until we write 

it out. 

 MR. DARNELL: That's true. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And that's probably 

true of all 35, in 35 and this one, and I 

haven't even looked at 

 MR. DARNELL: Thirty-eight. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, 38-B and -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Eleven. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And 11 more. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Which we haven't 

taken on officially yet. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but, you know, if 

that's possible to pass forward, it would seem 

to be giving NIOSH an opportunity to respond 

to as many of these issues that are before us 

on the table today as they can, and you might 

be surprised. A significant number of them 

may simply go away by reason of your written 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 294

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

response. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, I remember when 

we did Linde. Wanda, you were on Linde group, 

weren't you? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 MR. OSTROW: No? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I dodged that bullet. 

 MR. OSTROW: Too bad. What happened 

was that when we had -- we had findings like 

this, also, not as many but a bunch, and the 

way that -- we had some discussions, and the 

way that NIOSH responded, NIOSH wrote like a 

paper, white paper or whatever, and they 

grouped them. 

 You know, we had a lot of common 

type issues like the, for example, the Tiger 

Team business, you know. So say you'd have an 

actual section, which may be a page, half a 

page, maybe five pages on the Tiger Team, 

DNFSB findings, and you say in the title of 

it, you know, "Tiger Team Issues 5, 7, 13, and 

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 

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So you're cross-referencing it, so 

you're covering five or six or seven of our 

issues by one writeup that may be a couple of 

pages, and you put in what your basis is, what 

your understanding of our comment is, 

basically, and then how you're responding to 

that and why you think that what you're saying 

is correct. 

 You can put tables in or writing, 

whatever it is, and that covers like a bunch 

of our different issues, because from what I'm 

hearing so far is that at least you think that 

you can -- where you may have one that you 

say, "Okay, well, this may not be in the site 

profile, but it's answered by our procedures. 

This is how we actually do the dose 

reconstruction according to these procedures 

that we have." 

 So you may have a section on, let's 

say, procedures, and you say, "This answers 

our comments Number 1, 13, 42," whatever it 

is, and instead of having 38 separate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

responses for the -- I think the number of 

issues we have here, you may only have five 

writeups. It may come out, and that covers 

everything. 

 That's what we did in Linde, and it 

came out a bunch of pages, and we were able to 

go through it, and we threw out probably -- 

well, we resolved probably three-quarters of 

the issues basically on that one write up 

where -- yes, one white page. 

 We responded to that. We said, 

"Yes, you're right on this," or whatever, and 

we got down to -- instead of having a whole 

bunch, we got down to just a handful of sort 

of key issues that we identified that were 

real, significant, and they were sort of 

scientific type issues rather than sort of 

philosophical issues, and we narrowed it down 

quickly that way to a few real issues. 

 We spent a good amount of time 

resolving a few issues, but they were like 

real issues. So that's -- I'm just suggesting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that might be a way to approach it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Thirty-eight's 

nothing. 

 MR. OSTROW: Thirty-eight's nothing. 

 MR. DARNELL: Any way we want to do 

it, that's fine with me. 

 MR. OSTROW: I mean, that's up to 

you how you want to do it, but I'm suggesting 

this worked on one of the other sites, and it 

may work on this one. 

 DR. MAURO: To expedite matters, 4 

through 14 are all the internal, so we would 

take them there, and I would say basically we 

covered all of them except for maybe one or 

two that maybe were just bringing it to the 

attention, and one is -- there is this highfired plutonium issue that we raised. Is 

there a high-fired plutonium and uranium issue 

at the site, and, if so, I think we brought it 

up in the writeup in the audit. 

 MS. JENKINS: Super S is going to be 

addressed in the next TBD. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 298

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, so this is an 

issue you're aware of and you plan to deal 

with. I know you have an OTIB-49 that deals 

with high-fired plutonium, anyway, and it 

sounds to me that you have that in hand. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And I think that we 

actually do raise this. 

 MR. DARNELL: I have one for uranium 

for this site. 

 MR. CALHOUN: High-fired uranium is 

a new animal. 

 DR. MAURO: It is a new animal. 

 MR. CALHOUN: So I'd need to see 

definitely -- because that changes everything, 

so I definitely need to see something that 

says that this is -- that we do have highfired uranium, where it is, and how it 

behaves. It doesn't have to just be highfired. I need to know that it's variant 

soluble, because Super-S plutonium changed 

everything. 

 MS. JENKINS: Yes, and that is going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to be addressed in the next -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: And it probably only 

exists in one or two places in the world, 

really. 

 MR. OSTROW: Okay, so it really 

exists. That's an answer, also. Either you 

say it doesn't exist here, or you say, "Yes, 

it does exist. We're aware of it. We're 

going to deal with it." 

 MR. CALHOUN: No, I want you to tell 

me where you saw that it does exist -- 

 MR. OSTROW: Oh, okay. 

 MR. CALHOUN: -- because that's your 

comment, not mine. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, I think it's in 

the writeup, but, I mean, if it's in there we 

probably point it out. We recognize certain 

operations where high-fired plutonium and 

high-fired uranium -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: And that it is very, 

very more insoluble than type-S. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, that's why we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

brought it up. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Because it doesn't 

matter if it's not. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, we know plutonium. 

 Everybody's okay. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: We realize that's real. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Plutonium's done, and 

I think we're actually -- I think we're doing 

some DRs, getting returns from Idaho and 

redoing it for super class S. 

 MR. DARNELL: The writeup that you 

guys provided for this one is two paragraphs 

long. One paragraph is completely about U238. The other paragraph says some INL 

facilities, high-fired uranium or plutonium 

oxide to above 1,000 degrees, and there was no 

data. 

 MR. OSTROW: That's all we said? 

Okay. We probably based it on something. I 

hope we did. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 301

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: We owe you something 

there, okay. 

 MR. OSTROW: That would be fine too, 

you know. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Plutonium is spelled 

wrong in there. 

 MR. OSTROW: We spelled it wrong? 

We didn't mean to. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It might be something 

new. That could change everything, and it's 

238, too, so, okay. 

 DR. MAURO: The other one, and then 

I'll stop, that we didn't talk about that's 

sort of different, and this is a generic issue 

just to alert you to it, is when it comes to 

skin and skin cancer, when it comes to skin 

cancer, the methods you use, OTIB-17, to do 

non-penetrating radiation exposures and how 

you do it. 

 One of the concerns we discussed at 

length is there are some sites where there is 

a very real potential for airborne 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

particulates positing on people's skin, okay, 

and the uranium enrichment facilities are an 

example. There are flakes of uranium that 

become airborne. You have six oxidizers, and 

there are other -- and that same thing 

happened with Nevada Test Site. You do have 

the suspension of particulates landing on 

skin. 

 There really is no provision, and I 

don't think we've ever come to -- and this may 

be a generic issue, but I want to alert you to 

it. We have a comment here regarding facial 

and skin contamination. 

 MR. DARNELL: Which one? Is that 

Number 8? 

 DR. MAURO: That is Number 9. It's 

the only one that's sort of different. These 

two -- I bring these up because I'm trying to 

get through that group of ten quickly, and 

there's only two out of -- we talked about 

everything except high-fired plutonium and 

uranium. Now we talked about it, and now the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other one that I think is special is the skin 

contamination. 

 Is it your experience that there 

were some of the operations that took place at 

INL had a very real potential for airborne 

particles that could have settled on skin and 

caused a localized beta dose that was not -- 

that was of some possible significance and 

therefore could have been the cause of a skin 

cancer? We are concerned that there are -- 

that that particular exposure scenario has not 

been engaged in this program. 

 MR. DARNELL: There's no way it 

could engage that. You're talking about a 

hypothetical situation where a hypothetical 

particle settled on a hypothetical worker's 

arm, and we've got to guess who got it. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And it wasn't 

monitored. 

 MR. DARNELL: It wasn't monitored. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. No. No. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It could land on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

TLD. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, the question he's 

asking is were there activities or incidents 

on this site which could have resulted in 

airborne particulate, radioactive airborne -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. There are on 

every site. 

 DR. MAURO: What do you tell the 

person who's got skin cancer on his ear, his 

neck, on his face, his hands, and he says, 

"Wait a minute. I worked in the area" -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Well, what we do first 

is we assign the dose based on the badge, and 

if it's all over, it would have landed on the 

badge. Okay, if we're going to say that this 

is uniformly distributed, it would have fallen 

on the badge. 

 Secondly, if there's a documented 

skin contamination incident, we take that into 

account, and we calculate dose; if there's not 

a documented skin contamination incident, we 

do not, for skin contamination contributing to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that site. We can't. 

 That's just a hypothetical, and we 

can't really go there. We can't, because then 

everybody is going to say, "Well, I got 

contaminated and didn't get --," you know. So 

because if we're saying that this is a, you 

know, ubiquitous particulate that fell around 

-- 

 And I think the hot particle goes 

the same way. If it wasn't detected, we can't 

consider it, because the doses, as you know, 

from a hot particle are tremendous, but 

they're also very easy to detect because 

they're so strong, and so unless there is a 

documented contamination incident, whether 

it's distributed or a hot particle, they're 

not going to contribute it -- count that as 

contributing to a skin cancer. 

 DR. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling. 

 Can I make a comment here? I think the way 

to address it is to review basic health 

physics practices that should have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

documented in a manual. 

 Since you can determine with 

certainty that it was routine practice to 

frisk people out after they left the 

radiological control area, if there was a 

routine attempt to assign people anti-cs in 

areas where there was a high potential for 

contamination, that in itself would basically 

limit the likelihood of an undetected skin 

exposure and thereby eliminate this argument 

in its entirety. 

 The question is, in the fifties and 

early sixties, were there protocols in place 

that would detect skin contamination? Did 

they have pancake friskers at step-off pads 

where people would have a chance to say, "I 

am," or, "I'm not contaminated"? 

 Were they given anti-cs? Were they 

given -- was the air monitored, or were there 

surveys done that would detect contamination 

on the surfaces or other materials that would 

come in contact? Those are the things that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can be answered by looking and reviewing 

health physics manuals that apply to various 

periods of time during this facility 

operation. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Well, what we're 

talking about here is non-uniform undetected 

skin contamination. I guess you could say 

clothing contamination, too, if you want to 

get really crazy, and hot particles. 

Certainly anything uniform coming out of a 

plume wouldn't count, because that would be 

measured on your badge. So, again, you know, 

we're chasing windmills trying to come up with 

a position on that. 

 MR. DARNELL: The other thing that 

you're going to have to have to accompany 

this, if the situation was set up to where a 

worker could actually get this type of 

exposure, you would also have to have 

documented incidents on area contaminations, 

contaminations in people's offices, 

contaminations that just show up helter-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

skelter, because that's what you're saying is 

happening to the worker. 

 You know, all of these sites have 

monitoring programs. They do. They went out, 

and they checked their radiological areas for 

the spread of contamination. It was done even 

before the advent of DOE Order 480.11, so if 

you're saying a worker could be walking around 

and get a flake and a high dose from skin 

contamination because this flake fell on him, 

that same flake could be on the ground, and 

unless you could show some sort of correlation 

between unexplained contaminations all over 

the site, you're not going to get it for the 

worker, either. 

 DR. MAURO: So the criteria would be 

if there's evidence. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Documented, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: If there's evidence that 

these types of particulates were, in fact, 

created and settled out because of the nature 

of the operation, it's plausible that a person 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

may have experienced this type of exposure on 

his skin. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I think our position 

until I'm told differently is that unless 

there is documentation that John Mauro has a 

skin contamination incident, he didn't. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, as far as I'm 

concerned, we have covered all the internal. 

If you wanted to -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Number 10 I think 

should be fairly easy. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: This is Joe 

Zlotnicki. Can I jump in with a quick 

comment? 

 MR. DARNELL: Kiss of death there. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: In terms of there 

should be documentation, there's another, in 

my mind, potentially circular argument. I 

think what it boils down to is is there 

evidence that the program documented incidents 

 in any given time frame, let's say the 

fifties and sixties. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 If there are no examples of 

anything ever being documented, there's two 

possibilities. One is that nothing ever 

happened, which I doubt, or two, more likely, 

things were not documented, so to say there 

has to be documentation, there has to be some 

reasonable confidence that things will be 

documented if they were discovered. 

 Otherwise, you've got two strikes 

against the worker. One is that the 

contamination has to be detected, and then, 

two, it also has to be documented, and it 

seems to me that -- 

 MR. DARNELL: You can only have this 

one of two ways. You can either say that 

there was some type of program that we can 

base our technical program on to do dose, or 

there was no program, okay. We're going to go 

back and forth in this hypothetical realm, and 

what you're saying now is, "Well, this casts 

dispersions on whether they ever wrote 

anything down." 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Then there is no way to do dose 

reconstruction. We should all quit and just 

give them money. I mean, that's basically 

what you're saying here now. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's been suggested 

often, and, as a matter of fact, there are 

people around this table who would agree with 

you that that is what -- 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay, I am firmly 

against that, but that's what you're basically 

saying now is, "Well, maybe they didn't write 

anything down. Maybe they hid this stuff." 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: No, no, no, no, no. 

 I think we all know that standards change 

over time, and the fact that today we might 

document something when someone got a dose of 

a rem, for example, back in the fifties they 

might have considered that insignificant and 

not written it down or not had a policy to 

document anything. 

 I don't know, but I'm saying your 

position would be supported if you can show 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 312

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that there is documentation contemporaneously 

of some incidents where there is skin or 

clothing contamination. Then you could say 

for another person, "Look, you don't have 

anything, yet we have evidence here that this 

sort of thing was documented," but just to say 

there is nothing in the file documenting an 

incident, if there weren't any incidents 

documented, then it might just be that they 

didn't bother to write them down in those 

days. 

 DR. BEHLING: Or they didn't 

possibly even monitor. For instance, I'll go 

back, and for some of you who were party to 

some of the discussions relating to Ames 

Laboratory, they talked about in almost a 

joking fashion, the Green Hornet. 

 These people were covered with 

green salt to the point where they were 

basically using it as body paint. In those 

days, they didn't bother even concerning 

themselves with skin contamination, so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

monitoring was not in effect, and if you don't 

monitor, you're not going to find anything. 

 The other issue that Joe just 

brought out, even when they do find it, 

perhaps they didn't document it, but my bigger 

concern is early on people may not have been 

monitored for skin contamination. It was not 

considered a relevant or significant threat to 

human health, and so the use of pancake probes 

for frisking people out may not have been a 

standard practice early on. 

 MR. DARNELL: You're absolutely 

right. At some sites they actually even made 

the decision that they weren't going to 

monitor, because they knew the job would fall 

within a certain range of doses, and they just 

reassigned the workers. You're absolutely 

right. That did happen at some DOE sites. 

 What I'm saying here is that there 

was monitoring done. There was recording of 

incidents. Exactly how far back in time that 

goes, I don't know, but to take that and go to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 314

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the opposite direction and say, "Well, there 

wasn't enough of that done, or they didn't 

record them during a certain time frame, so we 

have to give dose to people," there is no way 

to physically do that either towards the 

negative or the positive of your premise. 

 DR. MAURO: I just want to be in a 

position that if a person came down with skin 

cancer who worked 1957, 1958, or whatever it 

is, and he feels that that very well could 

have occurred because he was exposed to 

airborne particulates while he was working at 

this place, because he remembers a lot of dust 

 -- whatever. 

 I want to be able to answer his 

question why we feel he probably did not 

experience a significant exposure to his face 

or whatever, because the records indicate the 

following, and on that basis we feel confident 

that he did not have a significant dose. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Airborne particulates 

isn't the issue, because that would show up on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

your badge. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, good. Then -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Hot particles that are 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: That's the first time 

anyone said this, and I like it. What you're 

saying, "Listen, if you have a ubiquitous 

airborne settlement problem, that stuff" -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely. 

 DR. MAURO: -- "is going to settle 

on your film badge. You're going to see these 

bright spots on the film badge." 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Good. I only -- you 

know I bring it up because I feel we have an 

obligation to answer that question. 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: John? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes? 

 MR. ZLOTNICKI: That raises another 

issue. Okay, if the film badge shows a spot 

from the contamination, which it potentially 

could do, if it was a higher energy beta or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

gamma, it would not necessarily show the lower 

energy beta, but let's just follow that one 

for a second. 

 When that film was processed, are 

there records to show that they took the 

highest spot in the filter region on the 

badge, or did the person reading the badge 

avoid that spot because, "Oh, there's a spot 

of contamination there. That's not 

representative of the whole body dose for the 

individual"? Again, there is a whole train of 

assumptions that would just arise. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Let's just stop. 

Let's just stop this by saying our position is 

going to be, unless Jim Neton tells me 

otherwise, that unless there is documentation 

of a contamination incident, we're not going 

to add dose. Done. Okay, let's move to the 

next one. 

 DR. MAURO: So you're telling me -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Please. 

 DR. MAURO: At the present time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 317

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there is a policy decision by NIOSH -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- to not address this 

issue. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, I've got 

a little thing. We're not going to even worry 

about, per se, the skin contamination, because 

I know you can get crapped up real bad, 

personal experience many times, without it 

being on your badge, you know. But the other 

thing is, and this is something that a lot of 

people have experienced throughout the whole 

complex, is there are times when they got a 

large dose of skin contamination or a large 

exposure to their extremities, but it's not 

going to show up on that badge, because a 

number of factors could come into play, where 

they wore the badge on their body, what the 

shielding was between them and that badge, 

whether they wore lead aprons and whether they 

were required to keep that badge under the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

lead apron, but yet now you've got these skin 

cancers. You've still got to deal with that 

problem. 

 MS. JENKINS: Well, are we assuming 

that it's not documented? Are we going on the 

assumption that these contaminations are 

undocumented contaminations? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: What I'm asking 

-- I guess this is more of a question than 

anything else -- is, okay, you can go in. 

This person has skin cancer, and you're doing 

a dose reconstruction. You looked at the 

material that -- they in the CATI interview 

said, "This is what I worked with at that 

time," and I mean it's particularly in the 

early days it was not documented, and nobody 

was concerned about it, but at the same time, 

these people said, "Well, that stuff was 

pretty hot, but, you know, we had to wear lead 

aprons and things like this." 

 How is the dose reconstructor, 

based on that CATI interview, going to look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that material? It could be very significant 

to their exposure to cancer. Is there any way 

that NIOSH has of looking at that? Because it 

doesn't show up on the film badge. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we do, and you're 

talking two different things. You're talking 

contamination and radiation. If we've got 

some body without extremity monitoring, and 

they were a hands-on rad worker, like a glove 

box type worker of worked with metal, not just 

your standard haz line, if they've got -- if 

they've got a cancer that shows up on an 

extremity, we will use a multiplication factor 

to adjust for the geometry that potentially 

exists between the source and the badge. It's 

kind of like our glove box factor, so we do 

have a method to do that, and we use it. 

 As far as contamination goes, 

again, if it wasn't documented, we don't 

assume that it happened. Sure, people do get 

hand contaminations. Generally speaking, 

people wear gloves. You know, it happens. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I know it happens, because I've 

seen it happen, but generally speaking people 

wear gloves, and that cuts down on your dose 

tremendously, and it's not the same as a skin 

contamination, because the major contributor 

to a skin contamination is typically betas, 

and the gloves stop that. 

 But, again, as far as radiation 

dose and cancer to the extremity, we've got 

ways of dealing with that, and we use it. As 

far as contamination, undocumented 

contamination to any place on the body, we 

generally don't address that. 

 MS. JENKINS: There is no way to 

address it, unless you pay everybody. 

 MR. CALHOUN: There is no need to 

address it. 

 MS. JENKINS: That's true. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So, I'm wondering how 

soon we'll get responses back on all of these, 

just roughly. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Are we done? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's going to be 

pretty much up to these guys as to when. 

 MR. GLECKLER: We're not done. 

 MR. DARNELL: Actually, Issue 10, 

the breathing rate, the TBD assumption appears 

less claimant-favorable than the ICP, ICRP or 

NCRP. Brian reviewed the ICRP. We're using 

the same numbers. 

 DR. MAURO: No, I skipped all of 

that because we talked about this in other 

venues. There are certain circumstances. For 

example, there are people working in AWE metal 

working facilities like Bethlehem Steel where 

there is heavy lifting, extreme exertion and 

where under those circumstances the 1.2 cubic 

meters -- I think it's per hour -- was 

replaced with some higher numbers. 

 I think the question here, you 

know, is are there any circumstances here 

where the higher reading rate should be. I 

think this is of marginal concern. This can 

be addressed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 If there are circumstances where 

the nature of the job is such that the default 

ICRP number may not really be claimantfavorable, then we're saying, well, as has 

been done at other sites, there are higher 

reading rates that could be used that seem to 

be claimant-favorable. 

 I'm not saying there necessarily is 

that circumstance here. I'd have to look back 

at this report to see whether we identified 

any job categories, but to me this is not 

center stage. 

 DR. BEHLING: I should also add to 

that in Section 5.1.2.7, 5.1.2.7, where this 

particular finding or observation was 

explained, there is obviously something that 

should jump out at you, because I believe 

Desmond, who wrote this, referenced the NCRP 

value of eight times 103

 cubic meters per year 

that he identified in the RAC report, and, of 

course, that was intended for offsite 

personnel who don't work eight-hour shifts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 323

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

five days a week. 

 So please make notice of that and 

realize that that was an error in even 

including it in our writeup, because it was a 

reference to the RAC report where offsite 

exposures were being assessed for 8,000 hours, 

and that was based on, obviously, 24 hours at 

a location offsite and not as a number of 

hours per year. 

 DR. MAURO: Are we recommending that 

SC&A delete this issue? 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, it should be 

stricken, because it's totally irrelevant. 

 DR. MAURO: Strike that. 

 DR. BEHLING: I mean, we certainly 

don't want to promote the idea that -- 

 DR. MAURO: Issue 15. No. Issue 

10. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- one should use 

8,000 hours. 

 DR. MAURO: Ten. SC&A is 

recommending that we inappropriately included 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Issue Number 10. We should delete it from the 

issue list. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Which is an 

observation in any case. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, so it doesn't help 

too much. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Every little bit 

helps. I didn't hear -- 

 MR. OSTROW: I see a cheer coming. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Hans, I didn't hear 

your reference to where in your writeup that 

error occurred. Would you mind giving that? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it's in Section 

5.1.2.7. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Got it. Thank you. 

 DR. BEHLING: And it's just a short 

one, breathing rate, and it gives you the RAC 

value, which, as I said, was really meant for 

offsite personnel or at a given location -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- more or less 24 

hours a day. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Page 79. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I just want to mark 

mine. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Now, we've got 

some people who need to catch planes, I 

understand, so I think we'll try to wrap this 

up in the next few minutes, if possible, so we 

can let those people catch their planes. It 

looks like we're going to have to come back 

again and beat on each other for a while. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The question is when? 

 MR. OSTROW: Why do we have to come 

back and beat on each other? 

 MR. CALHOUN: We can still provide a 

response to everything, even though we haven't 

discussed it. We can just try that. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No, I agree. 

That's a good idea, but this obviously isn't 

going to be the last meeting we have. 

 DR. MAURO: We're close to -- we're 

basically close to halfway through the list of 

issues. That's not bad. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 326

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CALHOUN: We can be done by 9:00 

if we keep this up. 

 DR. MAURO: No, no. I'm saying 

we've been through a lot of these, and that 

ain't bad. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Are we going to ask 

for the issues for ANL-West to be answered, 

too, since we know that most likely we're 

going to combine them? Are we going to ask 

for that at this time, too? 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I mean, 

because some of these issues obviously are 

going to apply to both, and, you know, if we 

can just combine that answer to both at the 

same time, well, that just saves a lot of time 

and money and hassle. I mean, that's my 

personal opinion. 

 MR. DARNELL: The way the findings -

- well, they're all listed as findings under 

ANL-West matrix that I perceive -- are 

written. Most of these appear to be like we 

feel this is occurring type issues. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 327

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 What I'd ask is, while we're 

working on our response, if you could roll 

these into the INL matrix that we have, I'd 

prefer to answer them through the INL matrix 

instead of adding them at the end. 

 MR. OSTROW: Well, that's okay to 

do. It's like I said before. You can group 

them any way you want to. You can have your 

response and say, "This addresses -- this 

particular response addresses these five INL 

concerns and these three ANL concerns," 

because once you cover everything, you can 

group them any way you like that you find 

convenient. 

 MR. DARNELL: Okay. Let me give you 

a specific example. With Finding Number 3.5-

1, on the ANL matrix it's on page 3 of 5 of 

the ANL matrix. "Radionuclides of concern in 

solubility of TBD-5 contains incorrect 

statements, assumptions, and recommendations. 

 "For example, SC&A considers 

NIOSH's list of radionuclides of concern to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

incomplete and too restrictive. We also 

contest NIOSH's statement implying the only 

soluble radionuclide of concern is strontium90." We need to know each incorrect 

statement, and I'm sorry for reading this 

directly. We need to know each one and why. 

 DR. MAURO: It's in the report. 

This is just the matrix. This is what you 

need to be looking at. 

 MR. CALHOUN: It's a binder. 

 DR. MAURO: Binder, a three-ring 

binder. 

 MR. OSTROW: Yes, this is 

summarizing it and points you to Section 5 -- 

 DR. MAURO: I mean, I would say, you 

know, take a look at the -- I mean, combining 

it, separating it, you know, whatever. 

 MR. CALHOUN: And if we need more 

clarification, that may be the response. 

 DR. MAURO: But if you do and if 

it's just a question, call us. 

 MR. OSTROW: If it's a simple one, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 329

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

call us. 

 DR. MAURO: And even if, let's say, 

we're not available, if we do have a call in 

and it's not possible to tie in with any of 

the work group members, my standard practice 

is to put a memo out saying, "We had a brief 

conversation on this issue." I put out an 

email to the work group. They know we had the 

conversation, but I know that the work group 

likes to be on the line when possible. 

 MR. KATZ: But for a simple -- yes, 

but for a simple clarification, you don't even 

need to -- I mean, it's fine to document 

afterwards, but we don't need a conference 

call for that. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, we should document 

that just so that everybody knows. 

 MR. KATZ: Call and ask your 

question. "I don't understand this comment," 

or whatever the details are. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, because 

ultimately the response is going to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

available. 

 MR. KATZ: So time frame, just sort 

of general time frame so we can know about 

scheduling? 

 MR. DARNELL: 6:00. 

 MR. KATZ: No, no, time frame for 

the response. 

 MR. DARNELL: That's what I'm 

talking about. 

 MR. CALHOUN: That's good. Okay. 

So we can meet tomorrow. 

 MR. DARNELL: 6:00, July 4, 2012, I 

have it down. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I'm on vacation that 

day. 

 MR. DARNELL: Actually, that's 

really dependent on how much time these guys 

have, and that's not a question we can give 

you an answer to right now. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, it would 

be nice if we could have these answers, at 

least have some discussion by phone on them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 331

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

before the full Board meeting in July. 

 MR. CALHOUN: When is that in July? 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's the 27th, 28th, 

and 29th, but you need to bear in mind that for 

at least a week and usually two weeks prior to 

that, most of the NIOSH headquarters staff is 

up to their armpits in alligators getting 

ready for this particular meeting. 

 So the suggestion from this chair 

would be if you're going to plan a meeting in 

July, which would be very beneficial for us if 

you could do that, then it needs to be no 

later than the middle of July. 

 MR. DARNELL: That's in the middle 

of the Health Physics Society meeting, too. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's the week 

that we'll be meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No, that 

doesn't work for us, either. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And so that pushes you 

over into August, and for selfish reasons I 

might suggest that you consider the week of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the 10th, since there is a meeting scheduled on 

the 13th for another group already. 

 MR. KATZ: I don't think we're 

trying to book the meeting itself, just a 

general sense for what month we could expect 

to get responses. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, when we 

can get the responses back. 

 MEMBER MUNN: When we can get the 

things out. 

 MR. KATZ: July? Is July a 

reasonable time frame? 

 MEMBER MUNN: End of July. 

 MR. DARNELL: I'll take the action 

item to email that information. 

 MR. KATZ: That sounds great. 

 MR. DARNELL: I can't put these guys 

on the spot right now, because we have them on 

the spot for so much. We have to figure out 

what that priority is, and that decision is 

higher than me. 

 MR. KATZ: That's great. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 333

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

 MR. DARNELL: By the end of next 

week I will email Phil so that he can 

disseminate it to the group. 

 MR. KATZ: Sounds great. 

 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I appreciate 

everybody's effort and time. 

 MR. KATZ: Good cheer. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.)