This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has been 

redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Idaho National Laboratory/Argonne National 

Laboratory West Work Group

Thursday, August 9, 2018

The Work Group convened via teleconference at 1:00 

p.m. Eastern Time, Philip Schofield, Chair, presiding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.2 

Members Present: 

Philip Schofield, Chair

Henry A. Anderson, Member

Josie Beach, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Bob Barton, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Mitch Findley, ORAU Team

Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A

Brian Gleckler, ORAU Team

Jenny Lin Naylor, HHS

Jim Neton, DCAS

Steve Ostrow, SC&A

John Stiver, SC&A

Tim Taulbee, DCAS 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory West Work 

Group Thursday, August 9, 2018 1

Roll Call/Welcome 4

Interim Status of Review for Proposed CPP SEC 

Class 1963-1970 6

Petitions’ Questions/Comments 20

Path Forward on SEC Class/August 

ABRWH Meeting Plans 33

Evaluation of Dosimetry Records for CPP 

During SEC Class 1975-1980 35

Evaluation of Uranium DR Methods for CPP Pre1963 52

Path Forward 63

Status of Other INL Work 76

Adjourn 78
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.4

Proceedings

(1:00 p.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome

Mr. Katz: So, let me say welcome to everyone.

This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. It is the INL and the Argonne National 

Laboratory West Joint Work Group with Mr. Paul 

Schofield as the Chair.

The -- there are discussion points for this meeting 

today and four background papers all posted on the 

NIOSH website, the NIOSH site under in its 

programs, schedule of meetings, today's date. You 

can go there and pull up any of those background 

papers or the discussion points as well as the agenda

for today. So, people are welcome to do that.

Let me also just note up front for people who are not 

familiar with these meetings to please keep your 

phones on mute. You can press star six to mute your 

phone if you don't have a mute button and then star 

six to take your phone off of mute. But, please keep 

your phone on mute except when you're addressing 

the group.

There is an opportunity I think for the petitioner to 

comment if we have a petitioner on the line for this 

meeting. And, but otherwise, it's just the staff and 

Board members will be discussing today.

Okay, for roll call, I have, first of all, we need -- we're 

dealing with the sites, so we need the specific site 

when we deal with conflicts of interest.

The Board members have no conflicts of interest so 

no need to address that for them.

But, we have present Paul Schofield is the Chair and 

Josie Beach, Member; Henry Anderson, Member; Gen 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.5

Roessler, Member; and let me just check again about 

David Richardson, are you on the line? He's the other 

Member to this little group.

(No Audible Response)

Mr. Katz: Okay, as I thought not.

So, let's go on and do roll call for NIOSH ORAU Team. 

And, again, please address the conflict of interest.

(Roll Call)

Mr. Katz: Okay, is that it for ORAU Team? Welcome 

to all of you.

Let me go on to the SC&A team.

(Roll Call)

Mr. Katz: Okay, and welcome to all of you.

All right, then with no further ado, Phil, it's your 

meeting.

Chair Schofield: Is John Stiver on the phone?

Mr. Katz: John is on the phone. He's probably on 

mute. John?

(No Audible Response)

Mr. Katz: John Stiver?

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. He might have got 

disconnected. I'll probably be heading up most of the 

discussion from our end today.

Mr. Katz: That's fine, that's fine, Bob, if you want to.

Mr. Barton: Okay, I mean, well, the first item in --

(Simultaneous Speaking)

Mr. Stiver: Yes, Bob's right, he's basically been doing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.6

the heavy lifting on all these issues, so he'll be 

leading the discussion for SC&A.

Mr. Barton: Well, let me ask, first of all, does 

anybody hear any feedback as I'm speaking? I have 

a window unit air conditioner and I don't know if it's 

too loud in the background. So, if everyone can hear 

me fine, then great. If not, I can turn it off.

Mr. Katz: Well, you're clear. You're clear, Bob.

Interim Status of Review for Proposed CPP SEC 

Class 1963-1970

Mr. Barton: All right, well, the first item on the 

agenda is the Interim Status for the CPP SEC Class 

During the Period from 1963 to 1970.

Now, this discussion is fraught with Privacy Act 

material. So, for the Board members, you all have 

at least a hard copy of the SC&A report or have 

access to Skype as I'll be showing up the report on 

there.

And, obviously, it's still heavy with Privacy Act 

material and I'm going to have to be very vague for 

this first discussion.

So, it's really key that all the Board members are able 

to follow along for this first item, which again, it's 

1963 to 1970 SEC definitions for the chemical 

processing.

So, does everybody either have Skype up and 

working in front of them or have a hard copy of the 

SC&A memo on that subject?

Ms. Roessler: Bob, this is Gen.

I have Skype but I'm not on yet. Can you get me on 

it?

Mr. Barton: I may be able to if you're waiting in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.7

lobby. I can test one of these options.

Ms. Roessler: Yes, you know, I wasn't -- I didn't 

notice the instructions on there, so I didn't get on.

But, why don't you carry on and I'll -- I think I can 

follow okay.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Well, I think it's probably --

Member Beach: And I have --

Mr. Barton: This is -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Josie.

Member Beach: I was going to say, I have a hard 

copy and I'm working on getting on Skype.

Mr. Barton: Okay. All right --

(Simultaneous Speaking)

Mr. Barton: Okay, well, let's go ahead with the back 

story here because it's been about a year since I 

think the Work Group met last.

And, this issue of the CPP Class Definition has gone 

thought two iterations, a lot of work by both NIOSH 

and from our side at SC&A.

And the key here is that the Class Definitions requires 

for this period requires a CCP specific dosimetry 

badge.

In other words, you need evidence that they entered 

the Chemical Processing Plant at least once and that 

would be in evidence by receiving a CPP specific 

dosimetry badge.

In other words, during this period, you couldn't 

simply leave one area of INL, for example, the central 

facilities area and take your badge from that area and 

head into CPP.

You had to stop at the guard shack and either pick 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.8

up a visitor badge or a more permanent dosimeter to 

head into the chemical processing chamber.

So, I guess beginning around in 2015, in tandem, 

both NIOSH and SC&A did some pretty intensive 

review of plant files in order to determine whether 

there was any possibility that this Class Definition 

might miss somebody.

And, out of that, you know, one of the important 

things that came out of that was the realization that 

temporary or also called visitor badges for INL, 

sometimes weren't being migrated into their official 

dosimetry systems.

So, when INL goes in and tries to research files for a 

specific claim, they might not see those temporary 

badges. Now, this is back in 2015 and parts of 2016.

So, that's obviously not only for this SEC discussion, 

but that's a pretty big issue.

So, what happened is DOE said, all right, well, we're 

going to go back and we have all the hard copies of 

these temporary and visitor badges and we're going 

to go in and we're going to code them and index them 

so that they are now migrated correctly into that 

main INL dosimetry system.

So that now, if you went in to find the monitoring 

records for a claim, you would have all of the 

temporary badges along with all of the bioassay and 

regular badging and that sort of thing.

So, it was around the fall of 2016 that the Work 

Group met and said, well, we need some way to 

verify and validate the implementation of this 

massive coding effort that DOE had undertaken for 

things like the general worries were, well, a lot of 

these records are handwritten, could there be name 

misspellings?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.9

Could there be name, like alternate names for the 

same worker? You know, or could there be just 

human error that would give the Work Group pause 

in accepting or recommending that the current Class 

Definition go forward.

So, after that August 2016, SC&A was tasked with 

coming up with a strategy essentially to verify and 

validate that all these temporary badges were being 

correctly migrated over to the official INL dosimetry 

system and they were being correctly identified with 

the individual worker.

And, we submitted our first memo on the strategy 

which is really a proof of principle type thing.

Later or early in 2017, at that time, the Work Group 

asked us to expand the V&V activities to include even 

more potential claimants and temporary badges that 

we could check.

So, in August of 2017, the Work Group elected to 

move forward with that and the first batch of 

requests were for 30 workers that had been identified 

in -- by SC&A in the hard copy of temporary badge 

report but who did not actually have these temporary 

badge reports in their current monitoring file.

So, essentially what would happen next is NIOSH 

would request an update to the monitoring records 

which should include all those temporary badges 

now.

And then, once DOE came back with those records, 

we could compare them against the list compiled by 

SC&A and then they're either correctly included now 

in the individual dosimetry files or they're not.

And so, to date, or at least as of when we wrote this 

memo and did the analysis, we had gotten responses 

for 18 of those 30 claimant requests.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.10

So, in the interest of sort of trying to move this thing 

forward a little bit, rather than wasting a full set of 

30, we took those 18 and what we're going to talk 

about today is sort of the interim results that we have 

just for those 18 claimants.

So, I guess that would be the quick back story to item 

number one on the agenda today.

And, I guess, let me ask, have people been able to 

get on Skype? If you are on there, you should see 

the agenda for today.

Member Beach: Yes, I'm on and I see the agenda.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Gen, were you able to get on?

(No Audible Response)

Member Beach: She might be muted.

Mr. Barton: Right.

Well, in any case, if your hard copy versions of the 

report are available, that's perfectly fine.

What I'm going to do, as I said, this report is really 

heavily involved with Privacy Act material. So, the 

only thing I'm really going to be referring to is an 

arbitrary case designation that we gave them. And, 

that's you know, A, B, C, D, that sort of thing.

So, that when we're looking at a certain table, you 

can see what case everybody else is looking at and 

the information that we have on that particular case. 

And, just be wary about definitely saying any names 

but even things like the employment period or the

job title. That gets in to sort of a gray area. So, err 

on the side of caution.

So, what I'm going to do here is I'm going to throw 

up one table of that report and let me know if people 

who are on Skype can see that now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.11

Member Beach: Yes.

Mr. Barton: Okay, great.

And, let me just take a step back. So, the overall 

results of this were that SC&A among these 18 

claims, had identified over 400 temporary/visitor 

badges that were in the hard copy files captured by 

NIOSH and available to us in the Site Research 

Database.

But, if you had gone into their DOE monitoring file at 

that time, those badges were not included.

So, these -- there were basically 420 entries that we 

could test to see if they were now correctly being 

included.

And the overall result was that, among those over 

400 entries, about 80 percent of them were correctly 

now included in those updated claimant files.

So, that's sort of the overview. In addition to that, 

and when I say we're making comparisons, one thing 

that everyone has to understand is that on a visitor 

badge, in general, all you have is a first initial, a 

middle initial, a last name and the employer.

So, as you can see, that's not a whole lot. We don't 

have an actual employee which sort of complicates 

the process.

So, when I say we have these 420 badges to check, 

that meant that we actually had that middle initial, 

first initial, last name and company all matched with 

the exception of one case which we'll see shortly.

So, in addition to those 420 results for V&V 

comparison, we also wanted to look specifically 

whether we saw name variations like I just described 

earlier, that is maybe a transposed letter, middle 

initial and first initial maybe were reversed. Maybe 

there's a slight misspelling, those sorts of things 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.12

which you'll see shortly.

And, I believe we had about just over 30 instances of 

that.

And so, we did go in and look, in addition to those 

420 to see were other name variations being 

included? And we found that just three of them had 

been included that SC&A noted.

But, again, as you'll see pretty soon as we look at this 

table, SC&A also went into the updated DOE 

responses and found that there were even more 

name variations that DOE had included that SC&A 

hadn't seen. So, sort of a two-way street there.

Some of the name variations SC&A identified weren't 

in there and then DOE had identified some name 

variations that SC&A hadn't identified either.

As you can imagine, that can get a little bit tricky.

So, what we're looking at in table, if you're looking at 

a hard copy, this is Table 2. And the first case there 

is Case K.

And you can see in the second column, that's the 

number of badges for this particular individual that 

SC&A was able to identify.

And, in this case, none of those the number of badges 

that you can see here, they're -- none of them were 

actually identified in the updated monitoring record.

So, a couple of things to note, there's a lot of 

information here for this claim.

The first full here in the last column shows the name, 

the employer, the job title and then it gives some 

information about the individual because, as you can 

see, the name is not all that unusual.

So I mean, you could have multiple people with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.13

similar names. So, are there two people? Is that the 

reason we didn't find them? Is that the reason DOE 

didn't include them? That's one possibility, but 

there's certainly indications here that this person 

might have been missed.

Now, all the way to the bottom of this case, we note 

that we do not actually -- SC&A did not find any main 

variations for this individual and we didn't actually 

see any in the updated DOE file either.

But this is, I guess, like you would consider the worst 

case in that none of these temporary badges, if they 

are in fact, representative of the individual were 

captured by this updated coding effort.

We move on to the next one which is Case F. Again, 

in the second column, we have the number of badges 

that SC&A identified and the number that were 

actually found in the DOE file, which is about 13 

percent of the total identified by SC&A were included.

Now, this one is sort of an interesting case. If we go 

up to the name, you can see what the name in the 

office and provided in the DOL file of this.

However, this name which has a slight difference is 

not a spelling difference, you can see what I mean, 

appears in the same monitoring file.

So, in other words, the name, including this part is 

not always included.

And we can see that they worked -- who they worked 

for, what their job title was.

However, the -- looking at the monitoring file, what 

they have in common is that most of the these top 

name variations have the same S number which is a 

specific employee number at INL. So, that's -- we're 

very confident that these are in fact the same people. 

It's just again, these visitor cards are handwritten so 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.14

sometimes, they might have gone by the first version 

and sometimes the EE might have gone by the 

second version.

If we go to the second bullet here, and we note that 

in the updated response from DOE only contained 

that one variation and none of this variation.

Now, this variation is the actual on the DOE L file 

name for the claimant. So, in other words, that 13 

percent that were included in the file represented this 

version. And then, the other 87 percent represented 

this version and were not included.

Some name variations, if we look at the second to 

last bullet for this individual, there's a couple 

different versions of it. And, you can read through 

those and just see how it's a little bit different in each 

one.

We did not see any of these versions of the name in 

the updated file. However, the next bullet shows 

variations of the name that we did see. And, 

everybody can kind of take a look at those.

Again, this is to get an idea of sort of the variability 

and inherent difficulty in going for something that's 

handwritten and then coding it and then correctly 

associating it with an individual.

This last note here on this last bullet introduces 

another name that could have been the middle name 

I assume or it could be a different individual. But, I 

will note that we went through all the DOL files in the 

CATI and never saw this middle name or middle initial 

associated with it. So, we're really not sure about 

that one but it was included in the DOE file.

And, I guess one side note sort of complicates this, 

and it's kind of, I want to say, quirk, but it's maybe 

more of a cultural thing with a lot of the workers out 

in Idaho.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.15

And, we found out this doing interviews and such that 

a lot of times, the workers would go by their middle 

name. That's how they were known. And wouldn't 

necessarily go by their first name.

So, it could be that this is this gentleman's middle 

name and that's how he would sometimes, you know, 

present himself. Or maybe that's how it was written 

down when he received a temporary badge or any 

sort of possibilities.

So, that's -- I just wanted to note that that was one 

complicating factor. And, we actually talked to some 

of the workers out there. And, they were like, yes, 

you know, some people just like to go around by their 

middle name and not necessarily their first name.

I'm not sure the exact reasons but that just seemed 

to be sort of a subcultural thing there.

So, if we move on, there is Case E. In this case there 

are this many total badges that SC&A identified. 

And, almost 80 percent of them were found in the 

updated DOE response file.

And again, we see at the top here this is a claimant's 

name, the employer, job title and name variations. 

Again, these are going to be the last two bullets. And 

these are really the only things that I really want to 

bring the Work Group's attention to in this table is 

that you do have significant variations.

None of these were actually found in the DOE file. 

However, these were just down here and there are 

six, looks like six different name variations. Those 

actually were included.

So, you can see, there's quite a bit of variability for 

this individual.

Case M, now we're up to 94 percent of the observed 

temporary badges were correctly included in the DOE 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.16

file.

This person had a slightly different employer for part 

of their employment. And again, we have one name 

variation that SC&A identifies and that DOE identifies 

two more in name variation.

Now interesting to this one, and if you go to the third 

bullet for Case M, there's a single missing badge with 

a different employer.

However, if you're actually going into the DOL case 

file, this is -- that is the correct employer so that was 

not a different individual. The person just changed 

who their primary employer was.

And that coincided with the missing badge.

Moving on to Case O, again, we have this many 

badges here. About 95 percent were contained in the 

DOE updated file. And we do not observe any name 

variations either in -- by SC&A or in the actual DOE 

file.

Moving along even further, this one Case D had about 

96 percent of the identified temporary badges 

included with their DOE update file.

So, you can see a couple of different -- four different 

name variations that SC&A identified. One of them 

was actually included, this one right here in 

quotations.

That one likely made it through, though because the 

actual temporary badge had a security number, S 

number, which, again, was a very unique identifier 

for the INL site. And, it was also a positive result.

Now, that makes sense that that would obviously be 

flagged and included. However, the updated DOE 

response contained about four more different name 

variations that SC&A didn't necessarily identify.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.17

And, these didn't have -- these name variations that 

I'm showing in the DOE response don't have to be 

temporary badges. They could be on almost 

anything.

Sometimes, they were handwritten on the bioassay 

sheet or any sort of record that is contained that DOE 

would send that lists the name as something different 

than what the name is given for the claimant both in 

NOCTS and by DOL.

Okay, and the last one, Case H here, again, a large 

number of temporary badges identified and about 97 

percent for this claimant were identified.

I saw the name variations again. We have a couple 

different ones here. As we can see, the name 

variations are associated, or two of them are 

associated with specific employer which matches up. 

And, another one is a different employer, which 

again, also matches up.

And the DOE response also contained two other name 

variations that SC&A hadn't seen.

So, those are the cases in which we did not have a 

100 percent coverage based on the temporary 

badges that SC&A identified and the temporary 

badges that were included in the updated response.

The remainder of these cases, we did put down where 

there are name variations, for example, Case G has 

one that SC&A found and three that DOE identified.

Let's see here, ah, Case J, this individual was actually 

identified through earlier efforts by SC&A and NIOSH 

in which we couldn't find any external dosimetry, but 

we found evidence, and if you look over here for Case 

J, that's the evidence that was labeled them as being 

at CPP.

And, this one was discussed and researched 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.18

extensively. And, at the time, we kind of wrote it off 

as maybe it was just a typo that the actual evidence 

here shouldn't have said CPP and really should have 

been for another area.

However, as it turns out, we found one temporary 

badge for that individual when we re-requested their 

records and it coincides with that other record which 

had indicated CPP was correct.

For me, that was one mystery solved and that's one 

where we specifically wanted to include the individual 

to see if these new coded temporary badges sort of 

uncovered a mystery of whether that person was 

actually at CPP or more likely at another location.

Case L, this is one that had a whole lot of different 

versions of the individual's name. As you can see, 

this person had a very specific employer and SC&A 

found four different variations all with that same 

employer, only the last one had been included in the 

DOE response.

However, the DOE response also contained, let's see 

here, eight other name variations for this person. So, 

they spelled his name a lot of different ways.

But, again, of all the numbers that SC&A identified 

that exactly matched his name, those were all 

included in the DOE response.

However, three name variations, other name 

variations that SC&A identified, the name variations 

weren't in there except for one of them.

And, I mean, this is really getting targeted, the rest 

of them are, again, are all a 100 percent included on 

Case P, you can see those name variations, the ones 

that were included and the ones the SC&A could not 

find.

And, again, Case Q, again, it's a 100 percent. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.19

wanted to know where there was name variations, 

the ones SC&A identified and the ones that DOE 

hadn't included.

This last one, in the last bullet on Case Q, last name 

found by DOE is very different. I just kind of wanted 

to point that out.

And then, the last two, again, a 100 percent and no 

name variations were identified by SC&A or seen in 

the updated DOE file.

So that's the interim status of this report. Again, 

overall, when you sum all these up, it was about 420 

temporary badges that matched the first initial, the 

last initial, or first, middle initial, last name and 

employer and was within the date range of covered 

employment.

And, among those 420, 80 percent of them were 

correctly migrated over and identified during the 

process of re-requesting the dosimetry records for 

those individuals.

The one individual, the very top case, Case K, I don't 

know if Tim's going to want to talk about that after 

this.

For one individual, there was a significant number of 

dosimetry -- temporary visitor badges that we were 

able to identify but none of them had been actually 

migrated over into the updated DOE response file.

So, again, this is -- these are the interim results from 

18 of the first 30 claims which we were going to make 

requests for.

When we started out requesting these, the plan 

originally was -- these were noted as the Group 1 

claims and there were 30 that we had sort of ranked 

as being the most significant as far as gleaning 

information in this type of activity.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.20

The plan at that time was, once we had the first 30, 

we request the second 30 or Group 2. I don't know 

if that's still something the Work Group wants to do. 

But, again, we have not, or at least as of the writing 

of this report, we did not have responses from DOE 

for all 30 of the first group.

So, again, this represents the first 18 that we had 

response files for. And, I guess that would have 

probably have been about late June when we cut it 

off and said, all right, well, for the purposes of this 

meeting, we just -- we have to do the analysis now, 

we can't just keep waiting.

I know there was at least a couple more DOE 

responses that came in during the process of getting 

this report finalized, but they're not included. And, I 

have not checked recently to see if the remaining 12 

claims that had not had DOE responses to this point 

are included now, but I would guess a fair number of 

them aren't.

So, that really concludes I guess my spiel on Item 

Number 1 here. I can take any questions or I know 

Tim sent along a presentation yesterday that he --

that is directly related to this.

So, however the Work Group wants to proceed, I can 

answer any questions or I can pass control over to 

Tim.

Petitions’ Questions/Comments

Member Beach: This is Josie, I don't have any 

questions.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. Am I now off mute?

Mr. Katz: Yes, you're off mute.

Member Roessler: I've got it right this time. I don't 

have any questions either.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.21

Mr. Katz: So, Phil, do you want Tim to go now or --

are you on, Phil?

Oh, we may have lost Phil, I'm not sure.

Chair Schofield: Now can you hear me?

Mr. Katz: Yes, there you are, thank you.

Chair Schofield: Sorry, got lost there.

Maybe before we have Tim do it, we could cover the 

evaluation of the uranium dose reconstruction 

methods they have.

Mr. Katz: Well, Phil, but Tim's points are related to 

this first item.

Chair Schofield: Okay. That's what I was thinking, 

but I -- if he's ready, I mean, I --

Dr. Taulbee: I'm ready anytime you all are.

Chair Schofield: Okay. Then it's all yours, Tim.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Give me just second just a 

second to get the presentation up here.

Mr. Katz: Maybe you'll fix it. But, right now, your 

voice is very remote.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay, is this better?

Mr. Katz: That is better, yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay, just a second here. All right, let's 

see, all right.

Can you all see the presentation?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. All right, so, I just wanted to 

kind of take a step back quickly and kind of remind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.22

the Work Group as a whole that the goal of the --

about the goal of the SEC Class and what the 

components of the exposure at CPP that we 

determined that we could not estimate with sufficient 

accuracy.

And, that component is the plutonium and other 

transuranics at CPP for people who worked within the 

process cells and the laboratories.

And so, the goal of the SEC Class Definition was to 

identify workers who were potentially exposed to 

plutonium and other transuranics at CPP for 250 

days.

So, to ensure we didn't miss anyone, we cast a wide 

net. That was the goal.

And so, the definition that we came up with was a 

single badge at CPP and 250 days of employment. 

Not 250 days at CPP, but that's the general criteria 

of an SEC would be the exposure and the actual 

exposure to the transuranics and plutonium and for 

the exposure to have been 250 days.

Why did we choose a single badge? Well, there was 

a potential for some administrative personnel at CPP 

to be on annual dosimetry starting around 1966, 

1967. That 250 days might only have a single batch.

But, this would be somebody who was on routine 

dosimetry. And, the administrative personnel had 

low potential for actual transuranic exposure from 

the process cells at the labs.

It doesn't mean they were not, they could actually -

- there's nothing preventing them from going into 

those areas, but the routine workers in those areas 

were on a monthly and then latter quarter dosimetry.

And so, the Class Definition identified the routine, by 

the way, I'm on Slide 2 now, the SEC Class Definition 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.23

identified the routine CPP workers with some 

potential for exposure to plutonium and transuranics, 

but it eliminated non-CCP workers with zero potential 

for transuranic exposure.

For example, workers who work 30 miles away at 

Test Area North and workers from Central facilities or 

a Test Reactor area or the Auxiliary Reactor Area.

The simplified definition does include some workers 

who may have 250 -- who may not have 250 days of 

exposure at CPP.

Most notably, the temporary workers. Most of the 

badges that Bob was just talking about were for a few 

days up to a week.

Now, it is possible that a worker, as you see, had 

multiple temporary badges and so they could have 

up to 52 or so badges during a -- during their work 

career there at CPP which would meet that 250 day 

criteria.

But, the benefits of the simplified badge definition 

was the routine workers had multiple badges. Most 

of them were on monthly, especially the ones who 

were in these areas with plutonium and the 

transuranics.

It also mitigates the potential for misidentification 

issues due to incorrect name spellings on temporary 

badges. And, Bob went through a great deal of detail 

there showing all of the variations that could be 

occurring.

It also need to identify all temporary badges if we are 

requiring, you know, 250 days of exposure at CPP, 

that meant every one of those badges would have to 

be tallied the number of days that it was valid for.

You'd have to make sure that you've got them all. 

You'd have to make sure that they were all spelled 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.24

correctly and that everything worked.

By this definition, we felt there's a low probability of 

missing 52 badges, thus, there's a low probability of 

missing a worker truly exposed to transuranics for 

250 days.

Let's see, I went the wrong way here, there we go.

Okay, so, now I'm on page 5 of the slides.

There was some potential concern that a single badge 

Class Definition was being too broad. Again, this 

includes workers that did not routinely work at CPP.

You have the -- your temporary workers, visitors and 

who may not have had 250 days of potential 

exposure.

However, as I indicated before, it's difficult to sort out 

the actual base of dosimetry. Not impossible, but 

requires more stringent criteria on finding and 

reading all of the handwritten badges.

As Bob pointed out, there's very, you know, subtle 

misspelling differences. He caught a whole bunch of 

them whenever he identified his Class or identified 

this particular group in which badges there were, that 

when the results came in, you found others that they 

had tagged to that person which were different 

spellings of individuals.

But, again, our goal was to try and cast the net wide 

so we didn't miss anybody that had 250 days of 

exposure.

And so, if we're going to look at SC&A's evaluation of 

the 18 workers, 17 of the 18 CPP temporary workers 

were identified and would have been entered into the 

Class had this Class been, you know, identified and 

with DOE's current process.

The one that didn't, and it's Case K, as Bob pointed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.25

out, and so, this would be 5.6 percent of the total 

there, was misidentified by DOE.

And, under the current review would not have been 

determined to have been part of the Class.

And so, what would have happened with this case? 

Well, it would have been referred to NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction.

And, during dose reconstruction and the NOCTS file 

indicates that there was CPP work. And so, what we 

would have done is when we saw this with an SEC 

cancer, we would have inquired with DOE and sent 

to, you know, a letter to DOL asking about Class 

inclusion and we would have provided the 

documentation.

So, there is actually a check and balance that would 

have worked, I think, in this particular case where 

the individual would likely have been reevaluated and 

included in the SEC Class.

Now, having said all of this, Case K, DOE erred on 

this case. They should have found at least one 

badge.

SC&A found 31 badges when we went through 

looking for this individual. I found 32. And, based 

on the 32 badges, Case K has a total of 95 work days 

at CPP over the four years that the temporary badges 

cover.

So, here's a temporary worker, he is definitely a 

person that we were intended to be caught by that 

net. But, he actually doesn't have 250 days of 

potential exposure at CPP.

But, again, we were casting the net wide to make 

sure we didn't miss somebody and recognizing that 

somebody has, you know, a unique misspelling of, 

you know, the multiple variations that Bob was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.26

pointing to, we only needed one to indicate that they 

were there at CPP. And that was our goal there.

Now, we contacted DOE to find out why. When we 

got Bob's reports and read through it, we asked 

them, you know, why did you all miss this?

It's interesting to point out here that the initial 

response in the October 2017 file for this individual 

had 296 pages of dosimetry information.

The response that they sent last month had 281 

pages. So, there's more than just the temporary 

badges missing from the second response. 

Something happened in their response.

Again, we've talked to DOE, they recognize there's 

an issue with the case but they are not certain as to 

the reason the temporary badges were missed and 

why the response was short 15 additional pages.

What they've committed to do is to resend the full 

response of Case K and this is currently in process.

The next case I want to talk about is Case F because 

this one caused us some pause as well even though 

one badge was -- at least one badge was identified 

and they would be part of the SEC Class.

Only six of the 48 badges were found and we felt they 

should have found more than that.

Another interesting part with Case K -- Case F here 

was the DOE only sent a partial response. The 

temporary badges, they're not the full dosimetry files 

as we requested.

You know, we -- when we sent this request back, we 

asked them to treat these as if they were a new case.

In this particular case, they only sent 16 pages. In 

the October 2017 case, they sent 531.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.27

So, clearly, they just sent what they found from a 

portion of the temporary badges and did not send us 

the full dosimetry file as we requested.

Again, DOE committed to review this particular one 

and resend the full dosimetry file as they would for a 

new claim which is what we requested initially.

So, a little bit of misinterpretation on our part as well 

as Bob's there of what was sent. We thought we were 

getting the full work up. And, in these two cases 

alone, it's clear we did not get a full work up as what 

we had initially requested.

So, here's the results, so just to re-emphasize from 

what SC&A was presenting here, and I added a 

column here to this one and this would be wouldn't -

- under the current system, would they have been 

included in the SEC. And, that's the far right column.

And, you can see that there's only one, that Case K 

that wouldn't have made it into the Class, but I do 

believe with the check and balance of the case would 

then have been sent to us for dose reconstruction 

that it would have been caught.

But, that doesn't excuse what DOE, you know, their 

error, they need to fix that.

So, in summary, you know, over the past month or 

past couple of years, we've demonstrated the 

completeness of the dosimetry badges.

Routine dosimetry badges, there's multiple badges 

for each of the routine type of workers. It's all typed, 

it's all in the IDM system. There's not really an issue 

with misspellings.

The same for reconstruction dosimetry badges. A 

large number of construction workers are on the 

routine badging there. That was that CX area. And, 

again, those are typed and there's S numbers and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.28

multiple ways to identify the workers.

It's these temporary badges that are the vulnerability 

group here because these are the handwritten 

components. And SC&A's V&V of the temporary 

badges this, again, is the group with the highest 

vulnerability to verify this process 94.4 percent of the 

temporary workers are accurately placed by DOE in 

the SEC with the current definition.

We have notified DOE about the missing badges and 

they are reviewing their process to improve that 

accuracy.

And so, with that, I'll be happy to answer any 

questions.

Member Beach: Tim, do you have -- this is Josie, do 

you have a time line for the rest of these requests 

that have been sent out to get us up to the 30?

Dr. Taulbee: I do not. And, part of that has to do 

with in late May, they -- DOE lost one of their 

technicians that provides these responses. And so, 

they've been struggling just to keep up with normal 

claims which is why there's been a bit of a slow down 

here.

And, I don't know the status of whether they've been 

able to hire anybody yet to do that back fill. So, I'm 

sorry I don't have a good time line as to when they 

are.

But, we can ask them about that and as well as these 

responses.

Member Roessler: Tim, this is Gen.

Dr. Taulbee: I think we could follow up and respond 

to the -- I'm sure we can get an answer within the -

- before the Board meeting later this month.

Member Roessler: Tim, this is Gen.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.29

Dr. Taulbee: Yes?

Member Roessler: Okay, I have a question, it's 

probably not -- I have two questions, one's pertinent 

to this discussion and the other one may not be.

But, on page 4 or slide 4, there's a number there that 

I don't know where it comes from.

The last bullet on that slide, you talk about the low 

probability of missing 52 badges. Where did the 52 

come from?

Dr. Taulbee: It actually comes from, if you go up to 

slide 3 where I talked about the temporary workers. 

Most of those temporary badge reports that Bob and 

I have been reading off of, missed the actual date of 

-- that that dosimeter was worn.

And, in the case of Case K, many of those particular 

temporary badges that the individual received were 

for one to two days.

But, there were others that were for a full week. And 

so, there would be a period of three weeks where he 

was actually working at CPP full-time. And so, you 

can see that in his dosimetry where it's a full week 

this, you know, particular week in say August.

And then, the next week is August and the third week 

is August in there for a full week.

So, the 52 badges comes from 52 weeks in a year. 

That would comprise 250 days.

Member Roessler: I think this was obvious, but okay.

Then probably the more pertinent question, you said 

in your last bullet of the summary that DOE has been 

notified of the missed badges in reviewing their 

process and to improve to a 100 percent.

Well, that's obviously a good goal. But, how do we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.30

go about testing whether this is going to work?

Dr. Taulbee: Well, I think the key here is to look at 

the individuals as a whole. Do we get a single badge 

that puts them into the Class as we were expecting?

And, not going through the actual, you know, do they 

have, you know, 31 of 32 type of badges. Because 

in the case that, you know, Bob was pointing out 

there, when you go through all of that, he identified 

certain people or badge or spelling of the name. And 

then, DOE identified different ones.

And so, there's just a mismatch in there. But the 

critical part is, this person has a dosimeter badge at 

CPP and would they have been part of that Class? 

Did we find at least one?

And, that's the metric that I think should be looked 

at. And, in this particular case, and they errored on 

Case K, there's no doubt about it, there's no excuse 

for it. They absolutely should have found one of 

those badges.

Member Roessler: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: But, at this point, you know, of the 

limited sample of 18 cases, we're getting 94 percent 

of these temporary workers.

Again, the routine -- we're not catching the routine 

ones or the construction ones, these are visitors to 

CPP.

Member Roessler: But then, the plan is to follow 

through on the remainder of the first 30 and then do 

the second 30, is that the plan?

Dr. Taulbee: That's up to you all.

Member Roessler: All right.

Member Beach: I think we should definitely do the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.31

first 30 and then revisit and decide if we need to do 

the next 30. That's just my thought.

Member Roessler: That sounds like a good idea.

Mr. Katz: Yes, this is Ted.

I mean, just on that point, let me just say, I mean, 

while we do this continued looking at cases, I mean, 

we have people that, whose cases could be 

compensated -- they're not going to be compensated 

until this is resolved.

So, I do think you all need to keep in mind the sort 

of the issue that there is this does have human effect 

here. This is not just an academic exercise here 

either.

Member Beach: Which is why I suggested getting 

that first 30 done and then going --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes, because I kind of feel the same 

way. If we're in the same boat after the next -- the 

last set of this first 30 then we really should decide 

which way -- the direction to go.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Beach: And, that's why you asked the 

question about the timing.

Mr. Katz: Yes, that's why I raised that question. Oh, 

that's why you raised that question about when, yes.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim Taulbee, with NIOSH.

I can, you know, commit that we will get with DOE 

and get an answer as to when we will have the full 

response as we had requested for the 30 claims. 

And, we'll get that answer to you by the full Board 

meeting in a couple weeks.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.32

Chair Schofield: Sounds reasonable.

Mr. Katz: Tim, this is just sort of a side question, but 

I mean, it seems like there's an opportunity to work 

with DOE on that quality assurance over their process 

there.

Is that sort of part of the intent for you folks? You 

know, you found that there's -- the system isn't 

perfect, do you have any terms of their --

Dr. Taulbee: Yes, I think one of the critical things 

here has to do with kind of the well, Case F was really

kind of the eye opener from our standpoint of they 

didn't really -- or they didn't do what it was we asked 

for in total. And, that was the full dosimetry work up 

as the claim was coming in.

There's some kind of a mismatch going on and I'm 

concerned that in the responses that they didn't 

access all of the potential sources of information.

And, I think, Bob, you used a very good term of 

migrating the information into the full dosimetry 

system.

It's not really a full dosimetry system in the sense of 

it's a full accounting of the radiological records of 

when they are responding to the claim.

And, you know, in the case of Case F, they responded 

with 16 pages where in October we have 531. So, 

they clearly didn't look everywhere that they were 

supposed to have looked.

And so, it doesn't mean it didn't get migrated in 

there. It just means in their response they didn't 

provide it. So, I mean we were expecting a full 

response and we clearly didn't get that. And so, 

that's what we're trying to work with DOE right now 

about.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think it's clear that this system 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.33

should work. It's just like -- but, I think getting sort 

of some answers as to what went wrong will be 

helpful to the Board members for their confidence. 

So, I think it should be, you're right, as far as that 

interjection.

So, are there any other questions from Board 

members? Because if not, we have an opportunity, I 

don't know if we have the petitioner on the line, but 

if we do, it's the opportunity for the petitioner to ask 

questions or comment.

(No Audible Response)

Mr. Katz: Okay. There wasn't any at the outset, so 

I just wanted to check and make sure that a 

Commissioner hadn't joined us.

Path Forward on SEC Class/August ABRWH Meeting 

Plans

Chair Schofield: Okay. I think as far as our path 

forward, why don't we go ahead and wait until the 

end here and see if there's any more questions come 

up that might be added on to our path forward at this 

point unless someone has an objection.

Mr. Katz: Okay. And then, because we have a -- we 

have this slated for the August Board meeting, too. 

So, we'll have to figure out whether -- what amount 

of time we want or what we want to accomplish in 

the Board session of this. Right?

Chair Schofield: Yes.

Mr. Katz: We can deal with that at the end of this 

meeting, that's fine.

Chair Schofield: Well, if there's no more questions 

and Genevieve already asked the one I was thinking 

of, so why we don't go on to Number 2 there, the 

Evaluation of the Uranium Dose Reconstruction 

Methods?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.34

Mr. Barton: So, this is Bob.

And, just a thought, Item Number 3 is still dealing 

with this idea of badging requirement. It's just a 

different time period, this is the 1975 to 1980 period.

So, while the whole badging SEC requirement is fresh 

in anyone's head -- in everyone's heads, I'm 

wondering if it wouldn't be a little easier to go to Item 

Number 3 first and then circle back and hit Item 

Number 2 since, again, it really deals with the same 

issue of the badging requirement and that's the 83-

14 period that NIOSH identified, again, at CPP 1975 

to 1980 in which the evidence of external dosimetry 

is also required.

Member Roessler: Sounds like a good idea to me.

Member Beach: Yes, this is Josie.

I agree, too. But, Ted, did you say there may be a 

petitioner on the line and they were slotted to have a 

chance to talk after the first one?

Mr. Katz: Yes, so I -- that's what -- I asked for a 

petitioner, if the petitioner is on the line. They 

weren't at the outset of the meeting and --

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: -- they didn't respond just now.

If there's a petitioner on the line right now, you have 

to let us know. But, otherwise --

So, I don't think we have one.

Member Beach: Okay, all right.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Schofield: Okay, I think everybody's in 

agreement. So, we'll move on to Number 3 next.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.35

Evaluation of Dosimetry Records for CPP During SEC 

Class 1975-1980

Mr. Barton: Okay, very good.

I do have a couple slides, there's no new material. 

All this material is in the original report. But, I threw 

together some quick slides just to hopefully focus the 

discussion.

So, let me just quickly throw those up here.

Okay, and if someone could just let me know when 

that first slide appears and then I can get going with 

this report.

Member Roessler: It's up there.

Mr. Barton: We good?

Member Roessler: Yes.

Mr. Barton: Okay, great.

All right, so again, this is the 83-14 period at CPP for 

which there is an SEC that's already been 

recommended and granted. And, this is, again, the 

badging requirement of having external dosimetry

specific to the Chemical Processing Plant.

Now, what's the difference for that middle period? 

Just to remind everyone, so in about March 1970 to 

the end of 1974, they had a completely different 

badging policy at INL.

And, this was known as the multiple area one badge 

method where you could actually take a badge from 

another area like TAN, like CFA and enter an area like 

CPT without having to get a new badge.

So, for that period from approximately 1970 to '74, 

the SEC Class actually includes anyone who was

monitored at INL, not just monitored specific to CPT.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.36

And, when you get to the end of 1974, they switched 

back to what's known as the multiple area, multiple 

badge system in which if you left one area, you left 

your badge there. You went to another area, you 

picked up another badge.

And so, you'd have an individual badge for each area.

So, SC&A was tasked to, again, look into that 

external dosimetry requirement for its 83-14 period 

and see what could be done to validate that as an 

acceptable requirement.

So, our review really had four main areas for 

investigation. The first item is we were actually going 

to go and look and do some work with the routine 

area exposure reports and the construction exposure 

reports.

These are routine regular badging, these aren't 

visitor temporary badges we were just discussing.

NIOSH had presented some analysis in their 83-14 

report showing essentially the number of regular 

badges we're supposed to have versus the number 

or rather the number of people monitored who were 

hopefully being monitored, are those actually in the 

physical loss of reports for -- which have line items 

essentially for each person in each monthly 

dosimetry cycle.

The first item was to really go and look at the routine 

reports and see what they told us.

Item 2 obviously, and this is more akin to what we 

were just talking about, was all right, and then let's 

look at the temporary/visitor badges.

Item 3, and this is even more comparable to the 

discussion we just had was, can we find claimants 

like the ones we just looked at, you know, Case K, 

that sort of thing, that we could do a similar V&V 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.37

activity.

That is, can we find claimants that have temporary 

badges that we can identify through our own records 

of data capture. But then we can the request from 

DOE and see if DOE is also identifying those people.

And the fourth item looks at what I was talking about 

with the multiple badges for multiple areas policy.

You know, we have documentation that certainly 

suggests that was the case for this period that we're

talking about, '75 to '80.

But, we really wanted to take a look -- closer look at 

it to see if, in practice, that policy was being 

implemented.

And, obviously, that's of particular importance 

because if it was possible to take a badge from one 

area and it enters CPP with it without actually picking 

up another CPP badge, then the SEC (inaudible due 

to phone interference) badge really wouldn't be valid.

So, that's Item Number 4. And I'm going to talk 

about each of these in turn. And please stop me if 

there are any questions along the way.

Okay, so Item 1, again, this is about routine area 

exposure reports. And, I just -- I have an example 

here. And again, all of this is from SC&A's report, 

right out of it, cut and pasted.

So, I just wanted to kind of give an idea of -- for the 

Work Group what these things really look like.

So, this would be the logs where each worker has an 

individual entry for the month. You can see all the 

way to the left there's a unique HP number, worker 

name, which has all been redacted because they 

were redacted in the report.

So you have a contractor code that's going to identify 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.38

who they worked for. Next to that, you have the area 

designation, in this one, it says APN/053 which is for 

CPP on a monthly exchange.

They give the end date of the regular exposure cycle, 

the reason code, in this case it was one which 

essentially means routine badging.

You have something called an irregular code and this 

would generally be used if there was no numerical 

result. In other words, there wasn't a zero, there 

wasn't a positive result, there was nothing there. The 

irregular code would often identify why that was the 

case.

For example, even though they were routinely 

badged, they were never in that area that month so 

there's no reason to actually read their badge.

You have the actual recorded doses next to that. And 

then, next to that, you have something call a PSN 

Number which is essentially for an individual when 

you were on regular dosimetry, your first badge 

would be PSN Number 1, second badge 2. In this 

case, you can see they're in the 20s for these 

individuals.

Also down at the bottom, I just wanted to point out 

because this is going to sort of become important 

later, is we have this V designation. And that actually 

does designate a temporary badge and is included 

within the routine badging records that we noticed 

during this period.

So one question we had was whether, by this time, 

had those badges actually been migrated over 

already.

In other words, we really don't have this problem that 

we had in the earlier period. And so we wanted to 

check that out because it could be possible that the 

issue that we were just talking about for 1963 to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.39

1970 may not even be relevant.

So, just hold on to that for a second and we'll talk 

about that later.

But again, this is an example of the list that you have 

for a particular month. And you would have an entry 

essentially for each worker.

Now, what we also have is a separate report called 

the Dosimetry Branch Activity Report. And as you 

can see here, what these give us is, for a given 

month, the actual number of individuals that were 

monitored in that given month.

Now, this is a very important piece of information 

because what you can essentially then do if you have, 

you know, we'll just a thousand individuals who were 

badged and monitored during a given month.

Do we see entries for that -- those same thousand 

individuals? Do we have the records of that? Or, 

conversely, if we -- if they said they badged a 

thousand people and we only have 500 actual 

records, that would be a problem.

And this was something that NIOSH really looked at 

and reported out on during the 83.14 but we want to 

take a little bit closer look.

The first observation when we were going through 

this was that that type of comparison where we have 

a dosimetry branch report listing the total number of 

monitored individuals, and then we can go and look 

at the actual dosimetry log books.

We only have that comparison for 49 of the 72 

months during this period. So, about 70 percent.

The largest gap where we don't have these records 

for comparison was about 11 months. All the others 

were about a quarter or less, that's an annual 

quarter, so three months or less.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.40

We said, all right, well, what do we do with those 

months where we can't make a comparison between 

the number of workers monitored and the number of 

workers for which we actually have a result for.

The other piece of information we have which is a 

little -- gets a little murkier but we also have the total 

number of badges serviced.

So, we actually have the number of individual 

dosimeters. So, this would include if an individual 

had say two or three dosimeters for CPP in a given 

month, we would have -- that would count towards 

the total number of dosimeters.

So, what we said was, well, let's go through these 

area exposure reports and let's count the actual 

number of film badge results, not just the number of 

individuals, but the number of physical dosimeters 

we have and let's compare that to the number of 

dosimeters that were processed in that given month.

So, the table you have before you shows those 

months and years where we couldn't make the 

comparison between the number of workers but we 

could make a comparison between the number of 

actual dosimeters.

And so, this column all the way to the right, how you 

really want to read that is, if there's a zero, that 

means those numbers matched exactly.

In other words, the number they reported serviced 

was the number we found when we went in and 

physically counted them.

A negative number means we actually have more 

dosimeters' results than were being reported as 

processed. So, that means we have even more data 

than they're reporting out as having been done.

And of course, a positive number means we actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.41

had less observed actual records than the number 

that INL were reporting.

As you can see, a lot of those numbers are negative. 

That means that, in general, we have a lot -- we have 

more badges that we would expect to find just based 

solely on the summary report.

What we're looking at here, this is essentially for your 

routine workers, but that weren't necessarily 

designated as construction.

And you can see the range there. They don't get 

above 20. And, as you can see, the actual number 

of dosimeters by month can get up, you know, into 

the thousands.

The next one's going to be the same data except for 

those designated as construction workers. And 

again, there's lots of negative numbers. There's 

some zeros and there's a few positive sprinkled in 

there.

Now, interestingly, the positive numbers are usually 

--- are bookended by negative numbers. So, it could 

be just simply that, when we didn't find as many 

dosimeters as we expected they were actually 

counted for the previous month. And so that might 

have -- might smooth things out.

Of course, that level of granularity is very difficult to 

get to or make any conclusions on. So, this is the 

data for construction.

So, this brings us to Observation 2 with the 

discussion of routine monitoring and I'll read it in.

SC&A's analysis of the total number of dosimeters in 

available records compared to the total number of 

dosimeters that were reported to have been 

processed during the observed temporal gaps 

showed reasonable agreement for both regular 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.42

badges and construction badges.

SC&A found no indication that available dosimetry log 

books for regular and construction badges are 

incomplete during these periods.

And, again, these were periods where we didn't have 

the records to be able to make comparisons between 

the number of monitored workers, but as I just 

showed, we made comparisons between the number 

of actual dosimeters worn and read out.

So now, moving on to temporary badges. When we 

went into the available files on the Site Research 

Database, we found -- or we suspected right away 

that a full set of temporary badges hadn't yet been 

captured by the sites. And that's right here in Finding 

1 which I can read.

SC&A located temporary badge input reports during 

the period of interest. However, it is apparent that 

the currently available records are incomplete.

Additional temporary badge reports are likely 

available at the site, but have not been captured due 

to the focus of previous data capture efforts.

It would be beneficial that test reports be obtained 

and reviewed to ensure completeness of dosimetry 

records for use in potential SEC adjudication.

Furthermore, a capture of these records would allow 

for the expansion of available candidates for the V&V 

activities that were discussed in Section 4 of our 

report.

And that V&V would be essentially the same type of 

study that we discussed earlier for that earlier time 

frame, '63 to '70.

Now, we have an update since we submitted this 

report. Earlier in June of this year, Tim and Mitch 

were gracious enough to let me sort of tag along on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.43

a one-day data capture trip that preceded some 

worker interviews that we were doing out in Idaho.

And, while I did hit a snag in that I wasn't granted 

access and I still haven't been granted access to the 

INL essentially search system to be able to figure out 

which boxes I wanted to look at to see if we could 

find more temporary badges, I did have one box 

number that I knew about and we pulled it out and I 

went through it and there were clearly more 

temporary badges contained in that box that were 

not in the currently captured records.

So that kind of supports Finding 1 in that we don't 

have all the temporary badges yet to really do any 

sort of robust V&V on those temporary badges. But 

it appears that there's a significant number of those 

records still available at the site.

And thank you again, Tim and Mitch, for hosting me 

on that day. That was nice of you.

Dr. Taulbee: No problem, thanks.

Mr. Barton: Finding 2, this is one thing that we 

looked at and we wanted to look again at some of the 

some of the badge reports that we did have, they had 

a zero measured dose.

Were they actually appearing in the regular area 

exposure report as I showed in the first slide or 

second slide of this presentation, some of those 

regular badging reports actually have a visitor type 

designation.

But, what we found is that, no, not surprisingly, if you 

had a zero measured dose and you didn't have a 

permanent house badge number or an S number, we 

could not find a corresponding entry in those regular 

reports.

Again, it doesn't indicate that such temporary badge
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.44

entries are unavailable for dose reconstruction or SEC 

adjudications.

However, it does indicate that if we're going to make 

determinations on the completeness of records based 

only on those regular area exposure records, it's 

likely going to be based on incomplete data 

information for the very reason that those temporary 

badges were simply not migrated over and included 

in those monthly listings.

Item Number 3, and this one is obviously made 

difficult by the fact that we don't currently have all of 

the temporary badges for this period.

But, I would, again, note that this type of activity 

under Item 3 is the exact same approach that we 

would -- that we used for the 1963 to 1970 period.

That is, can we identify claimants among our own set 

of temporary badges who are not currently being 

identified by DOE and go and request those records 

and see if the issue has been rectified.

So Observation 4 was based on its review of the 

limited temporary badges and dosimetry entries 

designated as a visitor in the main area of 

construction exposure report, SC&A was able to 

identify just 18 external dosimetry entries from the 

claimant population that can be used for any future 

verification and validation review.

And again, if the full set of temporary badge reports 

is captured, that population of V&V candidates would 

likely increase markedly.

And just to give some perspective, that's only 18 

temporary visitor dosimeters, not even people. 

Whereas, in the previous effort, in just the 18 of 30 

claimants that we have so far, we had over 420 

badges to check.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.45

So, this is a very big difference for what we have 

currently for this 83.14 period and what we've seen 

in the past when we did a similar exercise.

Last item, and again, this is a very important one 

because, if we have a single badge multi-area policy 

where you can take a badge from one area and move 

into CPP with it, then that seriously calls into question 

whether you can have a Class definition requiring a 

CPP-specific badge.

So what we did is, we went in and pulled a semirandom sample, and I'll explain what that means in 

a minute, but approximately one-quarter of the 

claims during that period.

The claims that -- it's semi-random because we 

picked them randomly but then, certain claims really 

just weren't germane to the study and so we rejected 

them.

And these will show that they either were monitored 

during the 83.14 period, so it wouldn't tell us 

anything about the badging practice. The individual 

cycle report, that we just looked at and typically on a 

monthly basis, they're simply not available. So, there 

would only be an annual summary, so I can't tell how 

many dosimeters and for what areas those energy 

employees would have been badged at.

The energy employee only worked a few months or 

less. Again, if they were only there for a short time, 

I just -- I did not see the benefit of including them in 

the semi-random sample, or the job title was really 

unlikely to move among different areas of the site 

during a single badging period. And I give an example 

here, as you can see. I won't say it on the record for 

potential Privacy Act reasons.

So we have our quarter of the worker population and 

here's how they break out by the different work 

designations. And these are work designations that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.46

I gave them, obviously there's a wide variety of 

different job titles when you're looking at over a 

hundred claimants.

So, you can see how they kind of break down. And 

so, for example, if you're in the construction trade 

and maintenance, nearly half of claims that we 

looked at had at least some periods where there were 

multiple badges for the same badging site.

In other words, you'd have a CPP badge and an MPR 

badge or a CAN badge and a smart badge or 

whatever combination you have.

Interestingly, at least to me, is this last column on 

the table, the maximum number of badges we saw 

per a monthly cycle was actually six. So one 

individual actually had dosimetry badges in six 

different areas of the INL site during a single month. 

So, that person made it around.

And so, related to Item 4, we have Observations 5 

and 6. Again, with the exception of two bus drivers, 

all sampled job categories showed evidence of 

multiple area badges during a single dosimetry cycle. 

The maximum number was six. And that occurred 

for a construction trade worker.

The practice of multiple area badges during a single 

dosimetry cycle was observed for at least some 

sampled claims during every month during the period 

of interest.

So, there's no temporal time period when we look at 

this claimant population and it looks like, oh well, 

from, for example, January to June of 1980, it 

appears that everybody only has one badge, and so 

maybe they suspended the multi-badge for that 

period. But we simply don't see that.

On a temporal trend, every month that we looked at 

showed claims where they had multiple badges for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.47

multiple areas.

So, what conclusions did we draw from this analysis 

of the 83.14 period?

When we look at the routine area exposure reports 

and construction reports, we noticed that only 49 of 

the 72 had data where we could compare the number 

of workers monitored to the number of workers we 

see in the actual reports.

However, when we go in and look at those missing 

months and compare the number of individual 

dosimeters, which could be multiple for a single 

individual, they showed really reasonable agreement, 

and that was Observations 1 and 2.

So, SC&A has no reason to believe that the routine 

or regular badging records have any completeness 

issues.

Now, moving on to the temporary visitor badges. 

Again, the ones we have currently captured are 

incomplete. I think I can say that pretty confidently 

after the last data capture.

And, again, it says here that the data capture 

activities from earlier in June support that conclusion.

And then, moving on to what we can do for V&V at 

the time, we can only identify, again, 18 single 

badges that we could use for a V&V check. But, if we 

went and actually captured what remaining 

temporary and visitor badges are out there, we could 

increase the number of claimants available for any 

future V&V activities.

And then the final one which we just talked about, 

looking at the multiple badge, multiple area issue, we 

found ample evidence that during that time period, 

people were being badged individually by multiple 

areas.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.48

So again, if you were in CPP, you were badged. You 

left CPP, you left your badge there. Went over to 

MPR, picked up an MPR badge. Left there, went over 

to CFA, pick up a CFA badge.

So, this policy does appear to be in place based on 

our study of the claimant population which, again, 

was about one-quarter. It's actually a little bit over 

because, as I said, we rejected some claims as just 

not being germane to that study. But we did look at 

over a hundred claimants and these are the 

conclusions we reached.

So, I believe that is all I have for the 83.14 

discussions. But, I'd be happy to answer any 

questions, or if NIOSH has any immediate comments, 

obviously.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim Taulbee.

I don't have any questions for you, Bob. I just 

wanted to put out for the Work Group as a whole, 

that if you do desire for us to go and capture these 

temporary badges, we can certainly do so upon your 

request.

We have identified some additional boxes of records 

that contain temporary badges. So, it is certainly 

possible for us to do so. We have not done so, as 

Bob indicated earlier, due to the timing and the focus 

of other components here.

So, I just wanted to put that out there. If you all 

request it, we can go get these temporary badges.

Chair Schofield: Okay. I am a little concerned still 

about some of the construction ones.

Member Beach: And, I -- this is Josie -- I would agree 

that if NIOSH is will to and it's something that would 

be simple to do, I think it would be a good idea to go 

ahead and capture those.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.49

Dr. Taulbee: Again, if that's something that the Work 

Group wants us to do as a whole, then, yes, we can 

certainly go do it.

Member Anderson: How long do you think that would 

take?

Dr. Taulbee: The actual physical capture, a couple of 

months. Because the process would be for us to first 

identify all of the boxes we want pulled and then do 

the scanning and then get them cleared through 

ADC. So, it would likely take at least a couple of 

months.

But INL has been very responsive with regards to the 

ADC review here, of recent.

Member Anderson: Okay.

Chair Schofield: Would you be keeping that fairly 

narrow for the construction people? The crafts?

Dr. Taulbee: No, the way these records are actually 

organized, it's kind of by time period. So, some of 

the badges that Bob was talking about could show up 

as a V on his sheet are going to be mixed in with 

construction trades.

With the zeros, they're all kind of together. There 

are these little cards, I think Gen, you or Josie saw 

that when we went over to the DOE building there as 

they were beginning to scan some of those cards.

That's what these are, it's just in a later time period.

Chair Schofield: Yes, the validation increase for the 

earlier time period, seems to be good agreement 

between you and SC&A what you've all looked at. Do 

you feel comfortable and do you have enough data 

for people who may be a little short?

Let's say you have a claimant that's saying, you 

know, they actually spent quite a few days there, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.50

on the -- so far it only shows them having been there 

only one day during that time period.

Dr. Taulbee: I --- honestly, no, so I don't have a 

good feel for that for the visitors. For routine 

workers, I feel really comfortable with. The visitors, 

we just haven't done a comparison of these 

temporary badges in that level of detail to give you a 

good answer.

Chair Schofield: Oh, okay.

Dr. Taulbee: I will say this, some of the boxes that 

we have identified, there's a tag associated with 

those cards. And, what I'm going to -- this is not 

going to make much sense, but I'm going to call them 

50 numbers.

And these are cards that we know have already been 

scanned that do make it into the dosimetry file, and 

we do see them in the claimant files when they come 

in.

But I don't have a -- I couldn't say for sure whether 

all of those have been scanned and migrated into the 

system or not.

I know a significant portion of them have because we 

do see them in the claimant files. But I don't have a 

really good feel for what percentage of those, if all of 

them have or not, I just don't know that.

Member Beach: So, this is Josie.

I think for a complete record and verification and 

validating and NIOSH is willing to do it, I vote that 

they go ahead and do that. That's just my thought. 

I know other Work Group Members have a voice in 

that also.

Member Roessler: Well, I'll go -- this is Gen -- I'll go 

along with -- it seems the Work Group would like to 

see that, I'll go along with that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.51

Chair Schofield: Andy, your thoughts?

Member Anderson: Oops, I was on mute.

I would go along -- I think that --- that's why I asked 

how long it would take. I think that's reasonable to 

do and I think especially for the visitor badges, it will 

be very important.

I mean, the challenge I see that this will help fill in is 

the number of claimants who say they were there and 

then you can't back it up with a, you know, a badge 

record.

So, the -- if there are some badges out there that are 

likely to be missing at this point, I think it really will 

be important to some claimants that we get those.

Chair Schofield: I tend to agree. So, I think we 

should go ahead and have them do it unless there is 

some reason they would not be able to in a timely 

time frame.

Member Anderson: Things are moving forward 

without it, but I think this will just make it more 

complete.

Chair Schofield: Agreed.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay, then I'll take that as a --- to do, 

a task for NIOSH to go and capture those temporary 

badges and we'll get them into the SRDB and notify 

SC&A once that's done so that then they can do their 

sampling and do a V&V. Does that sound acceptable?

Member Roessler: Yes.

Member Anderson: Yes.

Chair Schofield: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

Member Beach: This is Josie again.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.52

The only other comment I would have regarding that 

is if there's any reason that SC&A might want to tag 

along on that, would you notify them in advance, 

Tim?

Dr. Taulbee: Absolutely. If SC&A would like to go, 

yes.

Member Beach: And I'm not certain they would, I 

just thought, in case. Thank you.

Chair Schofield: Well, if there are no more questions 

on that subject, I propose we move on to the 

uranium, the dose reconstruction methods.

Mr. Barton: This might be a slightly longer item than 

the other two were. I don't know if people need a 

quick comfort break or anything or I can just cue it 

up and keep going.

Member Anderson: Let's just keep going.

Member Roessler: I'm okay if you go ahead.

Member Beach: I'm good with that.

Mr. Barton: Okay.

Chair Schofield: I'm good.

Evaluation of Uranium DR Methods for CPP Pre-1963

Mr. Barton: Okay, very good.

Just to give sort of a quick back story on this and a 

proposal on how we sort of proceed with the 

discussions because there's a couple different 

elements to this.

Back in 2017 SC&A wrote a White Paper about alpha 

exposures at the Chemical Processing Plant prior to

1963, so essentially before the current proposed SEC 

definitions really kick in.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.53

Earlier this year, I believe it was April, we had 

responses from NIOSH, specific finding-by-finding 

and observation-by-observation responses. Those 

have been put up on the website.

Unfortunately, I missed it. I did not get -- I didn't 

have the original SC&A report posted up there, but 

you can actually find it if you go back to the August 

2017 meeting of INL, the report's up there.

And at that time they had given an overview of the 

report, but obviously NIOSH is still working on their 

responses.

So, what I propose is that what we do is -- I can do 

a much abridged version of that August 2017 

presentation, present SC&A findings of which there 

were five, NIOSH's response to those findings and 

then sort of talk about where SC&A stands based on 

that.

And all of these sort of tie in to a more recent SC&A 

White Paper that was delivered in July. It talks about 

uranium exposure at CPP during this time period prior 

to 1963.

So, if that's amenable to the Work Group and to 

NIOSH, I think that's how I'd like to proceed and we 

can stop at each finding and discuss it as we need to.

Chair Schofield: That sounds good, Bob.

Mr. Barton: All right, excellent.

And, again, I've just thrown together some slides 

that sort of guide the discussion. The only new 

material per se would be SC&A's reaction to NIOSH's 

responses which are from April.

So, we have SC&A's original findings, the NIOSH 

response and then, as often happens in this program, 

our response to the response.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.54

So, let me just cue this up here and we can get 

started.

Member Beach: Yes, and Bob, I've lost my 

connection to the site, for some reason it's not 

working for me. So I've just got the hard copies. 

Just go ahead, though.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Well, I'll try to keep people 

apprised of where we are in the individual report. Let 

me just throw that up here so that I can get it myself.

Does everybody see the PowerPoint?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Schofield: Feel free to start presenting it.

Mr. Barton: Okay, maybe I did this incorrectly.

Member Roessler: Well I didn't have the PowerPoint 

on the previous reports, I just followed --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Barton: It's loading up now.

Member Beach: Yes, I didn't get it either. This is 

Josie, I'm checking my CDC website and it didn't -- I 

didn't get it so, either --

Mr. Barton: Again, this is -- these are just excerpts 

I pulled out so that it's just easier to follow finding by 

finding what it was.

Again, it's sort of a conglomeration of the original 

SC&A report, NIOSH's response to that report, 

SC&A's position and at the very end, a discussion of 

the new White Paper that SC&A delivered in July.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Anderson: I'm seeing it now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.55

Member Beach: Bob, would you mind emailing that 

as well just so we have it?

Mr. Barton: Sure.

Member Beach: Thanks.

Mr. Katz: Bob, if you email it to me I'll send it 

around.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Okay, that should be headed your 

way.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I'll let everybody know when I've 

emailed it, when I get it in the email.

Mr. Barton: Well, I guess I can just talk before 

actually necessarily getting into the individual slides.

What the issue originally was, we were taking a look 

at what potential alpha exposures there would be at 

CPP.

And really, what we're talking about during this time 

frame is the exposure to uranium as the primary 

alpha emitter, for the reason that there were 

obviously transuranic elements there. But to our 

knowledge, there was no concerted effort other than 

perhaps laboratory bench scale experiments or 

anything to pull out the plutonium and neptunium 

and all those sort of bad actors that necessitated the 

later SEC period.

So really what we're talking about here and the main 

function of the CPP Plant was to take these reactor 

fuels, strip away the fission products and those 

transuranics and you're left with the product 

uranium.

So that's really what we're going to be discussing 

today which is why the most recent White Paper 

really looks at different ways you can calculate 

uranium exposures during this time period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.56

Mr. Katz: Okay, Board Members, I've forwarded 

Bob's email to your various emails.

Member Beach: Thank you.

Mr. Barton: Okay. So, basically what we have here 

is just an example of essentially a log book entry of 

those surveys that were made in a certain lab area, 

LB-32 and LB, I believe that's probably 28.

And the person basically said, we found quite a bit of 

alpha contamination. It looks like it's U-233 which is 

more hazardous than U-235. And they started an air 

sample.

That's just one example. You can see it's 

handwritten. I don't know if you can see it, but we 

can always go back. So this is slide number 2.

Slide number 3, we actually took those and tried to 

really write down what those -- so, these would all be 

examples of that same type of survey example that I 

just showed.

And, again, these are, as you can see in this fourth 

column, the locations are generally LB areas which I 

assume to be labs. And they would note situations 

where alpha contamination was noted.

And this last entry was particularly interesting to me, 

was that actually written on the hard copy record was 

found alpha contamination in LB-32 again. And that 

was underlined in the original record.

And there are a lot more examples like this in the 

SC&A report. The point being really was to show 

examples where there's alpha contamination, where 

there's likely not a co-mingling with the fission and 

activation product materials would be beta-gamma.

So we get to SC&A Finding Number 1. SC&A found 

multiple examples in sample health physics log books 

that indicate alpha contamination was detected with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.57

corresponding indications that beta-gamma 

contamination was also present.

This is indicative that there were certain situations 

and locations at CPP in which alpha contamination 

may have existed and was not commingled with FAP 

materials, FAP being fission and activation products.

And, Tim, I can read the NIOSH response summary 

or if you want to talk about it and then we can kind 

of give SC&A's response to that.

Chair Schofield: No, go ahead.

Mr. Barton: Okay. So, NIOSH's response summary 

to Finding 1 was that DCAS has concluded that alpha 

contamination without fission products was limited to 

certain locations within CPP pre-1963, and was 

related to process stream sampling and analysis as 

well as final product storage.

These locations were known to CPP staff. 

Documented communications with former CPP staff 

indicated that contamination, with alpha 

contamination in particular, in CPP was not tolerated 

and cleaned up quickly during its early years.

The alpha contamination levels were typically very 

small and a special bioassay program was 

implemented if an internal exposure to an alphaemitting radionuclide was deemed possible.

It should also be recognized that workers involved in 

the end product activities for mixed fission products 

were not present when placed on a joint gross beta 

bioassay plus uranium bioassay program.

That's the response summary, and here's SC&A's sort 

of position on it.

And, it says final position but that was probably the 

wrong choice of words, it's our current position.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.58

But essentially, you'll find that we agree on a lot of 

the underlying facts. It's really, what the discussion 

needs to be is, what do we do with it?

So SC&A agrees that alpha contamination, in 

particular uranium contamination, was limited to 

certain locations within CPP pre-1963.

SC&A agrees that documented communications with 

former CPP workers indicate that HP staff was aware 

of alpha contamination and took steps to assure it 

was cleaned up when discovered.

This is the subject of SC&A Observation 1 in the 

original 2017 report.

In a few documented incidents that were located, 

special bioassay was also indicated. This is the 

subject of SB&A Observations 4 and 5.

SC&A agrees that a portion of the CPP workforce was 

on a joint gross beta plus uranium bioassay schedule. 

This is the subject of SC&A Observation 3. So, those 

are all the things we agree on.

What was not clear to SC&A was that all relevant 

workers who should have been monitored for the 

uranium that is not commingled with fission and 

activation products were, in fact, monitored for 

uranium. That was the subject of Observation 2.

We're not aware of any completeness studies that 

had concluded that all workers who should have been 

monitored for uranium were monitored for uranium 

and that those records are available for dose 

reconstruction or otherwise.

And we really want to re-emphasize to both NIOSH 

and the Work Group that our position was not that an 

infeasibility exists here related to the alpha material, 

which is primarily uranium.

As we stated in our executive summary, it is unlikely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.59

that a high-level alpha source term could have 

existed for an extended of time at the facility that 

would automatically preclude the feasibility of dose 

reconstruction.

Furthermore, our summary conclusion from that 

paper did not say that dose reconstruction was not 

feasible. And our conclusion from that paper actually 

said, SC&A identified several example locations and 

time periods which alpha contamination was 

identified, it was not directly commingled with fission 

and activation products.

Reconstruction of an external exposure to alpha 

material, and remember, we're really talking about 

uranium here, by rationing to the calculated intakes 

of fission and activation products would not be 

technically appropriate for at least some workers' 

activities and locations.

And then, this will tie in later when we discuss SC&A's 

most recent White Paper in which we take a look at 

that ratio method to the beta-gamma source term 

and compare how you get to a uranium intake from 

that method, which is the current method in the TBD, 

versus a couple of other ways that you could use to 

arrive at a uranium intake including the uranium 

urinalysis method itself.

Tim, just stop me if there's anything that you want 

to say in here, otherwise, I'll keep plugging along.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Yes, I think this is -- thanks, 

Bob, I would like to say something here.

Because I think this is a case where we're 

misunderstanding each other a little bit here and 

miscommunicating. So, I'd like to try and clear that 

up.

And this had to do with part of your, I guess, the 

response to our response, if you will, when you had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.60

indicated that there was no discussion in our 

response of an ultimate dose reconstruction method 

for exposure to alpha emitting materials that was not 

commingled with fission and activation products.

And, you said the logical implication is that DCAS 

plans to continue to use the ratio to derive the 

bounding intake to the alpha material when uranium 

or other bioassay data are not available for the 

individual energy employee.

That's not exactly correct, or our position here.

We certainly look at each individual claim or case.

And when we get dose reconstruction in, and as you 

know, and report it out in your responses of when we 

have bioassay, that's our primary component that we 

use.

So if we've got uranium bioassay, we're going to use 

that for that individual.

There are occasions where somebody could have 

been working with uranium and potentially not 

monitored for it. And what comes to mind is some 

laboratory workers might have intermittently worked 

with a final product, as you pointed out in some of 

your examples there. The LB stands for laboratory, 

by the way.

And this is why we've developing a coworker model 

for uranium using uranium bioassay.

You may recall that there's a coworker 

implementation guide that was put out before the 

SEC Issues Work Group and we were asked to 

demonstrate its use.

And there was two sites that we indicated that we 

would be doing this with. The one first is SRS, and 

the other is INL.

And for INL, we are well on our way. The data has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.61

been coded. We are now in the process of combining 

the multiple variations of -- in order to develop a 

coworker model which will include a uranium 

bioassay coworker model.

That's what we plan on doing for these types of 

cases. It's not that we are only going to be using the 

ratio methodology.

Now having said that, there is a large proportion of 

the CPP workforce that we will just be using the ratio 

methodology. And this would be people who based 

upon job title or, you know, other information that 

we have, we don't believe that they were ever 

working with any of the pure product, if you will, or 

the alpha activity uranium, alpha activity without 

mixed fission product.

So, I mean, if you consider people who worked at the 

calcining facilities, so forth, those are all going to be 

mixed with or commingled with the fission and 

activation products.

However, if we've got a chemist in a lab and this is 

what they indicate, then we would be applying this 

uranium coworker model.

So it's not, you know, that we've got bioassay or 

we're just going to use the ratio. We are developing 

a coworker model in between and I think that's 

important for people to realize at this time. Okay?

Mr. Barton: Wow, thank you for that. That's 

probably going to shorten this considerably.

We had been under the impression that while there 

might be a coworker model for the fission and 

activation products, but if you weren't directly 

monitored for things like uranium that you would get 

the ratio.

And it sounds like that's not the case which is an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.62

extremely important point for this.

To the second point, we said, well, you know, you 

apply it to chemists but maybe not workers in other 

facilities. That's really, to my mind, more of an 

implementation issue, not necessarily Site Profile. 

But again, I think that we're not there yet, because 

the coworker model is not out there and there's no 

guidance as to which cases it would be applied to.

So that's sort of getting ahead of ourselves. But 

again, for the first point, NIOSH does plan, it sounds 

like, to create a uranium specific coworker model 

presumably based on that bioassay and then it would 

just become a question of who is assigned that 

uranium coworker model versus the more generic 

ratio method that uses gross beta and gross gamma 

uranalysis. Does that sound correct?

Dr. Taulbee: That is correct.

And this -- which kind of gets us to another point here 

that I'd like to point out. And you even indicated it a 

few minutes ago.

It's not a question of whether we can or, you know, 

cannot, you know, develop a coworker model, it's 

more of who would we apply this to.

I think you were in agreement with us that the data 

is out there that we can do this. It's more of do we 

apply it to everybody? Do we apply it to this limited 

group?

And so, this is really a TBD issue, is what I want to 

propose in front of the Work Group. That, you know, 

we -- we actually moved this particular item over to 

the TBD side of things to help close out the issues 

affecting in SEC.

I'd just like to throw that out for the Work Group to 

consider.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.63

Mr. Barton: Well, I don't want to necessarily get too 

far ahead of ourselves. I mean, when we look at a 

new coworker model, it has to be, as you know, 

matched up to the implementation guidelines that 

NIOSH has developed as to whether a sufficient 

number of workers were monitored for uranium.

I absolutely agree that there is uranium data out 

there and it -- I'm sure it does comport to those 

workers who were in situations where the health 

physics staff deemed it was probably necessary.

And a lot of my point was well, if you don't know that 

you have 100 percent coverage, then you need a 

coworker model, which, as you just said, you'll be 

developing.

But I'd be a little hesitant to immediately move it to 

a Site Profile issue until we see that coworker model 

developed and do our usual comparison to the 

implementation guidance such to sort of validate that 

this coworker model is relevant, is getting enough of 

the right people, that you're not missing some 

exposure that it doesn't cover for the unmonitored 

population, questions like that.

But in general, I agree, most of these usually end up 

as Site Profile issues, but again, I'd be hesitant to 

immediately move it over there before SC&A and the 

Work Group can really see it.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay, fair enough. I would just say 

that the Work Group will be seeing all of the coworker 

models, whether it's TBD or SEC. So, they will be 

reviewing the entire thing.

Path Forward

Mr. Barton: Yes, I think we're saying the same thing 

here.

All right, so that discussion was very helpful because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.64

I think that's going to render a lot of the future 

discussions here really moot because, again, I think 

SC&A and NIOSH appear to agree on the underlying 

fact that there is a portion of the worker population 

that was exposed to uranium that might not have 

been monitored. And there would be a coworker 

distribution associated with that.

And, I don't know, do we want to go through each of 

the rest of these findings? Because it seems like we 

already sort of hit the solution here. We can certainly 

go through them, though.

Mr. Katz: Bob, just a question for the Work Group 

before we move on.

It seems like this finding then is, in effect, in 

abeyance. I mean, so I think what Bob's saying is in 

principle it seems like this is feasible, it can be done, 

but we want to see the product.

Because normally when we talk about putting a 

finding in abeyance we're, in principle we're agreed 

that the path forward makes sense and it's sort of 

understood.

Is that what we want to do here? Or do you want to 

just leave this open and so --

Member Beach: Ted, I guess for me, is NIOSH 

working on a written response?

Mr. Katz: Well, it's more -- not the written response 

that is -- Bob is suggesting that you would want, but 

to actually be able to review the coworker model and 

see that, in fact, it addresses the concern.

Member Beach: Right, okay.

Mr. Katz: And, that's sort of well beyond, you know, 

getting a written version. I think Tim was really clear 

in what he discussed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.65

So anyway, that's my question to you, we can do it 

what ever way you want. Do you want to leave this 

just open as, now it becomes instead this finding is 

in effect --- need to review the coworker model and 

we put this in abeyance, whatever? Because, you 

know, the facts are agreed upon. And, it's just a 

question of implementation at this point. It's up to 

you guys.

Chair Schofield: I'd like to know if everybody's in 

agreement with that, I am.

Member Roessler: This is Gen, am I off mute now?

Mr. Katz: Yes, we can hear you, Gen.

Member Roessler: Okay, I keep doing the wrong 

thing.

It seems to me we're trying to decide whether Bob 

should continue with this discussion. And, it seems 

at this point, it's not pertinent, that we put this in 

abeyance.

Mr. Katz: So, I had a hard time hearing, so at this 

point it's not what? Would you say it again?

Member Roessler: It seems that we're asking the 

question if Bob should continue his presentation. And 

it seems to me that the answer is no, that we're going 

to put this in abeyance.

Mr. Katz: Oh yes, not his whole presentation, but the 

question is this finding, do we put this finding in 

abeyance or do we just leave it open until we see a 

coworker model or in progress, however you want to 

characterize this.

Member Beach: I'm in agreement with putting this 

finding in abeyance.

Chair Schofield: I am, too. So --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.66

Member Roessler: Yes, I am.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Mr. Barton: And we can go through the rest.

Member Anderson: I'm fine with that. I think there's 

still a coworker model here. It's also going to be a 

lot of effort. So, while it may be feasible to do, having 

the resources and the time to do it, I think we just 

put it in abeyance because I don't see it happening 

quickly.

Mr. Katz: They generally don't get done that quickly, 

right. Tim could tell us.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim.

That is correct, but this effort has been underway 

now for, well, I believe a little over a year which is, 

you know, where we started with the hard copy 

records and have coded it and have been working on.

So, this has been going on, well, for as long as --

every since that draft coworker imp guide came out.

So, it is underway and, but we are still probably six 

to nine months out.

Chair Schofield: Yes, let's put it in abeyance. We 

won't forget it about, but –

Mr. Barton: Well, I can go through the remaining 

four findings, certainly. But, you know, in all 

honesty, the recent SC&A White Paper could have 

had an alternate title that said, the need for a 

coworker model at CPP prior to 1963. That's really 

what that most recent White Paper and the original 

White Paper were all about.

It's that, you can't use a ratio method for all workers. 

And that's not NIOSH's intention, as just stated by 

Tim.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.67

So again, a lot of these have to do with establishing 

that there are areas where alpha was not 

commingled with beta and that a ratio method is not 

appropriate.

And that was our summary conclusion in 2017 and 

that's pretty much our summary conclusion from the 

most recent White Paper is the need for a uranium 

coworker model.

So I guess for completeness, we can go through and 

discuss the rest of the findings, but it really, we've 

already arrived at the path forward in all honesty.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So, Phil and Work Group, I mean we 

can just -- we can close those remaining findings 

since they're really redundant at this point if you 

want.

Or if you want him to discuss them, you know.

Chair Schofield: I'm inclined to just say we'll let that 

go since we've -- we're putting this kind of in 

abeyance, which we'll be coming back to.

Mr. Barton: Yes, I mean a lot of these findings are a 

lot of air samples, some of it was related to uranium233. Again, presumably, that will be part of any 

coworker evaluation.

One thing that we still -- Finding 5 might still be 

relevant here. It was based on a worker who -- here, 

I can put it up. 

So, this is a bioassay record for a worker. And, as 

you can see, or hopefully you can see here, was 

analyzed for U-233 and he -- there was actually some 

follow up. This is actually a mash up of two different 

records.

The first one is just a routine count that came up 

positive. So they resampled him about a week later, 

that was a special sample.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.68

And what we found is in this individual's record, it 

indicated there were even more special samples that 

were taken in close vicinity to likely some sort of 

incident or the bioassay program picked up 

something and they said we need to resample this 

guy and figure out what's going on.

And so, the fifth finding was about this one individual 

worker that we had identified and how we couldn't 

find all of the special samples.

And as you can see up here, the NIOSH Finding 5 

response was that they agreed that for this particular 

individual, it looks like the U-233 bioassay is 

incomplete based on what we have for the claim so 

far.

And they had -- and NIOSH had re-requested those 

records to see if maybe the missing sample, bioassay 

sample was included in a medical record as 

sometimes does happen.

But INL was not always sending the medical record 

until recently.

So the DCAS response was essentially, yes, we 

agree. For this individual, it appears their bioassay 

is incomplete and that it is missing that one noted 

sample for U-233.

The follow up, I actually looked in and we got the 

response from DOE. The response was about 560 

pages, and I went through it pretty closely and we 

still couldn't find the missing samples.

And so, one thing that would obviously come out of 

the coworker model is always an evaluation of how 

complete are the records you have. Do you have a 

sufficient amount of the records to be able to create 

the coworker model, or are records missing.

Now again, this is only one example. It appears the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.69

-- we requested those records. DOE still couldn't find 

it.

But again, you'll see SC&A's response here is, again, 

simply that we think you need a coworker model, and 

evaluate a coworker model for uranium and take care 

of that.

So that was really the only one that wasn't all 

encompassed. But that would be part of any 

coworker model development would be to assure that 

you have a representative number of samples in that 

you're not missing temporally, or possible locations, 

specific badging. So a group of workers who wouldn't 

be covered necessarily by any subsequent coworker 

distribution.

So that's just one more thing I wanted to point out 

with regard to that one claim that SC&A pointed out 

in Finding 5.

So we requested DOE's monitoring records. Still don't 

appear to contain that sample. That was indicated to 

have been taken but we don't have the sample and 

we don't have the results.

So that was really the only item remaining.

But again, that would be under discussion of any 

subsequent coworker model of how complete are 

your records that are being used to develop the 

model?

So that would be obviously encompassed by any 

coworker review and coworker development.

I'm not sure if there's really anything more to say on 

that, but I just, again, I didn't want to gloss over 

everything as being taken care of by the coworker 

model.

I wanted to point out that, in addition to, you know, 

we need to develop a coworker model, but we also 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.70

need to take things into consideration like how 

complete are our records going into the coworker 

model, to validate that it's going to cover any 

unmonitored worker and this individual had cropped 

up as part of our original review as having, at least 

currently, a missing bioassay record.

So I think the path forward is definitely that NIOSH 

is developing a uranium specific coworker model and 

we'll see, you know, how that comports to the 

implementation guide and then who it's going to 

applied to as far as what types of workers.

And I agree that it's pretty much mostly a Site Profile 

issue and I agree that it can be put in abeyance. But 

I don't think it completely closes the door on any SEC 

implications until we see that we have a sufficient 

coworker model for those time periods and workers.

Member Beach: Makes sense to me.

Chair Schofield: I think we agree, unless anybody 

else has a disagreement about it.

Member Anderson: No, I think we're good.

Member Roessler: I agree.

Member Anderson: We just have to not forget.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim at NIOSH.

We are definitely not forgetting about the coworker 

model. It's high on our list.

Member Anderson: It's taken a while to get back up 

to speed on all of these. They'll fade into the sunset 

for some of us if we don't move forward.

Member Beach: Ted --

Member Anderson: That's good.

Member Beach: Ted, are these all being put into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.71

BRS?

Mr. Katz: They should be at this point. I mean, if we 

-- so, we've raised that issue and Laurie and others 

are taking a look at how to process things going 

forward and then going backwards, with the past.

You know, I don't know where that stands, I haven't 

asked again about it recently. But, anyway, this new 

material going forward should be put in the BRS, yes, 

for each Work Group.

Member Anderson: That's good.

Member Beach: Is that a NIOSH staff or SC&A?

Mr. Katz: Well, and -- it depends on who is updating, 

right. So, when SC&A puts a report in, they should 

be putting their report in the BRS. Their responses, 

in effect. And then, linking their report and likewise 

when NIOSH has a report or a response they should 

be either putting in their response in the BRS, their 

responses plus the report, if there's a link to the 

report if there's a White Paper or what have you.

That's the way it's supposed to be working. And 

every Work Group it can work a little bit differently, 

but that's the general process.

Member Beach: It's always good to mention it and 

for remembering to do that.

Mr. Katz: Oh, it's absolutely always good to mention 

it. I raised this recently with, I don't remember who 

at NIOSH, but on this very account. So hopefully, 

the gears will get moving with that.

Chair Schofield: Any objections or comments?

Member Beach: How about for reporting out in 

August? Is that just something you're going to do, 

Phil?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.72

Chair Schofield: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Well, I think we need to talk about that. 

Let's talk about that a little bit because it seems like 

it's a lot for Phil to handle on his own, reporting out.

We have a whole session available to us and it's been 

a while since the Board has heard about all this and 

where it stands.

I don't think it would be a bad idea, and it seems like 

given what happened here in the Work Group, it 

wouldn't be too difficult for Bob or Bob and Tim, 

however, team-tag. 

But, to report out on where things stand with that 

SEC in particular, whether you want to -- I don't think 

you really necessarily need to address this other 

material but you can also.

You have time to address as much as you but I think 

it would be good to keep the rest of the Board a little 

bit fresh on where it stands since presumably the 

remainder of the 30 cases could come in at some 

point reasonably soon and get put to bed, one way 

or the other.

Chair Schofield: Seems like a reasonable 

proposition.

Mr. Katz: So, I'm asking I guess, Bob and Tim, 

whether you think -- how you want to handle it is 

fine, whichever, whatever way if you want one 

person to present or you want to team-tag or how do 

you want to do it?

You sort of did that today. But, I think you learned 

some things today, too. So, it could be more efficient 

than it was today for the Board.

Mr. Barton: Yes, Ted, this is Bob.

I agree. I think almost the format that we went with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.73

today, we have Item 1 and we can discuss what the 

interim results are.

And then, Tim could offer NIOSH's perspective on the 

real implications of the V&V activities so far and then 

our path forward is potentially we're going to wait for 

those 30 records.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Mr. Barton: As far as the other two items, is that 

something that we want to put together a few slides 

for as well?

I mean, this last item that we just discussed, I could 

see that being taken care of in two slides, essentially. 

I don't think we really need to dive down into the 

weeds to say, you know, SC&A's concern was that 

the ratio method was not appropriate, and NIOSH is 

developing a coworker model.

Mr. Katz: Well, I don't -- I mean, that's not really on 

the Board's radar, even. So, Bob, I'm not even 

suggesting that you go into that at all.

Mr. Barton: Okay.

Mr. Katz: I really just the key is the 83.13, I mean, 

the NIOSH -- the original SEC was maybe 83.14 I 

guess, but the original SEC is -- just letting the Board 

know what work has been done and where that 

stands I think would be good for the Board to keep 

the Board, again, on its toes there.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Taulbee: What I would suggest is that kind of as 

Bob was saying there and you were pointing out that, 

on the first item, Bob, if you were to generate a kind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.74

of a summary in a few slide, summarizing your 

particular findings and then I could basically give a 

shortened one as what I gave to the Board or to the 

Work Group here, my discussion points.

And then, we wrap it up with us waiting on the 

additional responses.

And hopefully by then I will have a time line of when 

we will be getting that, that I can update on that 

slide.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Josie, go ahead.

Member Beach: Yes, I didn't get Tim's slides. I got 

the ones for Sandia, but not for INL. Can you resend 

those when you get a chance? And the ones you did 

from today?

Dr. Taulbee: Sure, they're out on the web right now.

Member Beach: Yes, I don't have access to the web.

Mr. Katz: I'll send them to you, Josie.

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: I thought I sent them to you, but maybe I 

didn't sent them to the right email.

Member Beach: Yes, I checked both and didn't see 

them. So, thanks.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Member Beach: I appreciate it.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

All right, does that sound good to everybody? All 

right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.75

Member Beach: Sounds good.

Chair Schofield: Sounds good to me.

Dr. Taulbee: Do we want to do separate 

presentations there or do we want to just combine 

Bob and mine together and put them all into one and 

both he and I will be up there speaking?

Mr. Katz: I think that would be great if you want to 

do that. I think that would be great.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

Mr. Barton: Tim, I already have like a sort of a 

skeleton presentation that sort of follows the 

discussion we had on the 1963 to 1970 period. So 

what I can do is I can just, you know, tweak it a little 

bit and then send it off to you guys and then you guys 

can add in your portion just like we presented it 

today.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. And then I'll get it all uploaded 

in there as well. So, all right, so send me your slides.

Mr. Barton: Will do.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Do we want to address bullet 

number three or not?

Mr. Katz: I'm sorry, what's bullet three? Sorry.

Dr. Taulbee: Oh, I'm sorry, Item Number 3 was the 

evaluation of dosimetry '75 to '80 to mention, do we 

want a slide indicating that we're going to capture the 

temporary badges or do we want to just not touch 

upon that?

Mr. Katz: Yes, I mean --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Taulbee: --- on that one.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.76

Mr. Katz: And I would suggest you go ahead and 

touch on that, too. Because that's something that's 

already been before the Board and they've already 

asked about it and they'll be curious.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes, so thank you.

Dr. Taulbee: All right.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think you can do it all in one 

presentation you guys, yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Yes, yes, that's not a problem.

Chair Schofield: All right. Any other business?

Status of Other INL Work

Dr. Taulbee: I have a status update if you'd like, Phil.

Chair Schofield: That would be good.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. And this will be real short here, 

folks.

As Bob mentioned in June, we conducted some 

interviews out at INL and Josie and Joe and Bob 

participated with Mitch and I on those interviews.

The summaries have been written, they've been 

submitted and cleared by ADC and they've sent to 

the interviewees.

We have begun to get some responses back from the 

interviewees and incorporating the comments.

So, that loop is actually on its way to being closed 

here. So I wanted to give you an update on that.

With regards to the INL Burial Ground evaluation 

from 1970 to 1980, and this is where we were 

potentially looking at an 83.14, we're not quite ready 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.77

to present to the Work Group.

We had hoped for this meeting, but, again, we're not 

quite ready.

I wanted to ask the Work Group's availability for the 

weeks of September 24th and October 8th of 

potentially scheduling a follow-up Work Group 

meeting so that we could discuss that particular 

evaluation.

Are people available either of those weeks?

Member Beach: Tim, this is Josie. I'm totally out 

those two weeks.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Tim, why don't you -- I mean scheduling 

these things, just why don't you send me some other, 

now that you know Josie's out of the country for a 

bit, but why don't you send the other alternate dates 

and I'll -- it's easier to this by email than trying to do 

this stuff on the phone.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. We're likely going to be pushing 

into later October now. And, part of that is because 

I'm not available and Jim's not available --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: -- for some of those others. So, I will 

do that. I will propose some other weeks then.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Just send that to me, I'll get it out 

to everybody to respond to.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

And then, the other issue that I wanted to bring up 

was the ANL-West and this is the alpha air monitoring 

at ANL-West. There is a draft report from ORAU on 

my desk for review. So, we may, especially now that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.78

we're going out into potentially later October, we may 

be ready to present to the Work Group on that as 

well.

So, we are making progress here and I just wanted 

to relay that to you, Phil and other Work Group 

Members, on those are the next two things that will 

be coming up, should be in September or October.

Dr. Ostrow: Tim, this is Steve Ostrow.

I was wondering, can you say anything about the 

progress you're making on the reactor modeling?

Dr. Taulbee: We are -- as I mentioned in my email 

to you, Steve, we have made progress on --- the 

modeling itself is a complete, it's melding of the 

information and comparing to OTIB-54 that is 

causing us some difficulty. We are still working 

through that. Sorry, I don't have a time line for you 

on that.

I know it's not going to be before the end of 

September. Possibly into October, that could be 

ready, especially maybe toward the end, but I'm 

really not comfortable committing to that at this 

time.

Dr. Ostrow: Okay, thanks.

Adjourn

Dr. Taulbee: Work is progressing, it's just going 

slower than we anticipated.

That's all the updates that I have for you, Phil and 

Members.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Tim.

Chair Schofield: Appreciate that.

Mr. Katz: So, Phil, I think we're ready to adjourn.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West (INL/ANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for 

concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the 

Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.79

Chair Schofield: Well, everybody have a good day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 1:15 p.m.)