This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

APRIL 21, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, James E. Lockey, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Chair

HENRY A. ANDERSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

MARK FISHBURN, ORAU Team

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

GENE ROLLINS, ORAU Team

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

Welcome and Roll Call............................. 4

Opening Remarks................................... 5

Review of July 2016 Revised Site Profile.......... 6

Adjourn.......................................... 44
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:02 p.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call 

4 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory Board 

5 on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving 

6 Grounds Work Group and we are reviewing an updated 

7 Site Profile for Pacific Proving Grounds, just to 

8 give us some guidelines on how to go about dose 

9 reconstruction for that site. And the Board 

10 contacted SC&A and has reviewed their report and 

11 they -- and the review and guidelines themselves 

12 are posted on the NIOSH web site under this program, 

13 schedule of meetings, today's date. So you can see 

14 those documents, if you want. 

15 So let's get the roll call. 

16 (Roll call.)

17 MR. KATZ: Okay then. I'm assuming 

18 Dr. Field hasn't joined us. Let's just give him -- 

19 if you don't mind, let's just give him five minutes 

20 and if he hasn't called in by then, we can get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 started. 

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

3 went off the record at 1:05 p.m. and resumed at 1:07 

4 p.m.)

5 MR. KATZ: So Dr. Bill Field has joined 

6 us. That completes our Work Group membership. 

7 And we can get rolling. I'd just remind everyone 

8 when you're not speaking to mute your phones to help 

9 with the audio quality for everybody else. And 

10 take it away. It's your meeting, Dr. Lockey.

11 Opening Remarks 

12 CHAIR LOCKEY: Yes, thanks everybody 

13 for being on time and participating. Last time we 

14 met we had nine findings and one observation. We 

15 went through those and most things were in abeyance 

16 based on that meeting. I think a lot of it dealt 

17 with when we had operational badges versus mission 

18 badges, and I think a lot of these things have been 

19 resolved, so why don't we just start with the 

20 Findings 1 through 9 and the observation, then see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if we can get done. 

2 Mark or Hans, who wants to take off and 

3 lead?

4 Review of July 2016 Revised Site Profile 

5 DR. BEHLING: Well, I guess it's going 

6 to be me who's going to do most of the talking here 

7 with regard to what we concluded regarding the 

8 findings that we were discussing during the last 

9 Work Group meeting and the report that was issued 

10 by SC&A in concurrence with the findings and how 

11 they were resolved. And that's I assume the 

12 discussion for today. 

13 I just want to say, as you've already 

14 mentioned, the fact that during the Work Group 

15 meeting we had identified a total of nine findings 

16 and one observation. And in response to those 

17 findings and one observation, NIOSH issued an Issue 

18 Resolution Matrix for Pacific Proving Grounds 

19 Sites that was dated May 20th, 2014.

20 And just a quick overview for some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people who may not be familiar with -- during that 

2 first Work Group meeting there was a sidebar 

3 discussion between Dr. Neton and the Federal 

4 Official here Mr. Katz and defined what is the 

5 difference between a resolution of a finding as 

6 opposed to in abeyance. 

7 And I think the statement, if I read it 

8 correctly from the transcript that was dated 

9 January 16th, 2015, I believe we came to the 

10 conclusion that when you have a finding, as we were 

11 discussing at that time, when it's in abeyance you 

12 can essentially agree to it, but the final 

13 resolution to that finding has to be documented as 

14 a verification in the actual document that follows. 

15 And that's normally what we did in 

16 response to that meeting, that SC&A received the 

17 revised TBD for the Pacific Proving Grounds and 

18 assessed that to Revision 1 of the TBD Site Profile 

19 in context with each of the nine findings and the 

20 one observation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, today this is what I'm hoping 

2 to do is to briefly discuss each of the findings 

3 just to jog everyone's memory and in doing so I will 

4 have John Stiver actually show the actual 

5 Resolution Matrix for the simple fact that it 

6 identifies the additional findings that we issued 

7 our draft report regarding the PPG Rev. 1 Site 

8 Profile. And of course NIOSH's response or 

9 proposed resolution for that in their Resolution 

10 Matrix and then go into terms of how this was --

11 this issue was resolved based on the inclusion of 

12 the resolution into the revision of the TBD.

13 Anyway, so if you -- unless somebody has 

14 anything else to say, we can start with Finding No. 

15 1. And I'm going to ask John Stiver to identify 

16 page 1 of the Resolution Matrix so everyone can --

17 MR. STIVER: Hans, I'm trying to view 

18 this. I clicked on the "present" button here and 

19 I'm not able to pull up that particular file for 

20 some -- oh, wait. Never mind. Here it is. Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Everybody see that?

2 DR. BEHLING: Not yet.

3 CHAIR LOCKEY: I got it.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. We're on Finding 1 

5 right now, Hans. 

6 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I'm not -- I'm 

7 getting -- I'm not getting this here. Anyway, I 

8 don't really need it because I have a hard copy in 

9 front of me. In the event that it doesn't come up 

10 on my screen, I'll just consult with the hard copy 

11 that's in front of me.

12 Anyway, just an overview of what 

13 Finding 1 is. I won't necessarily read the whole 

14 finding, only to capture the essence of the 

15 finding. You can -- for those who have a picture 

16 of -- okay. Maybe I'm getting it now. I don't 

17 know. Anyway, I'll proceed.

18 Finding No. 1 stated that NIOSH needs 

19 to update ORAUT-TKBS-52, Rev. 00, with regard to 

20 the 250-workday requirement for SEC Class 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inclusion based on the EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 

2 and No. 07-05. And those were unfortunate 

3 instances because the original Rev. 0 of the PPG 

4 Site Profile only predates the release of those two 

5 particular EEOICPA Bulletins by a few days.

6 And then in the process those changes 

7 were not introduced into the original PPG Site 

8 Profile, which basically converts the 250-day 

9 requirement for SEC inclusion to 83 days based on 

10 the fact that a 24-hour period on location at PPG 

11 is equivalent to 3 times 8 hours per day, and 

12 therefore the 250-day requirement for the SEC 

13 inclusion should have been reduced to 83. That was 

14 subsequently incorporated into the revision of the 

15 Site Profile. 

16 And in terms of the resolution section 

17 1.3 of ORAUT-TKBS it was amended on pages 8 through 

18 9 in accordance with the provisions for those two 

19 particular EEOICPA Bulletins, and that basically 

20 converts to the 250-workday requirements and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 83-day requirements. And as a result of that, the 

2 status of Finding 1 SC&A agrees with the text 

3 revision and recommends closure of Finding No. 1.

4 CHAIR LOCKEY: Do any Board Members 

5 have any questions about this?

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't, no.

7 MEMBER VALERIO: I don't.

8 CHAIR LOCKEY: I read through it and I 

9 didn't either other than Jim Neton I guess as before 

10 the Department of Labor asked if there's no clear 

11 indication as to our end date, then that's a DOL 

12 issue, right?

13 DR. NETON: Correct.

14 CHAIR LOCKEY: Okay. 

15 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I still haven't 

16 gotten my screen, but I assume that the screen also 

17 includes Observation No. 1. Is that correct? Is 

18 the screen up for you?

19 CHAIR LOCKEY: I don't have the screen 

20 either, so I can't tell you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Observation 1 in 

2 our report stated the following: There's a need 

3 for more definitive guidance pertaining to the 

4 assignment of occupational medical dose in behalf 

5 of claimants who have no formal affiliations with 

6 a DOE or AWE facility. And that really is of some 

7 significance because I know for a fact having been 

8 very closely affiliated with the PPG issues here 

9 in the testing period between and '46 that '58 that 

10 were a lot of people who were hired who were not 

11 employees of either the DOE facility or the AWE 

12 facility necessarily. 

13 There were people obviously out there 

14 who were contracted right on location, and that 

15 included people who were probably not even 

16 considered here. But there were also people who 

17 were contracted to work for EG&G -- EG -- EE&G, I'm 

18 sorry, and [Identifying information redacted], who 

19 were major contractors during that time. And that 

20 was our concern.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But NIOSH by and large responded with 

2 the recommendation that these people, unless they 

3 were affiliated with a DOE or AWE facility and the 

4 medical X-rays were necessary, taken at a facility 

5 that was considered under EEOICPA, there would be 

6 no need to assess the medical exposure as is 

7 described in ORAU-OTIB-0079. In other words, that 

8 particular OTIB only addresses the need for medical 

9 exposure that you have to address if the facility 

10 was a covered facility. So the statement of 

11 NIOSH's resolution to Observation 1 was that in 

12 Section 3 it substituted protocols for the 

13 ORAU-PROC-0061 for guidance now provided in the 

14 updated version of ORAU-OTIB-0079.

15 And so as a result of that change, SC&A 

16 concurs with the text revision in Section 3 and with 

17 these recommendations closes Observation 1 since 

18 obviously there's no need to even consider this 

19 under OTIB-79. 

20 Are there any questions?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR LOCKEY: Any questions about 

2 that?

3 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. No 

4 questions.

5 MEMBER VALERIO: No, no questions.

6 CHAIR LOCKEY: Okay. Good. 

7 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Again, I will 

8 just briefly give you the overview of Finding No. 

9 2. Section 4 of the Occupational Environmental 

10 Dose ignores occupational environmental doses for 

11 PPG locations from fallout. And this was a very 

12 critical component in our thinking. We went 

13 through a lot of effort to clarify what the issues 

14 were. 

15 It was eventually -- for those who want 

16 to go to -- back to the original document, it was 

17 reviewed in Section 6 of page 19, and a more 

18 detailed section -- in other sections, 7.2 in the 

19 report. And this really involves the following: 

20 Pre-1955 personnel were oftentimes only badged in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a very, very limited fashion with mission badges 

2 as well as cohort badges where one person got the 

3 exposure for many people. And there had been a 

4 time when detonations that had been -- or that 

5 predates 1955, specifically Operation Greenhouse, 

6 resulted in significant fallout that exposed 

7 personnel on site. And those exposures were not 

8 properly accounted for up until that point in time. 

9 And NIOSH's response to Finding 2 was 

10 that NIOSH agrees that the findings and Section 4 

11 of the next revision will actually revise that 

12 particular section in order to account for 

13 exposures that may have been received during those 

14 time periods from fallout for people who were 

15 obviously exposed, but not necessarily monitored 

16 for exposure.

17 So having made those changes, revisions 

18 to Section 6 in the revised TBD, we feel it's 

19 something that has been properly addressed and 

20 accounted for. And again, SC&A recommends closure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to Finding 2 based on those changes.

2 CHAIR LOCKEY: Hans, essentially there 

3 is no environmental exposure. It's all 

4 occupational, right?

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes, we -- it was 

6 initially assessed as environmental, but the 

7 recommendation was that this really involves 

8 occupational exposure because it has obviously 

9 unique aspects of a facility that was really 

10 several atolls where people worked 24/7 or stayed 

11 there 24/7 in a given environment, and so therefore 

12 it really is not environmental, but really was 

13 regarded as occupational. And I think it was 

14 transferred to Section 6 of the revised PPG.

15 CHAIR LOCKEY: Any questions, anybody?

16 Everybody's okay with this?

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

19 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I guess we're --

20 I don't know, again not having the screen, I assume 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we are on the next page of the Issues Resolution 

2 Matrix. Am I correct?

3 CHAIR LOCKEY: Yes, I think it's we're 

4 Finding 3, 4 and 8 and 9 are combined.

5 DR. BEHLING: Well, oh, in that case, 

6 I didn't think you were going to show this one. I'm 

7 actually still working with my original Issue 

8 Resolution Matrix. I'm really following the 

9 actual sequential numbers --

10 CHAIR LOCKEY: Okay.

11 DR. BEHLING: -- of the findings.

12 CHAIR LOCKEY: That's fine.

13 DR. BEHLING: And I'm -- at this point 

14 we are on Finding 3, but in the original matrix that 

15 I addressed I have Findings 3 and 4 sort of 

16 together. And this is due to the fact that the 

17 combination is based on shared deficiencies of 

18 SC&A's knowledge in Section 3 of our draft report. 

19 And if you go over and look at the NIOSH 

20 response to Finding No. 3, you realize that NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 does understand there are serious deficiencies 

2 related to the Monitoring Program as expressed by 

3 the use of mission badges and cohort badging in some 

4 cases, that there was very limited monitoring that 

5 should have been done, but wasn't done. 

6 And we acknowledge that actually in the 

7 report that SC&A wrote in Section 3 that we 

8 submitted under the relevant background 

9 information. In SC&A's review of that Site 

10 Profile for the Pacific Proving Grounds we stated 

11 the following: The purpose of presenting some of 

12 the information in that Section 3 is to point out 

13 the magnitude and dynamics of the PPG Testing 

14 Program and limitations based on personnel and 

15 resources that were further complicated by the 

16 remote, isolated location that characterized the 

17 four test sites at the PPG. 

18 So we agreed with NIOSH that there were

19 obviously serious deficiencies in terms of the 

20 approaches taken to assess personnel exposure, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it has not be recognized that this was the very 

2 beginning of the nuclear age. It follows at the 

3 heels of the Manhattan Project. There 

4 was a time when we had a poor understanding of the 

5 effect of radiation. And of course we were 

6 certainly not held to the actual rigid dose 

7 limitations as we know today, in addition to the 

8 fact that they were literally tens of thousands of 

9 people that had to be obviously addressed in terms 

10 of their exposure during this time frame. So we 

11 understand the limitations of the problems that 

12 obviously face the whole issue of a full accounting 

13 of exposures.

14 So resolution of Findings 3 and 4, when 

15 we looked at this, have generic limitations that 

16 are associated with personnel dosimetries, the 

17 limited use and assignments of personnel during 

18 select times and periods, and the procedural 

19 practices that were put in place at the time. And 

20 these are all deficiencies that are likely to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 considered intractable. So to overcome these 

2 deficiencies NIOSH proposed the optional use of the 

3 95th percentile cohort doses as defined in 

4 Attachment A in the revision of the PPG Site 

5 Profile.

6 So in light of those deficiencies we all 

7 accept them and realize that we have to do something 

8 that at least makes an attempt to accommodate 

9 perhaps some of the deficiencies that are likely 

10 to result in lower assigned doses. And I think 

11 NIOSH did the right thing in essentially saying 

12 that we will assign a coworker dose that is defined 

13 in Attachment A that is based on a 95th percentile 

14 coworker dose that we can discuss a little more in 

15 detail. 

16 So again, with regard to Findings No. 

17 3 and 4, we accept the idea that the changes that 

18 have been introduced into Appendix A address these 

19 inefficiencies, or deficiencies and we recommend 

20 closures to Findings No. 3 and 4. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Are there any questions on that?

2 CHAIR LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. I just had 

3 one question. If the measured dose from the 

4 mission badge is higher, NIOSH will use that, is 

5 that correct?

6 DR. BEHLING: Yes, they will. In 

7 fact, they were collated. If you look at Appendix 

8 A, you will obviously see that NIOSH has introduced 

9 50th and 95th percentile values of actual badges 

10 that were collated and derived and used obviously 

11 a formula to derive the 50th and 95th percentiles. 

12 So they do represent real values. But because of 

13 the fact that when you have the incomplete 

14 potential -- or potentially incomplete assessment 

15 of all personnel that would have been exposed, the 

16 recommendation was to obviously amend the data that 

17 had been used previously in more than one way. I 

18 think going to that -- I think it's No. -- Finding 

19 No. 9 that also adds another dimension to the data 

20 in terms of acknowledging the 40 mR MDA values that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it would have incorporated into the dose 

2 calculation.

3 CHAIR LOCKEY: Anybody have any 

4 questions?

5 (No audible response.)

6 CHAIR LOCKEY: Good. Let's move on.

7 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Finding No. 5. 

8 Finding No. 5 was stated as -- that the average 

9 photon energies associated with fallout are well 

10 above the 250 keV energy level. And depending 

11 on -- with the exposure John just assumed, the 

12 assault of the photon energy of 32-250 and AP 

13 geometry may not be claimant-favorable. That was 

14 the original finding.

15 And NIOSH in their Resolution Matrix 

16 later stated that, yes, the iso and rotational 

17 geometries might be more realistic than was assumed 

18 in the dose calculation. The general approach 

19 taken with EEOICPA claims is to apply the DCF using 

20 the highest PoC. So the driver here was to not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 necessarily be 100 percent accurate because of the 

2 fact that when we talk about exposures in the PPG, 

3 we're not talking about the conventional exposures 

4 that people would receive in a typical DOE 

5 facility. 

6 I mean, we're talking about fallout 

7 that is basically isotropic because at the time 

8 there was obviously contamination on the ground. 

9 There was contamination in the palm trees above 

10 you. And so in essence the rotation of a patient 

11 or the isotropic exposure might have been more 

12 realistic, but they would not necessarily always 

13 give you the highest exposure dose. Also the AP 

14 geometry was obviously then considered a preferred 

15 option based on the fact that these had a higher 

16 assigned dose in addition to the assumption of a 

17 30 to 250 keV photon. But from what I remember from 

18 the work that I've done in there, the actual photon 

19 energy was 700 or so keV. 

20 But anyway, with the exception of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lung, esophagus, red bone and bone surfaces, NIOSH 

2 concluded that the preferred and the higher derived 

3 dose would be from the assumption of a 30 to 250 

4 keV photon energy and the AP geometry.

5 I believe, let me see, there's also a 

6 statement in here that there is a potential option 

7 for -- to use the higher values if it turns out to 

8 be essential for a claim where the maximally 

9 accurate assessment has been done to actually use 

10 changes here that involve -- where am I, because 

11 I'm kind of lost here in my own stuff.

12 CHAIR LOCKEY: I think the way I read 

13 it was that if it's one of those three: esophagus, 

14 lung, bone marrow, they use whatever is higher, AP 

15 or rotational. 

16 DR. BEHLING: Yes, okay. I think I 

17 have it in front of me now. Yes, it's that you have 

18 an option to use the higher value even if it turns 

19 out to be so that for these four organs the Revision 

20 Section -- okay, here, I found it on my documents. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They are scattered. I didn't intend to use these 

2 documents as opposed to the actual information on 

3 the screen.

4 But anyway, for these four organs 

5 Revision Section 3.3 suggests an AP to ROT or 

6 rotational geometry ratio should be considered for 

7 claimant-favorability. With iso geometry for 

8 cases you find best estimates. So that was an 

9 option that would under situations being preferred 

10 over the standard assumption of 30 to 250 keV and 

11 AP geometry. 

12 Anyway, given that additional option, 

13 SC&A finds the recommendation appropriate and 

14 again SC&A recommends for all of Finding No. 5 and 

15 recommends closure. 

16 CHAIR LOCKEY: Very good. I agree. 

17 Anybody -- do Board Members agree? Questions?

18 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I agree.

19 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree. This is 

20 Loretta.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Oh, I think it's 

2 fine.

3 CHAIR LOCKEY: Thank you. Finding 6?

4 DR. BEHLING: Finding 6. Finding 6 

5 states that since claims involving the skin cancer 

6 usually specify the locations on the body in a given 

7 claim, then the critical variable of distance above 

8 the source plane defined by Barss & Weitz in 2006 

9 in their study should be included in the assignment 

10 of beta-to-gamma ratios for PPG claimants. And 

11 the variability of the beta-to-gamma ratio is based 

12 obviously not only on the source term relationship 

13 or the spacing between the source flow at the ground 

14 contamination and the location, but also the age 

15 of the fallout. And these were also identified by 

16 Barss & Weitz in their study.

17 And the NIOSH resolution to Finding 6, 

18 NIOSH notes that the ratio of beta-to-gamma 

19 associated with exposure to fallout is highly 

20 variable with age of the fallout as well as the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distance of the source plane. In the absence of 

2 dosimeter beta dose this variability is of critical 

3 importance for claims involving skin cancers and 

4 other surficial tissues. 

5 And so in Section 6.1 of the revised PPG 

6 Site Profile, NIOSH eliminated the default NTS 

7 beta-to-gamma ratio of one-to-one in the revised 

8 guidance. That includes the beta-to-gamma ratios 

9 that were identified in the article by Barss & Weitz 

10 in 2006, the deficiency ratios that include the 

11 effect of weathering. 

12 So in response to those changes, again 

13 SC&A recommends the closure of Finding No. 6 

14 because it does in fact specify the various issues 

15 that were identified in our original findings.

16 CHAIR LOCKEY: I agree. Board 

17 Members?

18 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree.

19 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I do, too.

20 CHAIR LOCKEY: Impressive tables. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Okay. We're --

2 CHAIR LOCKEY: Dr. Anderson?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Sorry. I was on 

4 hold. Yes. I was on mute. Yes.

5 CHAIR LOCKEY: Okay.

6 DR. BEHLING: Okay. So we're on 

7 Finding No. 7, and Finding No. 7 states that NIOSH's 

8 guidance for the assignment of missed dose is based 

9 on assumptions that are not supported by the facts. 

10 And in the case of uncertainty are clearly not 

11 claimant-favorable.

12 This issue concerning missed dose was 

13 discussed by SC&A in Section 7.4.2, and centers 

14 around the previously acknowledged deficiencies 

15 that we already talked about pertaining to the 

16 external monitoring of personnel and the use of 

17 mission badges and the cohort badging. And again, 

18 NIOSH's response to Statement 7 is that the next 

19 revision will address the issue of mixed missed 

20 dose guidance and talks about how this was done. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And also included is the external exposure that is 

2 now considered more or less occupational exposure 

3 from fallout during the time of Operation 

4 Greenhouse.

5 And the specific guidance by and large 

6 consisted of three specific elements; that is, the 

7 assigned missed dose must be based on a number of 

8 changes found in the dosimetry records, which they 

9 do. 

10 No. 2, compare also the total of the 

11 recorded dose plus the missed dose to the 50th 

12 percentile dose in Attachment A. So you have an 

13 option of using either the empirical dose or 

14 default to the coworker model in Attachment A. 

15 And thirdly, for cases where 

16 occupational exposures on the various islands is 

17 documented in the dosimetry records and their 

18 additional dose can be calculated in accordance 

19 with the data that was shown under Operation 

20 Greenhouse and shown in detail in the revision of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the TBD Profile.

2 So again, with regard to the status of 

3 Finding No. 7 SC&A concurs with these revisions and 

4 recommends closure of Finding No. 7.

5 CHAIR LOCKEY: Board Members?

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's fine.

7 MEMBER FIELD: Sounds good.

8 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree.

9 CHAIR LOCKEY: I agree, too. Okay.

10 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Finding No. 8. 

11 Independent of other concerns/limitations that 

12 characterize the DNA dose distribution data in 

13 their accuracy and completeness use of the 50th 

14 percentile dose as a coworker dose is not justified 

15 for PPG participants for Operations up to and 

16 inclusive of Operation CASTLE and subsequent 

17 Operations where maybe dosimeter damage was an 

18 issue. And sometimes that is recorded in some of 

19 the documents, the DNA documents.

20 This issue centers really around 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 earlier concerns about the use of coworker data 

2 involving the 50th percentile dose as a meaningful 

3 or accurate, or better yet claimant-favorable 

4 coworker dose. And NIOSH's response to that is 

5 that the Attachment A was revised, and in 

6 Attachment A the option exists to -- in addition 

7 to the 50th percentile dose to actually make use 

8 of the 95th percentile doses for coworkers where 

9 there is an absence of data or incomplete data.

10 As a result of that change to Attachment 

11 A, which was our concern that the 50th percentile 

12 based on some of the deficiencies that were 

13 identified in our report, the coworker dose at the 

14 50th percentile may not necessarily give the 

15 benefit of doubt to the actual exposures that may 

16 have been received, and SC&A believes that the 95th 

17 percentile as an option for a coworker dose who has 

18 incomplete or non-existent dosimetry data is a 

19 claimant-favorable approach and therefore agrees 

20 with the fact that Finding No. 8 has been adequately 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 addressed and we recommend closure to Finding 8.

2 CHAIR LOCKEY: Thanks, Hans. I agree.

3 Board Members?

4 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Agree.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Close it out.

7 CHAIR LOCKEY: No. 9?

8 DR. BEHLING: No. 9. Okay. I was 

9 just waiting. I wasn't sure whether all of the 

10 Members had voiced their opinion.

11 For No. 9 -- and I think we just briefly 

12 made reference to that earlier. No. 9 states that 

13 Operation-specific dose distribution defined by 

14 DNA must be adjusted to account for the minimum 

15 detected activity value of film dosimeters 

16 regardless of what percentile value is employed. 

17 And this finding was discussed in our earlier 

18 report in a couple sections as well as one of the 

19 figures, and really addresses the issue of which 

20 the actual doses that we were just earlier 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 referencing that were used as coworker -- to 

2 actually estimate the coworker model. 

3 In the original TBD we had only 

4 estimated 50th percentile value. And the means by 

5 which that dose values were derived ignores the 

6 fact that the missed dose was not incorporated into 

7 the method by which these doses were derived. In 

8 other words, only doses which were actually greater 

9 than 40 would have been accepted into that 

10 equation, meaning that a person with less than MDA 

11 value with a film dosimeter would not have been 

12 incorporated. 

13 And it's a little more difficult to 

14 explain here, but the issue was resolved. In the 

15 revised TBD NIOSH incorporated the fact that the 

16 doses that should have been included in terms of 

17 the four divisions by which the estimates were 

18 categorized incorporate dosimeter values that were 

19 less than MDA into the equations and therefore 

20 raises the actual assigned doses, both at the 50th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and the 95th percentile value. And as I said, 

2 these changes are looking for changes to the doses 

3 as defined in Appendix A. And those appear on page 

4 32 and 33 of the revised TBD and they do show that 

5 the coworker dose distributions acknowledge that 

6 change. 

7 So again, it fully satisfies the 

8 original finding as we stated in our review and we 

9 recommend that this finding also be closed as a 

10 result of that.

11 CHAIR LOCKEY: Good. I agree.

12 Board Members?

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Agree.

14 MEMBER FIELD: Agree.

15 MEMBER VALERIO: Agree.

16 CHAIR LOCKEY: Okay. 

17 DR. BEHLING: So at this point I think 

18 we've gone through all of the findings and the one 

19 observation, and I believe that at this point my 

20 review of the revisions that occurred in the Draft 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1 of the TBD acknowledges each of the findings. I 

2 identified the locations for each of those 

3 revisions and assessed that against the findings 

4 and concluded that NIOSH has adequately addressed 

5 each and every one of the nine findings and 

6 observation, and collectively SC&A recommends 

7 closure to all findings and one observation.

8 CHAIR LOCKEY: Very good. Let's just 

9 have an overall vote for Board Members. 

10 Dr. Anderson?

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

12 CHAIR LOCKEY: Bill?

13 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

14 CHAIR LOCKEY: Loretta?

15 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

16 CHAIR LOCKEY: And myself, yes, I 

17 agree.

18 Ted, is there any other business?

19 MR. KATZ: So, that was great. And, 

20 Hans, that was a very nice summary. Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, no, the only remaining business 

2 is, Jim, whether you want Hans to -- so we should 

3 present this in August for the Board to close this 

4 Site Profile review. And do you want -- would you 

5 like Hans to -- or do you have it -- this adequately 

6 from this meeting to prepare a draft PowerPoint 

7 presentation that can be given to the Board? 

8 I think really the level that Hans used 

9 is perfectly appropriate without much more ado.

10 CHAIR LOCKEY: I agree.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MR. KATZ: -- Board.

13 CHAIR LOCKEY: Well, I'd recommend 

14 that, Hans, you combine -- what was I going to 

15 combine -- the 3, 4, 8 and 9 into one summary. If 

16 you could -- and, Ted, you want him to present to 

17 the Board, that's fine.

18 MR. KATZ: So, well, no, I'm not saying 

19 that. You are welcome as the Chair to present to 

20 the Board. If you'd prefer that Hans present, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, too, is fine. In any event, Hans would 

2 attend by phone, at least, so that --

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 CHAIR LOCKEY: I would -- Hans, I would 

5 prefer that you would prefer to the Board.

6 MR. KATZ: That's fine. Is that okay? 

7 Does that okay for you, Hans?

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it will work.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay.

10 DR. BEHLING: As I said, one of the 

11 problems when I look at it -- and you can actually 

12 look at the actual Resolution Matrix and look at 

13 column No. 2 and you realize so much of the -- or 

14 so many of the findings that; start with Finding 

15 basically 3 to 9, are identified in Section 7.4.2. 

16 And the resolution to those findings also almost 

17 occupy a cluster in the revision of the Revised PPG 

18 Site Profile. And sometimes they go back and forth 

19 because they all have to share conversations. And 

20 if I had to say anything collectively, it's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 acknowledgement by NIOSH. 

2 And as we already stated in our original 

3 draft report, this was a very difficult TBD to 

4 construct in terms of the complexity based on the 

5 fact that this occurred early in our time frame for 

6 the nuclear era that has a very limited information 

7 to go with in terms of how to protect people, and 

8 also the remoteness of the Marshall Islands out 

9 there in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific and 

10 the numbers of people. 

11 And so many of the findings were really 

12 interconnected and have to be looked at such. And 

13 of course these findings all center around one 

14 thing, and that was the external exposure that was 

15 only monitorable by limited resources with film 

16 badges up until 1955 where we had mission badges 

17 where people were only given a badge for a specific 

18 activity that oftentimes may have meant nothing 

19 more than retrieval of some instrument off an 

20 island that was close to the ground zero for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurement that it was able to give. And it was 

2 only for those very limited time periods that we 

3 had any assessment of individual exposures. So we 

4 know mission badges had limitations. 

5 Then there was the issue of cohort 

6 badging. That was due to the shear number of -- 

7 thousands of people that were there for the 

8 Operation Crossroads. For instance, the first 

9 set, there were 10,000 people that needed to be 

10 monitored. And oftentimes a shortage of badges 

11 required that one person represented a group of 

12 people, like 50 or 100 people. And the question 

13 was always there that says do we have that assigned 

14 cohort badge that maybe a supervisor wore and then 

15 have that in file for the 100 people for whom that 

16 cohort badge was assigned?

17 And so, this was an issue that we all 

18 recognized and don't necessarily condemn or 

19 question the credibility of the data. It's just 

20 that these were the circumstances during which 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposures were obviously restricted to a certain 

2 number of people who wore the badges and the 

3 documentation of those exposures was certainly not 

4 100 percent to the point where we would recognize 

5 this as acceptable protocol in today's world.

6 So under those circumstances, as I 

7 said, all of the concerns and findings we have are 

8 somewhat related to each other and therefore the 

9 resolution and the description by which NIOSH 

10 addressed this is sort of scattered throughout the 

11 documents, mostly in Section 6.

12 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, Hans, yes, I 

13 don't think that will worry the Board much, because 

14 most of them probably won't read the document 

15 itself, the NIOSH Site Profile update. If they do, 

16 they'll read it in a very sort of summary way to 

17 prepare for the meeting.

18 But I mean, you're welcome to give some 

19 context up front when you give your presentation, 

20 Hans.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and, Ted, as you 

2 know, SC&A was engaged in the Marshall Islands for 

3 a period of six years. I personally have spent a 

4 good part of those six years between '98 and 2004 

5 at the various locations that we're talking about 

6 here today: Enewetak, Bikini and all of the major 

7 islands that were exposed to the fallout in the 

8 Northern Atolls. 

9 So I speak from firsthand experience, 

10 the complexity and difficulties that obviously 

11 NIOSH had to address in addressing the concerns and 

12 the limitations that they faced with putting 

13 together a document that would be fair to the people 

14 who were exposed and assess then a certain measure 

15 of certainty, that hopefully are accommodated by 

16 assumptions that are claimant-favorable by such 

17 things as using the 95th percentile cohort, worker 

18 doses and other issues that they felt really were 

19 needed to address some of these uncertainties.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, Hans, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board meeting is on the 23rd and 24th. I don't know 

2 which day this will be scheduled for at this point 

3 because I don't have a good sense of anything else 

4 that will be on the plate, but if you would just 

5 reserve those dates to be available. You don't 

6 have to come to the meeting. You could do it by 

7 phone, if you'd like. That's up to you.

8 DR. BEHLING: Okay. This is the 23rd 

9 and 24th of which month? This month?

10 MR. KATZ: Of August. August.

11 DR. BEHLING: Oh, August? Okay. 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 DR. BEHLING: Great.

14 MR. KATZ: It’s a away off, and certainly 

15 we'd like to get the presentation about a month in 

16 advance in this case since we have plenty of time 

17 for that to get done. But honestly, I mean, the 

18 level you presented to the Work Group today is I 

19 think very appropriate for the whole Board with 

20 whatever context you want to add, but because --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if that works for you, then I think that's great. 

2 And I think that takes care of business today.

3 DR. BEHLING: Let me ask you, Ted, 

4 where is the location for the Board meeting?

5 MR. KATZ: Well, it's up in the air 

6 because it depends on hotel availability, but in 

7 any case it's going to be in New Mexico.

8 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Yes. Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: You're welcome to come and 

10 present in person if that's more comfortable. 

11 Whatever your preference is.

12 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I won't make a 

13 decision now, but I will accommodate you either by 

14 teleconference calling or by being there in person. 

15 One or the other is going to be okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good. 

17 CHAIR LOCKEY: Hans and Mark and 

18 everybody, thanks for your really hard work on 

19 that. It's appreciated by everybody. 

20 MR. ROLFES: Thank you. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Pacific Proving Grounds 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 Pacific Proving Grounds 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Thank you, Hans.

2 CHAIR LOCKEY: So, Ted, we're done?

3 Adjourn 

4 MR. KATZ: I think so. I think you can 

5 adjourn. And thank you, everybody.

6 CHAIR LOCKEY: Have a good weekend, 

7 everybody.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

9 went off the record at 1:49 p.m.)

10