STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

WORKGROUP MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

SANTA SUSANA

 

The verbatim transcript of the Workgroup 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Airport Marriott, 

Hebron, Kentucky, on August 26, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

August 26, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

MR. TED KATZ, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 10 

MR. MIKE GIBSON 

MATRIX REVIEW: 22 

4.1-1 23 

4.1-2 35 

4.2-1 36 

4.2-2 43 

4.2-3 58 

4.2-4 64 

4.2-5; 4.2-6 72 

4.3-1 73 

4.3-2 79 

4.4-1; 4.4-2 81 

4.4-3 92 

4.4-4 107 

4.4-5 109 

4.4-6 117 

4.5-1 124 

4.5-2 140 

4.5-3; 4.5-4 146 

4.5-5 168 

4.5-6 175 

4.5-7 176 

4.5-8; 4.5-9 186 

4.5-10 188 

4.5-11 190 

4.5-12 191 

4.5-13 198 

4.5-14 200 

4.5-15 204 

4.5-16 207 

4.6-1 208 

4.6-2,3,4 210 

4.6-5 215 

4.6-6,7 218 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 237 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- ^/ (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies 

speaker failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL (Acting)

KATZ, Theodore M., M.P.A. 

Program Analyst 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia 

 

 

BOARD MEMBERSHIP

WORKGROUP CHAIR:

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BERONJA, GREG, SC&A 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

DALY, CECILIA, CONG. GALLEGLY 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

HIRSCH, DAN, PETITIONER 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HUGHES, LARA, OCAS 

KLEA, BONNIE, PETITIONER 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MORRIS, ROBERT, ORAU 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

POTTER, GENE, ORAU 

RUTHERFORD, PHIL, BOEING CO. 

THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

(10:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

MR. TED KATZ, DFO

1 MR. KATZ: Good morning. Good morning. This 

2 is Ted Katz. I'm the Designated Federal 

3 Official -- Acting -- for the Advisory Board on 

4 Radiation and Worker Health, and this is the 

5 first meeting of the workgroup on Area Four of 

6 the Santa Susana Field Laboratory site profile 

7 and SEC. It's the first meeting, and we're 

8 just going to run through some administrative 

9 work and then we're going to turn it over to 

10 the Chair, Mike Gibson. 

11 So first thing is running through roll call and 

12 conflict of interest statements. So starting 

13 with the Board present in the room, if you'd go 

14 round, starting with Mike, and identify 

15 yourselves, please. 

16 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Advisory Board, no 

17 conflicts. 

18 MS. BEACH: Josie Beach, Advisory Board, no 

19 conflict. 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: Phillip Schofield, Advisory 
7

1 Board, no conflict. 

2 MR. KATZ: And then Wanda? 

3 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Advisory Board, no 

4 conflict. 

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, and are there any other 

6 Advisory Board members present on the phone? 

7 (No responses) 

8 Okay, so we do not have a quorum, which is good 

9 for a workgroup meeting. 

10 Now going to the ORAU/NIOSH team, if you'd -- 

11 starting in the room, please. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, OCAS, no conflict. 

13 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU team, no 

14 conflict. 

15 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS, no conflict. 

16 MS. HUGHES: Lara Hughes, OCAS, no conflict. 

17 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, Oak Ridge team, no 

18 conflict. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then on the phone, 

20 NIOSH/ORAU? 

21 MR. POTTER: Gene Potter, ORAU team, no 

22 conflict. 

23 MR. KATZ: Okay, and now SC&A in the room, 

24 please. 

25 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflict. 
8

1 MR. BERONJA: Greg Beronja, SC&A, no conflict. 

2 MR. KATZ: And then on the line, SC&A, please? 

3 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A, no conflict. 

4 MR. KATZ: Great. And now do we have any 

5 Congressional staff who would like to identify 

6 themselves for the record? 

7 MS. DALY: This is Cecilia Daly with 

8 Congressman Gallegly's office. 

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, could you please just 

10 repeat that? It was hard to hear. 

11 MS. DALY: Cecilia Daly with Congressman 

12 Gallegly's office. 

13 MR. KATZ: Congressman Gallegly's, with Celia 

14 Daly. Is that correct? 

15 MS. DALY: Cecilia, but close enough. 

16 MR. KATZ: Cecilia -- Cecilia Daly, Congressman 

17 Gallegly's -- thank you, and welcome. 

18 MS. DALY: Thank you. And -- and now I believe 

19 we may have the petitioner for Santa Susana on 

20 the line. Is that correct? 

21 MS. KLEA: Yes, good morning. This is Bonnie 

22 Klea and I'd like to thank you, Cecilia, for 

23 getting on the line this morning. 

24 MS. DALY: Oh, sure. 

25 MS. KLEA: I didn't know you were going to be 
9

1 here. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, and welcome, Bonnie. 

3 MS. KLEA: Thank you. 

4 MR. KATZ: I'm glad you could make it. 

5 MS. KLEA: Yes, thank you. 

6 MR. KATZ: And now are -- are there any other 

7 public members who would like to identify 

8 themselves? 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, this is Phil Rutherford 

10 from the Boeing Company. Good morning. 

11 MR. KATZ: Good morning. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Could you get his first name 

13 again? 

14 MR. KATZ: Phil Rutherford. 

15 THE COURT REPORTER: The Boeing Company? 

16 MR. KATZ: Boeing Company. Any others? And 

17 then last but not least, any other -- any other 

18 NIOSH or federal employees on the line, please? 

19 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus, HHS. 

20 MR. KATZ: For HHS, thank you. 

21 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor to NIOSH. 

22 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC. 

23 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Department of Labor. 

24 MS. BURGOS: Zaida Burgos, NIOSH. 

25 MR. KATZ: That's Zaida Burgos. Okay, any 
10

1 more? 

2 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie with ANWAG 

3 on the line. 

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, welcome, Terrie. 

5 MS. BARRIE: Thank you. 

6 MR. KATZ: Any others? 

7 (No responses) 

8 Okay, then I will -- one last remark -- 

9 administrative remark and then I'll turn it 

10 over to Mike. That is, everyone who's on the 

11 line if you would please mute your phones it'll 

12 -- it just keeps from -- the phone disturbance 

13 in the room. So if you don't -- 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) star-6. 

15 MR. KATZ: Star-6, right, star-6 or a mute 

16 button, either one works. 

17 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: And the last thing is please, if you 

19 do disconnect sometime during the call, please 

20 don't put it on hold. Just completely 

21 disconnect and call back in 'cause -- 'cause 

22 the hold function also disrupts the calls for 

23 the other listeners. 

24 Thank you very much. And Mike, it's all yours. 

25 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR
11

1 MR. GIBSON: Thanks, Ted. This -- as Ted said, 

2 this is the workgroup on Area Four of the Santa 

3 Susana Field Lab site profile and SEC. Today's 

4 agenda's pretty simple. We're just going to 

5 start with the -- the NIOSH site profile 

6 review, and SC&A has taken a look at that and 

7 they've made some comments that we have here in 

8 a matrix. And then this morning we got a paper 

9 copy of a draft response from NIOSH, which I 

10 think John's probably reviewing right now. So 

11 I guess what we'll do is we'll just start with 

12 the issues matrix and maybe let NIOSH give a 

13 little bit of explanation for their response 

14 and give John a little time to think about it 

15 and respond to it. 

16 DR. NETON: Could I -- this is Jim Neton, I -- 

17 start with a little clarification of what we 

18 really want to accomplish today, because I 

19 think this is sort of a unique situation in 

20 that this is a site profile review that has 

21 been sort of in the middle of an ongoing SEC 

22 petition process. And it's my understanding 

23 that SC&A reviewed the site profile with an eye 

24 toward SEC issues, but I don't know that SC&A 

25 actually reviewed the evaluation report as 
12

1 well. 

2 MR. BERONJA: We looked at the evaluation 

3 report, but it wasn't really a formal review at 

4 all. 

5 DR. NETON: Right. 

6 MR. BERONJA: We focused on the site profile 

7 and just said if there were comments that were 

8 applicable to the SEC, we noted those. That 

9 was -- and we can comment a little bit more 

10 beyond that, but that's primarily what we did, 

11 so it's kind of a, you know, superficial look. 

12 DR. NETON: Yeah, see, I guess maybe the -- the 

13 thing in my mind is that the site profile was 

14 written not with necessarily the intent of 

15 doing all dose reconstructions. It was written 

16 with the intent of providing the best foot 

17 forward on what we could do for current dose 

18 reconstructions in-house, and by definition 

19 it's not necessarily a totally complete 

20 document. Whereas the evaluation report for 

21 the SEC really is supposed to be that, in the 

22 sense that it should address how we would 

23 approach all dose reconstructions for the whole 

24 class. So we have a little bit of a disconnect 

25 there in my mind. It doesn't mean we can't 
13

1 proceed, but I just -- keep that in mind, and 

2 do we want to evaluate these items -- do you 

3 want to essentially do -- what we did in the 

4 past is sort of scrub this list of 39 findings 

5 for SEC-related issues, or do we want to just 

6 go about closing them all one by one or 

7 discussing closure? I'm not sure -- I guess 

8 it's Mike's prerogative how we want to move 

9 forward. 

10 MR. GIBSON: Well, one thing I don't think 

11 we're going to do, in my opinion, is we're not 

12 going to close issues. We can discuss them and 

13 try to get a better feeling for them, but it is 

14 unfortunate that DOE hasn't released the 

15 material yet so the -- the plaintiffs and the 

16 petitioners have not had a chance to see it. 

17 So you know, I am going to hold actions open 

18 that, you know, the petitioners can come back 

19 and -- once they see the material, if they have 

20 an issue that we'll address. 

21 DR. NETON: But I -- I guess the situation is 

22 right now that NIOSH in April, I believe, 

23 presented our evaluation report and recommended 

24 that at least two years be added to the SEC, 

25 and that's being held in abeyance by the Board 
14

1 until the SEC -- until this process, I guess, 

2 can inform the full Board better. So is it -- 

3 is it better for us at this point to identify 

4 SEC-related issues that really need to be 

5 evaluated in depth, you know, or -- or just 

6 leave everything open as a site profile issue 

7 at this point? 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: We would propose to focus on the 

9 SEC issues so that the -- it would inform the 

10 Board's deliberations. Not -- we're not 

11 pushing to close issues, Mike. We -- we're 

12 pushing -- here. If we're pushing anything, 

13 it's to identify what findings SC&A have from 

14 our site profile that are relevant to the SEC 

15 petition evaluation so that that can move 

16 forward as expeditiously as it possibly can. 

17 That's what I think we're asking for. 

18 MR. GIBSON: Okay, yeah, that's fine. It's -- 

19 you know, we don't want to see the -- the SEC 

20 petitions held up any longer than necessary, so 

21 that's fine. 

22 DR. MAURO: I have one thought. Basically we 

23 did a site profile review, and -- and in our 

24 judgment there were certain issues that emerged 

25 that we said -- and this is purely an SC&A 
15

1 perspective -- that would appear to be 

2 something that might be of concern from an SEC, 

3 taking into consideration the evaluation report 

4 and also taking into consideration our 

5 judgments on what constitutes something that 

6 might represent an SEC issue. And that's what 

7 that last chapter is about in our -- in our 

8 report. 

9 MR. GIBSON: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. MAURO: Now one of the things that we 

11 didn't do that's important and that often is 

12 done on an SEC evaluation report review is we 

13 go in and we do what we call a data adequacy 

14 and completeness analysis, which is something 

15 that is generally a little bit more in depth 

16 than what we do normally in a site profile 

17 review. For example, as you're probably aware, 

18 on Fernald and on Nevada Test Site right now 

19 we're in the midst of a formal review of 

20 specific aspects of the SEC petition dealing 

21 with the data adequacy. For example, internal 

22 dosimetry is an issue here, and it's an issue 

23 in many of these sites. And one of the things 

24 that often a working group and the Board 

25 requests SC&A to do when we are engaged in an 
16

1 SEC process is to go into the records and to 

2 confirm that yes, there are sufficient, for 

3 example, internal dosimetry records from the 

4 perspective of years when work was going on, 

5 different facilities and activities that were 

6 going on, different job categories. And 

7 usually what we normally do is do a sampling of 

8 the -- the actual data and get a sense of the 

9 completeness and robustness of the data from 

10 the point of view not only of doing the dose 

11 reconstructions for the workers themselves that 

12 have the data, but also from the point of view 

13 of building a coworker model that, from the 

14 population of datasets that do exist, in theory 

15 you can use that data to build a coworker 

16 model. These are always very fundamental to 

17 addressing SEC-related issues. 

18 I don't believe any of that level of analysis 

19 was done in this particular site profile review 

20 -- 

21 MR. GIBSON: Uh-huh. 

22 DR. MAURO: -- so from that perspective it 

23 would be inappropriate to -- to refer to it as 

24 an SEC petition review. It was more an 

25 introduction to some of the areas we think 
17

1 might be of interest to the -- and quite 

2 frankly I -- I guess I have a question to the 

3 workgroup. I don't recall whether this 

4 workgroup has the dual mission of both SEC and 

5 site profile or only site profile. I forget 

6 (unintelligible) was authorized. 

7 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, we have both -- both. 

8 DR. MAURO: We have both. Okay. 

9 MR. BERONJA: I guess the other comment I'd 

10 made is that I think SC&A is very open to 

11 discussing all these issues that have been 

12 noted as SEC issues. I think some of them are 

13 border line. There's also some that have not 

14 been noted as SEC issues that we believe may be 

15 SEC issues, so I think the discussion here -- 

16 you know, if we go that direction -- would be 

17 beneficial, coming from both sides there. 

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, we have no problem. We've 

19 provided responses to the extent we can, given 

20 that this is a fairly new review. I mean we 

21 haven't had this in our possession -- I guess 

22 it came out in August, early August sometime, 

23 and we've gone through them point by point and 

24 have some draft responses here we're more than 

25 happy to go through and discuss one by one. I 
18

1 think there's 39 findings, if I counted right. 

2 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I have a request. 

3 My first question was going to be do we have 

4 any NIOSH responses at all to any of the matrix 

5 items, and I'm just hearing that there are some 

6 responses this morning. I do not believe I 

7 have received them. My e-mail is silent on 

8 that issue. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: You have not. You have not, 

10 Wanda. 

11 DR. NETON: We did not distribute them 

12 electronically. We can -- 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: This was just recently generated 

14 and it's -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I gathered that. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- not been Privacy Act reviewed. 

17 MS. MUNN: Is there any possibility that I 

18 could get it as a single -- 

19 DR. NETON: We have to work on that. I'm 

20 trying to figure out the best way to do that. 

21 MS. BEACH: I can send her one, or you can mail 

22 one. 

23 DR. NETON: No, no, we can -- we can e-mail 

24 one. I think I can e-mail it as long as it 

25 goes directly to Wanda. 
19

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

2 DR. NETON: If I can figure out where I can get 

3 an electronic copy right now, get my hands on 

4 one. 

5 MS. MUNN: If you can, I'd appreciate it. 

6 Otherwise I can operate blind. 

7 DR. NETON: I think I might have it on my 

8 BlackBerry, so bear with me and continue with 

9 the conversation. I'll see if I can forward it 

10 to you. 

11 MS. MUNN: That'd be helpful. Thank you, Jim. 

12 I'll be looking at my e-mail screen to see. My 

13 second question is for John or other SCA 

14 members -- 

15 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, we have one on the 

16 laptop. We need your e-mail address, though, 

17 Wanda. 

18 MS. MUNN: W-i-m-u-n at AOL.com. 

19 DR. NETON: Great, okay. You should be getting 

20 it shortly. Thanks. 

21 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

22 DR. NETON: Sorry for that, but I didn't 

23 realize that you weren't going to be here this 

24 morning. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah, well, sorry. I would have if 
20

1 I could have. 

2 There's -- the other question is, John, from 

3 your rough estimation, how many of these matrix 

4 items that we have before us would you 

5 guesstimate to be somewhere in the -- in the 

6 realm of -- of SEC-related rather than -- than 

7 general comment for the TBD? 

8 DR. MAURO: The -- our site profile review, the 

9 document, has -- I believe it's chapter five, 

10 the la-- last chapter, has a separate section 

11 that answers that question. That is -- and I 

12 think there's a handful of them, I'd have to 

13 count them -- 

14 MS. MUNN: That's all right. There's no need. 

15 I just wanted to get a general feel. 

16 DR. MAURO: We did -- we -- we broke them out, 

17 and I don't recall the number, but -- 

18 MS. MUNN: That's okay. We'll -- we'll get to 

19 that I'm sure as we go through it later in the 

20 day. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, Wanda, it was just e-mailed to 

22 you so it -- it -- however it takes to go 

23 through the servers, it'll be there. 

24 MS. MUNN: Thank you, I appreciate that. 

25 MS. BEACH: I have a count of 17 SEC issues 
21

1 listed from SC&A. 

2 MR. BERONJA: Within the site profile review. 

3 MS. BEACH: Yeah. 

4 MR. BERONJA: And then I think we actually had 

5 six issues as part of the site -- six broad 

6 issues as part of the site profile review in 

7 that section five. 

8 DR. MAURO: If I -- I have a suggestion, 

9 thinking about how best to go forward, given 

10 this duality. My sense is to go through -- 

11 this might be a little bit different than your 

12 perspective -- one by one, and I'll tell you 

13 why I think it might -- because as we march 

14 through, we'll be in a position around a table 

15 to have a general sense of yes, we do agree 

16 that this seems to be something that would be 

17 an SEC or not. And -- as opposed to 

18 immediately jumping to the SECs that we 

19 perceived as being -- which may -- everyone may 

20 not agree to that. 

21 DR. NETON: I -- I agree with that. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

23 DR. NETON: I think some of these will go 

24 quickly. I mean there's a number of these are 

25 more administrative, quite frankly. 
22

1 MR. ELLIOTT: I think all we're asking for, 

2 John, is to come out of this meeting with a 

3 sense of what SEC issues have been identified 

4 that we both can start working on. 

5 DR. MAURO: I -- I guess that I -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: That's where we want to be when 

7 we leave today, if that's satisfactory to the 

8 Chair. You know -- 

9 DR. NETON: Or even close some of the SEC 

10 issues -- 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, if we can close them, all 

12 the better, but -- 

13 DR. NETON: -- provide responses. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but that's a... 

15 DR. MAURO: Sure, that's fine. 

16 MATRIX REVIEW

17 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, let's just -- let's start 

18 through the matrix then and -- 

19 DR. NETON: And do we want SC&A to -- 

20 MR. GIBSON: -- identify the issues. 

21 DR. NETON: -- sort of like give a little brief 

22 summary of what their concern or finding was 

23 and then we can sort of provide our discussion 

24 points on that? 

25 MR. BERONJA: Sure, we can do that. And -- and 
23

1 just for clarification, the issue numbers 

2 really correspond with the particular issue 

3 numbers in the site profile, to make them 

4 consistent. And John, I'm not sure if 

5 historically that's how it went -- how it had 

6 been done, but that's how I did it here. 

7 4.1-1

8 The first particular one as far as the presen-- 

9 presentation of dates is that there was some 

10 inconsistency as far as when activities 

11 actually began in Area Four, so that was the 

12 general comment there. There were some -- you 

13 know, a lot of -- there were some comments on 

14 '53, some on '55, some later. And actually -- 

15 I mean from a consist-- you know, it would be 

16 more of an observation issue except for the 

17 fact that the SEC is pinned to 1955. So to the 

18 extent that we're talking about earlier -- an 

19 earlier period, that becomes more of an issue. 

20 MS. HUGHES: To -- to answer that, the 1955 

21 with the SEC is because the covered period for 

22 that site starts in 1955, even though nuclear 

23 operations started in 1953. Other than that, 

24 the -- the point you raise that Santa Susana 

25 Field Lab was founded in 1966 is clearly a typo 
24

1 and it -- it will be corrected in the next 

2 revision after the site profile. 

3 MR. BERONJA: So when -- when you say the 

4 covered period, that just means from a legal 

5 standpoint as part of the law and what -- 

6 what's got to be covered? 

7 MS. HUGHES: Yes, DOE issues a date range that 

8 -- when this site is covered under this Act. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

10 MS. HUGHES: That starts in 1955, versus 

11 operations started up in 1953. 

12 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

13 MS. HUGHES: So that might cause a little bit 

14 of confusion. 

15 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

16 DR. NETON: And we agree that there's a -- a 

17 typo in the document and we'll definitely 

18 correct that. I don't sense this actually 

19 arises -- raises to the level of -- 

20 DR. MAURO: But -- but -- well, it was a good 

21 point, though, 'cause one of the concerns I did 

22 have as part of the review team, and the idea 

23 that right now the SEC period was '55 -- I 

24 believe '55 to '58 -- 

25 MR. BERONJA: Right. 
25

1 DR. MAURO: -- and I did notice that we did 

2 have a number of comments where there were some 

3 data inadequacies as we proceeded pre-1955 -- 

4 especially related to activities in internal 

5 exposures. But I think what I heard you say is 

6 that's really off the table because by 

7 definition that time period is not covered 

8 under the Act. 

9 MS. HUGHES: Yes, we did not -- we do not 

10 consider pre-1955 really. 

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. So there were no MED or AEC 

12 -- I guess it would be AEC -- contract 

13 activities going on at Santa Susana prior to 

14 '55, and that's an important issue related to 

15 SEC. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: We can only rely on DOE's review 

17 and establishment of the covered period. 

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: If there are information that 

20 come to light that would argue that the dates 

21 are not accurate that DOE has established, then 

22 we would share that with the Department of 

23 Energy and ask them to review it. So if -- if 

24 that's -- come to your -- to your notice, we 

25 would appreciate having such so we can pass it 
26

1 along. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we don't have any information 

3 to the contrary. I was just -- 

4 MR. BERONJA: You know, I guess the only other 

5 comment -- maybe in the evaluation report, I'm 

6 not sure if that was elaborated on as far as 

7 the covered period, just to differentiate maybe 

8 before activities before '55 or after '55, and 

9 you know, the reliance on '55 might be working 

10 on -- that might be off the table right now but 

11 as far as the evaluation report, I don't 

12 remember that being -- 

13 MS. HUGHES: Well, I do believe the suggested 

14 class was -- yeah, starting 1955, I believe 

15 January, 1955. I would have to look it back up 

16 and on to December 1958 -- 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: It's based upon the covered 

18 period. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yeah, see, that's -- I think that's 

20 the essence of it, the -- in essence, there's a 

21 contract. And if there's a date of the 

22 contract with the AEC that says it started in 

23 '55, and before that I guess what, commercial 

24 operations? 

25 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 
27

1 DR. MAURO: And if they were commercial 

2 operations, they're off the table. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: We were probably not explicit in 

4 our language in the evaluation report on that 

5 point. It's -- it's an implication. 

6 MR. BERONJA: And I guess the other question 

7 I'd ask, and I don't -- I don't know the rules 

8 and everything like you guys do, but as far as 

9 the petitioner petitioning from a certain 

10 period, if it's discovered that the period 

11 really should have been beforehand, does -- 

12 does the group then take that into account and 

13 move it back or just rely on what the 

14 petitioner has requested? 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: We would -- we would consult with 

16 the petitioner -- 

17 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and if the petitioner's 

19 definition said, in this case, 1953, we would 

20 counsel the petitioner that that period of '53 

21 to '55 is not part of the covered period. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: The petition would not be valid -

24 - 

25 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 
28

1 MR. ELLIOTT: -- unless they had information 

2 contrary to that. 

3 MR. BERONJA: But you would do the same thing 

4 if it was the other way around, if the 

5 petitioner did '55 and you discovered there 

6 were actually AEC or activities -- 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: We'd go to DOE and we'd say you 

8 need to review this information and determine -

9 - and the Department of Labor -- and determine 

10 whether or not the covered facility designation 

11 needs to be changed. 

12 MR. BERONJA: So maybe the result of all this, 

13 at least in my opinion, is that I don't think 

14 this is an SEC issue if there's pretty good 

15 documentation that there were no AEC or covered 

16 activities prior to 1955, so as long -- as long 

17 as we can kind of, you know, kind of stand 

18 behind that, I don't think this was an SEC 

19 issue. So maybe that's something that one of 

20 the parties needs to just confirm and say yeah, 

21 we don't -- we know that there weren't any of 

22 these activities and provide references. Did 

23 that make sense? 

24 DR. NETON: To some degree, yes, but we -- you 

25 know, we're -- we are normally not in the 
29

1 business of going and re-verifying what the 

2 Department of Energy and Department of Labor 

3 have established as the legally covered period. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Oh, okay. 

5 DR. NETON: They do this up front. They do a -

6 - a fairly extensive evaluation of contracts 

7 and such. The only time we really become 

8 engaged is if we see, like Larry said, there's 

9 a discrepancy. Like in Bethlehem Steel, we 

10 noticed that there was a one year earlier -- 

11 because we had air sampling data a year 

12 earlier, so we notified DOE and said hey, we 

13 think it ought to be extended. But we really 

14 don't normally make it our business to go and 

15 re-establish the covered periods for no -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: The Department of Energy is 

17 responsible in this Act, in this law, for 

18 establishing the covered facilities list. And 

19 to repeat that effort is something that's not 

20 NIOSH's -- within NIOSH's purview, and the 

21 appropriated money for conducting our 

22 responsibilities are not really dedicated to go 

23 that -- to that extreme -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: -- so we have to rely on what we 
30

1 see the Department of Energy has given us, 

2 unless we find something contrary to -- to what 

3 they've established. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Oh, okay. Okay. And is there a 

5 general document that's provided by the 

6 Department of Energy with that covered period -

7 - 

8 DR. NETON: Yes. 

9 MR. BERONJA: -- to you all? Okay. 

10 DR. NETON: There's a web site that you can 

11 visit that has a list of all covered facilities 

12 and the years. 

13 MR. BERONJA: Okay. All right. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: There's a formal -- 

15 DR. NETON: They have a little -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that's where you can find a 

17 formal listing of covered facilities and their 

18 designations. 

19 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Department of Energy holds all 

21 the hard copy records behind the establishment 

22 of that covered facility designation. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: And that can be requested under 

25 FOIA. We have in certain instances requested 
31

1 copies of the contract language so that we 

2 understood what was -- what DOE was -- or AEC 

3 was contracting to have done, but in many -- 

4 many instances we don't -- don't pursue that 

5 unless it's necessary. 

6 MR. BERONJA: And maybe one related issue that 

7 might be worth talking about right now that's 

8 not part of the site profile review is there 

9 were other facilities that have to some extent 

10 been covered in the site profile but are not 

11 covered in the SEC, and that's the Downey, 

12 Canoga and De Soto facilities. And -- 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: They're separate from Area Four. 

14 MR. BERONJA: They're separate from Area Four, 

15 so if the petitioner strictly petitions for 

16 Area Four, then you wouldn't go out necessarily 

17 and include those other three facilities unless 

18 they specifically -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: A petition only deals with one 

20 facility. 

21 MR. BERONJA: And -- okay. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: If a facility came in with all 

23 three facilities listed, we would counsel the 

24 petitioner that it would not qualify, as 

25 written, and they would have to -- if the 
32

1 petitioner wanted to submit three petitions for 

2 the three facilities, they could do so. 

3 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh, but yet the site profile 

4 -- I don't know if site profiles normally cover 

5 more than one facility. In this case they 

6 have, by your definition of facility. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: They can. 

8 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. NETON: It's just more of an efficiency 

10 measure. You know, if they did similar 

11 operations, we would lump them together into 

12 one. 

13 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

14 DR. MAURO: That's -- that's good, because what 

15 you're saying is the site profile may take on a 

16 broader mandate and cover multiple facilities. 

17 DR. NETON: TIB-6000's a good example of that. 

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah, exactly, but -- but the -- 

19 but -- and there are issues that have certainly 

20 emerged from our review of that site profile, 

21 but you're saying they do not fall within the 

22 scope of the SEC petition issues that we -- 

23 that are -- 

24 DR. NETON: For that particular facility. 

25 DR. MAURO: -- for that -- for the -- yeah, for 
33

1 that -- that particular petition. Okay, that's 

2 good. That's good. 

3 MR. BERONJA: Okay, we'll keep moving on. Is 

4 there anything else with that first issue? 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: It's good to get this on the 

6 record. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

8 DR. MAURO: Right. 

9 MR. MORRIS: You may cut to the chase on the 

10 last issue, too, because that deals with Area 

11 One -- 

12 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

13 MR. MORRIS: -- which is not a covered 

14 facility. 

15 MR. BERONJA: Right, that -- I think the last 

16 one is off the table, as far as I'm concerned 

17 but will -- that'll make the end of this very 

18 easy. 

19 The second one is -- 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: So we've agreed that this first 

21 one is not an SEC issue? 

22 MR. BERONJA: Right, yeah. 

23 DR. MAURO: Yes, SC-- SC&A and NIOSH concur -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

25 DR. MAURO: -- at least in the context of this 
34

1 conversation. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: And I know what you said earlier, 

3 Mike, but you know, I would ask whether or not 

4 you would consider this one to be closed once 

5 we change the typographical error in the site 

6 profile. 

7 MR. GIBSON: But -- you know, we can close 

8 these things. I'm just saying that, you know, 

9 the petitioners haven't had the advantage -- 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, I understand. 

11 MR. GIBSON: -- of looking at this information 

12 and, you know, something like dates, I don't 

13 believe there's going to be an issue with that. 

14 DR. NETON: I would tend to back Mike on that. 

15 I guess, you know, given that, you know, you 

16 only got these this morning, you might want to 

17 take a chance to read the language a little 

18 more carefully and -- and see if you agree with 

19 what our response is. And typically what 

20 happens in -- at least in the procedures group 

21 world -- is they would hold that finding in 

22 abeyance until the -- 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

24 DR. NETON: -- finding was -- or until the 

25 change was made. 
35

1 MS. DALY: This is Cecilia in Mr. Gallegly's 

2 office, and I -- I would also want to echo 

3 that. I -- until we get a chance to really 

4 study this, we would prefer that nothing be 

5 closed. 

6 MR. GIBSON: Well, that's what we'll do. 

7 DR. NETON: We are annotating this is not an 

8 SEC issue, though. Is that correct? 

9 4.1-2

10 MR. BERONJA: Right. On the -- on the second 

11 issues, it -- this is much more of an 

12 observation than a finding. It's just that the 

13 -- the names used to reference the site are -- 

14 are not consistent. Sometimes it's a little 

15 bit confusing so I guess -- and -- and I don't 

16 know if there's really a need to even go back 

17 and fix these. I mean if the -- if these 

18 documents are ever redone and there's the 

19 ability to make the naming a little bit more 

20 consistent, I think it would be worthwhile, but 

21 -- 

22 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, I agree with you. It's -- 

23 it's kind of -- it gets confusing and it has to 

24 do with there -- there be different location 

25 sites that -- referred to by location and 
36

1 there's different entities from a corporate 

2 standpoint, so that makes it -- 

3 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

4 MS. HUGHES: -- confusing, but it should be 

5 reviewed -- or changed to make it consistent at 

6 the next review. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, and I don't know, I'd leave 

8 this up to the workgroup and if they want to do 

9 anything. My feeling is -- I mean it -- if 

10 somebody just gets into it and looks at it, 

11 they can -- they can figure it out, but it is -

12 - it is a little bit confusing, so I don't know 

13 if any additional discussion is needed on this 

14 particular item. 

15 4.2-1

16 The -- the next one -- actually we move -- we 

17 really move from the introduction into the site 

18 description, as far as the issues, and that 

19 first issue, 4.2-1, is really on the sodium 

20 reactor experiment. And -- and the main thing 

21 here is that I don't think that there really 

22 was as much information presented in the site 

23 profile as there is information out in 

24 literature as far as potential exposures and 

25 everything else. And this incident happened, 
37

1 you know, post-- the -- or the covered period, 

2 through '58. This all happened in 1959, so 

3 you'll see in the actual site profile review -- 

4 I pulled out a number of, you know, discussion 

5 items from some reference documents that did 

6 reviews of the incident, so I just don't think 

7 the site profile did this particular incident 

8 justice. And -- and it -- it -- potentially it 

9 -- you know, from -- from my perspective -- in 

10 a lot of this I'd have to say, you know, before 

11 this went in as my perspective, which -- I 

12 don't have the history that John and others do 

13 -- it's an SEC issue just because it does 

14 happen after the covered period. I don't know 

15 if, you know, we don't really know how many 

16 workers -- you know, if they were truly badged 

17 during this period or how well that is 

18 documented, so I think this is still -- you 

19 know, needs to be reviewed a little bit 

20 further. 

21 MS. MUNN: The question probably is whether all 

22 of the -- or at least a significant portion of 

23 the information that's contained in the 

24 references needs to be brought forward into the 

25 document. That's the -- at least that appears 
38

1 to be the soul of the finding there, the 

2 question of whether or not it's complete. It 

3 seemed to me that there were numerous 

4 references, but again it's a question of having 

5 to go somewhere outside the document to get 

6 those references. Am I reading that correctly, 

7 John? 

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I'd like to add another 

9 dimension to that is -- correct, there's very 

10 often -- and by the way, it has been a matter 

11 of practice for NIOSH -- that is, incidents 

12 themselves are not ex-- developed in site 

13 profiles. 

14 MS. MUNN: Right. 

15 DR. MAURO: And -- and one of our comments has 

16 been probably a good idea to have a pointer in 

17 the site profile, yes, there have been 

18 incidents, here's a table, and there are places 

19 where those are thoroughly researched. Now I 

20 guess where we are on this right now is 

21 certainly there are incidents that there's a 

22 lot of work that was done separate from the -- 

23 the site profile. But I guess from the extent 

24 to which we've reviewed it, it looks like there 

25 was -- there may be some problems in terms of 
39

1 is there sufficient data to identify the 

2 impacted individuals and reconstruct their 

3 doses, and this would be for a time period 

4 outside the cur-- the current '55/'58 period. 

5 So I would say yes, this would be an issue that 

6 is worthy of some discussion as to whether it's 

7 an SEC or not and -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Right, you -- 

9 DR. MAURO: -- only from the perspective -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- you would agree, however, that 

11 the SRE event, like the similar event, inside 

12 the nuclear community is well-known, well13 studied and well-documented. 

14 DR. MAURO: And -- and the degree to which dose 

15 reconstructions can be done with sufficient 

16 accuracy as -- at this point in the process, 

17 SC&A has not explored. 

18 MS. MUNN: Right. 

19 MS. HUGHES: Okay. Well, I -- I agree that it 

20 -- it could be a little bit more detail in the 

21 -- the site profile. However, the site profile 

22 -- the -- the site description, pardon me, the 

23 site description actually tries to describe the 

24 incident and not go so much into the dose 

25 issue, which should probably be addressed in 
40

1 the external or internal sections of the site 

2 profile, but what -- our current standpoint is 

3 that since workers were monitored in that time 

4 period, then it is feasible for those monitored 

5 workers to reconstruct occupational doses. 

6 However, there -- there are some technical 

7 reports that seem to -- there seems to be a 

8 discrepancy in releases of iodine-131 and some 

9 other volatile fission products and we're 

10 currently looking into that since it -- there -

11 - there's -- does not seem to be an agreement 

12 what could have been released so we're still 

13 wanting to look at -- at this and see where -- 

14 if -- if there were potential exposures to 

15 workers on the site. 

16 DR. NETON: I think we would agree that, you 

17 know, we need to do a little more work here 

18 and, you know, it would be okay with us if we 

19 leave it as a potential SEC issue at this 

20 point. We need to do a little more -- more 

21 homework. We're not saying it -- something we 

22 can't do, but it's something that needs to be 

23 fleshed out a little better for us to get a 

24 definitive response. 

25 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on that one? 
41

1 (No responses) 

2 All right, then that sounds fair. 

3 DR. BEHLING: Greg, this is Hans Behling, SC&A. 

4 I just want to make a comment here, and I think 

5 it follows the previous comment by -- by the 

6 person who questioned not just the 

7 documentation of the incident but look at the 

8 incident in context with what kind of bioassay 

9 programs were available. To what extent, for 

10 instance, did we have the ability to monitor 

11 for such volatile radionuclides such as the 

12 iodines, the sodium-24 that is very short-lived 

13 in the human body, and even the exposure -- 

14 external exposure to -- to noble gases. It 

15 really has to be looked at in context, not just 

16 with the documentation process of the accident 

17 itself, but the -- the issue of dose 

18 reconstruction relative to the types of 

19 bioassays that were conducted 1958 and '59 time 

20 frame. 

21 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, and I think maybe the point 

22 that's being made is that even though this -- 

23 this issue is in the site description, it 

24 really carries over into the internal as well 

25 as the external sections as far as what 
42

1 monitoring truly was done this period and was 

2 the monitoring complete enough to really be 

3 able to do the dose reconstruction. 

4 DR. NETON: Hans, this is Jim. I agree with 

5 you there. We need to -- we need to study this 

6 in the -- in the context of the unique nature 

7 of the incident and -- and if we do have 

8 sufficient bioassay for the general workers, if 

9 not the incident workers, to -- to cover this. 

10 MS. MUNN: Hans, this is Wanda. You said one 

11 thing that gave me a little pause. You would 

12 expect some significant sodium-24 exposures 

13 from this incident? 

14 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, this was a sodium-cooled 

15 reactor -- 

16 MS. MUNN: And of course this is getting down 

17 into the granularity of the incident itself. 

18 Probably this is not the right place to discuss 

19 that. We'll discuss that later. Thank you. 

20 DR. BEHLING: Well, just briefly, Wanda, there 

21 were 55,000 pounds of sodium coolant that were 

22 contaminated. And of course when you have 

23 sodium coolant that's subject to neutron flux, 

24 you have a lot of sodium-24 -- 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I understand that. 
43

1 DR. BEHLING: -- that may have potentially 

2 affected workers. 

3 MS. MUNN: I understand that. It just was not 

4 -- the business of its being contaminated is 

5 not the same as its being available for a 

6 significant exposure. 

7 DR. BEHLING: Right. 

8 MS. MUNN: That's why I said significant. But 

9 that's -- as I said, that's a deeper question 

10 than we need to touch on here. I'm sorry I 

11 raised it. Thank you. 

12 DR. NETON: Sodium-24 has a fairly short half 

13 life, does it not? 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, it does. 

15 DR. NETON: So the dosimetric consequences 

16 would be fairly small, but we do need to 

17 evaluate that and establish a bounding value. 

18 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on that issue? 

19 4.2-2

20 Going to the next one, the lack of information 

21 on the composition of workforce, this is a -- 

22 you know, this might be somewhere between an 

23 observation and a -- and a finding, but you 

24 know, there was really kind of no -- well, this 

25 gets back -- I don't think we have another 
44

1 comment on this, but there -- the term 

2 "radiation worker" has been used in the site 

3 profile. I know as far as the definition of 

4 what is a radiation worker changed, you know, 

5 over the history of this particular facility. 

6 And you know, really maybe having this 

7 definition of -- of the different -- of the 

8 workers and how they were characterized I think 

9 would have been helpful in the site profile, 

10 which group was -- was monitored. Again, this 

11 -- this right now is in the site description, 

12 just as far as the types of workers, how they 

13 were classified. But then this flows over into 

14 who was monitored on the -- on the 

15 external/internal side, too. 

16 MR. MORRIS: Radiation workers were defined as 

17 -- in their on-site procedures, their 

18 contemporary procedures, so it's not a gen-- 

19 generic thing that came out of regulation, as I 

20 understand, so... 

21 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

22 MS. MUNN: This one is not identified on our 

23 matrix as an SEC issue. It appears to me that 

24 it is. 

25 DR. NETON: Well, I don't know that it is an 
45

1 SEC issue in my mind, Wanda. I mean we 

2 typically do not go into this level of detail 

3 about the actual composition of the workforce 

4 in the site profile document itself as to, you 

5 know, the exact nature of the crafts and 

6 workers, who were monitored and who weren't 

7 monitored, and that sort of thing. I mean the 

8 site profile establishes all the relevant 

9 scientific data that we have, health physics 

10 monitoring data, to do dose reconstructions. 

11 And then when one is presented with a case, you 

12 have a worker who either has monitoring data or 

13 is not monitored, and then we have another 

14 procedure that sort of helps decide whether 

15 this worker was not monitored and should have 

16 been monitored based on different job 

17 classifications, et cetera -- and in fact, 

18 that's a fairly claimant-favorable document. 

19 MS. MUNN: Yes, I've -- 

20 DR. NETON: I think this goes beyond what we 

21 would typically do for a site profile. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, part of this -- you know, 

23 in -- in our procedures, as far as the site 

24 profile review, this is one thing that is 

25 recommended, you know, that we look for and 
46

1 that was not there. Whether it's an SEC issue, 

2 I -- I guess indirectly you might say it is, 

3 but you know, we didn't think it really was. 

4 DR. NETON: I suspect this was -- this was a 

5 fairly generic high level statement -- is going 

6 to show up somewhere else. I mean if we -- 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah -- oh, yeah, yeah -- 

8 DR. NETON: -- so you know, this statement's -- 

9 MR. BERONJA: -- yeah. 

10 DR. NETON: -- going to be repeated somewhere 

11 else in a more specific -- 

12 MR. BERONJA: That's right, right. That's why 

13 it's not really a -- we don't think it's an SEC 

14 issue. 

15 DR. NETON: Exactly. I mean I don't -- yeah. 

16 MR. BERONJA: I -- I think it is covered in the 

17 -- you know, what it's more related to is 

18 covered later. 

19 MS. MUNN: Right. 

20 MR. GIBSON: But just so they keep track of 

21 this and it doesn't fall through the cracks of 

22 these other documents. 

23 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

24 MR. BERONJA: Right, I think we -- we -- 

25 DR. NETON: Keep it a site profile issue, but I 
47

1 don't know that... 

2 MR. MORRIS: I also should note that this -- 

3 this site profile was written in accordance 

4 with the procedure -- ORAU team procedure 0031, 

5 which has had the benefit of SC&A review and -- 

6 and closure of the findings on it. So thi-- 

7 this is a standard template and those questions 

8 that you've suggested to be answered are not 

9 specifically in the template for -- for a TBD. 

10 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

11 DR. MAURO: I -- I would agree that these 

12 concerns should emerge or not emerge when we 

13 get into the external/internal dosimetry, 

14 whether in -- really in -- what we're really 

15 saying is do we have a group of workers here 

16 who weren't monitored, should have been 

17 monitored, and the question is do we have 

18 coworker data that will allow us to reconstruct 

19 their doses. So I think that this is an 

20 overarching statement that is more introductory 

21 than it is of substance as it applies to the 

22 SEC issue, and -- and that'll come ba-- we'll 

23 come back and visit that as we move through the 

24 system. 

25 MR. BERONJA: And John, the comment I'd make -- 
48

1 I don't have the history that everybody else 

2 does -- I think it's more of a consistency 

3 issue. I mean if this hasn't been done in most 

4 other site profile reviews, then it's probably 

5 not an issue. 

6 DR. MAURO: I -- I'm glad -- no, but I'm glad 

7 you brought it up because we have not raised 

8 this issue in the past -- 

9 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- but you're correct, it's 

11 something that we do identify as one of the 

12 steps in our review procedures. 

13 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

14 DR. MAURO: And we have addressed it when we 

15 get into the specifics, but we really never 

16 address it in an overarching way as part of the 

17 site description -- 

18 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

19 DR. MAURO: -- and the health physics program 

20 description and -- and our understanding of -- 

21 quite frankly, maybe it'd be worth saying just 

22 a little bit more. When the stage is being set 

23 for -- here we have the site that -- all these 

24 different activities going on, a sense of -- in 

25 the -- in the beg-- in the front end of the 
49

1 degree to which the radiation protection 

2 practices at the time, who -- what was the 

3 philosophy, was -- was just a sampling of the 

4 high end workers exp-- monitored so that you 

5 get an idea of what the high end exposure were; 

6 were all the workers that had a potential for 

7 exposures above ten percent of the limit 

8 monitored. Other words, it's -- in -- in the 

9 front end -- now I think I may have seen that 

10 in some of the write-ups in the front end but 

11 some not. 

12 DR. NETON: My sense is that this is more often 

13 dealt with in the internal and external -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Sections of the -- 

15 DR. NETON: -- because honestly, they're -- 

16 they're very different, as we've found out in 

17 the past. 

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Yeah. 

19 DR. NETON: Who was monitored and why and for 

20 what, internally and externally, tend to be 

21 very different. And if it's going to be 

22 covered at all, I would suggest that it 

23 probably belongs more in the individual 

24 sections rather than the site description, but 

25 that's just my opinion. 
50

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think you're right, Jim. 

2 Now that we talk about it, I -- I think so. 

3 And I -- 

4 DR. NETON: And you're right, John -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- have no memory of 31, so... 

6 DR. NETON: But we've tried to make that case 

7 extensively, remember, during the Y-12 

8 discussion -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

10 DR. NETON: -- about who was monitored and why, 

11 should they have been monitored, they monitored 

12 everybody -- we got into some very detailed 

13 discussions. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes, we certainly did work that one 

15 well. 

16 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans again -- and -

17 - and Jim. That comment came from me, and just 

18 for -- for the sake of answering a couple of 

19 people's questions who say this is commonly 

20 done, yes, it is. If I review -- if I recall 

21 some of the other TBDs that I've looked at 

22 personally, usually there is some oversight in 

23 -- in terms of how many people were on site, 

24 how many people monitored, and it does give you 

25 a sense of were all people who were present on 
51

1 site monitored. If so, it certainly satisfies 

2 a lot of curiosity and questions about who were 

3 potentially exposed -- exposed to radiation but 

4 were not monitored. And so that comment does 

5 come from me, and it reflects my understanding 

6 of other TBDs where -- where this data was in 

7 fact incorporated, and it struck me in viewing 

8 Santa Susana that there was very little data on 

9 that issue. 

10 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, Hans, you don't see their 

11 response. Actually in NIOSH's response they 

12 have said that a clarification regarding the 

13 types of monitored workers will be added to the 

14 revised TBD. So it looks like you're going to 

15 -- 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, we'll -- 

17 MR. BERONJA: -- get your -- 

18 DR. NETON: -- we'll put something in there, 

19 but I -- I don't -- again, I don't think 

20 necessarily that this is something that would 

21 indicate that it would keep us from doing dose 

22 reconstructions because, again, that's going to 

23 show up in the internal and external -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

25 DR. NETON: -- documents, whether or not we can 
52

1 adequately bound doses for those types of 

2 exposure. 

3 DR. BEHLING: Also let me ask you while I'm 

4 thinking about it because we're talking about 

5 the SEC and that's obviously confined to Area 

6 Four and -- and -- and was there any attempt to 

7 -- to rotate workers between Area Four and the 

8 other three facilities? Do we know if -- if 

9 workers were routinely asked to come in and out 

10 of -- of one of the area into the other as 

11 needed? 

12 MR. MORRIS: Well, there -- there was no 

13 attempt to routinely rotate them, but there was 

14 no -- no prohibition from them moving and in 

15 fact they could have, depending on the time 

16 frame that they worked, in the earliest days of 

17 the facilities they could have moved from 

18 Downey to Area four, potentially, and -- or -- 

19 or back and forth, depending on the assignment 

20 that they caught. 

21 DR. BEHLING: I know that, for instance, at 

22 Idaho we had people just being rotated 

23 throughout and -- and they will appear in one 

24 TBD and -- and then another, and so the 

25 question is -- and in my mind, do we have any 
53

1 understanding of whether or not people were in 

2 fact rotated from -- from Area Four to other 

3 facilities. 

4 MR. MORRIS: I'll try to answer it one more 

5 time. I don't think they intentionally rotated 

6 people. 

7 DR. BEHLING: Oh, okay. 

8 MR. MORRIS: But they did -- people did move 

9 between facilities. 

10 DR. MAURO: Interesting juxtaposition then. So 

11 right now we have an SEC petition that's 

12 limited to Area Four, and by definition does 

13 not include these other -- De Soto, Canoga and 

14 there's one -- 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: Downey. 

16 DR. MAURO: -- Downey. Now I guess from the 

17 point of view of being able to reconstruct the 

18 doses to workers in Area Four and answering the 

19 question related to the SEC petition, if there 

20 is an iss-- let me see if I can pose this 

21 question; I think you know where I'm headed. 

22 If there is an issue on the site profile that 

23 says there might have been some difficulty 

24 reconstructing internal doses for people that 

25 worked that facility -- okay? -- but they also 
54

1 from time to time went back and forth, how does 

2 that play out in addressing the questions 

3 related to the SEC petition where you're 

4 limited to only Area Four? You see the -- you 

5 see the dilemma. Is there a dilemma? 

6 DR. NETON: I don't know. I mean we would -- 

7 our inability -- if we identify a weakness or 

8 an inability to reconstruct doses at one of the 

9 other facilities, then we would have the option 

10 to initiate our own 83.14 petition which would 

11 -- essentially NIOSH could initiate a class. 

12 DR. MAURO: But it wouldn't play -- it wouldn't 

13 play out in the current petition, which is 

14 limited to Area Four. 

15 DR. NETON: No. 

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

17 MR. SCHOFIELD: Is it known whether there are 

18 records showing these people going from the 

19 different areas in and out of Area Four? Is 

20 that documented, by any chance, in personnel 

21 files? 

22 MR. MORRIS: You mean at the -- at the real 

23 fine level of -- 

24 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah. 

25 MR. MORRIS: -- he was there for this week and 
55

1 not for that week? I don't think you'll find 

2 that. When -- for example, when I was working 

3 in the -- to look at the medical records, it 

4 was really obvious that sometimes people were 

5 at this facility and some people -- times 

6 people were at another facility, but it was all 

7 one employer so the records were intermingled. 

8 But I don't -- I don't recall any data that I 

9 saw that would have answered the question you 

10 just asked, Phil. 

11 MR. BERONJA: There were -- there were people -

12 - if you look at some of the dose 

13 reconstructions, there were people that worked 

14 at the other facilities and they went to Area 

15 Four. There's no -- there's no doubt about 

16 that. I'm not sure what the percentage of 

17 people were, but there's -- there's definitely 

18 a group of people that worked at the other 

19 facilities and went to Area Four. 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: Particularly I'm thinking of 

21 things like a lot of the crafts and stuff, they 

22 may have been located in one of the other areas 

23 but yet significantly were in the Area Four -- 

24 MR. MORRIS: Oh, these are -- these are fairly 

25 far separated facilities in terms of -- you 
56

1 know, up -- up a narrow California canyon to 

2 get to Area Four, and way out on a reservation 

3 -- or you know, sort of on a residential street 

4 in an industrial area, so -- but they were -- 

5 they were far enough apart that you would not 

6 have had the same group of maintenance workers, 

7 you know, moving back and forth on a day to day 

8 basis, I don't think. 

9 MS. MUNN: Well, aside from that, with research 

10 and development sites like this, you tend to 

11 develop a specialized workforce that works on a 

12 given project at any given time, because each 

13 one has such idiosyncracies that you don't 

14 often overlap unless you have a continuing set 

15 of -- of programs, and then they're not all 

16 going on at the same time. So research and 

17 development sites are a little different. 

18 MR. GIBSON: That's -- that's generally true, 

19 Wanda, but depending on the workload and what 

20 projects there were, they would -- could 

21 potentially add additional employees for peak 

22 loads and stuff. 

23 MS. MUNN: Well, there's always a possibility, 

24 but I thought we were talking about routine 

25 operations. 
57

1 DR. NETON: But when we get employment verified 

2 by Department of Labor, does it not identify -- 

3 MS. HUGHES: Yes, it does. 

4 DR. NETON: -- identify which facility they're 

5 actually claiming employment at? 

6 MS. HUGHES: It -- it does, and it even -- I 

7 think the dose records or the employment 

8 records actually show even which areas the 

9 workers worked in for certain times. Say the 

10 worker worked maybe a year in Area One, but was 

11 transferred to Area Four, so we actually have 

12 that information for -- for the workers. 

13 DR. NETON: So, you know, worst case scenario, 

14 if the Department of Labor has qualified this 

15 person worked at Area Four for four years and 

16 they may have rotated out and gone somewhere 

17 else, we would just reconstruct the dose as if 

18 they were in Area Four the entire time period. 

19 MR. GIBSON: But on the other hand, if 

20 someone's employment is listed at one of the 

21 other facilities and they're a claimant and 

22 they -- they remember through their work 

23 history they were assigned to Area Four -- 

24 DR. NETON: They need to let Department of 

25 Labor know that. 
58

1 MR. GIBSON: -- if they could -- if they could 

2 meet the 250-day notice, then they should be 

3 covered. Right? 

4 MS. BEACH: Have there been worker interviews 

5 asking that question? SC&A, do you recall any 

6 or... 

7 MR. BERONJA: I don't -- I don't. 

8 DR. MAURO: Do we have that back yet? I don't 

9 -- 

10 MR. BERONJA: There was -- you know what, it 

11 was -- the worker interviews were just approved 

12 clean, so now I think what's happening is Kathy 

13 is sending them back to the workers to look at 

14 to see if everything looks okay. So I think 

15 we're pa-- we just finished -- within the last 

16 day or two have been cleared, so I ha-- I 

17 haven't looked at them until they were cleared, 

18 so... 

19 4.2-3

20 Anything else on that issue? The next issue, 

21 the lack of sufficient detail to assess 

22 potential exposures to workers, I think -- 

23 actually I think -- a few of these next 

24 findings I think, Hans, were your comments that 

25 you made, and I don't -- I don't know if you 
59

1 just want to give a -- a summary of this 4.2-3? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Hans, are you mute-- I think you might be 

4 muted. 

5 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I'm sorry, I -- you're 

6 right, I was muted. I'm trying to recall some 

7 of the things, but I think it also touches back 

8 on a number of things we've already discussed. 

9 I think we talked about dates, the -- the issue 

10 of names of facilities, the -- the type of -- 

11 the number of workers, the doses associa-- I 

12 think we've discussed some of the issues 

13 already that would have been identified under 

14 this 4.2-3. I think this -- that was a 

15 composite statement I've made and -- and it may 

16 have also made reference to the issue of the 

17 various incidences that we briefly discussed, 

18 such as the sodium reactor experiment accident 

19 of '59, et cetera. I'm not sure I -- I'm not 

20 really prepared or I'm not in a position really 

21 to comment anything in addition to what has 

22 already been said. 

23 DR. MAURO: Hans, am I correct, thi-- we're 

24 still in the section -- 

25 MR. BERONJA: The site description. 
60

1 DR. MAURO: -- the site description. Let's 

2 assu-- so everybody -- in a funny sort of way 

3 the site description section's almost setting 

4 the stage of -- of the broad-brush areas of 

5 development that we would have liked to have 

6 seen in the site description to -- but they 

7 really don't come to light in terms of how 

8 significant an SEC issue might or might not be 

9 till we get on to the next -- to the -- 

10 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- to the internal section and the 

12 external section, so I -- this is almost like a 

13 preview. Yeah, I think we're going to have to 

14 talk about some of these things, but -- in 

15 specifics -- 

16 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, and -- 

17 DR. MAURO: -- when we get to those sections. 

18 MR. BERONJA: -- I gue-- I guess the other 

19 comment I'd make is this is really broad, and I 

20 think we have some more specific comments. So 

21 whether this is an SEC issue per se may or may 

22 not be the case. You know, there -- I mean for 

23 instance, with the sodium reactor experiment, 

24 you know, and some of the other ones -- well, 

25 the sodium burn pit and some other ones we'll 
61

1 talk about -- 

2 DR. NETON: Right. 

3 MR. BERONJA: -- maybe those are more 

4 specifically issues rather than whether this is 

5 really an SEC issue. I mean I guess -- this is 

6 a much more broader one, probably covering more 

7 detailed ones we're going to talk about. 

8 DR. NETON: It's hard to address a comment like 

9 -- you know, your document lacks sufficient 

10 clarity. I mean what do you do with that? I 

11 think it's better addressed in the context of 

12 specific examples -- 

13 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

14 DR. NETON: -- later. 

15 DR. MAURO: And -- right. I mean in our own 

16 defense, when we review these we sort of -- we 

17 go through each chapter and say okay, do we 

18 have anything to say about the -- the site 

19 description. And so we have some general 

20 statements. 

21 DR. NETON: Could be better, yeah. I mean -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Maybe the real -- I mean perhaps we 

23 move through these pretty quickly and let's get 

24 to the heart of the matter, which is 

25 internal/external. 
62

1 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

2 DR. MAURO: That's where -- that's where we got 

3 -- that's where the action is. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I guess the next one, Hans, 

5 also -- on the incomplete list of -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: But before we leave -- 

7 MR. BERONJA: I'm sorry. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Before we leave 4.2-3, NIOSH is 

9 saying here that we will update the TBD to 

10 provide additional detail in response to this -

11 - this issue that you've raised. 

12 DR. NETON: We agree it can be fleshed out to 

13 be better. Whether or not that's going to 

14 prevent us from doing sufficient accurate dose 

15 reconstructions -- 

16 DR. MAURO: I agree to that. 

17 DR. NETON: -- is another issue. 

18 DR. MAURO: And that will -- that will emerge 

19 later when we get into the substance of the 

20 internal and external chapters. 

21 MS. HUGHES: I think this particular statement 

22 that we'd provide additional review, the first 

23 two, there was a finding -- part of the finding 

24 said there was references missing or reference 

25 to a particular incident that will be added. 
63

1 That's actually the main point of this response 

2 of... 

3 MR. KATZ: So are you wanting to track this as 

4 an SEC issue or -- or not and we'll stick with 

5 the specifics? 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: NIOSH does not believe it to be 

7 an SEC issue. 

8 MR. BERONJA: I would -- I would be tempted to 

9 pull it off as an SEC issue -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think -- I think that there 

11 are elements of this general statement that 

12 could become an SEC that will emerge later when 

13 we get -- 

14 DR. NETON: Right, we really get into the 

15 weeds. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I think the sodium reactor 

17 experiment and some of the others -- 

18 DR. MAURO: And I think -- 

19 MR. BERONJA: -- will remain, yeah. 

20 DR. MAURO: And those come up again later. 

21 MR. BERONJA: Right. Yeah. 

22 MR. KATZ: So it's not. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Not, yeah, let's -- let's take it 

24 off. 

25 MS. MUNN: It would seem that it would be 
64

1 relatively easy to close this one out quickly, 

2 although we're not talking about closures now, 

3 simply by indicating that it is covered -- or 

4 will be covered -- in -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Transfer it. 

6 MS. MUNN: -- right, transfer it and get it out 

7 of there to -- to where it belongs, which is 

8 down in -- in internal/external. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on this one? The 

10 next one I think, Hans, was also one of your 

11 fin-- the incomplete list of radionuclides? 

12 4.2-4

13 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and -- and again, I sort of 

14 went through the whole site profile, between 

15 the various TBDs, and I realized -- for 

16 instance, the issue of -- the radioiodines were 

17 not included, and of course those would -- 

18 would have potentially been radionuclides of -- 

19 of concern during the various reactor 

20 operations, inclusive of incidences. And so 

21 there were -- so I identified radioiodines 131, 

22 33, 135, also other activation products such as 

23 magnesium-54 that I didn't see on the list. So 

24 my -- my statement there was that perhaps a 

25 review of the list of radionuclides needs to be 
65

1 done and -- and perhaps some of these 

2 radionuclides, especially the short-lived 

3 radionuclides -- also I didn't see much of -- 

4 in the way of sodium-24. We've already briefly 

5 mentioned that as an issue with the sodium6 cooled reactor. So there were a number of 

7 radionuclides that I felt should have been 

8 added to the list of potential radionuclides. 

9 And especially those that are short-lived and, 

10 given the limited bioassays that may have been 

11 conducted, may not have been incorporated into 

12 the urinalysis or other bioassays that were 

13 done early on. Obviously we -- we know that 

14 these radionuclides, such as the iodines, are 

15 extremely short-lived. In some cases not even 

16 a very, very -- a turn -- quick turnaround in a 

17 whole body count would reveal a short-lived 

18 radioiodine such as 133 and 135, so obviously 

19 these are issues that have to be looked at and 

20 perhaps default values have to be factored 

21 into. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, Hans, and maybe for those 

23 on the -- on the phone -- you know, I guess 

24 NIOSH and -- is going to respond to this issue 

25 by looking at this and determining if there are 
66

1 radionuclides that need to be added that are of 

2 concern, so... 

3 Anything else on -- on this issue? 

4 MR. KATZ: So this remains as an SEC issue? 

5 DR. MAURO: Could -- let me -- 

6 MR. KATZ: Is that what you're saying? 

7 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 

8 simultaneously.) 

9 DR. MAURO: And remember, what -- what's 

10 happening right now is that we're making 

11 general statements in the introduction, so in a 

12 way -- I mean maybe we're -- what we're really 

13 saying is this really should be married with 

14 the details that come -- to come later and 

15 rolled up into one particular issue, namely -- 

16 this is almost like an introductory paragraph 

17 to the concern, and then the itemized specific 

18 isotopes, specific issues and -- and the 

19 internal dosimetry concerns emerge again later. 

20 DR. NETON: It's really like we're being 

21 double-hit here -- 

22 DR. MAURO: You're being double-hit, that's 

23 what I was going to say -- 

24 DR. NETON: -- you know, two findings for one 

25 (unintelligible). When you roll these up and 
67

1 there's 39 findings, at the end of the day 

2 there may be 18. 

3 DR. MAURO: Exactly, and you know what? I 

4 think -- 

5 DR. NETON: I'm sensitive to that. 

6 DR. MAURO: You know what? Maybe -- 

7 MR. BERONJA: I'll be aware of that next time 

8 around. 

9 DR. MAURO: No, no, maybe there's something we 

10 could -- let us talk about this, what to do 

11 about this. Right now we're working from this 

12 and doing the best we can with it, we're 

13 actually sort of stumbling over -- is there -- 

14 is there something that would be desirable for 

15 us to collapse the listing as a result of the 

16 dialogue we're having right now -- 

17 DR. NETON: I think so. 

18 DR. MAURO: -- collapse it so that it becomes a 

19 crisp issue one and a potential SEC issue one 

20 that emerged from this meeting. 

21 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

22 DR. MAURO: And so we'll take words like this 

23 and marry them with the later stuff, so all of 

24 a sudden instead of having -- like you said -- 

25 30, we only have six -- or seven or eight, I 
68

1 don't know. 

2 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, but John, you're -- in my -

3 - you're confusing a little bit the site 

4 profile review, which we're doing, versus the 

5 SEC -- I mean this -- this review is really a 

6 site profile review -- 

7 DR. MAURO: That's right, yeah. 

8 MR. BERONJA: -- you know -- 

9 DR. MAURO: So we go -- 

10 MR. BERONJA: -- with ju-- with the just the 

11 notations of the SEC so -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 

13 MR. BERONJA: -- this document is not really 

14 meant to be an SEC -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

16 MR. BERONJA: -- review document, so I mean the 

17 fact that we had findings on section two -- I 

18 mean I think they're worthy of -- I mean I 

19 apologize if there's more findings -- I didn't 

20 mean this is a worse document than 18 versus 

21 35, but -- you know, but -- 

22 DR. NETON: Well, if you look at 4.2, the 

23 incomplete list of radionuclides, I just 

24 glanced back through the internal section and 

25 there's like five or six findings that 
69

1 enumerate all those individual issues, and 

2 uranium and -- 

3 DR. MAURO: Well, good -- 

4 DR. NETON: -- exotic radionuclides and such. 

5 DR. MAURO: -- so in a way what we're saying is 

6 this is a site -- right now we have a site 

7 profile issue, that is you could have -- 

8 DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) incomplete -- 

9 DR. MAURO: -- incomplete description, you 

10 could, you know -- and the answer is yeah, we 

11 probably can improve on that write-up, make it 

12 look a li-- you know, tell the story a little 

13 better, but it's not an SEC issue. It's -- 

14 it's more a site -- because -- it becomes an 

15 SEC issue later, so we're trying to do two 

16 things at the same time. 

17 MR. BERONJA: No, I agree with what you just 

18 said. It's not necessarily an SEC issue in 

19 section two. It becomes that way in the later 

20 sec-- 

21 DR. MAURO: It becomes an SEC issue later on 

22 when we get into -- 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

24 DR. MAURO: So in -- so I guess if we keep in 

25 mind we're trying to do two things in parallel, 
70

1 talk about the site profile and -- and also say 

2 something about whether or not it's an SEC 

3 issue, I think -- my sense is that right now, 

4 within the context of -- of the description, 

5 the chapter two -- 

6 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- this is not an SEC issue -- 

8 MR. BERONJA: No, no, I -- 

9 DR. MAURO: -- it is a site profile issue. 

10 MR. BERONJA: I believe it is a site profile 

11 issue, but take -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Right. 

13 MR. BERONJA: -- it off as an SEC issue. 

14 DR. MAURO: And it becom-- but later we'll 

15 determine whether we have an SEC issue or not. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Maybe you can say that about 

17 every finding in chapter two. 

18 DR. MAURO: I'm -- and I'm -- and I'm -- I have 

19 a sense that that's in fact the case. 

20 MR. BERONJA: Right, yeah. 

21 DR. MAURO: You know, until we get there, you 

22 know, and we'll get there. 

23 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

24 DR. BEHLING: John, let me just add a couple of 

25 points here. Normally when I review a site 
71

1 profile, I realize that -- for instance, in the 

2 case of the TBD two and TBD five, there is 

3 obviously a connection. But frequently they're 

4 written by two different site experts, and what 

5 I look for is consistency because sometimes I 

6 suspect they don't necessary talk to each other 

7 and -- and they write each -- their -- their 

8 section, TBD two, TBD five, and -- and not 

9 necessarily make sure that all of these 

10 statements are consistent between the two TBDs. 

11 And -- and I always look at TBD two in context 

12 with TBD five and six, because sometimes you 

13 realize there are deficiencies in one area that 

14 you wouldn't have recognized if you didn't read 

15 TBD two. 

16 DR. NETON: But that's not the case here, I 

17 think. You're saying that -- 

18 MR. BERONJA: Well, I think the -- I think 

19 maybe Hans pointed -- I mean these are site 

20 profile issues that -- that should be called 

21 out, but I think we can focus on sec-- you 

22 know, five and six as -- 

23 DR. MAURO: I know they're there -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: -- under the SEC issues. 

25 DR. MAURO: Other words, I know when we get to 
72

1 five and six we're going to see this -- we're 

2 going to see these concerns. I know that these 

3 are going to be something -- substantive 

4 discussion as an SEC issue. 

5 DR. NETON: And I have no doubt that this -- 

6 this site profile can be improved, and when we 

7 address five and six those'll roll up and -- 

8 and get captured in two, if we leave this 

9 finding as a site profile issue. 

10 DR. MAURO: I'm -- I'm fine with that. 

11 4.2-5; 4.2-6

12 MR. BERONJA: Then the next two, and -- and 

13 really the last two comments on section two are 

14 really again probably between observation and 

15 findings. This -- the 4.2-5 talks about the 

16 discrepancies in dates of operation. I think 

17 that just needs to be cleaned up, and I think 

18 NIOSH has said that they're going to clean that 

19 up. The same thing is true on the presentation 

20 of owners and operators. That just is -- that 

21 could use some cleaning up, and I think you've 

22 said you'll clean that up. So I think these 

23 are fairly -- neither of them are site profile 

24 issues, they're just kind of cleaning up the 

25 document, so -- I mean unless there's any -- 
73

1 any other discussion on either of those. 

2 MS. HUGHES: Not really. 

3 4.3-1

4 MR. BERONJA: Otherwi-- if there's not, we can 

5 move into section three, you know, on the -- on 

6 the -- let me just make sure I've got my notes 

7 here -- on the medical dose. And actually I 

8 think this -- this -- at least in my 

9 perspective, I -- I think this is probably one 

10 where I put down SEC issue in error. You know, 

11 unless Hans or John feels differently, I don't 

12 think that this is a -- an SEC issue at this 

13 point. But this is just insufficient guidance 

14 in TBD three to perform dose reconstructions, 

15 and again, I think -- Hans, this -- I think 

16 this was your comment here, maybe just with 

17 some specific examples that you provided on... 

18 Hans, are you on mute? 

19 DR. BEHLING: Yeah -- no, I'm -- I'm trying to 

20 -- I have got three different documents, my 

21 initial write-up to you, your write-up, and now 

22 the matrix. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

24 DR. BEHLING: I'm trying to shuffle three 

25 different documents around to see what it is 
74

1 that I had initially submitted to you. Yeah, I 

2 -- I think my comments -- and it may have been 

3 changed in wording. My original finding under 

4 the -- the issue of occupational medical dose 

5 essentially read as follows: (Reading) Current 

6 guidance requires subjective interpretation and 

7 makes unreasonable demands on a dose 

8 reconstructor. And I provided some statements 

9 to that effect where obviously some of the 

10 documents, the hard copy documents that are 

11 available, are -- are oftentimes very, very -- 

12 just cryptic, where you have to go back and 

13 understand what was actually stated on these 

14 hard copy documents for -- in behalf of a given 

15 worker and -- and I'm not sure to what extent 

16 that was -- those comments were incorporated in 

17 the original -- in -- in the TBD review that 

18 you submitted. I'm trying to quickly scan here 

19 to see what was stated, but that was basically 

20 my comments, is that -- and I quoted directly 

21 from -- from the original TBD three regarding, 

22 for instance, its confusion, and I read here 

23 the exact wording that came out of Section 3.7 

24 of the TBD and -- and let me just quickly 

25 summarize what I was concerned about. 
75

1 In Section 3.7 of the TBD the following 

2 statements occur: The records provided by D 

3 (sic) are likely to include adequate 

4 information to define the type, date and 

5 account of X-ray examinations that were 

6 administered to the claimant as a condition of 

7 employment. Use the assumptions regarding 

8 radiographic exposures frequency only for 

9 screening when specific claimant records are 

10 not available. 

11 And then it continues: If confusion about the 

12 radiographic exposure record exists, consider 

13 requesting that the notes on the exterior of 

14 the envelopes containing the claimant's X-rays 

15 be transcribed and provided. These notes 

16 should give insight to the reason that the 

17 exposures were made. For example, pre18 employment examination, routine surveillance, 

19 and diagnosis of injury. 

20 What really came out of this is we're asking 

21 the dose reconstructor, who is obviously in 

22 possession of some hard copy data that involves 

23 occupational medical, to make some additional 

24 inquiries that may or may not be within his 

25 purview to do so. And I guess I'll wait for 
76

1 Jim or Larry's comments to what extent that -- 

2 at this point can be done and at the level of a 

3 dose reconstruction. 

4 DR. NETON: Well, I'll defer to our experts 

5 here who responded to this question. 

6 MR. MORRIS: Do you want to try that, Elyse? 

7 MS. THOMAS: Yes, and we put in our response 

8 that -- specifically referring to the best 

9 estimate cases, there's guidance in Procedure 

10 61 about what X-- what dose to include for a 

11 best estimate case. And -- let me read, I 

12 think I put in a section here -- for a best 

13 estimate case, Procedure 61 says for actual 

14 records showing X-ray exposure, dose 

15 reconstructor is not to add dose for years 

16 where there is no X-ray record. Okay? And 

17 that is in contrast to a dose reconstruction 

18 where the dose reconstructor is trying to 

19 maximize the dose or overestimate the dose, 

20 where they would be -- the Energy employee 

21 would be assigned a dose from X-ray procedures 

22 whether or not those X-ray records appeared in 

23 the record. So it -- it really -- there's not 

24 I think as much subjectivity there as -- as you 

25 would think when you also include the guidance 
77

1 in Procedure 61. 

2 MR. MORRIS: I might add to that, you truncated 

3 your quote halfway through it. I don't think 

4 the guidance is as hard to follow as it's been 

5 characterized here. And in response we 

6 provided the whole paragraph so you can judge 

7 it on its own merits. 

8 MR. BERONJA: And maybe we just need to go back 

9 and take a look at this. I think, Hans, you 

10 haven't seen the response, unfortunately. But 

11 maybe we can take a look at this and have -- 

12 you know. 

13 DR. MAURO: My experience in reviewing a lot of 

14 the cases is usually heroic efforts are not 

15 made to get to the high level of resolution for 

16 X-ray exposures that you would like, especially 

17 if it's early years, given the paucity of some 

18 records. And what you usually resort to is 

19 OTIB -- I guess it was 6, it may have changed 

20 numbers now, the one written by Ron Catherine*, 

21 which is an excellent document. We've reviewed 

22 it thoroughly and does lay out a strategy for 

23 making assumptions regarding photofluoroscopy -

24 - later-- pelvic X-rays, lateral versus 

25 anterior, posterior anterior -- what I'm 
78

1 getting at is my experience is when we do have 

2 comments on a site profile on the medical 

3 section, it's for reasons that you are seeing 

4 here. It's almost like an effort to try to 

5 achieve a resolu-- level of resolution with the 

6 data that would be desirable if you can, but we 

7 -- but we suspect that that's going to be 

8 difficult to do. You're saying maybe not. 

9 MR. MORRIS: I personally looked at 300 

10 envelopes. 

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 MR. MORRIS: And I personally saw notes on 

13 every one of them that were five to seven words 

14 long, with the examination date. And if you 

15 wanted to do a best estimate, the data was 

16 there for that. 

17 DR. MAURO: Was there. I'm not going to 

18 disagree with that. I -- I would suspect that. 

19 But what I would also say is that push comes to 

20 shove, you resort to Catherine's approach and 

21 you bound it. 

22 MR. MORRIS: That's true. 

23 DR. MAURO: So it's not an SEC issue, to my 

24 opinion. 

25 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh, right. Yeah. So I gue-- 
79

1 I guess, just from -- in summation on that, I 

2 think we agree it's not an SEC issue. We can 

3 go back and take a look at it and see if 

4 there's anything else, after Hans sees the 

5 response. Anything else from the workgroup on 

6 this one? 

7 (No responses) 

8 4.3-2

9 If not, the next one, 4.3-2, this is more of a 

10 -- kind of observation and probably me a little 

11 bit as an outside-- I think this was my comment 

12 -- that, you know, I'd looked at it and -- and 

13 I was looking at the units and I think I 

14 finally figured out from one of our other 

15 experts that really what was intended was these 

16 units should have been per examination, and I 

17 think NIOSH has agreed that the next time 

18 they're going to add this -- even though it's 

19 probably a given or people assume that this is 

20 the case, probably for health physicists doing 

21 this, but I think it would just make things 

22 easier if we had the full units or... 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, when -- when a site profile 

24 is rolled out or a Technical Basis Document is 

25 rolled out, the dose reconstructors that are 
80

1 going to utilize that document are given some 

2 training. 

3 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: And so this would have come up, I 

5 would have hoped, in that kind of a training 

6 session when they say what units are we dealing 

7 with here or, you know, what -- and certainly 

8 we should have taken note of that and maybe 

9 made a change of that, just -- 

10 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: -- just for your edification. 

12 That -- that training session does happen, and 

13 so it's not just issued and assumed that 

14 everybody will understand or -- 

15 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- ask the right question. 

17 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. See, I missed the 

18 training. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Sorry. 

20 MR. BERONJA: You didn't invite me. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Sorry. 

22 DR. NETON: But nonetheless, I don't think we 

23 would disagree it's not -- it's not a bad idea 

24 to put in per examination. 

25 MS. MUNN: As far as years later looking back 
81

1 at this, it might be worthwhile to incorporate 

2 a comment -- a sentence, phrase in the NIOSH 

3 response that includes the fact that training 

4 occurs. 

5 DR. NETON: That's a good point, Wanda. 

6 MS. MUNN: Just that it's typically accustomed, 

7 but -- and training might go in there, clarify 

8 the whole thing. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, and we also hope that the 

10 review process would catch an error made by a 

11 dose reconstructor misapplying the table. 

12 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay, 

13 anything else on -- on this one? 

14 4.4-1; 4.4-2

15 The next one, as we move into -- actually -- 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Environmental. 

17 MR. BERONJA: -- move into environmental, I 

18 need to get both my things here 'cause I have 

19 comments in my own section. The improper use 

20 of surrogate data for environmental exposure -- 

21 I think actually -- you know, just as a -- a 

22 little bit of a clarification to everybody -- 

23 again, this is Greg Beronja -- I coordinated 

24 this -- this review, but Hans and Arjun 

25 Makhijani and then Dunstana all were 
82

1 contributors in looking at different sections 

2 of this, and -- and actually I think we had a 

3 few people that kind of looked at general 

4 sections that had -- had this comment on the 

5 use of -- and this particular comment issue's 

6 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 on this improper use of 

7 surrogate data for environmental exposure. And 

8 this was primarily related to trying to take 

9 some of the later years' data to apply to the 

10 earlier years' data when I think in most 

11 people's minds there were many more activities 

12 going on in the earlier years, so maybe that 

13 wasn't a fair way to -- to treat that, so I 

14 think that was the general comment there. 

15 DR. MAURO: But let me make a clarifying. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Sure. 

17 DR. MAURO: The term "surrogate data" is -- has 

18 -- it's one of these hot button words -- 

19 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Connotations. 

21 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

22 DR. MAURO: Connotations. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

24 DR. MAURO: Do not -- we do not mean its other 

25 site. Surrogate data -- typically when we use 
83

1 it now, we are referring to data taken from one 

2 site and used for another site. That's not the 

3 concern here. The concern is using -- it is a 

4 form of surrogate, but it's within -- within 

5 the system. Other words, so the main concern 

6 is that -- and by the way, this is a recurring 

7 thing that we run into on many sites. Don't 

8 have data in the early years but you do have 

9 data in the later years, and somehow you try to 

10 use the data in the later years to apply to the 

11 earlier years, and we do have lots of problems 

12 with that, especially in this particular case. 

13 DR. NETON: This is a back extrapolation. 

14 DR. MAURO: This is a back extrapolation in the 

15 -- in the circumstance where the back 

16 extrapolation, from our review, may not really 

17 work very well. 

18 DR. NETON: I think you've seen our response 

19 that we don't necessarily disagree that we need 

20 more -- to do more work there to demonstrate 

21 that that's appropriate. 

22 MR. MORRIS: On the other hand, as it being an 

23 SEC issue, I don't think that there's any doubt 

24 that we can bound doses. The ambient dose is 

25 not going to be higher than the monitored 
84

1 worker dose. 

2 DR. MAURO: Let -- let's talk about that some 

3 more. Let's say we have a worker and -- and 

4 he's a -- he works outdoors. Okay? So -- and 

5 -- and he's not monitored, and you need to 

6 reconstruct his exposure and it's post-1958. 

7 Okay? Now, I would agree that a monitored 

8 worker who worked where -- in an area where 

9 there was potential for much higher exposures 

10 is real, and he would be -- it would be 

11 unlikely that he would have experienced doses 

12 as high as the workers that worked in the 

13 buildings and was -- were monitored. That's -- 

14 nevertheless, there's an obligation to 

15 reconstruct this man's dose and you're in the 

16 position where you have to somehow assign an 

17 ambient dose, environmental dose, to this 

18 person. Right now the plan is to use effluent 

19 monitoring data taken from later years and 

20 somehow extrapolate back to earlier years to 

21 assign him a dose. I would say that that's 

22 going to be a challenge, and I -- and I don't 

23 think you could use other da-- other worker 

24 data for monitored workers to this person 

25 because -- in other words, it wouldn't be a 
85

1 plausible scenario. I think we should talk a 

2 little bit about this. 

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I -- 

4 DR. MAURO: You know where I'm going with this? 

5 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

6 DR. MAURO: You see, the pa-- Part 83 has words 

7 in it on plausible, and this is a very 

8 important point that you're going to see come 

9 up again and again in a lot of our reviews. 

10 Yes, you could place an upper bound on this 

11 fella that I just described and the way you 

12 describe, but that would not be plausible. 

13 That sce-- that exposure scenario would not be 

14 plausible for him. 

15 DR. NETON: Think about what you're saying here 

16 now, John, though. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 DR. NETON: You can plausibly bound workers 

19 with huge exposures in the plant, yet you'd 

20 have to -- you can't bound workers who were -- 

21 DR. MAURO: But it's not plausible. 

22 DR. NETON: -- and therefore those would be not 

23 sufficiently accurate and become SEC -- 

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

25 DR. NETON: -- even though -- 
86

1 DR. MAURO: Well, that's how I -- 

2 DR. NETON: -- even though by definition their 

3 exposures, by your own admission, are lower 

4 than -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

6 DR. NETON: -- the workers' exposures? 

7 DR. MAURO: Listen -- 

8 DR. NETON: That's the subject of a different 

9 debate, I think, but -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Well, but it -- and it comes to 

11 rea-- it comes to -- to ground here. Other 

12 words, right now -- I mean we're going to see 

13 this again and again, but it comes to ground 

14 here. The fact that you could say I have a 

15 worker and I know his exposure could not have 

16 been greater than this, and you coul-- and you 

17 could say that, but -- and the reason you're 

18 saying that is -- and you have good reason to 

19 say that. But then you -- then you say but 

20 okay, and how did you get that number, that -- 

21 and say well, I got it because I have a 

22 coworker model for workers that worked in this 

23 building where we know the exposures were much 

24 higher than he could have ever experienced 

25 'cause he was outdoors -- working outdoors. 
87

1 Now -- then I say oh, okay, there's no doubt 

2 from a -- that you have bound his exposures. 

3 Now -- then I -- but then I ask myself the 

4 question do you meet the criteria of 

5 plausibility that's laid out in Part 83. Now 

6 you've just defined a scenario that, in my 

7 mind, is not plausible. 

8 MR. MORRIS: But isn't the point of this to 

9 decide whether somebody's got enough physical 

10 damage to be -- to have a plausible disease 

11 causation and not just whether or not you can 

12 invent a scenario? 

13 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean you could -- see, what 

14 you're saying is I could assign any dose to 

15 this person, though. As long as you assi-- you 

16 -- see, if you're doing dose reconstruction and 

17 you give this guy some off-the-charts high 

18 number and you deny, I'm fine with it. It's 

19 when you grant that's the problem. You see 

20 whe-- and then -- and now as an SEC -- 

21 MR. MORRIS: I didn't understand what he just 

22 said. 

23 DR. MAURO: Yeah -- 

24 MR. MORRIS: Could you say that sentence one 

25 more time? 
88

1 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I was -- other words, if you 

2 -- if you're -- if you're processing the person 

3 and say listen, I'm going -- I'm -- I -- having 

4 a difficult time reconstructing his dose, but I 

5 know I could place an upper bound on it, and 

6 I'm going to put an unrealistically high upper 

7 bound, which is often done -- OTIB-4 was a 

8 perfect example of it -- but it was des-- it 

9 was done for the sole purpose of denial. That 

10 is, even though we've assigned all this dose to 

11 this person, because he had this particular 

12 type of cancer he doesn't get compensated. So 

13 there is nothing -- that -- that works fine. 

14 But then -- but that's in the realm of Part 82. 

15 When you move into the realm of Part 83, it's a 

16 different framework where there's an obligation 

17 to say can I cre-- do I understand this man's 

18 exposure scenario where I could come up with a 

19 plausible exposure scenario and place a 

20 plausible upper bound on his dose. Then you 

21 would meet the letter and intent of Part 83. 

22 But if the scenario that you're using to -- to 

23 assign the dose to that worker is not plausible 

24 for that worker, I think you've got an SEC 

25 issue, and I think you -- and I think that 
89

1 that's what we might have right here. Did you 

2 -- did you follow? I mean -- 

3 DR. NETON: Well, no. I mean I -- 

4 DR. MAURO: I gue-- you see what I'm saying? 

5 DR. NETON: I think right now all you've said 

6 is you question our back-extrapolation, the -- 

7 the accuracy of our back-extrapolation. 

8 DR. MAURO: Right. 

9 DR. NETON: And if we can go back and shore 

10 that up and show that it -- 

11 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

12 DR. NETON: -- it's not some scientific -- has 

13 some scientific basis, then we're fine. 

14 DR. MAURO: Right. 

15 DR. NETON: I -- I reserve the other argument 

16 for another -- another working group. I mean -

17 - 

18 DR. MAURO: Well, the -- see, I mean -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: The plausibility argument -- 

20 DR. MAURO: The plausibility argument. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: -- is another -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you've got two arguments. 

24 DR. NETON: Right now -- 

25 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 
90

1 DR. NETON: -- I'd prefer to address the issue 

2 which says you don't believe our back3 extrapolation method is scientifically 

4 defensible -- 

5 DR. MAURO: But I -- but I want to leave it -- 

6 DR. NETON: -- and we'll do that. 

7 DR. MAURO: But I want to leave it as an SEC 

8 issue -- 

9 DR. NETON: I -- I -- 

10 DR. MAURO: -- for the reason I just gave. 

11 DR. NETON: -- I'm okay with that. I'm okay 

12 with leaving it -- 

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

14 DR. NETON: -- as an SEC issue for that 

15 purpose. 

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

17 DR. NETON: But again, I think that whole issue 

18 is another working group's -- 

19 DR. MAURO: And -- and -- okay. 

20 DR. NETON: They're all wrapped together, I 

21 agree, but I don't -- I don't want to take that 

22 up in this discussion. 

23 DR. MAURO: Okay, whatever -- I wasn't -- see, 

24 I didn't want to rule it out as a -- not an SEC 

25 issue. 
91

1 DR. NETON: Okay. 

2 DR. MAURO: For the reason I just gave. 

3 DR. NETON: We'll reserve it as an SEC issue 

4 for now. 

5 MR. BERONJA: I guess maybe for those on the -- 

6 on the phone, sometimes we're not -- we're 

7 assuming -- we're looking at the NIOSH 

8 response, but everybody else doesn't see them. 

9 DR. NETON: Right. 

10 MR. BERONJA: I don't know if you guys want to 

11 say what you're going to do related to this... 

12 MS. HUGHES: Okay, since the -- the 

13 environmental approach of the site profile was 

14 issued, additional data capture has occurred 

15 which consists of about 400 additional 

16 documents, and this is currently under revision 

17 and -- the -- the approach that is taken, and 

18 it will be revised. It is currently under 

19 revision, so... 

20 DR. NETON: We have a lot more information here 

21 to rely on that, and I think we can come up 

22 with a better -- defensible -- more defensible 

23 argument. I would argue that it's plausibly 

24 between -- somewhere between the occupational 

25 exposure in the plant and the fence line 
92

1 exposure. It's somewhere in that -- in that. 

2 MS. BEACH: And I want to make sure we're clear 

3 there was no surrogate data used for this. 

4 Correct? 

5 MR. BERONJA: That's right, yes. Anything 

6 else? Anything else on that one? 

7 MS. MUNN: Wanda. I was just going to comment 

8 Ted -- I think that was Ted -- brings up a very 

9 good point with respect to the NIOSH response. 

10 Even though I'm fortunate enough to have them 

11 now, perhaps as a matter of process in this 

12 particular meeting it might be a good idea, 

13 since most of the NIOSH responses are 

14 relatively brief, might be a wise idea for us 

15 to just read them before we discuss the item at 

16 great length. 

17 4.4-3

18 MR. BERONJA: Okay. Let's see, the next one, 

19 development of breathing zone air concentration 

20 is technically not supported -- again, I think 

21 we had a few people that looked at this 

22 particular one, and I think maybe the -- the 

23 end result of this is we don't necessarily 

24 think the factor's bad. It just -- there was 

25 really no supporting information to -- to 
93

1 support it. You know, I -- I guess I've seen 

2 workplace levels based on other criteria where 

3 they used the same factor, but there -- there 

4 was really no reference there. 

5 DR. NETON: Just for my own edification, could 

6 -- Bob, you explain what we've done there, 

7 'cause I -- I'm not clear -- 

8 MR. MORRIS: Yeah -- 

9 DR. NETON: -- what we've actually done. 

10 MR. MORRIS: -- what happened was there was 

11 ambient air sample data for many years 

12 available. 

13 DR. MAURO: The effluent. 

14 MR. MORRIS: No, ambient -- 

15 MR. BERONJA: Ambient. 

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, ambient. 

17 MR. MORRIS: -- ambient air sample data at five 

18 -- 

19 DR. MAURO: Plant -- plant -- 

20 MR. MORRIS: -- at five locations in the Santa 

21 Susana Area Four for many years. The numbers 

22 were all indistinguishable from background. 

23 The author of the Technical Basis Document 

24 found stack effluent data on top of that for a 

25 number of years and, in an effort to be -- fill 
94

1 in the miss-- any missing data and -- and try 

2 to put an upper bound on the dose on the intake 

3 rates, he then said here's our stack 

4 concentrations, and in many cases those were 

5 not different from ambient air, either. Then 

6 said we know we can bound this as a -- as a 

7 bounding approach by taking a factor of 100 

8 discount on the average stack effluent and 

9 moving that to ground level and let -- have 

10 that be the intake rate. It really didn't 

11 create doses that were so high that you had to 

12 -- had to deal with them another -- any other 

13 way. 

14 DR. NETON: These were ambient environmental 

15 doses that we're trying to establish on site. 

16 MR. MORRIS: Ambient environmental intake rates 

17 for air -- for air that are trying to establish 

18 we have five points for many years that showed 

19 no difference from background. 

20 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would agree that the -- 

21 Hans, did you want to jump out on that? 

22 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I guess the -- the issue 

23 that also has to come into play here is the 

24 concern that this is nothing more than a 

25 conversion of air concentrations at the release 
95

1 point that are reduced by a factor of 100 

2 someplace in -- in -- in the environ. What it 

3 doesn't include obviously is the potential 

4 resuspension of contamination that has already 

5 been deposited on the ground for years of -- of 

6 -- of releases, so the 0.01 factor only takes 

7 into consideration this dilution effect from a 

8 release point to the air concentration 

9 someplace in the environs, but does not 

10 incorporate the issue of resuspension of 

11 contaminants that have been sitting there on 

12 the surface for years. That -- that's one of -

13 - it may not be a very significant 

14 contribution, but it's just a comment that I 

15 included. 

16 DR. MAURO: I -- I'd like to add a little more 

17 -- to roll the -- see, I saw this as containing 

18 three elements, this modeling. One is you have 

19 source term information. And as we mentioned 

20 before, the release rate, curies per second or 

21 the concentration in the effluent in picocuries 

22 per cubic meter -- 

23 MR. MORRIS: That's more likely what it is. 

24 DR. MAURO: -- discharged to the -- being 

25 discharged. Now the first question is okay, 
96

1 certainly for the time periods we do have that 

2 information, that -- that discharge from 

3 concentration and the isotopic mix. Applying 

4 .01 is not a bad -- I mean I'm very familiar 

5 with chi over Qs in calculations, and let me 

6 tell you, you'll put an upper bound on that. 

7 The dispersion is going to be much more than 

8 that because you know, even -- even close in. 

9 DR. NETON: Close in. 

10 DR. MAURO: Even close in. So certainly if you 

11 wanted to say I know what the concentration is, 

12 the average annual concentration of 

13 radionuclides are in the effluent from the 

14 stack in picocuries per cubic meter, and a list 

15 of isotopes, and I'm going to say no one -- 

16 then I'm going to multiply that by .01 and 

17 assign that to people that are out there, it's 

18 no doubt that's bounding. 

19 Now -- so -- so I -- now here's -- here's the 

20 discussion. It's my understanding, though, 

21 that you don't have that data for earlier 

22 years, the effluents -- that is, the pico-- the 

23 -- what the isotopes were nor the picocur-- 

24 picocuries per cubic meter are, so we have a 

25 back-extrapolation problem that will be 
97

1 addressed in those 400 pa-- so you -- that may 

2 go to -- that may be solved by that. 

3 MR. MORRIS: Could be. 

4 DR. MAURO: Right. The resuspension question. 

5 Certainly you're going to have an accumulation 

6 of radioactivity on soil. Depending on the 

7 half-life of the radionuclides, you could have 

8 quite a bit of accumulation or not. I mean 

9 that -- it's -- it wouldn't hurt to air that 

10 out a little bit in the report. I think that's 

11 tractable is coming to grips with that if you 

12 deal with the first one. Other words, once you 

13 get to the point where you know what your 

14 concentration mix is and the quantities being 

15 discharged, you certainly could place an upper 

16 bound on what might be on the ground and what 

17 might be the resuspension. So what you -- of 

18 course we may have some dis-- discussion on 

19 what resuspension factors to use, we've done 

20 that before, but that's not an SEC issue. The 

21 SEC issue is do those 400 books -- eight pages 

22 -- give you the information you need to go 

23 backward in time. 

24 MR. MORRIS: And we don't know the answer to 

25 that. 
98

1 DR. MAURO: And we don't -- you -- right. 

2 DR. NETON: Yeah, see, that -- that argument's 

3 not -- that doesn't come out in the finding I'm 

4 looking at here. I guess -- and I'm looking at 

5 the original finding -- it basically just says 

6 it doesn't believe the 0.1 has been 

7 sufficiently -- 

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I'm real -- 

9 DR. NETON: -- answered. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- I -- I tend to -- I -- I see 

11 this as one thing. 

12 DR. NETON: Yeah, I can almost see these rolled 

13 into one finding. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yeah, it's one -- 

15 MR. BERONJA: They could be. Uh-huh. 

16 DR. MAURO: -- it's one story. But now let's 

17 talk a little bit about the .01. This is the 

18 first time that I've seen it used. I have no 

19 doubt that it's bounding, but in every other 

20 case, every site I've -- we've reviewed that I 

21 could recall, there's been 30 of them, you 

22 always the average annual chi over Q where you 

23 took joint frequency data and applied it, came 

24 up with a sector averaged or a center -- 

25 centerline chi over Q value. This is certainly 
99

1 a shortcut, and it's certainly a bounding 

2 shortcut, and this brings us -- and you know, 

3 that's -- and I don't -- I guess I don't have -

4 - I'll do -- I just was surprised to see you 

5 using that approach here. It's the first time 

6 I've seen it. 

7 MR. MORRIS: I think the author looked at the 

8 data that were available and said, you know, 

9 whether we fine-tune it or not, it's still a 

10 small number. 

11 DR. NETON: There just weren't -- weren't many 

12 stack releases to begin with -- 

13 MR. MORRIS: That's right. 

14 DR. NETON: -- during that period, so -- okay. 

15 DR. BEHLING: John, also just a comment. If 

16 you're thinking that 0.01 is a -- very 

17 definitely a (unintelligible) and bounding 

18 estimate, then it very well may be. Also this 

19 issue of the 0.01 reduction factor has to be 

20 used in context with the previous finding that 

21 says prior to '71 we don't have any data, but 

22 we do know that the amount of activity and 

23 operational activity that might have released 

24 much larger quantities earlier on for which 

25 time you don't have any data, you may have a -- 
100

1 a compensation effect here that says yes, by 

2 use of the 0.01 we are bounding a chi over Q 

3 value, but we're also perhaps compensating for 

4 higher releases that occurred earlier on for 

5 which we have no data. And so perhaps the two 

6 of them are connected and -- and -- and perhaps 

7 we can let go of both of them by using the 0.1 

8 as a claimant-favorable default value that 

9 compensates for earlier releases that may have 

10 been higher than those that were monitored 

11 post-'71. 

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah -- 

13 DR. NETON: I agree, Hans. 

14 MS. MUNN: Just reading these findings and the 

15 responses, and having read some of the basic 

16 documents but not that thoroughly, there's a 

17 little confusion. Neither of these use the 

18 term that was just used in the discussion; 

19 i.e., resuspension. Resuspension of -- is 

20 there an inference that there's particulate 

21 emission here? What -- 

22 DR. NETON: Yes. Wanda, this is Jim. That -- 

23 that is covered in the original review. It got 

24 lost in the translation onto the matrix, is 

25 what I just noticed. 
101

1 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

2 DR. NETON: There's a sentence about 

3 resuspension in the -- in the actual site 

4 profile review. 

5 MS. MUNN: That's such a hot button word that 

6 it seems to me if that's what we're going to be 

7 discussing in these findings somewhere, that 

8 ought to appear. 

9 MR. MORRIS: And let me just refer to one more 

10 thing you should look at. In Section 4.5 of 

11 the site profile -- I'm quoting it now -- it 

12 says from 1959 to present ambient gross beta 

13 activity in air has been continuous -- has been 

14 measured continuously in five locations. From 

15 1963 on gross alpha was -- activity was 

16 measured. And then it goes on to explain that 

17 none of these data were different from 

18 background. So -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Right. 

20 MR. MORRIS: -- it's not that there's a 

21 shortage of data in general, it's a shortage of 

22 stack data that was complementing -- that this 

23 ambient measurement. 

24 DR. NETON: Which would tend to indicate the 

25 resuspension might not be a problem if -- 
102

1 DR. MAURO: That's right, if it's -- 

2 DR. NETON: -- background levels -- 

3 DR. MAURO: -- been accumulating over the 

4 years, you would see more -- unlike the air 

5 concentrations where you -- you know, the back6 extrapolation needs to be researched with -- 

7 what I'm hearing is that well, if there's going 

8 to be a resuspension problem, you're going to 

9 see it more as the years go on because you're 

10 accumulating stuff on the ground. 

11 DR. NETON: Right. 

12 DR. MAURO: I understand that, yes. 

13 MR. GIBSON: We're done on that one. Before we 

14 move on I've had a couple of requests -- we'll 

15 go ahead and take our morning break now and -- 

16 MR. BERONJA: Or could we just maybe summar-- 

17 summarize that? I -- maybe for those on the 

18 phone in particular, I guess the response to 

19 both of them was -- to the first one was that 

20 NIOSH was going to review these 400 documents 

21 that they now have in possession to see if the 

22 surrogate stuff can be essentially -- rely on 

23 this other -- this other information. And then 

24 the latter one said that the basis for the 

25 factor will be described in the next revision. 
103

1 DR. NETON: That's fine. 

2 MR. BERONJA: So I think both of those have 

3 been addressed satisfactorily I think in our 

4 minds, so I guess we can go. 

5 MR. GIBSON: We'll go ahead and take our break 

6 now. We'll be back at 11:45, 11:50. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'm just going to put the line 

8 on mute. 

9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:35 a.m. 

10 to 11:50 a.m.) 

11 MR. KATZ: Are y'all ready to start up again? 

12 That's okay? 

13 MR. GIBSON: Okay, we're back in session here. 

14 I believe we just finished up with 4.4.3 and 

15 ready to move on to 4.4.4. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

17 MS. KLEA: This is Bonnie. Could I ask a 

18 question? 

19 THE COURT REPORTER: Who? 

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

21 MS. KLEA: Do I have Dan (unintelligible) on 

22 the line? 

23 MR. KATZ: Okay, it's Bonnie -- Bonnie. 

24 MS. KLEA: Yes, I wanted to make a comment 

25 about the background levels. We are currently 
104

1 in the community working on re-establishing 

2 background, so I don't know if that's an 

3 important point or not. Also we have 14 

4 stories high of new information that has been 

5 released from the Boeing Company under a 

6 federal lawsuit, so there's a lot more than 40 

7 new documents. We have like 14 stories high of 

8 documents. And if Dan was on the line, Dan's a 

9 30-year activist on this (electronic 

10 interference), he -- he (electronic 

11 interference) on the background levels, so I 

12 don't know if he's on the line or not. 

13 MR. KATZ: Bonnie -- 

14 MS. KLEA: That's all. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, tha-- thank you, Bonnie. We'd 

16 -- I don't know if the person you're speaking 

17 of is on the line, either, but -- 

18 MS. KLEA: Okay. Anyway, we are redoing the 

19 background numbers so whatever that's going to 

20 mean, I don't know. 

21 MR. KATZ: Thank you. So then you may be 

22 submitting more information. Is that what 

23 you're saying? 

24 MS. KLEA: Well, we have -- like I say, we have 

25 on -- on the -- on the computer over at 
105

1 Department of Toxic Substance new information 

2 and it's -- it's restricted so I -- we have to 

3 go into the office, but we have found lots of 

4 new data that's quite alarming on what happened 

5 in the early years, and I'm not sure quite, you 

6 know, how to get that to -- I guess I'd be 

7 working with Michael -- Michael Gibson on that. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, Bonnie, this is Larry 

10 Elliott. If you have new information relevant 

11 to your petition -- 

12 MS. KLEA: Yes. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: -- I would suggest strongly that 

14 you need to submit it to NIOSH under your 

15 petition so that it can be evaluated by the 

16 Advisory Board, by NIOSH, by -- by all parties. 

17 MS. KLEA: Okay. Also -- well, we have a lot 

18 of accident reports in this new information and 

19 I'm wondering if you're using accident reports 

20 other -- or the -- from other claimants. Are 

21 you comparing -- are you comparing claims from 

22 all the workers to look at the different 

23 accidents? 

24 DR. NETON: We always look through the claim 

25 files for information to help us finish -- 
106

1 complete our dose reconstruction -- this is Jim 

2 Neton. I also have a question, though. I 

3 think -- I think a lot of the information that 

4 you're talking about might not be radiological 

5 information. It's my understanding there's 

6 some NEPA issues and discussions going on out 

7 there, and that would be more related to 

8 environmental contaminants and not specific to 

9 radiation. 

10 MS. KLEA: Well, I can tell you we have 

11 progress reports from 1956 and they're talking 

12 about building a hole in the ground 15 by five 

13 feet next to a fault up at the Burrough Flats* 

14 area and directly dumping all of the 

15 radionuclide -- liquid waste, 1,000 gallons per 

16 week, directly into the ground. 

17 DR. NETON: Okay. Well... 

18 MR. KATZ: Well, Bonnie, cert-- certainly we'd 

19 welcome any information that you want to 

20 supplement your petition with. 

21 MS. KLEA: Okay, should I -- 

22 MR. KATZ: We'd welcome -- 

23 MS. KLEA: -- it in? 

24 MR. KATZ: -- that information. 

25 MS. KLEA: Okay. Thank you. 
107

1 MR. ELLIOTT: That's all you have to do, 

2 Bonnie, is mail it in to NIOSH and we'll make 

3 sure that it's entered into the petition that 

4 you filed and shown on the site research 

5 database for technical staff and SC&A and the 

6 Board to review. 

7 MS. KLEA: Okay, thank you. 

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bonnie. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Ted and -- and Mike, this is Mark 

10 Griffon. I've -- I've been on the phone a 

11 little while listening in, but I just wanted to 

12 let you know that I was out here. 

13 MR. KATZ: Right, we -- I knew you were out 

14 there, Mark. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome, thanks. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: You heard me, huh? 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, thanks. 

20 4.4-4

21 MR. BERONJA: Okay. So I think as Mike 

22 mentioned, the next issue we have is issue 4.4-

23 4, which talks about the justification for 

24 assignment of external dose estimates is not 

25 provided. And again I think Hans, if -- if 
108

1 you're ready or able to provide any additional 

2 background on this that you'd like to, I think 

3 this was one of your comments. 

4 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. Unfortunately I'm looking 

5 at what I originally submitted and I do only 

6 make references to various sections in TBD four 

7 without at this point recalling what is -- what 

8 those sections really contained. But in -- in 

9 some way I would have to go back -- I will only 

10 -- from what I had written to you in my 

11 original write-up and that is there is really 

12 very little that is used to justify or -- the 

13 absence of external dose monitoring really 

14 provides little data for how these exposures 

15 may have been estimated prior to 1974. In 

16 other words, there is no technical support or 

17 reference for the assumptions that were stated 

18 for -- for these (unintelligible) dose from 

19 external radiation -- ambient external 

20 radiation. And -- and I guess I'm referring to 

21 Table 4-4 of the TBD with those values. It's a 

22 question of how were these values derived, 

23 what's the -- the bas-- technical basis for 

24 those assigned values. 

25 DR. MAURO: It might be worth reading the NIOSH 
109

1 response. 

2 MS. HUGHES: Right. The offic-- well, the 

3 NIOSH response is that the basis for the 

4 assumptions are -- are currently being reviewed 

5 and they will be described in more detail in 

6 the next revision of the TBD. And this is 

7 something that's currently in progress. 

8 MR. BERONJA: And again, this is -- is noted as 

9 an -- as an SEC issue, and I guess maybe 

10 depending on what you all find in -- in the 

11 next revision, this may or may not be, so we -- 

12 we kind of leave this open until we see the -- 

13 the next revision. Anything else on that 

14 issue? 

15 4.4-5

16 The next one, and -- I think is actually one of 

17 mine that I -- is the use of potable water, and 

18 is not consistently presented in the site 

19 profile. And actually probably the wording on 

20 that is not very good. The real finding here 

21 is that the -- is that it does appear potable 

22 water was used at that area, you know, early on 

23 in the period and maybe throughout some 

24 different periods. The TBD states that potable 

25 water is not a source of occupational radiation 
110

1 exposure. And in fact I think -- if I remember 

2 right, I think it even goes as far as stating 

3 that it wasn't even used, so I think there's 

4 just maybe -- I think the SEC petition was a 

5 little bit more correct as far as what it 

6 stated there, so I think there's just some 

7 additional information that needs to be 

8 presented as far as -- and I think that I -- I 

9 think probably within our actual site profile 

10 review there's some references that -- that we 

11 went through as far as some of the documents 

12 and -- and what they had to say. 

13 MS. HUGHES: That is correct. The TBD stated 

14 that the potable water was not the source of 

15 occupational exposure, and to this -- as far as 

16 we know, there has not been any radioactive 

17 contamination been detected in any of those 

18 wells that were formerly used for drinking 

19 water supply. Now we do have some sampling 

20 wells on the site that have found levels of 

21 tritium, but these were not used for drinking 

22 water. However, in the evaluation report for 

23 the SEC we used this as an example. We're 

24 saying we could bound the dose by using levels 

25 that were found in these wells. So this is not 
111

1 actually an -- an exposure scenario that did 

2 exist, but it -- it can be used to bound the 

3 dose. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, and I think there was one -

5 - I -- maybe it was even one of the dose 

6 reconstructions that was referenced -- may have 

7 been referenced in the site profile, I can't 

8 remember, or somewhere else -- where they did 

9 come up with a scenario as far as potential 

10 exposure to -- they made some assumptions where 

11 there were some radionuclides in the potable 

12 water and what the type of exposure would have 

13 been. So I think that -- that discussion as 

14 far as potable water just needs to be cleaned 

15 up in the -- in the site profile. 

16 MR. KATZ: So Greg, this is not an SEC issue 

17 then, 'cause it's listed as one. 

18 MR. BERONJA: This is -- you know, the 

19 likelihood of this being an SEC iss-- it 

20 probably really shouldn't be. 

21 DR. MAURO: Well, if -- if it's bound-- other 

22 words, would the -- what I -- what I'm hearing 

23 is if it's determined that -- there's a 

24 possibility that some workers may have consumed 

25 water that might have contained levels from the 
112

1 -- not the same level as the monitor wells. In 

2 other words, you're saying that we have monitor 

3 wells and we have drinking water wells. 

4 MS. HUGHES: Well, the drinking water wells 

5 were in a different area of the site. They 

6 were in like Area One and Two, which is a 

7 little ways away, and I think they act as a 

8 different aquifer. 

9 DR. MAURO: Okay, and there's -- and there's 

10 good reason to believe that -- that the monitor 

11 wells would have had much higher levels than 

12 (unintelligible) existed -- that's what I'm 

13 hearing the argument. 

14 MS. HUGHES: What I understand is the 

15 monitoring wells were drilled near the -- what 

16 they expect to be the source, which is like a 

17 reactor building where you had concrete 

18 activation, if I'm not mistaken, and that -- 

19 that's what I think the source is, and they 

20 drilled some wells around to sample -- that's 

21 where they found a tritium plume, and it has 

22 since then migrated, but from what I've read, 

23 the -- the actual wells that have been -- have 

24 been used for drinking water historically are 

25 remote from that and acts as a different 
113

1 aquifer, so... 

2 MS. MUNN: John, some of the source material 

3 that I was looking at earlier had fairly 

4 extensive maps of Area Four where there were 

5 numerous sampling wells, but those were not the 

6 potable water. It would be I think 

7 unreasonable to assume that -- that someone was 

8 drinking water from the sample wells that were 

9 drilled rather than from the water supply that 

10 was made available, which was not from that 

11 area. 

12 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I think -- I think in this 

13 particular case the data out there, as far as 

14 being able to clearly say that there was no 

15 radiation in these wells, I'm not sure if 

16 that's really there. I think that probably 

17 just a further review of all that -- and I'm 

18 not sure if it's worth the equivalent of almost 

19 a white paper or something to try to compile as 

20 good a information as we have on this because, 

21 you know, there's not -- I don't know if I saw 

22 any maps that show the different aquifers or 

23 locations and everything else that summarized 

24 all this really nicely. There's just a lot of 

25 spotty information out there that you have to 
114

1 kind of piece together, so I think the 

2 likelihood that there's any real exposure of 

3 concern is probably very low. But still it'd 

4 be nice to kind of clean up this issue. 

5 MS. MUNN: Pull it all together. 

6 MR. BERONJA: Right. Right. 

7 MS. KLEA: This is Bonnie. Could I add a 

8 comment? 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bonnie. 

10 MS. KLEA: Okay. We found that -- we found 

11 maps of the piping that piped water from Area 

12 Four into all the other areas, and it was used 

13 as reclaimed water to cool the rocket engines, 

14 and it was used for irrigation. So I would 

15 think it would be safe to say that whatever 

16 water was in Area Four from the -- the 

17 groundwater was distributed throughout the 

18 whole site. 

19 MS. MUNN: But not as drinking water. 

20 MS. KLEA: Well, it would -- it would have 

21 migrated into the aquifer, and I have 

22 information from the Health Department of 

23 Ventura County that that -- we were drinking 

24 groundwater well into the '80s and they knew it 

25 was contaminated. 
115

1 MS. BEACH: So I heard mention of a white 

2 paper. Does NIOSH agree that they would -- 

3 DR. NETON: Well, not necessarily. 

4 MS. BEACH: That's my question. 

5 DR. NETON: I'm looking through the analysis on 

6 the SEC and I can't find it, but we've 

7 addressed that in the SEC evaluation report. I 

8 think Lara just indicated that in a worst-case 

9 upper bound one could assume that people drank 

10 the -- the tritium in the water that was taken 

11 from the monitoring wells, and that could be 

12 used to bound the exposures, so -- I mean I -- 

13 I don't know whether that merits a whole white 

14 paper or not, but -- I don't -- I -- I'd have 

15 to go back and actually -- I think the action 

16 item is we have to go back and look at what 

17 we've done in the evaluation report. 

18 MS. HUGHES: I think what -- what you've stated 

19 is correct. 

20 DR. NETON: This is correct, and I don't know 

21 if we did an example dose reconstruction to 

22 that effect -- 

23 MS. HUGHES: I believe we did. 

24 DR. NETON: I think we may have, so what I'm 

25 suggesting is we may have already done this, to 
116

1 some degree. And whether it's sufficient for -

2 - for the working group to look at and use to 

3 close out the issue, I don't know yet. But 

4 let's -- let's -- we'll go back and look at 

5 what we've done in the evaluation report and -- 

6 and start from there. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I think what you're saying 

8 is true. I think there was at least one dose 

9 reconstruction that took a -- a step further 

10 and made some assumptions. 

11 DR. NETON: Right. 

12 MR. BERONJA: The SEC has more information than 

13 the site profile, and the site profile pretty 

14 much dismisses it, so -- 

15 DR. NETON: Right. 

16 MR. BERONJA: -- we've got three levels -- two 

17 different levels of detail on this, so... 

18 DR. NETON: It's sort of an artifact of how 

19 we're approaching this. We've got an SEC thing 

20 and we've got a site profile, but we'll go back 

21 and piece together what was in the evaluation 

22 report and use that, to the extent possible, to 

23 justify what we're doing here. And if it needs 

24 more to be fleshed out, then we'll be happy to 

25 do a white paper, but I don't know that we need 
117

1 to do that at this point. 

2 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. Anything else on that 

3 one? 

4 4.4-6

5 The next one is a lack of -- this again gets 

6 back to some of the -- maybe the other areas or 

7 incidents -- it's a lack of information on the 

8 sodium burn pit and other areas of radiation 

9 sources. And -- and again I think in the 

10 particular case of the sodium burn pit, I think 

11 there is more information that probably could 

12 be pulled together to look at -- at exposures 

13 there. And in think in summary that's really 

14 the main point, but I haven't looked at the 

15 NIOSH response yet. 

16 MS. HUGHES: Okay, let me just read the NIOSH 

17 response. Additional information on the burn 

18 pit will be included in the future revision of 

19 the TBD. However, the burn pit was an open, 

20 unconfined area that was not continuously 

21 occupied. In addition, significant 

22 radiological exposures resulting from worker 

23 activities in the vicinity of the sodium burn 

24 pits are unlikely because of the controls in 

25 place at this location. For example, workers 
118

1 were required to remain a safe distance from 

2 the pits, including lined and unlined pits and 

3 ponds, because of the potentially violent 

4 reactions that could occur in the case of 

5 sodium or potassium making contact with water. 

6 After the discovery of the inadvertent 

7 contamination of the area, it was subject to 

8 periodic surveys and soil sampling until it was 

9 cleaned up. These surveys indicated low levels 

10 of contamination. The review of our claimant 

11 files indicates that workers who did work at 

12 the facility were indeed monitored. Those were 

13 typically fire-- firemen, actually. 

14 DR. MAURO: And -- and positive bioassay 

15 results observed? 

16 MS. HUGHES: I could -- I would have to go back 

17 and look. It -- it's hard to determine -- if 

18 you say -- a person makes the statement oh, he 

19 or she worked at the burn pit occasionally, and 

20 you look at the person's bioassay data, you 

21 cannot say for sure oh, this particular value 

22 is a result from this exposure there. Now 

23 these actions at the burn pit might have taken 

24 place maybe a couple of hours a week or so. It 

25 was not some -- somebody being exposed 
119

1 continuously or even somebody working there for 

2 eight hours a day. That's unlikely because 

3 it's not -- there's not a building there. This 

4 is just a -- a little site -- a little area 

5 away from where they would react to sodium. 

6 MS. MUNN: And the only thing that would have 

7 been there that would have been of radiological 

8 concern would have been contaminated sodium. 

9 It wouldn't have any of the normal isotopes of 

10 concern when you're -- you're dealing with fuel 

11 or anything of that sort. It -- it would only 

12 have been sodium and -- and Nac*, that's all 

13 that was there. 

14 MS. HUGHES: Well, they did -- they did 

15 actually -- I think they did incinerate some -- 

16 maybe some oils or organic compounds, to a 

17 small extent. That was not the main purpose of 

18 this site, but we -- we can't entirely rule out 

19 that they didn't incinerate other things. It 

20 was not intended to incinerate or dispose of 

21 radio-- radioactive contamination. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yes, that -- that was the point I 

23 was trying to make. Primarily you're looking 

24 at Nac and -- and sodium, and anything else 

25 would not have been likely contaminated -- or 
120

1 radiologically contaminated. 

2 DR. MAURO: Is there any guidance that's 

3 offered to the dose reconstructor on how to 

4 deal -- to reconstruct exposures to workers who 

5 might -- for example, you had mentioned that 

6 there might have been some folks that had 

7 bioassay samples -- 

8 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 

9 DR. MAURO: -- that worked in the vicinity of 

10 this? Is there any guidance right now to 

11 explain -- okay, you have a claimant that might 

12 have had job responsibilities that put him in 

13 contact or in proximity to this activity. Is 

14 there any guidance on how do you reconstruct 

15 his doses? 

16 MS. HUGHES: I do not think the guidance is any 

17 different from any other worker that would have 

18 been exposed to internal or external 

19 radioactive contamination that -- during 

20 operations at the sites and -- I don't know, 

21 anybody want to add anything? 

22 MR. SCHOFIELD: Jim, I'd like to backtrack for 

23 a second. You addressed the tritium in the 

24 water wells in 7.4.1.3 -- 

25 DR. NETON: Okay, thank you. 
121

1 MR. SCHOFIELD: -- of the evaluation. 

2 DR. NETON: What was that again, Phil? I'm 

3 sorry, I -- 

4 MR. SCHOFIELD: 7.4.1.3. 

5 DR. NETON: Thank you. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Page 50 to 64. 

7 DR. NETON: Yeah, I don't have -- thank you, 

8 Phil. I don't have anything to add to what 

9 Lara said about the burn pits other than we did 

10 commit to adding some additional information on 

11 the burn pit, so I think we're okay just 

12 leaving it where it is right now -- 

13 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

14 DR. NETON: -- and give us a chance to -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Can I -- this is Mark Griffon. 

16 Can I ask one question about the burn pit? 

17 Just to follow up on Wanda's statement, not 

18 likely that there was radiological 

19 contamination in these things. I've cleaned up 

20 some of these things and it might not have been 

21 -- you know, the -- the objective, but it 

22 certainly did happen. I wonder if there's any 

23 of these -- you talk about later surveys that 

24 were conducted in these areas, is any of that 

25 information available, and what -- and did they 
122

1 find, you know, contamination and what 

2 radionuclides? I mean maybe that can be sort 

3 of what you add if you're going to revise it 

4 anyway. 

5 MS. HUGHES: Yes, they actually did find some -

6 - I think they found cesium and strontium -- 

7 strontium-90, if I'm not mistaken. And yes, 

8 the survey data is available, as are the 

9 decontamination reports, so there could be some 

10 additional detail that could be added. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: And the only -- the only other 

12 follow-up as far as dose reconstruction, I 

13 think just to -- to -- I -- I understand you -- 

14 you would say probably if someone worked in the 

15 burn pit area, if they were on the appropriate 

16 bioassay monitoring program, then there's no -- 

17 no special treatment. Right? Is that kind of 

18 what you're saying? As long as you have 

19 bioassay data, if they're on the routine 

20 program and the right radionuclides are being 

21 measured, then there's no need to do any 

22 special assessment of the burn pit. 

23 DR. NETON: I think that's a fair statement, 

24 yeah. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so -- okay. That's fine. 
123

1 MS. MUNN: And those -- the isotopes mentioned, 

2 which obviously didn't come out of the sodium, 

3 would clearly show up in bioassay. Right? 

4 DR. NETON: Well, cesium would. Stronti-- 

5 depending -- if they measured for it, yes, 

6 these are detectable with standard bioassay 

7 techniques. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: That's the real question. If 

9 someone mentions the burn pit in their CATI 

10 interview and these sort of radionuclides are 

11 not in their bioassay information, then you 

12 might have a -- a little bit of an issue, but -

13 - 

14 DR. NETON: Right. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 MS. KLEA: Can I add a comment? This is 

17 Bonnie. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bonnie, go ahead. 

19 MS. KLEA: I think the sodium burn pit's a 

20 bigger issue than -- than you're looking at 

21 because we were in an area of the Santa Ana 

22 winds that could blow from 50 to 100 miles per 

23 hour, and we also have evidence of a deceased 

24 worker who was ordered to dump and pump out the 

25 sodium burn pits over the hill, and of course 
124

1 he's deceased now from cancer, but he gave his 

2 testimony before he died. I think the sodium 

3 burn pit is a huge issue and the firemen who 

4 may or may not have burned things in that pit 

5 were not covered under this program because 

6 they were considered as employees of Rocketdyne 

7 and they wore no protective clothes. So I know 

8 a lot of the families of the firemen and they 

9 all died of cancer and they were not covered 

10 under this program. Thank you. 

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bonnie. 

12 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on that issue? 

13 Otherwise we'll look at NIOSH's response on 

14 that. 

15 4.5-1

16 I think we now move into the internal side and 

17 actually I think we start off with -- looks 

18 like more of a -- much more general comment 

19 that internal monitoring was not complete or 

20 well-documented. Hans, I don't know if you're 

21 able to or want to elaborate any further on -- 

22 on this comment. I don't know -- this may I 

23 think partly come from you or -- 

24 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, this -- this does come from 

25 me, Greg, and -- and I guess to -- to really 
125

1 get a flavor for it, I think you would almost 

2 have to go from the matrix to the original 

3 evaluation report that we submitted that 

4 contains a whole series -- in fact I'm looking 

5 at it now and it's kind of difficult to 

6 summarize all of the comments, but they were -- 

7 a large number of comments that were taken 

8 directly out of the TBD. And -- and I started 

9 out by quoting a statement that goes as 

10 follows: Early 1960s AI documents describe all 

11 of the elements of a comprehensive radiation 

12 safety program, including laboratory with 

13 bioassay capability. And that would suggest to 

14 the casual reader that all was well and there 

15 was a comprehensive program that would monitor 

16 workers for internal exposures by whatever 

17 bioassay tests were appropriate. 

18 But then you go through the TBD and again I 

19 have taken statements that I describe both to 

20 the -- in the document that I submitted to you, 

21 Greg, and those documents were pretty much 

22 incorporated into your write-up, and you have 

23 to really go through each of those comments to 

24 understand what some of the limitations were 

25 with regard to the types of bioassays and the 
126

1 time period during which those bioassays were 

2 used to monitor workers. And there were 

3 clearly some serious potential problems with 

4 understanding exactly what types of assays were 

5 used, what were these assays capable of under-- 

6 of identifying in terms of the radionuclides, 

7 in terms of -- of the MDA values that could be 

8 assigned when the responses were less than 

9 reportable. And one of the major problems you 

10 have to look at was the use of eight vendors 

11 that were used, and there's very little 

12 documentation that supports the type of methods 

13 used in the bioassay and the sensitivity of 

14 those assays, et cetera, et cetera. So it's 

15 hard to -- to really summarize all of the -- 

16 the statements that I included, but clearly -- 

17 especially for the early years when we talk 

18 about fission products from reactor operation, 

19 which are most capable of being monitored by 

20 whole body counting, that did not exist. In 

21 fact, whole body counts weren't really in vogue 

22 for -- for most years of the facility 

23 operation. So rather than trying to go through 

24 it, if -- for those people who have the -- the 

25 original write-up, you can sort of go through 
127

1 them and convince yourself that bioassays were 

2 less than complete and -- and perhaps had 

3 severe limitations based on the type of 

4 bioassay that were used during various time 

5 periods and -- and the lack of documentation 

6 that would allow us to go back and sort of say 

7 what -- what were the laboratories using at the 

8 time for assessing internal exposures based on 

9 urinalysis as their principal source for worker 

10 monitoring. 

11 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, those -- for those of you 

12 who don't have a -- the full site profile 

13 review, Hans actually had a -- there's two 

14 pages of excerpts that he has out of the TBD 

15 there kind of supporting his case, and probably 

16 much of this is also fleshed out in some of 

17 these later comments which provide more 

18 specifics. But maybe it's worthwhile just 

19 having NIOSH's response to -- to the comment. 

20 MS. HUGHES: Okay. Yeah, I cannot address each 

21 -- each item that -- that was outlined here. A 

22 lot -- a lot of these statements are sort of 

23 picked out of the TBD and they need to be 

24 viewed in context. For this site, from all the 

25 information we have, not just the claimants' 
128

1 bioassay, but we also have our site research 

2 database where we have numerous memos and 

3 communication between the site and bioassay 

4 vendors, we actually have a fairly good picture 

5 of what went on. And maybe some of these 

6 things need to be clarified in the TBD, but we 

7 do in fact know when bioassay was started, what 

8 -- what method was used with radiometric 

9 uranium determination. We have guidance what -

10 - which workers were put on bioassay. 

11 Obviously the program was -- it -- it ramped up 

12 once it was started. It -- it was initially 

13 done in-house, and then they determined that 

14 they needed more bioassay capability and they 

15 solicited for vendor input. That's where this 

16 eight vendors comes from. Actually not all of 

17 these appear to have done bioassay, but they 

18 provided input offering their services to do 

19 bioassay to decide, so -- and in -- in these 

20 vendor communications, the vendors typically 

21 state what -- what procedures they are using 

22 for the analyte* to be determined and also what 

23 their detection level is. So there's actually 

24 quite -- quite a number of documents available 

25 that paint a pretty good picture that the 
129

1 internal data -- in the early years it is more 

2 scarce than in the later years, once the -- the 

3 processes with the vendor -- like where samples 

4 went to the vendors were in place, so... 

5 DR. BEHLING: Let me -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: And it's also the reason why 

7 we've -- we've recommended a class in the early 

8 years. 

9 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, pre-- pre-1958 there is no 

10 bioassay data. Now in -- in 1958 the bioassay 

11 starts with uranium and mixed fission product 

12 determinations. Later on they bring in vendors 

13 who do -- who do the analyses instead of them 

14 being done on site. 

15 DR. MAURO: In a -- in a classic SEC peti-- 

16 wherein -- I'm going to move a little bit 

17 through its relevance to SEC. 

18 MS. HUGHES: Okay. 

19 DR. MAURO: What I'm hearing is that, you know, 

20 your research has demonstrated that starting in 

21 '59 there's extensive bioassay data covering a 

22 broad range of radionuclides that might be of 

23 importance. 

24 MS. HUGHES: It is extens-- well, the -- the 

25 number of monitored workers increased from -- 
130

1 DR. MAURO: Increased and -- and started to 

2 build. 

3 MS. HUGHES: Yes, and start to build. Now we 

4 need to correlate this with the exposure 

5 potential of workers because as I understand 

6 the operations on the site, the number of 

7 employees increased as well. I think it peaked 

8 around the early '60s -- '62, '63 -- so you 

9 have to look at that as well. In 1959 the 

10 procedures were in place that samp-- samples 

11 were sent to vendors. 

12 DR. MAURO: In a -- in a classic SEC review, as 

13 we have done in the past, it's at this point 

14 where we start to move on beyond what we 

15 normally do in a site profile review. And as I 

16 mentioned earlier when we first started this 

17 discussion, it's an important point of 

18 departure and a judgment that needs to be made 

19 by the workgroup. When we have a circumstance 

20 where our initial review of the documentation 

21 seems that they're dead or sparse, or perhaps 

22 not representative of all the workers or the 

23 conditions or isotopes, et cetera, but 

24 nevertheless NIOSH feels that no, we have a 

25 pretty robust database and it builds nicely 
131

1 over time, at this point -- and this is always 

2 the choice of each workgroup; some workgroups 

3 want more of this than others -- we would 

4 normally go in and sample, by year, by worker 

5 category or facility type, see what comes out 

6 of the bioassay data that are there and the 

7 degree to which it meets some threshold, which 

8 is a judgment call of course, as to whether or 

9 not there's sufficient data to do -- either do 

10 the dose reconstruction for the worker 

11 themselves or to perhaps pool the data in a way 

12 that will allow you to construct a coworker 

13 model. We're -- I'm sorry, my phone should not 

14 be on. So in any event, I guess what I'm 

15 saying is there's really not much more we can 

16 say on that. Sorry. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I guess I would ask, before I -- 

18 I don't disagree with John's comment, but I 

19 would ask -- first, this is Mark Griffon -- 

20 whether this -- is this data available in sort 

21 of spreadsheet format, or -- or is it not 

22 available in that fashion right now? I guess 

23 since you're using individual records, it may 

24 not be in any kind of a -- a spreadsheet. I'm 

25 just curious of monitoring over time, which 
132

1 radionuclides, how much, that sort of 

2 information. And if it was in a spreadsheet 

3 it'd be easy to kind of glance at it, at least 

4 initially, but it may be that you just -- you -

5 - you're relying on individual records so you 

6 don't -- you di-- you didn't compile anything 

7 at this point. I don't know. 

8 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, we only have -- well, we 

9 mostly have stuff that's a compilation that is 

10 based on the claims we have received, so it's 

11 not -- we cannot make a claim that it's 

12 complete. 

13 DR. NETON: But don't we have the data that 

14 were used for the epi study? 

15 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 

16 DR. NETON: The Boice? 

17 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 

18 DR. NETON: See, there was a complete epi 

19 study, Mark, as you probably know -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

21 DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) did a study and 

22 there's a large amount of -- of -- particularly 

23 uranium bioassay data available for this -- 

24 this population, and I thought we had an 

25 electronic copy of that database. 
133

1 MS. HUGHES: It's in CEDR. 

2 DR. NETON: It's in CEDR, okay. So it's a CEDR 

3 de-identified, but at least that could be used 

4 to look at the relative magnitude of the 

5 numbers over time. It would be de-identified, 

6 of course. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: That might be useful if that can 

8 be put in the folder on the O drive. 

9 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Or -- or a location where it's 

11 at, that would be -- that would be useful to 

12 look at. 

13 MS. BEACH: Is there also a list of the labs 

14 that were used somewhere that we can look at? 

15 'Cause you -- you mentioned eight vendors. 

16 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, that's in the TBD. However, 

17 I've looked at all the claimants' files and I -

18 - there are certain labs that are -- seem to 

19 have provided the bulk, and some of them seem 

20 to only have provided some results from spiked 

21 samples that appear to be part of the 

22 solicitation process 'cause the site was, you 

23 know, picking and choosing the vendor they 

24 wanted to work with. 

25 DR. NETON: But the list is in the site profile 
134

1 -- 

2 MS. HUGHES: There's this list of eight. 

3 However, I think I have a -- I could provide 

4 that. 

5 MR. MORRIS: There is on the O drive a data 

6 capture temporary files, the Santa Susana Field 

7 Lab bioassay data. 

8 DR. MAURO: In terms of -- 

9 MR. MORRIS: It's in -- it's in a directory 

10 dated 3/13/2008, if that helps. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think I can find that. 

12 Thanks. 

13 MR. MORRIS: You're welcome. 

14 DR. MAURO: One of -- from perspective of one 

15 of our missions when we did our site profile 

16 review was to sort of look out as to where the 

17 areas might be that might require some 

18 investigation as to the -- whether or not there 

19 are time periods beyond 1958 that might be of 

20 concern. I guess I -- my -- in my reviewing 

21 the document, the -- or our work, it seems to 

22 me that this is an important -- namely the -- 

23 the point being that certainly NIOSH felt that 

24 '55 to '58 was weak in terms of internal and 

25 then something transitioned after that which 
135

1 allowed you to feel more confident that you 

2 could do internal dose reconstruction. It is 

3 not self-evident from our review of the site 

4 profile that that in fact is the case. So I 

5 guess I'd like to point this out as if there is 

6 one particular area that I think is especially 

7 important, it's this one. 

8 DR. NETON: I don't know what more we can do, 

9 because some of these findings are fairly -- 

10 fairly broad and we're not responding to 

11 specific issues here, so we -- we provided a 

12 generic response to generic findings, so I 

13 don't know what more we can do here other than 

14 -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would just like to point 

16 out that in going over the next series, you're 

17 going to see the internal dosimetry section -- 

18 DR. NETON: It's going -- going to get more -- 

19 DR. MAURO: -- they're -- they're -- 

20 DR. NETON: -- specific. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- they're all a recurring theme of 

22 what about this isotope, what about that 

23 isotope, what about this activity, where's the 

24 coworker model -- other words it's all -- goes 

25 to a fundamental issue in that time period, 
136

1 post-'58, there -- there does seem to be some 

2 question whether or not there's sufficient and 

3 adequate data to do dose reconstructions or do 

4 build a coworker model. It would have been 

5 idea if there was a need for a coworker model, 

6 and I suspect there is, that such a coworker 

7 model would have been either provided as an 

8 OTIB supplement to this document or be part of 

9 the site profile itself. But right now it's my 

10 understanding there is no coworker model, and 

11 that's essential. 

12 DR. BEHLING: John, can I interrupt you for -- 

13 DR. MAURO: Sure, please. 

14 DR. BEHLING: -- a second in -- in trying to 

15 answer your question again here, just as an 

16 example. I'm not trying to be comprehensive 

17 here, but in one of my comments I quoted 

18 something from page 20 of the TBD and it states 

19 in '67 the first chest counts, lung counts for 

20 uranium using medical assistance were performed 

21 at UCLA. The 186 keV gamma ray for the decay 

22 of U-235 was used to quantify the amount of EU 

23 in the lung and the calibration of this system 

24 was crude. Those are comments taken directly 

25 out of the TBD. Now again here is an issue. 
137

1 How do we deal with chest counts which may have 

2 been a very, very critical internal exposure 

3 for people, especially if those -- if the form 

4 of uranium was highly insoluble and we're using 

5 a system that was never intended to be used for 

6 the chest count and was only focusing on the 

7 186 keV photon which, in the presence of 

8 uranium that could have been enriched from 

9 anywhere from two percent to 93 percent, leaves 

10 a big open question mark as to how to interpret 

11 that data. 

12 MS. HUGHES: I do believe the UCLA chest count 

13 only -- that was like the start-up of the whole 

14 body count process and it later on went to 

15 Helgeson, who did the more routine whole body 

16 count, I think after maybe 1966/'67 starting. 

17 But that's potentially one year you're talking 

18 about this -- this issue. 

19 DR. BEHLING: Well, not quite. I mean we're 

20 talking about the beginning of chest counting 

21 in '67 and so if you're saying okay, skip that 

22 year, in '68 Helgeson took over, but what about 

23 '58 through '68? That's a ten-year time frame. 

24 If in fact exposures to uranium to various 

25 degrees of enrichment may have occurred during 
138

1 that ten-year period, we don't have any data. 

2 MS. HUGHES: Well, there was bioassay for -- 

3 urine sampling for radiometric uranium as well 

4 as fluorometric uranium. In many of the 

5 claimant files these were actually done 

6 concurrently from the same worker at the same 

7 day, so... 

8 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, that -- that's another 

9 issue. In fact it's one of the other findings 

10 that follows later -- 

11 MS. HUGHES: Right. 

12 DR. BEHLING: -- is the potential need to 

13 combine two -- two datapoints, fluorometric and 

14 radiometric, in order to really assess the 

15 issue because of the high variability of the 

16 degree of uranium enrichment. 

17 MR. MORRIS: If you look in Section 5.5 of the 

18 site profile, that topic is uncertainty, and 

19 that issue is addressed. It says due to the 

20 calibration and other problems discussed above, 

21 uncertainty in the early UCLA lung count 

22 results for U-235 is estimated at plus or minus 

23 200 percent at one sigma. I don't -- so I 

24 don't think that it's without -- that -- that 

25 it's -- it's not been addressed. I mean it -- 
139

1 it may not be an answer that is useful for 

2 really a fine-tuning adjustment on a dose, but 

3 in fact there is a number and a method to 

4 correct it, so... 

5 MR. POTTER: This is Gene Potter. I just might 

6 mention that that UCLA count was a ad hoc thing 

7 for the powder room incident, which was not 

8 something that occurred at Area Four. It was 

9 at one of the other facilities. 

10 MR. BERONJA: Do we leave this as kind of a 

11 broad finding right now and I assume that we're 

12 going to pick up a lot of this stuff in the 

13 later -- and this might be more of a general 

14 kind of broader SEC issue that we leave for 

15 right now and -- 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree this is an SEC issue 

17 at this point -- 

18 DR. MAURO: I mean I think it affects multiple 

19 issues, too. 

20 DR. NETON: Again, this is double-dipping. I 

21 mean this is a general issue and it's going to 

22 have some specific ones underneath 

23 (unintelligible). I don't know what more we 

24 can do at this point. 

25 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 
140

1 DR. NETON: We'll get down in the weeds here as 

2 we drill down through these findings, I 

3 suspect, about where the holes are -- where the 

4 -- where holes are as perceived by SC&A. 

5 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on that particular 

6 one? 

7 4.5-2

8 Hans, I think -- is this next one also -- I 

9 believe this next one's also yours. Did you 

10 want to elaborate on this -- on 4.5-2? 

11 DR. BEHLING: Yes, there was a discussion about 

12 the solubility class of a uranium compound that 

13 is an alloy between uranium and aluminum, and 

14 in fact a separate study of that particular 

15 compound of uranium showed a very, very 

16 insoluble form. And I guess the -- the 

17 concern, based on everything else that we've 

18 talked about where -- where you have a 

19 potential for a class -- solubility class that 

20 goes beyond the -- the -- the slow or -- or 

21 class Y or the highly insoluble, this is a case 

22 where I believe we need to look at this and 

23 sort of say does this -- is this comparable to 

24 the super S plutonium issue that was discussed 

25 at other facilities. And based on what -- the 
141

1 other information that was provided, it 

2 certainly looks to be that -- that that's a 

3 potential. 

4 DR. NETON: Hans, I'm having trouble following 

5 you here 'cause it's not tracking with the 

6 finding that I'm looking at. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Were you looking at issue 4.5-2, 

8 Hans? 

9 DR. BEHLING: Let me see, and I guess I've got 

10 so many -- 

11 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I apologize that -- this is 

12 tough to do over the phone. 

13 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, okay -- 

14 DR. NETON: I just think this -- 

15 DR. BEHLING: Okay, you're right, you're right. 

16 I'm looking at something very differently. 

17 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

18 DR. MAURO: We'll get to that one, though. 

19 That's an important one, the one you're 

20 discussing. 

21 DR. BEHLING: No, that doesn't seem to be mine, 

22 Greg. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Okay, this may -- this may have 

24 very well been one of Dunstana's comments. So 

25 maybe it's worthwhile, at least in this case -- 
142

1 I don't know if NIOSH just wants to provide a 

2 general response, but the general comment, for 

3 those on the phone, is this -- this is the 

4 insufficient correlation between the bioassay 

5 data and the potential exposures to specific 

6 radionuclides. 

7 MS. HUGHES: Okay, this elaborates on some -- 

8 some of the stuff we already discussed, that 

9 internal monitoring was initiated in 1955 to 

10 include workers who were handling 

11 unencapsulated radioactive material, such as 

12 workers in the fuel handling facility. 

13 Additional discussion regarding the exposure 

14 potential and correlation to the available 

15 monitoring procedures will be incorporated into 

16 the TBD. And in addition, additional activity 

17 fraction information can be -- can be used by 

18 using OTIB-54, which addresses reactor 

19 facilities. This document was not available at 

20 the time the TBD was published. 

21 To address the second part of the finding, 

22 there was an issue regarding detection limits 

23 for 1975 to 1988 which are unavailable. These 

24 are actually listed in Table 5.5 of the 

25 document. Based on assumptions stated in 
143

1 Section 5.3.1.4, if a value for a particular 

2 nuclide is not included, it would be logical 

3 for the dose reconstructor to assume that the 

4 detection limits were equal to those in the 

5 earlier period from 1967 to 1974, which are 

6 listed in Table 5.4, since generally detection 

7 capabilities stayed the same or improved with 

8 time. 

9 Regarding the solubility issue that was raised 

10 in this finding, solubility is undetermined at 

11 many sites and dose reconstructors typically 

12 choose the solubility class that would be 

13 favorable to claimant. 

14 MR. BERONJA: Okay. I guess in the -- in this 

15 particular one, you know, I think we'll just 

16 take a -- take a look at this response and -- 

17 and in thi-- this also -- this issue kind of is 

18 a little bit of a subset of the first one and 

19 very well, depending on kind of the other 

20 information that's provided, could be an SEC 

21 issue, too. So even though it's not noted as 

22 such here, I think we should probably put here 

23 and John -- 

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I agree. I think what we 

25 have here is that in -- in looking at the -- 
144

1 the bioassay program and -- as it's 

2 characterized, there seem to be a lot of 

3 radionuclides that might have been troublesome 

4 for some workers that the bioassay program may 

5 not have captured. I think that's the -- the 

6 essence of it. And your response is that well, 

7 we have the wherewithal to do that. For 

8 example, if you have gross beta gamma, you 

9 could go with OTIB-54 and I -- I'm familiar 

10 with OTIB-54 of course. That has its own 

11 constraints. It applies to specific classes of 

12 reactors. The degree to which its 

13 applicability to Santa Susana I guess we'd have 

14 to look at, whether or not tho-- those 

15 relationships -- the mix of radionuclides. And 

16 so what I'm getting at is that I -- I think -- 

17 and regarding 4.5-2 is that this might have 

18 been Dunstana's comment. Unfortunately -- 

19 Dunstana extends her apologies to everyone; she 

20 was planning on being here but something 

21 happened and she couldn't join us in this 

22 conference call, but I -- but I -- but I 

23 believe the point being that her review showed 

24 that the bioassay program, as characterized, 

25 could very well have missed certain 
145

1 radionuclides. And this goes on to the next 

2 comment where she makes reference to Uranium3 233, 234, so this -- the comment that we're 

4 looking at here on 4.5-2 has many similarities 

5 similar to 4.5-3. And I think that we -- I 

6 guess the obligation on our part is now to look 

7 at your response, and especially OTIB-54 as a -

8 - as a solution when you have gross beta gamma 

9 measurements for -- and perhaps all the people 

10 were monitored. You know, the people who 

11 needed to be monitored had gross beta gamma, 

12 and perhaps OTIB-54 is the solution, but we'd 

13 have to look at that. 

14 MS. MUNN: John, have we agreed that 4.5-2 is 

15 to be considered an SEC issue? 

16 DR. MAURO: I think the answer is yes, until 

17 SC&A has a chance to -- to -- you know, to 

18 check out the issues that have been raised here 

19 as to the -- you know, the -- the response, 

20 does in fact the response satisfy the concern. 

21 DR. NETON: We'd agree with that. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I think a lot of these 

24 things are -- are related. Is there anything 

25 else on 4.5-2? 
146

1 4.5-3; 4.5-4

2 Otherwise John -- John's kind of already 

3 introduced to some extent 4.5-3, 4.5-4. We've 

4 already discussed a little bit of both of 

5 these, and maybe it's -- unless somebody has 

6 anything else on 4.5-3, which I think is a 

7 little bit of an outgrowth of 2, is maybe we 

8 talk about this coworker model and look at 

9 NIOSH's response of the -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Right. 

11 MR. BERONJA: -- related to no worker -- no 

12 coworker model being developed. 

13 MS. HUGHES: That's fine. Okay, am I -- am I 

14 on? 

15 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

16 MS. HUGHES: Okay. The internal coworker study 

17 has not been completed but it's currently under 

18 evaluation. Since this data is available based 

19 on the epidemiological study that has been 

20 done, data are available electronically and 

21 it's currently being assessed. 

22 MR. BERONJA: This is that CEDR -- 

23 DR. NETON: Yes. 

24 MR. BERONJA: -- database? 

25 DR. NETON: May even do better than the CEDR 
147

1 data, I don't know. We're working on 

2 (unintelligible). 

3 MR. MORRIS: The problem, as I understand it, 

4 is that some of the information has been 

5 depersonalized as it got passed from Boeing to 

6 NIOSH, and some of that personalization of the 

7 data is necessary to make a good coworker 

8 study. So we're trying to evaluate what we've 

9 got access to, what we might have access to, 

10 and just exactly what we can do with it at this 

11 point. 

12 DR. MAURO: What we usually like to do, in a 

13 general sense in terms of validating and 

14 verifying that you -- the data are -- have 

15 sufficient accuracy is once we get a sense of 

16 the different types of activities that took 

17 place and the isotopes of concern and the job 

18 categories, we -- we -- what we've been doing -

19 - in fact, we almost have a procedure now that 

20 we've been following on the other sites -- is 

21 we -- we create a what I would call a str-- a 

22 strata. In fact, maybe this is important to 

23 point out to this workgroup. What we say is 

24 well, for this site, it looks like that if we -

25 - if you -- you know, if you have a pau-- don't 
148

1 have a complete dataset, or if you're trying to 

2 judge whether you have a complete dataset or 

3 whether you have enough data to build a 

4 coworker model, step one is to say okay, what 

5 are the strata of concern, and the strata 

6 meaning the years -- we'd like -- sometimes 

7 it's a group of years or it's individual years 

8 where I say well, from this time period to this 

9 time period, this is basically what's been 

10 going on at the site, and it may turn -- be 

11 different from year to year. And -- and these 

12 were the isotopes that represented the 

13 potentially important sources of exposure, and 

14 these are the different job categories. So 

15 it's almost like really -- time, activities and 

16 job categories are -- are the three strata. 

17 And then we say to ourselves well, for us -- 

18 for SC&A to convince itself that yeah, it looks 

19 like you've got a handle on this so that you 

20 can do the dose reconstruction, what we've been 

21 doing is first presenting to the workgroup 

22 these are the strata that we think are 

23 important. And then once it's agreed that 

24 yeah, those are the strata, then a sampling 

25 program where we go in and say well, let's 
149

1 sample 20 cases from each strata, pull those 

2 cases and see what the data look like. And if 

3 -- and usually at that point the data speaks to 

4 everyone. That is, okay -- in fact, we're 

5 about to do that with Nevada Test Site and we 

6 will be doing that on Fernald. Basically we 

7 put on the table -- okay, here's a dataset by 

8 strata that -- that exists, and then it gets to 

9 the point where around the table we discuss 

10 whether or not it's -- it's of enough substance 

11 that either -- that you could say well, I think 

12 we could somehow con-- it's possible to 

13 construct a coworker model with that dataset, 

14 or -- or -- or there may be a problem. In the 

15 past, for example, where we did run into 

16 problems was with, for example, thorium. I 

17 believe that was Mallinckrodt. We got to the 

18 point where hmm, we've got lots of data but 

19 we're not quite sure how we're going to 

20 reconstruct the exposures to workers to thorium 

21 -- I think I'm representing that fairly -- so 

22 sometimes we find holes in the -- in the 

23 datasets that will create difficulties in 

24 reconstructing doses to certain classes of 

25 workers or certain time periods. So I guess 
150

1 what I'm getting at is we're really at the -- 

2 what I see right now is we're beginning -- 

3 we're at the beginning of that process with 

4 regard to internal exposure. That is, the 

5 question that I think you folks are answering 

6 for yourself, and maybe have answered to your 

7 satisfaction -- certainly SC&A has not looked 

8 at -- is whether or not all these different 

9 radionuclides and the bioassay program does -- 

10 is -- and -- and the -- and the tools such as 

11 OTIB-54 collectively give you the resources, 

12 information capability, to re-- to reconstruct 

13 the doses to all categories of workers, or we 

14 may find there are certain time periods, 

15 certain activities, certain radionuclides that 

16 are going to be especially troublesome. And 

17 little by little we whittle it down and we get 

18 to the point where we're talking about what I 

19 would call a narrower group that may be the 

20 problematic area. I -- I say all this only 

21 because we've been through this many times 

22 before and we're actually getting very good at 

23 it in terms of -- as -- as a -- as a team where 

24 there's a process we go through to narrow down 

25 where the real issues lie. And right now I 
151

1 think we're at the beginning of that process 

2 with regard to internal emitters post-1958. 

3 MR. GIBSON: Okay. Let's -- we've moved into 

4 the lunch hour a little bit so this would 

5 probably be a good time to go ahead and break 

6 for lunch and we'll try to reconvene in an 

7 hour. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, so then we're reconvening at 

9 quarter to -- 

10 MR. GIBSON: One. 

11 MR. KATZ: -- one, yes -- quarter to 2:00. 

12 Quarter to 2:00. Okay, so I'm going to 

13 disconnect the phone and we'll set this back up 

14 again close to quarter to 2:00. 

15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:43 p.m. 

16 to 1:44 p.m.) 

17 MR. KATZ: This is the workgroup on Santa 

18 Susana resuming its meeting. I'd just like to 

19 check the Board members. Wanda, are you back 

20 on? 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 

22 MR. KATZ: And Mark, how about you? 

23 (No responses) 

24 Mark Griffon? 

25 (No responses) 
152

1 Okay, Mark maybe not right now. And I wonder 

2 also, Bonnie, are you back with us? 

3 MS. KLEA: Yes, who's this? 

4 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, this is Ted Katz. This 

5 is the Designated Federal Official with the 

6 workgroup. 

7 MS. KLEA: Okay, Ted. I have a favor. I 

8 mentioned Dan Hirsch earlier. He said he would 

9 be on the line and he'd like to make a few 

10 comments in regards to what we're -- what he 

11 heard this morning, if you could let him do 

12 that. 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, that -- he's welcome to. Dan, 

14 are you on -- 

15 MR. HIRSCH: I'm here. 

16 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

17 MS. KLEA: You know, Dan's been a 30-- been 

18 appointed to oversee the -- the workgroup on 

19 the cleanup. He's been involved for 30 years 

20 and he knows more than anyone. 

21 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you, Bonnie -- 

22 MS. KLEA: Dan, wait until everyone gets 

23 checked in. 

24 MR. HIRSCH: Okay, very good. 

25 MS. KLEA: Okay. 
153

1 MR. KATZ: And Dan, it's okay, we're -- we're 

2 ready. You're -- you're welcome to -- Dan 

3 Hirsch, and can you spell your last name, 

4 please? 

5 MR. HIRSCH: H-i-r-s-c-h. 

6 MR. KATZ: H-i-r-s-c-h. Okay, thank you. 

7 MR. HIRSCH: Well, let me just explain for a 

8 moment who I am and then make a couple of brief 

9 comments. I co-chair the Santa Susana Field 

10 Lab Advisory Panel, and have since the early 

11 1990s. This is a panel that was established 

12 via the State legislature and through the State 

13 Department of Health Services, initially to 

14 oversee studies -- epidemiological studies of 

15 the workers at the Field Lab. We operated 

16 under funding by the Department of Energy 

17 initially and, when the worker study was 

18 completed, then funding by the State 

19 legislature to look at off-site effects as 

20 well. My co-chair during much of this period 

21 was David Michaels, who then left to become 

22 Assistant Secretary of Energy and is probably, 

23 more than anyone else, responsible for the 

24 establishment of this worker compensation 

25 program. 
154

1 I also serve on the interagency workgroup that 

2 oversees the cleanup. I teach nuclear policy 

3 at the University of California Santa Cruz. 

4 When I was teaching at UCLA in the late '70s it 

5 was my students who uncovered the documents 

6 regarding the partial meltdown of the sodium 

7 reactor experiment, the SRE, at the site and 

8 made those public, so I've been involved for 

9 about 30 years. 

10 I also worked with an organization called the 

11 Committee to Bridge the Gap, which has been 

12 involved in trying to get the epidemiological 

13 studies done and then working on the cleanup. 

14 So I know that I only heard a portion of your 

15 deliberations, and so I may have gotten a 

16 inadequate snapshot, but I was troubled by what 

17 I heard and I wanted to just be candid about 

18 that, in the hopes that that -- it may be 

19 useful. I was struck by what seemed to me to 

20 be a lack of understanding of the site, and 

21 also occasional indications of what may be 

22 perceived by the workers as bias. 

23 I was surprised, for example, by the discussion 

24 about the sodium burn pit. Statements were 

25 made that only sodium was burned there, one 
155

1 wouldn't expect fission products, one wouldn't 

2 expect anything from the fuel. But anyone 

3 who's followed the site knows that for decades 

4 the DOE contractor -- originally Atomics 

5 International, then Rocketdyne Division, which 

6 was then with Rockwell and then now Boeing -- 

7 violated the regulations and the law for 

8 decades and illegally burned radioactive and 

9 chemical waste in that burn pit. Sodium10 contaminated reactor components were reacted in 

11 those pits and these were reactor components 

12 that had radioactivity and chemical 

13 contamination, and the contamination was so 

14 severe that the -- interim measures had to be 

15 undertaken repeatedly to try to clean up some 

16 of the contamination. The soil had to be 

17 removed, a so-called cap put on temporarily to 

18 -- because there continues to be contamination 

19 and the fractures in the bedrock that underlay 

20 that soil. 

21 In the early to mid-1990s study done under EPA 

22 jurisdiction by McLaren Hart* found that the 

23 contamination not only existed at the burn pit, 

24 but had migrated off-site to the neighboring 

25 children's park, Brandeis Camp Institute -- 
156

1 strontium, cesium, plutonium and lots of 

2 chemicals. And the wells beneath the site are 

3 also contaminated. 

4 This was an activity that was not supposed to 

5 occur and it appears that perhaps you -- some 

6 of your members are looking at what would have 

7 occurred if the regulations were complied with, 

8 but that would be a very faulty assumption for 

9 this facility because the rules were frequently 

10 violated. 

11 I hope you all know that in the 1990s the 

12 company was convicted of felony environmental 

13 crimes for illegally disposing of hazardous 

14 materials at the Santa Susana Field Lab after 

15 an FBI raid that took away large volumes of 

16 documents. And the company had initially 

17 denied that they had done this, and then 

18 eventually had to concede that they had and 

19 pled guilty. 

20 So if one is relying -- as it certainly seemed 

21 to me, listening to your earlier discussion -- 

22 that there is a repetition -- uncritical 

23 repetition of claims made by the company that 

24 is responsible for the worker overexposures in 

25 the first place, I think one would be making a 
157

1 very fatal technical mistake. Here we have a 

2 situation where a company has a great vested 

3 interest in denying any past wrongdoing, and 

4 yet there is a voluminous history of that 

5 wrongdoing. And if one simply assumes that 

6 things were done right when the record clearly 

7 shows they weren't, you will not understand the 

8 worker exposures. 

9 Secondly, there was some discussion regarding 

10 the -- the water pathway, the drinking water 

11 pathway. And I'm sure you're aware -- I hope 

12 you're aware -- that in fact the water that was 

13 used on site was contaminated and had to be 

14 discontinued. Now that was chemical 

15 contamination they claim they initially 

16 discovered, but for there to be any claim -- 

17 and they don't know how long people were 

18 drinking that contaminated water before they 

19 finally stopped using it. Now if you go in-- 

20 you know, into the bathrooms at the site they, 

21 you know, remind you that this is contaminated 

22 water and you should not be consuming it. But 

23 that of course wasn't the case during the early 

24 years in terms of any warning or restriction. 

25 The argument was made that yes, but the 
158

1 monitoring wells are showing, quote/unquote, 

2 some contamination but hey, those are the 

3 monitoring wells and not the production wells, 

4 as though somehow that aquifer is nicely and 

5 hermetically sealed, one apart from the other. 

6 But the reality is that this is fractured 

7 bedrock and the migration pathways throughout 

8 are very poorly understood, but we know that 

9 the contamination migrates substantial 

10 distances. Something like a third or a quarter 

11 of the entire Santa Susana Field Lab is 

12 contaminated with TCE, and that contamination 

13 extends off the property. So one assumes that 

14 monitoring wells were only located where there 

15 was a likelihood of an immediate release, which 

16 is not the case, anyway; it's false. But even 

17 if one somehow presumed that, that 

18 misunderstands the nature of the migration of 

19 the contamination throughout the entire 

20 aquifer. 

21 And there also were claims that this was a 

22 different aquifer. Again there's a 

23 misunderstanding here. There's one aquifer at 

24 depth underlying virtually the entire facility, 

25 then in some places there's also a curched*, 
159

1 higher-level aquifer. Each of those statements 

2 just seem to be designed -- I wouldn't say 

3 designed, but seem to have the impact of saying 

4 hey, we don't have a problem here; we can 

5 ignore the water pathway. 

6 As Bonnie pointed out, in addition, the 

7 contaminated water from Area Four -- and I'll 

8 give you an example. I was on the property a 

9 few weeks ago in the basement of one of the 

10 snap reactor buildings. There was water coming 

11 up through the floor of the reactor vault, and 

12 it was contaminated with all the radioactivity 

13 that was in that vault, and I asked what they 

14 had -- did with it. And they simply pumped 

15 that contaminated water into this huge SSFL16 wide industrial process system, pumping the 

17 contaminated water from all the various places 

18 up to the tanks on top of the ridge, and those 

19 were then used to quench the rocket test 

20 (unintelligible) as Bonnie points out, and also 

21 was used to irrigate vegetation throughout the 

22 site. So you have a pathway whereby the 

23 contaminated water ends up becoming airborne in 

24 these massive plumes of steam from the rocket 

25 test stands spread everywhere, so you have all 
160

1 sorts of inhalation and resuspension potential. 

2 Same thing with the irrigation. So I was very 

3 troubled by the implication that one could 

4 ignore the water pathway here. 

5 An additional quick point, and I don't want to 

6 take too much of your time so I'll be -- I'll 

7 conclude in a moment, but the monitoring that 

8 was done of the groundwater was purposely 

9 skewed to try to remove any radioactivity 

10 before monitoring. In 1989 there was a famous 

11 memorandum by Atomics International/Rocketdyne 

12 saying that our water monitoring is showing us 

13 consistently way over MCLs for radioactivity -- 

14 gross alpha, gross beta -- and this is a 

15 problem for us so we have proposed to start 

16 filtering the water samples before measuring 

17 them, and we think this could help drive the 

18 measured values down. And indeed they started 

19 that practice and it resulted in a ten-fold 

20 reduction in the reported values, which they 

21 were very happy about, and have continued that 

22 practice to this day despite the US EPA roundly 

23 criticizing them, saying that they should 

24 measure what is on the filter as well as in the 

25 water that is filtered and -- and sum them. 
161

1 And so the values that one is looking at in 

2 which one claims that you just have tritium, 

3 obviously you can't filter out tritium, it's 

4 HTO, so that is showing up. The other stuff is 

5 getting filtered out. Even so, they're still 

6 having numerous violations of the gross alpha 

7 and gross beta MCLs and the State Health 

8 Department pointed out that Boeing's claim that 

9 that's due to natural radioactivity doesn't 

10 seem to be well-founded because the elevated 

11 gross alpha and beta is showing up in Area Four 

12 and not showing up in Areas One, Two and Three, 

13 and it would be remarkable if the natural 

14 radioactivity just happened to be located in 

15 the nuclear area and not in the other areas. 

16 Last quick comment is I was very troubled by 

17 the reference to the Boice study, and I am 

18 puzzled why this enterprise would -- which has 

19 connections with NIOSH and was supposed to be 

20 reviewing in a neutral fashion the work that's 

21 been done -- would not be referring instead, or 

22 at least in addition to, the actual study that 

23 was done with DOE funding under an advisory 

24 committee established by the Department of 

25 Health Services of the State, co-chaired by 
162

1 someone who became the Assistant Secretary of 

2 Energy for Environmental Safety and Health, 

3 having on it a representative of NIOSH, a study 

4 that was done by a very esteemed group at the 

5 UCLA School of Public Health, the results of 

6 which were published in the peer literature and 

7 which was -- found marked increase in death 

8 rates from certain key cancers associated with 

9 dose, monitonically rising with dose. And the 

10 Boice study of course was funded by and 

11 controlled by Boeing, established after the 

12 UCLA study and, frankly, designed to try to 

13 make those positive findings go away. 

14 So I'm worried for people like Bonnie and the 

15 workers. They have been damaged once by our 

16 government, and it's extraordinarily important 

17 that the government not damage them again by a 

18 process that relies uncritically on claims by 

19 the entities that caused them the harm in the 

20 first place. And I'm puzzled that with all the 

21 work that my panel has done and that a number 

22 of other studies and efforts have been done, 

23 with vast amounts of records and data, have 

24 simply been left out of the loop and it appears 

25 that this review is relying largely on claims 
163

1 by the company that have been, frankly, widely 

2 discredited. 

3 So thank you. I -- I hope that my views are 

4 distorted by having caught you at a bad moment 

5 this morning and that it's not representative 

6 of your full deliberations, but what I did hear 

7 was troubling to me. 

8 MS. KLEA: Thank you, Dan. 

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Dan. 

10 MS. MUNN: Professor, this is Wanda Munn. I'm 

11 a member of the Board. And in defense of the 

12 other people who are on this call and who are 

13 meeting in Cincinnati, I do have to point out 

14 to you that both of the comments and both of 

15 the discussions with which you were concerned 

16 were initiated by comments or statements made 

17 by me. And I'd like to reassure you that these 

18 are very early days with respect to this 

19 workgroup. We are just now going through this 

20 material for the very first time. And the 

21 questions that I posed and the statements that 

22 I made were based solely on the documentation 

23 which has been reviewed at this point by me 

24 personally, not by other members of the group. 

25 So please do not take the position that my 
164

1 statements are representative of any of the 

2 other people who are involved in this activity. 

3 My statements were made based solely on the 

4 material that I personally have reviewed so 

5 far, and that in no way includes either of the 

6 documents that you recently mentioned, nor does 

7 it include all of the items that are available 

8 to us. So in defense of my -- my other 

9 colleagues and members of the Board and NIOSH 

10 and SC&A, I would like to reassure you that 

11 this -- these statements were mine and mine 

12 alone, and are not reflective of anything other 

13 than the documents that I have seen identified 

14 this. We have not even yet visited the site, 

15 which we hope to be able to do before too many 

16 weeks go by. And there are certainly numerous 

17 pieces of information, both from the workers 

18 and that are currently on file that I have not 

19 yet seen. So just wanted you to be aware of 

20 that. 

21 MR. KATZ: Does -- does anyone in here want to 

22 say anything? I could point out a couple of 

23 things -- 

24 DR. NETON: I just -- this is Jim Neton. I 

25 just want to point out one misperception I 
165

1 think that might have been generated during our 

2 discussion of the Boice study. We in no way 

3 intend to use any of the findings, 

4 interpretations or conclusions that came out of 

5 the Boice study. We merely expressed -- intend 

6 to use it because it's a convenient source of 

7 computerized bioassay data that's in existence 

8 at the site, and we would certainly go about 

9 and do our own in-- individual evaluation of 

10 the doses using that data. So we're not 

11 embracing anything about the results of the 

12 Boice study, but just using the bioassay data 

13 that -- that was collected. 

14 MR. HIRSCH: Well, just to make a quick 

15 response there, of course the Morgenstern Ritz 

16 et al study also has a large body of data, and 

17 it would appear to me that one -- if one really 

18 is neutral -- would be trying to get the -- 

19 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

20 MR. HIRSCH: -- data from that credible -- 

21 DR. NETON: This is the same data, we believe. 

22 MR. HIRSCH: No, no, no, no. 

23 DR. NETON: Urine samples that were collected 

24 on the workers, and you -- you have a certain 

25 set of data and that's what it is. You -- 
166

1 MR. HIRSCH: The analysis that was done by the 

2 Morgenstern group raised very serious questions 

3 about the bioassay data. And if you're not 

4 reviewing and understanding what their concerns 

5 were, you're missing I think an important piece 

6 of the -- 

7 DR. NETON: And we don't take the bioassay data 

8 at face value, either. We will review the data 

9 itself against detection limits and what was 

10 done. But it's really just the data we're 

11 looking at and we would draw our own 

12 conclusions from the data. 

13 MR. KATZ: Dan, just -- just to point out a 

14 couple of other things before I let the group 

15 get back to it, just -- I -- we appreciate this 

16 input. I just would want to point out to you 

17 that the two issues, the burn pit and the 

18 water, were decided by the workgroup to be 

19 still live issues, so those -- neither of those 

20 were -- were put aside as non-issues, just to 

21 reassure you that -- that all of this 

22 consideration is still going on at this time. 

23 MR. HIRSCH: I understand. My concern is the 

24 quality of the information that you're using to 

25 make those determinations. I understand you've 
167

1 not made the final -- 

2 MR. KATZ: Right. 

3 MR. HIRSCH: -- (unintelligible) yet, but I was 

4 puzzled -- it does sound like the information 

5 you're getting is from people who have not been 

6 to the site and who have only a very 

7 preliminary understanding of the underlying 

8 documentation. That's troubling for those of 

9 us who have given a good many years of our 

10 lives to understanding the site. 

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you. I'd -- and just the last 

12 point is we certainly encourage all relevant 

13 information to be provided to NIOSH as we go 

14 through this process, and it can be a fairly 

15 extensive process and this is the normal way it 

16 goes. Information, new interpretations, et 

17 cetera, you know, are brought forward to NIOSH 

18 and the Board to consider as they go through 

19 this evaluation work. Thank you. 

20 MS. KLEA: This is Bonnie. Could I bring up a 

21 point? 

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bonnie. 

23 MS. KLEA: Okay. Is Phil Rutherford still on 

24 the line from the Boeing Company? 

25 (No responses) 
168

1 No, maybe not. I would suggest that the 

2 Department of Labor or NIOSH either ask for or 

3 subpoena all the new data that has been 

4 released as a result of the federal lawsuit. 

5 I'm in no position to read everything and 

6 forward it, and I don't have the computer 

7 capability to even bring it into my computer. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, Bonnie. 

9 MS. KLEA: Okay. 

10 4.5-5

11 MR. GIBSON: Okay, we'll get back to the matrix 

12 here since we've got a little bit of limited 

13 time this afternoon, folks catching flights and 

14 stuff. I believe we left off on issue 4.5.5? 

15 MR. BERONJA: That's right. And actually I 

16 think it's going to be true for at least the 

17 next three comments that we have are -- I think 

18 these are all issues that one of our 

19 specialists on the internal dosimetry side has 

20 -- has come up with in our specific comments. 

21 The first one deals with the -- when the 

22 bioassays were taken and kind of the -- a 48-

23 hour delay in kind of the measurements, and the 

24 fact that they were viewed as chronic. And so 

25 that's the first thing. I think NIOSH has 
169

1 provided us with a response of -- I don't know 

2 if you want to go -- go over that. 

3 MS. HUGHES: Sure. The response is that it -- 

4 it -- the chronic intake is the default 

5 assumption for assessing intakes, and this 

6 assumption is applied by the dose reconstructor 

7 even if it's not explicitly required in the 

8 TBD. There is a Technical Information Bulletin 

9 that addresses correction factors to be applied 

10 in the event that there was a 48-hour delay 

11 between the end of intake and the collection of 

12 urine samples, so a correction can be made as 

13 necessary. And this document is in a draft 

14 state at the moment. 

15 MR. BERONJA: And so then I take it of course 

16 that a site profile that would have been done 

17 when this one was done wouldn't use these 

18 correction factors that are now being developed 

19 or documented? Is -- 

20 MR. MORRIS: You meant a dose reconstruction. 

21 MR. BERONJA: Pardon? I'm sorry? 

22 MR. MORRIS: Did you mean to say dose 

23 reconstruction that was done? 

24 MR. BERONJA: Oh, no, no, I mean the -- the -- 

25 when the site profile -- when this site profile 
170

1 was prepared, I'm assuming that this OTIB that 

2 you're talking about right now and the 

3 associated correction factors, those correction 

4 factors would not have been applied actually to 

5 -- or -- or at least noted in the site profile. 

6 Is that right? I'm assuming -- I'm assuming 

7 this was done post-site profile. 

8 MS. HUGHES: I'm not exactly sure what the 

9 status on this document is. Can -- 

10 MR. MORRIS: It's in draft right now. 

11 MS. HUGHES: It's in draft. 

12 DR. MAURO: This is an issue that has come up 

13 before and I'm glad to see that, you know, 

14 'cause I know our folks, Joy-- Joyce and 

15 Dunstana both, looked very closely at this -- 

16 you know, collecting the urine samples on 

17 Monday and had a two-day -- we've done a number 

18 of example calculations. Sounds like you have 

19 an OTIB coming out that will adjust for that 

20 and so it's -- the way we see it is that this -

21 - this is not -- certainly not an SEC issue -- 

22 MR. BERONJA: No, I -- 

23 DR. MAURO: -- it's just a matter of the 

24 correction factors. And I guess the day'll 

25 come when an OTIB comes out and whether or not 
171

1 the -- the working group or procedure working 

2 group would like us to look at it. 

3 DR. NETON: I guess I haven't quite -- do we 

4 know that these were Monday samples, or is this 

5 just sort of -- 

6 MR. MORRIS: It's a general practice. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

8 DR. NETON: It's a general practice at the site 

9 for Monday sampling? Of course that only makes 

10 a real difference for extremely soluble 

11 material -- we've been through this path before 

12 -- extremely soluble material which has lower 

13 dosimetric implications and -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Yep. 

15 DR. NETON: -- yeah, so... 

16 DR. MAURO: But I -- the -- I think the -- this 

17 sounds like this issue is well in hand and is 

18 not an SEC issue. And the degree to which, 

19 when that OTIB comes out, whether or not it's 

20 the working group here or the procedures 

21 working group, you'd like us to look at it. Is 

22 this going to be a generic OTIB for all sites 

23 or just for this site? 

24 MR. MORRIS: I think across the sites. 

25 DR. MAURO: Across the site, so this will be 
172

1 something that the procedures workgroup might 

2 want to take on. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Has it got a number yet? 

4 MR. MORRIS: I don't know it, Larry. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 

6 DR. BEHLING: Can I make a comment here on that 

7 very issue, because John -- as John has just 

8 mentioned -- this is Hans -- this has occurred 

9 before and I'm specifically looking back in 

10 time with regard to the Fernald facility where 

11 we did have obviously a whole series of 

12 bioassay, some that -- on the basis of past 

13 documents -- were told -- were done at the end 

14 of a -- of a shift, at the end of a -- the 

15 week, and then of course the two-day hiatus. 

16 And of course we are dealing with different 

17 types of uranium tha-- that went from highly 

18 soluble to insoluble, and the question I have 

19 with regard to this new OTIB that is being 

20 developed, will that also turn into a PER, 

21 which is -- in my estimation, it should. 

22 DR. NETON: If the conclusion of the OTIB is 

23 that we need to go back and redo some of these 

24 calculations, yeah, it would. But I don't know 

25 if that's the case just yet. But you're right, 
173

1 it would become a PER if (unintelligible) -- 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Any time we make a change that 

3 increases the dose estimate -- potentially 

4 increases the dose estimate, we would enact a 

5 PER, yes, Hans. 

6 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Do we have a feel 

7 for when that OTIB is likely to be on the 

8 table? 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't -- we don't. 

10 MS. MUNN: Okay, thank you. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't. 

12 DR. NETON: We can look into that and -- and 

13 get back to the working group the -- the status 

14 of that. 

15 MS. MUNN: Well, you can understand that makes 

16 me nervous. Just want to know when it's coming 

17 down the pike for procedures. 

18 DR. NETON: I understand. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: That's why I asked for the 

20 number. At least we could use that to help 

21 track the current status of the document. 

22 MS. MUNN: Right. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: But we'll figure this out, Wanda, 

24 and get back to the working group. 

25 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 
174

1 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett with the 

2 ORAU team. The number of that OTIB is 68. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Thanks, Liz, and do you know 

4 where -- what its current status -- is it in 

5 review or is it in development? 

6 MS. BRACKETT: It's with OCAS, actually. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Aha, there we go, there's the 

8 bottleneck. We'll look into where 68's at. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Maybe -- like John has said, 

10 maybe this is well in hand. I don't know from 

11 a procedures perspective to what extent that 

12 these things get -- you know, training is done 

13 and people become aware of these OTIBs and 

14 everything else so that even a site profile 

15 might say one thing if there's -- you know, 

16 these things are supplemented and -- how does 

17 that -- 

18 DR. NETON: I think this should -- 

19 MR. BERONJA: -- how does that work? 

20 DR. NETON: -- I think this should remain on 

21 the list as a site profile issue -- 

22 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

23 DR. NETON: -- and follow it through to its 

24 conclusion, and it may be one of these issues 

25 that's transferred to the procedures working 
175

1 group to evaluate for -- for finalization. I -

2 - I agree with John, though, it's not an SEC 

3 issue. It's a matter of how -- it's the 

4 relative magnitude of the dose versus, you 

5 know, can we -- can we put a number on the 

6 dose. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Anything else on that one? 

8 (No responses) 

9 4.5-6

10 If not, we'll move on to -6 here, which talks 

11 about inconsistencies between MDA values 

12 described in the text and the ones reported in 

13 Table 5.4 of TBD five. And again I apologize, 

14 I was hoping Dunstana would be available for 

15 the call so I didn't note when some of these 

16 findings were done. Some of these internal 

17 findings were done by Dunstana versus Hans. 

18 Hans, had you -- I -- I think that -- my memory 

19 -- I don't know who did this. My memory 

20 doesn't serve me well on this one. Is this -- 

21 is this one of yours or is this one of 

22 Dunstana's, do you know? 

23 DR. BEHLING: It's a combination, Greg. I 

24 think in -- in my original finding that I 

25 submitted to you it was listed as 5-3, and -- 
176

1 and what I did there was I looked at some of 

2 the TBD values in Table 5-3 and others, and -- 

3 and I had similar comments. But I think the 

4 way you wrote it up in the specific document 

5 that -- where it's finding 4.5-6, it turns out 

6 to be a hybrid between my comments and 

7 Dunstana's comments. 

8 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. And this might be more -

9 - my understanding -- this might just be kind 

10 of more of an administrative thing between -- 

11 getting things consistent between the text and 

12 the table? 

13 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

14 MR. BERONJA: Maybe -- NIOSH I guess is 

15 (unintelligible). 

16 DR. NETON: I think you -- our response 

17 basically says we're committed to going back 

18 and cleaning that up. 

19 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

20 DR. NETON: We don't dispute the finding. 

21 4.5-7

22 MR. BERONJA: Okay. Unless there's anything 

23 else on that one, we'll keep moving on. I 

24 think we've got -- clarification of the MDA 

25 related to testing methodology. And I think, 
177

1 Hans, you -- I think this may -- I think it may 

2 have again been made by both you and Dunstana. 

3 Do you want to -- 

4 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. Yeah, I can briefly talk 

5 about it. I think in my write-up, and I'm 

6 trying to see how closely your write-up matched 

7 what I had, but when -- when I look at, for 

8 instance, some of the data that were reported, 

9 they -- they acknowledge the fact some of the 

10 reported values are erroneously -- or they're 

11 identified as typographical errors. And -- and 

12 I had a fairly lengthy write-up in -- in my 

13 section finding 5-4, and I'm trying to see how 

14 closely you may have paralleled that in your 

15 write-up. I'm trying to get a feel for it, but 

16 -- oh, I -- no, I -- I think -- I think what I 

17 ended up -- that -- my write-up turned out to 

18 be 4.5-12, so -- 

19 MR. BERONJA: Right, right, yes. 

20 DR. BEHLING: -- on the (unintelligible) 

21 coming. 

22 MR. BERONJA: That's right, yeah, yeah, I 

23 thought you were talking about a different one. 

24 And maybe for the time being it's better for us 

25 just to go to the NIOSH response, then we can 
178

1 look at that compared to what's been stated 

2 here. 

3 DR. NETON: I'm looking at the response and I'm 

4 not sure -- I -- I think the -- the better 

5 explanation here is that if -- if we want to 

6 put the MDA for enriched uranium using a 

7 fluorometric method, so be it -- I mean that's 

8 -- that's a simple thing to do -- in case that 

9 the -- that was the only method available. I 

10 don't know why we sort of elaborated here now, 

11 I'm confused. 

12 DR. MAURO: Let me ask a question. So if -- if 

13 you have a situation where you have a worker 

14 where let's say all you have is fluorometric 

15 analysis, and there's some question re-- 

16 regarding whether he was working with 

17 unenriched or highly enriched uranium, what do 

18 you do? 

19 DR. NETON: Yeah, well, our response here -- 

20 basically I -- it says that we would -- we 

21 would have selected the right method, given the 

22 enrichment. If that didn't happen, though, you 

23 could rely on, as suggested in your finding, on 

24 using the fluorometric technique and assuming 

25 what the detection limits for enriched uranium 
179

1 would be based on the -- a mass analysis, which 

2 would give you a huge MDA, I mean it would be 

3 massive, because -- 

4 DR. MAURO: Would you rely on process 

5 knowledge? 

6 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think you'd have to go back 

7 and rely on process knowledge and figure out 

8 what the potential exposure scenario may have 

9 been, because I -- if you start doing very 

10 highly enriched uranium based on mass, you're 

11 going to end up with some pretty high numbers, 

12 so... 

13 DR. MAURO: I -- I answered the question that 

14 way 'cause I'm not sure whether this would be -

15 - if there's some ambiguity regarding how you 

16 would process such a case, and then -- you 

17 know, and -- I mean I'm asking myself do I see 

18 this as a -- an SEC issue. Certainly what you 

19 just described, yeah, you could bound it, but 

20 it would be a bounding technique that would be 

21 perhaps inappropriate, to the extreme that 

22 where you would go to if you assume it's 93 

23 percent enriched. I'm just not sure, you know, 

24 how you would deal with this issue. If there 

25 is a tractable way to deal with this issue, 
180

1 then it's not an SEC issue. But right now if 

2 you're not really clear on that, you know, it's 

3 hard to let it go. 

4 DR. NETON: I mean I see in our response as 

5 well we talk about lung counts being available 

6 in this time frame when they were doing 

7 (unintelligible). You know, it would be a sort 

8 of flow path type of analysis where you look at 

9 the process, you look at any available lung 

10 counting data, you look at (unintelligible) 

11 analysis that was done, procedures that were in 

12 place -- or the analysis, depending on the type 

13 of work a person was performing, there are a 

14 number of ways one would go. In my opinion 

15 it'd be unlikely you'd end up at the point 

16 where you'd have to say -- 

17 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 

18 DR. NETON: -- they took a fluorometric sample 

19 on a 93 percent enriched uranium 

20 (unintelligible) -- it just doesn't seem likely 

21 (unintelligible). But outside of that, I don't 

22 know where else we'd go. 

23 MR. BERONJA: So with this particular one -- I 

24 mean are you comfortable with the response 

25 here, do -- do you -- 
181

1 DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) 

2 MR. BERONJA: I mean if you're comfortable with 

3 the response, I guess what I would propose is 

4 that we just take this back -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Bring it back -- 

6 MR. BERONJA: -- bring it back. 

7 DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with what 

8 we have here, and you know, maybe this is going 

9 to be one of those prove a negative issues, 

10 like you know, how can we prove that someone 

11 who was exposed to enriched uranium didn't get 

12 the right analysis. I mean -- I don't know, I 

13 almost have to have some evidence that it -- 

14 that there was a -- a distinct possibility that 

15 people working with enriched uranium had 

16 fluorometric analyses, which -- 

17 MR. BERONJA: This might be something that -- 

18 DR. NETON: -- seem unlikely to me. 

19 DR. MAURO: By the way -- I mean if tha-- if -- 

20 in effect, you're saying that on a case by case 

21 basis there's a dataset available for that 

22 worker that would allow you to navigate your 

23 way through this problem, and that would be the 

24 kind of thing we would do during the data 

25 evaluation -- 
182

1 DR. NETON: Right. 

2 DR. MAURO: -- process, if there turns out 

3 there really is not -- that is, that there are 

4 workers -- 

5 DR. NETON: Right. 

6 DR. MAURO: -- I mean in effect -- 

7 DR. NETON: Sure. 

8 DR. MAURO: -- if you looking at a dataset, you 

9 say okay, do we have a -- any workers out there 

10 who have fluorometric analysis done, that was 

11 the way in which they monitored the urine, but 

12 we know they worked with highly enriched 

13 uranium. Then you're in a -- you sa-- a 

14 situation that you don't want to be in. Now we 

15 -- we may find out that that situation never 

16 arises. That is, whenever a person is working 

17 with enriched -- highly enriched uranium, you 

18 don't just do fluorometric analysis, you do al19 - gross alpha count and -- and then it becomes 

20 a tractable problem. So maybe the an-- the 

21 solution is when we get into that stage we 

22 could verify that we do have a way to navigate 

23 your way through problems like this. 

24 DR. NETON: Well -- 

25 DR. BEHLING: Can -- can I make a comment here? 
183

1 And I guess in my write-up, which didn't find 

2 its way into the final write-up that was 

3 submitted to NIOSH -- but in the early years, 

4 if I can again transpose my concern here to 

5 Fernald, was the concern in the early years 

6 regard to uranium more of a chemical toxicity 

7 issue or a radiochemical issue? And -- and 

8 that would certainly have -- if -- I would not 

9 have any problem if the bioassays were confined 

10 to gross alpha because that would certainly 

11 obviate the need to concern yourself with the 

12 degree of enrichment. The issue of how much 

13 enrichment was involved is really limited to 

14 those instances where the bioassay is confined 

15 to fluorometric methods. And -- and in the 

16 early years perhaps the issue of concern was 

17 mostly driven by chemical toxicity, which would 

18 potentially leave the door wide open in 

19 assuming that radiochemical analysis was not 

20 done. And I guess unless we do an analysis of 

21 people's bioassays, we will not have the answer 

22 to that question. 

23 DR. NETON: I guess I'm confused by what you're 

24 saying, Hans. I mean if -- chemical toxicity 

25 was a concern for natural uranium, and what 
184

1 you're suggesting, though, is that they would 

2 have used -- they would have been concerned 

3 about chemical toxicity for enriched uranium 

4 and therefore -- 

5 DR. BEHLING: Chemical toxicity for uranium, 

6 regardless of enrichment. 

7 DR. NETON: Oh. 

8 DR. BEHLING: If you don't have any 

9 radiochemical analysis, you don't really know 

10 what to do with micrograms per -- per unit 

11 volume of urine. 

12 DR. NETON: And it doesn't matter what the 

13 enrichment is. It's a chem-- chemical toxicity 

14 is driven by mass of uranium. Right? 

15 DR. BEHLING: I know that. I'm -- that's 

16 exactly the point. If in fact you're con-- 

17 you're concerned mostly about chemical 

18 toxicity, which would mean you would assess the 

19 urine by way of fluorometric method, but then 

20 ignore the need to go one step further and say 

21 well, what does that translate to in terms of 

22 radiological impact. 

23 DR. NETON: Right, but I think you're 

24 speculating that they were totally driven by 

25 chemical toxicity. We have to have some 
185

1 evidence that that was the case, and I think -- 

2 you know, we need -- someone need -- we need to 

3 go back and look and see what their procedures 

4 were during that time frame and what the 

5 potentials for exposures were. It may -- 

6 DR. BEHLING: And -- and the way to do this is 

7 to actually sample the -- the bioassay data and 

8 saying do we have paired analysis. In other 

9 words, if a worker was assessed for uranium by 

10 fluorometric method, was there a concurrent 

11 assessment for -- for gross alpha and -- and to 

12 what extent, for instance, could we match 

13 dates. I guess the question I would have is 

14 when, for instance, a urinalysis was done by 

15 fluorometric method that has a one -- a 

16 particular date, to what extent does that date 

17 match, for instance, a radiochemical analysis 

18 because it may have been done by a different 

19 laboratory and may have a very different time 

20 assignment to it -- 

21 DR. NETON: Right. 

22 DR. BEHLING: -- in terms of when that was 

23 performed. 

24 DR. NETON: Yeah, I would suggest it would be 

25 redundant to do both. I mean if you're going 
186

1 to go the way of chemical analysis, there's no 

2 need for fluorometric analysis. But I think 

3 John has suggested that's exactly what you guys 

4 might do. I think we have a path forward here. 

5 DR. MAURO: But it is -- but it is a potential 

6 SEC issue -- 

7 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

8 DR. MAURO: -- if the path forward isn't there 

9 and if the -- if you can't navigate your way 

10 through the problem, I -- I mean I -- it 

11 doesn't sound like you were decided. 

12 DR. NETON: We can leave it on there for now. 

13 DR. MAURO: Can leave it on there. 

14 DR. NETON: Yeah, it might drop off, but -- 

15 yeah. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Okay. Nothing else on that one? 

17 4.5-8; 4.5-9

18 We'll move to 5-4 -- .5-8, and again an 

19 inconsistent presentation of dates of 

20 operation. I think this is straightforward. 

21 NIOSH has said they're going to revise 

22 accordingly, so unless there's any further 

23 discussion on that, we'll move on. 

24 And then I think 4.5-9 is essentially kind of a 

25 repeat of something, you know, we pointed out 
187

1 earlier on this neptunium and depleted uranium 

2 not being included in Table 5.9, so again I 

3 guess as we get to this point, this could be an 

4 SEC issue even though it's not noted as one. 

5 And I don't know if you guys want to go over 

6 the NIOSH response. Might not be... 

7 MS. HUGHES: The issue was that there was a -- 

8 evidence of a small amount, four grams, of 

9 neptunium being stored in the building for a 

10 test that was planned. But indications from 

11 available documentation were that this amount 

12 was actually transferred to a different 

13 research facility. We believe that this small 

14 quantity that was not used did not necessitate 

15 a bioassay program for uranium. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Or for neptunium? 

17 MS. HUGHES: I'm sorry, neptunium, yes. 

18 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. I guess as long as 

19 that's the case -- 

20 DR. MAURO: The -- no, that's a statement of 

21 fact, if that's the -- 

22 DR. NETON: Well, I mean you guys can certainly 

23 review that -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, we can confirm that, yeah, 

25 yeah. 
188

1 DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) and see if you 

2 concur with that. 

3 DR. MAURO: No, you ge-- I mean if that's in 

4 fact what transpired -- yes. 

5 MR. BERONJA: We'll have that as an action item 

6 for ourselves to con-- confirm that. Anything 

7 else on that one? 

8 4.5-10

9 We'll keep moving forward -- 4.5-10, 

10 inappropriate solubility type for lung cancer -

11 - 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Can we go back to that last one 

13 just for a second? You addressed the 

14 neptunium, but what about depleted uranium? 

15 Wasn't that the other... 

16 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. I think the last comment 

17 was that bioassay for uranium was well 

18 established early in the site's history. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, I didn't 

20 (unintelligible). Thanks. 

21 DR. MAURO: And I think that that would be part 

22 of this data validation process, we'd capture 

23 under that umbrella and confirm that -- that 

24 statement. 

25 MR. BERONJA: 4.5-10 has to deal primarily with 
189

1 the use of type S for lung cancer, and I don't 

2 know the context in which this was provided, 

3 but I think there's probably a general 

4 statement to use type S and there was probably 

5 no distinction made for a lung cancer. 

6 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is the uranium aluminide 

7 issue and this is something we're aware of and 

8 -- I didn't look at the response, but -- I 

9 don't -- I forget what we said here. Okay, 

10 yeah, this is TBD -- TIB-71. We -- we 

11 developed a TIB to cover this uranium 

12 aluminide, much in the -- in the spirit of what 

13 we did, maybe not as extensively but in the 

14 same manner as we looked at for super S in TIB15 49. 

16 DR. MAURO: Would -- would this be -- 

17 DR. NETON: It's a unique exposure scenario in 

18 -- in the complex. 

19 DR. MAURO: Is this unique to this facility, 

20 this special form? 

21 DR. NETON: Maybe not. That's -- that's one 

22 re-- that's one thing we're looking at right 

23 now to make sure, in the spirit of -- of Phil's 

24 comment a long time ago, I think, was that we 

25 need to make sure this is -- is viewed at other 
190

1 -- potential possibility at other sites, and 

2 we're looking at that right now. 

3 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this sounds like something 

4 similar to that OTIB-68 we talked about 

5 previously, another -- another -- another OTIB 

6 that might -- 

7 MS. MUNN: I have that same feeling. 

8 MR. SCHOFIELD: You love it, Wanda. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Okay, so looks like that's -- we 

10 know the path forward there. Unless there's 

11 anything else, we'll keep moving forward. 

12 4.5-11

13 4.5-11 talks about elements presented in TBD 

14 two are not addressed in TBD five, and I think 

15 kind of the quick answer to this is it looks 

16 like NIOSH is going to review that and address 

17 any inconsistencies or when things are not 

18 reported. 

19 DR. NETON: Elements presented in -- this is a 

20 finding on a finding here. I'm going to object 

21 to these kinds of findings (unintelligible) add 

22 to the numbers. 

23 MR. BERONJA: So... 

24 DR. NETON: I would go back to what John had 

25 earlier suggested. I -- I would -- 
191

1 DR. MAURO: Collapse. 

2 DR. NETON: -- appreciate it if SC&A would go 

3 back and collapse some of these into a more 

4 workable form where we're not sort of repeating 

5 things and they're consolidated in areas where 

6 they make sense. 

7 DR. MAURO: Along these lines -- you know, this 

8 is our first matrix and your first response. 

9 DR. NETON: Yeah, I understand. I was trying 

10 to be funny. 

11 DR. MAURO: Yeah. No, we'll -- I think that 

12 the next iss-- next iteration will be a revised 

13 matrix that will try to collapse, consolidate, 

14 incorporate what we're discussing around the 

15 table and we're going to try it again. 

16 DR. NETON: That's fair. 

17 MR. BERONJA: Okay, so I think there's a 

18 reasonable path forward on this one, too, so 

19 unless there's anything else, I'll keep moving 

20 forward. 

21 4.5-12

22 And I think we finally get to your -- your 4.5-

23 12, Hans, which you started to address before 

24 on the different laboratories. I don't know if 

25 you're on mute, Hans, or -- 
192

1 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. No, I -- I just unclicked 

2 my mute here. Yeah, this -- this goes to the 

3 issue of interpretation, which may or may not 

4 be claimant favorable. Repeatedly in the TBD 

5 there is reference to the statement that is -- 

6 and I read, It is assumed that this is a 

7 typographical error and 2.0 cpm is really 2.0 

8 dpm per ml, for instance, as a MDA value. And 

9 -- and I'm not really sure that necessary has 

10 to be the case, and would certainly raise a 

11 serious question in my mind. If -- if it is a 

12 typographical error that was repeatedly done, 

13 how much stock can I put into a -- an 

14 analytical laboratory. And if it wasn't an 

15 error, then clearly the conversion of cpm to 

16 dpm would certainly be claimant unfavorable. 

17 At least the assumption is that they intended 

18 to declare this as a disintegration per minute 

19 as opposed to a count per minute. Obviously as 

20 a minimum there's likely to be a factor of two 

21 difference based on -- on counting efficiency, 

22 so I raise that as an issue. 

23 MS. HUGHES: Okay, this was actually -- NIOSH 

24 response included that this was actually taken 

25 out of a brochure by this bioassay contractor, 
193

1 and it turns out that there was another column 

2 that was missed, since this brochure consisted 

3 of a scanned document I believe, and a draft 

4 revision has already been prepared that should 

5 correct this. And the response does include 

6 the -- the revised findings. However, it -- it 

7 should be pointed out that actually this 

8 bioassay contractor only provided a quote and a 

9 brochure to the site. We have not seen any 

10 indication that they actually were used for 

11 bioass-- to provide bioassay analysis to the 

12 site, so this issue might go away. There -- 

13 there's documentation that they were definitely 

14 in communication with the site, but from the 

15 bioassay data that is available we have not 

16 seen that they were actually providing worker 

17 samples -- or analysis of worker samples. 

18 MR. BERONJA: Hans, anything further you want 

19 to say? 

20 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and -- and I guess I'm not 

21 sure, I'm just trying to refresh my own memory. 

22 Was the issue of comparing data presented in 

23 behalf of Shepherd 1959 and the NSEC values 

24 that certainly are -- they're orders of 

25 magnitude apart when you have, in the case of 
194

1 gross alpha, 7.5 dpm per liter that is -- is -- 

2 converts to 200 cpm per liter under the NSEC 

3 value. And -- and if that were to be actually 

4 converted to dpm, it might turn out to be 400. 

5 And I guess those two values are very difficult 

6 to reconcile, those two sets. And I'm not sure 

7 you -- that was included -- yeah, yeah, it was 

8 included in your write-up, so if you look at 

9 4.5-12 at the very bottom, you see a table here 

10 that compares the two sets of data. And quite 

11 frankly, they are at least a couple of orders 

12 of magnitude apart potentially. 

13 MR. MORRIS: Well -- this is Bob Morris. I 

14 actually scanned those documents at -- at a 

15 copy machine, and I remember reading them. 

16 They -- it was not clear to me that they were 

17 actually contracts. They were proposals for -- 

18 in request to a response for quotations, and so 

19 I -- I don't know that anybody ever actually 

20 issued a contract to that laboratory. 

21 DR. MAURO: I think it might be important to 

22 confirm that because let's say you do have 

23 records where the data are reported for a 

24 particular bioassay in the incorrect units -- 

25 MR. MORRIS: Well, what would be -- the only 
195

1 way you can confirm that is to look at the data 

2 when it comes available to look at. And I 

3 don't know that we could actually sample 1,000 

4 cases and find the one that this laboratory 

5 provided. 

6 DR. MAURO: No, no, may-- is there -- are the 

7 records such that you would know for datasets 

8 for workers which laboratories at what time for 

9 what facility -- 

10 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 

11 simultaneously.) 

12 MR. MORRIS: I never remember seeing any data 

13 that way. 

14 DR. MAURO: It -- it would -- well, I guess 

15 this is -- it would be, to put this to bed, 

16 that in fact this laboratory did not do the 

17 analysis and did not do -- and they're not 

18 reported incorrectly. Ideally you could 

19 actually go to -- see if the contract was -- it 

20 wasn't a contract (unintelligible) -- 

21 MR. MORRIS: Well, we -- we got all of the 

22 documents contemporary with -- it was three 

23 proposals in 1959, as I -- as I recall. I mean 

24 this is going back a couple of years for me and 

25 I was just reading as I scanned them, but there 
196

1 were proposals in response to a request for 

2 proposals. 

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

4 MR. MORRIS: And I don't -- and that was 

5 everything that was in that file folder. 

6 DR. MAURO: And then there's no information 

7 whether you actually executed a -- well, you 

8 didn't exe-- I shouldn't say you -- whether the 

9 Santa Susana folks actually executed a contract 

10 (unintelligible) -- 

11 MR. MORRIS: No, I think the only way you're 

12 going to know that is to look at the data as 

13 it's -- they're represented on the individual's 

14 bioassay card to know. 

15 DR. MAURO: But -- no, but see, on his bioassay 

16 card would be a number that -- where you have 

17 to take at face value as being the number that 

18 was reported, but it may be an incorrect 

19 number. Other words, if they made that error. 

20 Do you see what I'm saying? So how do we know 

21 -- unless it would be so -- 

22 MR. MORRIS: Well, the error was when we wrote 

23 the Technical Basis Document we missed one of 

24 the columns of data on page two of the scanned 

25 sheet. We looked at page one, and should have 
197

1 looked at page two, also. 

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, I misunderstood, I thought -- 

3 MR. MORRIS: (Unintelligible) hidden in the 

4 review (unintelligible). 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. 

6 I thought that this laboratory proposed to 

7 follow a certain protocol, report their 

8 information in a certain way, and they may have 

9 been making a systematic error. 

10 MR. MORRIS: No, I don't think that's -- if 

11 you've got that impression, I don't think 

12 that's what you should have. 

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, I misunderstood. Okay. 

14 It's just a matter of transf-- transposing 

15 information -- 

16 MR. MORRIS: Yeah. 

17 DR. MAURO: -- from their proposal into the 

18 site profile. 

19 MR. MORRIS: I think that's more correctly 

20 stated, yeah. 

21 MS. BEACH: Is it correct to me, though, 

22 reading this last statement of your response, 

23 it should also be noted that neither of these 

24 companies probably provided very many bioassays 

25 to the site -- to me, that -- that leaves doubt 
198

1 in my mind if you know for sure. 

2 MS. HUGHES: We know for sure that none of the 

3 claimants that have bioassay data have any data 

4 that includes this company. 

5 MS. BEACH: So you know that for sure. 

6 MS. HUGHES: But only the claims we have. We 

7 cannot speak for any -- 

8 MS. BEACH: Okay, so I -- I wanted to make sure 

9 I understood that statement. 

10 DR. MAURO: So as the claims come in and you 

11 look at their bioassay there, you will know. 

12 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 

13 DR. MAURO: And you will be able to confirm 

14 whether this problem exists or not. 

15 MS. HUGHES: Yes. 

16 MR. BERONJA: It looks like this one's okay. 

17 You've already done a draft revision. Okay. 

18 Anything else? Otherwise we'll -- 

19 MR. KATZ: So is this then not an SEC issue? 

20 MR. BERONJA: It doesn't look like it's an SEC 

21 issue, unless they find some-- or... 

22 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay. 

23 4.5-13

24 MR. BERONJA: All right, 4.5-13, the evaluation 

25 of the uranium bioassay data should be 
199

1 reviewed. And again, Hans, I apologize. I 

2 don't know if this was yours or if you can 

3 elaborate any on -- on this particular comment 

4 or if this was Dunstana's. 

5 DR. BEHLING: No, this is mine, and I think 

6 we've already discussed it, and that is the 

7 issue of trying to match the fluorometric 

8 method -- 

9 MR. BERONJA: Oh, okay. 

10 DR. BEHLING: -- with the enriched -- with the 

11 radiological method, because as I said, in the 

12 absence of knowing what type of uranium 

13 material you are assaying in -- in your 

14 fluorometric method, you don't really have an 

15 understanding of how to convert that into a -- 

16 a dose to a specific tissue. And so as we 

17 already said, if the early days the concern was 

18 more -- leaning to more towards the chemical 

19 toxicity and no radiological assessment was 

20 done for -- with the urine sample, then it's 

21 kind of up for grabs as to how to convert 

22 micrograms per liter into a dose value. 

23 Conversely, if only the radiometric method was 

24 done, then I don't really care because the only 

25 potential error there is the differences in 
200

1 dcfs for U-238, 235 and 234, and the -- the 

2 differences are marginal, that wouldn't concern 

3 me. You can always default to the highest dcf 

4 for that matter, which in most instances would 

5 -- for enriched uranium would obviously be for 

6 U-234 anyway. So the issue is really trying to 

7 be sure that when we are looking at bioassay 

8 data that cannot necessary be also linked to a 

9 concurrent radiometric analysis, what is the 

10 default approach. 

11 MR. BERONJA: Okay. All right. Well, this is 

12 something where I will definitely do some 

13 condensing since this is really kind of a 

14 repeated one. 

15 4.5-14

16 So unless there's any other discussion on that, 

17 we'll move on to 4.5-14, personnel exposure 

18 records do not appear to be complete or of good 

19 quality. And again, I may have -- I'm not sure 

20 how much of your original stuff here -- I can 

21 tell this is yours, Hans, by the things that 

22 were excerpted and how much of the -- from the 

23 site profile review I included here, but is 

24 there anything else that you want to elaborate 

25 here on -14? 
201

1 DR. BEHLING: No, and I guess my concern was 

2 that most of the records are at this point 

3 confined to hard copy form. And of course the 

4 acknowledgment that some of these records may 

5 be very difficult to decipher, and I've looked 

6 at some of the records. They are poor quality. 

7 I'm -- I'm sure that some of them were 

8 retrieved from fiche -- microfiche or other 

9 documents, and sometimes you're at a loss to 

10 even identify what the numbers represent. So 

11 when -- when in fact we're dealing with records 

12 that are very difficult to interpret based on 

13 poor quality that you may have available, it 

14 puts the -- the dose reconstructor in a -- in a 

15 difficult situation. And -- and also the fact 

16 that we don't have these in -- in electronic 

17 form, which I assume we don't have electronic 

18 form, makes the whole audit process, which 

19 normally we do anyway for data complete 

20 (unintelligible) data integrity are much more 

21 difficult assessments. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Okay. Would NIOSH -- 

23 MS. HUGHES: Well, the records from the site 

24 indicate that -- they're fairly typical for 

25 this type of site that operated around the same 
202

1 time frame, and these records aren't much -- 

2 much -- all that much worse or better than 

3 records from any other site. The TBD provides 

4 guidance to the dose reconstructors how to use 

5 and interpret the data. And as we mentioned 

6 earlier, this dat-- the data from the site has 

7 been abstracted for several epidemiological 

8 studies, some of which have pointed out that 

9 actually this -- the completeness of the data 

10 is quite good for data from that time frame. 

11 And I've -- I've seen a lot of the claimant 

12 data that we have, and it is true that it is -- 

13 some -- it -- it's handwritten entries on 

14 bioassay cards, but it's not illegible. It's 

15 fairly easy to -- to get information off these 

16 cards. Also, especially with the bioassay 

17 data, you would have the reports that have been 

18 provided by the bioassay contractor in form of 

19 a bioassay card. Those are fairly usable and 

20 for -- for external you would have the 

21 dosimetry contractor reports, so I guess our -- 

22 our point is that we don't think the data is in 

23 particularly bad shape, espec-- it's definitely 

24 not in the shape that you could not use it for 

25 this program. 
203

1 DR. MAURO: I think this goes toward the 

2 sampling issue. That is, when we go in and 

3 design our strata and sampling, you know, we -- 

4 one of the pieces of information that will 

5 emerge is whether or not you can read the 

6 reference and create a database that we feel is 

7 (unintelligible) confidence in. So I think 

8 that this is part and parcel of what we talked 

9 about before. 

10 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. In fact, I think maybe the 

11 next comment also is in the same light, but 

12 anything else on this -- 

13 MS. BEACH: I have a question on the strata. 

14 Will you do internal and external separately, 

15 as in two separate studies? 

16 DR. MAURO: Well, right now it looks like that 

17 we're -- all of our discussion has been focused 

18 on internal. When we get to the external part 

19 of this review I guess a judgment will need to 

20 be made whether or not there's a need to do a 

21 stratified sampling of the external data. So I 

22 -- 

23 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

24 DR. MAURO: -- the answer is I don't know right 

25 now. We'll get there, though -- perhaps. 
204

1 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. My guess is the work to do 

2 is not necessarily more and it might be -- I 

3 think it's of value, given what we'll see, but 

4 we can talk about it when we get to that 

5 section. 

6 Anything else on this -- this question? 

7 (No responses) 

8 4.5-15

9 4.5-15, site survey data, source term cannot be 

10 regarded as useful survey data -- I think we 

11 have the term "circuit" -- data for bioassay 

12 data and dose reconstruction, and Hans, I think 

13 this was another one of your findings? 

14 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and I guess the -- the 

15 comments that I included, and you included in 

16 your write-up, pretty much speak for 

17 themselves. When you don't have bioassay data, 

18 you obviously hope that there is alternative 

19 methods by which you can re-- reconstruct 

20 inhalation and ingestion doses. And of course 

21 that would require a fairly substantial body of 

22 -- of air sampling data, preferably breathing 

23 zone air sampling data, and if not, the general 

24 air sampling data. And at the same time, I'm 

25 reading here, “However, these data are not 
205

1 likely to be in individual exposure records.” 

2 Now again, this imposes some serious 

3 obligations on the part of dose reconstructors 

4 to go outside of his normal scope where he gets 

5 a -- a document or a file of -- of records 

6 that's -- involve personal exposures. And -- 

7 and of course when those are not available, 

8 you're now asking him to go and do his own 

9 investigation regarding air con-- air sampling 

10 data and possibly, in the worst case, source 

11 term reconstruction methods that would even be 

12 more difficult. So the question is, is this a 

13 realistic expectation to ask a dose 

14 reconstructor to go ahead and -- and -- and 

15 look for these kinds of alternative approaches 

16 for assessing internal exposure. And to my 

17 estimation, it is not. And so if -- in the 

18 event there are no bioassay data available in 

19 behalf of a single claimant, I think it is up 

20 to NIOSH then to perhaps provide that 

21 alternative approach by -- by gathering data 

22 for -- for their (unintelligible) data and 

23 perhaps source term reconstruction data so that 

24 this is not the obligation of the dose 

25 reconstructor to perform. 
206

1 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, I think this should be 

2 possibly -- this should be addressed in the 

3 coworker study so that any worker who -- where 

4 no bioassay data is available could be covered 

5 with that, and this language will be removed 

6 from the revised TBD. 

7 DR. NETON: Yeah, I -- I don't disagree with 

8 that. I think, you know, we went a little 

9 overboard in giving some leeway to the dose 

10 reconstructor. But I would -- I would object 

11 to the fundamental statement of the issue 

12 because it directly contradicts the -- our 

13 regulation which -- the con-- the finding says 

14 site survey data cannot be regarded as useful 

15 survey data for bioassay in dose 

16 reconstruction. I think that's false. 

17 DR. MAURO: I agree with Jim. I think Jim's 

18 statement's correct. I think our main concern 

19 is an ad hoc approach -- 

20 DR. NETON: Right. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- is not the way to do this. 

22 DR. NETON: I'll buy that, yeah. 

23 DR. MAURO: And I think we should reword the 

24 statement. 

25 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 
207

1 DR. NETON: But -- but we -- I do -- we do 

2 agree that we can remove that statement from 

3 the TBD and provide better guidance. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Okay. Anything else? 

5 4.5-16

6 I think this -- the last internal comment, 

7 potential unmonitored internal exposures 

8 associated with radiation incidents are -- are 

9 not addressed, and we've identified this a 

10 little bit earlier on when we talked about the 

11 description of some of these different units, 

12 and -- 

13 DR. NETON: We could discuss this I guess at 

14 some length, but I think it kind of falls into 

15 the general category we discussed earlier where 

16 the proof is going to come out in the -- the 

17 robustness of the bioassay data that is being 

18 characterized. 

19 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

20 DR. NETON: If indeed we have sampling data 

21 that covers incidents as well as routine 

22 operations and develop a fairly substantial 

23 coworker model, then this goes away. 

24 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

25 DR. NETON: I say this has to remain open. I 
208

1 agree it is a potential SEC issue, and we'll 

2 work from there. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would say that here is a 

4 case that when we develop our strata, in 

5 addition -- in addition to identifying work 

6 categories, building time periods, incidents -- 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, right. 

8 DR. MAURO: -- another strata -- 

9 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- that we need to samplify -- 

11 MR. BERONJA: Uh-huh. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- and that would cover this issue. 

13 DR. NETON: I think so. We'll leave it on 

14 there. 

15 4.6-1

16 MR. BERONJA: Okay. All right, moving on to 

17 external, I guess the first comment is no 

18 coworker model, and I guess that kind of 

19 relates to maybe the confidence in the -- in 

20 the badging of -- of all the workers and having 

21 a -- having a better source of information than 

22 probably relying on other TBDs and other 

23 information. And so maybe this is par-- 

24 largely addressed by the NIOSH comment. 

25 MS. HUGHES: Yeah, well, since this data is 
209

1 available from previous studies, it's not just 

2 the internal, it's the external data as well, 

3 so we're currently looking into a coworker 

4 study to see if it's (unintelligible). 

5 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

6 DR. MAURO: I've got a question, though. I 

7 think it's pretty clear that, with regard to 

8 internal, there is going to be need for SC&A -- 

9 certainly with direction from the workgroup -- 

10 to develop a -- what I call a stratified sample 

11 to address the kinds of issues -- the complex 

12 issues. It's not apparent that we would -- we 

13 would want to do that now. Maybe -- with 

14 regard to external because it sounds like that 

15 there may be a straightforward matter whereby 

16 you're going to come up with a coworker 

17 approach whereby you say okay, here's how we're 

18 going to do it, and then we could review the 

19 dataset within the context of your coworker 

20 model. See, I think -- I -- that might be a -- 

21 a more efficient way. I think -- I think when 

22 it comes to internal, that is a -- a big -- a 

23 big issue that requires design, iteration and 

24 then implementation. Here what I'm hearing 

25 here is that you've got the data. You think 
210

1 you can build a coworker model for external, 

2 and usually that's a lot simpler. And -- and 

3 it might be better, in order to -- for us to 

4 just look at your coworker model and the 

5 supporting data once that's done. 

6 Is there a time frame when you think this 

7 coworker model might be available? 

8 DR. NETON: I don't believe at this point. We 

9 -- we could certainly get back to you on that. 

10 DR. MAURO: I -- I'm just operating on the 

11 premise that the -- this is a more -- more 

12 straightforward exercise when it comes to 

13 external. 

14 DR. NETON: At least for photons. There may be 

15 some neutron issues down the line. 

16 DR. MAURO: There might be some neutron issues, 

17 yeah. 

18 4.6-2,3,4

19 MR. BERONJA: Speaking of neutron issues, 

20 unless there's anything else on that one, 

21 actually the next three -- I think at least the 

22 next three comments all -- all deal with 

23 neutrons, and I think -- my guess -- I think -- 

24 my understanding, John, is -- you could look at 

25 these. I think these probably have all been 
211

1 done before in other reviews, I think. 

2 DR. MAURO: Oh -- oh, this is the -- yeah, the 

3 -- the -- basically the 500 keV, one MeV wri-- 

4 whatever -- and whether or not you could 

5 reconstruct the doses to workers -- apparently 

6 there -- there are neutron exposure potentials 

7 here. Apparently there was NTA film used. The 

8 question becomes is that going to be adequate 

9 to reconstruct external exposure to neutrons 

10 for all workers. Is there knowledge on the 

11 energy distribution in the different categories 

12 of workers and the ability to adjust for that, 

13 the fact that the NTA film is really not going 

14 to do the trick, without some type of 

15 adjustment based on knowledge of either the 

16 energy distribution of the neutrons or the 

17 neutron to photon ratios. 

18 DR. BEHLING: Let me weigh in on this because, 

19 as you already said, this is in fact something 

20 that's come up repeatedly, and there is an 

21 inconsistency throughout the -- the facilities 

22 -- the records facility complexes where in some 

23 instances people say okay, we realize that the 

24 NTA film is not very sensitive to -- to 

25 energies below 500. Then there are other 
212

1 facilities that say below 700, and then there's 

2 some even that are more gracious in saying 

3 really, in truth, below 1,000 keV we really 

4 don't have a good response. And so the -- the 

5 issue of selecting 500 is -- may be a threshold 

6 value, but it clearly sort of understates the 

7 lack of sensitivity of NTA film at that energy. 

8 But the other thing that I also wanted to bring 

9 out was the issue of finding 4.6-2, which 

10 states that the -- the pic-- the dosimeters 

11 were capable of measuring both thermal and 

12 (unintelligible)* neutrons, and I raised that 

13 as an issue because in one of the statements it 

14 says both (unintelligible)* and thermal 

15 neutrons were measured and recorded as whole 

16 body dose in rem. I -- I raise that as a 

17 question because I'm not sure anyone really 

18 measured thermal neutrons, and I guess I'll 

19 leave it up to Jim or Larry or somebody else to 

20 determine whether or not I'm -- I'm being 

21 presumptive here in assuming that they were not 

22 measuring people for thermal neutron exposures 

23 -- which may be an issue for sodium-cooled 

24 reactors. 

25 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. I -- I joined 
213

1 the conversation a little while ago. The -- 

2 the -- just to pick up on the last thing that 

3 Hans said, it's -- they had such a variety of 

4 reactors over there, and -- and then the 

5 complication with the NTA film in Santa Susana 

6 is characterizing the correction factors for 

7 NTA film because expected neutron spectra of 

8 different reactors would probably be different, 

9 the exposure geometry the different -- I don't 

10 know if -- if -- if the adjustment factors are 

11 going to take all that into account or whether 

12 there's a general factor that you simply apply, 

13 which would not seem so appropriate in this 

14 case. 

15 DR. MAURO: Would this go to -- to a coworker 

16 model? Other words, before we were talking 

17 about certainly a coworker model for assigning 

18 doses to -- photon doses, penetrating doses. 

19 At the sa-- would you have a separate protocol 

20 for neutron, or would that be a -- part and 

21 parcel to your overall external coworker model? 

22 DR. NETON: You know, I don't know at this 

23 time. I'm not familiar with the dataset enough 

24 to -- to come up with a judgment on that. My 

25 guess is, you know, we would probably have to 
214

1 do an NP ratio thing here, but we've got to get 

2 past this thermal and -- and detection limit 

3 issue here first and -- I think this is early 

4 in the process. We're just going to have to 

5 get back and -- and look at this a little bit. 

6 I don't know enough about it right now to make 

7 a good statement. 

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think that these are very 

9 important issues. They're SEC issues. And 

10 there really is -- until I guess you folks get 

11 back to us -- 

12 DR. NETON: Yeah, we're going to have to get 

13 back -- 

14 DR. MAURO: -- with strategy, there really 

15 isn't much for SC&A to do in terms of looking 

16 at data. I think it's better we sit tight for 

17 a while. 

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, I mean we have some responses 

19 here, but I'd like to get back and -- and 

20 consider these a little bit more. They're 

21 draft responses. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Okay. All right, unless there's 

23 anything else, I think we really only have 

24 truly one more comment. 

25 MS. BEACH: Before you go on -- 
215

1 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

2 MS. BEACH: -- we are considering 4.6.2 an SEC 

3 issue? 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

5 MR. BERONJA: I think that -- I think the three 

6 of them kind of couple them all together -- 

7 DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) leave them on 

8 there. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

10 DR. NETON: They can always come off -- 

11 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

12 DR. NETON: -- if we need -- you know, if we 

13 come back with a (unintelligible) -- 

14 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

15 DR. NETON: -- response. 

16 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I've noted all three as -- 

17 -2, -3 and -4 as all being coupled with the 

18 SEC. 

19 4.6-5

20 So the last one really is the 4.6-5, the 

21 dosimeter response to low energy -- 

22 MS. BEACH: Okay, one more thing -- sorry. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Sure. 

24 MS. BEACH: We want to ask -- okay, the 4.6.3, 

25 the use of Y-12 data as surrogate, was that 
216

1 done or where -- where did that come from? 

2 MR. BERONJA: My understanding -- I think -- 

3 Arjun, I'm trying to thi-- was this -- was 4.6-

4 3 one of your comments? 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could -- could you repeat that, 

6 Greg? I -- I had it muted -- I was trying to 

7 unmute it and I missed your comment. 

8 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, this is ac-- you know, I 

9 forget if this was maybe yours or Hans' -- due 

10 to the level of uncertainty surrounding 

11 neutrons at Santa Susana, it may not be 

12 appropriate to use Y-12 data as a surrogate. I 

13 think that we -- fact that we said this, I 

14 think Y-12 data was used as a surrogate. I 

15 don't -- 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

17 MR. BERONJA: I don't rec-- 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I -- I believe -- I -- I 

19 believe that that is -- I'm -- that's where 

20 this comment comes from is that because the 

21 neutron field situation is likely to be very 

22 different at Santa Susana than -- than at Y-12, 

23 we can't be transferring the -- the approach to 

24 dose reconstruction from Y-12. I'd have to -- 

25 I'd have to go back and -- and look at the 
217

1 details of the TBD -- 

2 MS. BEACH: So was it listed in -- 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- (unintelligible) the details 

4 of where it came from, but it wouldn't have 

5 been in there if that had not been suggested, 

6 obviously. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

8 MS. BEACH: So it was in the TBD, it wasn't in 

9 the ER report. 

10 MR. BERONJA: In the TBD, yeah. 

11 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

12 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. So we go to 4.6-5, 

13 dosimeter response to low energy photons. The 

14 TBD does not discuss issues associated with the 

15 response of dosimeters to low energy photons. 

16 Hans or Arjun, was this one of yours saying... 

17 DR. BEHLING: It's not -- 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: It might be -- 

19 DR. BEHLING: -- one of mine. 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- Hans'. 

21 DR. BEHLING: No, it's -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it's -- 

23 DR. BEHLING: -- not mine. 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- not mine. I don't -- it 

25 might be somebody else on the team. 
218

1 DR. NETON: It's a Hans’ one. I guarantee you 

2 it's Hans'. 

3 DR. BEHLING: No, it's not. 

4 DR. NETON: It's not Hans'? 

5 DR. BEHLING: I would have not included 

6 because, you know, if -- if they're using film 

7 dosimeter in the early days, we know what the 

8 issues are regarding their energy dependence 

9 and -- and I think we have resolved those 

10 things any number of times in behalf of other 

11 site profiles, so this is not my comment. 

12 MR. BERONJA: So we can -- shall we take this 

13 one off the -- shall we delete this one? And 

14 actually we delete this one and we can delete 

15 the next two, so we're done. 

16 4.6-6,7

17 No, let me just discuss the next two. I think 

18 I agr-- the 4.6-6, there's no justification for 

19 use of surrogate time periods in considering 

20 releases from the stack -- this is 

21 environmental comment and mistakenly got 

22 included here. 4.6-7 talks about adequate 

23 consideration of Area One in the TBD. Area 

24 One's really not part of the covered areas so 

25 we pull that off the table. So I think that's 
219

1 it as far as the formal matrix. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean Greg, you and I 

3 discussed this the other day. I mean we're 

4 presuming that Area One is not under 

5 consideration. 

6 MR. BERONJA: Right, right. Yeah, yeah, I 

7 think -- 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: So we're suggesting dropping 

9 that. 

10 MR. BERONJA: We're all in agreement on that 

11 here. 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, fine. 

13 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

14 MS. BEACH: Okay, I have a question for NIOSH. 

15 Is there -- do you guys have worker -- some of 

16 your worker interviews on line? Or have you 

17 done any? 

18 MS. HUGHES: Yes, there were -- well, there 

19 were worker interviews done with -- in 

20 association with the evaluation report, and 

21 yes, we do have them. 

22 MS. BEACH: Are they on line? 

23 MS. HUGHES: They're not on line, but they 

24 should be available to you -- they -- I think 

25 are referenced in our evaluation report, so if 
220

1 you have -- 

2 DR. NETON: Whether they'd be on line or 

3 there'd be a reference, I don't know, but we 

4 can put them -- 

5 MS. HUGHES: Yes, they should be accessible to 

6 you. 

7 DR. NETON: Can we -- could we get them on the 

8 O drive? 

9 MS. HUGHES: I think they are on the O drive. 

10 MS. BEACH: Yeah, I haven't looked. 

11 DR. NETON: Okay, we'll check -- we'll check to 

12 make sure -- 

13 MS. HUGHES: Typically we put all the 

14 references for the evaluation report in a -- in 

15 a folder that's accessible to you so you can 

16 look at all the references that we referenced 

17 in the evaluation report. 

18 MS. BEACH: Yeah, and I apologize, I haven't 

19 looked. 

20 And then you guys said yours are in review. 

21 When will those be available to us? 

22 MR. BERONJA: I think they've gone back to the 

23 workers for input. I'll have to talk to Kathy 

24 DeMers, who's working on that, see what the 

25 time frame -- the likely time frame. And then 
221

1 I think it goes back for DOE review again, I 

2 don't know. You might understand these 

3 procedures more than I do. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: I'm not sure. 

5 MR. BERONJA: So I don't know if that's -- it's 

6 probably several weeks. 

7 DR. MAURO: We're -- we're -- yeah, we're -- 

8 we're in a funny state. Remember when I -- we 

9 opened our meeting, so I suspect that once the 

10 package comes back from Kathy DeMers -- 

11 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- when she has made whatever 

13 corrections need to be made in light of 

14 feedback from the workers -- 

15 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

16 DR. MAURO: -- that then becomes -- 

17 MR. BERONJA: That becomes part of the document 

18 -- 

19 DR. MAURO: -- part of this package -- 

20 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- as an attachment, which has to 

22 be part of the review -- the complete review 

23 that DOE has to do -- 

24 MR. BERONJA: Right. Right. 

25 DR. MAURO: -- so -- I guess what I'm getting 
222

1 at is that I don't think you're going to see 

2 that until DOE -- 

3 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

4 DR. MAURO: -- you know, clears it -- 

5 MR. BERONJA: Get the -- get the review. Uh6 huh. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- DOE clears it. 

8 MS. BEACH: But once they're all cleared, then 

9 you will automatically send them out to -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, then -- 

11 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- then -- then -- 

13 MR. BERONJA: Then it becomes part of this 

14 document -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Right. 

16 MR. BERONJA: -- this review. 

17 DR. MAURO: Right. Now the question I have, 

18 'cause I'm not sure -- let's say we get some 

19 feedback from -- we get our -- we get the 

20 material back from Kathy DeMers. And it -- and 

21 it provides greater insight to some of the 

22 issues -- 

23 MR. BERONJA: We might revise our document. 

24 DR. MAURO: -- we mi-- yeah, so I'm -- I'm -- I 

25 guess -- a little guidance here. Let's say it 
223

1 turns out some new issues emerge as a result of 

2 the feedback we get from the interviews. 

3 Normally we don't -- I guess we -- we don't 

4 revise the document, but we -- you know, it 

5 would be an attachment, it would be there, so 

6 it would be -- it's in the record, but then of 

7 cour-- the problem becomes it's not part of the 

8 matrix, so we -- do we -- would we just add in 

9 those new items to the matrix if -- if 

10 something new comes up? You know -- other 

11 words, when -- when this is issued officially, 

12 finally, and is available for public 

13 distribution, including the Kathy DeMers 

14 attachment which is the worker interview, what 

15 might happen as a result of that -- we might 

16 identify a number of additional issues. What 

17 I'm suggesting is we simply add them into the 

18 matrix and -- so that they're on the matrix as 

19 new -- as new issues, if that's okay with you 

20 folks. 

21 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, and until they're addressed 

23 similar to what we've done here, we'll probably 

24 somehow highlight them or -- 

25 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we'll -- we'll indicate these 
224

1 are new -- 

2 MR. BERONJA: -- some new things, yeah. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- have come out since the last 

4 meeting. 

5 MR. BERONJA: Right, and -- 

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

7 MS. MUNN: Well, are we going to -- are -- are 

8 you going to put this matrix into the general 

9 format that we've been using in procedures? If 

10 so, then the date will appear automatically. 

11 DR. MAURO: I -- yeah, a -- a good question. I 

12 guess the way we've been doing it is each set 

13 of new information is dated. In other words, 

14 we're -- we're -- we're going to be filling out 

15 this matrix further. There's going to be 

16 another tier and we'll date it, the way we've 

17 done on others, so that we know that the new 

18 information is the result of what came out at 

19 this meeting. 

20 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

21 DR. MAURO: So -- so -- so yeah, I think that 

22 the -- the fundamental approach is we prepare a 

23 matrix based on our report. You folks respond 

24 the way you have -- I think you still have some 

25 responses that you may want to provide. In 
225

1 other words, in some places you don't have 

2 responses. 

3 DR. NETON: No, there's a response -- 

4 DR. MAURO: Was I (unintelligible)? 

5 DR. NETON: -- on every issue. 

6 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

8 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. Yeah. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah, but -- 

10 DR. NETON: But we might -- we have some that 

11 we might want to revise, too. 

12 DR. MAURO: Right. The-- then -- then I think 

13 that -- then there -- you notice there's a 

14 space there called "Board action." I think 

15 what we'll need to do is we will work, together 

16 with you folks, to make sure we clearly 

17 articulate what has transpired at this meeting 

18 and what actions the Board -- the workgroup has 

19 directed us to do, as best we can te-- you 

20 know, so we'll fill that in together, and then 

21 I guess -- you know, and we'll get that back to 

22 the workgroup, say okay, here's our revised 

23 matrix. I'm trying to think of the mechanics 

24 of this thing. 

25 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, 'cause we're going to have 
226

1 -- you know, it's not like there's a master 

2 document, either, that we're all going to, 

3 whether they're going to be working on it -- we 

4 might be working on it -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Well, yeah, we got -- 

6 MR. BERONJA: -- so we've got to integrate -- 

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we've got to work together on 

8 this. 

9 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: On the next -- on the next go11 around on this -- this document, but I think it 

12 also should reflect the dates. That is, the -- 

13 it should be clear, you know, that whatever 

14 marching orders we have, where we see "Board 

15 action", it would be associated with the date 

16 of this meeting. This is what emerged from 

17 this particular meeting. 

18 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

19 MS. BEACH: So do we have a clear picture of 

20 marching orders today? 

21 DR. MAURO: We're going to try to put that 

22 together and we'll -- 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, I think we do. 

24 DR. MAURO: -- work with -- we'll -- we'll work 

25 with NIOSH -- 
227

1 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

2 DR. MAURO: -- and put together our story, and 

3 I think we -- maybe we pass it back to you 

4 folks to make sure you're seeing it the same 

5 way we see it, and then it goes into the 

6 matrix. 

7 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

8 DR. MAURO: Is that okay? 

9 MS. BEACH: 'Cause I'd like to see that 

10 sampling done for the -- the -- 

11 DR. MAURO: Oh, the -- 

12 MS. BEACH: -- the stratosphere. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- the strata, the strata. 

14 MS. BEACH: The strata. 

15 DR. MAURO: Well -- well, that's -- that's -- 

16 the -- that's one -- yeah, the strata -- we'll 

17 make reference to -- that's one of our marching 

18 orders. The actual document is -- that's -- we 

19 usually send that out as a separate -- as a 

20 white paper, a white paper says here, here's 

21 the strata that we'd like to use. You have a 

22 chance to look at it and say yeah, this is 

23 good, and then we design a sampling program 

24 around that and -- and we don't implement it, 

25 though, until you folks say implement. 
228

1 MR. BERONJA: Right, and then it will be -- 

2 might be a couple months. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, ex-- yeah, it -- it could 

4 take a couple of months to implement those -- 

5 MS. BEACH: How do you determine the percentage 

6 of what you'll sample? 

7 DR. MAURO: We go to our statistician. Turns 

8 out it's very simple. He tells us that for 

9 every strata you have to have at least 20 

10 samples. 

11 MS. BEACH: At least 20? 

12 DR. MAURO: Twenty, yeah. 

13 MR. BERONJA: Although -- although Fernald was 

14 a little different. 

15 DR. MAURO: What happened on Fernald, yeah -- 

16 MR. BERONJA: I don't know, he came up with a 

17 large number -- 

18 DR. MAURO: Bigger number, yeah. 

19 MR. BERONJA: -- so I don't think we can use it 

20 -- 

21 DR. MAURO: We -- we will do the best we can to 

22 communicate to you the number and why. 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

24 DR. MAURO: Right now -- I said 20 because 

25 that's what came out of the -- 
229

1 MR. BERONJA: NTS, yeah. 

2 DR. MAURO: -- NTS, yeah. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is -- this is Arjun. You 

4 usually -- I -- I've discussed this with Harry 

5 on a num-- in a number of different contexts, 

6 and usually if you have a very large pool of -- 

7 of claimants or -- or employees that -- 

8 relatively homogeneous that you're sampling, 

9 then you can make good statements if you do a 

10 random sampling of 20. But if -- if it has to 

11 be stratified, then -- then it gets very 

12 complicated, and then sometimes -- the reason 

13 it got complicated for Fernald is we asked him 

14 -- well, we want to catch people who worked in 

15 Plant 7, and Plant 7 was only open for a little 

16 while, and what do we do about that? And so it 

17 -- it gets complicated if you're over-sampling 

18 for a very -- for -- for a particular group in 

19 order to be able to say something about them, 

20 and then -- then it can get -- the sample size 

21 can get very large. But usually 20 per strata. 

22 MR. BERONJA: Okay. 

23 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. In your next go24 round with the matrix, after you've collapsed a 

25 great many of the items that we had today, I 
230

1 might suggest that you consider the wording 

2 where you're -- your heading of "Board action", 

3 do you really mean Board action or do you mean 

4 workgroup action? It really should -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes -- 

6 MS. MUNN: -- be distinguished -- 

7 DR. MAURO: -- yeah, we have to get the 

8 terminology right. It would be -- 

9 MS. MUNN: I think you'd better say workgroup. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, workgroup recommend a path 

11 forward or something like that. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Yeah, workgroup 

13 recommendation. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

15 MS. MUNN: It's not a Board action. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah, absolutely. 

17 MS. MUNN: And I agree with you, John, the 

18 dates are essential. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon. Can I ask 

20 a question? The -- the SC&A matrix is a site 

21 profile review. Did SC&A formally review the 

22 ER report? 

23 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, Mark, we looked at the ER 

24 report, but you know, more just to get a 

25 general sense for it, and then when we did our 
231

1 site profile review and came up with the 

2 comments, as you see on the matrix, we took an 

3 initial shot and in fact -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MR. BERONJA: -- it was largely me, at which 

6 issues were SEC issues. But we were not 

7 formally tasked to review the -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I -- that's what I 

9 was questioning, and -- 

10 MR. BERONJA: Yeah. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- the other component of that, 

12 which I think is critical, is -- I saw in 

13 NIOSH's ER report they addressed some of the 

14 petitioner's questions -- 

15 MR. BERONJA: Right. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I think that -- that the 

17 petitioner would probably appreciate it if SC&A 

18 al-- you know, if -- if we also considered 

19 their specific questions. I mean we may 

20 completely agree with NIOSH's response, but I 

21 think that should be on the table, so I -- I 

22 think we should probably -- it may not result 

23 in any new matrix items, but at least we need 

24 to be able to say that we have looked at the ER 

25 report and the petitioner's, you know, full set 
232

1 of questions, et cetera. 

2 DR. NETON: I -- I guess -- this question came 

3 up earlier, though, was SC&A tasked with doing 

4 a formal review of the evaluation report. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, maybe I missed that, Jim. 

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that was one of the prob-- 

7 it's not a problem. We were asked to keep it -

8 - to be a limited review and be -- in effect 

9 the way Greg described it is while we're 

10 reviewing the site profile, please take a look 

11 at the evaluation report and -- and give your 

12 perspective on which issues might be SECs. I 

13 think that we will need some official 

14 authorization by the Board to expand this into 

15 a foc-- let's call it a focused SEC petition 

16 review and -- and do the strata issue, perhaps 

17 look at and do a formal review of the 

18 evaluation report. I -- I think that's 

19 something that has to come from the Board. 

20 MR. GIBSON: Mark and Wanda, we've discussed it 

21 here a little bit and since you guys weren't 

22 here obviously you weren't part of the 

23 conversation, but that's probably what I do 

24 when we report to the Board from the workgroups 

25 is ask them to -- ask the Board to task SC&A to 
233

1 do the full site -- or SEC review. 

2 MS. MUNN: I think that's appropriate for you 

3 to do, Mike. 

4 MR. BERONJA: Yeah, you know -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: I agree, yeah. 

6 MR. BERONJA: One -- one other thing that we 

7 actually talked about at lunchtime today, that 

8 SC&A is going to try and do -- will try to do 

9 before next Tuesday is that -- I don't think we 

10 -- I don't think we knew that the Board hadn't 

11 taken action on the 1955 to 1958 period of the 

12 SEC report, so we're going to actually probably 

13 just in the form of a letter just summarize 

14 kind of our overall findings. I think what 

15 you'll see is that we were going to concur with 

16 those particular dates, but say that post-1958 

17 we'll continue to review as part of the focused 

18 review if the additional years should be 

19 included. So we're going to try and get that 

20 done so that the Board can potentially take 

21 action on that next week. 

22 MS. MUNN: Good luck, and that's great. Yeah. 

23 MR. GIBSON: Okay, is there anything else? I 

24 don't -- I think it's going to be a little too 

25 early to try to set another date just yet, so 
234

1 we'll -- 

2 MS. KLEA: This is Bonnie. I do have a couple 

3 of comments. I don't know if this is the right 

4 time. 

5 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, go ahead, Bonnie. 

6 MS. KLEA: See, first of all, I have a letter 

7 from Christine -- is it Branche? -- and my 

8 petition is -- has been referred to as for only 

9 monitored workers, and I'd like to have that be 

10 corrected. I have a letter dated August 14 

11 from Christine Branche, and -- and this is -- 

12 you know, several references from NIOSH that my 

13 petition's only for the monitored workers, 

14 which is not true. 

15 MR. GIBSON: Bonnie, it should be for monit-- 

16 monitored or those that should have been 

17 monitored, I believe, unless NIOSH has changed 

18 some opinion. But I -- probably just a typo 

19 but, Ted, will you see that -- 

20 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I'll look into it, Bonnie. I 

21 think whatever it is, it might be a misuse of 

22 words or something, but it certainly -- nothing 

23 -- nothing was excluded from your petition, so 

24 -- 

25 MS. KLEA: Okay, thank you. And then also I 
235

1 was wondering when the transcript from today's 

2 meeting would be posted? 

3 MR. KATZ: From today's -- 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Tomorrow? 

5 MR. KATZ: Bonnie, I -- I can't -- 

6 MS. KLEA: I hear laughing, who's laughing? 

7 MR. KATZ: Well -- well, it's just -- people 

8 around the table were just laughing 'cause 

9 there's so many workgroup meetings and there's 

10 so many transcripts being worked on and only 

11 one can be done at a time that -- there's no -- 

12 no harm intended in laughter, but -- but I -- I 

13 can't tell you, Bonnie, when this workgroup 

14 meeting will be posted because, in general, 

15 we're trying to get workgroup meetings that are 

16 older than this done first posted. We're 

17 trying to do them in order except when there's 

18 a priority issue for a workgroup to be able to 

19 move forward and so on, so I can't -- I can't 

20 answer that to you. 

21 MS. KLEA: Okay, do you -- do you record the 

22 meeting or do you have a transcriber there? 

23 MR. KATZ: It's -- we have -- we have a 

24 transcriber and it is recorded. 

25 MS. KLEA: Okay, thank you. 
236

1 MR. KATZ: You're welcome. 

2 MS. BEACH: Sorry for the laughter, Bonnie. 

3 I’m still waiting for my June meeting notes. 

4 MR. GIBSON: If there's nothing else then, 

5 we'll just adjourn the meeting now. 

6 MR. KATZ: And the meeting's adjourned. Thank 

7 you for attending. 

8 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 

9 p.m.) 

10 
237

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of August 26, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

15th day of Sept., 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102