1 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY 

+ + + + + 

MONDAY 

MAY 14, 2012 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened in the Zurich

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Mark Griffon, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 2 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

TERRIE BARRIE* 

ROBERT BURNS, ORAU Team*

ANDREW EVASKOVICH 

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

STUART HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS*

GREG MACIEVIC, ORAU Team

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

CHRISTOPHER MILES, ORAU Team

DAN STEMPFLEY, ORAU Team 

*Participating via telephone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 3

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

I-N-D-E-X 

Welcome and roll-call/introductions ......... 4 

Discussion Items (cites are matrix finding

numbers)

1. Dose reconstructability of Mixed 

Fission and Activation Products by 1976 ..... 7 

2. Dose reconstructability of "exotic"

radionuclides by 1976 ..................... 173 

3. Completeness and reliability of LANL

in vitro and in vivo data, and adequacy of

co-worker model ........................... 240 

4. Feasibility of Dose Estimation for

Neutron Exposure at LANL by 1976 .......... 244 

5. Feasibility of Dose Estimation for

radiological exposures at LAMPF/LANSCE .... 249 

6. Feasibility of Dose Estimation for

Special Tritium Compounds ................. 257 

7. Unmonitored Exposure of Support

Service Personnel (no actions) ............ 268 

8. Petitioner Issues: ............... 280 

a. Firing Site (1.2)

b. Badge access (1.3)

c. Occupational environmental 

exposures (1.5)

d. Cerro Grande fire (1.7)

e. Comparison of LANL to NTS 

operations (1.8) 

WG Recommendations, Plans for June

Board Meeting, and Review of

Action Items .............................. 287 

Adjourn 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4


2 
 (9:06 a.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: So, good morning 

4 
 everyone in the room and on the line. This is 

5 
 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 
 Health, Los Alamos National Laboratory Work 

7 
 Group and we are ready to get going here. 

8 
 We begin as always with roll call, 

9 
 with Board Members, and we are speaking about 

10 
 a specific site, so please speak to conflict 

11 of interest as you register. 

12 (Roll call.) 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. The 

14 
 agenda for the meeting is posted on the 

15 
 Board's website, under the Board section of 

16 
 the website, under meetings, as are the papers 

17 
 that have been exchanged. They are all from 

18 
 DCAS. I think there are three of them and 

19 
 they are all posted on the website with the 

20 agenda. 

21 
 And Mark, it's yours. Please, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 everyone on the line, mute your phones except5


2 
 when you are speaking to, and if you don't 

3 
 have a mute button press *6 to mute, and then 

4 
 *6 to *6 to take it off mute. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, we're 

6 
 reconvening this Work Group. I am trying to 

7 
 remember the last time we had a Work Group for 

8 
 LANL. Do you have a date? About a year ago, 

9 
 right, yes. 

10 And I also, this agenda, with the 

11 
 help of Joe, put together this agenda, and 

12 
 some of them might actually, some of the sub13 
 topics, are, are cross-referenced to the 

14 
 matrix, and I have a matrix -- which, the 

15 
 latest one I have found, well, one version, is 

16 
 dated November 1st, the other is November 3rd, 

17 
 2010. I think they are -- that's the most 

18 current version of the matrix. 

19 
 What I will do, just to keep us 

20 
 fresh on this because this happened -- we 

21 
 haven't had many of these Work Groups, is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 update this during the meeting and go through6


2 
 the actions, so that we have a sense of where 

3 
 we're at the end of the meeting. 

4 
 Looking down the agenda, I think 

5 
 most of our conversations will be early, which 

6 
 is good, I mean, on the -- most of the work 

7 
 that was done was on the mixed fission and 

8 
 activation products information and the 

9 
 exotics, I believe, and maybe some more on 

10 neutrons as well. 

11 
 So other actions, I think there was 

12 
 less progress. But I think we should just go 

13 
 in order down the line, and start maybe --

14 
 we'll do the back and forth like we usually do 

15 
 with most of the actions, I believe, from the 

16 last Work Group, were in NIOSH's court. 

17 
 So we will let you guys start off 

18 for, you know, each item, and then --

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, I was wondering 

20 
 if, since we, Joe and I had a -- relatively 

21 
 several emails back and forth, if maybe you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 want to start from that point, or go from -- 7
 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what I would 

3 
 propose we can do is, since it's been a while, 

4 
 let me give you a backdrop of where we have 

5 
 come from, and then hand it off to you in 

6 
 terms of the most recent response. 

7 
 I just want to make sure -- so we 

8 
 connect the dots again. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Okay. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's been a year. 

11 
 In terms, you know, this first topic of 

12 
 course is the dose reconstructability of mixed 

13 
 fission and activation products by 1976, and 

14 
 of course the SEC that was approved was for 

15 
 Los Alamos through 1975. The premise for 

16 
 supporting dose reconstructability after '75, 

17 
 in other words '76 forward, was the advent of 

18 
 the in vivo technology, the whole-body 

19 
 counting technology at Los Alamos which came 

20 
 online, I believe '69, operable by '70, and 

21 
 the notion is that by '75 certainly it was up 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and running and data was being generated that8


2 
 would enable one to certainly monitor for 

3 
 mixed activation products and mixed fission 

4 
 products, if not exotics as well. 

5 
 In the last couple of rounds of 

6 
 discussions, the Work Group, requested that 

7 
 certainly NIOSH provide some validation that 

8 
 in fact the data was available, that was 

9 
 adequate and that there was a dose 

10 
 reconstruction approach that could be 

11 demonstrated using that data. 

12 
 Now, if you go back to the 

13 
 Evaluation Report for petition 109, and this 

14 
 is pretty much what it says is, you know, that 

15 
 in vivo counting methods were well established 

16 
 and available for bounding intakes of -- I'll 

17 
 say MFPs, mixed fission products, and MAPs, 

18 mixed activation products. 

19 
 And OTIB-54 is, is the guidance 

20 
 document cited as the means to calculate 

21 
 intakes of both fission products and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 activation products, based on cesium-137.9
 

2 
 That was cited in the Evaluation Report, with 

3 
 cesium-137 coworker data provided in the LANL 

4 
 coworker study, which is OTIB-62. So it's two 

5 
 key documents -- 54 is the sort of the process 

6 
 document by which cesium-137 is actually used, 

7 
 and the coworker report, study for Los Alamos, 

8 
 is OTIB-62. 

9 
 So what was proposed is that 

10 
 cesium-137 be used as the marker for mixed 

11 
 activation, mixed fission products and that 

12 
 would enable the coworker model to be used for 

13 
 determining dose reconstructability for 

14 
 intakes of fission products and activation 

15 products at Los Alamos. 

16 
 Now, we questioned, in our first 

17 
 round of review, NIOSH's use of cesium-137 as 

18 
 the substitute nuclide in the ER, okay, that 

19 
 was where we started, mainly because that's 

20 
 only useful if the ratio of the surrogate, in 

21 
 this case cesium-137, to the unmonitored 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 nuclide is known, that you can actually figure10


2 
 out what that ratio is, and it remains 

3 
 relatively constant. 

4 
 So if you pick a certain ratio 

5 
 value against, cesium-137, it's something that 

6 
 you need to be able to establish is known for 

7 
 the other nuclides and that it's relatively 

8 
 constant over time in the different facilities 

9 
 that you are going to use it for, if you are 

10 
 going to go that route, and that's what's 

11 expressed in the Evaluation Report. 

12 
 And, you know, as we said, the ER 

13 
 refers to OTIB-54 as a method to assign, 

14 
 again, MAPs and MFPs, unmonitored intakes. 

15 
 However, as we pointed out, OTIB-54 is based 

16 
 on a defined reactor type and known 

17 
 radionuclide ratio, and doesn't even include 

18 
 mixed activation products produced by 

19 accelerators. 

20 
 So the first problem we had with 

21 
 that proposal and Evaluation Report was how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 one is going to handle mixed activation and11


2 
 mixed fission products after 1975, is that the 

3 
 OTIB that was going to be used as the means to 

4 
 do that doesn't apply to mixed activation 

5 
 products from accelerators, and doesn't apply 

6 
 to non-reactor nuclear facilities like the 

7 
 chemical metallurgical -- the CMR, that 

8 
 facility, and some of the other non-reactor 

9 
 nuclear facilities. 

10 
 So you immediately have a problem 

11 
 because those ratios which are actually in 

12 
 that document were meant for reactors, okay, 

13 
 there's a history of how those -- how cesium14 
 137 is used as a marker and how those ratios 

15 
 were defined. That really applies in the 

16 
 context of reactors and not other types of 

17 operations. 

18 
 MEMBER MUNN: Have you shown that 

19 it does not apply? 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. We had that 

21 
 discussion in the very first Work Group 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 meeting and there was an agreement around the12


2 
 table, particularly by NIOSH, that it would 

3 
 not apply. 

4 
 MEMBER MUNN: And what have we done 

5 
 about it with respect to procedure? 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that's, 

7 
 that's one we get to. 

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, all right. Okay. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You know, I think 

10 
 it was a recognition that well, that's a 

11 
 change. There was a recognition that yes, you 

12 
 know, if you're going to go with, go with 

13 
 cesium-137 by way of OTIB-54, it does have to 

14 
 be a reactor-type facility and the facilities 

15 
 we are talking about: LAMPF, which is an 

16 
 accelerator; CMR, which is a non-reactor 

17 nuclear facility, doesn't fit the bill. 

18 
 So I think that was the starting 

19 
 point for some of the actions that we got into 

20 in terms of the mixed activation products. 

21 
 Now, splitting this up, talking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 about mixed activation products first, leaving13


2 
 the mixed fission products for second, NIOSH 

3 
 agreed that cesium-137 would not work as a 

4 
 substitute rated nuclide and proposed a new 

5 
 model based on using ratios, and this is for 

6 
 MAPs, of air monitoring data, and this is 

7 
 specifically beryllium-7, which is one of the 

8 
 longer-lived mixed activation products that is 

9 
 emitted by the accelerator, and using that as 

10 
 a marker instead, and using that as a way to 

11 
 get to the other mixed activation products by 

12 applying a ratio. 

13 
 And I think at the time we thought 

14 
 that was a thoughtful and a constructive 

15 
 approach to the issue, meaning that you have a 

16 
 lot of relatively short-lived mixed activation 

17 
 products, and how do you actually get a handle 

18 
 on the what the concentrations might be for 

19 
 the facility if not for the broader lab for 

20 
 what's being emitted, if in fact it's 

21 
 relatively short-lived. It may be copious in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 amounts in terms of curies, but they're14
 

2 
 relatively short-lived. 

3 
 So what NIOSH was proposing is that 

4 
 beryllium-7 is one of the longer-lived ones, 

5 
 and that there was a fair amount of data that 

6 
 could be used. 

7 
 And the Work Group agreed that this 

8 
 approach ought to be looked at, but the 

9 
 question at the time was, you know, is there 

10 
 enough data, you know, is there enough 

11 beryllium-7 data that one could apply that? 

12 
 And then the second part of that 

13 
 question is, you know, how representative was 

14 
 the sampling information being used to come up 

15 
 with these ratios of beryllium-7 to everything 

16 else, all the other MAPs of consequence. 

17 
 And could we have confidence that 

18 
 the rations were in fact relevant and 

19 
 consistent and bounding if you are going to go 

20 ahead and go that route. 

21 
 Now again, this is a backup plan 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 using OTIB-54 and cesium, now using beryllium15


2 
 so the question is, is there enough beryllium 

3 
 data, and then can you really rely on those 

4 
 ratios? 

5 
 And that's pretty much the, I guess 

6 
 the charter, and Greg can correct me if -- and 

7 
 try to validate the availability of the data 

8 
 and the representativeness of the ratios. 

9 
 So that's sort of the lead-in to, I 

10 think, your discussion. 

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Okay, the question 

12 
 about using beryllium and the sufficiency of 

13 
 the data and the -- had a total, I believe, of 

14 
 to start out with, 3,000 air samples that were 

15 
 used and it got whittled down to a group of 

16 
 about 1,000 air samples or so that were used 

17 
 to do the comparison for beryllium to the 

18 other short-lived radionuclides. 

19 
 And I need to point out is that we 

20 
 are not doing a dose model based on those 

21 
 ratios. What we are doing is taking those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 ratios then -- and applying that to whole body16


2 
 counts where you are actually getting the dose 

3 
 from a dose measurement and using that as an 

4 
 indicator for a scaling factor for the dose 

5 
 body count. 

6 
 So we are not trying to develop a 

7 
 model from those ratios. So it's really, in a 

8 
 facility, you want to know, based on the 

9 
 samples that we have taken, is that relatively 

10 
 constant over the periods of time that we 

11 
 checked and we have seen that it is, that that 

12 
 ratio of beryllium to the other radionuclides, 

13 
 since that is the most -- longest half life 

14 
 and most prominent one there and the other 

15 
 radionuclides' ratio to it, that it is a value 

16 
 that is applicable from, like I said, a set of 

17 
 several thousand or from a set of a thousand 

18 samples that were used. 

19 
 So we feel that is a good, or 

20 
 sufficient base to use to measure, or to use 

21 
 as a scaling factor for the actual dose that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 is going to be computed. 17
 

2 
 As far as the cesium issue, yes. 

3 
 We dropped that issue on OTIB-54, saying that 

4 
 wouldn't be relevant to use for reactors. But 

5 
 what we found, we have bumped previous data 

6 
 captures and this current data capture and put 

7 
 samples of these in the -- from the SRDB and 

8 
 that are mentioned in our action response. 

9 
 What you have from these facilities 

10 
 is bioassay that is used and the gamma-spec 

11 
 and the bioassay from CMR and other facilities 

12 
 to come up with the measurements for cesium 

13 
 that we are talking about. So we are not 

14 
 using air samples or needing any kind of ratio 

15 
 in that respect, because we are actually going 

16 
 to use bioassay information to come up with a 

17 
 cesium calculation that would come out of the 

18 
 bioassay measurements that do exist for cesium 

19 
 and like I said, they are gamma spec, so you 

20 
 end up with, and there's later in a table in 

21 
 here on the whole body counts and bioassay, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 where there's the -- gamma spec gives you a18


2 
 whole range of radionuclides that were found 

3 
 in the urine as they did the samples. 

4 
 So one of the reasons that, as we 

5 
 talked about in '75 as a period, when we went 

6 
 to '75 it was the end of the SEC, whatever 

7 
 that was, 51, SEC-51, the first SEC for LANL. 

8 
 So we took that date, the whole 

9 
 body counts and that being like you said, in 

10 
 the early '70s, and move up. So at that point 

11 
 they did have alpha spec, gamma spec, a whole 

12 
 system of nose wipes, RWPs, SWPs, that were 

13 
 used,, that do pinpoint the use of cesium and 

14 
 cesium bioassays pointing to people needing to 

15 
 leave bioassays for cesium or other mixed 

16 
 activation product type of things, in -- on 

17 
 these work permits, and there are examples, 

18 more examples that we found from it. 

19 
 And our whole purpose, and what 

20 
 NIOSH is trying to do in the ER, you have all 

21 
 kinds of information, you have air sampling, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the contamination surveys, a nose wipe system,19


2 
 all that to show that there was a system in 

3 
 place. We are not saying it's a perfect 

4 
 system that is in place, because there were 

5 
 incidences, as Andrew, the petitioner, points 

6 
 out, there's incidences, Tiger Team had 

7 
 questions on things. 

8 
 But what you wanted to show is that 

9 
 there is a system in place that monitors --

10 
 we'll get into this in later issues -- but for 

11 
 alpha, the actinides and other exotics, there 

12 is a system in place. 

13 
 The dose measurement component 

14 
 comes from our model that says you are going 

15 
 to use the plutonium bioassays, that we will 

16 
 then take all the actinides, and pick a 

17 
 certain percentage of this, because there's 

18 
 thousands of bioassays for plutonium, and for 

19 uranium. 

20 
 So you are going to take those 

21 
 intakes, based on those models, and then apply 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 all of the actinides to a particular -- if you20


2 
 take a particular year and say the 50th 

3 
 percentile of the intake in that year, you 

4 
 will take all the actinides, run them through 

5 
 and see which gives you the highest dose, and 

6 
 there's issues about presumptive cancers in 

7 
 that which we believe gets nullified by this, 

8 
 because what you are doing is taking, if you 

9 
 were going to pick only one actinide to 

10 
 associate with a particular intake, you could 

11 
 say well that's not going to cover the dose. 

12 
 There may be a presumptive cancer that has a 

13 
 larger dose associated with it, if you were 

14 
 different. But the fact that you are taking 

15 
 all of the actinides and running them to find 

16 
 what is the highest dose that you get from a 

17 
 50th percentile, say, intake, that is the dose 

18 
 that is going to be assigned to the Class of 

19 people that we are talking about in this ER. 

20 
 So the survey data is really, and 

21 
 our searches, are to say there is large 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 volumes of survey data, there are the21
 

2 
 actinides or the exotics. 

3 
 Fission products and mixed 

4 
 activation products are mentioned much more 

5 
 often than the actinides. That, we get -- in 

6 
 looking through the checklists and other 

7 
 things, they do not mention those, and that's 

8 
 how our -- we will, I'm jumping ahead of 

9 
 myself on other things, but for this issue 

10 
 here, that's where it stands as far as using 

11 
 the beryllium for ratio purposes only, not for 

12 dose purposes. 

13 
 And we do feel, from this sampling 

14 
 and from previous samplings, that there is, I 

15 
 mean, and then the question gets to being 

16 
 what's sufficient, but we believe that a 

17 
 thousand samples with that, is sufficient to 

18 
 base that ratioing on, that the number we are 

19 
 having for a scaling factor for the whole body 

20 
 count --

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask = 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Go ahead. 22
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask one 

3 
 question? I think Joe will probably have more 

4 
 followup, but just one question. On the 

5 
 thousand samples, what -- can you describe 

6 
 those, over what time period they exist, were 

7 
 they stack samples, were they workplace 

8 
 samples, what --

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, they're air 

10 samples --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Air samples --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: and stack samples 

13 from the actual facilities that LAMPF --

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Air samples, 

15 
 workplace air samples and the stack samples 

16 
 come on, or, or --

17 
 MR. MILES: I think it's mostly 

18 
 stack samples. There had been isotopic 

19 information --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

21 DR. MACIEVIC: This is from the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you look at23
 

2 
 the ratios there --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: From the filters on 

4 
 the stacks. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And over what 

6 
 time frame? Was it like '75 on or was it, do 

7 
 you recall? I didn't look at those 

8 
 spreadsheets. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, I unfortunately 

10 don't recall. 

11 
 MR. MILES: It was over a good 

12 section of that time, right? 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventy-five, to 

14 the end of the -- 2005 --

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. Well, it's 

16 
 not a sampling just of one short period. It's 

17 
 over a length of time from all these samples 

18 
 being drawn. It's not specific to like, well, 

19 a five-year period. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you 

21 
 mentioned gamma spec and alpha spec. They 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 started using gamma spec and alpha spec in24


2 
 what years? Not for bioassays --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, gamma spec 

4 
 they were using in --

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The gamma spec -

6 
 -

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Definitely in --

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, but what 

9 
 about -- you'd mentioned alpha spec? 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Alpha spec comes 

11 
 later on and I don't remember the exact year, 

12 
 but that is also being used in things such as 

13 the actinides. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For the 

15 actinides, beyond just plutonium and uranium? 

16 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And other 

18 
 exotics. 

19 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, well, you 

20 
 look and see the -- the thing is, is that you 

21 
 are controlling, because you had a plutonium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 alpha question and uranium that are the main25


2 
 players in this whole thing, but there's 

3 
 controlling based on that and also doing alpha 

4 
 surveys and alpha surveys that are being 

5 
 involved and contamination surveys, would 

6 
 include any alphas that are produced from 

7 
 these actinides that are in there, because you 

8 
 are talking -- the bulk of the actinide work, 

9 
 1972, around there, that period, where it 

10 
 pretty much, the heavy duty work where there 

11 
 was much more actinides, potential for 

12 
 exposure was pre-'72. So, post that period 

13 
 now, you are having whatever kind of residue 

14 
 is there and smaller activities going on, so 

15 
 another reason why you do not see, and you 

16 
 will not see, and even up to current date, you 

17 
 do not see mention at the site of any bioassay 

18 
 or type of thing where there is a bioassay 

19 
 program for curium or neptunium or any of 

20 
 these other radionuclides, even as of today, 

21 they are not doing they type of work. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. MILES: Scale. 26
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: On a production 

3 
 scale, right, in the laboratory scale, yes. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think when 

5 
 we talked about this at the last meeting, and 

6 
 it was acknowledged that cesium-137 didn't 

7 
 work for the reasons that we discussed, and 

8 
 the beryllium step was proposed, I think we 

9 
 said that seemed to have merit, and -- but 

10 
 again, if we go back, we were concerned about 

11 
 whether there was enough beryllium-7 data for 

12 
 the time frames in question. That was the 

13 first question, data availability. 

14 
 And the second question was the 

15 
 reliability and representativeness of the 

16 
 ratios, because again, beryllium-7 of course 

17 
 is one of the activation products of interest, 

18 
 particularly from LAMPF, but you know, there's 

19 
 others that clearly play into the exposure 

20 pathway to workers. 

21 
 So I think the Work Group wanted to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 get a validation on the availability of the27


2 
 beryllium-7 data and then a validation on the 

3 
 representativeness of the ratios that were 

4 
 going to be used. 

5 
 And on the availability side of the 

6 
 beryllium-7 data, there was a spreadsheet I 

7 
 think you posted to get to the actual number. 

8 
 Let me see. Yes, it was 106515 was the SRDB 

9 
 number, 106515. And it was a spreadsheet of 

10 
 the, of the emission data, including 

11 beryllium-7 from LAMPF. 

12 
 And looking at that data and 

13 
 sorting it, just sorting it by beryllium-7 by 

14 
 year, certainly there's beryllium-7 data from 

15 
 '76 forward, but there's two years missing, 

16 from late '76 to early '78 I think. 

17 
 So, certainly there's a little 

18 
 question there. Now, maybe that can be 

19 
 extrapolated or some sort, but the data before 

20 
 1980 is either missing or relatively small 

21 
 compared to the data for beryllium-7 after 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 '80, which you know, becomes much more28
 

2 
 plentiful. 

3 
 Beyond the distribution issue 

4 
 though, I think more significantly, is --

5 
 would be my concern of the ratios. When we 

6 
 discussed this at the last meeting, the sense 

7 
 was we understand you are taking stack 

8 
 samples, but how do we know those samples off 

9 
 the filters are reflective of the relevant 

10 
 activation products, and representative not 

11 
 only of what you are seeing, you know, coming 

12 
 out of the stack, but actually representative 

13 
 of the exposure that the workers would be 

14 
 exposed to and its -- again, not the quantity, 

15 just the ratios. 

16 
 And let me add, some of the SRDB 

17 
 documents that are on file, and I have the 

18 
 numbers, here's the environment, working 

19 
 environment, the operating environment at 

20 
 LAMPF is certainly more complex than that 

21 
 method would reflect, that you have a variety 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 of mixed activation products, depending on the29


2 
 chemical compound, composition and form. 

3 
 Certainly, the filters were 

4 
 filtering out the particulate activation 

5 
 products, you know, the heat filters, the 

6 
 charcoal. That's getting the heat. 

7 
 But you also have a fair amount of 

8 
 gaseous activation products. This is where 

9 
 you are shooting the beam through air so you 

10 
 are forming isotopes of oxygen, nitrogen, 

11 carbon, whatever and that's all flowing out. 

12 
 That's proven particularly 

13 
 meddlesome to LAMPF, because you really can't 

14 
 capture, it's just, that's -- you're, you're 

15 
 releasing it, emitting it, and it's a fair 

16 
 amount of -- short-lived admittedly -- but a 

17 fair amount of curies going out the stack. 

18 
 And, and looking at the 

19 
 documentation that you have there, and I can 

20 
 provide that at the break, but the facility 

21 
 itself has struggled with how to figure out, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 you know, how much -- what the complement is,30


2 
 what the concentrations were, what the 

3 
 proportional ratios of the carbon to the 

4 
 oxygen to the nitrogen, all these gaseous 

5 
 forms. 

6 
 Because it really depends on the 

7 
 beam time, the beam power, the energy of the 

8 
 beam, the targets -- we had a lot of variables 

9 
 involved at LAMPF that would have a direct 

10 
 bearing on how much of this gaseous MAP that 

11 you would be putting out. 

12 
 And there was a lot of concern 

13 
 about that, not the last of which, from the 

14 
 EPA, because again, LAMPF represented a fairly 

15 
 significant source term for environmental 

16 releases at the lab. 

17 
 So you had, you know, you certainly 

18 
 had the gaseous, GMAP, they call it, gaseous 

19 
 mixed activation products, and you had of 

20 
 course the particulate mixed activation 

21 
 products, which you certainly would be picking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 those up in the stacks. But you also had31
 

2 
 those available in the workplace because 

3 
 workers would go in when the accelerator was 

4 
 down, doing maintenance and other support 

5 
 activities, and that's what these workers 

6 
 would be exposed to, would be residual 

7 
 contamination on the -- on the surfaces from 

8 
 some of these particulates, particulate MAPs. 

9 
 That further complicates the 

10 
 picture, and again this is in the SRDB 

11 
 documents, you have vapor activation products, 

12 
 and this is because they were using water to 

13 
 pool the magnets in some of the target, the 

14 actual targets. 

15 
 And with the presence of water in 

16 
 the target area, you would get vapor produced, 

17 
 and that's another issue, and they would 

18 
 monitor for that, and that to some extent is 

19 
 why they had the charcoal filters, was trying 

20 to capture some of that. 

21 
 And I guess the picture I'm 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 painting is that the site and LANL struggled32


2 
 all the way up into the '90s, trying to figure 

3 
 out, you know, exactly what was being released 

4 
 and particularly on the gaseous side, had real 

5 
 problems figuring out what the proportions 

6 
 were, because it was experiment-specific --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I guess the 

8 
 other thing that was mentioned in the Work 

9 
 Group meeting last time was the hold up time 

10 to, or the --

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the hold up 

12 issue, we kind of mention that --

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We had questions 

14 on that --

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: We had questions 

16 
 on that, because -- clearly because of the 

17 half life --

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which would 

19 affect your ratios at the stack, obviously. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, the hold 

21 
 up, the facility had, had hold up in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 lines, just because some of it was relatively33


2 
 short-lived, that in a matter of minutes you 

3 
 wouldn't have anything to worry about. 

4 
 So they did have some hold up, and 

5 
 they got in some trouble with EPA, which I 

6 
 think even the petitioner raised, this 

7 
 compliance issue, in the early '90s, where it 

8 
 was a disagreement over how much credit the 

9 
 lab should take for hold up, because I think 

10 
 EPA was contending that it wasn't being held 

11 
 up as long as the lab was, was claiming, and 

12 
 that would have some impact on the estimation 

13 of the gaseous releases. 

14 
 So there was a lot of play on, you 

15 
 know, exactly what was going out, how much, 

16 
 and again, this became a compliance problem 

17 later on. 

18 
 But certainly all along there was a 

19 
 great deal of difficultly even figuring out 

20 
 what was being environmentally released, 

21 
 because you had these different forms of MAPs, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and different experiments being run, the34
 

2 
 energy that was being used in the accelerator 

3 
 varied. 

4 
 So it was a -- if you can think of 

5 
 a facility, almost the opposite of a 

6 
 production facility, where you are running 

7 
 different experiments with different targets, 

8 
 every time you changed the target you got a 

9 
 different configuration of what was going on 

10 
 in the air, because the impingement of the 

11 
 beam would give you a different, different 

12 
 emission, if you want to call it that, a 

13 
 particulate emission as well as a gaseous 

14 emission. 

15 
 So all those play into it. So the 

16 
 picture that is painted is fairly complex, and 

17 
 that's why I think we were concerned that if 

18 
 one is going to use beryllium-7 as a marker, 

19 
 and assume that all the other MAPs ratioed 

20 
 against that, I think that's a fairly tall 

21 
 order that one has to look at rather carefully 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 because of the nature of the beast, the nature35


2 
 of the facility, that it's -- looking at the 

3 
 filters alone, and banking on those at one 

4 
 point in time for example, being reflective I 

5 
 think, it wouldn't work. It would have to be 

6 
 something that would be over some length of 

7 
 time, sort of a bounding approach that would 

8 
 have take the maximum. 

9 
 It would also have to consider all 

10 
 the different forms of activation products 

11 
 that were being generated at the facility and 

12 
 not just the particulates but the gaseous as 

13 
 well as the vapor, and make sure that those 

14 
 ratios could be captured and bounded that way. 

15 It's not an easy thing. I mean, 

16 
 -- in looking through these documents on 

17 
 LAMPF, it's a much more, even more complex 

18 
 than I remembered it, and they were struggling 

19 
 with figuring out what they were releasing, 

20 
 let alone trying to do it sort of after the 

21 fact and looking at ratios. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 I think I even saw something in36


2 
 here where, in '82 or '83, KANNE, the KANNE 

3 
 monitoring instrument on the stacks, that's 

4 
 part of what they used to monitor for. 

5 
 They found that was 30-some percent 

6 
 off. It was underestimating what was going 

7 
 out the stack by 30-some percent so they sort 

8 
 of sent a memo around saying okay, from here 

9 
 on out, up the estimates by 30-some percent 

10 
 because we were off. It wasn't calibrated 

11 right. 

12 
 So this, again, was a very 

13 difficult proposition. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So can you speak 

15 
 to the -- I mean these short-lived, these 

16 
 other ones that we have a concern on, that I 

17 
 have a concern on the ratio estimate? Can you 

18 
 speak to the dose consequences from those 

19 shorter-lived, the gaseous, the vapor --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean --

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean are they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

37
 

MR. FITZGERALD: LAMPF, yes, I 

don't think there's any dispute LAMPF was a 

bit of a bad actor as far as the emission. It 

was the -- I think one of the documents 

acknowledged as the highest source of 

radioactive emission in the DOE complex, which 

I -- again, I didn't recall that, but reading 

it again, it was a fairly prolific emission 

source. 

Now, the saving grace was most of 

it was relatively short-lived, so that even 

though there was a lot of implications for the 

fence line as far as the general public, most 

of it didn't get to far because it was 

relatively in minutes, you know, 10 minutes, a 

lot of it was just mere seconds. 

So taken all together, it wasn't a 

big impact to the public, even though it was 

in fact measurable at the LANL boundary. 

The issue we have, of course, is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 that the workers who worked on-site, in the38


2 
 buildings, would have been up close and 

3 
 personal, so that even though it was a 

4 
 relatively short half life, you would have an 

5 
 environmental occupational dose by virtue of 

6 
 the copious amounts that were being released, 

7 
 that would be relatively high, that you know, 

8 
 your exposure, I mean, you are talking 

9 
 millirem, it's not high in terms of rem, but 

10 
 high in terms of the fact that the -- unlike 

11 
 most places, the environmental occupational 

12 dose at LAMPF was not insignificant. 

13 
 There's one paper in here, again I 

14 
 can get the SRDB number, that notes that 25 

15 
 percent of the occupational dose for LAMPF 

16 
 would be attributed to the ambient emission 

17 
 concentration levels on site. 

18 
 Now, this is concentrations not 

19 
 only from going out the stack, but also 

20 
 diffusing from the -- in the facility itself. 

21 
 So, and the rest of it was neutrons 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 basically. So it was a contributor to the39
 

2 
 occupational dose at the facility. 

3 
 MEMBER MUNN: So, Joe, let me 

4 
 clarify for the slow learners among us, 

5 
 exactly what the concern is here. The concern 

6 
 is that we have moved the what is the 

7 
 appropriate ratio, and should be ratioing at 

8 
 all. 

9 
 What I think I am hearing from you 

10 
 is we are concerned about what was going out 

11 
 of the stack because we don't know exactly 

12 
 what that was at any given time due to the 

13 
 difference in the, the type of activity that 

14 
 was going on. And by activity I mean physical 

15 
 activity. I don't mean radiological activity. 

16 
 So what you are trying to say here 

17 
 is -- you haven't actually said it -- but what 

18 
 I have received as an inference is, since we 

19 
 apparently don't have what someone thinks is 

20 
 reliable badge information about people who 

21 
 were there, because what you were saying was, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 you had this plethora of small quantities of40


2 
 radionuclides which are being emitted, many of 

3 
 which are gaseous, and for some reason you 

4 
 don't think that the badging program was 

5 
 adequate to identify what that effect on human 

6 
 beings would be? 

7 
 I mean, you see, if we are -- if we 

8 
 are concerned about this, we are concerned 

9 
 about it because of its effect on human 

10 beings. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: And if we have our 

13 
 human beings badged, then regardless of how 

14 
 short-lived and regardless of how small, the 

15 
 implication is the badge should tell us where 

16 our -- our urinalysis should tell us. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it doesn't. 

18 See, let me --

19 
 MEMBER MUNN: No, I know, I know, 

20 
 we are not testing -- we are not testing for -

21 -

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 41
 

2 
 MEMBER MUNN: Radionuclide known to 

3 
 man. I understand that. I understand that. 

4 
 Not even testing for every radionuclide that 

5 
 is known to be emitted by LAMPF. I understand 

6 
 that. 

7 
 But if we have badging processes 

8 
 which are good badging processes, and they 

9 
 were pretty good at LANL, these folks knew 

10 
 what to be concerned about, and they did a lot 

11 
 of work trying to make sure that people were 

12 badged. 

13 
 Now, are we discarding that 

14 
 entirely? Are we saying, well, since the 

15 
 filters didn't catch all the gases and since 

16 
 the stack monitor was under-representing what 

17 
 was going up the stack, that we don't have 

18 information about what we need to use? 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, let me, let 

20 
 me just back up. Los Alamos -- we're not, you 

21 
 know -- Los Alamos, along with Oak Ridge and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 then in health physics, you know, I don't want42


2 
 to get into, you know, this -- does Los Alamos 

3 
 have a comprehensive, sound health physics 

4 
 program. I don't think that's the real issue 

5 
 here. 

6 
 Because even before '75, in the 

7 
 prior SEC, I wouldn't dispute the fact that, 

8 
 you know, I knew Hi Nancy, 

9 


10 
 Please see the reviewed ABRWH MD WG 041012 

11 
 transcript. 

12 


13 
 There were a few personal identifiers removed. 

14 
 This document has the necessary redacted 

15 
 language inserted ‘identifying information 

16 
 redacted’., he ran the internal dosimetry 

17 
 program at Los Alamos, and you know, he 

18 
 definitely knew what he was doing. 

19 
 However, -- however, the issue is 

20 
 that there was no way to monitor personnel who 

21 
 made and were potentially exposed to these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 mixed activation products, mixed fission43
 

2 
 products, talking about activation products 

3 
 from the accelerator. 

4 
 This is where the long laundry list 

5 
 of very sort of exotic, but thankfully short6 
 lived stuff, it doesn't stick around very 

7 
 long. 

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: I understand. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, the issue is 

10 
 with the in vivo counter, the whole body 

11 
 counter coming on the scene at Los Alamos in 

12 
 the early '70s, that certainly was -- provided 

13 
 the prospect that okay, now we have something 

14 
 that is sophisticated and precise enough that 

15 
 we can -- we can perhaps pick these up, that 

16 
 we can actually get monitoring data for people 

17 
 who were exposed to these things, even though, 

18 
 you know, albeit these are short lives and 

19 
 that's one of the problems with even the whole 

20 
 body count, you can only see what was still 

21 there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 Now, the original proposal was44


2 
 cesium-137 but now we are looking at 

3 
 beryllium-7 because it's long enough lived 

4 
 that there were people that went through the 

5 
 whole body counter who worked at LAMPF, for 

6 
 which we have beryllium-7 data. 

7 
 So right away, we are saying okay, 

8 
 we can see a pathway to addressing this issue. 

9 
 But beryllium-7 is just one of a large list of 

10 
 mixed activation products that were admitted 

11 from the facility. 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: Which changed with 

13 every procedure. 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, which was 

15 
 very variable on the site, so how do we know, 

16 
 one, that there is enough beryllium-7 data to 

17 
 begin with, because at the last meeting, when 

18 
 this was proposed, there wasn't any sense of 

19 
 how much there was, of beryllium-7, so that 

20 
 you could base, you know, you would have a 

21 reasonable amount to base it on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 The second question was, since this45


2 
 all hinges on being able to use beryllium-7 as 

3 
 a substitute, could you demonstrate that the 

4 
 ratios that you would plan to use would be 

5 
 reflective of what the workers were in fact 

6 
 exposed to on site? 

7 
 A very basic question. Two very 

8 
 basic questions. Do you have enough 

9 
 beryllium-7 data and how sure are you that 

10 
 these ratios would be useful and bounding for 

11 
 the site? And that was it. That's how we 

12 left it. We said it's a promising approach. 

13 
 So the response that we got, and we 

14 
 got a spreadsheet, I went through it, yes, 

15 
 there's beryllium-7 data, but two years of it 

16 
 is missing in the '70s and it is rather scant 

17 
 in the '70s but does become more plentiful by 

18 1980, okay? That answers the first question. 

19 
 The second question, which is what 

20 
 we have been talking about, you know, how 

21 
 representative would the stack ratios, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 stack filter ratios be, of what the workers46


2 
 would be exposed to in the plant, I'm 

3 
 struggling a lot with that because I think in 

4 
 the NIOSH response to, you know, it was said 

5 
 that you know, that documents were reviewed, 

6 
 and it certainly appeared that these were 

7 
 representative. But I went through those 

8 
 documents. There's nothing in there that pins 

9 
 down any of these ratios. 

10 
 But yet the documents I did locate 

11 
 on LAMPF and the SRDB on the other hand, point 

12 
 to a situation of a mixed activation product 

13 
 production at the plant, very variable in very 

14 
 different chemical forms, not all captured by 

15 
 these filters and for which workers, more than 

16 
 likely, depending on the experiment and the 

17 
 time frame and the nature of the targets, 

18 
 would have been exposed to varying ratios, so 

19 
 if anything it makes it a much more muddled 

20 
 picture as to whether or not this particular 

21 
 approach could be made to work because it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 would be difficult to show that you would have47


2 
 a bounding ratio for the MAPs of concern. 

3 
 So that's where it is. I mean, you 

4 
 know there should be a handle which is 

5 
 beryllium-7 from the whole body counting 

6 
 records, that enables you to get to a dose 

7 
 reconstruction method for these mixed 

8 
 activation products from the accelerator, but 

9 
 it does hinge on whether or not you can answer 

10 
 those two questions, whether you have enough 

11 
 beryllium-7 and then secondarily, whether you 

12 
 can tie beryllium-7 by ratio to all these 

13 
 other significant, both gaseous, particulate 

14 
 and vapor-based mixed activation products, 

15 
 which is the reality of that particular 

16 facility. 

17 
 And I don't think those questions, 

18 
 based on the response, were answered, and 

19 
 that's kind of where we are at. I mean, 

20 
 certainly the spreadsheet helped me see the 

21 
 availability of beryllium-7 and there are some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 questions there obviously. But on the other48
 

2 
 hand, the question of the ratio I don't think 

3 
 was answered by the NIOSH response, it sort of 

4 
 said we -- you know, we didn't find much, but 

5 
 what we did see, didn't dispute our approach, 

6 
 and oh, by the way, we did see from short7 
 lived, I'm sorry, I'm paraphrasing, short8 
 lived nuclides in our data, so therefore there 

9 
 couldn't have been any hold up. 

10 
 And I think we heard that at the 

11 
 last meeting but felt that wasn't enough, so I 

12 
 guess I would say we still don't feel that's 

13 enough at this point. 

14 
 MEMBER MUNN: And I still don't 

15 
 feel that my concern about the validity of the 

16 
 badge readings has been addressed. I -- why 

17 
 are we not --

18 DR. MACIEVIC: Well that -- I agree 

19 
 100 percent on that. That's one of the things 

20 
 that I wanted to bring up. I mean, we -- we 

21 
 are talking about a process thing about a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 stack release that is talking about what EPA49


2 
 cares about, and that's not where the issue 

3 
 is. 

4 
 We are at the issue of, one, you 

5 
 have a badge system that does measure beta, 

6 
 gamma, alpha, and neutron. Beta gamma 

7 
 neutron. It's got it down pretty tight by 

8 
 1975, '76, and with the neutron -- I'm talking 

9 
 about external. I know. But, but, but, but, 

10 
 but, you have high and you have all these 

11 
 short-lived, how are they giving off their 

12 
 energy, either gamma or beta? A lot of them 

13 are gamma emitters. 

14 
 If you have a person who is up 

15 
 close and personal inside of a gas that is 

16 
 giving off, even over a short time, lots of 

17 
 gamma rays, you are saying that these badges 

18 
 are somehow missing all of that, and you 

19 
 should be seeing some kind of dose, just like 

20 
 you are seeing high neutron doses, or neutron 

21 doses --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: How about internal50
 

2 
 doses? 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, but that's a 

4 
 link to it by going and saying that if I'm 

5 
 seeing no external dose --

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that what 

7 
 you're saying? 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, no, I have to 

9 
 go -- I mean, I didn't say --

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are you 

11 proposing external as a surrogate now? 

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, no, no. What I 

13 am saying --

14 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: We are moving off-of 

16 
 the issue. You worried about the beryllium-7 

17 
 and yes, there are surveys, and I have right 

18 here, from the --

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That's what we're 

20 talking about. 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, but -- but for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 LAMPF, this is 1975 from the quarterly51
 

2 
 reports, survey reports, which we of course 

3 
 could go dig up all of these spreadsheets. 

4 
 But this is just for 1975, 

5 
 laboratory air samples from LAMPF, 909, 

6 
 laboratory swipes 204, laboratory water 11, 

7 
 laboratory other 13, laboratory alpha 639, 

8 
 laboratory beta 893, laboratory gamma 1,352 

9 
 samples, laboratory tritium 13, laboratory 

10 gamma spec 133. 

11 
 And that's for the second quarter 

12 
 of 1975. And that says -- backs up our whole 

13 
 point there is a program in place. That what 

14 
 you are saying is, is that because of these 

15 
 very short-lived half lives, that the 

16 
 beryllium ratio has to be thrown out, that you 

17 
 can't, we are using that as a factor to modify 

18 a dose, that is actually --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You were throwing 

21 
 that out and you cannot use that because it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 would be short-lived. If you had a very large52
 

2 
 gamma-producing, with all these surveys that 

3 
 are produced there, which we haven't produced 

4 
 all 909 from the second quarter of 1975 to 

5 
 show what those are. But you would have 

6 
 found, if this was a constant, chronic 

7 
 problem, and well, we probably have to go back 

8 
 to, because we have been concentrating on 

9 
 neutron dose mostly for LAMPF, but we can also 

10 
 go back and trace the gamma doses from LAMPF 

11 
 over time and focus in on those to go and see 

12 
 why aren't we seeing spurts of large gamma ray 

13 doses for individuals that are in there. 

14 
 Well see, you have to -- if you are 

15 
 putting this whole picture together, you have 

16 
 to consider that if we have an unknown piece 

17 
 which is the short-lived that are producing 

18 
 large dose for people that we are not -- we 

19 
 are kidding, then you have to explain why you 

20 are not seeing it on the dosimetry. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But can I ask 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 just one question on that, the stats you read53


2 
 out, for '75. Is that summary report, do you 

3 
 -- I mean I don't expect you to pull 909 --

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, these are from 

5 
 the quarterly report summary. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have any 

7 
 of those, did you look any of those individual 

8 


9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes. There's --

10 
 yes. We do have some of the data there but we 

11 
 have not pulled out the --

12 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And were you 

13 
 able to use that data in any way to compare? 

14 
 I mean it seems like you rely on the stack. 

15 
 Did that carry a work area air sample? Did 

16 
 that have the information you needed to do the 

17 
 ratio kind of stuff? 

18 
 MR. MILES: I think the -- I think 

19 
 the work area data was primarily gross alpha -

20 
 -

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Gross alpha --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. MILES: Gross beta. 54
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

3 
 MR. MILES: But what those were, 

4 
 they had followed by, a lot of times, nose 

5 
 wipes, which would then, I don't know, 

6 
 possibly they used those, I would think, as an 

7 
 indicator to send somebody a whole body count. 

8 
 And we've got, you know, quite a 

9 
 bit of whole body count data for beryllium-7, 

10 
 sodium-22, carbon lead and carbon-13, several 

11 others are --

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: So your whole body, 

13 
 that's the chart that is in your paper that 

14 
 shows that for beryllium in '75, you have two 

15 
 whole bodies? Is that what I'm looking at 

16 here? 

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: From that --

18 MEMBER BEACH: This is your --

19 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: In the responses 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 section -- 55
 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: Page 11 of your 

3 
 report just has the total number, I'm assuming 

4 
 it's the total number of whole body counts per 

5 
 year. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: So there's two for 

8 
 '75.. 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: Is that in monthly 

10 reports, from whole body? 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: The header says 

12 whole body counts per year. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: I'm looking at the 

14 
 area ones. 

15 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Table 1 has 17. 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: Table 2. 

17 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Two beryllium-7 

18 
 whole body counts, is that what you were 

19 talking about? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

21 DR. MACIEVIC: Whole body counts. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Those are whole56
 

2 
 body counts? 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: So that's the total 

4 
 you have for that year. 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have two for 

7 
 '75. You have four or five -- eight for '76. 

8 
 You are missing from December '76 to, to the 

9 
 end of -- or early '78, no, late '78, November 

10 
 '78. Then it picks up again in '78, December 

11 
 '78, and you have probably 20 in '79, and 3 in 

12 '78. 

13 
 So you know, that's the, that's the 

14 
 amount of beryllium-7 data. But you know, I 

15 
 think, if I can direct this to the Work Group, 

16 
 the emphasis that we are focused on, and we 

17 
 were focused on where we left off at the last 

18 
 meeting, is not on the reliability of the Los 

19 
 Alamos healthy physics program, but on the 

20 
 method, the methodology, dose reconstruction 

21 methodology, okay? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 If the ER, Evaluation Report, which57


2 
 is what we are talking about in this petition, 

3 
 doesn't work, which we have acknowledged, and 

4 
 cesium-137, that's what's in the ER, then what 

5 
 dose reconstruction method are you going to 

6 
 use for mixed activation products? 

7 
 It's a very essential question 

8 
 because this was the basis for cutting it off 

9 
 at '75. So if you have cut off the petition 

10 
 at '75, and the issue is that somehow the in 

11 
 vivo counting in other words enables you to do 

12 
 have a dose reconstruction methodology that 

13 
 gets you there, then I think this Work Group 

14 wants to know how does it get you there. 

15 
 And if the ER is not right, and it 

16 
 isn't right, that cesium-137 and the two OTIBs 

17 
 that are cited in that, then NIOSH, it's 

18 
 incumbent on NIOSH to demonstrate to the Work 

19 
 Group what alternate method is going to be 

20 used. 

21 
 Okay? The alternate method in this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 case is beryllium-7, and the ratios against58


2 
 beryllium-7 is how one is going to figure out 

3 
 what the MAP dose is from the accelerator. 

4 
 Now, all we are asking, I'm not 

5 
 asking about how many surveys did they do. We 

6 
 are just saying methodology-wise, how do you 

7 
 get from beryllium-7 to a bounding dose with 

8 
 mixed activation products, a very basic 

9 
 question. The ER is not correct as it is 

10 
 written. What is the replacement method that 

11 is going to be in there? 

12 
 And we are saying we can see the 

13 
 data. You've got two data points for '75. 

14 
 You've got so many for -- you know, we have 

15 
 looked at that. There's some questions there, 

16 because there's two years missing. 

17 
 But then you get to the question, 

18 
 is how do you know what these ratios are going 

19 
 to be, if that's the method? And I hadn't 

20 
 heard anything of how -- which is the Work 

21 
 Group request from the last meeting, how NIOSH 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 intends to validate these ratios. 59
 

2 
 What we have gotten is sort of, we 

3 
 looked at these documents and they seem to 

4 
 support us. And oh by the way, we saw some 

5 
 short-lived nuclides in the emissions and that 

6 
 tells us there was no hold up. I mean, 

7 
 that's, that's literally what I read in the 

8 
 response. 

9 
 That doesn't -- that's not 

10 
 evaluative in the normal sense of the word. 

11 
 What is the basis for believing that these 

12 
 ratios are bounding for the MAPs at LAMPF, 

13 
 given what I went through and described as the 

14 
 various particulates and vapors and gases and 

15 
 different experimental configurations, how do 

16 we have confidence in that? 

17 
 And when you feed back to me the 

18 
 badging and the reliability and the number of 

19 
 surveys done, that tells me that something 

20 
 isn't being answered, which is the method. 

21 
 What is the method and how do we have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 confidence that the ratios which are going to60


2 
 be used in this method have been validated? 

3 
 And I don't hear an answer to that question. 

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, I don't see --

5 
 in the generation of these radionuclides, do 

6 
 you -- where is the documentation that is 

7 
 showing these nuclides that we are missing, 

8 
 the short-lived radionuclides that are there, 

9 
 that are not in this analysis, I mean, you are 

10 
 -- we -- what we have there, everything that 

11 
 is on these sheets, has all been gone through, 

12 
 short-lived radionuclides, which if there were 

13 
 was a hold up, because some of these are very, 

14 
 very short-lived half lives, and you have them 

15 in the analysis. So --

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, what I am 

17 
 going to give you is the CY '83 and '82 

18 
 emission summaries, and I'm sorry for those on 

19 the phone. I can give you the SRDB numbers. 

20 
 The first one is 45503, and this is 

21 
 the count year '83 total Los Alamos airborne 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 releases, and this breaks down to argon, the61


2 
 particulate vapor activation products, the 

3 
 gaseous mixed activation products, and it 

4 
 provides the totals that are being released by 

5 
 those different forms. And here's the 

6 
 definition down below for each of those, also 

7 
 mixed activation products. 

8 
 This particular SRDB also itemizes 

9 
 the gaseous forms, the carbon-11, nitrogen-13, 

10 
 oxygen-15 as well as argon as far as those 

11 
 gaseous releases. These gaseous releases 

12 would not be picked up on filters. 

13 
 MR. MILES: The primary dose 

14 
 mechanism for those are going to be external 

15 
 though, I mean, if you -- if you look at the 

16 
 dose -- if you are in a cloud of gas and those 

17 
 gamma emitters, they have a very small 

18 internal dose component, relatively speaking. 

19 
 MEMBER MUNN: They're certainly 

20 going to show on the badge. 

21 
 MR. MILES: The badge, the external 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 dose badge will actually cover the vast62
 

2 
 majority of the dose --

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: The issue is that 

4 
 the ratios that are being used in the filters 

5 
 doesn't encompass the mixed activation 

6 
 products at LAMPF. That's the only point I am 

7 
 trying to make. 

8 
 And you know, all we asked for at 

9 
 the last meeting, and I, you know, I could 

10 
 give you all these SRDBs, they're up here, is 

11 
 some validation that he ratios that you are 

12 
 going to apply are applicable to the 

13 
 operations at LAMPF over time and over the 

14 
 different experiments as well as different 

15 
 emissions, some of which are not picked up by 

16 the particulates, the particulate filters. 

17 
 And so far, we haven't gotten that. 

18 
 We haven't gotten any validation at all. And 

19 
 this is just going through what's on the SRDB 

20 
 to say that the environment at LAMPF is such 

21 
 that it's not going to be as simplistic as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 just taking the filters from the -- and this63


2 
 is not an EPA issue. This is strictly what 

3 
 are you looking at in the filters that we 

4 
 would be significant from an occupational 

5 
 standpoint, and whether that encompasses 

6 
 everything. 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, obviously this 

8 
 is an issue we will have to go back over then, 

9 
 and you know, do some further analysis, but I 

10 
 don't think, what we are going to also look 

11 
 into is the fact about the dosimetry at the 

12 
 time, because you have a bunch of 

13 
 radionuclides which are good gamma emitters 

14 
 here that we are going to have to do some kind 

15 
 of study then to go and determine what kind of 

16 
 dose you would expect to see from something 

17 
 over this -- from a radioactive cloud for a 

18 short period. 

19 
 If you've got hundreds of 

20 
 experiments done over a period of 30 years, 

21 
 and to try to nail it down for every 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 experiment that produced every radionuclide,64


2 
 and say was that ever on a filter, I mean you 

3 
 already have asked the question that says you 

4 
 can't do it. So make an SEC for the LAMPF. 

5 
 That's -- that is where that statement takes 

6 
 you. 

7 
 But we will have to go and show how 

8 
 the doses from the whole body count, the doses 

9 
 from the badges, and the doses from filters 

10 and look for some other data --

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well there's also 

12 
 -- we are talking about the stack and using 

13 
 that as a surrogate for what's in the 

14 
 workplace but it's also support workers who 

15 
 maintain the facility who go in and actually 

16 
 change out magnets and actually are exposed to 

17 
 the particulates you are talking about. So 

18 there's also that --

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, so I have to 

20 
 look at RWPs as well, to go and see the kind 

21 
 of activities they do when the facility is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 shut down after a particular shot and they go65


2 
 in and do some kind of activity to see the 

3 
 kind of things they are discussing on the RWP 

4 
 when they send somebody in to an area to do 

5 
 some kind of survey. 

6 
 Right now, we have -- we have a 

7 
 bunch of RWPs from the facility but we haven't 

8 
 looked at this particular issue to go and say 

9 
 what, you know --

10 
 MEMBER MUNN: Those were not casual 

11 workers. They were badged. 

12 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: And it isn't as 

14 
 though -- if what we are asking is, in 

15 
 addition to the survey information that 

16 
 exists, that can be relied on, are we looking 

17 
 for additional information as to radionuclides 

18 
 that may have impacted the environmental dose 

19 of individuals outside or from miles around? 

20 
 If that's the question, then it 

21 
 needs to be more clearly defined in my mind 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 than what it is now, if we are just arguing66


2 
 about whether or not you can use ratios as a 

3 
 valid mode of finding whatever the number is 

4 
 you want to find, whatever it is you are 

5 
 looking for. I think we need to be very very 

6 
 clear --

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: We're only down 

8 
 this path because the hypothesis that we are 

9 
 trying to test is whether or not the whole 

10 
 body counter in fact made a difference, such 

11 
 that one has the data to dose reconstruct 

12 against. 

13 
 Now, if in fact that data is being 

14 
 generated once the whole body counter is fully 

15 
 in swing, then we should have data. Now the -

16 
 - I guess, I do have a problem because even 

17 
 though we do have data it's not very much. 

18 
 But you know, the whole body counter was 

19 
 coming up into -- online, LAMPF was coming 

20 
 online in the '70s so you had all these things 

21 happening at once. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So the question is, do you have67


2 
 enough data, and in fact are you able to come 

3 
 up with a bounding coworker model and dose 

4 
 reconstruction approach for, for example, the 

5 
 workers at LAMPF? 

6 
 And we are talking about the stack 

7 
 because we don't have a routine bioassay 

8 
 program for all the workers at LAMPF. If we 

9 
 did, we wouldn't be talking about this at all, 

10 right? 

11 DR. MACIEVIC: Well there is --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: There is data. 

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: There is data and 

14 
 there is bioassay for people at LAMPF. I 

15 
 mean, this is not like nobody every had 

16 bioassay at this facility. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But we don't have 

18 
 enough data and enough people in that program, 

19 
 otherwise we wouldn't be looking at the stack 

20 data, is my point. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 Hinnefeld. Can I offer something here? Has68
 

2 
 anybody taken a shot at a rough order of guess 

3 
 at what kind of dose we are talking about 

4 
 internally, especially from a gaseous 

5 
 emission? 

6 
 I mean most of -- going back to 

7 
 graduate school, there are several radioactive 

8 
 gases where your major concern was the 

9 
 immersion dose from the cloud, not from -- not 

10 
 the internal dose that resulted, which I think 

11 is the point you guys were making. 

12 
 And so if you have a -- there will 

13 
 be an internal component if you are in a 

14 
 gaseous, if you are immersed in a radioactive 

15 
 gas, there will be an internal component. But 

16 
 it's, it's, I don't know if it's the core, but 

17 
 the major component for certain radioactive 

18 
 gases was the external immersion dose, which 

19 
 is what you guys are saying you should see 

20 
 something -- if this is significant, you 

21 
 should see something on the film badge. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 That's the basis of this argument. 69
 

2 
 So I was just wondering, has 

3 
 anybody done any of the magnitude -- these 

4 
 things are all short-lived decay products, you 

5 
 know, basic internal dosimetry of short-lived 

6 
 radionuclides doesn't give you any internal 

7 
 dose, you don't get enough atoms to have much 

8 
 dose, even over your lifetime. 

9 
 So have we anywhere -- has there 

10 
 ever been discussion of the magnitude of what 

11 we are talking about? 

12 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, and 

13 
 that's one of the first questions I asked Joe 

14 
 this morning, was the magnitude of the dose 

15 
 count. But I mean let me just back up one 

16 
 step and say I don't think that is the 

17 
 argument that NIOSH made to us. That's the 

18 argument we are hearing today. 

19 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'd like to see 

21 
 a documented, you know, I mean if this -- you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 know -- 70
 

2 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 
 You are basically claiming that the 

4 
 doses through these gases or vapors were de 

5 
 minimis. Right? 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean --

7 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But I think -- I 

9 
 don't like that word -- but what I'm saying 

10 
 is, where -- do you want to recommend adding 

11 
 an SEC for a facility, and who knows if we can 

12 
 limit it to LAMPF because it's about assets to 

13 
 LAMPF, if the dose that we can't reconstruct 

14 is a couple of millirem a year. 

15 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: The circumstances 

17 
 are that the previous SEC for Los Alamos was 

18 
 awarded based on the inability to detect or 

19 
 monitor dose reconstruction against mixed 

20 
 activation, mixed fission products, internal -

21 
 - internal, up through '75. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 

-- 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what we did71
 

2 
 in '75. There was no exotic component. 

3 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Exotics were cited 

5 
 as something to be looked into. There is 

6 
 mixed activation products, mixed fission 

7 
 products, inability to see the internal dose. 

8 
 Now --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then we said 

10 


11 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But at least in 

13 
 mixed fission products, and right now we are 

14 
 talking about activation products, I mean 

15 
 fairly short-lived but --

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, but we're 

17 
 going to talk about mixed activation next, but 

18 


19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What I'm saying, my 

20 
 argument was, about a short half life, 

21 
 internal emitter, the standard, you know, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 are going in, you think there's little72
 

2 
 likelihood for an internal dose from a short 

3 
 half life, internal emitter, because you just 

4 
 don't get enough atoms of it unless you have a 

5 
 really big activity intake. Okay. 

6 
 If you are talking about fission 

7 
 products, fission products are not necessarily 

8 
 short-lived. Now, fission products have --

9 
 some could have some significant dose 

10 consequences. 

11 
 So you can't just say that we have 

12 
 already done this because we have added a 

13 
 mixed activation and mixed fission product. 

14 
 If you'd say mixed fission products, then, 

15 
 well, you know, and the reason you would 

16 
 include mixed activation products on a 

17 
 designation is, well, I can't do the dose 

18 
 reconstruction, you know, and I'm not going to 

19 
 get much out of this anyway, why would I kill 

20 
 myself trying to get a mixed activation 

21 product --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, all we can73
 

2 
 go by is the Evaluation Report for the 

3 
 previous SEC --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. And the 

5 
 fission product --

6 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And you know, and 

8 
 if, if NIOSH is -- want to claim that there is 

9 
 not an exposure potential for mixed activation 

10 
 products after '75, internal, then that's a 

11 
 different issue. But that's not what's being 

12 claimed. 

13 
 And so therefore, if the exposure 

14 
 potential is there, NIOSH has proposed a 

15 
 methodology to dose reconstruct, and that 

16 
 methodology is founded on the presence of 

17 
 whole body counting data, and we are saying 

18 
 fine, is there enough of it and can you use 

19 it? I mean --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Along with the 

21 ratios from the stack, right? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 74


2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There is no 

3 
 argument on the table about using external 

4 
 badge data in any way --

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we are not 

6 
 proposing using --

7 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's all -- so 

9 
 you are --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: We're not 

11 
 proposing anything. We are just saying you 

12 
 have proposed it, and we are saying is there 

13 enough data, and can --

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I don't see what that 

15 
 -- the beta thing is where it goes. We have 

16 
 looked -- in looking at these filters, we 

17 
 would now have to go back and look at how that 

18 
 ratio would change based on the gaseous and 

19 
 other things and what we can find. But how 

20 
 much is that going to impact, as a modifier 

21 
 for a whole body count that's on a particular 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 person that's done with the whole body count,75


2 
 that they do perform. That is only going to 

3 
 be used as a correction factor to up the dose 

4 
 that is on there, based on what they see over 

5 
 a long period of time of this mixture that is 

6 
 out there. 

7 
 It's not -- we are not trying to go 

8 
 and say, for every shot, that that mixture is 

9 
 always going to be in balance at exactly that 

10 ratio every time you do that. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You're clearly 

12 just bounding. 

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I'm creating in 

15 
 modifying the whole body dose, based on a 

16 
 correction factor because of these ratios and 

17 
 giving you an extra dose because of it, yes, I 

18 would say that is going to be bounding. 

19 
 Now, we may look at -- you could 

20 
 look at other things but you are not going to 

21 
 go from, say, someone getting, you know 500 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 millirem to now, oh my God, he actually was76


2 
 getting 5,000 millirem after we put these, you 

3 
 know, very short-lived gaseous nuclides, 

4 
 which, when I'm saying this but we haven't 

5 
 actually looked, because we are bringing in 

6 
 the badge data. 

7 
 But the, but you know, it's not 

8 
 seen on the badge data. There isn't this 

9 
 large dose out there for LAMPF people here, 

10 
 but now these people pulled it all in, that 

11 
 whole ratio is way off because of it, and that 

12 
 dose from the whole body count really should 

13 
 have been, you know, 100 times bigger than it 

14 actually is. 

15 
 I'm saying you could be within a 

16 
 few percent of it, but I do not feel, from 

17 
 what we have, that you are going to be some --

18 way above ballpark --

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

20 
 Hinnefeld, I'd like to make another comment. 

21 
 I think I'm on your side here now on this one. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 I don't know that we provide -- I don't know77


2 
 if I have read everything. I have tried to 

3 
 read everything at least, or at least to look 

4 
 at everything before I came in here, because I 

5 
 don't -- I don't know that we provided what I 

6 
 would consider the evidence for our -- we said 

7 
 here's the summary of things we found. 

8 
 But it would seem to me we would 

9 
 have to be fairly specifically referenced at 

10 
 various points in the document and/or, and I'm 

11 
 not advocating this, generate a table of what 

12 
 we are saying, you know, of this air sampling 

13 
 data -- I've seen that table of in vivo 

14 
 monitoring data, I've not seen a table of air 

15 
 sampling data -- that shows here's what was 

16 
 measured in these air samples, and you can see 

17 
 from this beryllium-7, these other short-lived 

18 
 radionuclides, that here is what we have and 

19 
 you can look at these various ratios, and 

20 
 maybe do some fundamental analysis or basic 

21 
 quick analysis on those short-lived half lives 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 compared to beryllium-7 and see what kind of a78


2 
 ballpark are you into, in terms of what gets 

3 
 added to the dose from the in vivo count. 

4 
 I think if you are counting filters 

5 
 with very short half lives, there's an art to 

6 
 that. So I wonder, what did Los Alamos really 

7 
 report? Did they report the activity on the 

8 
 filter, or did they report the airborne 

9 
 concentration that gave rise to that filter, 

10 
 because if your, if your half life is short 

11 
 relative to your sampling time, you can't just 

12 
 count the filter. You have to figure out what 

13 
 activity was accumulating in the filter and 

14 
 decaying off at the same time, so that I can 

15 understand what happened. 

16 
 So you need to have -- to me there 

17 
 needs to be more presentation of the evidence 

18 
 that supports our position. Because you can't 

19 
 ask a bunch of Board Members to dig through 50 

20 
 to 100 PDFs to find information which are --

21 
 and even heavily referencing, even heavily 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 referencing a document, probably isn't79
 

2 
 sufficient because you are still going to ask 

3 
 them to go do that, to go find these PDFs and 

4 
 go through that. 

5 
 It's kind of got to be laid out 

6 
 there to have a convincing argument one way or 

7 
 the other. Right now, I don't hear a 

8 
 convincing argument one way or the other that 

9 
 here is the data, here is what it does for us. 

10 
 It's kind of -- what we have said is we have 

11 
 looked and there is information that allows us 

12 
 to do that and there's a bunch of PDFs out 

13 there that add information to them. 

14 
 Well that doesn't help these guys 

15 
 out. I mean, we kind of have to do that work 

16 here if we are going to do this. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Only you haven't 

18 proven '75 is the date, either. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and there is 

20 
 that. I mean there is the -- another option 

21 
 would be does the data get better later on, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and that's -- do we get -- actually get80


2 
 confidence that we are really saying it's been 

3 
 '75 because that's where the thing starts, and 

4 
 -- or is it good in '75, is this technique 

5 
 good in '75? 

6 
 So there's a couple of points --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I agree with 

8 
 you, to some extent, but can I ask one more 

9 
 question about the data? Did -- this is in my 

10 
 notes also -- on who got sampled. Who was in 

11 
 the in vivo program, because I am a little 

12 confused by whether --

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Oh, as far as the 

14 type of worker --

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Whether it was 

16 all operations people --

17 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: That I don't have --

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know we talked 

20 
 about --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 something to look at too, is what -- 81
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was that under 

3 
 the checklist thing, or is that a separate 

4 
 issue? 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, the checklist, 

6 
 we have talked about general bioassays in 

7 
 different facilities, but not throughout the 

8 
 workers that were, you know, targeted. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That might be --

10 
 you're right -- that might be -- what put a 

11 
 person in vivo monitor, you know, why did they 

12 
 go to get an in vivo count? Was there -- it 

13 doesn't seem like --

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was it all 

15 
 workers, was it a dose --

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Was it everybody at 

17 
 LAMPF did an in vivo once a year, or is it air 

18 
 samples and nose -- send people to in vivo, 

19 
 you know, that kind of question, what was the 

20 program. 

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: What I'm wondering, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 how many workers are we looking at? Because82
 

2 
 when I see '75, there's 17 whole body counts 

3 
 done. How many workers were actually there? 

4 
 That's a really small percentage I would 

5 
 imagine. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: A whole lot of 

7 
 workers --

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's --

9 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: And that went on, 

11 
 there was one whole body count in '77, five in 

12 
 '78, these are your -- this is your table, '79 

13 
 it jumps up to 42. It didn't really get up 

14 
 into the hundreds until '84 but that still 

15 
 seems like a relatively small percentage to me 

16 
 of workers, so that is a big question mark of 

17 who -- who was --

18 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But what prompted 

20 them to get an in vivo count? 

21 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Can I ask you a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 question about the filters, the stack filters?83


2 
 Are there particular filters that --

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess, I mean you 

4 
 can have a particular filter, you can have 

5 
 charcoal or --

6 
 MR. MILES: You know, what other 

7 
 combination of particular -- I mean vapor and 

8 
 charcoal --

9 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: How much vapor 

10 
 would get to those? The vapors would be 

11 pretty much particulates, I would suspect. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the vapor is 

13 
 kind of a designation of a -- it's a particle14 
 size designation of a particulate, right? A 

15 vapor --

16 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Can that be 

17 captured by the first? 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I'd 

19 
 have to find out. 

20 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: And how much of the 

21 gas would be absorbed on the particulates? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if it's a84
 

2 
 gas, the particulates won't absorb anything. 

3 
 The charcoal will absorb some gases. 

4 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: How much -- but the 

5 
 gas will be absorbed onto particulates? 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, sort of yes, 

7 
 sort of no. But mainly the charcoal would 

8 
 absorb some of the noble gas, if it were a 

9 
 noble gas. And any other gases, I don't 

10 
 really know. I mean, if you're making 

11 
 nitrogen, you know, I don't know if anything 

12 is going to --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Nitrogen, that is 

15 
 what most of the air is, I think that's going 

16 
 to blow through. I don't know what the carbon 

17 
 would remain. If you are generating carbon18 
 11, that's kind of, it's oddball; it's likely 

19 
 that it's going to be combined with oxygen and 

20 
 have CO or CO2, if there's -- you know, 

21 presumably it's oxygen --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 85


2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that, 

3 
 presumably, I don't think would be absorbed 

4 
 very much either, although I don't know what 

5 
 charcoal would do for CO or CO2. It might do 

6 
 something. I doubt it would do anything for 

7 
 nitrogen. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The other thing 

9 
 I'm having trouble with, I mean, almost to try 

10 
 to save some work maybe for NIOSH, is you 

11 
 know, this hold up question. I mean it seems 

12 
 like it was documented that there was this 

13 
 document back and forth with EPA over the hold 

14 
 up times. But are you, unless -- does it 

15 
 mean, the hold up was negligible or there 

16 
 wasn't any hold up, when you are doing your 

17 emissions research? 

18 
 So how does that jibe with these --

19 this sort of --

20 
 MR. MILES: I think we reached that 

21 
 conclusion because there were so many very 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 short-lived nuclides among the data that we86


2 
 looked at, so we -- we made the leap to -- and 

3 
 since there's so many very short-lived 

4 
 nuclides on there, that there couldn't have 

5 
 been a significant hold up prior --

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then what was 

7 
 this argument about back and worth with the 

8 
 EPA, about hold up? 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: Well, EPA would care 

10 but, but that --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I mean it 

13 
 seems to me like it was a practice, if both 

14 
 sides were agreeing, they were just, they were 

15 just fighting over the time. 

16 
 LANL was arguing that it was a 

17 
 longer hold up time and therefore the 

18 
 emissions to the environment would be less, 

19 
 and EPA was arguing no, we think it was -- or 

20 
 it was shorter, so the environmental emissions 

21 
 would be greater. You are saying there was no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 hold up. 87
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Or not significant. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or not 

4 
 significant. I mean, something is not right. 

5 
 MR. MILES: Yes, but I don't know, 

6 
 I don't know if it's looking at the -- if the 

7 
 EPA was looking at the same set of data, or 

8 
 you know --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I mean, 

10 
 that's a fundamental problem, just in your 

11 
 method that you are proposing, if you can't 

12 
 use, you know, if you don't know if there's 

13 
 hold up issues, that doesn't jibe and that 

14 creates a fundamental --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but it's kind 

16 
 of the same thing I was talking about, if we 

17 
 are measuring activity on a filter, what does 

18 
 that really tell you about the airborne 

19 concentration that --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Existed in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 workplace? 88
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Does it -- it's the 

4 
 same thing? How long is it, you know, it 

5 
 could be a -- part of the hold up is just 

6 
 getting it to the filter, you know, the time 

7 
 it takes for your exhaust to pull through your 

8 
 system to get to your filter, kind of how much 

9 
 run you have. 

10 
 If you've got half lives of --

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I got a sense 

12 
 from the summary of those documents, though, 

13 
 that it was, that they sort of planned hold up 

14 


15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You've read more 

16 
 than I have, certainly. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well I mean, 

18 
 probably this is summaries, maybe, you know, 

19 
 but I -- I mean, I guess I would ask that 

20 
 first, because if you can't answer that, I'm 

21 
 not sure you should go forward with the rest 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 of it. I mean, I think it's -- 89
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You know. I 

4 
 don't know if you are ever going to make a 

5 
 convincing argument you are assuming no hold 

6 
 up when there's documents out here -- it's the 

7 
 petitioners raised the EPA document, in their 

8 
 references. I think we need to answer that 

9 
 question. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well that is true, 

11 
 if there's now way to resolve the question of 

12 
 how does the activity on the filter relate to 

13 the activity in the workplace? 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If there is no 

15 
 way to resolve that question, which is the 

16 
 question of hold up, then I don't know where 

17 you go with that. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

19 
 have a question regarding this effluent 

20 
 monitor system. In my experience, there are 

21 
 two different ways in which you sort of keep 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 an eye on what's leaving the plant. 90
 

2 
 You have a filter paper, let's say 

3 
 we are talking particulates, that's offline, 

4 
 that is used -- it's going up a stack; and 

5 
 you've got an isokinetic sampler that's 

6 
 drawing from the stack, sending the air flow, 

7 
 sampled air flow, representative air flow, 

8 
 though a filter paper. 

9 
 And there's a sodium iodide 

10 
 detector sitting right next to it, generating 

11 
 a continuous spectrum of -- you are 

12 
 continually running a strip chart of what you 

13 
 are looking at. It could be isotopics, or it 

14 could be gross. 

15 
 The other way is no. You allow the 

16 
 air to flow -- sample to flow through a filter 

17 
 paper that accumulates the particulates over 

18 
 let's say a week, and you pull the filter 

19 
 paper off and you do a gamma-spec or whatever 

20 you want to do on it. 

21 
 In the first case, you are looking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 at actual, real-time releases. In the second91
 

2 
 case you are looking at an integrated, where 

3 
 the short-lived are going to go away. 

4 
 And this is the point that I 

5 
 believe Stu is making. So the ability to use, 

6 
 in some capacity, the effluent measurements, 

7 
 and I assume that they are upstream from the 

8 
 HEPA filter, in other words, to get your mix, 

9 
 I guess that's where I'm heading, I understand 

10 
 you want to use the effluent material to get a 

11 
 mix that somehow keys back to beryllium, and I 

12 
 think your ability to do that will somewhat 

13 
 depend on whether or not you are looking at a 

14 
 continuous monitoring flow or you are looking 

15 at an integrator, which is a sample. 

16 
 Do you know which type of data you 

17 are getting from your effluent monitoring? 

18 
 MR. MILES: Unfortunately I think 

19 
 Liz is the best -- for this question. She 

20 
 compiled the data and kind of developed this 

21 methodology so she would know more about it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think a92
 

2 
 description of -- the -- I think a description 

3 
 of the -- of what the sampling technique was 

4 
 like --

5 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's obviously 

7 
 another --

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, with real time 

9 
 monitoring you would also --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Filter which is 

12 another complication. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I think -

14 
 - yes, you said that and John, you enforced 

15 
 it, that all this sort of hinges on what was 

16 
 the method, what was the type of monitoring 

17 you were doing, what was the protocol. 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

19 
 original notion of last meeting was, and I 

20 
 think you even said this earlier, there had to 

21 
 have been some areas of air samples, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 mentioned all these surveys, that all gross93


2 
 alpha beta, I guess I would be surprised, 

3 
 because you would want to know, you know, what 

4 
 you are dealing with in the workplace that --

5 
 MR. MILES: That's all we were able 

6 
 to find. I mean --

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, because --

8 
 MR. MILES: I mean, I found gross 

9 
 alpha beta but it's going to find -- not that 

10 
 it doesn't exist, there could be a big stash 

11 of it somewhere, but --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, you are 

13 talking gamma spec samples so --

14 
 MR. MILES: We didn't come across 

15 
 any --

16 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

17 MR. MILES: monitoring data. 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Because the 

19 
 further away you get from the workplace off 

20 
 the stack, and you get the kind of questions 

21 
 that John is asking, which is how can you, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 know, take care of all these variables and94


2 
 make sure that this is reflective, and I think 

3 
 it gets to be quite a challenge. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

5 
 that's why our last meeting, we focused on 

6 
 workplace sampling. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. Right. 

8 
 But I guess --

9 
 MR. MILES: But it's clear that 

10 
 they used the workplace sampling to, you know, 

11 
 and they had these cameras going up -- there 

12 
 were a lot of boxes of -- they generally 

13 
 follow up with nose smears, you know, for a 

14 
 person with nose smears, so I'd like to think 

15 
 that, you know, if that could be an indicator 

16 to send somebody to the whole body count --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe, yes. 

18 
 MR. MILES: But then again the 

19 
 question is whether or not we are seeing all 

20 
 the radionuclides in the whole body count, so 

21 
 that's where I think Liz, who put together the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 whole -- they used the common beryllium-7 and95


2 
 look at some ratios so that we can add some 

3 
 nuclides that maybe we are not seeing with the 

4 
 whole body count, if we missed, you know, if 

5 
 they didn't show up, maybe they were --

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Which would then 

7 
 increase the dose. 

8 
 MR. MILES: To bring them back into 

9 
 -- the assay contributors, to the dose --

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I propose we 

11 
 take a little break and come back and try to 

12 
 summarize where we are in the MAP and go 

13 
 forward, what actions are on the table. Okay. 

14 
 (Whereupon, the meeting went off the record at 

15 
 10:32 a.m. and went back on the 

16 record at 10:52 a.m.) 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. We're back, the 

18 LANL Work Group. Go ahead Mark. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, everyone 

20 
 on the phone, we are, you know, we are back a 

21 
 few minutes late on our break but wanted to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 sort out just a little bit more on the path96


2 
 forward on the MAP issue. 

3 
 And here's what I have got as a 

4 
 summary, if everybody else, just give it a 

5 
 try, and I ran it by Stu and Joe so hopefully 

6 
 this is close. 

7 
 Essentially it's NIOSH to provide a 

8 
 model for using beryllium-7 in vivo data for 

9 
 the MAP exposures and then I have all these 

10 
 sub-bullets which are the meat of how you are 

11 going to do that. 

12 
 And A is the rationale for the 

13 
 ratios and showing -- and demonstrating that 

14 
 that rationale will be bounding for all MAPs. 

15 
 The second one is the monitoring, the last 

16 
 issue we were just discussing, the emission 

17 
 monitoring, what technique was used and how 

18 
 does that impact on your, you know, kept 

19 looking at the ratios. 

20 
 Third is the criteria for inclusion 

21 
 of the in vivo program, who was monitored and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 why, was it triggered by those waves, was it97


2 
 all workers, what was the criteria. 

3 
 Fourth is the question on hold up, 

4 
 which you know, I think to some extent 

5 
 overlaps with the rationale on the ratios and 

6 
 the monitoring but I just wanted to list it 

7 
 out separately, the hold up question. 

8 
 And the thing I am still struggling 

9 
 with is -- which, which is that it was 

10 
 reported in the, sort of this dispute between 

11 
 the EPA and you know, so there -- that has to 

12 be dealt with somehow. 

13 
 Five is the -- maybe this should 

14 
 have been one -- but five is the availability 

15 
 and sufficiency of the beryllium-7 data 

16 
 itself. I think that came up in some of --

17 
 Josie raised it with looking at the table, 

18 
 maybe in those early years, '75/6/7 there 

19 
 seemed to be very, very little data, even on 

20 beryllium-7, even those data that you have. 

21 
 And then the last one is other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 workplace data, if applicable, because I'm not98


2 
 sure, you know, the badging stuff was 

3 
 mentioned and maybe it's just to demonstrate, 

4 
 you know --

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, we're not going 

6 
 to use that --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: as a --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It might just 

10 
 support your argument that these doses were 

11 
 low and we can bound them or whatever. I 

12 
 don't know, you know, but, so that's just sort 

13 of the last -- did I miss anything, anyone? 

14 DR. MACIEVIC: I think you got --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: who was the whole 

17 body -- okay. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and I kind of 

20 
 wonder if that's --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: when the numbers in99
 

2 
 vivo go down, kind of things have changed. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Who, and 

4 
 did it change over time I guess would be a 

5 
 good addition to that. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. It 

7 
 might be good to see what you could find out 

8 
 about that back like in '79 there was sort of 

9 
 a quantum --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: take a number of 

12 
 whole body counts and I just wonder if 

13 something changed in 1975. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was it something 

15 
 operational or was it a change in procedure --

16 
 MEMBER MUNN: I thought it was 

17 
 operational, just looking at the data. It 

18 looked like, yes --

19 
 DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John. I 

20 
 think there's one item that we didn't talk 

21 
 about, real quick. When you are looking at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 effluent data, usually the effluent going up 100


2 
 the stack is headered for many different 

3 
 locations within the building. 

4 
 So what you are really looking at 

5 
 when you header everything together is a time 

6 
 integrated average. Is there reason to 

7 
 believe there could be variability not only in 

8 
 time, but also in location, if you know -- so 

9 
 that, you know, your mix could be very 

10 different in one location --

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Local work 

12 stations versus the -- yes. Yes. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Exactly. That was the, 

14 that was the point I wanted to make. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have four 

16 
 stacks at LAMPF and they drew from different 

17 
 parts of the building, target areas, and you 

18 have to integrate across the --

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you have four 

20 stacks before you had four target areas? 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well no, you just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 had different locations -- 101
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Different target 

3 
 areas. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's laid out 

5 
 pretty much in the documentation --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: What fed those 

8 
 stacks. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be 

11 
 important I think, what John's saying, making 

12 
 sure that's integrated, that you are not just 

13 using one stack, not using all four. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, no. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks 

17 
 John. All right, so I think we should leave 

18 
 it at that on the MAP. I don't know if 

19 there's anything else --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think --

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: To discuss on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 that -- yes. 102
 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I think you summed 

3 
 it up. I think it's documenting the model and 

4 
 validating applicability. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. All 

6 
 right. And then you want to go on to the 

7 
 fission products --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Mixed fission 

9 
 products. Right. On mixed fission products, 

10 
 which is sort of part of issue 1, I think we 

11 
 numbered it 1D, our concern was about the use 

12 
 of the reactor ratios, as I said earlier, in 

13 the OTIB, for a non-reactor facility. 

14 
 And I think at the last meeting, 

15 
 NIOSH agreed and was going to do onsite data 

16 
 capture to see if there was in fact any data 

17 
 that might in fact be a basis for looking at 

18 
 ratios at these non-reactor nuclear facilities 

19 
 like TA-48 and I think CMR are the two 

20 biggies. 

21 
 And I think the response was no. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 guess you couldn't locate any mixed fission 103


2 
 product data or any substantive nuclides that 

3 


4 
 MR. MILES: We looked for similar 

5 
 data like what we found for LAMPF, like stacks 

6 
 -- isotopic and I think we didn't find a whole 

7 
 lot, and I think we also concluded that the 

8 
 facilities were complex and that you would 

9 
 have one thing going on in one laboratory and 

10 
 something different going on in another 

11 
 laboratory so you've got to try to place 

12 
 people in different areas, and that was kind 

13 
 of going to be a hard thing to do. But we 

14 
 weren't able to find the data, I mean a lot of 

15 
 isotopic data that's similar to what we had 

16 used for the LAMPF model. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, as you did 

18 
 with LAMPF, I noticed one thing, going and 

19 
 looking at the emissions data, facility20 
 specific emissions data for Los Alamos, really 

21 
 looking at the MAP issue, the activation, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 also noticed that they detailed monitoring of 104


2 
 mixed fission products, certain stacks of TA3 
 48 and CMR, TA-3, they actually had mixed 

4 
 fission product emissions data for those 

5 
 stacks, which sort of reminds me of LAMPF in a 

6 
 way, that you know, here we are actually 

7 
 detailing, you know, emissions of specific 

8 
 nuclides and mixed fission products, but we 

9 
 don't have any occupational workplace data. 

10 
 I don't know if you looked at the 

11 
 stack data to see if there was anything that 

12 
 would, you know, shed a light, shed light on -

13 -

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, nothing that you 

15 
 could get your hands around and make some kind 

16 
 of model for, but one of the reasons that we 

17 
 are -- in the case of looking at several RWPs 

18 
 from these different areas, RWPs from the CMR 

19 
 and that, and scheduling of bioassays and 

20 
 things for things like cesium and others for 

21 the fission product, there is data on that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So there was a distinct program on 105


2 
 scheduling for, if someone was involved in CMR 

3 
 with cesium-137, they were scheduled and I 

4 
 sent them to have examples of that, of that 

5 
 type of RWP, and also the scheduling program 

6 
 of how they would put persons on from another 

7 
 facility coming in, saying if they are going 

8 
 into CMR do this, they move on to the cesium9 
 137 monitoring program for bioassay. 

10 
 So we are saying that instead of 

11 
 having something dealing with, like at LAMPF, 

12 
 that you have more bioassay associated with 

13 that facility. 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess, you know, 

15 
 I went through all these CMR documents -- that 

16 
 took a while -- and you know, I see the RWPs 

17 
 or SWPs as they call them, they list, you 

18 
 know, mixed fission products in some cases and 

19 
 cesium along with -- as one of the primaries. 

20 
 In fact a lot of times it's PU, plutonium, 

21 
 uranium, and then you know mixed fission 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 products. 106
 

2 
 And you know, you can find it 

3 
 mentioned in programmatic documents, whether 

4 
 it's surveys or whatever, but I just can't get 

5 
 past the point that it doesn't look like they 

6 
 were -- there was any evidence they actually 

7 
 bioassayed for it, and I --

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, they 

9 
 bioassayed and gamma speced the bioassay, 

10 
 which you -- in looking at 1E, issue 1E, has 

11 
 the listing of the scheduled bioassays versus 

12 
 the bioassays that were left through that 

13 period for new hires, transfers --

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: 1E was the 

15 
 checklist. 

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: 1E is the checklist. 

17 
 1E is the checklist. And on that, you do 

18 
 see, and I had highlighted, the T-48, T-50 and 

19 
 T-3 with CMR, that the bioassays, there are 

20 
 several things for mixed activation products, 

21 
 a column for mixed fission products as well, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and bioassays were left in there. 107
 

2 
 In some cases, they said mixed 

3 
 activation product is what the bioassay sample 

4 
 was left for, and it says they wanted a mixed 

5 
 fission product, but since you are doing a 

6 
 gamma scan of the sample, they, I assume, 

7 
 covered that in that. That is how that was 

8 
 looked at, since these are gamma specs. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, the issue --

10 
 well, we are flipping a little forward on the 

11 checklist --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I know, but it sort 

13 
 of falls into this because you are talking 

14 
 about how they looked for the mixed fission 

15 
 products in CMR and facilities like that, as 

16 opposed to using air data. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, without --

18 
 well, maybe we are, on the checklist, we, you 

19 
 know, I think our concern, when the checklists 

20 
 were raised, because the chekclists came into 

21 
 being -- everything seemed to have happened in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the '70s. The checklist came up in the '70s. 108
 

2 
 So our concern was, you know, were they truly 

3 
 a driver for bioassays or for want of a better 

4 
 word a secondary radiation source, not the 

5 
 plutonium, the tritium and the uranium, but 

6 
 you know, for exotics, for mixed activation, 

7 
 mixed fission products as well as the 

8 
 primaries, the plutonium and whatnot. 

9 
 And we weren't sure about that. 

10 And I think --

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, we didn't 

12 
 intend it to be, I mean it's not -- we're not 

13 
 trying to say that once they put in the health 

14 
 physics checklist, I mean, if -- that this is 

15 
 now the be all and end all program, because 

16 
 you also have the whole body counts ramping up 

17 
 in the '70s, you have a checklist program 

18 
 which now, at least, shows that the program is 

19 
 trying to identify when a person moves into a 

20 new job or switches to a new job --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Where they need 109
 

2 
 dosimetry, that they have something in place 

3 
 that is at least trying to focus on those 

4 
 issues, and of course, to go and say we are in 

5 
 now way trying to say that this is the be all 

6 
 and end all --

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no --

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And that it covers 

9 
 all activities or someone didn't fall through 

10 the holes --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, I mean --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: but that you have a 

13 
 little more structured program now in the '70s 

14 
 than you did in the earlier years, and it 

15 moves on through the later years. 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And I grant you 

17 
 that. I think in the '70s you have this 

18 
 evolution of not only the whole body counter 

19 
 coming into play, and you know, you're getting 

20 
 more people monitored, you're also getting a 

21 
 little bit more of the radiological control 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 program, you know, where you're -- you know, 110


2 
 you have these checklists that are being 

3 
 introduced and you know, they are being 

4 
 applied. 

5 
 So no question that, you know, the 

6 
 Los Alamos health physics program was 

7 
 evolving, as it did even before the '70s, and 

8 
 as it would past the '70s, you know. 

9 
 So what we are really trying to 

10 
 figure out, less, you know, trying to, you 

11 
 know, anoint the program as having arrived at 

12 
 any particular point in time, is just trying 

13 
 to figure out, you know, is there a method? 

14 
 This is sort of beginning to sound a little 

15 
 bit of an echo from the MAP discussion. Is 

16 
 there a method to get to mixed fission 

17 
 products, because that was part of the basis 

18 for cutting it off in '75. 

19 
 So we are looking for that method. 

20 
 Now, the cesium-137 didn't work because this 

21 
 is not a reactor facility. So the plan B was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 to see if there was any data for mixed fission 111


2 
 products, that you know, actual monitoring 

3 
 data could be applied to any method. I mean 

4 
 you know, not necessarily ratio method, but 

5 
 any method. 

6 
 And your response, and I've read it 

7 
 a few times, it kind of suggests that no, we 

8 
 didn't find it, and --

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Although I said we 

10 
 didn't find the exotics, as far as the 

11 
 actinides go. You do not see actinides really 

12 
 mentioned in the checklists in all the --

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I'll have to 

14 


15 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Mixed activation and 

17 
 mixed fission are definitely on the checklist 

18 
 and there are samples left in bioassay through 

19 
 '77, '78, through the checklist that we had, 

20 
 the large checklist section, they are 

21 
 mentioned there, as things to go to. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, let me just 112
 

2 
 find the response, because I --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You're not going to 

4 
 find curium, neptunium --

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: On there because you 

7 
 won't even find that today, essentially, on 

8 
 the --

9 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Work permits, so 

11 there. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so basically 

13 
 you are saying NIOSH agrees that the MFP 

14 
 ratios from OTIB-54 were not applied in non15 
 reactor facilities in cases where fission 

16 products may have been separated. 

17 
 NIOSH has not been able to locate 

18 
 sufficient data to determine nuclide ratios 

19 
 applicable to other facilities such as CMR, 

20 
 where work campaigns have all separated 

21 
 fission products, for example strontium-90 may 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 have occurred. 113
 

2 
 And then finally you say NIOSH has, 

3 
 however, found a tremendous amount of RWPs, 

4 
 workplace monitoring and nasal smear data 

5 
 through the applicable time period for 

6 
 locations such as CMR, and has evidence that 

7 
 appropriate bioassay methods were generally 

8 
 available. 

9 
 You know, I read that and what came 

10 
 to mind was program reliability, that the 

11 
 program was a sound program and would have, in 

12 
 fact, applied appropriate bioassay methods, if 

13 
 in fact there were exposures to mixed fission 

14 products. Now --

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: While having someone 

16 
 on an RWP, say, you are now going to need a 

17 
 cesium bioassay and you have a program from 

18 the bioassay group saying, oh, put 

19 
 ‘identifying information redacted’. over onto 

20 
 the cesium-137 program for CMR, would to me 

21 suggest that they were looking at that issue. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 Now, to say whether all people were 114


2 
 all monitored exactly and picked up on 

3 
 everyone I can't say. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what we want 

5 
 to know -- I think what we want to know, 

6 
 though, is that for strontium-90, cesium, 

7 
 these mixed fission products, were data being 

8 
 collected such that you have enough of that 

9 
 data to bound the doses for these facilities. 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, but we are not 

11 
 using the bioassay data there to bound. I 

12 
 mean, we are -- a person left a bioassay 

13 
 sample and if he has a dose reconstruction, 

14 
 that bioassay data is going to be sent over by 

15 DOE and you will have bioassay data. 

16 
 So it's not like we are trying to 

17 
 take something from the checklist and say 

18 
 these 40 samples from '77 will be used as a 

19 
 basis to say all workers have been, you know, 

20 are bounded by that number. 

21 
 We are saying that if a person was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 involved in the cesium-137 they would have 115


2 
 left a bioassay sample which now, a dose 

3 
 reconstruction can be done using the bioassay 

4 
 data that will be in the database for the --

5 
 which is where we got the checklist responses 

6 
 on the checklist sheet, from the bioassay 

7 
 database, saying a bioassay sample was left. 

8 
 So I -- 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have enough 

10 
 data over the mixed fission products involved 

11 with CMR to do dose reconstruction. 

12 DR. MACIEVIC: See, are we --

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are you saying 

14 
 you only assigned -- saying you only assigned 

15 
 mixed fission product dose to those who were -

16 
 - who have it in their individual records? 

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. That they 

18 did have a --

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So there's no 

20 
 model --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For a coworker 116
 

2 
 approach --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, exactly. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you are 

5 
 saying they monitored everyone they should 

6 
 have --

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right and that will 

8 
 be the question --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Take it on the -

10 -

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Program that 

13 
 they monitored everyone they should have, and 

14 
 therefore it will be in their individual 

15 
 records. 

16 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: That there is a 

18 
 bioassay program for it and that the bioassay 

19 sample would be there, right. So --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just feel like 

21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

-- 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 117


2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm just saying 

3 
 that looking at the documents, I mean, you 

4 
 sort of -- you point everybody to the SRDB 

5 
 file and you know, I went through as many as I 

6 
 could stand, like --

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: It's a question that 

8 


9 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Somehow, basing 

11 
 dose reconstructability on a literature survey 

12 
 that points to you know -- if we were to do a 

13 
 keyword search for mixed fission products, and 

14 
 you know, I would expect to have RWPs and SOPs 

15 
 and surveys pop out. But does that, you know, 

16 
 does that represent an adequate monitoring 

17 
 program that you can base, you know, you can 

18 
 accept the bioassays that were done as 

19 
 reflective of those who must have been 

20 
 exposed. 

21 
 I mean, that's pretty indirect, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 given the cutoff that was imposed. I mean, 118
 

2 
 it's going to program reliability in a large 

3 
 sense, starting in '75. And I'm not so sure 

4 
 that you didn't have that before '75. I mean 

5 
 the issue was there wasn't any method before 

6 
 the whole body counter showed up and now the 

7 
 whole body counter is available, does that 

8 
 give you enough data to do a distribution and 

9 
 come up with confidence that you have an upper 

10 
 bound for CMR, TA-48, all these facilities 

11 handling mixed fission products. 

12 
 And I don't see very much, other 

13 
 than this, you know, be assured we have RWPs 

14 and we have documentation that mentions --

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But it doesn't 

16 
 mention there's actually sampling there. So 

17 
 what you are saying is, is that all the 

18 
 bioassay samples that are there are not all 

19 
 that there should be. There should have been 

20 
 a whole bunch more that were missed. But how 

21 do you --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I would start with 119
 

2 
 the source terms in CMR, TA-48 and say we got 

3 
 strontium-90, we got cesium-137, whatever is 

4 
 the source term, say do we have bioassays that 

5 
 correspond to do those source terms. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But we do --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But do we have 

8 
 an inventory --

9 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: All I have is a 

11 
 qualitative response that says we have a 

12 
 number of documents on the SRDB that supports 

13 
 this and I have looked at them, and you know, 

14 
 I, you know, neither here nor there, they do 

15 
 mention mixed fission products but I don't 

16 
 have any assurance that I can go from column 

17 
 left, which is the sources in these facilities 

18 
 historically, and starting in '75 I can see 

19 
 clear evidence that there's a -- there's 

20 
 bioassay records being generated that you can 

21 use. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 That's the only thing that, you 120


2 
 know, quite apart from coming up with a 

3 
 method, ratio or anything else, I mean, that's 

4 
 kind of basic stuff. 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, but that's what 

6 
 the checklist was supposed to show, and that 

7 
 it is showing, for the particular nuclides 

8 
 under the mixed fission and the mixed 

9 
 activation, that were requested by of course a 

10 
 specific group of people, which is like I 

11 
 said, new hires and people beginning jobs, but 

12 


13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's a small 

14 
 segment of the worker population. 

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But then you also 

16 
 have, in the sample that I showed with the 

17 
 bioassay where you have a list of people being 

18 
 transferred into the cesium-137 program for 

19 
 CMR for bioassay. 

20 
 So I mean, I agree, it's not 

21 
 everything that is there, but it's not that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 it's just a procedure written by internal 121


2 
 dosimetry saying yes, everybody should leave a 

3 
 sample now and then. You actually go to RWPs 

4 
 and SWPs that mention it, and then have actual 

5 
 bioassay samples from these facilities for 

6 
 those years. 

7 
 So I mean, it's not, again --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I haven't seen any 

9 
 of that data presented that way. But going 

10 
 back to the checklist, okay, the checklist 

11 
 first off, this is another, you know, item 

12 
 later on, and we might as well dive in, and 

13 
 first off, as you pointed out, it's limited to 

14 
 new hires, transfers, a film badge request, or 

15 a rehire. 

16 
 Okay, those were the four 

17 
 categories that apply on the checklist, that's 

18 
 the population of workers. It's only people 

19 
 who are effectively arriving in an operation 

20 
 because they were just hired, they were just 

21 
 transferred in, or they were rehired, or they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 want a badge. 122
 

2 
 So these are, these are, these are 

3 
 people entering the operation and they are 

4 
 trying to baseline them in terms of you know, 

5 
 what was their past radiological history. I 

6 
 mean, I got a sample right here, you know, 

7 
 what was your past exposure, stuff that you 

8 
 would expect, did you get an HP 

9 
 indoctrination, did you receive occupational 

10 
 radiation exposure at a site other than Los 

11 
 Alamos, you know, did you get an initial 

12 urinalysis kit issued, sort of baseline. 

13 
 So some very basic, introductory 

14 
 things when you are bringing somebody new in. 

15 That's the checklist, okay? Now --

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And the spreadsheet? 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, once there's 

18 
 a spreadsheet, once there's a spreadsheet and 

19 
 you know, we have had a dialogue on that over 

20 
 the past few weeks because I did go to this --

21 
 I actually have printouts right here. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 brought hard copy. And I went from the 123
 

2 
 checklist, and yes, you do have mixed fission 

3 
 products, and mixed activation products 

4 
 checked here. And I went over to the right5 
 hand side to see whether in fact these 

6 
 individuals were bioassayed and found that, 

7 
 you know, some were but some weren't and I 

8 
 think I even went back to you and said, I 

9 
 don't necessarily get the sense that it's one 

10 
 for one correspondence and I think your 

11 
 response was well, sometimes it takes more 

12 
 than just one check. It takes maybe a couple 

13 of checks --

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You may find a whole 

15 
 bunch of samples and see what you don't have, 

16 
 and where -- what the sample is, when you have 

17 
 got a person, because this is covering the 

18 
 two-year period, you've got a person coming 

19 
 in, whether a person stays immediately in that 

20 
 job when they come in and not get put on to 

21 
 something else that they get a bioassay for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 plutonium instead of the cesium -- you don't 124


2 
 know what the inbetweens happen to this 

3 
 person. You have got the statement up front 

4 
 when they are coming in, and then down the 

5 
 road you have these samples and I have not 

6 
 connected that to go and say this sample is 

7 
 definitely the sample that was requested on a 

8 
 particular check. That is not there. All we 

9 
 have done is gone through the bioassay to see 

10 
 are there bioassays for a particular person 

11 
 that had a checklist asking for some kind of 

12 sample. 

13 
 Some don't even -- that will say 

14 
 none required, but then there will be a bunch 

15 
 of samples that were left during those periods 

16 of years too. 

17 
 So that means other things are 

18 
 happening inbetween that it's not the bioassay 

19 
 we are using is just going into the bioassay 

20 
 database and putting them all in there to show 

21 
 you this is what was left by that person in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 those two years. 125
 

2 
 Whether -- go ahead. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was just going 

4 
 to say, you guys are, I mean you have looked 

5 
 through this a lot more than I have. Does the 

6 
 checklist include, like you mentioned RWPs 

7 
 earlier, does it include workers that have, 

8 
 you know, been at the facility for five, six, 

9 
 seven -- not this coming in or as 

10 
 ‘identifying information redacted’.was -- not 

11 this new hire --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The checklist --

13 just the new people. 

14 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: there are some 

16 people that might show up on RWP --

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Those are the 

18 
 general workers that are in the job all the 

19 
 time, so you could get that person who was on 

20 
 the checklist for one bioassay could also be 

21 
 on an SWP or an RWP that requires them to have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 other bioassays -- 126
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You say requires 

3 
 them to have, did you connect that dot in any 

4 
 way? Did you, did you find out whether, like, 

5 
 a subset of these RWPs that identified -- do 

6 
 they, I assume they have names? 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well we have '77 and 

8 
 '78, but then you've got -- you've got a --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, did you 

10 link those or --

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No. Not linking it 

12 
 in that to go to the RWP, to go and say okay, 

13 
 these are from the RWPs, these are from the 

14 
 checklist. That part has not been done. So 

15 
 yes, you can say there is a hole because you 

16 
 have samples left, checklist, and you can't 

17 
 say okay, that sample is from that RWP and 

18 
 that sample is definitely from the checklist 

19 
 requirement. That is not there. You won't be 

20 able to pull that up. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I mean I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 think it was a strong part of your basis, is 127


2 
 that a tight RWP system and if there were a 

3 
 sample then they have data in their individual 

4 
 file. 

5 
 So it seems like we need to, to 

6 
 some extent, validate that. I know pulling 

7 
 all, you know --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there's two 

9 
 facets to that. One, of course, is, I think 

10 
 RWPs, it's evidence that on a job basis, 

11 
 somebody is thinking about mixed fission 

12 
 products, and now those are capabilities that 

13 
 actually do account, whereas before it was 

14 
 not. 

15 So certainly you would want to see 

16 
 if MFPs are being culled out and whether in 

17 fact the count is being done. 

18 
 And the second thing is, is whether 

19 
 or not workers that were routinely exposed, 

20 
 which is a tough one, routinely exposed to 

21 
 mixed fission products, not just plutonium or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 uranium at the CMR and places like that, but 128


2 
 you know, mixed fission products, whether, you 

3 
 know, there was a kind of a routine program to 

4 
 look at the dose component from MFPs or not. 

5 
 And I, you know, you haven't seen 

6 
 any data, so you know, the question is, is 

7 
 there any way to, you know, find out, did the 

8 
 facility, did CMR actually address the dose 

9 
 from mixed fission products, and how would 

10 
 they know how to do that, or how did they do 

11 that? 

12 
 It's sort of basic. I don't, you 

13 
 know, again I understand the checklist. I 

14 
 understand the RWPs. They are indicators that 

15 the program was conscious of MFPs. 

16 
 But I went back and looked at the 

17 
 data, you know, it was the same kind of 

18 
 documents back in the '60s, late '60s, into 

19 
 the early '70s, you know, before '75, and they 

20 
 were aware of MFPs back then too, I mean they 

21 were cited in the operational documents. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So I tried to look at the health 129


2 
 physics, the health physics in quarterly 

3 
 documents as well as the operational documents 

4 
 before '75, looked at the ones after '75, and 

5 
 quite frankly there isn't much difference in 

6 
 terms of an acknowledgment that they knew they 

7 
 had mixed fission products. 

8 
 What we are really trying to 

9 
 distinguish, though, is whether or not the 

10 
 personnel monitoring began to happen in '75 

11 
 whereas before '75 there wasn't attention paid 

12 
 to that, such that you were going to get 

13 
 generated the kind of data that would be 

14 
 useful for dose reconstruction with sufficient 

15 
 accuracy. 

16 So you know, that's the part that 

17 
 you know, I have no doubt that they were aware 

18 
 of and conscious of MFPs, and in fact they 

19 were aware of and conscious of --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 programmatically, you know, in the '70s, I 130


2 
 don't see a whole lot of difference on that 

3 
 score. What I'm trying to --

4 
 MR. MILES: What if you take that 

5 
 '70s and extend it out to the 2005. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

7 
 MR. MILES: Do you see a difference 

8 
 there? 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That's a question 

10 we have been asking ourselves. 

11 MR. MILES: Our 2011 is --

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Now you're talking -

13 -

14 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

15 
 MR. MILES: Strontium-90 bioassay 

16 data, say in 2011, or --

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: How -- but that's 

18 a good question. 

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: We have not seen 

20 
 that. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: But for mixed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 activation and mixed fission products, it's a 131


2 
 fair question. 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, also on the 

4 
 other exotics, for the actinides. They are 

5 
 not there either until later that they are 

6 
 mentioned and a program is in place for 

7 
 curium, neptunium and all that where you are -

8 
 - and that's the whole point of our developing 

9 
 the scenario we did, because even to present 

10 
 day, in talking with people and looking, you 

11 
 are not going to find LANL saying oh yes, now 

12 
 we have an actinide, I mean, they admit they 

13 
 have the actinides program but you are not 

14 
 going to find actinide bioassay, which is 

15 
 going to say these samples were left for this, 

16 
 this, this and this. They haven't split it 

17 
 out like that. They are still doing it with 

18 
 plutonium, uranium and running it on that kind 

19 of program. 

20 
 But to now look at 10 CFR 835 and 

21 
 that is saying they are intentionally ignoring 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 stuff they know is there and they are not 132


2 
 computing dose. 

3 
 So now you are getting into legal 

4 
 questions and you get past the 10 CFR 835 --

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Somewhere, 

6 
 somewhere, though, around the early '90s, Los 

7 
 Alamos should have written up an internal --

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

9 
 was just going to say, a Technical Basis 

10 Document. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Technical Basis 

12 
 Document, right, that described it as part of 

13 
 the compliance with 10 CFR 835 and it's a 

14 
 Technical Basis Document different than what 

15 we use the term for, our programs. 

16 
 And they should be describing, in 

17 
 that document, this is who we monitor and why 

18 
 and how we can -- how we are verifying that 

19 
 people are not exposed to more than 100 

20 millirem a year without being monitored. 

21 
 Or, if there is a technology 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 shortfall, this is -- we'll monitor them as 133


2 
 well as we can, but we are going to miss 100 

3 
 millirem, you know, that's what that's going 

4 
 to say. 

5 
 And we aren't going to be able to 

6 
 see 100 millirem, but we are going to do the 

7 
 best we can and our missed dose is going to be 

8 
 a rem or 500 millirem or something like that. 

9 
 So somewhere around then, they 

10 
 should have written that, and that should be 

11 
 describing what they are doing today that is 

12 compliant. 

13 
 And then maybe they didn't change 

14 anything --

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I can't imagine 

16 that doesn't exist. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't imagine. 

18 They could --

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, it does exist. 

20 
 I've got to remember whether or not they 

21 
 mentioned -- we haven't -- talking to current 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 day staff, though, in this -- they -- 134
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But they had --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: They don't have 

4 
 technology --

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But they had to 

6 
 develop a rationale for why they could rely on 

7 
 plutonium. 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, and it really 

9 
 is the rationale we are talking about and that 

10 the -- go ahead. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So then the other, 

12 
 you know, then the extension of that question 

13 
 though, that I think is relevant here, is did 

14 
 anything change at Los Alamos when they wrote 

15 
 that, that means that okay, we haven't done 

16 
 this up to now, but now we are going to, or 

17 
 were they just, or were they just saying this 

18 
 is what we have been doing all along or how 

19 
 was it written, I don't know if there's any 

20 way you can infer that or not. 

21 
 But the fact of the matter is, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 there should be something written by Los 135
 

2 
 Alamos in the early '90s that said this is how 

3 
 we are complying with 835's internal 

4 
 monitoring requirements. 

5 
 And if that, and you know, so to 

6 
 me, that tells you, that needs to tell you 

7 
 something about selection, because what we are 

8 
 getting into here, is where the right people, 

9 
 were all the people who should have been 

10 
 monitored, monitored. Yes, because yes, there 

11 
 are RWPs and it's going to be a fool's errand 

12 
 to go back and find -- are there names 

13 associated with RWPs that --

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes. Yes. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Some were for 

17 
 specific jobs, so you may not have the -- it 

18 may be a general RWP and so --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

20 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, but 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 there will be, so it will be a general RWP 136


2 
 which may give bioassay requirements? 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And so you won't 

5 
 have a set of names there, so you can't go 

6 
 verify that everybody worked on that general 

7 
 RWP got the bioassay required by that RWP. 

8 
 But our position here is that 

9 
 people who worked on the RWPs did have it, did 

10 
 have the bioassay, and that is why their dose 

11 
 reconstruction is going to have this, is going 

12 
 to have -- going to use their bioassay and we 

13 
 are not going to worry about coworkers or 

14 
 anything like that, because people who should 

15 have been monitored, were monitored. 

16 
 That's a long pole unless you've 

17 
 got something that shows that there is a 

18 
 program and this is how the program worked and 

19 
 this is how it worked in 1992 and this is how 

20 it worked in 1995, that caught everybody. 

21 
 And I'm interested, you know, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 Andrew is sitting there and hasn't said 137
 

2 
 anything. I know that security officers must 

3 
 have gone in CMR. 

4 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Okay. Yes, let me 

5 
 -- RWPs, let me throw a current issue out and 

6 
 building 102 with the new machine in there, 

7 
 this is going on right now. So if it is going 

8 
 on now I think that you can assume it was 

9 
 going on during the time frame of the 

10 petition. 

11 
 I was supposed to patrol in the 

12 
 building 102 and they put a new sign up right 

13 
 there that went across the line into the area 

14 
 that said if you haven't signed the RWP, you 

15 are not allowed into this area. 

16 
 And it had been dated months prior 

17 
 and apparently had been -- this had been 

18 
 going, that was the first time I had seen it. 

19 
 That was the first time they had put it there. 

20 
 So as far as RWPs go, the way it 

21 came out and if the worker had used 2009 --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: 2009, yes. 138
 

2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Ours said we don't 

3 
 see RWPs. We don't sign them, we don't see 

4 
 them, in that regard, nothing going on, those 

5 
 guards that are saying that it had been there 

6 
 for almost 40 years. Additionally, the other 

7 
 workers, the craftspeople said well, some of 

8 
 them said, you know, I have never seen an RWP 

9 
 and others have said well, you won't start 

10 seeing them until after the Tiger Teams. 

11 
 So I think -- and initially the 

12 
 reports that I cited in the document that I 

13 
 sent, you know, there were issues with the 

14 
 RWPs and the SWPs as far as how they prepare 

15 
 them and whether or not they are accurate to, 

16 
 you know, place them -- or there are issues 

17 
 with them, there are problems with them, so 

18 
 you know, I question that. I -- ever since 

19 
 this issue came up with them, they always 

20 
 started looking at this last year, and I would 

21 
 think that within this time frame, that would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 have been resolved by now, but it hasn't been. 139


2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well see, we are --

3 
 our bounding method for the actinides and the 

4 
 uranium, plutonium and all the other actinides 

5 
 going in there, is that methodology we talked 

6 
 about, plutonium intakes based on bioassay and 

7 
 then assigning highest actinide to an 

8 
 unmonitored worker would be like a guard or 

9 
 somebody walking into the place that has not 

10 
 been on RWPs, been in a facility that may have 

11 
 had this material and they get assigned that 

12 dose. 

13 
 So that is, for these 

14 
 radionuclides, the methodology that we are 

15 
 going to use to give them a dose to say 

16 
 here's, at a, whatever percentile we want to 

17 
 use on that bioassay, intake and give them 

18 that dose. 

19 
 So if he is not on the RWP but 

20 
 there is a particular -- if there are 

21 
 radionuclides where this activity may have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 been present, and it's, you know, stated we 140


2 
 are using it in the dose reconstruction 

3 
 process -- it's not right yet because we 

4 
 haven't finished discussing this through the 

5 
 Work Group -- but that is who -- how they are 

6 
 going to get it. For plutonium, uranium, 

7 
 tritium, they get the assigned dose based on 

8 
 any monitoring that was done -- that's the 

9 
 monitoring data that's there. 

10 
 If you are unmonitored, then you 

11 
 get the doses that are stated in TBD as a 

12 
 missed worker, missed dose for a worker in 

13 
 that -- as stated in our TBD for internal and 

14 
 external. 

15 
 But for unmonitored, for the 

16 
 actinides, and that -- those other, they get 

17 the TIB-62 coworker dose. 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But here's the 

19 
 question for you. You could have done that 

20 
 back in the '60s, I mean, what -- the 

21 
 difference -- you are saying you can use this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 -- the actinide data, but you had the actinide 141


2 
 data before '75. 

3 
 This question of what difference 

4 
 dose the whole body counter give you in terms 

5 
 of actual in vivo analyses for mixed fission 

6 
 products, that gets lost in this thing, and 

7 
 what's just the whole basis for the cutoff 

8 
 period, and that --

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, the basis for 

10 
 the cutoff period was we used the 1975, just 

11 
 that was the date of the petition. We talked 

12 about the early '70s, yes, over the --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: and we did not have 

15 
 this method yet developed when we -- we did 

16 
 not have it when we were looking at the first 

17 
 SEC as a possibility. We had no other data in 

18 
 there. What we found for the actinides, we 

19 
 didn't have a model that was there, and we 

20 
 went with the cutoff date, saying that that 

21 
 was the cutoff date, of 1975, for the end of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the proclaimed SEC. 142
 

2 
 Now, after that, when we started 

3 
 SEC-109, we started looking at the data 

4 
 saying, well, how do we get around, because we 

5 
 are not seeing this actinide data anywhere 

6 
 through. 

7 
 So you either are going to have an 

8 
 SEC or you have to have some kind of a model 

9 
 to bound the dose assigned to the workers of 

10 
 this Class, for unmonitored workers, a 

11 particular dose. 

12 
 And that's when the model got 

13 
 developed, so it comes after the fact. This 

14 
 model was not sitting there when we were doing 

15 
 -- so the model, I just told you, is the model 

16 for taking --

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Using actinide 

18 data. 

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Using the actinide 

20 
 data, in thousands of plutonium bioassay from 

21 
 bioassay samples, you take the intakes that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 are developed from that, and then say it's not 143


2 
 plutonium, it's any one of these actinides. 

3 
 You get the highest dose from whatever 

4 
 actinide it is, and you say that's the dose we 

5 
 are going to give. 

6 
 Nobody has addressed that yet and 

7 
 come back as to why that model doesn't work, 

8 
 as a bounding dose or a dose given to 

9 
 unmonitored workers for this Class, and nobody 

10 has addressed that yet. 

11 
 I mean we have been talking about 

12 survey data and looking at --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What are we doing 

15 for unmonitored workers, for --

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you haven't 

17 
 proposed this model in your response. You 

18 
 just basically say that you couldn't find any 

19 
 data that would enable you to do a ratio --

20 
 and then you turn around and say that there is 

21 
 RWPs in other documents with site -- site 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 mixed fission products which gives you 144
 

2 
 confidence that the program would have done 

3 
 the right thing. 

4 
 That's pretty much what the 

5 
 response is. It's all we can really act on. 

6 
 Now you are really positing that you can use, 

7 
 you can use the --

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, this ER -- well 

9 
 the ER goes back and says mixed fission 

10 
 products and exotic radionuclides, mixed 

11 
 fission products, mixed activation products 

12 
 and exotics, the exotics are what's being 

13 
 covered by this unmonitored worker, this is in 

14 the ER, stated back in the ER as laid out. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But tell us how 

16 
 you are going to do the mixed fission 

17 products. That's all we are asking. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The mixed fission 

19 
 products, we are going to be relying now on 

20 
 the bioassay data, gamma spec for the cesium 

21 and the specific strontium --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Cesium in, the 145
 

2 
 intake value for cesium for the range of 

3 
 radionuclides under cesium in the Evaluation 

4 
 Report, I can't remember all the range, take 

5 
 that intake rate, plug it in for each one of 

6 
 those, get the highest dose for the particular 

7 
 dose reconstruction you are doing and plug 

8 
 that in as all that particular radionuclide to 

9 
 get the bounding dose for that. That's the 

10 proposed method in the Evaluation Report. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's only if 

12 
 you have just mixed fission product, a cesium 

13 
 record in your bioassay record, right, or no? 

14 Or is this for unmonitored workers as well? 

15 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Unmonitored. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. I 

17 didn't understand that. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, it's 

19 
 unmonitored. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, just to 

21 
 clarify one thing though. I think we had gone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 through and you were referring to the ER 146


2 
 language about using cesium-137 as a 

3 
 substitute, and this is not the OTIB-54 

4 
 though. 

5 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: No, this is defined 

6 
 in the Evaluation Report. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, OTIB-54 says 

8 
 you can apply that to mixed activation, mixed 

9 
 fission products --

10 MR. STEMPFLEY: Right, and that --

11 (Simultaneous speaking) 

12 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: The original 

13 
 Evaluation Report said it for everything, 

14 
 mixed activation products and mixed fission 

15 products. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

17 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: In the discussion 

18 
 of the Evaluation Report, we identified, as we 

19 
 discussed earlier, mixed activation products 

20 
 needed a different key element, which was 

21 
 beryllium, that was proposed -- beryllium is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the proposed method for activation products.147


2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But we went 

3 
 further than that. We said it -- yes, we said 

4 
 that OTIB-54 was written in a reactor context 

5 
 that would not apply to non-reactor 

6 
 facilities, either because the ratios that we 

7 
 based this for in OTIB-54 would not apply to a 

8 
 CMR for example. 

9 
 But that's not what you are 

10 
 proposing here. This is different than that 

11 language in the ER. 

12 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: What we are 

13 proposing here for CMR. 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the cesium15 
 137 as a substitute would not work for mixed 

16 
 activation products. It would not also work 

17 
 for non-reactor nuclear facilities such as CMR 

18 
 or TA-48. 

19 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Now, CMR, we looked 

20 
 at the values for CMR, we specifically broke 

21 
 that out as a different analysis, based on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 Working Group meeting. We came up with -- 148
 

2 
 MR. MILES: We tried to come up --

3 
 I mentioned this before -- we tried to come up 

4 
 with some ratios like that, like what we had 

5 
 for LAMPF, for CMR. We were unable to do 

6 
 that. 

7 
 So I think what we are seeing is, 

8 
 if, if, for those cases which we believe to be 

9 
 relatively rare just from what we have been 

10 
 able to review in the SRDB, that if, if there 

11 
 was requirements for -- if there was a need 

12 
 for individuals to be monitored for, say, 

13 
 strontium-90 or another fission product that 

14 
 may not be in that OTIB-54 mix, and in those 

15 
 ratios, that a program was in place that would 

16 
 have gotten those individuals to have 

17 bioassay. 

18 
 We are -- I don't think we are 

19 
 proposing arbitrarily to assign every 

20 
 unmonitored worker some, some quantity of 

21 strontium-90 intake. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, but I think 149
 

2 
 your comment that somehow this gets bound back 

3 
 to the language in the ER may not be correct, 

4 
 because I think the last Work Group meeting, 

5 
 and Jim Neton, who I think weighed in as well, 

6 
 OTIB-54, with the cesium-137 as the 

7 
 substitute, does not work for the non-reactor 

8 
 facilities in the proposed way that the ER has 

9 
 couched it. 

10 MR. MILES: I think everybody 

11 agrees --

12 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: This is not --

14 
 this is not in the ER, this is just using 

15 
 cesium-137 as a, as a marker of sorts, without 

16 getting into --

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But in TIB-62 you do 

18 
 have -- TIB-62 does the coworker, it does have 

19 
 cesium in there as also a radionuclide to be 

20 
 used for, divorced from having to worry about 

21 ratios. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 150
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But as, based on a 

3 
 bioassay, to also apply to an unmonitored 

4 
 worker. I mean, just like you have --

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Plutonium and the 

7 
 uranium in TIB-62 to go through the alpha 

8 
 emitters and the actinides, you have the 

9 
 cesium-137 also in there, because you had the 

10 
 question before, remember, about the number of 

11 samples that were used in the year and --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: that was all in 

14 
 there too. So, and that's divorced from TIB15 
 54. That's not using --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, okay. 

17 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: We settled that. 

19 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, so the 

21 
 question becomes, does the cesium-137 in that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 mode work for these facilities such as CMR in 151


2 
 terms of both an event-driven, which is kind 

3 
 of an operational, RWPs, and a routine basis, 

4 
 or not. 

5 
 You know, one thing that concerns 

6 
 me in terms of, I mentioned the stack emission 

7 
 data. And you have specific stacks out of TA8 
 48 and CMR for which MFP is the principle 

9 
 isotope. 

10 Clearly from these work areas, 

11 
 mixed fission products is the primary emission 

12 
 source from that facility. And you know, what 

13 
 constitutes the source term, the strontium-90, 

14 
 cesium-137, what else is there, and do you 

15 
 have any data for those facilities, which gets 

16 
 into the question, similar to MAPs, you have 

17 
 information for the operations that actually 

18 
 handle the MFPs, and this was the specific 

19 
 facilities, TA-48 and CMR, for which there 

20 
 were air emissions of mixed fission products 

21 monitored. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So you can actually kind of 152
 

2 
 pinpoint where that was the primary nuclide 

3 
 coming out of those operations, and the 

4 
 question is, do you have corresponding, any 

5 
 corresponding data for workplace exposures to 

6 
 MFPs and monitoring for MFPs for those areas 

7 
 or not. 

8 
 I don't know. From what I can see 

9 
 from here, it's not easy to correlate these 

10 areas to that kind of data, see that data. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. A 

12 
 quick observation. The OTIB-54, the reason 

13 
 they have -- it certainly is for reactors and 

14 
 it's based on primary coolant sampling in 

15 
 different categories, and they have four 

16 different reactors. 

17 
 And there's good reason to believe 

18 
 that the mix is going to be quite a bit 

19 
 different in the primary coolant, mainly 

20 because of the fuel, the chemistry burn up. 

21 
 Now, but if you are asking a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 question, well listen, let's say I know that 153


2 
 there is fission going on. I don't know the 

3 
 venue here, what they were doing. Usually 

4 
 cesium is one that is going to show up pretty 

5 
 quickly because chemically, it just becomes 

6 
 available more readily. 

7 
 Like, strontium-90, historically, 

8 
 just doesn't find its way into the primary 

9 
 coolant the way cesium does. But one could 

10 
 argue, and I'm almost trying to find the way 

11 
 to get a hook on this, that it's the fission 

12 yield. 

13 
 In other words, the worst you 

14 
 really could have, given that, you know, 

15 
 notwithstanding iodine and other gases, let's 

16 
 just talk fission products not including 

17 
 iodine and noble gases and tritium, but you 

18 
 ask yourself the question, well what about 

19 
 strontium-90, cerium and the other relatively 

20 
 long-lived fission products, in general the 

21 
 cesium is going to be present and available 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 for exposure, preferentially. So if you only 154
 

2 
 have cesium data and you were to say well, 

3 
 what's the worst assumption I could make, of a 

4 
 lot of these other fission products because 

5 
 they may have been present, but you didn't 

6 
 look at them, I'm assuming that's what's going 

7 
 on here, the yield and the burn up will tell 

8 
 you that. 

9 
 In other words, if you have some 

10 
 information on, you know, what the campaign 

11 
 was, whether you had fissioning, just knowing 

12 the burn up, you're done. 

13 
 You could probably get a handle on 

14 
 the maximum amount of other fission products 

15 
 that might have been present along with 

16 cesium. 

17 
 So all I am doing is giving you a, 

18 
 yes you cannot use OTIB-54 because you are 

19 
 looking at a primary coolant in OTIB-54. Here 

20 you have a different setup. 

21 
 I don't know what this experiment 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 was where you were getting fissioning. But in 155
 

2 
 theory the fission yield and burn up should 

3 
 give you a hook related to this, and of 

4 
 course, with the noble gases and iodines, you 

5 
 know, that -- they have to be treated 

6 
 specially. I don't know if that helps any. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's a 

8 
 good point. Do you have the hook that John is 

9 
 referring to? Do you have a way to tie it to 

10 
 the, you know, the campaigns that were going 

11 on, I don't know. 

12 DR. MACIEVIC: I don't know. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, not at this 

15 time, no we don't. 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You know, if you 

17 
 can tie monitoring data, even if it's cesium18 
 137 or strontium-90, you know, some of the bad 

19 
 actors, with time and place, and this might be 

20 
 campaigns, then you have something harder than 

21 
 this overall general program reliability which 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 I think doesn't get us anywhere. 156
 

2 
 I think that demonstrates that not 

3 
 only do they have a program, but the program 

4 
 is actually moving toward monitoring for mixed 

5 
 fission products, and that you can show that 

6 
 the campaigns and the locations, that mixed 

7 
 fission products were handled at CMR and TA8 
 48, TA-50 -- there's three of them -- what's 

9 
 happening. 

10 I don't have any way to know that 

11 
 from looking at the documents that were cited 

12 
 as evidence. I have the SRDB numbers here. 

13 
 I've looked at them all, and yes, FMPs are 

14 
 mentioned and RWPs in some of these documents, 

15 
 but you know, I don't know if that resulted in 

16 
 a, you know, a sequence of bioassays for RWPs, 

17 
 or whether a campaign where they were actually 

18 
 working directly with mixed fission products 

19 
 resulted in a routine program or not. There 

20 is no way of knowing that. 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, you know how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 ugly it's going to be to associate a 157
 

2 
 particular campaign at a facility, to track 

3 
 that material, to go to CMR, then the official 

4 
 work permit associated with that material, and 

5 
 then the bioassays associated with that, to 

6 
 link that all the way back, my God --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me step back 

8 
 one, because I am still trying to figure out 

9 
 what's exactly on the table. I mean, you 

10 
 mentioned that the kind of approach is the 

11 
 cesium even for unmonitored workers. I'm a 

12 
 little -- so how are you going to use the 

13 
 cesium -- what's the current approach? If you 

14 
 don't have the hook that Jim was talking about 

15 how do you use it? I just want to understand. 

16 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: I think the method 

17 
 implied in the entire Evaluation Report for 

18 
 the main monitored radionuclides -- plutonium, 

19 
 uranium, cesium -- is to take comparable 

20 
 activities for those -- where those 

21 
 radionuclides were comparable, make sure the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 activities were comparable and that is what we 158


2 
 try to attempt to do in the Evaluation Report, 

3 
 relate activities to the main, monitored 

4 
 radionuclides, and then take those main 

5 
 monitored radionuclide values based on 

6 
 existing data, bioassay data. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you did --

8 
 just let me stop there -- when you say relate 

9 
 the activities to other unmonitored, in this 

10 
 case we are talking about the -- you are 

11 
 relating the cesium to the other fission 

12 
 products, so that's your hook. I mean, we can 

13 
 debate on whether it's a sharp hook or what, 

14 
 you know, but you know, you had some basis for 

15 
 that. I mean I am refreshing my memory too --

16 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: We are trying to 

17 
 relate to existing -- where there is bioassay 

18 
 data, a significant or sufficient amount of 

19 
 bioassay data for people that were monitored, 

20 
 we could use that TIB-62, the coworker model 

21 value to apply. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 We don't take cesium and say all 159


2 
 right, we are going to plug in cesium, we are 

3 
 actually taking the intake value for cesium --

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I understand --

5 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: And then do --

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But without the 

7 
 hook you are still --

8 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: That's right. And 

9 
 the hook is --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have got to 

11 trust that the hook is --

12 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: The attempt that --

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Reasonable, 

14 right? 

15 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Right. The 

16 
 exposure scenario, the type of material that 

17 
 you are dealing with and how it would be 

18 
 dispersed is similar, and that's -- that's 

19 what we are trying to do. 

20 
 I mean, and the best effort that we 

21 
 had was for certain things, obviously 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 identifying activation products in non-reactor 160


2 
 type facilities, it's not a problem with TIB3 
 54, but -- or the Evaluation Report excluding 

4 
 that. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: We're talking 

6 
 about urinalyses data for the cesium. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually the cesium 

8 
 coworker model, I'm just reading it, just 

9 
 based on in vivo counting. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: In vivo counting -

11 -

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Not urinalyses. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The intake rate, 

15 
 unless it's different, because I am looking at 

16 
 the one that is posted on our website, it says 

17 coworker model. 

18 MR. STEMPFLEY: Sixty-two. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. It says 

20 
 that the intake rate is generated from in vivo 

21 
 data and assuming the class F, I would keep it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 in the other system. 161
 

2 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Right. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Class F solubility 

4 
 which will maximize the intake rate, when you 

5 
 are using in vivo data. Using that, and 

6 
 actually analyzing the data in five-year 

7 
 periods, because it's -- there are like 301 

8 
 total in vivo counts, and then once you have 

9 
 an intake rate, so this would be -- the 

10 
 coworker, the intake rate for, for cesium, 

11 
 depending upon, you know, based upon the in 

12 vivo monitoring data. 

13 
 And then, so what our approach is, 

14 
 I'm hearing you saying, is that we believe 

15 
 that people working on a general RWP or who 

16 
 were casually exposed, would be reflective, 

17 
 would be no worse than the people who were on 

18 
 the in vivo -- would not be exposed to 

19 
 anything higher than the people on the in vivo 

20 monitoring program. 

21 
 It would be nice to know why people 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 were on the in vivo monitoring program when we 162


2 
 make that argument, and that's part of what we 

3 
 were talking about earlier, is why were people 

4 
 on the in vivo monitoring program. 

5 
 If that's the case, that the 

6 
 unmonitored population would be no more highly 

7 
 exposed than the monitored population, then 

8 
 this intake distribution would bound the 

9 
 intakes of the people who were not monitored. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are we also 

11 
 assuming in this -- are you also assuming in 

12 this that the cesium is the worst case --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I think what 

14 
 the situation is, is that what we are saying 

15 
 is that other fission product radionuclides 

16 
 would be handled in the same manner to the 

17 
 extent that intakes would be similar for 

18 
 those, unless they were on a particular 

19 
 program and had an RWP with bioassay and had 

20 
 bioassay in their record, which would mean you 

21 
 would want to use their bioassay, because it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 may result in a higher intake than this sort 163


2 
 of casual -- because then you take them -- if 

3 
 they are on the bioassay program, they move 

4 
 out of the unmonitored category at least for 

5 
 that specific radionuclide, into that -- into 

6 
 a monitored category. Now, I don't know if 

7 
 they are still going to get the unmonitored 

8 
 for casual exposure or not, but, so they might 

9 
 still get that. 

10 
 But they would have an intake they 

11 
 say -- if they are on a strontium bioassay, 

12 
 they would have a strontium dose calculation 

13 
 from their strontium bioassay. If they had 

14 
 no, if they had no bioassay, then you would 

15 
 have an intake rate of so many picocuries per 

16 
 day, and based on his cancer, you would choose 

17 
 from an inventory, if you've written down the 

18 
 inventory of nuclides you are going to choose 

19 from --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the 

21 picocuries per day is based on cesium --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's based on 164
 

2 
 cesium in vivo, right. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you are 

4 
 assuming the worst case intake is based on 

5 
 cesium. You are deriving doses --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: For unmonitored 

7 
 people. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, for 

9 
 unmonitored. I'm just trying to get a sense 

10 of what you are --

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The values of the 

12 
 population of the monitored workers bounds the 

13 unmonitored workers. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And like I said, it 

16 
 would be nice to know --

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well yes, the only 

18 
 -- why we're on this, since we have moved away 

19 
 from the ratios that we used before is if you 

20 are going to go with cesium-137, is that --

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that bounding 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 165 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Is that bounding, 

because on the other -- you know, we were 

talking about this issue with the --

MR. STEMPFLEY: Well, if you take 

it and apply it as the entire radionuclide, 

those methods would propose it would be 

bounding because you are taking the highest 

radionuclide and it's not likely that they got 

all of that amount for some off the wall 

radionuclide, so we propose it would be 

bounding based on that. 

MEMBER MUNN: Certainly, the bulk 

of the evidence of all we know about mixed 

fission products exposure would substantiate 

that position. 

DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

trying to get this clear. Let's say you have 

a number of workers that have whole body 

counts, and of those, a number of them, you 

see positive cesium-137 results, and let's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 assume for a moment that there's good reason 166


2 
 to believe that those workers, where you are 

3 
 limiting workers with respect to fission 

4 
 product exposure, okay? 

5 
 So you are sitting pretty good 

6 
 then, okay? You say we've got a group of 

7 
 workers that we believe captures the high-end 

8 
 exposures that any of the workers there might 

9 
 have experienced. 

10 
 So you are sitting pretty good. 

11 
 You can say okay, then you could go with the 

12 
 95th percentile, 50th percentile intake for 

13 cesium. 

14 
 But you don't have strontium and 

15 
 you don't have many other radionuclides, and 

16 
 of course you are not going to see strontium 

17 
 with your whole body count. You would if you 

18 
 had bioassay, but let's just put the bioassay 

19 on a shelf for a minute. 

20 
 So you have a chest count, you've 

21 
 got a bunch of workers, you could make your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 case that you have the worst workers, the 167


2 
 workers that had the highest potential for 

3 
 exposure to fission products. Now the next 

4 
 question is what are you going to do about 

5 
 other radionuclides, because if you have 

6 
 cesium-137, somehow that got out, became 

7 
 airborne and was inhaled, other radionuclides, 

8 
 other fission products could very well have 

9 
 become airborne and available for intake. Do 

10 
 you -- have you established a method for 

11 
 assuming other -- and they would be important, 

12 
 like, strontium would be very important for 

13 
 bone cancer. Would you simply assume, like 

14 
 the hook I mentioned earlier, that well, they 

15 
 are all there in proportion to the product of 

16 
 the burn up and the fission yield, you know, 

17 
 that those two go sort of -- you know, you'd 

18 
 have to find a way to assign some strontium. 

19 
 You wouldn't just assume there was no 

20 
 strontium, especially if the person had a bone 

21 
 cancer, and if you were developing a coworker 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 model to be used for people with bone cancer.168


2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: John, I think -- I 

3 
 think what would happen is that there would be 

4 
 an expectation that there would be bioassay 

5 
 for strontium in that case. 

6 
 And so you would have -- you know, 

7 
 in that case, because what we have are the --

8 
 an intake rate from a monitored population. 

9 
 That's what the coworker is based on. 

10 
 And we believe that bounds the 

11 
 unmonitored population. We believe it would 

12 
 bound, that that intake rate in terms of 

13 
 activity rate, would bound an unmonitored 

14 
 population for other radionuclides if that 

15 
 other radionuclide would be preferential to, 

16 
 quote, preferential to the claimant, meaning 

17 
 if you had a skin -- or a bone cancer, we 

18 
 would probably better off if they were 

19 strontium rather than cesium. 

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's for the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 unmonitored person. The situation you are 169
 

2 
 talking about, yes, they are working with 

3 
 stuff, stuff gets out, presumably that's why 

4 
 you have an in vivo monitoring program that 

5 
 has these cesium data, that we also say that 

6 
 you are working with strontium, it gets out, 

7 
 you are going to have strontium bioassay in 

8 
 this person's record, and that will form the 

9 
 basis of an actual intake, not a coworker 

10 intake. Do you understand? 

11 
 DR. MAURO: I got it. Okay. So 

12 
 critical to this is a degree of confidence 

13 
 that people that had a potential for exposure 

14 to strontium did in fact have a bioassay --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So we are back to 

16 
 the question of why were people monitored, 

17 
 what was the category, what were the reasons 

18 for people to be monitored. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And the other 

20 
 question, I think I even raised this to you 

21 
 Greg, a couple of weeks ago, was you know, is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 OTIB-62, is that something that needs to be 170


2 
 modified with something of this kind in mind, 

3 
 that you know, it hinges on -- the hook of 

4 
 cesium-137, but what directions for the dose 

5 
 reconstructor would you have if in fact the 

6 
 person comes in, so I separate the strontium7 
 90 at CMR, you know, would you in fact, you 

8 
 know not use cesium if you have strontium-90 

9 
 as your source term. 

10 
 I mean that's the kind of, you know 

11 
 -- the 62 sounds like a good going in 

12 
 proposition but there may be some tweaking if 

13 you are going to use it in that way. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, to get to the 

15 
 actual dose reconstruction and how you apply 

16 it --

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. If you are 

18 
 talking to a dose reconstructor about mixed 

19 
 fission products and cesium-137 is your hook, 

20 that may have to be thought about. 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, I mean, because 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the -- on everything we are talking about, are 171


2 
 you going to have to update the TBD to state 

3 
 specifically for the dose reconstructor how 

4 
 you are going to apply this. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That's issue 3, 

6 
 but that was my comment a couple of weeks ago, 

7 
 is I looked at this thing and said it appears 

8 
 that given the discussions, we kind of have, 

9 
 in a sense, looked toward modifying some of 

10 
 those premises in the OTIB and I think your 

11 
 response was well, of course we have to take a 

12 
 look at that. So I think this is one of those 

13 tweaks, as to the situation. 

14 
 Now the other thing is why were 

15 
 people monitored, which was the question that 

16 
 Stu raised, you know, given these three 

17 
 facilities that seem to have actual monitored 

18 
 MFP emissions, a fairly significant source, 

19 
 too, I mean, it's definitely not 

20 
 insignificant, I think just nailing down, you 

21 
 know, what were the operations and because you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 can, you know, actually identify the piece of 172


2 
 CMR, the piece of TA-48, and if it's something 

3 
 like strontium-90 separations, I would look 

4 
 for strontium-90 bioassay data. If it's 

5 
 something else that -- you know, just to 

6 
 validate the fact that this will work for the 

7 
 two or three facilities where you clearly have 

8 
 MFPs, in fact MFPs that are being emitted to 

9 
 the environment. 

10 
 So they clearly have operational 

11 
 work in this mixed fission product. You know, 

12 
 can one at least characterize the source term 

13 
 and be clear whether or not there was any type 

14 
 of program or, you know, evidence of RWPs, 

15 
 evidence of any kind of routine program at 

16 all. 

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, I mean, we are 

18 
 making the assumption that the TBD itself on 

19 
 Site Profile and other -- don't state any of 

20 
 this, and I can't remember exactly back, and I 

21 
 haven't read it in a while. But there are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 several definitions and specifications of 173
 

2 
 what's going on in different facilities and 

3 
 what kind of radionuclides to expect, so I 

4 
 mean something like that could be made as a --

5 
 brought back up as a summary report from the 

6 
 TBD to say discuss what the source terms are 

7 
 for particular places and activities. 

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: More so time. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I think -- I mean, 

10 linking in the things --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Where there are 

13 
 RWPs where people are monitored, can you, one, 

14 
 get that confidence level that you know, there 

15 
 was data being generated from these particular 

16 
 facilities, and you know, if the practice 

17 
 stayed the same for some length of time, they 

18 
 might have identified MFPs but didn't do 

19 
 anything about it, didn't have a separate 

20 
 monitoring program or didn't have any need to 

21 
 monitor for it specifically, even though that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 may have been the principal nuclide in that 174


2 
 particular operation. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Joe, this is John. 

4 
 I've got a real quick question for you. So, 

5 
 they had fission products, but they were 

6 
 actually doing chemical separations where they 

7 
 would separate the strontium or the cerium or 

8 
 the rubidium or whatever from the mixed 

9 
 fission products? 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: CMR had just about 

11 
 everything on their site in terms of chemical 

12 
 separation. That was the entire facility 

13 mission. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Okay, so everything I 

15 said before about --

16 (Laughter.) 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Based on fission 

18 products, throw that in the garbage. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right, 

20 right. We already did, John. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. You could have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 stopped me, you know. 175
 

2 
 (Laughter.) 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We have never been 

4 
 able to up to now, John. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I don't know 

6 
 where you want to go but I think --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well now, I 

8 
 think I know where we want to go. We want to 

9 
 go to lunch and when I come back I'll try to 

10 
 do what we did before with mixed activation 

11 
 products, try to summarize, and path forward 

12 
 and so let's take an hour and think about this 

13 
 over a snack. 

14 
 (Whereupon, the meeting was in lunch recess 

15 
 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:06 p.m.) 

16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 176
 

2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 177
 

2 
 (1:06 p.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Hello, everybody, this 

4 
 is the LANL Work Group. We are just coming 

5 
 back together after lunch break. And I think 

6 
 we are ready to review sort of action items 

7 
 after the last discussion. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so for the 

9 
 mixed fission products, I'm not quite as 

10 
 prepared with a list as I was for the last 

11 
 one. But I think, you know essentially, I 

12 
 think we need to have NIOSH provide the model 

13 
 for using cesium-137 vis a vis OTIB-62, and I 

14 
 -- I mean the one fundamental thing for me, 

15 
 and others can jump in here, but the one 

16 
 fundamental thing for me is to have a better 

17 
 justification of why the intakes -- the 

18 
 intakes, not the doses -- but the intakes will 

19 
 be bounded with the cesium-137 for all the 

20 other fission products. 

21 
 And I think, you know, you seem to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 say we are pretty sure, you know, that's the 178


2 
 way it's going to be, if you can -- right. 

3 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Like examples. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, or write 

5 
 out your sort of justifications. And then the 

6 
 other part, the only other part I think would 

7 
 be to -- well, maybe there is more than one 

8 
 other part -- a question of, still the 

9 
 question of who was monitored and how was the 

10 
 in vivo set up, so was the cesium-137 

11 
 monitoring routine monitoring, was it driven 

12 by workplace indicators or whatever. 

13 
 So who -- who was monitored. And 

14 
 then I am not sure about the last one, but I 

15 
 remember this question of whether -- I mean I 

16 
 guess it sort of ties into that first one, to 

17 
 justify the cesium intakes and bound the 

18 
 others, I mean, because given the operations 

19 that went on at CMR, right? 

20 
 I'm not familiar with them, but if 

21 
 you were doing certain, like, isotope 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 separation things, is it going to, is it going 179


2 
 to sort of bound any of these sort of cases, 

3 
 and Joe --

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think that 

5 
 was the, sort of the corollary to who and how, 

6 
 was where and whether or not those operations 

7 
 were -- I'm not talking about trying to -- and 

8 
 I agree with --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do every one --

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Trying to map out 

11 all the campaigns --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: In CMR, given its 

14 
 lengthy history, is not worth talking about, 

15 
 but just trying to look at things like, if you 

16 
 have strontium-90 separations, which did take 

17 
 place, at some point would this work for that 

18 
 and how so and if not, how would you handle 

19 that with the coworker model. 

20 
 And I think we talked about that, 

21 
 that maybe in that case, you know, strontiumNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 90 would be your marker and that would be 180


2 
 handled case by case. 

3 
 But just some kind of approach that 

4 
 would address the source terms that you would 

5 
 expect to have to address in CMR, not 

6 
 exhaustively, but with some illustrative 

7 
 examples, meaning, again, going back to these 

8 
 emissions from CMR and TA-48, clearly mixed 

9 
 fission products were being handled in fact in 

10 
 emissions into the atmosphere. Some of those 

11 
 operations, would this in fact -- would this 

12 
 encompass that, and do you have any data, 

13 
 cesium-137 or other data, or strontium-90 data 

14 
 coming out of that, that would be the 

15 
 benchmark, that look, for that particular 

16 
 operation, and two or three examples of those 

17 kinds of things, I think, would help. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: It gives you 

19 something, somehow to validate it, right? 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It would serve to 

21 
 validate that this model would, would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 encompass CMR. CMR is probably the worse 181
 

2 
 factor but we might take a quick look at TA3 
 48. I look at this list, 48, 50 and CMR, 

4 
 which is TA-3, were the three that showed any 

5 
 mixed fission product emissions, i.e. they 

6 
 have operations and actually, by virtue of the 

7 
 stack that's involved, you can actually get 

8 
 down to that part of the facility that's 

9 
 implicated. 

10 It might be helpful just to figure 

11 
 out and narrow it down to that particular 

12 
 operation and some of these may not turn out 

13 
 to be useful but some of them may turn out to 

14 
 be good markers for testing this thing 

15 against. 

16 
 So I guess it's just sort of a bit 

17 
 of a validation test against some of the 

18 
 operations, not exhaustively, not for all 

19 
 time, but certainly ones that would be useful 

20 
 to look at and you know, that's where I would 

21 pin that one. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does that cover 182
 

2 
 -- I think that covers what we -- all right. 

3 
 I don't know what's next on our agenda. Oh, 

4 
 exotics is next I think. It makes sense to --

5 
 we sort of touched on that subject already a 

6 
 little bit, but if we can go into number 2 on 

7 
 the agenda items. Already at number 2. Look 

8 
 at that. 

9 
 (Laughter.) 

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Number 2 is 

11 
 exotic radionuclides. So I don't know who 

12 wants to lead off. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have 1E and 

14 
 1F, and I'm deciding whether we need to 

15 address those or not. 

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, 1E we have 

17 already been -- on the checklist --

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That was the 

19 
 checklist. 

20 DR. MACIEVIC: -- going through 

21 that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: What year was that 183
 

2 
 checklist started? Do you know? 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Seventy-seven --

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: Seventy-seven? 

5 
 That's when it started? 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Oh, when it started? 

7 
 It started like '75 --

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we talked 

10 
 about the checklist. We probably don't need 

11 
 to -- I do think that there's some important 

12 
 qualifiers that we outlined as far as how they 

13 
 -- they are another reflection of something 

14 
 that was being put in place, something to be 

15 
 aware of, but I'm not sure it's definitive as 

16 
 far as answering the issue we are talking 

17 about. 

18 
 1F. This was the issue where there 

19 
 was a 2000 audit that the, that the area 

20 
 office did and found some questions regarding 

21 
 the reference library at LANL, and this is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 where we were trying to interview internal 184


2 
 dosimetry staff, and they elected to receive 

3 
 written questions, which we compiled and I 

4 
 talked to Greg about it and we sent it in, and 

5 
 their responses are on the SRDB. 

6 
 But essentially, the answer was 

7 
 yes, we have got to sort of dinged on a 

8 
 quality assurance level but it didn't reflect 

9 
 our ability and the fact that our reference 

10 
 library was still available. So that was sort 

11 
 of a general response that even though we were 

12 
 found deficient, it wasn't something that 

13 
 undercut our ability to in fact see these 

14 particular nuclides. 

15 
 The reason we brought this up is 

16 
 because the nuclides in question were actually 

17 
 pretty significant. Thorium was one of them 

18 
 and you know, it's sort of a little dramatic, 

19 
 but again, they felt that it was more of a 

20 
 procedural thing that they didn't I suppose 

21 
 keep that library linked to the site and make 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 sure it was up to date and that their 185
 

2 
 capabilities were there. 

3 
 So the tab was left that way and 

4 
 it's all documented online. So I would 

5 
 propose that that one be closed out. It was 

6 
 something that sort of caught our attention 

7 
 because it involved mixed activation products 

8 
 and thorium-232, which is very central for our 

9 
 discussion, but apparently did not have as 

10 
 much of a significant impairment to their 

11 ability as was suggested in the audit. 

12 
 So I think we squeezed that one for 

13 
 all it was worth and managed to get that 

14 
 response, but that was all we got. So, that 

15 will then bring us to issue 2 on the exotics. 

16 
 This was another one that was 

17 
 central to the petition, because of the fact 

18 
 that it was cited in the ER for the previous 

19 
 SEC as an issue that needed to be pursued 

20 
 further. It was sort of left as an open item 

21 if you may. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

-- 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So it wasn't even declarative 186
 

2 
 necessarily in the first evaluation, but it 

3 
 was addressed in the second evaluation in a 

4 
 more comprehensive way. 

5 
 And essentially, what was proposed 

6 
 was a substitute nuclide using plutonium or I 

7 
 guess americium was the second one? I think 

8 
 it was those two. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And uranium is also 

10 


11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, uranium is 

12 
 also --

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Thorium and then you 

14 
 have plutonium. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, assuming 

16 
 that if you don't have bioassays for --

17 
 specific bioassays corresponding to these 

18 
 exotic nuclides, if one, this is the premise, 

19 
 if one handled them in a very similar or 

20 
 equivalent way, you could assume that it would 

21 
 -- that the site distribution, dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 distribution for, say, plutonium or americium 187


2 
 or uranium, at the, what, the 50th or 95th --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: It would probably be 

4 
 at the 50th. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Fiftieth 

6 
 percentile. 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I don't think you 

8 
 made an exact statement yet on it --

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, well --

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You're talking 50th 

11 percentile. 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: At some 

13 
 distribution value would be bounding of dose 

14 
 to those particular nuclides, and our response 

15 
 was okay, you know, you know, if you are going 

16 
 to apply site-wide distribution, we have to at 

17 
 least be clear that the handling was in fact 

18 
 equivalent for all these nuclides, and that in 

19 
 at least two cases -- we had two examples, one 

20 
 of which came out of the Tiger Team, where 

21 
 thorium powder which was being handled 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 certainly not in the way you would handle 188


2 
 plutonium. 

3 
 So that was one example and we had 

4 
 gotten information, actually from Sam Glover, 

5 
 in some of the work he was doing on neptunium, 

6 
 had -- there was some connection with Hanford 

7 
 that needed to be pursued. 

8 
 Now, some of this is classified but 

9 
 all I can say is that we wanted to sort of 

10 
 poke at this a little bit to make sure that 

11 
 this overriding assumption that this 

12 
 equivalency existed, therefore you could apply 

13 these substitute nuclides, held. 

14 
 And that's kind of where we left it 

15 
 and I guess we wanted you all to -- some 

16 
 information that we had at least on the two 

17 examples that we raised. 

18 
 And that's kind of it. And your 

19 
 response was a little cryptic, and I guess we 

20 
 went back and forth a little bit trying to 

21 
 figure out, and I wasn't sure if some of this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 was classified, but you know, exactly the 189


2 
 basis for assuming that you know, the approach 

3 
 follows, that it applied. 

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, and this, 

5 
 again, is going to be for unmonitored workers 

6 


7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And applying this to 

9 
 them and using that whole range of nuclides, 

10 
 and the point being that if they are handled 

11 
 in a similar way, that you are -- that for all 

12 
 these radionuclides that are listed here that 

13 
 go through down onto the next page, they would 

14 
 be covered under that because -- under that 

15 
 OTIB-62 for anyone who can, who can show or 

16 
 state that, because it's not going to be 

17 
 applied site-wide and that everybody is going 

18 
 to get these values. It's only the 

19 
 unmonitored and people of the Class who were 

20 appearing in this too. 

21 
 So that's why these answers are as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 such, that this does fall under that too, that 190


2 
 it can -- because you can expand, as long as 

3 
 it's similar enough, as a radionuclide, you 

4 
 can put it in as one of the radionuclides to 

5 
 use that 50th percentile intake and then see 

6 
 what's --

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: As long as you --

8 
 hold on a second. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Excuse me, someone on 

10 
 the line has a child in the room, and you are 

11 
 not muted, so I just remind you, please mute 

12 
 your phone, particularly for the sake of the 

13 other folks on the telephone. Thanks. 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: What I was going 

15 
 to say is that assuming that the exposure 

16 
 pathway, likely exposure pathway would be 

17 
 equivalent, and the reason we raised those two 

18 
 examples, at least for thorium in particular, 

19 
 since they got a pretty heavy whack from DOE 

20 
 on the Tiger Team, because they were not --

21 
 not having operational controls and the way 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 that program, or that particular activity was 191


2 
 handled, and certainly not doing the bioassays 

3 
 they hated. That was one where we'd like to 

4 
 get some sense from you how that equivalency 

5 
 issue would work in that case, and that's not 

6 
 really classified. So anything you say about 

7 
 that, and granted, it wasn't like kilograms --

8 
 MR. MILES: I think we were -- if 

9 
 I'm remembering the papers, they mentioned 

10 gram quantity --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

12 
 MR. MILES: And that we are linking 

13 thorium to uranium handling. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

15 MR. MILES: Not plutonium. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

17 
 MR. MILES: So we're not suggesting 

18 
 that they would have handled thorium with the 

19 
 same controls as what they would have 

20 
 plutonium, but similar controls to what they 

21 may have used for uranium. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 I can -- I mean I could see an 192


2 
 incident where you might have gram quantities 

3 
 of uranium that you could safely work with on 

4 
 a bench top without having a glove box or 

5 
 something like that. 

6 
 You know, I think what we are 

7 
 saying is that the airborne levels that would 

8 
 have triggered alarms in and maybe the surface 

9 
 contamination levels kind of thing, that they 

10 
 would look toward would have been similar, as 

11 far as -- I mean it's --

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But thorium would 

13 
 have been a different source term than uranium 

14 
 in the sense that wouldn't it be more 

15 radiologically significant? 

16 
 MR. MILES: Well, it is. It is. 

17 
 But again, it's, you know, it takes a lot of 

18 
 mass to get a significant dose. I mean I 

19 
 think if you are just working with gram 

20 
 quantities on a -- just one example here, you 

21 
 know, you can point to, it wouldn't seem to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 a major source term. 193
 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I'm just 

3 
 trying to get to the substitute thing. You 

4 
 would substitute uranium as the source term 

5 
 for --

6 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: The intake value 

7 
 and apply it as -- thorium, based on that. 

8 
 And it's the same model process. 

9 
 MR. MILES: You end up getting 

10 better -- bigger doses and different doses --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

12 MR. MILES: To different organs. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But the intake 

14 
 would be equivalent -- you would make 

15 
 equivalent -- make equivalent the uranium and 

16 the thorium --

17 MR. MILES: Activity. 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, activity, 

19 right. 

20 MR. MILES: Not equivalent dose. 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 equivalent dose but equivalent intakes. And I 194
 

2 
 guess we can't really talk about neptunium as 

3 
 much, but again, yes, it was more from the 

4 
 standpoint of just making sure these specific 

5 
 campaigns that we were aware of could be 

6 
 handled under that methodology, and it sounds 

7 
 like it could be. So I don't think we have 

8 
 any more to add, you know, we wanted those two 

9 
 or three examples at least validated. 

10 
 The actinium I think was something 

11 
 that maybe ‘identifying information redacted’ 

12 
 raised about a time frame issue and I think 

13 
 you addressed that being not an issue because 

14 -- let me see -- oh, protactinium, I'm sorry. 

15 
 Your response, the table seems 

16 
 okay, check the time frames for presence in 

17 
 CMR as a waste material. So I guess that's 

18 still something you are dealing with. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For 

20 protactinium? 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I think the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 question there was the time frame issue and 195


2 
 check the table based on the time frame for 

3 
 protactinium. The issue is protactinium had 

4 
 been a figure at Los Alamos after a certain 

5 
 date so it didn't seem like it was an issue, 

6 
 but then somebody raised it, I think, well, 

7 
 that's a waste material, it very well could be 

8 
 at CMR and I think that was the way it was 

9 
 done. 

10 So you're okay as far as the 

11 
 operational phase, it looks like. Your table 

12 
 is fine, the date, from the standpoint of the 

13 
 dates, but the discussion of whether it still 

14 
 resides at the CMR as the source term. 

15 
 MR. MILES: Yes, I don't think that 

16 
 table is complete. I'm sure there's dust for 

17 
 every activity that, every, every -- apply the 

18 
 best effort, effort to try to, try to lay them 

19 
 out --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So is that, that 

21 
 then would be the basis for dose assignment, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 in other words if you worked in an area where 196


2 


3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The table --

4 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Has buildings and 

6 
 time frames and --

7 
 MR. MILES: No, I don't think that 

8 
 links to it because I don't think we can put 

9 
 people in place. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

11 wandered. So are you always going to use --

12 
 MR. MILES: So it -- yes, that 

13 
 table doesn't necessarily need to be complete 

14 in any way --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

16 
 MR. MILES: Because we are not, we 

17 
 are not suggesting -- we don't know where 

18 
 people worked anyway a lot of the time, who 

19 were doing dose reconstructions. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So are you just 

21 going to use the worst case actinide? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. MILES: Well, if we don't have 197
 

2 
 -- if we don't have the -- you know, if we, if 

3 
 we don't have the bioassay data for them, we 

4 
 would use the -- if it's one that we are 

5 
 linking to the plutonium, I think we have got 

6 
 the curium that we -- is more, at a higher 

7 
 specific activity, and we used the Pu-238 

8 
 coworker data to come up with intakes for that 

9 
 for unmonitored workers. 

10 
 And what we are -- would be taken 

11 
 is whatever the activity would be in dpm and 

12 
 then basically assign it to every exotic 

13 
 nuclide that we can -- we have got a list, we 

14 
 can think of, basically, and assign that 

15 
 intake to all those different radionuclides 

16 
 and depending on the cancer, determine which 

17 
 one gives that cancer site the highest dose is 

18 the one that would be selected. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So across the 

20 
 board it would be --

21 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: What you're saying 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 is who do you assign it to -- 198
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

3 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: And I think there 

4 
 is a certain amount -- a certain challenge 

5 
 associated with, you know, trying to identify, 

6 
 that's -- I don't think we have an answer for 

7 
 every situation. We are going to do the best, 

8 
 the proposed method, do our best to assign 

9 
 what's appropriate, but I -- you know, in some 

10 
 cases there is not a whole lot of information 

11 
 on the dose reconstruction. So you know, I 

12 don't --

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And we'd have to 

14 
 look at specifically, like, for the security 

15 
 force or for the fire fighters and people that 

16 
 have been associated with a particular 

17 
 facility where you know there's actinides but 

18 
 they had no bioassay or they're not monitored 

19 
 for anything at a particular time in any 

20 
 bioassay, you would assign them that 

21 
 information. But it would be coming out of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the information from the dose reconstruction 199


2 
 and not just an across the board. 

3 
 I mean, again, that's an issue that 

4 
 can even be discussed and looked into about 

5 
 assigning this to, if you can show that every 

6 
 guard, every fire fighter has rotated through 

7 
 all these facilities on a routine basis and 

8 
 has been in them, the potential of assigning a 

9 
 fraction of a -- of the 50th percentile for 

10 
 everybody, or people who say specifically I 

11 
 worked in these buildings as my routine 

12 workplace, they would get the full amount. 

13 
 So you know we're -- that part 

14 
 hasn't been -- you know, the actual assignment 

15 
 and how exactly much of that percentage you 

16 
 get, the full amount, do you get a part, how 

17 
 that is done, because it's going to be, like I 

18 
 said, based from info given during the ER 

19 
 process, information that's given in when the 

20 
 worker talks about where he worked, how long 

21 
 he worked and different types of things that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 were involved. And if there's no bioassay 200
 

2 
 involved, or any kind of monitoring, you would 

3 
 assign this. 

4 
 MEMBER MUNN: Somehow in all that 

5 
 discussion I completely lost track of what is 

6 
 the question. The question about protactinium 

7 
 and the time element is, is there any of it 

8 
 anywhere that Carmen Sandiego might know, or 

9 
 what's the question? 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: On protactinium 

11 
 the issue was is it in fact, as a figure, as 

12 
 an exotic, in the time frame we are talking 

13 
 about, which is post-'75 and I think the sense 

14 
 of the group was not likely because it was a -

15 
 - it's a very logical source that was used in 

16 
 weapons systems early on in the '50s and '60s 

17 
 and then -- but, somebody said well, but you 

18 
 know, you have residual and waste materials 

19 
 that are processed in the lab and there's a 

20 
 chance that you have some in CMR which is your 

21 
 chemical processing facility, and therefore 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 you have to at least be aware that 201
 

2 
 protactinium isn't off the site completely and 

3 
 may in fact be an exposure source in the CMR. 

4 
 MEMBER MUNN: And so how are you 

5 
 going to -- how does one determine where in 

6 
 the world is protactinium and how does one 

7 
 determine whether it has any bearing at all on 

8 
 a real dose estimate? 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 

10 
 that's what we are just talking about. The 

11 issue is --

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I missed all 

13 that. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well that was the 

16 conversation that you --

17 (Laughter.) 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The thing about the 

19 model is --

20 
 MEMBER MUNN: How could you 

21 identify that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well that's the 202
 

2 
 thing. You have to -- and one of the points 

3 
 we are looking at now, is where -- with this 

4 
 kind of model, if you know you have got X, Y 

5 
 and Z actinides in the facility, you can run 

6 
 those three actinides through the model we say 

7 
 and we say what is the highest dose and here 

8 
 it is. 

9 
 Now if you find there's five others 

10 
 that are in there, you can also add them to 

11 
 the list and then run those through and give 

12 the highest dose. 

13 
 Now, how a person is assigned to be 

14 in the facility is --

15 
 MEMBER MUNN: That's not the 

16 question I was asking. 

17 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, but you --

18 
 MEMBER MUNN: The question I was 

19 
 asking is, what I heard proposed is how do you 

20 
 know where in the world all the protactinium 

21 
 is on this site, how do you define that and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 does it matter? I mean, that's my question. 203
 

2 
 Does it matter? 

3 
 His question was, where is all this 

4 
 stuff and was it there after 1975, and I 

5 
 didn't hear anybody talking about that. We 

6 
 were talking about --

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, well 

8 
 actually, this is one where I think we are in 

9 
 violent agreement. Certainly the sense at the 

10 
 last meeting was that it wouldn't be an issue 

11 
 in the time frame we are talking about, the 

12 
 modern era, however we want to be conscious of 

13 
 the fact that it might figure at one facility 

14 
 which handles the chemical waste, which is 

15 
 CMR. 

16 So I guess given the discussion we 

17 
 just had, if it were to come up as a source 

18 
 term, it might be something that would be 

19 
 factored into this approach, but it may never 

20 come up --

21 
 MR. MILES: It is, it is, it is an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 exotic that we did list and acknowledge in the 204


2 
 ER along with several of the other ones, and 

3 
 there was even an example of a bioassay that 

4 
 they did as late as 2008, though I don't think 

5 
 -- I don't think we are trying to say that 

6 
 there was absolutely no possibility of making 

7 
 protactinium-231 exposure --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, as an 

9 
 operational source, it figured prominently in 

10 
 the early days and all that was said was you 

11 
 might see it -- you might see some residual 

12 
 levels here and there and the system should be 

13 
 able to accommodate that, and I think what you 

14 are saying is that it can. 

15 I don't think there's any issue. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me get back, 

17 
 can I get back to my -- I may have one 

18 
 remaining issue, which is just the 

19 
 fundamental, I mean it's a fundamental issue 

20 
 which we go through in every Work Group 

21 
 process. You are saying that a lot of this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 will depend, at least I heard sort of two 205


2 
 different things, you are saying a lot of this 

3 
 will depend on the dose reconstruction 

4 
 process, on placing these people in these 

5 
 areas and whether they get different 

6 
 radionuclides assigned. 

7 
 Earlier Chris said we don't know 

8 
 where people are going in and out of 

9 
 buildings, so my question is, before we can 

10 
 opine on whether we think this is bounding for 

11 
 all workers, I'd like to know what we are 

12 opining on. 

13 
 I mean, to say that well, we 

14 
 haven't sort of fit it all together, we are 

15 
 going to use uranium and plutonium to, you 

16 
 know, to get intakes and then use it for these 

17 
 other isotopes in certain situations, you 

18 
 know, that doesn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy 

19 feeling. 

20 
 And if the question is are you 

21 
 going to use the worst case all the time, in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 other words if you look at it by isotope, by 206


2 
 cancer, and you know, and always assign the 

3 
 highest, or -- that is the intent. Okay I 

4 
 didn't understand, because before you said we 

5 
 are going to look and see what -- based on 

6 
 what they said in their questionnaire --

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No. I mean --

8 
 where, if the person said, you know, he's 

9 
 worked in CMR his whole lifetime, and we know 

10 
 there is a specific set, you know, of 

11 
 radionuclides with the actinides, and you have 

12 run all the actinides through there. 

13 
 But you do -- we are going to give 

14 
 you the highest value of whatever set we have 

15 
 developed here, which we have all the 

16 
 actinides in, but if there's something else 

17 
 that we can add to that set, that can be 

18 
 covered using the plutonium intakes or the 

19 
 uranium intakes, that can become one extra of 

20 
 the nuclides that is also run through that 

21 
 model to come up with the highest value dose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 to the organ in question. 207
 

2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Can I ask a 

3 
 question, Andrew Evaskovich. From the 

4 
 document that I submitted and one of the 

5 
 reports, it stated, "Specific controls must be 

6 
 put in place to ensure that appropriate 

7 
 neptunium bioassays are performed on workplace 

8 
 events involving neptunium because the 

9 
 standard plutonium bioassay would be 

10 
 ineffective in detecting or quantifying 

11 neptunium intakes." 

12 
 Additionally, it said, "In addition 

13 
 to bioassay concerns, there are potential 

14 
 inadequacies in the assessment of neptunium 

15 
 airborne contamination from instruments 

16 designed and calibrated for plutonium. 

17 
 So, basically that tells me you 

18 
 can't substitute plutonium for neptunium. Am 

19 I correct in that assumption? 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: What that is saying 

21 
 there, you have -- if you were just going to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 take, if you've got plutonium and you were 208


2 
 going to call it just neptunium, you would not 

3 
 -- they can't do a bioassay for the neptunium, 

4 
 is what they're saying in there, right? That 

5 
 they can't --

6 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: They're saying 

7 
 that they did not do it and they can't use 

8 
 plutonium bioassay to determine the quantity 

9 
 for neptunium --

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, they're not -

11 -

12 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: I mean these guys 

13 are talking about quantity. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But it's -- they are 

15 
 -- we are not using -- we are using the intake 

16 
 value and saying that is equivalent to what 

17 
 the intake would be for the radionuclides in 

18 
 neptunium and giving you the dose associated 

19 
 with that, or running that whole cadre of 

20 
 nuclides is giving you the highest value of 

21 that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 It's a different thing. We're not 209
 

2 
 using --

3 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: We're not trying to 

4 
 get neptunium from plutonium. We're just 

5 
 taking plutonium and applying it as the worst 

6 
 case radionuclide, which may be neptunium, 

7 
 that quantity. We are not trying to take that 

8 
 and say, based on this, there's an equal 

9 
 quantity of neptunium. We are just -- for the 

10 
 purpose of the proposed method in the 

11 
 valuation for bounding the dose, take that 

12 
 pile and apply it all as one radionuclide, 

13 that quantity, that intake activity --

14 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, but it 

15 specifically says quantify. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What is the --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Quantify --

18 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Well, you can't --

19 
 MR. MILES: What he's saying, if 

20 
 you get quantifies -- him from a plutonium 

21 bioassay --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: We're not trying to 210
 

2 
 do that. 

3 
 MR. MILES: Which is --

4 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: Yes, but we're not 

5 
 trying to do that in the Evaluation Report. 

6 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Inspection of the 

8 
 Environment, Safety and Health Programs at the 

9 
 Los Alamos National Laboratory November 2005. 

10 
 That's the title of the report. It's on page 

11 
 35 that that was mentioned and the same thing 

12 a little bit below it in another paragraph. 

13 
 So when I read that I see that you 

14 
 can't quantify from one to the other. That's 

15 
 where that stands. And you guys are saying 

16 
 well that's how we are going to reconstruct 

17 dose. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No. 

19 
 MR. STEMPFLEY: That's not how we 

20 
 are saying we are going to reconstruct dose. 

21 We are not trying to quantify --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, you're going 211
 

2 
 to take the quantity of plutonium and you're 

3 
 going to say okay, this applies to neptunium, 

4 
 but I read that as saying that they are saying 

5 
 that they can't do that. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, what -- it's a 

7 
 very shaded -- what we are taking is you've 

8 
 got all these plutonium workers with thousands 

9 
 of samples, people who were actually exposed 

10 
 and have positive urine samples. You develop 

11 
 an intake for those samples, say for each 

12 
 year, here's what the intake was, you know, 

13 for the distribution, for those samples. 

14 
 And now, you forget that that's 

15 
 plutonium. We are saying that is now 

16 
 neptunium. That is now actinium. That is now 

17 
 curium. And then we want it all for a 

18 
 particular organ and say okay, what gives me 

19 
 the highest value, that's the dose we are 

20 going to give you. 

21 
 So we're not, we're not trying to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 make a correlation between plutonium, a 212
 

2 
 plutonium sample and neptunium sample and say 

3 
 wait, the methodology for doing an analysis 

4 
 for neptunium can't be used, or the plutonium 

5 
 can't be used for the neptunium in the way 

6 
 they did the sample. We are not doing that. 

7 
 We are just taking a number up here, based on 

8 
 intakes that gives you a value to workers who 

9 
 are exposed and then taking that number and --

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we're talking 

11 
 two sides of the question. We are talking 

12 about a coworker issue. 

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, you've got 

14 somebody who's not monitored. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Exactly, okay. 

16 
 What Andy is pointing out here is, according 

17 
 to this review, a population that you would 

18 
 expect to be monitored, is this, seems that 

19 
 you are referring to an activity that you 

20 
 would expect to have bioassay monitoring on, 

21 
 that then uses neptunium, and the bioassay 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 approach, according to this, doesn't account 213


2 
 for that. 

3 
 So as, whereas for a coworker 

4 
 approach, if you say, well, there might be 

5 
 this sort of unmonitored coworker exposure 

6 
 that could be as high as the monitored 

7 
 plutonium population, that's kind of what this 

8 
 argument is, this doesn't relate to that. 

9 
 This relates to a population that apparently 

10 
 should be monitored. That's kind of the 

11 
 conclusion I'm drawing. It should be 

12 
 monitored for the material they are working 

13 with, which in this case included neptunium. 

14 
 But according to this, they were 

15 
 being monitored by the standard plutonium 

16 
 bioassay. So this is an argument against our 

17 
 saying that people who should have been 

18 
 monitored for these other things would have 

19 
 been monitored and therefore they would have a 

20 
 neptunium bioassay in their record and say --

21 
 and therefore we would do a neptunium intake 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 because of their neptunium bioassay. 214
 

2 
 What this appears to say is that 

3 
 those people would not have a neptunium 

4 
 bioassay in their record. So to me, that's 

5 
 kind of another argument. It's not -- it's 

6 
 not a coworker argument that's being made 

7 
 here. It's not an argument against our 

8 
 coworker approach. It is an argument about 

9 
 the sufficiency of the monitored people and do 

10 
 the monitored people really have the bioassay 

11 
 they are supposed to have, so that we can know 

12 
 who is appropriately monitored and therefore 

13 
 do the monitored intake assessment. That's 

14 
 what this is about. 

15 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, it said 

16 
 detecting or quantifying and we are talking 

17 the quantity --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I agree. 

19 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: We are talking 

20 quantity --

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm on your side 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 here. 215
 

2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, see, we are 

3 
 talking intakes of plutonium and so you are 

4 
 going to assign a plutonium intake to 

5 
 neptunium, but it says you can't quantify 

6 
 using the plutonium intake --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and --

8 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: That report and 

9 
 that section. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the coworker 

11 
 model that we are proposing to use is --

12 
 doesn't per se try to use plutonium bioassay 

13 to quantify any of their intakes. 

14 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, I know you 

15 
 are going to assign an amount according to the 

16 plutonium intake and --

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and what we 

18 
 are going to say is, for people who were 

19 
 monitored, these other, you know, neptuniums 

20 
 and other things we call exotics, where it 

21 
 should have been controlled in the same way, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and so the dose to these other exotics should 216


2 
 be bounded by the people who were monitored 

3 
 for plutonium. 

4 
 So that is a little different than 

5 
 saying that the plutonium bioassay correctly 

6 
 quantifies the neptunium. That's not the 

7 
 argument that -- that's not a basis of the 

8 
 argument of the coworker approach. 

9 
 What you have pointed out though, 

10 
 is that it appears that people who we would 

11 
 think would be monitored for neptunium, might 

12 
 not actually have neptunium bioassay in their 

13 
 record, would only have plutonium bioassay, 

14 which is another flaw. 

15 
 So it doesn't hit to the coworker 

16 
 model. It gets to the completeness of the 

17 
 bioassay record for people who were monitored. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it seems to 

19 
 challenge the fundamental premise that -- and 

20 
 this is in 2005 -- it seems to challenge that 

21 
 fundamental premise that plutonium monitoring 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 sort of was the surrogate for anything else.217


2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least the 

4 
 neptunium, they are challenging it, aren't 

5 
 they? I mean that's the way I read it. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's what 

7 
 I'm saying. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For that 

9 
 individual, that is expected to be exposed to 

10 
 neptunium, they are saying that you can't 

11 effectively quantify it. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well the plutonium 

13 
 bioassay won't quantify neptunium intake. 

14 That's a true statement. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it doesn't 

16 say effectively bound either, so I don't --

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it won't bound 

18 


19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean it might 

20 give low or high. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It will not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 quantify -- plutonium bioassay will not 218
 

2 
 quantify neptunium intake. That's what -- no 

3 
 arguments. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's a little 

5 
 uncertainty 

6 
 in the way this is written. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No argument here. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A little 

9 
 uncertainty in the way it 's written. But --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Our argument is a 

12 little less direct than that. 

13 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, that, but 

14 
 taking into account the air monitoring, the 

15 
 air monitoring would be inadequate as well for 

16 
 detecting neptunium release, it just kind of 

17 strikes me as unworkable. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well see, I'm kind 

19 of on your side here. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It may not have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 sounded like it, but I'm kind of on your side. 219


2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, yes, that's 

3 
 just it, it doesn't because I mean, for the 

4 
 coworker model, it strikes me, is it won't 

5 
 work. That's why I included it. I saw that 

6 
 as a -- wait a minute, you know, and because 

7 
 if you're going to, if you're going to say it 

8 
 was equivalent to a plutonium intake. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they're 

10 
 saying the measurement techniques that are 

11 
 used for plutonium don't translate, aren't 

12 
 good for quantifying neptunium. That's --

13 
 that's what that says, and we agree with that. 

14 
 In my view, the coworker approach 

15 
 doesn't rely on that. It relies on a bounding 

16 
 assumption that the people who were monitored, 

17 
 would be more highly exposed than the people 

18 
 who weren't, and therefore -- so the people 

19 
 who were monitored would bound the exposures 

20 of people who weren't --

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it also --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And that plutonium 220
 

2 
 and neptunium would be controlled 

3 
 appropriately and so --

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it also 

5 
 assumes that those who were monitored, were 

6 
 monitored for the other actinides --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, well see --

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: and that 

9 
 assumption --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's, yes, part 

11 
 of the coworker approach is that people who 

12 
 were exposed to other actinides would have 

13 
 been monitored for those actinides, which this 

14 
 seem to indicate that they were not. For this 

15 particular case, maybe they weren't. 

16 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, and there's 

17 
 other issues in there as far as like they cite 

18 
 neptunium specifically but let's see. 

19 
 "Radiological hazards are prevalent throughout 

20 
 GA-55. However these hazards also have not 

21 
 always been subjected to appropriate 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 evaluations and work planning mechanisms and 221


2 
 interface between line management and HSR." 

3 
 And then they cite the neptunium, 

4 
 and "Standard controls such as plutonium 

5 
 bioassays would not be adequate for neptunium, 

6 
 but were not evaluated and modified for this 

7 
 operation." 

8 
 So they are saying, they are using 

9 
 neptunium as an example of how they work doing 

10 that. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right. 

12 Right. 

13 MR. EVASKOVICH: So --

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well I suggest 

15 
 that at least as a sub-action, you guys should 

16 look --

17 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean 

19 
 that's in 2005 too. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: That's one of 

21 several. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 222
 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And the interesting 

3 
 thing --

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I know you were 

5 
 going to have to move your SEC to present day, 

6 
 whatever that present day is. 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: That's ridiculous. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it goes to 

9 
 December 31st, 2005, so --

10 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: And there was like 

11 
 another -- and I cite another incident where 

12 
 at CMR, they were working with some canisters 

13 
 there, and a canister was opened causing a 

14 release of americium and neptunium. 

15 
 And in that report, like I told you 

16 
 earlier, when I read these reports I don't 

17 
 know if they are summaries, you know, because 

18 
 a lot of them are. But they don't indicate 

19 
 whether or not bioassay was done or even nasal 

20 
 swipes issued, you know, and if I don't -- if 

21 
 I don't see it written down, that's telling me 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 it didn't happen, but you know, maybe -- maybe 223


2 
 that's --

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Some of these 

4 
 reports also get into the classified area too, 

5 
 when they start discussing --

6 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But when there's 

8 
 other issues that sort bogging down how much 

9 
 they put out. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This also ties 

11 
 into what Stu was saying earlier about the 

12 
 1990, the -- you know, we expect to have a 

13 
 technical basis, and this is a 2005 report 

14 
 which seems to be challenging that, maybe 

15 they're --

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, we can go back 

17 
 over that one too. I want to get it out and 

18 
 look at it line by line and see what they do 

19 say but I -- from what I read --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What do you 

21 think Joe? Anything else on --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MEMBER MUNN: At the risk of being 224
 

2 
 repetitive, being crystal clear I hope, we 

3 
 settled the question of whether protactinium 

4 
 is --

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I have been 

6 
 settled on that on day one. 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, okay. That is 

8 
 now a closed issue, right? We don't have to 

9 
 address that. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What did we 

11 close, Wanda, while I wasn't listening? 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: The protactinium --

13 where it is. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well it's tied 

15 
 in with all the --

16 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes, but -- but 

17 we had a specific question on that. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, whether it 

19 exists, it exists on site. 

20 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we know that it 

21 
 exists and that the question is whether we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 have to track it all down and do something 225


2 
 special with it, in terms of time frame, and 

3 
 the answer is no. It is just simply, it will 

4 
 be addressed in the normal course of events. 

5 
 It doesn't have to be segregated. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So are we at a 

7 
 place to make actions for this exotic? I mean 

8 
 I have --

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: One thing I've heard 

10 
 and I just want to clarify it as -- you are 

11 
 going to use the reports, the interview 

12 
 reports, when you are trying to place people 

13 
 in certain buildings to reconstruct their 

14 dose for unbadged, unmonitored workers. 

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Any information from 

16 that, yes. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right, so how are 

18 
 you going to deal with people that you may be 

19 
 working with a spouse? Because that totally 

20 
 blows that approach out of the water in my 

21 view. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, like I said, 226
 

2 
 we haven't -- that is the current process we 

3 
 are looking at and it's something that if we 

4 
 have to, you can assign a general dose to a 

5 
 specific worker population and say, because 

6 
 fire fighters or the security forces were 

7 
 throughout all of the facilities, if a fire 

8 
 fighter or a security guard has a DR, we will 

9 
 assign an --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, I just wanted 

11 
 to make sure you weren't just using that in 

12 trying to place them in facilities. 

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, but you are 

14 
 not going to always have -- yes. And I think 

15 
 for specifically the Class that's involved, 

16 
 which is the trade, the fire fighters and 

17 
 security, they are going through the entire 

18 
 site, so pinpointing where a person is if they 

19 
 worked there for 30 years is going to be 

20 tricky. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Impossible. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Even trickier if 227
 

2 
 they only worked there two years and they're 

3 
 not, you know, they moved all over the place, 

4 
 you're not going to -- there's no records for 

5 
 it and so on. Yes. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Going to Josie's 

7 
 comment and some of the discussion we had, it 

8 
 almost seems like what's needed is just a 

9 
 rendition of what the approach is going to be. 

10 
 I mean I think we understand the 

11 
 substitute concept and how that's being 

12 
 applied, but there isn't any, you know, any 

13 
 implementation information as to how this is 

14 going to actually be made to work. 

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well that would be -

16 
 - well, we did the same --

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: The table, the 

18 
 table we got last time. I think that -- that 

19 was helpful. 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: We have the sample 

21 
 DRs as well, but this could be like sort of a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 little -- what you would get in the TBD as far 228


2 
 as how a dose reconstructor would use 

3 
 information for this Class of people. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes, I think 

5 
 that's kind of what is -- this sort of gets to 

6 
 what Andrew was mentioning, what Josie's 

7 
 mentioned and sort of what -- I can understand 

8 
 the actual concept itself, but how that 

9 
 concept is going to translate into a dose 

10 
 reconstruction approach seems to be -- you 

11 know, we are sketching it in now. 

12 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But it's -- that 

14 
 would be useful just to see, you know, if --

15 
 as you put -- you know, what would you put in 

16 
 a TBD if you were going to instruct a dose 

17 reconstructor on how to apply this concept? 

18 
 Because you are going to have these 

19 
 campaigns and these exotics are really more 

20 
 associated with campaigns rather than sort of 

21 these running operations. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 So that's going to be trickier to 229


2 
 actually identify what the worker population, 

3 
 you know, relevant worker population might be 

4 
 for those things. 

5 
 You know, how that information is 

6 
 going to serve us, how you would react and 

7 
 apply this -- that would be helpful. I think 

8 
 -- well, Mark is transcribing something now. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: That's where -- I 

10 think it's where we got left with two. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I have three 

12 
 proposed actions anyway. NIOSH should 

13 
 document approach for using uranium and 

14 
 plutonium data to bound for all exotic 

15 
 radionuclides that should say, and for 

16 
 bioassayed workers as well as unmonitored 

17 
 workers, because my sense is that even the 

18 
 bioassayed workers likely didn't have the 

19 
 exotic -- or maybe they did. I mean, that's -

20 
 -

21 DR. MACIEVIC: So I say for exotics 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

-- 230 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Right, 

they don't even do it currently, right? 

DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you basically 

-- second question is review the internal dose 

TBD document/documents for the site that 

should have been developed around 1990 in 

response to 835. What is the technical 

justification for using plutonium -- so 

controlled doses to all other exotics. 

Chime in if you don't agree with 

these. Third is review reports on this topic 

identified by the petitioner, by Andrew, 

including the one inspection of his ES&H 

programs at LANL, November 2005. 

And I'm assuming these are all in 

your original petition, are they, or no? 

MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, that 2005 

document was because that's sort of where the 

neptunium issue originated from, but this is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 below the -- because that references the 100 231


2 
 gram quantities, but below is where -- based 

3 
 on that after we came up with the substitute 

4 
 model. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that's just 

6 
 looking at this part of the petition, right? 

7 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: No, that's one I 

8 
 just submitted here April 17. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

10 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, we've got that 

12 document. 

13 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Now, another 

14 
 question, since we are still on exotics, and 

15 
 it kind of ties in with what I was talking 

16 
 about with source terms, they both kind of go 

17 
 together, is I also submitted some tables 

18 
 concerning exotics that went into waste at TA19 
 54 and total amounts and my concern is, 

20 
 because you only list a few, you are saying we 

21 
 are only concerned about these, like curium, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 europium, berkelium but there's, you know, a 232


2 
 very large list of exotics that went into 

3 
 waste at TA-54 and some of them exceed curie 

4 
 amounts. 

5 
 I mean what amount are you looking 

6 
 at to be concerned with to say okay, these 

7 
 could have been handled by, you know, enough 

8 
 people that we do have a concern, we have to 

9 
 reconstruct one. Yes, that's where it starts, 

10 table 4. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any response to 

12 that now or --

13 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Additionally, this 

14 
 would be safety analysis for TA-48 also was 

15 
 radionuclides with multiple curie amounts and 

16 
 there was a concern with some workers in an 

17 
 area where they should have been monitored and 

18 
 they weren't that there was a potential for 

19 
 contamination. That's table 3 in the 

20 
 document. 

21 And then the follow up after that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 and that is also I believe from this 2005 233


2 
 report where they found that there is that 

3 
 potential. 

4 
 So I guess my concern is, is you 

5 
 know, at what level do you guys become 

6 
 concerned, curie amount with a radionuclide 

7 
 and then how do you deal with that? 

8 
 Are you going to stay with the 

9 
 substitute model? 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, yes, what we 

11 
 would do is take a look at the coworker model 

12 
 to look at these other radionuclides that you 

13 
 have and see how they would fit in with 

14 
 something like that, because with that type of 

15 
 scope of radionuclides and handling, it would 

16 
 be either you look at a dose that you can 

17 
 apply across the board, because you are not 

18 
 going to have bioassay for those radionuclides 

19 
 that you talk -- so it would have to be 

20 
 something similar to that, that at a 

21 
 particular facility, we take a look at those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 radionuclides and see if they add it to the 234


2 
 list of the group of radionuclides to cover 

3 
 that kind of situation. 

4 
 We'll take a look at that, the 

5 
 document. Well we did look at it, but we 

6 
 looked specifically at those radionuclides. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: There's something 

8 
 from the last meeting of the Work Group -- the 

9 
 question of air sample data, whether there was 

10 
 any air sampling data at all available at LANL 

11 
 on the exotics. I don't know if in your data 

12 
 capture -- you didn't mention it so -- I 

13 
 didn't see anything in the SRDB either, so you 

14 didn't see any air sampling data? 

15 
 MR. MILES: Oh, we saw tons of air 

16 
 sampling data, but it was gross alpha beta, 

17 
 and it wasn't -- I didn't, I didn't come 

18 across you know --

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Anything specific 

20 to any of these --

21 
 MR. MILES: A lot of -- maybe an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 example or two -- a big long, a big pile, but 235


2 
 it's gross alpha beta --

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's gross alpha 

4 
 beta. 

5 
 MR. MILES: Air monitoring and it's 

6 
 in, you know, typically they are followed by a 

7 
 CAM -- at least what I was looking at a CAM 

8 
 response of some sort often was followed with 

9 
 nose wipes. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: It would be 

11 
 interesting, going back to your earlier action 

12 
 item, is at what point is LANL from an 

13 
 internal TBD standpoint on a basis to actually 

14 
 be looking for if the air, you know, gross 

15 
 alpha beta, I mean at some point, that 

16 changed. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It would seem --

18 
 I mean it would be a shock, like Stu said, if 

19 
 in around 1990, they didn't at least document 

20 all these things. 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: You have this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 continuum of gross alpha beta that goes from 236


2 
 the '60s --

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: even earlier, all 

5 
 the way through the '70s into the '90s and 

6 
 it's not conceivable that's, you know, been 

7 
 trying to program --

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Did they have CAM 

9 
 alarms following the -- that would be 

10 associated with higher sampling? 

11 
 MR. MILES: Well, there were gross 

12 
 alpha beta CAMs and these were the response, 

13 these were --

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That was air 

15 monitoring --

16 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I'm 

18 
 still a little -- I don't know if it's, I 

19 
 guess the word is confused. Is that the word, 

20 
 Wanda? Still a little confused on the -- but 

21 
 I'm hoping that when you document your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 approach, if you can just be clear with how -- 237


2 
 this question of assigning the worst case 

3 
 nuclide, is it the higher area, is it you know 

4 


5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I think you'll 

6 
 almost have to write something like in a 

7 
 procedural format to go and state how this 

8 
 would apply, how the dose, the example, 

9 
 because like I said, we have had the sample 

10 
 DRs that are out there, and maybe you give 

11 
 something that is more specific to lay it out 

12 by steps so everyone an see --

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does the example 

14 
 DR -- it's been a while since we had those 

15 examples --

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, that's been a 

17 
 while back. 

18 MR. MILES: They go through that 

19 with the process and I mean --

20 DR. MACIEVIC: And you have a --

21 MR. MILES: Look at it and see --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I think one or two 238
 

2 
 that are compensable, one or two that's not 

3 
 compensable. So I mean the check was to see 

4 
 that this is not -- any time you use this you 

5 
 are automatically getting compensable, but 

6 
 that there was a mixture of both in there. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I'd be just 

8 
 interested in, is there any application of the 

9 
 method that we are talking about to anybody 

10 
 who doesn't raise their hand during the CATI 

11 
 interview and says, you know, I worked with 

12 neptunium, I mean --

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's the 

14 question I had. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's sort of like, 

16 you know, I can understand that part --

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because you 

18 can't place workers --

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: neptunium and 

20 
 then, you know, you go down this path, but 

21 they don't mention it by name. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, that's why 239
 

2 
 it's going to be by -- it would have to be, 

3 
 well, also because you are unmonitored, you 

4 
 have someone who is going throughout the site, 

5 
 we are going to have to assign it based on the 

6 
 potential for a person going into these 

7 
 facilities. 

8 
 And that is how it is going to have 

9 
 to be assigned. It's not going to that a 

10 
 person is going to write down, oh yes, I was 

11 
 involved with curium or actinium and other 

12 
 types of things like that, because it's not 

13 going to say that, more than likely. 

14 
 And you -- it never gets that 

15 
 detailed in the CATI, what a person talks 

16 about --

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess without 

18 
 going and being redundant, I mean, you don't 

19 
 know where people are going in and out of, and 

20 
 you know, how can you -- it seems like you are 

21 going to have to default to worst case. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, you will. 240
 

2 
 You'll default to the worst case and you will 

3 
 have to either assign it to the entire group, 

4 
 if a group has shown that they have access to 

5 
 the entire site on a routine basis throughout 

6 
 the year, over all their years, that they will 

7 
 have to get that -- that number for that 

8 
 period of time, because otherwise you have to 

9 
 be able to specifically say why I'm not doing 

10 
 it in this year but I am doing it in that 

11 
 year, not only have the detail for an 

12 
 unmonitored worker as to where -- what they 

13 
 were doing at that level. I mean it's not 

14 going to --

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'll wait 

16 
 and see, but I don't understand even how you 

17 
 do it for a certain group. I think it ends up 

18 being all workers, unless you, I don't know. 

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, it's got to be 

20 
 unmonitored workers because we are talking 

21 unmonitored here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But monitored, 241
 

2 
 you didn't even monitor for specific exotics. 

3 
 I thought we just said that. There was no 

4 
 monitoring for exotics. So --

5 
 MR. MILES: Well, there were very 

6 
 few -- bioassay you are talking about? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

8 
 MR. MILES: Yes. Yes, there is 

9 
 very few and I think we are making the 

10 
 assumption that the program in place for 

11 
 workers that really should be on a program, 

12 
 that there would be some bioassay monitoring 

13 
 that is specific to those exotics in their 

14 
 file, if they really were -- if the program 

15 
 saw a need for that and thought there was a 

16 
 reason for significant intakes, but there 

17 
 should be some bioassay there, and now we are 

18 
 not seeing a whole lot, and there's two 

19 
 answers to that, you know, I mean, possible 

20 
 answers: one, I think is the case, is that it 

21 
 was very rare that a person would have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 achieved significant exposure to these and 242


2 
 required bioassays. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you are 

4 
 seeing at least some of it, right? 

5 
 MR. MILES: We are seeing a few, 

6 
 but not many. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

8 
 right. That's a little reassuring anyway. I 

9 
 thought there was just like --

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, it's not 

11 
 absolutely none, but I mean, compared to all 

12 
 the bioassays you have for the other 

13 radionuclides --

14 
 MR. MILES: But it was campaign15 
 driven, as pointed out, it -- it doesn't -- we 

16 haven't seen a lot of those campaigns. 

17 
 MEMBER MUNN: And the operative 

18 
 word is significant. If -- it isn't -- why 

19 
 would you need to be monitoring for, quote, 

20 
 exotic nuclides, unless they were, for 

21 
 example, in a campaign that was specifically 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 geared to select them, to separate them for 243


2 
 some reason. If they were not, if you weren't 

3 
 aiming specifically for these -- for the lack 

4 
 of a better word, lesser, not exotics, then 

5 
 why should you assume that this one is -- why 

6 
 would anyone imagine --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I mean, 

8 
 the one example we have that Andrew just read 

9 
 out was that it's a neptunium operation and 

10 
 they were doing plutonium bioassay. And 

11 
 you're saying it's not effective -- I think we 

12 are circling around a little bit. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are. We are. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The next issue is 

15 
 that goes to four where we had -- I had given 

16 
 some examples from the SRDB by neptunium-237 

17 
 nasal smears in CMR in 1984, and special work 

18 
 permits and there's one in there about 

19 neptunium on the work permit. 

20 I mean there's, -- but their --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: They are trying and 244
 

2 
 they were looking specifically for that 

3 
 radionuclide at the time, but they are not, 

4 
 you are not, you don't find that large --

5 
 MR. MILES: Targeted bioassay is 

6 
 what they call it, with LANL. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What do they 

8 
 call it? 

9 
 MR. MILES: Targeted. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Targeted, yes. 

11 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Let me just add to 

12 
 this, on page 5 of the document I submitted, 

13 
 "At the institutional level, methods used to 

14 
 enrol workers in the bioassay program have not 

15 
 been adequate to ensure that workers are 

16 
 monitored for correct isotopes and at the 

17 required frequencies." 

18 
 This was in the 2098 report for the 

19 
 inspection of the environment, safety and 

20 
 health programs of Los Alamos national 

21 
 laboratory, and that was by the office of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 health, safety and security. That's on page 5 245
 

2 
 of the document I submitted, so you know, and 

3 
 that was a 2008 finding. 

4 
 MR. MILES: 2008. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I find it 

6 
 interesting that NIOSH is coming at us with a 

7 
 programmatic approach and then there's tons of 

8 
 examples, even most recently as 2005, 2008, 

9 
 that says the program wasn't what it should 

10 have been. So --

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, see but 

12 there's --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But the problem is 

15 
 that every site make all of them SEC then, 

16 
 because you can't, I mean, there is no -- I 

17 
 mean, we are not trying to, and that's why --

18 
 there's no way we are trying to say that LANL 

19 
 is the epitome of what you have to do to set 

20 
 up a program, and there's holes and gaps and 

21 
 screw-ups in several of the places. But it's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 a matter of how much that, for an SEC, is 246


2 
 there such a hole that people are getting this 

3 
 large dose that there's no -- that there's no 

4 
 way we can figure out how much this person has 

5 
 gotten that's there in the late '70s, '80s and 

6 
 '90s. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: The dose doesn't 

8 
 really matter though, it's can you reconstruct 

9 
 it? 

10 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, in things like 

11 
 coworker and stuff like that you can. But 

12 
 reconstructing it from detailed, you know, 

13 
 activities for all the years in that, probably 

14 
 not. You are going to have to have some 

15 
 broader brush strokes that cover with a dose 

16 that says here's where it is, and you --

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we've 

18 
 got the questions now. I mean, yes. We are -

19 
 - I think, leave it at those actions and 

20 you've got the thrust of what we're asking. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Andrew, the last 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 part you -- 247
 

2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: This was from the 

3 
 office of health. HHS. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Was that an 

5 
 enforcement, or was that a --

6 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: I don't think it 

7 
 was an enforcement. They didn't do any --

8 
 they have a group of audits and they've linked 

9 
 their reports back together because they have 

10 
 this 2011 one that basically, it refers back 

11 
 to finding -- it says, "Finding, C8, methods 

12 
 used in LANL tunnel where workers in bioassay 

13 
 programs and compare radiological worker risks 

14 
 were not sufficiently developed to ensure 

15 
 requirements were met. The radiological 

16 
 controls are adequate, as required by LANL 

17 
 implementing support document, ISD, 4.1, in 

18 DOE policy 450.4." 

19 
 So some of them were enforcement 

20 
 issue that I have seen some --

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, there's an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 office of enforcement, health safety and -- 248
 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: And then oversight -

3 
 -

4 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

5 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, but I have 

6 
 seen --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But it may not --

8 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: I have seen some 

9 
 enforcement letters along these lines 

10 
 referring to these reports. There have been 

11 
 some enforcement letters referring to these 

12 reports. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

14 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: I don't remember 

15 
 the specific ones, the dates on them or you 

16 know, but I'm pretty sure --

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Did you just send 

18 this report? 

19 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: The 2008 report 

20 
 was --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got it, I just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 can't -- 249
 

2 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: But you know, I 

3 
 raise it as -- it goes along with what Greg 

4 
 said, but I am just saying you know, okay, at 

5 
 what point do you establish the hole is too 

6 
 big, and it seems to me that you are not 

7 
 looking for these radionuclides to begin with, 

8 
 and that has always been my concern. If you 

9 
 are not looking for them, then how do you 

10 
 establish a dose? I mean, you -- it doesn't 

11 
 seem like there's a base, I mean, you could --

12 
 because to use plutonium that is generally 

13 
 glove box work, but these other materials are 

14 
 done in fume hoods. There have been incidents 

15 
 where they have been working in fume hoods at 

16 
 CMR, and the other thing deals with, you know, 

17 
 source terms, where do these come from, where 

18 
 were they handled, how are they handled, where 

19 
 did they go to. And I'm just -- I've got the 

20 
 end results with them going into TA-54 as 

21 
 waste, and then you know, the other table that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 mentions, you know, when they have these 250
 

2 
 quantities at TA-48, in the safety analysis, 

3 
 they are saying, you know, they are dealing 

4 
 with these, and you know, are they prepared, 

5 
 you know, to deal with them safely to prevent 

6 
 a release to the environment, and that was the 

7 
 purpose of doing the safety analysis at TA-48. 

8 
 So -- and then when you guys did 

9 
 the evaluation you said well, we are only 

10 
 concerned about these five exotics, and I'm 

11 
 like, well, there's got to be more than that, 

12 
 and that was kind of where this developed 

13 
 from, but you know, I'm just saying, if 

14 
 they're not looking for it, how are they, you 

15 
 know, how do you know whether or not it wasn't 

16 
 a concern or it could have been, because the 

17 
 Sigma incident, they didn't look for the 

18 
 americium before the materials list, it was 

19 
 uranium pellets and they didn't look for 

20 americium contamination when it was on there. 

21 
 It goes over to Sigma, to building 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 66, he assumes that it's okay, so he didn't 251


2 
 have an RCT there with him either, so you 

3 
 know, it's not necessarily how material was 

4 
 handled, but it's how it's mishandled, and I 

5 
 think if you're going to base it on procedures 

6 
 as written, you are going to miss that this 

7 
 stuff is mishandled, and that's where the 

8 
 problems occur. 

9 
 You know, the whole reason that the 

10 
 americium incident was discovered was because 

11 
 the packaging from the material was in a 

12 
 regular trash can instead of rad waste area. 

13 
 The custodian that was supposed to be 

14 
 maintaining the area was on vacation, and the 

15 
 trash didn't get taken out. RCT saw it in the 

16 
 trash can and said, well, what's this doing 

17 here, and then started looking. 

18 
 Additionally, you know, I have 

19 
 concerns about the monitoring because the 

20 
 gentleman that handled the material, he 

21 
 monitored himself with a hand monitor, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 know, the hand monitor did not detect 252
 

2 
 americium. 

3 
 But when they checked the hand 

4 
 monitor, they found it all over the handle. So 

5 
 you know, yes, he did use it. But it didn't 

6 
 work. And there have been incidents with that 

7 
 as far as equipment failures and they're 

8 
 listed in the Tiger Team report, and you know, 

9 
 other reports as well. 

10 
 So, I am just saying at what point 

11 
 -- I think you have to take these into account 

12 if you are going to do a dose reconstruction. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I added to the 

14 
 list of actions, just to respond, one 

15 
 additional statement that Andrew made about 

16 
 the other exotics, so just to make sure that 

17 the model, whatever --

18 
 And I think we, yes, I think we 

19 
 have gone around this a little bit. I don't 

20 
 know, I think it's time to call it on this 

21 issue. Can we go on to the next issue? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, issue 3 253
 

2 
 actually is a bit of good news in a way that 

3 
 we touched on, which is the coworker model. 

4 
 When we talked about MAPs, the question there 

5 
 was the accuracy -- sufficiency of beryllium-7 

6 
 data and the ratio and it all hinges on how 

7 
 that would be applied in the coworker model. 

8 
 In the coworker models that now 

9 
 stand OTIB-62 doesn't accommodate beryllium 

10 
 per se, but that's one of the issues that you 

11 would look at as far as quantification. 

12 
 You kind of back into looking at 

13 
 the completeness of that relative to MAPs. 

14 
 The MFPs, we did something similar, except in 

15 
 that case you're going to cesium-137 as not so 

16 
 much the original plan, which was to use it as 

17 
 a ratio-based approach, but you are going to 

18 use cesium-137 as your substitute. 

19 
 And we talked about the 

20 
 implications of doing so in terms of things 

21 
 like strontium, whatever. So, certainly we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 have mentioned the need to -- I think that's 254


2 
 one of the action items -- to look at, you 

3 
 know, how one would address that in the 

4 
 context of the OTIB-62 coworker model, how you 

5 
 would, you know, make sure that that model for 

6 
 unmonitored workers would still work across 

7 
 the spectrum of mixed fission products. 

8 
 And the third component we just 

9 
 talked about, which was exotics, and I think 

10 that figures in it too. 

11 
 So I think we sort of -- we covered 

12 
 it in each of the -- like we did the 

13 
 checklist. We have sort of covered it in the 

14 
 other topics, so I don't know if there's 

15 anything more. 

16 
 Obviously OTIB-62 needs to be 

17 
 reviewed from those vantage points and 

18 
 whatever modification is necessary, I think 

19 would come back to the Work Group. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it's covered 

21 in the actions under the previous --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And I 255
 

2 
 think the, the only overriding issue on that 

3 
 particular point from last time was whether 

4 
 there was enough cesium-137 data, and I think 

5 
 your review and the tables you've presented 

6 
 back shows that yes, there certain is cesium7 
 137 data. 

8 
 So I think that was the remaining 

9 
 question. So I think we are not -- I think we 

10 
 are done with three at this point, because 

11 
 we'll need to -- the Work Group will need to 

12 
 see what comes back, as sort of a new -- in a 

13 
 sense, a new, patched-together OTIB-62 based 

14 on those three groups. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the neutron 

16 
 dose? 

17 DR. MACIEVIC: He loves it, got no 

18 problem. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I told you he 

20 would. 

21 (Laughter.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It might be okay 256
 

2 
 going forward. We might even meet -- well I 

3 
 know Andrew has got to leave at 3, so we might 

4 
 want to cover --

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The petitioner 

7 
 issues. Oh, we'll do that in a few minutes. 

8 
 But let's do neutron dose first. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the issue of 

10 
 neutron, actually, we did make a lot of 

11 
 headway in our last Work Group meeting in 

12 
 terms of some of the issues on the NTA film 

13 
 and the fading issue, some of these more 

14 
 traditional NTA film issues, I think we've 

15 
 covered those. 

16 And the real question that came out 

17 
 was the back-extrapolation of the 

18 
 neutron/photon ratios from '82 to the '75 to 

19 
 '79 time frame, and just being reassured that 

20 
 the operations had not necessarily changed 

21 during that time frame. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 And after killing my printer, 257
 

2 
 printing it out --

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, did you? 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I actually had to 

5 
 stop the printer because I realized what was 

6 
 happening at some point, that I had the 

7 
 entire, the entire history of neutron 

8 
 operations at Los Alamos. I think I cut it 

9 
 off about 1985, but it was already about 100 

10 pages. 

11 
 So, very impressive tome, you know, 

12 
 certainly pretty convincing that -- he did the 

13 
 operational review. Good stuff. So you know, 

14 
 I don't think there's a lingering problem with 

15 
 not seeing any operational changes that would 

16 preclude looking backwards. 

17 
 The other issue is just making sure 

18 
 that the ratios in general accommodate some of 

19 
 the admittedly wide-ranging, N/P ratios 

20 
 observed at LAMPF, and I think we did address 

21 that --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And, also, that 258
 

2 
 spreadsheet that I put in there had -- that's 

3 
 based on the NOCTS people. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And got as many of 

6 
 the job classifications as you can see, you 

7 
 got the N/P ratios for the different classes, 

8 
 and it would be covered under a distribution 

9 
 for --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: What distribution 

11 are you looking at? 

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, I had it in 

13 the last review. Well, we're looking at a --

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And it sort of 

15 
 makes a difference, 95th to the 50th. 

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, it would be the 

17 
 95th percentile and you are going to have a 

18 
 distribution from -- oh God, I forgot the 

19 
 number already -- but it will cover all the 

20 way up to -- I think you got --

21 MEMBER BEACH: Is it 5.5 for CMR? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, it's going to 259
 

2 
 cover in that range. It will cover between 

3 
 something like 2 up to 12 or 13 in the spread. 

4 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Look at the 

5 
 spreadsheet and the N/P ratios and for certain 

6 
 job types and for certain facilities, you do 

7 
 get quite a spread. But the 95th certainly 

8 
 takes care of itself. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, we are not 

10 
 even going to 50th because yes, you do have a 

11 
 spread across the board there. You want to 

12 make sure you cover them all in there. 

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: So you know, I 

14 
 think it's the 95th of what is in this 

15 
 printout. Now actually, I looked at the mean 

16 
 N/P ratios between '75 to '79 and '80 to '82, 

17 
 just for my own edification, and the mean at 

18 
 3.58 on this spreadsheet, it goes to 2.17 for 

19 
 '80 to '82 so actually the ratios are higher 

20 
 in the late '70s, but still well within that 

21 
 range of the 95th. So if it's the 95th I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 don't think we have an issue. 260
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And yes, and the --

3 
 no operational changes that I could see going 

4 
 -- things start to occur in the late -- mid to 

5 
 late '80s as operational changes occur. So we 

6 
 are staying within the bounds of where things 

7 
 are pretty much constant -- haven't moved 

8 
 around much. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: This is from the 

10 
 Fix report but he plots the N/P ratios 

11 
 historically over the history of Los Alamos 

12 
 and there is a jump that you can start seeing 

13 in the '80s but not really a jump, but some. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: But then -- yes, we 

15 
 didn't want to include anything that would be 

16 -- start skewing it in the wrong direction. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: This is the first 

18 
 part of the printout, N/P ratios, '75 to '79 

19 
 and '80 to '82, and I was playing with that a 

20 
 little bit just to compare the two time 

21 
 frames. But again, 95th forgives all sins as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 far as that, so if you go with 95th it 261


2 
 accommodates the occupational differences as 

3 
 well as the time frame differences. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we're 

5 
 probably okay on this one, yes? Yes. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Now Work Group 

7 
 Issue 5 --

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that one 

9 
 closed? 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We are closing 

12 it 

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue 5 has to do 

15 
 with the ponds and this was advanced by a 

16 
 former LANL worker concerned about the 

17 
 aerosolization of what was in the retention 

18 
 ponds at LAMPF, and clearly there was a lot of 

19 
 tritium, nothing else going into the ponds, 

20 
 and their concern was they were in a trailer 

21 
 that was located right by the pond, not a real 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 good siting issue, and he was also concerned 262


2 
 about the beam stop, whether it was getting 

3 
 external radiation but I think the way that 

4 
 was settled was that whatever badging they had 

5 
 certainly would have seen what they would have 

6 
 seen at that point, so really more of an 

7 
 internal issue. 

8 
 The question was -- and we came 

9 
 very close to getting the pond data at Los 

10 
 Alamos because well -- at the very last minute 

11 
 -- so we didn't get the pond data, and I think 

12 
 the idea was that in your data capture, you do 

13 
 get the pond data, and I think the answer was 

14 that you did get some data. 

15 
 Now the only thing I saw was this 

16 one plot. 

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, on the tritium 

18 that's the one plot. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: And that the 

21 
 majority is all the other radionuclides that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 are in the pond, so you -- they are similar to 263


2 
 what you see on the aerosol as far as the 

3 
 radionuclides in the water as well as the air, 

4 
 so -- but to develop some kind of bounding 

5 
 dose toward the pond, we'd have to make up a 

6 
 model for the resuspension, that kind of thing 

7 
 to --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I was going 

9 
 to suggest, it's the only thing I saw as a 

10 
 definitive response, was this plot of 

11 
 concentration versus -- what was it, 

12 concentration versus -- time. 

13 
 What the Work Group might find 

14 
 useful is just the -- what -- what data is 

15 
 going to be used at a certain time frame when 

16 
 these workers, ironworkers, were located near 

17 the pond. 

18 DR. MACIEVIC: Mid, late '80s? 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Mid to late '80s, 

20 
 and if you have that pond concentration data 

21 
 from the tritium, then it sounds like there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 would be a model where you would bound the 264


2 
 possible resuspension in the air and have an 

3 
 immersion dose, I suspect, some sort, in terms 

4 
 of what they could have possibly inhaled, and 

5 
 that would be -- that would be something that, 

6 
 for workers that were in that immediate 

7 
 vicinity, it wouldn't be very many. This 

8 
 would be something that they would be given as 

9 
 far as a credit for dose. 

10 
 The reason I raise this, and I am 

11 
 not going to get very specific, is apparently, 

12 
 you know, I don't know how to say this, but 

13 
 you know, in terms of some claimants, they 

14 
 came close but did not get any credit for what 

15 
 they saw as an exposure pathway and that's the 

16 
 reason this came up, was that they felt there 

17 
 was some exposure pathway and we thought there 

18 
 was a credible amount of information that 

19 
 there was in fact some dose coming from the 

20 
 tritium that was being suspended in this pond. 

21 So --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: As you can see 265
 

2 
 though, from the concentration, you are 

3 
 talking, you know, a few millirem possible, 

4 
 from drinking several liters of that water at 

5 
 most. 

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So I think 

7 
 this would put it to rest in terms of actually 

8 
 a bounding --

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, this is 1986 

10 data also. 

11 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that comes 

12 
 pretty close. I think we gave you the specific 

13 
 dates, if not I have the specific dates, but 

14 we could put --

15 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You said it's 

16 
 concentration versus time --

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Over the period of a 

18 year --

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Concentration of 

20 
 what, in the --

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Microcuries per 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 liter I think it is, versus time in the pond-- 266


2 
 MR FITZGERALD: In the pond itself. 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: For tritium that 

4 
 they measured and that is -- that comes from 

5 
 the Scott Walker who was the --

6 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and we 

7 
 talked to him and we got the sense that the 

8 
 data exists, and it wasn't a complicated issue 

9 
 to know what the source term was at the time, 

10 
 figure out what you could expect the overhead 

11 
 -- they were fairly close to the pond, but 

12 
 even so, you'd have some dilution just being 

13 over here rather than on the pond --

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm just 

15 
 saying that you identified this data and NIOSH 

16 
 is -- will develop a resuspension model for --

17 doing exposures from this --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

19 
 MR. MILES: And if the answer is 

20 
 millirem, that would be the answer. I mean, I 

21 
 just think that was lacking, some sense about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 what the exposure -- 267
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, the model the -

3 
 - your data for tritium. 

4 
 MR. MILES: Well that's the one --

5 
 I think that's the one where I looked at the 

6 
 maximum, the maximum concentration in the pond 

7 
 and -- I mean I didn't do a modeling of it, 

8 
 but I --

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe model is too 

10 sophisticated a term. 

11 
 MR. MILES: I assumed he drank two 

12 
 liters of the pond water and that was less 

13 than a millirem of --

14 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. That would 

15 be even be a --

16 
 MR. MILES: That's, I think, I 

17 
 don't know, did you share that -- he took the 

18 
 maximum tritium concentration in the pond and 

19 over that entire year --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe model is 

21 too strong, like Joe said --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. MILES: Drink two liters of it, 268
 

2 
 it's less than a millirem. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe model is 

4 
 too strong a word. 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: We won't --

6 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Without knowing 

9 
 the concentration of the pond, it's hard to 

10 
 answer this person's concern that they were 

11 
 lacking some exposure, so I think even that 

12 kind of an answer would provide an answer. 

13 
 MR. MILES: We're just looking at 

14 
 the 1986 data. That shows the concentration 

15 of the pond, right? Is that --

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I'll go back 

17 
 and check the dates when these individuals 

18 
 were located but I think --

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I think it was 1988. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That came close, 

21 yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Because I had spoken 269
 

2 
 to the same person too. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And they 

4 
 have been very vocal. I said you know, this 

5 
 is something we actually could be able to 

6 
 answer, if we can get the data somewhere, but 

7 
 the data has been hard to come by. It took a 

8 
 while. So if we can provide the answer that 

9 
 would certainly settle that issue out so I 

10 would leave it at that. 

11 
 MEMBER MUNN: Assuming a couple of 

12 
 waivers that would take care of internal 

13 exposure. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So is that --

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be item 

16 
 5. So, almost like a bounding calculation. 

17 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

18 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I'll go back and 

19 check. There's a range of years for --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can move on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 to the next item. 270
 

2 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, issue 6 is 

3 
 tritides. The issue there simply is that 

4 
 outside of Mound, Los Alamos is the one that 

5 
 figured with insoluble tritides and the 

6 
 question that came out of the Site Profile 

7 
 review carried forward to the SEC is has been 

8 
 that sufficient to characterize as far as the 

9 
 dose assessment, and I think a while back 

10 
 there was some -- a couple of pieces of 

11 
 information that were in Germantown that spoke 

12 
 to it but you know, frankly, the TBD doesn't 

13 
 say too much, and the question was, is there 

14 
 sufficient information to either discount it 

15 
 as an exposure potential, or propose some, you 

16 know, approach where you are going to --

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, we have what 

18 is it, TIB --

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: OTIB-66. 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: OTIB-66. 

21 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's more of a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 source term. 271
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, going with 

3 
 that, and we reviewed the documents, the 

4 
 classified documents, and there was -- that's, 

5 
 I get the feeling that that would not be an 

6 
 appropriate document to use, TIB-66. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: But as far as the 

8 
 source term, was there any -- any ability to 

9 
 speak to how -- whether there was an exposure 

10 
 source at the lab? I mean this was --

11 
 certainly it exists, but the question is 

12 
 whether it is an exposure source that needs to 

13 be characterized in any way. 

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, it's -- you 

15 
 really can't characterize it well, and -- and 

16 I have Bob -- Bob Burns, are you out there? 

17 MR. BURNS: Yes. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Would you like to 

19 
 get in on this before I go and blurt out 

20 something that I shouldn't say? 

21 
 MR. BURNS: I don't know if I have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 much more to add. I mean, certainly they had 272
 

2 
 tritide facilities at LANL. I guess the 

3 
 facilities where they were doing tritide work, 

4 
 obviously they understand that's what they are 

5 
 doing and they have a rad protection program 

6 
 in place that was hopefully appropriate for 

7 
 that work. 

8 
 So I guess, to the broader 

9 
 question, was there you know, potential for 

10 
 unmonitored exposures, you know, it seems this 

11 
 issue comes up at every site, and I'm just not 

12 
 sure -- yes, I don't -- whether it's LANL or 

13 
 Sandia or SRS or Mound, I just -- I think we 

14 
 talked about some site-wide approaches to it, 

15 but I'm not sure --

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is 

17 strictly a source term question. 

18 MR. BURNS: Okay. 

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Because when Mound 

20 
 closed, Los Alamos absorbed some of those 

21 
 activities, and the question is, when you are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 dealing with unsealed sources, in terms of 273


2 
 handling, you know, is there an exposure 

3 
 pathway and was it one where the personnel 

4 
 were monitored? 

5 
 I think that's -- that's really the 

6 
 only question, and there is a method to OTIB7 
 66, I'm not -- I think there's a method to 

8 
 deal with estimating the dose, but the 

9 
 question is would that be applied to LANL and 

10 
 why, you know, is there any source that needs 

11 
 to be addressed at LANL. That's how we left 

12 it. 

13 
 And we offered a couple of examples 

14 
 of things we had picked up on the way in 

15 
 Germantown, just as the lead-in. That wasn't 

16 
 meant to be the end-all, but just to sort of 

17 
 give you what we did find in the process as 

18 some helpful, helpful information. 

19 
 So I don't know whether that is 

20 
 something that one can nail down a little 

21 
 better. There were tritide handling 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 operations. They did inherit what Mound had 274
 

2 
 done when Mound closed in '90, and that's --

3 
 the only question is, that doesn't figure very 

4 
 much in any of the characterization in terms 

5 
 of the site documents. Is that something that 

6 
 we don't have to worry about because whatever 

7 
 form it's in, it's not in the exposure, or 

8 
 it's there's no unmonitored exposure, any of 

9 
 the above. I think that was just really kind 

10 
 of an open question that we came up from the 

11 
 Site Profile with, and I'm not sure that 

12 really the T was crossed --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So it seems like 

14 
 the first question is, was there a dispersible 

15 form? 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's an exposure 

17 
 potential. Is it the form or the handling that 

18 
 would lead you to say, either: a) there was an 

19 
 exposure potential but it was well monitored 

20 
 and controlled; b) there would not have been 

21 
 any exposure potential because of the form it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 was in. 275
 

2 
 I mean, it's sort of a), b), you 

3 
 know, and just close out the issue. I --

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, I think Bob 

5 
 was taking on the what was there as far as 

6 
 yes, there was some exposure potential but you 

7 
 could quantify it if you needed to by TIB-66. 

8 
 MR. BURNS: I'm certainly not 

9 
 prepared to say that there was not an exposure 

10 
 potential, to the extent we are -- I don't 

11 
 know to what degree we are able to revisit 

12 
 that or obtain some additional information 

13 
 with our more recent data capture efforts that 

14 
 I wasn't involved in, but as far as what we 

15 
 need to say yeah or nay, vis-a-vis OTIB-66, I 

16 don't know if we are there yet or not. 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, 66, I 

18 
 understand that part, and I don't think --

19 
 there's no question it's not a method that can 

20 
 be applied. But you know, how are you going -

21 
 - it sort of gets back to what we did a little 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 earlier. When would you decide to pull the 276
 

2 
 trigger on OTIB-66 under the circumstances, or 

3 
 would you, because there is no need to, 

4 
 because there is no exposure potential. 

5 
 I think that was the loose end on 

6 
 tritides that we had for LANL. 

7 
 MR. BURNS: But the question of who 

8 
 to assign is --

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, who to 

10 
 assign and any defining -- whether those 

11 
 operations, that they were completely glove12 
 boxed operations, sealed sources -- there's 

13 
 not going to be any OTIB-66 because there 

14 isn't any exposure potential per se. 

15 
 MEMBER MUNN: Say that again. I'm 

16 sorry, what was that last sentence? 

17 
 MR. FITZGERALD: There wouldn't be 

18 
 an OTIB-66 applied because there wouldn't be 

19 an exposure potential. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's one 

21 potential, is this -- one potential? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's one 277
 

2 
 option. That's one option. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That may not be the 

4 
 truth. 

5 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: Right, I understand. 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And because these 

8 
 are tritium operations, there's always this --

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: Got it. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Suspicion that you 

11 
 know, tritium, even though tritium is the 

12 
 carrier gas, that you tend to have tritium 

13 leaks even from the glove box. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda is raising 

15 a commotion to close the issue out --

16 (Laughter.) 

17 
 MEMBER MUNN: No, I'm reading OTIB18 
 66. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we are not 

21 
 going to reopen OTIB-66. We're okay. We are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 okay with the method so this is really a very 278


2 
 -- sort of a site description issue almost, 

3 
 when you characterize it --

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: So at the last 

5 
 meeting SC&A recommended that NIOSH look at 

6 
 some documents in Germantown. Did that ever 

7 
 happen? 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: It did happen. 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: They did not give us 

11 
 any indication that there were major problems 

12 associated with the tritium. 

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: That still doesn't 

14 totally answer the question. 

15 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, yes, I mean, 

16 
 like you've said, you can't say oh, 

17 
 absolutely, there's no exposure potential 

18 
 here, but that there's not a large exposure 

19 potential. 

20 
 MR. FITZGERALD: It's not, it's not 

21 
 like some of the other issues. This is just a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 very, almost like a, maybe if you were doing a 279


2 
 Site Profile, you would establish a source 

3 
 term --

4 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good job of 

5 
 imitation, yes, I -- I mean, if this captures 

6 
 what you are saying Joe, I put down as a 

7 
 followup action NIOSH will follow up on 

8 
 characterizing the source terms, the potential 

9 
 for exposure and who would get assigned dose 

10 
 via OTIB-66. So I think that sort of covers 

11 it, right? 

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes. And we 

13 
 are hopeful that those two items in Germantown 

14 
 would at least be helpful in that pursuit, but 

15 
 maybe not, I don't know, it was just a -- it 

16 
 was LANL but I'm not sure it was helpful for 

17 that issue. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Source terms, what was 

20 
 the -- there were three elements to that. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Source terms, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 the potential for exposure -- 280
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What I'll do is 

4 
 I'm putting all these in the matrix but I'll 

5 
 copy out the action items that came from this 

6 
 meeting and just put it in a memo. I think 

7 
 it's a lot easier --

8 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll distribute 

10 
 both. I say all these things and I'll leave 

11 here --

12 (Laughter.) 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But no, I'll try 

14 
 -- I'll do it tonight or tomorrow morning. 

15 That way I know I'll do it. 

16 
 MEMBER MUNN: If we update the 

17 matrix that would be very helpful. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Can we take a 10-minute 

19 
 break, five-minute break? 

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Absolutely not. 

21 
 Five minutes. Five minutes, because I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 some of might be able to catch earlier flights 281


2 
 and Andrew has got to leave at 3. So take a 

3 
 quick comfort break for three minutes, five 

4 
 minutes, and be right back. 

5 
 (Whereupon, the meeting went off the record at 

6 
 2:36 p.m. and went back on the 

7 
 record at 2:43 p.m.) 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. We 

9 
 are wrapping it up. We are down to item 

10 
 number 7 on the agenda. So Joe I'll send it 

11 
 over to you to do 7 to start, and then Andrew 

12 is going to --

13 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there's no 

14 
 action, no explicit actions for 7. We did 

15 
 raise -- I kept it in there just for 

16 
 completeness' sake. We did raise some 

17 
 questions about the support workers, the 

18 
 guards, the fire fighters. We noticed in 

19 
 looking at the bioassay data that it actually 

20 
 went down after the early '90 because of a 

21 
 change in regulation 835 and whatever and a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 lot of people were actually pushed out of 282


2 
 bioassay programs. 

3 
 So we wanted to raise that 

4 
 originally to you know, to see whether that's 

5 
 going to have any implications for dose 

6 
 reconstruction. I think we covered this at 

7 
 the very first meeting we had. That's why 

8 
 there's no actions. And NIOSH reviewed the 

9 
 database and even though the actual number of 

10 
 bioassays goes down for support workers, it 

11 
 was felt there was enough data, site-wide data 

12 to apply. 

13 
 Now, how that's going to be applied 

14 
 for support workers, I think is still an 

15 
 issue, you know, how, you know, how that 

16 
 cohort is going to be handled as far as 

17 
 coworker model, so that's going to be part of 

18 
 the coworker model. I don't think we got to 

19 
 the specifics with that. So that gets down to 

20 
 you know, how support workers, whether it's 

21 
 MAPs, MFPs, or any of these, would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 addressed if in fact you can't pin them down 283


2 
 to any particular location, how would there 

3 
 dose assignment be handled if they were 

4 
 unmonitored, which sort of fits into the 

5 
 coworker issues that we have been discussing. 

6 
 So more so the fact that they were 

7 
 taken off monitoring for 20 years, but again, 

8 
 this is the last 20 years, not the early 

9 
 period. 

10 So there's a central question of 

11 
 support workers, how they fit in, how are you 

12 
 going to address that in the coworker 

13 
 approach, and you know, how dose assignments 

14 
 would be handled for them whether it's MAPs, 

15 
 MFPs or exotics, that kind of thing. I think 

16 that's what this item 7 is. 

17 
 And I think this sort of, again 

18 
 speaks back to these earlier issues, so in a 

19 
 way, it's part of -- part of those earlier 

20 issues. 

21 
 How's the coworker model going to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 treat support workers, fire fighters and 284
 

2 
 security guards in this whole scheme? 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The initial --

4 
 the action on the matrix, which I don't think 

5 
 we have really resolved, it goes into that --

6 
 NIOSH will follow up on the -- on this issue, 

7 
 which was also a cross-reference to item 

8 
 number 3, action item number 2, which 

9 
 basically talked about the -- it's the drop10 
 off in sampling in the later years, and I 

11 
 think it might tie into the technical basis, 

12 
 you know, for the program, in 1990 or so that 

13 
 we talked about earlier, you know, how did 

14 
 they justify dropping these workers off, did -

15 
 - was there something to tie -- they did an 

16 
 assessment, they determined that the exposures 

17 
 were not likely to exceed 100 millirem, you 

18 know, and it's documented here, I mean --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, so I --

20 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For the coworker 

21 
 more than bound, I mean, I think you could --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 if you put that together then that would 285


2 
 answer the question. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: And that's why we 

4 
 left it at no action. It fits into the 

5 
 actions for these other things, the coworker 

6 
 model, but the coworker model would have to 

7 
 speak to the support workers. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We can 

9 
 move on to number 8, which is issues 

10 
 specifically raised by the petitioner, and
 

11 I'll take Joe and/or Andrew --

12 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I would 

13 
 defer to Andrew. I think, I was trying to 

14 
 capture, we didn't really spend a lot of time 

15 
 on this at the last meeting so I wanted to 

16 
 make sure it was on the agenda, and if there 

17 
 is anything on this list that you wanted to 

18 focus on as far as, you know the question --

19 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess we got a 

20 specific response on the firing sites --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: This is Andrew 286
 

2 
 Evaskovich. Going off the response document, 

3 
 concerning the firing sites, and you want to 

4 
 use the coworker model at the firing site, I 

5 
 don't see how that will fly because it sounds 

6 
 like, at least from the discussions today, we 

7 
 are talking about glove box workers as opposed 

8 
 to an open area like a firing site where 

9 
 resuspension is an issue. 

10 
 I'm sure the materials are probably 

11 
 lesser in quantity and concentration but there 

12 
 is no protection for the glove box worker, in 

13 
 the instance of the glove box with negative 

14 
 pressure, you have got people working in an 

15 
 open area with crates and shovels cleaning the 

16 
 area up, and also heavy equipment. So you are 

17 
 dealing with resuspension issues that are 

18 
 different, or you are dealing with 

19 
 resuspension issues and the environment is 

20 different than say somebody in TA-4 or TA-55. 

21 
 And that also kind of goes to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 source term issues that I raised at the last 287


2 
 meeting concerning the areas of concern or 

3 
 potential release sites, because I don't feel 

4 
 the model is adequate for those areas, 

5 
 especially when there were some areas where 

6 
 either the radionuclides were not quantified, 

7 
 or they were not even characterized at all. 

8 
 So I don't see how the model could 

9 
 be applied to those when you don't even have 

10 any data to base it on, or correlate it to. 

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, the -- when 

12 
 you say that the model is based on glove box -

13 
 - the bioassays that these are based on for 

14 
 the coworker TIB, are based on all the 

15 
 bioassay samples. They are from people who 

16 
 were in glove boxes, not in glove boxes, and 

17 all of that working with plutonium. 

18 
 So it's not like they weren't 

19 
 exposed to -- potentially particular types of 

20 
 contamination. Also, the amounts that you are 

21 
 talking about from the coworker model and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 intakes are much larger than would be 288
 

2 
 anticipated from someone from resuspension of 

3 
 dust or digging out a drum that has some 

4 
 resuspension material. 

5 
 The relation -- you would not 

6 
 expect that a worker, open field, digging in a 

7 
 ditch is going to get an intake of a material 

8 
 greater than what a worker would be getting 

9 
 working with the material, and like I said, 

10 they are not all glove box workers. 

11 
 So this is all the plutonium. So 

12 
 the number you would be assigned is not going 

13 
 to be a tiny number. It will be a larger 

14 
 number than what would be expected for that 

15 type of activity. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you -- I'm 

17 
 just wondering if it's too much to ask to 

18 
 semi-quantify that. Again, I don't want to say 

19 
 model it, but I mean just do like an estimate, 

20 
 you know, with some information on the firing 

21 
 site, if we did a simple resuspension on this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 level, and it's easily bounded by the -- 289
 

2 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Take a look at --

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I mean I 

4 
 don't disagree with you, but I think we, you 

5 
 know, that would probably --

6 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, but it's not 

8 
 just the firing sites. It's the --

9 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's other areas 

10 


11 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Areas of concern 

12 
 and potential release sites because according 

13 
 to the New Mexican environment department they 

14 
 weren't even -- a lot of them weren't 

15 
 characterized. They either don't know what 

16 
 was in there at all, or they don't know how 

17 
 much was in there and those are concerns in 

18 
 the environment department. 

19 
 So if you don't have the source 

20 
 term, I mean --

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And those people 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 working in those areas wouldn't have been 290


2 
 monitored either. 

3 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes so I don't 

4 
 know if they were monitored or what happened 

5 
 there. I know that the guards were involved 

6 
 in an exercise. I think it was the TA-9 at hot 

7 
 site there, a hot dump. They had them doing 

8 
 you know, an exercise like we do, not physical 

9 
 exercise, but, well, kind of, but you're 

10 
 running, you're prone, you're acting like 

11 
 you're being shot at or whatever, and they 

12 
 found out later it was a hot dump, and in fact 

13 
 we had done -- I had been involved in training 

14 
 exercises in buildings, we were in the 

15 
 building, and then you know, they shut down 

16 
 the training program and said well, no, you 

17 
 guys shouldn't be in there, that's a hot 

18 
 building, we don't know why we let you in 

19 there but we've got to stop training. 

20 
 And that's happened on two 

21 
 occasions and then there was another one where 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 we were training in a building and there was a 291


2 
 beryllium concern which of course doesn't 

3 
 really apply, but still, it's kind of the same 

4 
 problem, along the same lines, as okay, it's 

5 
 an empty building, it's not being used 

6 
 anymore, let's go play, and then we go in 

7 
 there and then oh, after you know, half the 

8 
 guard force or more has been through there, 

9 
 well, we had a problem. 

10 And that's happened. 

11 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You know, well, the 

12 
 thing is, is if you, you know, something can 

13 
 be considered hot alpha-wise if it's greater 

14 
 than 20 dpm per hundred square centimeter, but 

15 that's not going to be a large internal dose. 

16 
 So we, again, the modeling numbers 

17 
 are very high compared to contamination 

18 
 levels, and when people say buildings are hot, 

19 
 that term is bandied about a lot as to how can 

20 
 mean there's any radionuclide present or there 

21 
 is some contamination present, versus people's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 flesh is falling off when they walk into the 292


2 
 building. 

3 
 So I mean you have got that term 

4 
 hot, is not a -- not a good term as far as 

5 
 characterizing the field, and they probably 

6 
 didn't want you in the area because yes, there 

7 
 was contamination in that zone, but not 

8 
 necessarily at a level that would be exceeding 

9 
 what we would give you in that coworker model. 

10 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, I understand, 

11 
 I'm just citing those as examples. Going back 

12 
 to the areas of concern and potential release 

13 
 sites that I mentioned last year, I haven't 

14 
 seen any work done on that at all, and my 

15 
 understanding was it was going to be looked 

16 
 at. Response, you know, comes back to, well, 

17 same as it ever was. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

19 
 I'll leave, I'll leave the action that way, 

20 
 characterize it -- see what you can do about 

21 
 looking at the model of the firing site and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 other release sites, look back at specifics 293


2 
 that Andrew put in the petition, and see if we 

3 
 can look at those numbers, because I -- I 

4 
 mean, you know, it's easy to talk --

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: We've looked at 

6 
 sheets but we haven't documented it to show 

7 
 here's what we have got. So yes, we have to. 

8 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: And the Cerro 

9 
 Grande fire, the White Paper references three 

10 
 air monitors and the one specifically for TA11 
 5, if you look at the report that the White 

12 
 Paper is based on, was not operational for 50 

13 
 percent of the time during the fire that they 

14 
 cited. I think it's number 23. But it's for 

15 
 TA-5. 

16 Additionally the numbers that you 

17 
 guys are using, they are significantly smaller 

18 
 than the sample -- than the air samples. They 

19 
 are like maybe a tenth of what the other 

20 
 samples were. So I'm concerned about the 

21 accuracy of it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 I know that there were issues with 294


2 
 the filters getting clogged and I believe 

3 
 there is going to be a gentleman speaking to 

4 
 this at the Board meeting coming up next month 

5 
 who actually did that sampling, and basically 

6 
 he feels that it was totally inadequate for 

7 
 the monitoring. And I think he's going to 

8 
 address that. I haven't had a chance to talk 

9 
 to him yet but somebody told me about this 

10 
 gentleman and maybe I could meet with him 

11 beforehand or -- he will be at the meeting. 

12 
 So those are my concerns there, is 

13 
 just the quality of the data from the air 

14 
 monitors and that's kind of, you know, the 

15 
 environmental issues and stuff, and the 

16 
 resuspension issue I think is a problem 

17 
 because the air monitors, the majority of them 

18 
 are along the perimeter, especially the north 

19 perimeter of LANL. 

20 
 So if somebody was in a field 

21 
 working and there's a resuspension issue, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 don't think that those are going to adequately 295


2 
 capture what that person could be putting up 

3 
 into the air. 

4 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You're talking about 

5 
 the fire? 

6 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, the fire. 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Don Stewart are you 

8 
 out there? Come in, Don Stewart. No, I guess 

9 
 not. Yes, now, he'd addressed -- there were 

10 
 two papers, a White Paper that was done -- a 

11 
 couple of years before, for 2011, we updated 

12 
 that. There was a new set of data based on 

13 
 2010 survey data from the fire, and Don 

14 
 Stewart redid the calculations using that 

15 
 data, and that is what the model or the 

16 
 calculation that was done with the White 

17 Paper. 

18 
 And that came up to, I forget what 

19 
 the number of millirem, but it was on the 

20 millirem scale. It was not a large --

21 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: It was taking the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 highest dose from those particular monitors 296


2 
 for I think americium and plutonium were two 

3 
 of them and I can't remember the other ones. 

4 
 But yes, it's just my question is, how 

5 
 accurate is it. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, if you --

7 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Power loss issues 

8 
 and the filter clogging issues and stuff. 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: If ,when this 

10 
 person, if you contact this person, if it 

11 
 would be possible to get to the Work Group a -

12 
 - if this person has published something or 

13 has published, what paper has he published --

14 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, he was just 

15 a worker that did the --

16 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Just a worker. 

17 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Handled the 

18 
 filters. He was the one that went around and 

19 pulled out the filters, I believe. 

20 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Or if he has 

21 
 knowledge of particular locations of survey 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 data or something that is giving him his basis 297


2 
 for what he is going to talk about that would 

3 
 be good to see so we can compare what we have 

4 
 got. 

5 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: Those are all my 

6 
 issues or at least that I can deal with. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've just got 

8 
 this paper recently. 

9 
 MR. FITZGERALD: The Cerro Grande 

10 amendment, yes, we have just received it. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean I --

12 
 before Andrew leaves, I would just say let's, 

13 
 let's -- I think we should remind all of 

14 
 ourselves to look back at these issues. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Well some of these 

16 
 of course fold into the earlier issues. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, some 

18 overlap with --

19 
 MR. FITZGERALD: The occupational 

20 environmental --

21 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 that's why he skipped that -- 298
 

2 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Occupational 

4 
 environmental is covered under the other 

5 
 issues. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: What about the LANL 

7 
 to NTS operations? That was --

8 
 MR. FITZGERALD: This is 

9 
 programmatic versus campaign. 

10 
 MR. FITZGERALD: We talked about 

11 
 that relative to exotics that it's tough to 

12 
 track campaign exposures because they come and 

13 go in terms of --

14 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Should we, as far as 

15 
 an action item for Cerro Grande, should we say 

16 
 that -- you might get something or maybe see 

17 what he's got before we -- because --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

19 
 DR. MACIEVIC: What we have got is 

20 
 this information where we have done our 

21 
 calculation. So if you have something new we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 can calculate from or look at -- 299
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well we can't 

3 
 really --

4 
 MR. EVASKOVICH: But I don't know 

5 
 if we'll be able to provide any, you know, 

6 
 numbers or data. 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Or just maybe 

8 
 periods or who did the surveys, that kind of 

9 
 thing, so we can maybe go look up some data. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But, if Andrew 

11 
 can provide that, that's great. I mean we 

12 can't really assign this --

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well now, we can't 

14 assign the task, no --

15 (Laughter.) 

16 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I will say, 

17 
 I think the ball is in SC&A's court to review 

18 
 the last paper that you provided. So that's 

19 an action item --

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Have a good trip. 

21 
 (Whereupon, the meeting went off the record at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 3:00 p.m. and went back on the 300


2 
 record at 3:01 p.m.) 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, do we 

4 
 have anything else on this list? I think Joe, 

5 
 can you just speak to this badge access 

6 
 question before we break? 

7 
 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry, what? 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Before we break 

9 
 up completely this -- the badge access, B 

10 
 under the petitioner issues. I think that was 

11 


12 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I think we 

13 
 actually addressed that. Yes, I think that 

14 
 was addressed. I'm sorry. I probably 

15 
 shouldn't have put that on. That was a 

16 
 question of whether you know, you had to have 

17 
 had a badge in order to be in a particular 

18 
 facility and we went back and forth and I 

19 
 think it was established that no, it wasn't 

20 
 the one for one correlation that the badge 

21 gets you in a particular facility. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Our last meeting we 301
 

2 
 said no further action was required. 

3 
 MR. FITZGERALD: No further action 

4 
 on that one. That should have been left out. 

5 
 I'm sorry. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

7 
 all right. I think that covers it. So it 

8 
 closed out. Yes. I think we're done. Is 

9 
 there anything else -- there are only two 

10 
 things I'll bring up at the end here. One is 

11 -- well we might --

12 MR. KATZ: Roman numeral II. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that is 

14 
 what I'm doing now. I don't know that we are 

15 
 -- it doesn't seem like we are prepared for 

16 
 any recommendations at this point to the Board 

17 
 meeting, even though we are going to be in 

18 their back yard. 

19 
 But I think I'll prepare -- I'm 

20 
 going to prepare, and I'll get Joe's help and 

21 
 stuff to prepare a report from the Work Group 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 just summarizing where we're at, including 302


2 
 some of the -- updating the actions and try to 

3 
 be pretty specific, because I think you know, 

4 
 the -- and rightly so I think we're going to 

5 
 have some questions of where, you know, it's 

6 
 been a year, we haven't heard from you. 

7 
 So I think we owe them a pretty in8 
 depth update and I hope that NIOSH, that Greg, 

9 
 I don't know if you'll travel to that, or 

10 someone will be there to present for NIOSH. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Somebody will be 

12 there and it might be me. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or at least 

14 
 answer questions to the extent I can't answer 

15 them. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be me. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Somebody will. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: So, are you going to 

20 
 start trying to bring the Board up, sort of 

21 educate the Board on --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 303
 

2 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Give some in4 
 depth background on these issues. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: More than just sort of 

6 
 status because --

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Right. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: and keep in mind you 

9 
 have two new --

10 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: More like we did 

11 with the Fernald thing --

12 
 MR. KATZ: We have one new Board 

13 Member that can interact on this one, but --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's right. 

15 
 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be the 

16 template then, sort of the Fernald --

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, more like 

18 
 the Fernald with a more -- a substantial 

19 update, yes. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: So half an hour? How 

21 much time do you want for that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I've got to talk 304
 

2 
 to you about the agenda too, but we are 

3 
 working on the -- I mean, probably --

4 
 MR. KATZ: I need to know times now. 

5 
 That's all, but -- how much time to set 

6 
 aside. 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: At least a half hour. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I would say 

9 
 maybe 45 minutes. 

10 MR. KATZ: Forty-five minutes? 

11 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I think 

12 
 we are probably going to have some 

13 interaction, right? With --

14 MEMBER MUNN: I would expect. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: And questions. 

16 
 MR. FITZGERALD: Forty-five minutes. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We don't have to 

18 really field questions from the public but --

19 
 MR. KATZ: What we'll do is we'll -

20 
 - we'll do this in advance of the public 

21 
 comment session, so that all the -- so that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 folks will be there to hear it. 305
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

3 
 was concerned about. Anyway, 45 minutes is 

4 
 good on the agenda, yes. Okay. And I'll send 

5 
 out this updated matrix and condensed version, 

6 
 which will be a memo with additional actions 

7 
 so that you don't have to look through the 

8 
 whole matrix to find these things. 

9 
 And then I think putting up a new 

10 
 meeting, I think we can wait until the Board 

11 
 meeting to do that, to give us a chance to 

12 have calendars there -- all right. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: I guess --

14 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just to give you 

15 
 guys time to look at these actions and think 

16 
 about by what time are we going to make 

17 significant progress. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: My only hope is it 

19 doesn't take another year. 

20 MR. KATZ: No, it can't do that. 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: The reason for the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 year, I'm going to not believe myself on this 306


2 
 one. This was LANL was very difficult to get 

3 
 -- they had budget problems, manpower 

4 
 problems, whenever they would not have the 

5 
 budget problem, then they wouldn't be able to 

6 
 get manpower to get to watch us at the site, 

7 
 so it took us a good six months just to get in 

8 
 the door, to get the type of things we wanted 

9 
 to get. 

10 So I mean it was not a --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 MR. KATZ: No, we understand about 

13 
 problems that arose, but if you could prepare, 

14 
 Stu, at least, so you have a month basically, 

15 
 a little more than a month, but just so that 

16 
 you guys just have the time frame so that we 

17 can schedule a meeting. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Oh, definitely. 

19 
 Because we are not going to do any data 

20 
 captures or anything like this for this 

21 
 situation, so this is not going to require 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

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

Laboratory (LANL) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the LANL Work Group for accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 

change. 

1 
 waiting on somebody else to -- 307
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Right. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's so 

4 
 ridiculous. I'm still hoping I can make the 

5 
 3:50 --

6 
 MR. KATZ: So we're adjourned. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Meeting 

8 
 adjourned. 

9 
 (Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the meeting 

10 adjourned.) 

11 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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