This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

JULY 8, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time, Phillip Schofield, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

MITCH FINDLEY, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

LARA HUGHES, DCAS

MARK LEWIS, ATL

JENNY LIN, HHS

AMY MELDRUM, SC&A

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

DAVE SUNDIN, DCAS

TIM TAULBEE, DCAS
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

Welcome and Introduction

by Ted Katz,

 Designated Federal Official........... 4

NIOSH Update on SEC Class Definition

by Tim Taulbee, DCAS..................... 6

SC&A Evaluation of the NIOSH SEC Class Definition

by Bob Barton, SC&A..................... 53

More Category Five Information

by Tim Taulbee, DCAS................... 103

SC&A Status Update

by John Stiver, SC&A................... 127

Adjourn

by Phillip Schofield, Chairman......... 169
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:03 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory Board 

4 on Radiation and Worker Health. It's the Idaho 

5 National Lab Work Group. There is, for those who 

6 have Internet access, the agenda for this meeting 

7 is posted on the NIOSH website under the, this 

8 program.

9 It's part of the website under the Board 

10 section for scheduled meetings. This is a 

11 scheduled meeting. If you go to that place, you 

12 will find other materials that are being discussed 

13 today also posted for that meeting date.

14 So you can follow along with some of the 

15 materials. As we've just discussed, for those of 

16 you who have been on the phone, some of the 

17 materials for the meeting today have not been 

18 posted yet.

19 There are some materials that cannot be 

20 cleared to be posted at all because they contain 

21 privacy information that would violate someone's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

5

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 privacy to be shown on the web.

2 Certain materials should have been sent 

3 to the petitioners. Other materials have come in 

4 too late, and I've asked that they be FedExed to 

5 the petitioners.

6 They won't have them for this meeting. 

7 But you can at least review them afterwards, and 

8 it might help you follow along what you hear today. 

9 And we apologize for that for the members of the 

10 public and petitioners.

11 The, let's do, get on with roll call. 

12 I think I have all the Board Members I expect on 

13 the line, and I'm sure I have my various associates, 

14 staff.

15 So we're speaking about a specific 

16 site, so please speak to conflict of interest as 

17 we run down the roster. So let's start with Board 

18 Members, with the Chair. 

19 (Roll call.)

20 MR. KATZ: That takes care of things. 

21 Let me ask. We have quite a cast of people on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

6

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 line, so just reminding everybody, mute your phone 

2 except when you're addressing the group.

3 And if you don't have a mute button, 

4 press *6 to mute and press *6 again to take yourself 

5 off of mute. And don't put the call on hold at any 

6 point because it'll cause trouble for everyone else 

7 listening on the line.

8 And thanks for that. And on to the 

9 Chair. Phil, it's your meeting.

10 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Well, this is also on 

11 Live Meeting for those who don't know.

12 MR. KATZ: Phil, it's on Live Meeting 

13 only for agency people.

14 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Oh, only for agency? 

15 Okay. My apology to everybody. Tim's already got 

16 some slides posted, which unfortunately the public 

17 won't be able to see.

18 But I think we'll go ahead and just 

19 start since he's ready there.

20 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Thanks, Phil. 

21 This is Tim Taulbee. Everybody can see the slides. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

7

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 Is that correct?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, they're up, Tim.

3 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. All right. 

4 Well, back in April when we met on a conference 

5 call, we discussed different things that we would 

6 be doing to evaluate the CPP dosimetry question as 

7 far as from the SEC Class Definition.

8 And we committed to four different 

9 items that NIOSH would follow up on and then SC&A 

10 was going to do their own evaluation, which they've 

11 put out reports in the past week here.

12 So my goal here in this presentation is 

13 to give you an update on the research, the follow-up 

14 research that we've done and walk you through what 

15 we found, from that standpoint.

16 So just a little bit of an overview, I'm 

17 going to go through a little bit of the background 

18 on the dosimetry.

19 And then the four questions were, or the 

20 four follow-up areas were review of the INL claims 

21 in NOCTS, a review of the INL dosimetry for data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

8

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 gaps and then comparison of the health physics 

2 monthly reports versus what we received from the 

3 site from dosimetry records. And then we 

4 committed to review the INL dosimetry procedures.

5 So a little bit of background on the 

6 dosimetry at INL. And you may remember from my 

7 presentation in March at the Advisory Board meeting 

8 that the reason we defined the Class the way we did 

9 was that there was a one badge, one area methodology 

10 such that if a worker was -- routinely worked at 

11 MTR and they went to CPP where we found the 

12 dosimeter construction and feasibility, they left 

13 their MTR badge at the MTR security checkpoint and 

14 picked up a temporary badge when they went to CPP.

15 And so we were defining the Class to be 

16 defined for this SEC to be anyone who was badged 

17 at CPP between January 1, 1963 and December 31, 

18 1974. That was the Class that we had designated 

19 or proposed.

20 And the other thing with this one badge, 

21 one area methodology is visitors picked up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

9

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 temporary badges upon the entrance to CPP. So one 

2 of the things that we talked about that we have just 

3 received, or actually I'm not sure we had received 

4 back in April yet, was the CPP dosimetry reports.

5 Excuse me. And so we had requested 

6 these from the site, and when they came in, we got 

7 them entered into the SRDB and then I sent over to 

8 SC&A a crosswalk of those dosimetry reports and 

9 SRDB numbers.

10 And then during the April data capture, 

11 when we were out there we also found the CPP 

12 temporary badge reports. And these would be 

13 primarily the visitor reports.

14 There's another set of reports that I 

15 thought were part of the CPP main badge reports, 

16 but until we started doing our evaluation and 

17 looking on a month-by-month basis, we realized we 

18 were missing.

19 This discovery really didn't occur 

20 until mid-June on our end due to numerous issues 

21 and limited resources to be evaluating this. So 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

10

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 this is what I'm calling CPP construction, which 

2 is the CX reports.

3 And I've listed those there of 11, 113 

4 and 115. And I believe Bob Barton, in his 

5 presentation, will go into more details on this. 

6 I'm just kind of touching the bases here.

7 Since this finding in June, we 

8 requested these reports from the site, and we have 

9 yet to receive them. But they are aware of it, and 

10 they are working to get us those reports.

11 So I wanted just to refresh everybody's 

12 memory a little bit here. This is an example of 

13 one of the CPP badge reports. You'll see off to 

14 the left here on this particular slide the names 

15 have all been redacted here.

16 But the information that's on there, 

17 you've got the person's name, the film badge, a 

18 contractor code, the period that the badge was 

19 worn. This would be the end date, an area code and 

20 then the reason why this dosimeter was worn.

21 And then the exposure's the beta 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

11

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 exposure and the gamma exposure. And what you can 

2 find, there's a lot of information on here that I 

3 wanted to walk the Work Group Members through, 

4 which you'll see for a contract code, the top one 

5 there, the 089, that corresponds to the contractor, 

6 F.C. Torkelson. 

7 001 corresponds to AEC. 002, which is 

8 the majority of these main badge CPP reports, is 

9 an employee of Phillips Petroleum. And following 

10 on down the page, you'll see more of 089.

11 Then down towards the bottom, 005, this 

12 is actually a Westinghouse employee who works over 

13 at NRF. But these are people who came into CPP and 

14 show up on this main CPP badge report.

15 So the next series of reports is the 

16 temporary badge reports. These would be people 

17 who are not routinely badged in CPP but were going 

18 there for the day or a few days or something along 

19 those lines.

20 And what you'll see here is that this 

21 is kind of the catch-all. The top one there is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

12

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 from, appears to be a news reporter. Then you'll 

2 see the next one that I've highlighted here is the 

3 Phillips Petroleum person.

4 So this would be somebody coming from 

5 another area that left their dosimeter at the other 

6 area and came in and picked up a temporary badge 

7 to go into CPP.

8 How we know this, by the way, is the CPP 

9 temporary badge report is in the upper left corner, 

10 you'll see area, CPP. And this was for 1965.

11 Following down some of the highlighted 

12 areas here, you'll see H.S. Wright. That's a 

13 construction company, construction trades 

14 company, AEC personnel.

15 You'll also see the F.C. Torkelson as 

16 well. And they also have vendors on here. And if 

17 you look down at the bottom one that I've 

18 highlighted here is Coca-Cola.

19 In fact, on the temporary badge, you'll 

20 see the same individual from Coca-Cola routinely 

21 monitored on almost a monthly basis when they came 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

13

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 in to make their deliveries.

2 So the third set, and this is where we 

3 don't have the complete grouping of these reports 

4 yet from the site, is CPP construction, which 

5 you'll see up on the upper left corner that I've 

6 highlighted.

7 But the area is not CPP or not listed 

8 as CPP. It's listed as CX. And for MTR 

9 construction, this would be the reactor site there 

10 near the central center part of the area, their 

11 construction group was MTX.

12 So they had different badge reports for 

13 whether you were construction or whether you were 

14 a regular employee. However, temporary badges 

15 kind of crossed over and did both as best we can 

16 tell from this information.

17 What you'll see on this CX report is the 

18 contractor code is predominantly 007, which is a 

19 H.K. Ferguson. That was the prime construction 

20 contractor.

21 But you'll see other contractor, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

14

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 construction trade contractors. 073 is a 

2 miscellaneous group, and 112 is H.S. Wright again.

3 So these, like you said, these badges 

4 we have not, or these reports we have not received 

5 yet from the site, and in fact, didn't realize that 

6 they were missing until we started to pull some of 

7 our numbers together and actually do a lot of this 

8 crunching.

9 So to kind of summarize the one badge, 

10 one area, a person's dosimetry could appear on 

11 several reports. It could be on all three of these 

12 in fact, the main dosimetry report, a temporary 

13 dosimetry report or a construction CX dosimetry 

14 report.

15 The way DOE defines or identifies these 

16 dosimetry reports is that they have an index, not 

17 by area per se that I've got listed here for CPP, 

18 but by worker.

19 So whenever they get a name from the 

20 Department of Labor, they can type in that person's 

21 social security number or S number and look them 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

15

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 up and they get a listing of all of these various 

2 reports that this person would appear on.

3 And so for a construction trades 

4 worker, for example, they would appear on the CX 

5 dosimetry reports. They could be on the MTX report 

6 if they went to MTR.

7 They could be on one of these main 

8 dosimetry reports if they were doing a lot of work 

9 in that area and they were being badged routinely 

10 from there.

11 And so the site, my last bullet here, 

12 is much better equipped to identify work locations, 

13 especially for construction trades workers than we 

14 are at this time because they are able to pull up 

15 all of this person's dosimetry.

16 And then they can review the codes and 

17 identify the location. So that's just a little bit 

18 of background to bring everybody kind of back to 

19 speed of what it is was one of the main issues that 

20 was raised during the SEC presentation.

21 So now the things that we followed up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

16

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 here on were a review of NOCTS claims. So as of 

2 April 2015, there were 1,753 INL claims. We 

3 reviewed these claims to determine whether 

4 employment was within the proposed SEC period of 

5 January 1, 1963, through December of 1974.

6 There were 872 claims that did not work 

7 during the SEC period, so we set those to the side. 

8 That left us with 881 INL claims with employment 

9 during the SEC period that we wanted to do follow 

10 up review.

11 Well, our review was different than 

12 SC&A's. We reviewed the CATIs, the computer 

13 assisted telephone interviews, the dose 

14 reconstruction report and the DOE file of the 881 

15 INL claims with employment to identify who worked 

16 at CPP.

17 If it was a CATI, it was a self-report. 

18 They worked at CPP if it was a dose reconstruction 

19 report. There might, there should've been records 

20 somehow identifying them.

21 And what we found was there's 320 claims 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that worked at CPP during the SEC period and had 

2 an identifiable CPP badge of some kind, whether it 

3 was regular, temporary, visitor or CX reports.

4 There were 529 claims where we don't 

5 have an indication of work at CPP. However, there 

6 is an issue associated with this, which I'll get 

7 to in the next bullet.

8 The next bullet is 32 claims that we 

9 said we need further follow up. And these are 

10 cases where we believe the person worked at CPP, 

11 but DOE only provided an annual summary.

12 So we don't have the dosimetry reports 

13 in order to verify that they did or didn't. This 

14 kind of gets back to the 529 claims as well because 

15 many, or some of those, are also annual reports, 

16 annual summaries.

17 And we don't have any indication they 

18 work at CPP, but they could have if we looked at 

19 the complete file.

20 So why do we need to do this additional 

21 follow up, or why are we mentioning this? Well, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

18

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 early on in this program, not the SEC part but more 

2 the dose reconstruction part.

3 We were, NIOSH was being criticized 

4 pretty heavily about how fast we were getting dose 

5 reconstructions out and one of the limiting factors 

6 at the time was how fast DOE can respond to provide 

7 us information.

8 And DOE, at the time, was trying to 

9 compile the records, pull everything back as well 

10 as respond to our request so we could do dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 Well, one of the things that we agreed 

13 to with DOE early on for dose reconstruction 

14 purposes was that they only had to provide an annual 

15 summary if the lifetime external dose was less than 

16 500 millirem or greater than 50 rem.

17 This is why you see so many annual 

18 summaries within the INL group is that they've been 

19 following this guidance from NIOSH.

20 How we could do dose reconstruction 

21 this way was with a very low dose. You can make 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

19

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 some maximizing assumptions with regard to missed 

2 dose and so you don't really need each and every 

3 dosimeter reading. And so this is why we 

4 instituted this methodology. Conversely, when 

5 you have a very large dose, we also don't need a 

6 complete dosimetry record in order to process the 

7 claim because they're likely going to be 

8 compensable.

9 So these, but the problem with these 

10 annual summaries, in reviewing NOCTS claims to try 

11 and identify CPP is they do not provide location 

12 information.

13 So they really are not useful for this 

14 purpose. So that's the first problem that we had 

15 and why we need additional follow up.

16 The second one is in regards to the CX 

17 dosimetry printouts. We, DOE didn't send these 

18 with the reports we requested when we requested the 

19 CPP dosimetry records.

20 This was the result of a 

21 miscommunication. I thought they were all coming. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

20

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 Turns out that they weren't. They weren't part of 

2 that group.

3 And sadly, we did not identify this 

4 until literally a couple of weeks ago, that the CXs 

5 were not a part of this. I shouldn't, actually, 

6 some people that were doing the evaluation did 

7 identify that this annual summary issue was a 

8 problem.

9 But as we were going through these 881 

10 claims, it became more apparent probably a couple 

11 weeks earlier there in June that we were missing 

12 a significant amount of these reports.

13 Again, NIOSH has now requested these CX 

14 reports, and I hope to be getting them within the 

15 next few weeks. They haven't -- they've been --

16 the site's been a little non-committal on exactly 

17 when we're going to be able to get them because we 

18 didn't make the request really until last week.

19 Okay. So that's what we did from our 

20 review of the NOCTS claims. Are there any 

21 questions before I go on?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Yeah. This is Phil. 

2 I've got a question for you. A number of people 

3 of people have said that they worked out inside the 

4 perimeter fence or just on either side of it.

5 In some cases, they were on the outer 

6 edge working because occasionally they had hot 

7 spots would appear from material coming loose from 

8 the ventilation pipes.

9 Is there any way you can guarantee those 

10 people were badged? They never went in the 

11 building. They were just doing work outside of the 

12 building but in areas that were still, had some 

13 contamination.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. If you recall, 

15 our infeasibility had to do with plutonium exposure 

16 of people going into the cells or working in the 

17 labs inside the buildings.

18 That was where we find the 

19 infeasibility of people could be going in there and 

20 working and high level alpha exposure of plutonium 

21 where it has been separated from the fission 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

22

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 products.

2 And that was the result of the 

3 infeasibility. So the people on the outer 

4 perimeter, this is where the plutonium would be 

5 tied to the fission products.

6 And that was our current -- that was the 

7 old -- our original method for estimating plutonium 

8 exposure was as a fraction of their mixed fission 

9 product dose.

10 And so that was how we have been doing 

11 dose reconstructions at INL. And what we found 

12 during the SEC evaluation was that breakdown of 

13 user relying on fission product bioassay doesn't 

14 work for people who went into these cells or worked 

15 in these labs where the separation of plutonium and 

16 fission products occurred and it was concentrated.

17 So that's the actual infeasibility. 

18 So the people who were working in these hot spots 

19 on the outside or just inside the fence but not 

20 inside the building, there really isn't an 

21 infeasibility associated with estimating their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

23

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 dose.

2 But to go into the buildings or actually 

3 to go inside the perimeter, before you got in the 

4 buildings, you had to have a dosimeter badge.

5 And from the procedures, from the 

6 interviews and from looking at these reports, and 

7 some of the CX reports we've been able to see, I 

8 feel that going inside the fence, you had to wear 

9 the dosimeter badge and at that point you would be 

10 part of this SEC class that we're proposing. Does 

11 that answer your question, Phil?

12 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Well, I'm a little 

13 concerned here. This kind of goes back to Savannah 

14 River where we had problems about particularly some 

15 of the crafts who did not go into the building.

16 They weren't involved in separations or 

17 anything, but they did work on the outside and, you 

18 know, chain link fence, barb wire fence isn't going 

19 to stop any of the hard particles coming out of the 

20 ventilation.

21 So my concern is for particularly these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

24

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 crafts people, laborers or whatever they were, who 

2 might have been doing work inside the fenced area 

3 or just on the edge of it, in fact. And they would 

4 not have been picked up by a badge. It would not 

5 necessarily show they had a temporary badge because 

6 they were not going into the buildings.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Well, if you were on the 

8 inside of the fence, you had to have a badge. If 

9 you're on the outside of the fence, then you didn't 

10 necessarily have to have a badge.

11 And if you were crossing back and forth, 

12 you had to have a badge because you were coming on 

13 the inside of the fence. But again, the 

14 infeasibility for dose reconstruction was with 

15 regard to plutonium, neptunium, the actinides.

16 That was the infeasibility that we came 

17 up with, so defining this class effectively means 

18 you had to have gone into one of these buildings, 

19 into the main building in order to have been exposed 

20 in the cells or the corridors or the upstairs labs.

21 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. The next area 

2 that we looked at was review of the CPP dosimetry 

3 for gaps. And so I've broken these out into the 

4 three different areas.

5 And for the CPP dosimetry reports, we 

6 have found that there are three missing months, 

7 January 1970, December 1970, and December 1971. 

8 Unfortunately, due to resources and commitments, 

9 we have not gone back to the site yet to request 

10 those months to see if they have them or not.

11 It just, we plan to follow up on that, 

12 but I don't have a report on that. All of the other 

13 months, from 1963 through 1974, we have dosimetry. 

14 We have the dosimetry reports.

15 Temporary badge reports, we've gone 

16 through, and we have them on a month-by-month 

17 basis. None appear to be missing from 1959 to 

18 1976.

19 I do want to put a note here that a 

20 number of, the number of construction trades 

21 appears to be significantly reduced in the 1970s. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

26

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 I am not sure why.

2 But just in looking at the number of 

3 temporary badge reports and the people who were 

4 badged, it seems like there is less of them at that 

5 time.

6 However, they could be showing up more 

7 on the CX dosimetry reports that we haven't 

8 received yet, or there could've been less 

9 construction work going on. I'm not sure.

10 Clearly in the earlier years, prior to 

11 the 1970s, there appears to be a lot of construction 

12 trades on those reports.

13 So, oops, did I go one too far? Yes, 

14 I did. Okay. So that was our review for data 

15 gaps. The next area that we committed to evaluate 

16 was a comparison of the monthly health physics 

17 reports versus the CPP dosimetry printouts.

18 Here we reviewed the monthly reports to 

19 determine how many dosimeters the site reported 

20 were processed versus how many dosimeters we found 

21 in the printouts.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The goal here is if the site indicated 

2 they processed 500 dosimeter badges for CPP in a 

3 month, and we have 500 dosimeter results, then we'd 

4 be fairly sure that we have all of the results.

5 There isn't something missing, even 

6 though, you know, from a month-by-month basis you 

7 might, you know, if you've got dosimetry, it's not 

8 until you really compare against the monthly 

9 reports do you know if you have all of the 

10 dosimetry.

11 So we went through and reviewed this 

12 from 1963 through March 1970, and that'll become 

13 clearer later on in my presentation here. And what 

14 we found was that we have really good agreement on 

15 a month-by-month basis.

16 The example here is August of 1965. 

17 The monthly report indicates 502 people who wore 

18 badges were recorded. Four hundred eighteen were 

19 Phillips Petroleum, and 84 hours for that 

20 particular month.

21 And if you scroll down, the other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

28

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 highlighted area here is CX CPP construction. 

2 There were none Phillips Petroleum because they all 

3 worked for H.K. Ferguson or other construction 

4 companies.

5 And there were 63 badges recorded for 

6 construction for that particular month. What we 

7 found for the CPP area, the top bullet there, the 

8 502, is when we went through and added the dosimeter 

9 printouts for that particular month, we have 509.

10 So it's a difference of plus seven. We 

11 did this on a month-by-month basis and found very 

12 good agreement from this standpoint. For this 

13 particular month, there's slightly more results in 

14 the printouts, more names than what they recorded 

15 in their monthly reports to their higher 

16 management.

17 How could this happen? Well, cut off 

18 dates for dosimetry, late returns, carryovers from 

19 previous months. If you look down here at the 

20 bottom, a lot of these high results are late polls 

21 that occurred, late returns, late polls.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

29

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 So there is some variation within, on 

2 a month-by-month basis, but it's fairly, it's 

3 actually remarkably small from what we found.

4 Well, what we did in order to 

5 graphically present this is we took all these 

6 months and we summed them up on an annual basis and 

7 then compared the dosimeter printouts and summed 

8 them up so that you could see graphically what it 

9 is we're looking at here.

10 So the first year is 1963, '64, '65, 

11 '66. Then you see a big drop in 1967. This was 

12 the introduction of TLD dosimetry at INL. And with 

13 the TLDs, instead of doing a monthly exchange of 

14 a film badge, they went to a quarterly exchange.

15 So people who were not highly exposed, 

16 people who were thought to be a low probability of 

17 exposure were moved over to the TLD dosimeter. And 

18 what you see is the number of TLD dosimeters that's 

19 left.

20 But if you were take those, multiply by 

21 four, that would then be kind of the equivalent of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

30

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 what would be the number of badges that would've 

2 been issued had they not gone through this 

3 quarterly badge exchange for the TLDs.

4 So you can see that numbers are actually 

5 fairly consistent through the years here. 1970 is 

6 so low because we only evaluated the first three 

7 months.

8 So this is the main area. This is the 

9 main dosimetry printout. Unfortunately, I don't 

10 have a comparison for the temporary badges.

11 There isn't a monthly result that talks 

12 about the number of temporary badges for just CPP 

13 that we have that is consistent across the years 

14 that we can, you know, compare those two.

15 We simply have this large set of 

16 temporary badges where we went through, and we do 

17 have readings in every month between '59 and '76. 

18 So I really can't do a validation or comparison on 

19 those temp badges.

20 CPP construction or the CX area, this 

21 is the monthly data. When we get those CX 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

31

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 dosimetry reports from the site, then we can do that 

2 comparison just like the previous one to see if 

3 we've got all of those CX, see how those CX 

4 printouts match with the monthly reports.

5 But that hasn't been done yet because 

6 we haven't received those reports. So the last 

7 area, oh okay. Before I go on, are there any 

8 questions so far?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Tim, Joe 

10 Fitzgerald. Your comment, you just said that you 

11 didn't really have any way to compare or complete, 

12 you said, the temporary badges. I was just curious 

13 though.

14 There's a conclusion earlier that said 

15 the temporary badges appeared to be, let me see the 

16 exact wording.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: They appear to be --

18 (Simultaneous speaking)

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, and it's purely 

20 based upon, we went through and looked at, you know, 

21 every year. Do we have January, February, March, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

32

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 April, May, June, July, August, September, 

2 October, November, December.

3 And we have temporary badges for every 

4 month within a year. And that was all that we could 

5 really do. Now we could go through and tally them 

6 all look at that.

7 I'm not sure that that tells us 

8 anything, but we didn't have any other independent 

9 source that we could say this number of temporary 

10 badges was issued. And we have X number of 

11 temporary badge results that are names for that 

12 particular area.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: So I guess the 

14 question would be, and this becomes more of a 

15 procedure, what procedures were in place and how 

16 they were enforced as to the rigor that those 

17 reports were maintained and retained as records, 

18 that kind of thing.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Correct. Now I did say 

20 that there isn't any. I misspoke there when I said 

21 there isn't any monthly reports. There is a few 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

33

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 spot years where they do call out the number of 

2 temporary badges issued by the area.

3 But it's by no means complete from that 

4 standpoint. I can think of two years right now, 

5 I believe '67 and '69, where we have some of that 

6 information.

7 But I'm actually not sure of the other 

8 years as to whether it's complete, that we could 

9 even compare something. I know it's not for every 

10 year. That's just not in the monthly reports.

11 But from the, but for a few years, the 

12 report style changed a little bit. And it did note 

13 the number of temporary badges. Does that answer 

14 your question, Jim?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I just wanted to 

16 clarify that. Thanks.

17 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. The last area 

18 that we committed to review back in April was to 

19 review the INL dosimetry procedures. And as 

20 you'll see from this particular presentation, I 

21 really wished that we had had time in order to do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

34

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 this before I made my presentation back in March.

2 Actually, I wish we would've had the 

3 time to do this February and had all of the data 

4 in order to do, and do the follow up that was 

5 necessary.

6 Again, the one badge, one area 

7 methodology was if a worker routinely worked in one 

8 area, MTR for example, went to CPP, they left their 

9 area badge, their MTR badge, at MTR and picked up 

10 a temporary badge or some people even had permanent 

11 badges, dual permanent badges, one at MTR, one at 

12 CPP.

13 Well, what we found in our further 

14 research is that in October of 1969, the site began 

15 to explore methods to reduce the number of 

16 temporary badges being assigned.

17 They were concerned about the cost of 

18 doing this, and they wanted to reduce their 

19 dosimetry costs. And so they started looking at 

20 how many people were picking up temporary badges 

21 and what that cost was.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

35

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 Well, in December of '69, INL conducted 

2 a thorough evaluation of the number of regular 

3 badges, the number of temporary badges for each of 

4 the areas and by occupation.

5 And so they broke it out by operations, 

6 by trades, pipefitters, welders, laborers, 

7 chemists, operators, health and safety. And this 

8 is all in SRDB document 143334 and starting on page 

9 28.

10 It's a very extensive report, and what 

11 came out of this report was the recommendation to 

12 issue a single dosimeter badge that employees could 

13 wear in all areas instead of getting a new temporary 

14 badge for each area every time they went in.

15 And so they decided to investigate to 

16 implement this type of methodology. Well, the 

17 dosimetry services who came up with this 

18 methodology, they had to get concurrence across 

19 multiple organizations, including security, as to 

20 whether or not they could do this and whether the 

21 other groups would support this new methodology.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

36

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 Well, the other groups did concur. And 

2 this was implemented in March of 1970. And what 

3 you'll see on this particular slide is in March 

4 1970, the area exchange badge was discontinued, and 

5 the security device personnel entering a security 

6 area had to show both a security pass and a 

7 dosimeter badge.

8 So going into CPP before the badge was 

9 combined with your security device, so you couldn't 

10 go into the fenced area without your security 

11 device as well as your dosimeter.

12 And here, they separated the security 

13 pass from the dosimeter so that people could wear 

14 a dosimeter from another area into the area.

15 The next one down is ANC and ID 

16 personnel, that would be DOE, AEC ID personnel, 

17 were issued one security/dosimeter badge that 

18 could worn in the ANC area.

19 This would be test reactor area, CPP, 

20 technical support facilities and the power burst 

21 facility.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

37

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 MR. KATZ: Tim, can I just interrupt a 

2 sec? This is Ted. I just wanted to let, in case 

3 we have any petitioners that are on the line or 

4 members of the public who are trying to follow 

5 along, this presentation was just posted and is 

6 live now on the NIOSH website.

7 So if you go to the NIOSH website, you 

8 know where that is, then go to the Board section, 

9 schedule of meetings, today's date, you can pull 

10 up this presentation, which is the NIOSH 

11 presentation versus the SC&A presentations.

12 And Tim, you could just say what, for 

13 the record, what -- where you are in the 

14 presentation, what page.

15 DR. TAULBEE: I am on slide number 17.

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Okay. Sorry 

17 for the interruption.

18 DR. TAULBEE: No problem. So this is 

19 a change from the one badge, one area methodology 

20 that occurred in March of 1970 because now, instead 

21 of having to leave your badge at MTR or test reactor 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

38

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 area, you could carry your test reactor area badge 

2 into CPP.

3 And so at this point, our SEC class 

4 definition isn't correct because you could 

5 physically go into CPP, and you would not show up 

6 necessarily on one of the CPP rosters, starting in 

7 March of 1970.

8 Now, from a functional standpoint, is 

9 it possible, or is it probable I should say, that 

10 somebody went into CPP for 250 days, kind of 

11 continuous exposure?

12 Probably not, but there's no way I can, 

13 that we could ever discount that possibility, 

14 especially some of these chemists that were doing 

15 work at both TRA and CPP.

16 They very well could have been badged, 

17 I guess, well at either place, TRA if they were the 

18 hot cells. And they could have routinely gone into 

19 CPP.

20 So for this reason, we're recommending 

21 a change here. But what you'll see here in the last 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

39

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 highlight that I have on this page is that December 

2 of 1974, the dosimetry badge system was returned 

3 to one badge, one area.

4 So for a four year, nine month period, 

5 the site made this dosimetry change and then went 

6 back to how they had done things in the past.

7 And so when we found this and we were 

8 really starting to dig into this, we wanted to 

9 verify that this was, in fact, the case, that that 

10 meaning and the procedures was allowing people to 

11 do this.

12 And we found in the dosimetry 

13 correspondence files on the manager, dosimetry 

14 manager, Ms. Stanger, on a monthly basis in the 

15 1970, '71, '72 time period, wrote dozens of memos 

16 per month like the one that I'm displaying here on 

17 slide 18. And this is addressed. I've redacted 

18 the name of the person, but this is somebody who 

19 works out at the Central Facilities area. And let 

20 me read this particular memo to everyone.

21 "The purpose of the new badge 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

40

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 procedure, which permits access to any INC 

2 controlled area, was initiated to reduce costs by 

3 eliminating the number of temporary film badge 

4 issuances. You entered CPP on temporary film July 

5 7th and July 22nd and Test Reactor Area on temporary 

6 film July 31st. Please remember to carry your 

7 permanent dosimeter badge with you when you go from 

8 area to area. Your compliance with this procedure 

9 will be appreciated."

10 So, this is kind of a reminder memo that 

11 she was sending out to people who went to different 

12 areas who forgot their permanent badge at their 

13 desk or in the other area -- their desk if they were 

14 CFA and didn't routinely wear it -- and reminding 

15 them that you don't have to do a temporary badge. 

16 You can wear your permanent badge. 

17 Now, what's important to note here from 

18 this particular memo, is this individual picked up 

19 a temporary badge to go into the area because you 

20 had to have a badge to go in. You couldn't not wear 

21 a dosimeter badge. He left his at Central 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

41

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 Facilities area, but he still had to have a badge. 

2 So he had to get a temporary film to go in. But 

3 if he'd remembered to bring his permanent film 

4 badge, he could have gone in the CPP and left CPP 

5 and we would not have a record of that during this 

6 time period of March 1970 through December of '74.

7 So, these memos are consistent with our 

8 worker interviews. Over the past summer and then 

9 in November of last year, we conducted 60-plus 

10 interviews that indicated -- we asked every single 

11 person that we interviewed, "Did you have to wear 

12 a dosimeter film badge for entry into the 

13 radiological areas, including CPP?"

14 And the resounding answer was yes. 

15 They had to. It wasn't an optional type of aspect 

16 to the procedures. This is what the procedures 

17 indicate as well, that you've got to wear a 

18 dosimeter or film badge for entry into the 

19 radiological areas.

20 So, I'm very confident that you had to 

21 wear a dosimeter going into the areas, especially 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

42

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 CPP. However, due to this procedural change, for 

2 a nearly five-year time period in the early 1970s, 

3 a dosimeter issued in another area was allowed to 

4 be worn in CPP.

5 It's interesting to note that this also 

6 corresponds with the general decrease in 

7 radiological control practices that we observed at 

8 CPP that led to the recommendation to add the SEC.

9 As you recall, when I was giving my 

10 presentation in March, the radiological 

11 contamination surveys got significantly worse 

12 through the 1960s. And then by the 1970s, they 

13 were completely shoe cover area, smock 

14 change-outs, you had to be wearing PPE to go into 

15 these areas, they were so contaminated. And 

16 that's when they got into trouble with people 

17 working in the areas without appropriate 

18 respiratory protection and getting the intakes 

19 that were undocumented.

20 This is why we recommended an SEC. We 

21 set the cut date because in October of 1974 is when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the radiological protection upgrade program or 

2 Evaluation Report and recommended programmatic 

3 changes to get control of the area again was 

4 published in October of '74.

5 And we felt that by December of '74, it 

6 probably wasn't getting better by that time. And 

7 so we cut it off at that point in time and are 

8 planning to pursue continuing the SEC under an 

9 83.14 when we evaluate 1975 and later.

10 This dosimetry procedure change 

11 occurred right in the same time period with that 

12 programmatic report. They went back to the one 

13 badge/one area in order to, in my mind, get better 

14 control of where the exposures are occurring and 

15 who's receiving those exposures.

16 So, as a result of this finding 

17 following this review of the INL dosimetry 

18 procedures, we are recommending revising the SEC 

19 class definition.

20 And the revisions here are in red on 

21 this particular slide. And so let me read this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

44

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 here. Our revision is that "all employees of the 

2 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, 

3 and their contractors and subcontractors who 

4 worked at Idaho National Laboratory in Scoville, 

5 Idaho, and were monitored for external radiation 

6 at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) (e.g., 

7 at least one film badge or TLD dosimeter from CPP) 

8 between January 1, 1963 and February 28, 1970 or 

9 who were monitored for external radiation at INL 

10 (e.g., at least one film badge or TLD dosimeter) 

11 between March 1, 1970 and December 31, 1974, for 

12 a number of workdays aggregating at least 250 work 

13 days."

14 So, what we've done is we've taken this 

15 time period from March 1, 1970 through December of 

16 1974 and said anybody who was badged onsite could 

17 have gone into CPP, worn that dosimeter, whether 

18 they were badged at CFA, the Burial Grounds, Test 

19 Area North, Test Reactor Area, wherever they were 

20 badged, they could have gone into CPP, potentially 

21 made it into the buildings and to the corridors and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

45

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 been exposed to the plutonium that was in there and 

2 potentially received an intake such that we can't 

3 reconstruct their dose with sufficient accuracy.

4 And so this is the revised Class Definition. 

5 Now, what we are currently working to 

6 do is to revise the ER. There will be a Rev. 1 

7 coming out hopefully very soon with this revised 

8 Class Definition, with some of the information that 

9 I just presented to you explaining why we are 

10 defining the Class this way and expanding it to 

11 everyone who is monitored onsite from March 1970 

12 through December of '74.

13 So, with that, I'll be happy to answer 

14 any questions that you have.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Tim, this is Josie. I 

16 have a quick question. Did you ever hear of INL 

17 having any escorts? I know here at Hanford they 

18 have hired escorts to escort people for various 

19 reasons. They could escort up to five or six 

20 people at a time. In our interviews, I haven't 

21 heard of it, but we've never asked that question. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

46

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 Did you see any evidence of that?

2 DR. TAULBEE: I have not, but you're 

3 right. That is a good question that we should ask, 

4 especially during this particular time period.

5 Based upon what I've seen, from a 

6 security standpoint, I would imagine people like 

7 the Coke vendor would have been escorted. But they 

8 would also have been badged. So, I'm not aware 

9 that they ever did any group badging from an escort 

10 purpose. And I believe we have actually asked that 

11 question at some point.

12 I'm not sure it's been in the recent 

13 interviews, but we did ask was there ever any group 

14 badging. And the group badging that occurred, 

15 occurred for tours at a later time period when they 

16 -- in fact, when I toured out there several years 

17 ago, they did a group badge from that standpoint.

18 But during this time period, I don't 

19 believe that they did that. But that is a question 

20 that we can ask during interviews. Certainly.

21 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. Kind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

47

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 of following up on what Josie just said, procedure 

2 was pretty much the same at LANL. Quite often you 

3 would have a small contractor who maybe had a two-, 

4 three-day job or something. And none of these 

5 people are cleared, so they had to have someone to 

6 escort these people to go get something to eat, go 

7 to the bathroom, sit there with them.

8 There again it goes back to some of 

9 these little craft-type jobs that I don't know if 

10 there is any evidence of that. But if there is, 

11 it would be great if you could find anything 

12 addressing that issue.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Given the large 

14 number of crafts that we see having been monitored, 

15 especially on the CX dosimetry, for CPP, it seems 

16 to me that the crafts would have been monitored.

17 Honestly, I can't see others not being 

18 monitored. You came in through the main gate, and 

19 you're issued a dosimeter. I mean, when you go 

20 through those temporary badge reports, there's 

21 university people on there. There's all kinds of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

48

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 different people. Like I said, the news reporter 

2 was monitored. Clearly, he would have been 

3 escorted. He wouldn't have been given free reign 

4 within the CPP boundary, from that standpoint.

5 So, we've got to be able to distinguish 

6 between he was still monitored. So, if there's 250 

7 days, if he was onsite, he's got a dosimeter badge 

8 at CPP, he would be part of this SEC Class by our 

9 definition. So, I just don't see where they 

10 would've allowed somebody to go in and not be 

11 badged. We have no evidence of that yet. But we 

12 can certainly ask the question to try and follow 

13 up, did it ever occur?

14 MR. KATZ: Tim, just for the record, 

15 this is Ted. But a reporter working for another 

16 employer wouldn't be part of the Class no matter 

17 how many days he reported.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, okay. You're right, 

19 Ted. Bad example on my part. What I was trying 

20 to get at was they were badging so many visitors 

21 and other people, and many of these visitors I just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

49

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 don't see them having free reign of the access 

2 corridors without somebody watching them or taking 

3 them around, especially with all of the fuels and 

4 the enriched uranium that they were processing at 

5 CPP. I mean, this was a special nuclear material. 

6 And so it was very important that they kept control 

7 of the areas from a securities standpoint as well. 

8 So, anyway. Other questions?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Tim, this is Gen. 

10 My phone went dead, and I had to go get another one. 

11 So I missed quite a bit here after you finished your 

12 talk, but I do have one question. After listening 

13 to your talk and being familiar with the site and 

14 so on, I understand what it means, the changes that 

15 you're introducing into the proposed Class. But 

16 I'm wondering, have you tried to explain this to 

17 a member of the public or a claimant? It's pretty 

18 complicated.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, it is. And in fact, 

20 this was difficult for us to identify, as well. 

21 And, no, we have not tried to explain this yet. I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

50

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 presuming I'm going to be getting the opportunity 

2 to try and explain this when we go to Idaho at the 

3 end of the month, you know, how this occurs. And 

4 I definitely have my work cut out for me on that, 

5 to try and make this a little more understandable.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Tim, this is Joe 

7 again. Is there definitional clarity between, you 

8 know, the category of temporary badges versus CX 

9 badges? It almost seems like there's a bit of 

10 overlap in terms of construction, the construction 

11 category.

12 DR. TAULBEE: There absolutely is 

13 overlap between the two categories. And the 

14 overlap is the result of the CX, from the best that 

15 I can determine, were routine construction folks. 

16 Maybe they were doing a job that was going to last 

17 two to three months, so they would put on a routine 

18 type of roster. And so they were on the CX area, 

19 whereas if it was somebody coming out of, say, the 

20 union hall for a day or two, they weren't put on 

21 the roster. They were given a temporary badge for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

51

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 those few days that they were working. 

2 That seems to be the delineation that 

3 I see. And if I go back up here to the slide where 

4 the temporary badge report is. Give me just a 

5 second. This would be slide number 5. If you go 

6 up there, what you'll see on these, especially the 

7 Torkelson badge that you see down through there, 

8 the badge was used for one day. 

9 And then if you look down, there's a 

10 Phillips badge there. This one is actually could 

11 be interpreted one of two ways: from an entire week 

12 period or it was just two days. But I actually 

13 think it was a full week period from 10/28 through 

14 11/5 type of scenario that that person wore that 

15 badge.

16 This would be not a construction trades 

17 worker but somebody from another area, Test Reactor 

18 Area, Test Area North, something like that, that 

19 came to CPP and they were there for a week. And 

20 so they got a badge while they were down there for 

21 that week. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

52

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 So, you're absolutely right. There is 

2 a significant overlap. You see H.S. Wright here 

3 below where I've highlighted the Coca-Cola guy as 

4 another construction trades. And if you go 

5 through the CX reports, you'll see H.S. Wright on 

6 those reports. And that's on slide number 6. 

7 You'll see that is code 112.

8 So, it really appears to depend upon how 

9 long they were going to be involved with whatever 

10 construction project or renovation that was being 

11 done at CPP.

12 So, I guess when you look at my slide 

13 7 there, what I'm trying to indicate here is that 

14 a person, an individual's dosimetry could appear 

15 on one of several reports or on all of them. They 

16 could literally have a badge on the main report as 

17 well as a temporary or the CX construction. On the 

18 main reports, if you recall, there were some 

19 Torkelson folks there on that one.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Did DOE somehow 

21 integrate this to come up with any of the electronic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

53

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 dose reports?

2 DR. TAULBEE: See, what DOE did back 

3 when this whole program started is they went 

4 through every single page of all of these dose 

5 reports, whether it was CPP, TRA, Test Area North, 

6 MTX for MTR construction, CX for CPP construction.

7 And they went through and indexed a 

8 person's name and put it into a database, that this 

9 person appears on, in this file that was scanned, 

10 on page 28. And so when they get a claim now, they 

11 get a printout of every report, radiological 

12 report, that person's name appears on. And that's 

13 what they send to us. So from the standpoint of 

14 compiling everything, they did it on an individual 

15 basis.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Unlike other sites, 

17 there is really not an electronic database so much 

18 as a process of querying.

19 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Other questions? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

54

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 Okay. That's all that I have, then. 

2 Thank you for your attention. And Phil, back to 

3 you.

4 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Do we got Bob on the 

5 line now? Bob Barton?

6 MR. BARTON: Yes, Phil, I'm here. Can 

7 everybody hear me okay?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can hear you, Bob.

9 MR. BARTON: Okay. I've been having 

10 kind of periodic problems throughout the morning, 

11 so if during the presentation or anything I get 

12 choppy or anything, let me know, and I can probably 

13 try getting in on another line. So, just let me 

14 know if that happens.

15 DR. TAULBEE: Bob, before you get 

16 started. I'm sorry, this is Tim. How do I close 

17 out my presentation here?

18 MR. KATZ: Tim, you can take it off, but 

19 in any event, when Bob shares his presentation, it 

20 will supplant yours.

21 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

55

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 MR. KATZ: You're welcome.

2 MR. BARTON: Okay. Can people see my 

3 presentation on Live Meeting?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bob. You may want to 

5 shrink it a little bit. It's huge, but it works. 

6 It's on there.

7 MR. BARTON: Let's see here. Does 

8 that make it any better?

9 MR. KATZ: I think that made it bigger.

10 MR. BARTON: Bigger? Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: If that's showing the whole 

12 -- that's better. I think that's easier for 

13 people.

14 MR. BARTON: That's better? Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, Bob.

16 MR. BARTON: No problem. Alright, 

17 before I get started, just a quick note. This 

18 entire study really was a claimant-based study. 

19 So, it involves pretty much entirely Privacy Act 

20 information. Now, the presentation I'm about to 

21 give is Privacy Act-cleared. I think it will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

56

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 become apparent why. 

2 And I also do give some examples, 

3 illustrative examples in here that Board Members 

4 or NIOSH or anyone might have questions, specific 

5 questions about. But it's going to be very 

6 difficult to answer questions about specific 

7 aspects of these individual claims. 

8 What we can certainly do is, when we're 

9 looking at an example, I can point you to the 

10 section in our report where the other information 

11 that is not Privacy Act-cleared is contained. And 

12 hopefully that will clear up any questions that 

13 arise. But, again, we obviously try to be careful 

14 about when we're asking questions or discussing, 

15 especially specific aspects of the report, to keep 

16 it within Privacy Act bounds.

17 MR. KATZ: And this is Ted. Sorry to 

18 interrupt again, but for any petitioners that are 

19 on the line, this presentation is on the NIOSH 

20 website under the Board section and today's date. 

21 So you can follow along with the public version of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

57

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 this. Okay. Go ahead, Bob.

2 MR. BARTON: Alright. Thank you, Ted. 

3 Alright, so, a lot of these presentation slides are 

4 going to have some overlap with what Tim just 

5 presented. So we might be able to go rather 

6 quickly through it. But just to give some quick 

7 background, the initial petition Evaluation Repot 

8 was released on March 12th. And NIOSH presented 

9 that to the Advisory Board on March 26th. 

10 And that is when SC&A was tasked with 

11 evaluating what was then the proposed Class, with 

12 a focus really on the dosimetry aspect of it, the 

13 requirement to have one dosimetry record 

14 associated with the Chemical Processing Plant to 

15 be considered to be included in the CPP SEC. And 

16 so we released our report on June 29th, and this 

17 presentation reflects what was in that report.

18 The previous proposed Class Definition 

19 was -- really the only change between this and what 

20 was in Tim's presentation is that for the entire 

21 period from 1963 through December of 1974, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

58

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 dosimetry results had to be directly related to 

2 CPP, whereas now it's sort of split into two periods 

3 where one period it's required to be associated 

4 with CPP, and for the latter period it's required 

5 to be an INL dosimeter.

6 The rationale for the original SEC 

7 Class, and we can just quickly go through this, but 

8 it was that the contamination control program was 

9 pretty much determined to be ineffective. The 

10 bioassay program, at least as it was related 

11 directly to transuranics, alpha emitters, was 

12 really incident-based. It wasn't really 

13 determined to be covering everybody. The in vivo 

14 program really was probably not designed to get 

15 these chronic alpha and beta internal exposures.

16 And while there's certainly indication 

17 that there was air monitoring that was going on, 

18 you know, the operation of continuous air monitors, 

19 I guess the availability of that data was pretty 

20 sparse. So, that couldn't be used either.

21 And this quote here is taken directly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

59

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 out of the SEC ER. And it says, "The potential for 

2 exposures to transuranics that had been separated 

3 from the mixed fission products makes it unlikely 

4 that exposures to alpha emitters can be 

5 reconstructed from January 1963 through December 

6 1974."

7 So, the way SC&A approached this 

8 investigation was sort of two-fold. The first 

9 thing was to really dive into those interviews with 

10 former workers and just see what they say about the 

11 dosimetry requirements for entering any of these 

12 radiological areas. Obviously, it's specially 

13 associated with the Chemical Processing Plant. 

14 And the second aspect, which is really 

15 the focus of this presentation, was we were going 

16 to go evaluate actual claimant records to get a 

17 handle on how the dosimetry program kind of worked, 

18 but especially in the context of what -- this says 

19 current Class Definition, but this would have been 

20 the first Class Definition, not the one just 

21 discussed this morning -- but to review claimant 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

60

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 records and put them in the context of the 

2 administration of the SEC as it was currently 

3 defined.

4 So, just a quick slide about the 

5 interviews. I guess there were 50 sets of 

6 interview summaries. These interviews were done 

7 by the Board, NIOSH, and SC&A in June, September, 

8 and November of 2014.

9 I guess at the time the original report 

10 was issued, not all the worker interview summaries 

11 were finalized. But what summaries were available 

12 affirmed what we referred to as the universal 

13 badging of any personnel entering a radiological 

14 area at CPP.

15 And based on those worker interviews, 

16 there were two just general recommendations: to 

17 continue with future interviews as focused on those 

18 badging policies. And as was just discussed, was 

19 there a possibility for escorts or something along 

20 those lines?

21 And the second part was, as I said, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

61

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 guess not all of the interviews at that time, or 

2 interview summaries rather, were available. So, 

3 obviously, we want to take a look at those as they 

4 become available.

5 And I guess if Steve also is on the line, 

6 you have been the one that really kind of dove into 

7 those worker interviews. I don't know if you want 

8 to add anything before I move on to the claimant 

9 analysis.

10 DR. OSTROW: No. I think this slide 

11 has it all. This is Steve.

12 MR. BARTON: All right. Very good. 

13 Okay. So the, on to the claimant evaluation. 

14 Basically three main goals. The first was just to 

15 really get a handle on the external dosimetry 

16 program. Get an idea of the completeness of 

17 records among different job types, different 

18 employers and sort of a cursory look at the 

19 completeness of it.

20 How often would you see what would be 

21 considered a gap in an individual worker's records? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And when you saw those gaps, this is sort of item 

2 number 2, why might those gaps exist?

3 And this is sort of the classic coworker 

4 modeling question. When you have what appears to 

5 be an unmonitored worker, it could be that I'm not 

6 monitored because they weren't likely to be 

7 exposed. They're not monitored but likely should 

8 have been, and that's really the whole reason we 

9 have coworker models at these different sites.

10 But at this site specifically, there is 

11 also the distinct possibility that they just moved 

12 to another location within the INL boundaries, but 

13 not necessarily in a covered area at INL.

14 And there were two main ones. There's 

15 the Argonne location, which again, these are inside 

16 the boundary of INL. But Argonne is currently 

17 considered almost a separate site. And the second 

18 location was the Naval Research Facility, NRF, 

19 which is not covered under the program.

20 So the third goal was to, and this is 

21 really where the rubber meets the road, is evaluate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if the Class Definition was going to capture all 

2 relevant workers, or if there's a possibility that, 

3 quite by accident, there might be a worker who was 

4 left out for any number of reasons.

5 Either, maybe the record of monitoring 

6 at CPP was unavailable. Maybe they weren't in fact 

7 monitored but should have been. So that's really, 

8 the focus is the Class Definition as it stood, was 

9 there the potential to miss anybody?

10 So moving on. This slide discusses our 

11 approach. We wanted to look at a subset of 

12 claimants, and the relevant records that are 

13 contained and they're NOCTS-filed.

14 NOCTS stands for the NIOSH OCAS Claims 

15 Tracking System. And there's a couple of 

16 different, useful resources in there. The first 

17 is obviously going to be their monitoring records, 

18 which come from DOE.

19 But there's also surprisingly some 

20 useful information in the Department of Labor 

21 files. And this is sort of how the Department of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

64

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 Labor determines covered employment.

2 So a lot of times there's useful 

3 information about who the claimant actually worked 

4 for and sometimes information about the area, but 

5 also statements made by the claimant in the initial 

6 applications and forms about the type of work they 

7 did, the areas they were in, sometimes incidents 

8 they were involved in.

9 So there is often very useful 

10 information in those DOL files as well. And of 

11 course we have the CATI reports, the 

12 Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews, which can 

13 provide useful information.

14 One drawback is that these interviews 

15 are not always available with the primary worker. 

16 A lot of times they were only available with the 

17 surviving claimant. And so sometimes the 

18 information is really limited as to what the 

19 original worker did or where they worked. And the 

20 other often-frustrating thing is you might have a 

21 worker that was at INL for their entire career.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And they stated all the locations they 

2 worked, but we have no way to tie in those work 

3 locations to any specific time period. So while 

4 you may have a claimant that says, I was at the 

5 chemical processing plant in Test Area North and 

6 everywhere else, that could've been in the '50s. 

7 It could've been during what is considered the SEC 

8 period now, or it could have been after. So while 

9 it's useful to know that they were at CPP, it's 

10 difficult to put that into focus as to whether they 

11 were actually there during the SEC period.

12 So a little bit more about our approach. 

13 We really used an iterative process of selecting 

14 the claimants. This was not a random selection of 

15 claimants.

16 We were not looking to show a 

17 representative cross-section of the claimant 

18 population. Essentially what we did is we cast a

19 rather wide net to start with to capture a good 

20 number of different job titles.

21 And from there we sort of started 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

66

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 narrowing it down into the areas we felt could 

2 potentially be problematic from an administration 

3 standpoint for the SEC.

4 So on this next slide, you'll see a 

5 little bit more about that. So the initial group, 

6 again like I said, we cast a pretty wide net just 

7 to get some different job types.

8 And you can see they're listed here. 

9 You have security guards, operators, construction, 

10 firemen, pretty much, pretty good, in that sense 

11 it's a good cross-section. But that was only sort 

12 of the first cut.

13 Based on that initial assessment, we 

14 found that we should probably be focusing on the 

15 subcontract workers who had intermittent 

16 employment.

17 And the basic reason for that is when 

18 we started looking at the monitoring records for 

19 these workers, it generally had what could be 

20 considered a gap in their monitoring records.

21 In other words, they had covered 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

67

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 employment at INL, but simply no dosimetry 

2 contained in their NOCTS records. So in total we 

3 have about 30 claims that we kind of dug deep on, 

4 and that includes the initial group of claimants 

5 and the focus group for the intermittent 

6 subcontract rates. And here just a breakdown of 

7 the job titles, kind of reinforcing how we did kind 

8 of zero in on certain job types.

9 As you can see, 10 of the 30, so a third 

10 fell into the laborer or construction category. 

11 But even beyond that, the next highest job title 

12 is pipefitter and welder, so you have a lot of 

13 different trades that we looked at along with the 

14 generic job titles that we did in the first crack 

15 at it.

16 Okay. So what work location do we have 

17 to be able to use in this type of assessment? 

18 Obviously, the first thing is going to be the 

19 routine monitoring, the area dosimetry cycle 

20 reports.

21 Kim showed one example. We can quickly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

68

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 look at another one in a slide or two. These 

2 contain very useful information including the 

3 contractor codes.

4 You know who they work for and an area 

5 code where they were assigned. You have the 

6 temporary or visitor badges. Again, those were 

7 sort of just discussed, and I'll try to go quickly 

8 over those slides.

9 You have internal monitoring, which any 

10 sort of urinalysis or in vivo results almost 

11 universally would contain the area worked, along 

12 with the result of the internal monitoring.

13 Incident reports, these are very few 

14 and far between. Really, I don't think we saw any 

15 radiological reports necessarily that were related 

16 to CPP.

17 But interestingly, some just generic 

18 medical reports of workplace injuries would 

19 contain information on a work location. So you can 

20 use that as part of the evaluation as well.

21 And as I just discussed, you had the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

69

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 CATI plus other interview statements that may have 

2 occurred in the Department of Labor files. Again, 

3 those are sometimes problematic in that we can't 

4 match them up to specific periods but just another 

5 piece of the puzzle that we have to try to put this 

6 thing together.

7 And then you have the location file 

8 card. And these are very useful, in my opinion. 

9 And we'll see an example of that, but essentially 

10 it's a situation where it's not a dosimetry record 

11 per se, but it does show where the worker was 

12 assigned.

13 It gives us the period that the worker 

14 was assigned there and the location obviously, and 

15 also in many cases, the employer.

16 The last one here is the master security 

17 file card, so we got a lot of sources of information 

18 here. The master security card didn't really 

19 provide location information. It was really a 

20 listing of the employer for various periods, but 

21 sometimes it would give an indication that the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

70

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 employer and time period was operating out of, for 

2 example, the NRF or Argonne.

3 So when we're going to evaluate what we 

4 see as an apparent gap in monitoring records, you 

5 could use something like the master security file 

6 card to say, well, we see a gap here.

7 But we can see during that period he was 

8 employed for such and such contractor at Argonne. 

9 So we're going to look at some of the examples.

10 Okay. Here's the, this is a routine 

11 monitoring essentially. And what you can see is 

12 I've underlined. You have the area, which is the 

13 EPFCON area. You have the period covered by the 

14 report, which is August.

15 This is coming across, so you can see 

16 all the stuff. But it's August of 1974. This 

17 particular log book is for the Arrington 

18 Construction Company.

19 You can see in red I circled the 

20 contractor code, the area code designation and also 

21 all the right to the right there you see this PSN. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

71

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 Now I don't know if it actually stands for personal 

2 sequential number.

3 That was a guess, which is why I have 

4 the question mark there. But that also became very 

5 important when assessing what we saw as apparent 

6 gaps because we were able to observe trends in those 

7 PSN numbers that led us to a reasonable conclusion 

8 that what those actually represent is the 

9 sequential issuance of a dosimeter to the worker.

10 So for example, if we thought we saw a 

11 gap for say six months, but then we look at the 

12 records that sort of bookend that and they were 

13 sequential in nature. So if the first record is 

14 a PSN of seven and then six months go by and the 

15 next one is eight, and then maybe a month goes by 

16 and the next one is nine, you see the sequential 

17 nature of it.

18 You could say well, that gap's not 

19 really, six months is not really a gap. The worker 

20 was not issued a different dosimeter. And more 

21 than likely, they simply just kept the dosimeter 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they had for a longer period of time.

2 This became especially apparent in the 

3 later periods. It appeared in 1971 to 1974, I 

4 believe is when we saw most of this. But we'll see 

5 an example, and hopefully that will become clear.

6 Here's the location file card, and as 

7 I said, you have the contractor code, the area code. 

8 It's not a dosimetry record, but you have an issue 

9 date and a withdrawal date.

10 And as you can see here, one of these, 

11 this middle entry here has a date of September 4, 

12 1974 and also a TF next to it, which we found most 

13 likely refers to the issuance of a temporary film 

14 badge.

15 There are other examples where film 

16 where written next to the date or 2TLD, 

17 thermoluminescent dosimeter. So there is some 

18 information about badging.

19 So I would not say that this is a 

20 definitive record of when claims were actually 

21 issued dosimetry records, which we will also see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

73

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 in an example.

2 And here's that master security file 

3 card I talked about. And again, you only have a 

4 listing for employer. You have an issue date, a 

5 termination date and a date that I guess the 

6 security card or badge was ultimately destroyed.

7 But you can see I kind of pointed out 

8 a couple entries here where one is Arrington 

9 Construction, but it's also designated as ANL, 

10 Argonne. And another one further down, it's 

11 West-Ormond construction, which is indicative of 

12 NRF.

13 And you can't see it here because it got 

14 cut off, but just to the left of those entries, it's 

15 actually handwritten next to those entries: NRF and 

16 Argonne. So I'm assuming those were written in 

17 either by DOE or the INL themselves.

18 Okay. So we went through these 30 

19 claims, and we basically came up with what we feel 

20 are the five categories of the claimants based on 

21 what we saw in their dosimetry.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The first category is there's just no 

2 gaps observed. We literally saw claimants where 

3 there was a dosimeter issued every two weeks for 

4 their entire covered employment during the SEC 

5 period without even necessarily a gap.

6 I guess some of the dosimetry records 

7 would indicate they weren't in the area, so that 

8 partially accounts for it. But I was kind of 

9 curious about them, like don't these people ever 

10 take vacations?

11 I guess that's one way to explain it. 

12 So category one is the dosimetry records are really 

13 complete for these claimants. They were badged 

14 all the time, and we know who they were.

15 Category two, gaps appear to exist, and 

16 this is where that PSN number comes in. There 

17 appear to be gaps. For example, a claimant might 

18 have a dosimetry coding of monthly or quarterly 

19 badge scheduling.

20 But we're not seeing that for certain 

21 periods. But then you go in and look at that PSN 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

75

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 number, and they're sequential. So we, I guess, 

2 made the assumption in those cases that while it 

3 looks like there might have been a gap, no, not 

4 really. If that PSN number is indeed what we 

5 surmise it is, there's really no gap in those 

6 records. And we're going to look at an example of 

7 each of these categories.

8 So I just want to get the overview sort 

9 of out of the way. Category three kind of gets into 

10 a slightly gray area. We see gaps. We just don't 

11 have an explanation for why they're there.

12 Obviously one explanation is there was 

13 no exposure, but we really don't have any 

14 information either way. It's a gray area. We'll 

15 look at a couple of those.

16 Without further information, you 

17 really can't say to what extent, what they were 

18 doing at the site, what area they were in. We only 

19 know that they were considered employees of INL by 

20 the Department of Labor, but we have periods 

21 without badging records.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

76

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 Category four kind of increases that 

2 gray area a little bit in that we see gaps. There's 

3 some indication of potential exposure during those 

4 unmonitored periods, but it's a gray.

5 You could make a case either way, but 

6 in this case we have at least maybe some statements 

7 in the CATI that might be able to be put with the 

8 SEC period or other types of information.

9 And again, we'll look at an example. 

10 It's a gray area. It's sort of just one of those 

11 things where you're kind of chasing a ghost. You 

12 just don't have enough information to really make 

13 a determination.

14 And then there's category five, and 

15 this is discussed in Tim's presentation as well. 

16 This is where we only have an annual dosimetry 

17 summary, so you really have just no way of 

18 determining, using the dosimetry records, what 

19 location that worker was in for covered employment 

20 at the site.

21 All right, so here's an example of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

77

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 category one. And what we're looking at here is 

2 the bottom red line is all the covered employment 

3 during the SEC period.

4 So this particular worker was employed 

5 during most of the SEC period, beginning about 

6 mid-1963. The blue dots represent the ending date 

7 of each available dosimetry record.

8 And as you can see, they're very 

9 numerous, almost forming a straight, solid line for 

10 much of it. But we essentially have a dosimetry 

11 record throughout the complete SEC employment.

12 Interestingly, also on these charts I 

13 included location information from those location 

14 file cards we looked at it that let us know that 

15 person was assigned to an INL area.

16 What we don't see, and you can see it 

17 in the legend at the top, is there was sometimes 

18 a fourth line that said, well, in the location file 

19 card, it actually indicates this worker was at 

20 Argonne or NRF.

21 And you'll see, we'll partially explain 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

78

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 why we don't see a dosimetry record per se, even 

2 though sometimes the employment was covered for 

3 INL, the evidence exists that they were probably, 

4 in fact, in another area.

5 That's category one. Category two 

6 here again, very complete dosimetry record, about 

7 1967 and then they start spreading out. In this 

8 particular case, this was really the case where the 

9 dosimetry coding during those latter periods 

10 indicated a quarterly schedule.

11 As we can see, that's really not the 

12 case. In some cases, it was just an annual badge 

13 turn-in. But for these category two workers, each 

14 of these dots were sequential in nature when you 

15 compared the PSN numbers associated with each 

16 record.

17 So we considered, based on that 

18 information, the dosimetry for these types of 

19 workers to be complete. Another thing to note 

20 that's kind of interesting here is that, based on 

21 the location file card, that whole period prior to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

79

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 1967 was not shown on the location file card, yet 

2 we have dosimetry results associated with INL 

3 areas.

4 So I guess the moral of the story there 

5 is that the location file cards aren't complete but 

6 are a very useful, direct piece of information as 

7 to where that worker was assigned. But they don't, 

8 certainly don't appear universal for all work that 

9 was done at INL.

10 All right, category three, again we're 

11 getting into this gray area. And as you can see 

12 here, we have significant lengths of employment 

13 where there's no dosimetry.

14 And actually, I have some notes on the 

15 next slide about this one. I'll just put those up 

16 for a second. I'm going to see if I can get another 

17 screen up here because it's probably going to be 

18 more useful for you all to look at the chart while 

19 I talk about the notes.

20 But essentially, for this, in 1964, so 

21 we see this area here where there's no dosimetry, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

80

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 in the file there actually were the routine area 

2 cycle reports. But they were all indicative of not 

3 being in the area.

4 There's a special code. They call it 

5 the irregular code. Irregular code 14 indicates 

6 not in area. There's other ones, such as not 

7 available.

8 In the case of not available, in almost 

9 all cases, we saw that that just meant the dosimetry 

10 badge was turned in a few days later or a week later 

11 or something like that.

12 But in this case, so 1964 we have 

13 dosimetry reports, but there's no results because 

14 the person was not actually in the area. But if 

15 we look at that period from mid-1967 to about 

16 September of 1969, this was actually a combination 

17 where a badge was at both the chemical processing 

18 plant but also the material test reactor area.

19 So that's an example of the one area, 

20 one badge type of philosophy that Tim was 

21 discussing in the earlier presentation. Now if we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

81

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 look at from July 1970 to about January 1971, the 

2 energy employee worked for a subcontractor, H.S. 

3 Wright. But we just have no information available 

4 as to the location of what work was being done or 

5 what was being done. We just know during that 

6 period they were employed by a subcontractor, and 

7 we really can't say anything else about it.

8 This particular example there was no 

9 bioassay or in vivo samples submitted at all during 

10 the SEC period, so we couldn't use any information 

11 from that.

12 There's a CATI report, but 

13 unfortunately it's with a survivor. And the 

14 survivor just did not know any specific locations 

15 of where the worker was. So that, I just pretty 

16 much parroted all this slide.

17 Category four, here again we're getting 

18 a little bit into the darker gray area where you 

19 don't, we can't necessarily say either way during 

20 the unmonitored periods what they were doing and 

21 if they had the potential to be exposed at CPP.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But there is at least some, your 

2 anecdotal or other information that they might have 

3 been at that site. And it's probably better again, 

4 I have some notes on this.

5 But again, it's probably better just to 

6 look at the chart. And as we can see, large swaths 

7 were actually just associated with Argonne or the 

8 NRF facility. And those didn't coincide with any 

9 INL employment, so that's fine.

10 But we do have this small period here 

11 of which there's no dosimetry, and then this later 

12 period in 1974 of which we don't have any dosimetry. 

13 So just a couple notes.

14 And these are very general. I 

15 encourage the Board Members to reference Section 

16 D.4 of our report because that contains a lot of 

17 the information.

18 But essentially, the claimant did 

19 provide a pretty detailed incident description. 

20 And they gave the type of work they were performing, 

21 fairly specific external doses that they received 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

83

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 as a result of that work and also actions that were 

2 taken.

3 We don't know the exact dates of the 

4 incident. We really only know the year that it 

5 occurred it, but the point is, and again this is 

6 why it's sort of a gray area, we look at it and say, 

7 well based on what information we have, which is 

8 what dosimetry was there, the magnitude of that 

9 dosimetry, bioassay monitoring that occurred --

10 there was at least one sample taken -- and the dates 

11 of employment for this claimant, it's possible, 

12 certainly possible, that this incident occurred 

13 outside of what we have as available badging for 

14 this claimant.

15 So, again, it's a gray area. You can 

16 make a case either way. We really don't have the 

17 direct evidence to say either way. But it's a very 

18 interesting case, and I do encourage the Board to 

19 look at that Section D.4 just to see some of the 

20 details. And I think it will be clear exactly what 

21 I'm talking about and how it's certainly possible 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that some of these work periods without dosimetry 

2 could have been reflected with that incident.

3 So, we can move on here. And again, I 

4 just parroted that slide. Alright, the second 

5 example for category four. And as we can see, 

6 there are no dosimetry. So those would've been 

7 blue dots if we had anything for this claimant. 

8 But we have established employment. This is 

9 actually backed up for the most part by the location 

10 file cards.

11 We actually have this one little 

12 employment period down here, which doesn't have any 

13 dosimetry, but we can see that actually the 

14 information shows they were either at ANL or NRF 

15 during that time.

16 So, notes on this example, 

17 interestingly the location file card for this 

18 claimant really only indicated the employer, which 

19 we were able to tie to INL during the SEC period. 

20 But there were some things said from the CATI 

21 report. And these have been cleared, so it's okay 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

85

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 for me to read these things. 

2 As far as the building and location, CPP 

3 is one, the LOFT project and also the SL-1 reactor. 

4 Under frequency of badge worn, it said daily, which 

5 is sort of again that piece of information that 

6 makes you goes, "Huh." 

7 The claimant said they had a badge all 

8 the time. But we don't necessarily have any 

9 results. Now, it could be just miscommunication, 

10 and maybe the claimant had a security badge but not 

11 a film badge and they didn't enter radiological 

12 areas. We don't know. But the fact that the 

13 claimant said they wore a badge every day sort of 

14 gave us pause. They said the badges were exchanged 

15 several times a week.

16 And here's another direct quote from 

17 the CATI. It says, "The areas of contamination 

18 were all over the site. CPP was the most 

19 contaminated area. There were a lot of 55 gallon 

20 waste drums stored there. They had a lot of spills 

21 and evacuations which required restriction from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the area for two to three days at a time."

2 As far as work location, he was at, "CPP 

3 a lot of years. This was a very contaminated area 

4 because of the stack emissions, and also worked on 

5 the calciner project."

6 Now, the location file card outside the 

7 SEC period does indicate a brief assignment in CPP 

8 of about two months in 1978, but we didn't find a 

9 dosimetry badge in the records for that either. Of 

10 course, it's outside the SEC period, so somewhat 

11 moot for our purposes today. 

12 So, again, this is the information I 

13 just read off.

14 And category five, which is really the 

15 problematic area that we found. And again, this 

16 was discussed somewhat in Tim's presentation. And 

17 this is where we just simply don't have those 

18 individual dosimetry reports in NOCTS that would 

19 allow us to use dosimetry to place the worker in 

20 a given area. And only the summary record is 

21 available, and I have an example one here. As you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

87

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 can see, it just has an annual listing of years. 

2 There aren't even really column headers involved, 

3 but essentially non-penetrating, penetrating, and 

4 then likely neutron and perhaps extremity. So, 

5 that's category five.

6 And just to move on with that, without 

7 those individual reports, we can't tell where the 

8 worker was badged. But the fact that there's an 

9 annual summary indicates they were in fact badged 

10 for at least parts of those years.

11 It initially prompted us to sort of move 

12 into what I'll call phase two of our investigation, 

13 once we uncovered this and saw, in fact, four out 

14 of our 30 original claimants fell into the 

15 category. So, we said, "Okay. Let's see, try to 

16 get an idea of the actual scope of that problem." 

17 And basically we came up with 144 out 

18 of 796 SEC claims that we looked at fell into this 

19 category where in NOCTS all you had was an annual 

20 summary. And so it would be impossible to make an 

21 SEC determination based on what was in NOCTS. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

88

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 Of those 144 claims, 39 had direct 

2 evidence of assignment to CPP during that period. 

3 And when I say direct, I really just mean that 

4 location file card had assigned that worker to CPP 

5 during the SEC period. And that's what we consider 

6 to be direct evidence.

7 So, 39 that we have now at CPP who just 

8 don't have the dosimetry records in NOCTS to prove 

9 that they were in CPP. So, that obviously is 

10 problematic. And 12 of those 39 also worked for 

11 subcontract workers, subcontractors.

12 So this leads us into finding one of our 

13 report, and I'll read it into the record. "The 

14 dosimetry records contained in NOCTS are not 

15 sufficient to accurately determine if a given 

16 claimant worked at the CPP (and thus qualifies for 

17 the SEC) for at least some workers, due to the 

18 absence of external dosimetry records designating 

19 the area worked."

20 So, I'll move on here. Now, there was 

21 a technical call between NIOSH, SC&A and the Work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

89

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 Group in late April of this year. And NIOSH 

2 informed SC&A that there were significant 

3 additional records that had come from INL that may 

4 not be reflected in those NOCTS records.

5 And NIOSH provided SC&A with a listing 

6 of those SRDBs, the Site Research ID numbers, so 

7 that we could quickly go in and find those. And 

8 we looked and then, wow, there's over 7,000 pages 

9 related to CPP, which include both the area routine 

10 reports and the visitor/temporary badges.

11 So, again, just to reiterate, we found 

12 39 claimants after we identified this problem with 

13 the category five of not having sufficient 

14 dosimetry records. And, again, we have 39 that 

15 didn't have sufficient NOCTS records and we had 

16 direct evidence that they were assigned to CPP 

17 during the SEC period. And, again, 12 of these 39 

18 were employed by subcontractors.

19 So we said, "Okay, let's go into these 

20 supplemental records that have become available, 

21 and let's see if we can find them, at least find 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

90

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 one dosimetry badge associated with CPP." And in 

2 36 out of those 39 cases, we could find at least 

3 one dosimetry badge associated with CPP for those 

4 claimants, which would allow for the SEC 

5 determination.

6 The remaining three cases we just 

7 simply cannot find in the records. And we're going 

8 to talk just a little bit about those.

9 The first one was a construction 

10 worker, an equipment operator. The SEC employment 

11 was very short. It was only a month and a half. 

12 But the location file card indicates they were at 

13 CPP quarterly, which, to me, indicates they were 

14 supposed to be badged there.

15 But there's also a handwritten notation, such as 

16 the example I showed earlier with the TS next to 

17 the date, which we believe indicates temporary 

18 film. And the claimant also had positive external 

19 doses associated with that very brief period at 

20 INL. 

21 The CATI report had several statements 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

91

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 in here. I think it's appropriate to read them in. 

2 He said he thinks he may have had a badge at one 

3 time but then the badges were taken away. He does 

4 not remember if he wore a dosimeter badge. He 

5 cleaned up materials that leaked out of the stack, 

6 loaded the materials into 55-gallon plastic lined 

7 drums. It is his understanding that the facility 

8 had to bury the backhoe he used to clean up 

9 materials that leaked from the stack because it was 

10 so contaminated.

11 He said there was a trailer that had a 

12 monitor attached to it and a man walked around with 

13 a Geiger counter as he worked. He does not recall 

14 how many days the project lasted. He thinks it was 

15 at least a couple.

16 As far as precautions that were taken 

17 to protect the worker, he had to wear coveralls and 

18 had to change those coveralls every two hours. And 

19 he said they walked through some form of arc to be 

20 checked for radiation, presumably as they exited 

21 whatever construction area they were working in.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The second case had significantly 

2 longer employment. Again, employed for a 

3 subcontractor, H.S. Wright. Five and a half years 

4 of combined employment in the SEC period.

5 There's sort of conflicting 

6 information on whether the claimant was badged. 

7 In the CATI interview, it says that no badging took 

8 place. However, in the DOL case forms --

9 essentially, the application forms -- it did 

10 indicate that they were badge.

11 And the annual summary reports that we 

12 have -- again, these are category five, so all we 

13 have is the annual summaries -- they do indicate 

14 external monitoring during the year when the 

15 claimant was assigned to CPP, based on the location 

16 file card. And, again, this claimant in 

17 particular was assigned as CPP construction 

18 quarterly as the area code designation in the 

19 location file card. 

20 So, in the CATI report, work location 

21 was unknown, three to four miles northwest of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

93

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 central. I guess that could be roughly considered 

2 in the CPP area. The description of work is, 

3 "cleanup work, shovel work, and whatever needed to 

4 be done as a laborer. They were called to do 

5 cleanup at Wright's, just over the fence. They 

6 were pulled out because they said it was too hot."

7 And our final case here is, again, 

8 another heavy equipment operator for H.S. Wright. 

9 This particular claimant had five separate 

10 employment periods at INL. So, again, we're 

11 talking about intermittent type of employment. In 

12 total, it was about four years of SEC employment. 

13 The location file card, again, had CPP 

14 construction. One of them was designated as 

15 monthly. The location file card also indicated 

16 the claimant also assigned to MTR, coincidentally, 

17 with two of these three periods that indicated CPP.

18 The claimant registered positive 

19 penetrating dose during two of the periods. The 

20 third period was zero dose but did indicate he was 

21 monitored. And the CATI report was performed with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the survivor, so we really couldn't glean any 

2 information from that, unfortunately.

3 So, that leads us to finding two, which 

4 I'll read. "Based on SC&A's evaluation of 

5 recently captured supplemental dosimetry records, 

6 as well as observed claimants with inadequate NOCTS 

7 records, it is apparent that the reviewed claimants 

8 who worked for the Atomic Energy Commission or the 

9 prime contractor and who have direct evidence of 

10 work at CPP have at least one corresponding 

11 dosimeter badge associated with CPP to allow for 

12 SEC determination. However, SC&A could not locate 

13 corresponding dosimetry in the supplemental 

14 records for some claimants who worked as 

15 subcontractor trades workers and who have direct 

16 evidence of being assigned to CPP. Thus, SC&A was 

17 unable to validate the SEC Class Definition as 

18 proposed by NIOSH."

19 So, just some summary conclusions here. 

20 It's really our opinion that for most workers, 

21 especially workers of the prime contractor, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

95

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 chances that they would be accidentally missed by 

2 the Class Definition is probably very low. But as 

3 we just went over, we were unable to locate 

4 dosimetry for three of the 12 subcontract workers 

5 who were identified as having the insufficient 

6 NOCTS records for SEC determination, and who also 

7 had direct evidence of being assigned to CPP.

8 This might suggest a problem with 

9 either how construction trade workers were badged 

10 and/or how their company records were retained. 

11 And that was based on the records we had at the time, 

12 both in NOCTS and the supplementary that we had.

13 As far as recommendations, these are 

14 to, to the extent feasible, figure out if there is 

15 evidence to sort of mitigate what appear to be 

16 missing dosimetry records for these subcontract 

17 claims and any other potentially affected claims 

18 down the line.

19 We also feel it would be very 

20 instructive if we conducted focused interviews 

21 with these sort of intermittent subcontract 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

96

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 workers and trade workers to talk to them to see 

2 if they also agree that pretty much you had to have 

3 a badge if you were going to enter the CPP area and 

4 that badging was pretty much universal.

5 And also what would be very useful, to 

6 the extent feasible, is if we could figure out which 

7 subcontractors actually supported radiological 

8 work at CPP. And somewhat importantly, what 

9 subcontractors didn't support any radiological 

10 work. Because if we came across situations where 

11 we don't have badging for someone, but they worked 

12 for a subcontractor that just, for whatever reason, 

13 never performed any radiological work, that would 

14 be significant.

15 And also if we could obtain rosters of 

16 workers who might have been involved in 

17 radiological activities, then we could go and 

18 compare these against the records we have to see 

19 how that all stacks up.

20 So, these are sort of our summary 

21 recommendations. That concludes my presentation, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I'd be happy to field any questions. 

2 Am I still on the line?

3 MR. KATZ: Yeah, you're on the line, 

4 Bob. Thanks.

5 MR. BARTON: Okay.

6 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Hey, Bob. This is 

7 Phil. I've just got one question for you. Did 

8 Department of Labor by any chance give you a list 

9 of all the prime contractors and subcontractors 

10 that have existed out there? I know it's quite 

11 extensive that have come and gone through that 

12 facility.

13 MR. BARTON: We do have a list. It is 

14 very extensive. It's something like 50 pages, of 

15 maybe 30 entries a piece, of all of the prime and 

16 subcontractors and also what codes were used to 

17 identify those subcontractors and prime 

18 contractors and dosimetry records and things like 

19 the location file cards.

20 So, there's a reference out there. As 

21 to where that reference came from, I can't really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

98

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 say at this time. I don't know if the folks over 

2 at NIOSH might have more information on that. But 

3 it was a very extensive list of all these different 

4 subcontractors that have operated out there at one 

5 time or another.

6 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thanks.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Hey, Bob. This is 

8 Josie. I have a question for the record. I know 

9 you got NIOSH's slide presentation very late, but 

10 your recommendation stands even with the changes 

11 that NIOSH has made to the Class Definition? Is 

12 that correct?

13 MR. BARTON: Well, it would be the 

14 three workers that we went over at the end there, 

15 where they have insufficient NOCTS records but we 

16 also found evidence that they were at CPP. Their 

17 employment periods were not necessarily restricted 

18 to the post-1970 period, so I believe that 

19 recommendation would still stand for evidence that 

20 maybe we still have claimants even in that earlier 

21 period who we can't find dosimetry of but we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

99

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 evidence that they were working at CPP, or at least 

2 assigned to CPP.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

4 MR. BARTON: That said, I believe that, 

5 in the next presentation, I think there might have 

6 been additional information, specifically about 

7 these claimants, which certainly might have an 

8 effect.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: This is Joe. But I 

10 guess, in general, as Tim pointed out, there's a 

11 whole slew of records that have not been reviewed 

12 yet, which is the CX database. So, clearly, we 

13 don't have all the cards on the table right now.

14 MR. STIVER: Yeah, this is Stiver. I 

15 certainly agree with that. I mean, 25 percent of 

16 the subcontractors that we did look at, you know, 

17 we were able to find records for. Now, maybe those 

18 CX records that may be available in a few weeks can 

19 kind of flesh out that missing area, that gray area. 

20 But we certainly would want to take a look at those 

21 records in detail before drawing any conclusions.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

100

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 MR. BARTON: Yeah, I would reiterate 

2 that when we did this analysis and we found that 

3 25 percent, we were operating with the listing of 

4 supplementary records. We list them out in our 

5 actual report, so you can see they were quite 

6 extensive. 

7 And as I said before, we started with 

8 39 total claims that we didn't have sufficient 

9 records for, but evidence at CPP, and sort of 

10 combing through those records, which is really no 

11 small feat. Most of the records are not in 

12 condition where you can do word searches in the 

13 traditional sense. So, you're actually left going 

14 line by line sometimes. 

15 We were still able to find 36 of those 

16 39, but, again, three we couldn't. And those three 

17 happened to be three of the 12 subcontractors. 

18 Again, it was direct evidence of being assigned to 

19 CPP and insufficient NOCTS records.

20 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I 

21 guess my question is more, what's the next step to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

101

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 take? Your recommendations and your slides and 

2 report are pretty general. And I'm trying to 

3 understand how do we resolve this issue.

4 MR. BARTON: I guess one part of it is 

5 that notion that we didn't have -- I guess that we 

6 have some new records that are on the way or maybe 

7 just got our hands out, which might clear up these 

8 25 percent of the subcontractors we found that were 

9 definitely problematic from an SEC administration 

10 standpoint.

11 So, certainly examination of those 

12 records would help. But the other larger facet, 

13 I think, was to perform these focused interviews. 

14 If we could find some former workers who weren't 

15 -- didn't spend their entire career there but 

16 really maybe worked out of a local union and went 

17 on the site for a few months at a time, and talk 

18 to them about what they recall, if they worked at 

19 CPP and what precautions were taken and whether 

20 they could have entered areas of the facility 

21 without having a film badge.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

102

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 I think those are really the two main 

2 ones. And the third one was if we could find 

3 information specific to what subcontractors were 

4 involved in radiological activities, that would at 

5 least narrow our focus.

6 And then beyond that, to the extent 

7 feasible, if we could get a list of the actual 

8 workers, again, we could stack that up against the 

9 badging records we have and see if we find workers 

10 who were assigned to radiological activities but, 

11 again, we can't find any badging related to it.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. I mean, it 

13 would seem to me that, I mean, a sample of 12 is 

14 pretty small. It doesn't seem to me that, say, 

15 presumably, the three out of the 12 subcontractor 

16 workers get resolved somehow, at least for me, that 

17 wouldn't put to bed the issue as to whether there 

18 was adequate monitoring and adequate 

19 record-keeping to support the original Class 

20 Definition proposed by NIOSH.

21 And so I guess my question is, where do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we go from here? And I think you're saying the 

2 first step would be interviews, the focused 

3 interviews. And then where? You're going to need 

4 to look at these missing records, or about to be 

5 delivered records, to shed some light on what the 

6 next steps would be?

7 MR. BARTON: Yes, I certainly think 

8 that would be important. And, well, I guess one 

9 clarifying comment. I agree, 12 doesn't sound 

10 like a large number. But, again, this was not a 

11 representative study. This was an iterative 

12 process where we went looking for claimants who 

13 would be problematic for this.

14 How we get down to 12 is first we 

15 identified all the claimants who had insufficient 

16 NOCTS records. And then from those we looked 

17 through and said, alright, well, how many of them 

18 have direct evidence of work at CPP based on these 

19 location file cards? And that narrowed it down to 

20 39. And then in those 39, how many worked for 

21 subcontractors versus the prime contractor? And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

104

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 now we're down to 12. And then three of them we 

2 could not find in both sets of records, both the 

3 supplemental that was available, and what's in 

4 NOCTS obviously is insufficient.

5 So, while 12 doesn't sound like a big 

6 number, that's sort of, you know, as we were going 

7 around and kind of lifting up every rock, that's 

8 where we ended up. So, it does seem like a small 

9 number, but when you look at the whole, we got to 

10 that small number by sort of looking for, I guess 

11 you could call the worst case scenario.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, but how many 

13 subcontractors worked at CPP area? What was the 

14 numbers of workers that were in there over the time 

15 period involved?

16 MR. BARTON: Right, and I understand 

17 that.

18 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. If I could, 

19 as you're trying to discuss or talk about kind of 

20 your path forward, I was able to get some follow-up 

21 following SC&A's report. If you'd like me to go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

105

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 over that a little bit here with these three cases, 

2 I'd be happy to do so.

3 MEMBER MELIUS: I'll toss it to Phil, 

4 who's the --

5 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: That sounds like a 

6 good idea to me because it's kind of -- as Jim has 

7 pointed out, we're kind of looking at a drop in the 

8 bucket of what potentially may be out there.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Give me just a 

10 second here to pull up the file.

11 MEMBER BEACH: While you're doing 

12 that, Tim, this is Josie. So, one thing, Bob, that 

13 struck me when I read your full report -- of course, 

14 I didn't have it in my hands very long. But when 

15 I was looking at the claims that you had records 

16 for, it was very telling, the last sentence in your

17 summary that said without more specific knowledge 

18 as to work locations or job duties during periods 

19 with no dosimetry cycle badges, it's not possible 

20 to determine whether the claimant was badged or 

21 should have been badged.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

106

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 You put that in almost every one of 

2 these, so it just leaves me believing there's still 

3 more information that we need, even pertaining to 

4 some of these claims that are in categories -- I 

5 believe that was in category two I was just looking 

6 at.

7 So, anyway, there seems like a lot of 

8 missing information still.

9 MR. BARTON: That's correct. And 

10 really it's a question of when you see what appears 

11 to be a gap in the badging, which many of those 30 

12 claims showed. And we tried to look at all the 

13 information, and we tried to present all the 

14 information that was available for those 

15 claimants.

16 And you eventually get to a point where 

17 you don't have the record or the information 

18 available to make that determination of whether 

19 this is an actual gap in badging or if there's a 

20 reasonable explanation for the gap in badging or 

21 if the person wasn't exposed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

107

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 So, again, I talked a lot about that 

2 gray area, and that's exactly what it is. It's an 

3 area where we just simply don't have the 

4 information to say one way or the other whether what 

5 appears to be a gap is in fact a problem from an 

6 SEC --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Right, and I guess I 

8 want to -- and, Bob, I wanted to point that out just 

9 simply because while we have the three that we know 

10 we don't have information more, there's still, like 

11 you said, gray areas in a lot of the others also.

12 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I really 

13 believe that we need to take a look at the CX 

14 dosimetry data. So, for one thing, to see if 

15 there's any patterns over time. Whether there are 

16 additional gaps with that data may kind of provide 

17 us more assurance that, for at least the 

18 subcontractors, that we're not looking at a 

19 situation where record retention may not have been 

20 as thorough as it had been for the AEC workers or 

21 prime contractors. That would raise another 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

108

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 issue. 

2 Another thing that we want to keep in 

3 mind is, did the distribution of claimants as it 

4 exists now really reflect the distribution of the 

5 types of workers? That is, are there some 

6 categories, say, some of these subcontractors,

7 that may be under-represented in the claimant 

8 files? Are there more of them out there that just 

9 aren't filing claims, in other words?

10 I don't know how we would grapple with 

11 that, but I think as a first step we would certainly 

12 want to look at the new CX records when they become 

13 available.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Alright, this is Tim. 

15 Would you like for me to go over what we've been 

16 able to find for these category fives?

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, Tim. Go ahead.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Alright, 

19 obviously, when we got SC&A's report last week and 

20 we looked through it and got to the category five 

21 claimants, this caused us some pause as to we've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

109

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 got potentially people who were in CPP, and as Bob 

2 pointed out, direct evidence they were in CPP. And 

3 the dosimetry is an annual summary. And so it's 

4 not very informative.

5 Now, when we did our evaluation, we 

6 found more than just these few. We did not focus 

7 down on just construction trades. We were looking 

8 at more where we have some what we call potential 

9 evidence of somebody working in CPP. That's the 32 

10 claims where we have annual summaries and we don't 

11 know where they worked. They could have been at 

12 CPP. They could've been in MTR. They could have 

13 been somewhere else, but we have a suspicion they 

14 might have been at CPP.

15 Well, with these category five cases, 

16 with the annual summaries, going back to my initial 

17 presentation talking about why we just have annual 

18 summaries and not the full dosimetry report, was 

19 due to an efficiency measure, that DOE could just 

20 send us the annual summaries and that was going to 

21 be sufficient.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

110

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 So, it's not that these records don't 

2 exist. It's more of we didn't need them to do dose 

3 reconstruction, and therefore we didn't request 

4 them.

5 Following Bob's report, last Wednesday 

6 when I got this, I called up the site and said, "For 

7 these three people, can you send us what dosimetry 

8 you have for them? Not just the annual summary for 

9 the original agreement, but can you send us their 

10 files as a supplemental dosimetry request so that 

11 you all can evaluate this?" 

12 Those came in last night. And I 

13 certainly understand the initial discussions of 

14 things coming in at the last minute. And we 

15 definitely need to do better on this from that 

16 standpoint so everybody has access to the 

17 information in a more timely manner.

18 But what I did last night with these is 

19 I went through each of these cases and looked at 

20 the dosimetry. And I've got it here by claim 

21 number. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

111

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 Ted, just before I go any further here, 

2 this is closed off to the public. Correct?

3 MR. KATZ: Right. No, the Live

4 Meeting is safe space.

5 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So, when I pull up 

6 these slides, I want to remind everybody this is 

7 PII information, so I will not be talking about the 

8 individuals by name.

9 I've tried to highlight the dosimetry 

10 that is pertinent here so that you can scroll 

11 through and find it. The site also was very 

12 gracious, when they sent these files yesterday, 

13 they put an asterisk or a star by the pertinent 

14 claim record.

15 So, in the first particular case, where 

16 the original record indicated work at CPP and area 

17 code 115, starting in August of '74 and running 

18 through October 1st of '74, we were able to find 

19 the dosimetry for this individual, starting in 

20 August of 1974. I've highlighted the result 

21 there. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If you go to the next record that was 

2 sent by DOE last night, here's the September of 1974 

3 badge. And then in page 5 here, you've got the 

4 October of 1974 badge for this individual.

5 So, while the annual summary doesn't 

6 show the work location and the locator card shows 

7 the work location, when we get these CX reports --

8 because 115 is part of that CX series -- we should 

9 be able to resolve all of these particular 

10 discrepancies. 

11 In this particular case, we have all 

12 three dosimeters for this particular individual 

13 during this time period that he worked. But, 

14 again, the site wasn't geared to provide all the 

15 of CX reports. If you look in the upper corner here 

16 of this particular report, you'll see a number, 

17 000-17691.

18 That's the file number that this came 

19 out of. So, what the site is doing right now, why 

20 they can't just immediately send us the CXs, is they 

21 have to go through these files and identify whether 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

113

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 this is a CX report or an MTR report.

2 And so they're compiling all of these 

3 in order to send to us. For this particular 

4 person, they were able to easily find the dosimetry 

5 page because that's how their dosimetry is indexed. 

6 That's their database. They plug in this 

7 particular claimant's name or social security 

8 number or S number and they can find these three 

9 dosimetry reports very quickly.

10 And all of the dosimetry that I'm 

11 showing you right now was requested from the site 

12 last Thursday. They didn't work Friday. They 

13 were able to get it to us by Tuesday afternoon or 

14 by Tuesday evening.

15 So, this is how they're indexed. 

16 They're not indexed by the CX or CPP type of 

17 scenarios. So, from an individual claimant 

18 standpoint, you can pull back and get this 

19 information fairly rapidly. They are trying to 

20 get us all the complete set of the CX reports, but 

21 it's going to take them a little bit of time. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

114

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 So, this was for the first case number 

2 one that Bob pointed out to us. Any one of these 

3 three reports obviously places this person at CPP 

4 and CPP construction, and therefore would be part 

5 of the SEC class.

6 This is case number two. And across 

7 the top I've highlighted, you see this one is 

8 labeled CX area exposure report. And this is where 

9 the contractor code is not 115, which was CPP 

10 quarterly, CX quarterly; this is the CX area 

11 exposure report. So, looking through, in Bob's 

12 report, for this particular claim, if you look on 

13 page 39 of his report, he shows the location card. 

14 But, again, when we did the evaluation, he only had 

15 access to the annual summaries. 

16 I originally thought the CX reports 

17 were part of all of the CPP reports. We've learned 

18 that they are not. But in this particular case, 

19 we can ask the site to try and locate this person's 

20 dosimetry and send us a full report. And they did 

21 so. And here is a badge from August of 1967, which 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

115

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 indicates that he was in that particular area of 

2 CPP. So, this would result in including the 

3 individual.

4 Here is the dosimetry report for 

5 September of 1967. From the location card, as Bob 

6 pointed out there in his figure 20, he has dual 

7 identical time periods for both CPP and for MTX. 

8 And so what I'm showing you here is this particular 

9 individual, just his CPP badges, his CX exposure 

10 reports.

11 But if you go through his complete file, 

12 which I put out there on the Advisory Board document 

13 review, I sent all of you the link to get to it last 

14 night, you can go through his individual dosimetry 

15 that they sent to the supplemental and you can find 

16 this MTX report as well.

17 So, from the second person, again, 

18 we've got dosimetry here that clearly puts them in 

19 CPP during the covered period. And this is prior 

20 to our expansion of the Class, by the way. This 

21 is 1967, so this is relevant from that standpoint.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The last case that Bob brought up here 

2 was a very interesting particular file for this 

3 particular individual. The dosimetry 

4 supplemental file that DOE sent last night is 122 

5 pages long of dosimetry. And in this particular 

6 case, the slide that I've got up there in front of 

7 you is showing the CX area. This would be area code 

8 11. This was the earlier one before it went to 113 

9 and 115.

10 And you can see from his earlier time 

11 periods, you've got monitoring for this individual 

12 throughout the mid-1960s. And what I wanted to 

13 point out here is -- let's see here. Let me make 

14 sure here I got the dates right. One of the 

15 indicators that Bob had talked about with these 

16 individuals was -- and I'm sorry I'm jumping around 

17 here. Let me get back to where I wanted to go. 

18 Here. 

19 This is the individual who was 

20 indicated that they had a positive exposure in 

21 1966, but you couldn't tell from the annual summary 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

117

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 where did that exposure occur. Did it occur at 

2 CPP? Did it occur at MTX? Where did it occur? In 

3 this particular case, if you go off to the right, 

4 you'll see the dosimeter results right under 

5 current period.

6 You got open window and closed -- or 

7 shallow and deep, rather -- and you've got 55 

8 millirem here for this particular person. If you 

9 go over to the contractor code -- or not contractor 

10 code -- the area code, APN/113, that says this 

11 occurred at CPP.

12 As I go down two slides, you've got the 

13 next positive dose that the individual had, that 

14 was reported there in Bob's report, of 45 millirem. 

15 This one actually didn't occur at CPP. This one 

16 occurred in MTX. And you'll that APN/333 for the 

17 code. And that corresponds to MTX or MTR 

18 construction.

19 So this is an individual who's badged 

20 did multiple different areas. Again, only one 

21 badge in CPP qualifies for being part of the SEC. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And again, this individual, like the previous two, 

2 when you obtain the actual dosimetry reports, 

3 clearly puts them at CPP during that time period, 

4 and so they would be included in the Class.

5 So, the other four individuals that 

6 were in the gray area in Bob's report, we have 

7 requested their supplemental dosimetry, but I 

8 prioritized these three because these gave me the 

9 most pause. And I wanted to really track this one 

10 down, especially before today if at all possible. 

11 And so folks at DOE worked diligently to get this 

12 information, and I really commend them for doing 

13 so, as well as the staff here at NIOSH to get the 

14 records transferred here electronically last night 

15 and working late in order to get this out.

16 So, hopefully, the Board, the Work 

17 Group, SC&A can understand that there is more 

18 information out there that I think will really help 

19 in your evaluation. And I'd really like to point 

20 this out and hope that you will review it when we 

21 get all of the CX reports. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

119

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 Or if you run into a claimant issue, 

2 request the information from DOE and see what it 

3 is they come up with from their database, which is 

4 more geared on an individual basis and not, as 

5 you're saying, rosters-type of scenario.

6 So, with that, I'll be happy to answer 

7 any questions.

8 MR. BARTON: Tim, this is Bob Barton. 

9 Aside from the NOCTS records that only have the 

10 annual summaries -- which I guess is part of, as 

11 you said, an efficiency measure -- for the 

12 claimants who, in addition to those annual 

13 summaries, do have the area dosimetry reports, 

14 these additional CPP construction reports, would 

15 those all be reflected already in those records? 

16 Or these additional records that are just now 

17 coming in, would those also have to be applied to 

18 the claimants who had already area dosimetry cycles 

19 in their NOCTS file but maybe not a complete 

20 accounting of every record?

21 I'm trying to figure out whether the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

120

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 ones who do have the routine monitoring forms with 

2 the area, if those records are complete as DOE 

3 considers them.

4 DR. TAULBEE: The short answer is no. 

5 And the reason actually comes back to the temporary 

6 badges. And if I can go back -- let's see if I can 

7 do this. If I can go back to my original 

8 presentation, and let me go up a few slides here. 

9 This is one of the temporary badge 

10 reports that I just pulled up. And the way they 

11 did their indexing for individuals is, yes, a 

12 temporary badge was positive. Then the badge was 

13 entered into their index. If it was not positive, 

14 it was not entered.

15 So, routine folks are picked up. The 

16 CX folks are picked up. But the temporary badges, 

17 in this particular case you see one positive badge 

18 result here on the temporary report. That was 

19 picked up in their index. So, when they're sending 

20 us results, they're only going through their index 

21 and what they find.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

121

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 This is part of why we physically 

2 captured all of the temporary badge reports when 

3 we were onsite in April, was because we learned this 

4 at that time in talking with the dosimetry folks, 

5 that these weren't necessarily entered into their 

6 index if they had a zero dose.

7 So, the only way to identify some of the 

8 people outside the index is to go through this 

9 temporary badge report and find them, like you did 

10 with a large number when you were taking your 39 

11 folks that you wanted to do follow-up on. And it's 

12 very tedious. And you did a great job on that, 

13 because these are not easy to try and find when you 

14 go through there. We've been struggling 

15 internally with it. Lara Hughes and Mitch Findley 

16 have been working with these. 

17 And we certainly understand the pain. 

18 It's not simple to go through. And probably one 

19 of the big steps that's going to have to be done 

20 is these are going to have to be coded in order to 

21 look people up faster from that standpoint.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Does that answer your question, Bob?

2 MR. BARTON: Yes, it does. Thank you, 

3 Tim.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim. I just 

5 want to follow up on that part of it. In terms of 

6 then implementing this Class Definition, I mean, 

7 the steps would be that presumably it's approved 

8 and so forth. The claim goes into DOL. They have 

9 employment information during the appropriate time 

10 period. DOL would then have to request this kind 

11 of a record search from DOE?

12 DR. TAULBEE: The way I envisioned it 

13 working, and the way I talked with Greg Lewis from 

14 DOE and Craig Walker, was that DOL would send a 

15 request to DOE asking whether this person worked 

16 at CPP, or met the criteria because we've now 

17 changed it and opened it up larger. 

18 And so what DOE would do is they would 

19 go through and try and find a dosimeter badge issued 

20 at CPP up through February 1970, or any badge from 

21 the '70 to '74 time period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, really, they only have to find one. 

2 They don't have to go through everything. If they 

3 find a routine badge, they're done. It only runs 

4 into the individuals that they're not finding in 

5 their system, that at that point they would need 

6 to go to these temporary badges to try and see if 

7 they were monitored. 

8 Does that answer your question, Dr. 

9 Melius?

10 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. Yeah, it does. 

11 As a follow-up to that, what's the rationale for 

12 requiring external radiation monitoring for the 

13 expanded part, the '70 to '74 period?

14 DR. TAULBEE: The rationale is that the 

15 infeasibility deals with plutonium and other 

16 actinide exposures separated from fission products 

17 in the CPP processing building, particularly the 

18 cells and the operating corridors, the maintenance 

19 corridors, as well as the laboratories.

20 You couldn't physically get there 

21 without wearing a dosimeter badge. There was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

124

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 security at the front gate that was checking your 

2 security credential as well as the dosimeter. And 

3 some of Ms. Stanger's memos, correspondence, is 

4 indicating, this was very well-known. People had 

5 to wear a dosimeter badge to go into these areas.

6 So, the rationale of opening it up for 

7 anybody monitored is that somebody physically 

8 could have been working at their main job at Central 

9 Facilities or the Burial Grounds. And they could 

10 have gone up to CPP and used their CFA-issued 

11 dosimeter, which will have a different area code. 

12 It won't have area code 5 or 53 or 55. Or under 

13 the CX reports, it wouldn't show up in 11, 113 or 

14 115. MTR, for example, is 3. And they could have 

15 physically one into one of these operating 

16 corridors or one of these cells and done some work. 

17 And we wouldn't have a record that they were 

18 physically in CPP and had this potential exposure.

19 So, that's our rational for opening it 

20 up. But we're still restricting it to people who 

21 were badged, because you couldn't have gone into 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

125

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 those buildings without a badge. A film badge, I'm 

2 sorry.

3 MEMBER MELIUS: So, who are we 

4 excluding? I mean, in a practical sense. Is 

5 that --

6 DR. TAULBEE: Accountants, clerical 

7 folks that worked at Central Facilities. The 

8 laundry folks at Central Facilities were badged. 

9 Some bus drivers that may not have gone in, or that 

10 were not badged and didn't go physically into the 

11 buildings within the fenced areas. Administrative 

12 procurement-type of folks, that type of thing. 

13 That's who's being excluded.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Because, I 

15 mean, in the past we found these kinds of 

16 definitions to be -- or DOL has found them to be 

17 problematic.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Right. And this is one 

19 that we vetted with DOL, at least the initial one. 

20 And they felt it was workable, with the cooperation 

21 of DOE to identify these area codes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. The other 

2 aspect, because I think you're going to write this 

3 up as a Revision 1 report, is look at whether a 

4 compound definition is sufficiently clear. We've 

5 had difficulties constructing compound Class 

6 Definitions where we've had like sort of two 

7 different sets of criteria into one definition, and 

8 what happens to the people that are on the border 

9 that overlap between the two. Again, it won't be 

10 a large number of people, but it would be some. 

11 I would also add that we ought to, and 

12 this is maybe for counsel to look at or think about, 

13 is this whole issue of health endangerment. We're 

14 not really requiring a person to have worked 250 

15 days in CPP.

16 DR. TAULBEE: No, because we can't rule 

17 out, remember, some of the badges, as Bob pointed 

18 out in his presentation, were annual TLDs.

19 MEMBER MELIUS: Right, yeah.

20 DR. TAULBEE: They very well could have 

21 been in there for 250 days with one badge.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Right. But they could 

2 have also been in there for a day.

3 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah. And when we're 

5 restricting it, particularly with a compound 

6 definition, I think it could be problematic. That 

7 is going to be dealt with, I hope.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. That's all that I 

9 have, Phil.

10 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Actually, I was 

11 going to suggest maybe a short ten-minute break 

12 right now. I don't know whether people need a 

13 break or not. If not, we can continue.

14 MR. KATZ: That's fine, Phil. People 

15 need a break, ten minutes.

16 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Yeah.

17 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. That's sounds 

18 good.

19 MR. KATZ: So, it's 12:20 by my clock, 

20 so at about 12:30 we'll come back.

21 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Sounds good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

128

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 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

2 went off the record at 12:19 p.m. and resumed at 

3 12:30 p.m.)

4 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Well, for those of 

5 you who have access to it, it looks like John's 

6 already got his slides up on the screen there.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, he does. And this 

8 presentation is also on the NIOSH website.

9 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay. This one is 

10 on the NIOSH website?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. All of the 

12 presentations are now on the NIOSH website.

13 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. I wasn't 

14 100 percent aware of that to be honest with you. 

15 So, I guess if John's ready to go.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. I can go ahead and 

17 get started. This is John Stiver from SC&A. And 

18 as you can see by the title -- I'm assuming 

19 everybody can see the presentation. Is there any 

20 trouble with that, or does this look okay? It's

21 not too big to fit on the screen or anything like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that?

2 MR. KATZ: It looks good, John.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay. And according to 

4 the title, it's "Evaluation of the Areas and Times 

5 that NIOSH has Determined Doses are 

6 Reconstructable." And this slide presentation is 

7 really a companion to the document, the interim 

8 progress report on this very subject that we sent 

9 out and we posted, I believe, Monday morning.

10 Again, my apologies for the lack of 

11 timeliness on this. We were kind of scrambling 

12 last week to get it out, and then the 4th weekend 

13 and so forth. But in the future everything will 

14 be delivered at least a week in advance.

15 Let me move on down here to the next 

16 page. And I just want to give you some background 

17 here. As you all know, the INL is a very complex 

18 site. And accordingly, the Board determined that 

19 the review of the ER should be performed in a 

20 graded, deliberate manner where we would first 

21 conduct preliminary reviews of certain issues that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

130

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 were of immediate concern.

2 And the near-term tasking to support 

3 this meeting, and also the Board session in Idaho 

4 Falls, were two-fold. As you know, to evaluate the 

5 Class Definition, which we've discussed already 

6 today. And also to begin a focused evaluation of 

7 those areas, activities, and times that NIOSH has 

8 determined doses are reconstructable with 

9 sufficient accuracy.

10 I might also mention, there are several 

11 areas that are still held in reserve. And, 

12 obviously, we would not begin looking at those 

13 until NIOSH has made their own determination 

14 regarding that reconstructability.

15 And I'd like to reiterate that, again, 

16 this is very much a work in progress. This is a 

17 progress report. The presentation is really just 

18 to inform and recommend areas where we believe more 

19 research is needed. And you can see that last line 

20 there that I bolded. We expect no judgments or 

21 conclusions to be drawn at this preliminary stage.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The way we approached this gap 

2 analysis, we really used both a horizontal and 

3 vertical approach. Horizontal being looking at 

4 dose reconstruction methodology applied across the 

5 site and cross-cutting, not really relegated to any 

6 particular facility, operation, or time period. 

7 And we also went vertical in some areas, individual 

8 areas at the INL site, for which we felt it was 

9 appropriate at the time.

10 We have six areas of investigation, 

11 kind of sub-studies if you will. Two were cross 

12 cutting, one being the investigation of fission and 

13 activation product bioassay indicator 

14 radionuclides, especially this whole notion of 

15 using ratios for cesium-137 and strontium-90 to 

16 derive mixed fission product and activation 

17 product intakes, and also actinide intake.

18 The second cross-cutting aspect was 

19 reactor modeling, and this was obviously important 

20 to the test research area and also to Test Area 

21 North.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We did four vertical analyses, one 

2 being the Burial Grounds; Central Facilities Area; 

3 the CPP pre-1963, right before the SEC, I believe, 

4 from '52 to '63; and then Test Area North.

5 Alright, let's take a look at the 

6 fission and activation product and actinide 

7 intakes per NIOSH's ER. And NIOSH's methodology 

8 is really based on four fundamental assumptions 

9 regarding fission and activation products, or FAP, 

10 bioassay.

11 NIOSH assumes that sufficient workers' 

12 records containing bioassay, both in vitro and in 

13 vivo, those results are available to assign intakes 

14 and resulting doses of FAP. And some areas and 

15 periods may need a coworker model to be developed.

16 Regarding FAP intakes, except for 

17 special situations, all the dosimetrically 

18 significant intakes are directly tied to an 

19 indicator radionuclide, as I mentioned earlier, 

20 strontium-90 or cesium-137. And that ratios and 

21 intake assignment methods provided in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

133

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 ORAUT-OTIB-0054 were sufficient to bound all 

2 potential exposures to these FAPs at INL.

3 The third assumption regarding 

4 actinide intakes, again, except for special 

5 situations, the actinide intakes are also directly 

6 tied in a constant ratio to fission and activation 

7 products. So, therefore, the same ratios can be 

8 used, using tables 5-22 for strontium-90, and/or 

9 5-23 for cesium-137 out of TBD-5.

10 And, finally, the last, the fourth 

11 assumption, the special situations actinide, for

12 personnel who were involved in an operation and 

13 certain incidents, either planned or unplanned, 

14 with actinide present that were not directly tied 

15 to an FAP in a constant ratio, were adequately 

16 monitored and the results are available in the 

17 workers' records. So, therefore, these intakes 

18 and resulting doses can be reconstructed in these 

19 special cases.

20 Now, we look at it a couple different 

21 ways to evaluate this. First, Ron Buchanan is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

134

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 heading up the study, and he's doing a really great 

2 job on it. We looked at the NOCTS claimant files, 

3 specifically for positive bioassay data for these 

4 radionuclide ratios. It might kind of give us a 

5 second way to kind of triangulate on these ratios 

6 to see do the actual data reflect what is generated 

7 using the computer from scale that we have in the 

8 tables in TBD-5.

9 And also look in the SRDB to evaluate 

10 documents that might contain workers' bioassay 

11 data to evaluate these ratios. And also look at 

12 air monitoring filters, smear data, nasal swabs and 

13 so forth that might be available to corroborate the 

14 ratios.

15 Where do we stand now? It's kind of a 

16 mixed bag. Some of the data provided lower FAP 

17 intakes than would be assigned using TIB-0054. 

18 So, that gives us assurance that TIB-0054 is 

19 actually claimant-favorable.

20 The same can be said for actinides, 

21 plutonium-238, using TBD-5. However, some of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

135

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 data provided for greater actinide intakes, 

2 particularly plutonium-238 and americium-241, 

3 than would have been derived using TBD-5.

4 Hang on a second. Jumped ahead again. 

5 So, where do we need to go now? Well, we're 

6 currently determining if the burn-up in the fuel 

7 elements used by NIOSH is applicable/bounding to 

8 the situations encountered at INL.

9 We're investigating the use of one 

10 model and only three fuel elements to bound the 

11 intakes and the doses. 

12 And we also need to determine if records 

13 analysis of dissolver contents, you know, the 

14 chopped, shredded fuel elements are available, 

15 preferably for a variety of reactor fuel elements.

16 More document research is needed to 

17 evaluate NIOSH's recommended ratio, and especially 

18 for actinide. And we believe that the 

19 investigations are going to be aided by the 

20 electronic bioassay database. Even though it's 

21 presently incomplete, it allows us to take a look 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

136

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 at some of the paired FAP and actinide bioassays. 

2 It provides more assurance.

3 Let me back up again. At this point, 

4 are there any questions? Am I still on?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're on, John.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. Alright.

7 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Hey, John. One 

8 quick question before you go on. We know that INL 

9 handled a number of the different fuel pins and 

10 stuff, dissolving them up and processing them. 

11 And some of those pins came from, hope I'm not 

12 getting into classified area, but they had 

13 different levels of enrichment. Some of those 

14 fuel pins were made from fuel that was recyclables 

15 brought in from the field that had a significant 

16 amount of, like, americium ingrowth and things.

17 Is that model going to be able to handle 

18 those differences without -- what's your feeling 

19 on that model?

20 MR. STIVER: It's kind of what we're 

21 trying to investigate at this point by looking at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

137

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 real bioassay data: do those data corroborate 

2 NIOSH's proposed model? Is the model bounding, 

3 you know, for the workers who actually have 

4 submitted data? 

5 Ron, are you online? Maybe you could 

6 kind of flesh that out a little bit more.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

8 Buchanan of SC&A. 

9 Yes, Phil, that is exactly the area that 

10 we feel still needs to be evaluated further.

11 When I looked at this, the model that is being used 

12 is the one model, computer model, saying how much 

13 material would be created in a fuel element if it 

14 was burned for a certain amount of time in a reactor 

15 and then decayed a certain amount of time.

16 And what they essentially did was bring 

17 those fuel elements, wherever they were from, into 

18 a chopper-shredder, so to speak, I think they 

19 called it a dissolver, and had chemicals, acids and 

20 stuff, to dissolve the cladding and other materials 

21 and start processing it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And what I'd like to find is some 

2 chemical information, some chemical analysis, 

3 showing what was in that chopper before they start 

4 separating it out, because this is the last time 

5 the actinides of plutoniums and uraniums were 

6 actually tagged with the fission activation 

7 products, the strontium and the cesium. And so 

8 what would be very helpful would be to find if there 

9 was some chemical analysis, radionuclide analysis, 

10 showing what was in that hopper.

11 There had been some hint that there was 

12 chemical analysis done, but the documents, due to 

13 record retention policies, they couldn't find any. 

14 And so they went into the computer modeling. I'd 

15 very much like to find if there is some of that data 

16 still available. And of course, the secondary 

17 back-up, what we're really interested in, is what 

18 did the worker actually take in?

19 And so we found some nose swabs, a few 

20 other filters, a few bioassay data that we did 

21 comparisons on. And we have that in our full 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

139

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 report, about 14 samples.

2 Now, we feel these are indications that 

3 we need to look at certain areas. But at this time, 

4 we are not completely satisfied that the one model 

5 and the three fuel elements does cover. It may, 

6 but at this point we are not satisfied that it is, 

7 and we feel that this should be investigated 

8 further.

9 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Thanks. I 

10 appreciate that.

11 MR. STIVER: Any other questions? If 

12 not, I'll move on to the second study, which was 

13 reactor modeling. 

14 And, again, this is kind of the source 

15 term side of the same problem. A lot of it is 

16 looking at, what were the intakes? Do the ratios 

17 that NIOSH proposed really reflect what the 

18 bioassay data suggest? And Steve Ostrow kind of 

19 looked at the source term side of the same question.

20 Given the models that NIOSH are using 

21 are kind of restricted, and there were so many 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

140

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 different activities going on, so many different 

2 kinds of experiments at INL with different burnup 

3 rates, different compositions and so forth, do 

4 those ratios that NIOSH has developed really 

5 reflect the source terms that were in place, or 

6 actually available onsite?

7 So, you'll see right here on the slide 

8 that air sampling or urinalysis data on exposure 

9 to mixed fission and activation products 

10 associated with reactors and fuels were basically 

11 only in the form of gross beta or gross gamma 

12 activity unattributed to any specific nuclide.

13 So we went again and looked at OTIB-0054 

14 which provides the guidance on kind of hooking 

15 these activity levels back to a particular mix of 

16 radionuclides that NIOSH believes would have been 

17 bounding for all the potential exposures that could 

18 have taken place at INL over time.

19 The OTIB considers nine different 

20 cases, four representative reactors with different 

21 specific power levels, irradiation times, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

141

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 burnups.

2 So, our questions are, first of all, are 

3 the many INL reactors and operating scenarios, some 

4 of which we can call exotic, are those adequately 

5 enveloped by the OTIB cases so that the isotopic 

6 ratios are valid? And have all off-normal 

7 operating scenarios been identified, and are there 

8 also adequately enveloped by the OTIB methodology?

9 Our recommendation at this point: 

10 Investigations have been primarily for normal 

11 operating conditions for the three major Test 

12 Reactor Area reactors: the MTR, the ETR, and the 

13 Advanced Test Reactor. We believe that we need to 

14 continue to investigate the applicability of 

15 OTIB-0054 to off-normal operating scenarios, 

16 including special materials irradiation runs and 

17 any particular incidents for the TRA reactors, and 

18 the characteristics of normal and off-normal 

19 operating scenarios for other reactors, such as 

20 Test Area North, for example, and the Advanced 

21 Nuclear Propulsion reactors, which were much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

142

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 different in fuel composition and arrangement and 

2 operation than other types of reactors.

3 At that point, I'll take a little break. 

4 If anybody wants to ask questions, I know Steve has 

5 done a lot of research in this. He's very 

6 knowledgeable. If you want to get something other 

7 than the 10,000-foot view, Steve can provide some 

8 specific answers. 

9 If there are no questions, I guess we 

10 can move on to the next study, the very first 

11 vertical study, on the Burial Grounds.

12 And this is just a couple of slides here 

13 listing what our concerns are. Joe Fitzgerald has 

14 delved into this quite extensively. And we have 

15 some preliminary observations and concerns that we 

16 listed here.

17 We have a concern that a strict 

18 contamination control program was actually in 

19 place. The evidence that we've uncovered suggests 

20 that may not be the case. The site apparently 

21 lacked adequate smear counting capability for some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

143

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 length of time before the early 1970s.

2 The radioactive waste was not 

3 specifically identified for most drums, boxes, and 

4 other containers in the early years. And we were 

5 looking for an extended time period, I think 1952 

6 to -- it was 1970, because I know NIOSH is holding, 

7 I believe, a few months from '69 to '69 in reserve. 

8 But we're looking at, I believe, '52 to '68. 

9 Offsite waste received from 

10 commercial, university, ERDA, and military sources 

11 in the '60 to '63 were not adequately identified.

12 The AEC also voiced concerns over the 

13 conflicted role of the HPs at the Burial Grounds, 

14 who were also responsible for much of its operation 

15 as well as radiation protection. So there is kind 

16 of a concern there that they may not have been 

17 conducting a completely independent program.

18 Internal investigations and appraisals 

19 bring into question the robustness of the HP 

20 program and this so-called defense-in-depth 

21 approach for radiological controls, as cited by the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

144

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 ER.

2 What would we recommend? Conduct more 

3 interviews with former Burial Grounds workers who 

4 had experience during the time period in question, 

5 you know, emphasizing the rad control program. 

6 What were their views? Did have any particular 

7 observations or specific knowledge of what it was 

8 really like?

9 Also conduct additional data capture, 

10 focusing on these four things. Additional evidence 

11 of potential intakes to rad-waste handlers. 

12 How contamination control was 

13 administered. You know, where the rubber meets 

14 the road. What was it really like? 

15 Are there available routine and special 

16 air sampling data we could look at? 

17 Also the robustness of the health 

18 physics program, you know, the independence, the 

19 resources, and the monitoring practices. 

20 Joe, if you'd like to add to that at all?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess the only 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

145

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 thing I would add is, at this stage, you know, Tim 

2 and his folks are still putting the database 

3 together. And so this, by force, had to be simply 

4 a document review, SRDB-based document review.

5 But, essentially, what we're just 

6 trying to do is validate some of the programmatic 

7 and source term characterization information in ER 

8 for consistency's sake.

9 And I think what we were just pointing 

10 out, at this early stage, is that the answer is 

11 equivocal. There's just contradictory 

12 information from some of the documents that bear 

13 further research, certainly some concern over the 

14 general strength of the rad program at the Burial 

15 Grounds at that time period.

16 So, I'll just leave it at that. But 

17 that's certainly, you know, what we have at this 

18 point.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Thanks. And 

20 that's kind of what this slide shows. Obviously 

21 you can read this. We need to take a closer look 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

146

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 at the dose assessment feasibility side, too, you 

2 know, the procedures and practices that were in 

3 place. Can the workers identified? Can all the 

4 source terms be identified and addressed? And 

5 when the database is complete, we'll certainly use 

6 that as well.

7 And the next thing we looked at in kind 

8 of an in-depth way was Central Facilities. Again, 

9 we had some concerns here that this area handled 

10 radioactive materials from all over the INL site, 

11 consisting of fission products, activation 

12 products, actinides, and any mixture or 

13 combination of the above. And as a result, it's 

14 difficult to bound internal doses by using the 

15 ratio of strontium/cesium-137 using TIB-0054 and 

16 OTIB-0060. We don't know the radionuclide mix, in 

17 any case, so it may not be practical for each ratio.

18 Four main facilities of concern, the 

19 first being the CF-640 machine shop. They handled 

20 material that couldn't be worked on in other areas. 

21 They were a fully equipped machine shop. Most of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the materials were of a low radiation and 

2 contamination level.

3 The other was the maintenance shop, 

4 CF-665, where they worked on vehicles and equipment 

5 that were used to haul radioactive materials. 

6 These vehicles were surveyed prior to shop 

7 maintenance and sent to CPP for decontamination if 

8 that was necessary.

9 The Central Facilities laundry. They 

10 washed coveralls and other protective clothing 

11 from all over the site. The old facility that was 

12 used from 1950 was demolished in '94. CF-699, I 

13 believe it was.

14 And finally the sewage treatment plant. 

15 Here you have small amounts of radioactivity were 

16 processed through to a drying pond. Actually, 

17 most of the radioactivity was from hot laundry, 

18 although small amounts could come from the 

19 engineering lab and the analytical lab.

20 What do we recommend for CFA? Well, we 

21 believe that we need to evaluate the rad surveys
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and air sampling results, both during operations 

2 and just prior to D&D, to determine, once again, 

3 did these ratios really hold or are there other 

4 mixes that need to be considered?

5 This needs to be compared back to the 

6 values, obviously, in tables 5-22 and 5-23 of 

7 TBD-5. 

8 Any questions regarding Central 

9 Facilities?

10 Okay. In that case, I'll move on to 

11 CPP, pre-1963, before the SEC. As you know, the 

12 currently proposed Class, from '63 to '74, with 

13 modification, has already been discussed.

14 The rationale for the SEC Class, 

15 obviously, is: "Increased potential for intake due 

16 to poor contamination control and inadequate 

17 personnel monitoring for exposures to transuranics 

18 separated from mixed fission products makes it 

19 unlikely that exposures to alpha emitters can 

20 adequately be reconstructed from January 1963 

21 through December 1974."
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

149

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 However, NIOSH has determined that they 

2 believe it's feasible to reconstruct all internal 

3 and external exposure at CPP prior to 1963, because 

4 INL is kind of unique in a way. When it first came 

5 on line in the first part of the 1950s, they a lot 

6 of experience from previous activities at other 

7 sites. And they also had some of the best HPs and 

8 engineers in the business working there who 

9 designed the program. 

10 And so it's not the situation we have 

11 at a lot of sites, especially like the AWEs and so 

12 forth, where the program developed over time and 

13 improved. Here they started out with a really good 

14 program based on experience gained at other sites. 

15 But over time, that program kind of 

16 deteriorated as some of the key people left and 

17 other contractors came in, cutting costs and so 

18 forth. And so contamination really became a big 

19 problem with CPP in the time period, basically, 

20 NIOSH determined really around 1963.

21 So, we're taking a look at that and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

150

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 trying to determine if that is really a reasonable 

2 cut-off date or start date for the SEC. And this 

3 Table 7-5 from the feasibility summary for the ER 

4 shows that, prior to '63, NIOSH believed that all 

5 these different radionuclides can be reconstructed 

6 with sufficient accuracy.

7 What are our concerns and the focus for 

8 our investigation? Which is very much a work in 

9 progress, I might add. We're looking at 

10 contamination incidents and the control program 

11 that was in place prior to '63. We're assessing 

12 the internal dosimetry program and obviously 

13 looking at relevant claims for bioassay coverage 

14 in relation to established assignments to CPP, the 

15 adequacy of the bioassay program to cover internal 

16 exposures to alpha emitters, and characterizing 

17 temporal changes in source term and exposure 

18 potential.

19 Our recommendations. Continue SRDB 

20 review, looking for documented contamination 

21 events and evaluation of contamination control; 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

151

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 variations in radiological activities, basically 

2 the source terms at CPP; and taking a look at 

3 available hardcopy bioassay data that might be 

4 specific to these alpha emitters at that site.

5 Looking at the claim file review, 

6 again, in NOCTS to compile internal monitoring data 

7 on a sample of the claimant population at CPP to 

8 identify incidents reported in dosimetry records 

9 or CATI reports. And, basically, to evaluate the 

10 adequacy of internal monitoring for the purpose of 

11 dose reconstruction in general.

12 Any questions on CPP? Bob is available 

13 to provide details on that if anybody has any 

14 questions.

15 The last area we looked at was Test Area 

16 North. John Mauro and Amy Meldrum took a look at 

17 this site. And there was a lot of interesting 

18 activities going on here. This is kind of a 

19 breakdown structure of the different programs that 

20 took place at Test Area North. The Site Profile 

21 and the Evaluation Report provide a lot of detailed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

152

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 information on what was going on in the facilities 

2 over time.

3 And this is just to kind of reiterate 

4 what's already out there in the literature at this 

5 point. All we did with Test Area North, because 

6 of the cross-cutting nature of the internal 

7 exposure issues regarding the bioassay, the source 

8 terms, the reactors and so forth, we thought there 

9 was no real reason to really try to look at TAN in 

10 isolation regarding internal dosimetry.

11 So we decided to look at the 

12 completeness of the external dosimetry data, for 

13 the reasons stated. The Evaluation Report and the 

14 Site Profile show that there was a very high quality 

15 and complete set of external dosimetry data, with 

16 maybe an exception in some of the neutron data at 

17 certain periods of time. And because, as I 

18 mentioned a minute ago, the internal side of the 

19 house is already being investigated in another 

20 sub-study.

21 We took a look at the SRDB. Amy delved 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

153

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 into this in detail. And Table 6 on pages 27 and 

2 28 of the interim report lists all these data, kind 

3 of a summary of what we found.

4 Thirty-seven SRDB documents, over 

5 12,000 pages in total. All these different areas 

6 mentioned within the site were identified. 

7 Approximately 200,000 badge changes, dosimeter 

8 changes in total were found, and approximately 

9 7,000 neutron badges.

10 This graphic here kind of shows you, the 

11 Y-axis is time -- or, excuse me -- no. Anyway, this 

12 really is just a listing of all the dosimeters by 

13 time periods, from '55 up to 1970. And I think the 

14 axis is not quite right on this.

15 There's just a number, each plant, as you can see 

16 there in the caption, at every point on there is 

17 a day in which a dosimeter change-out was observed 

18 in a SRDB document. With the exception of 1961, 

19 there are thousands of them taking place. There's 

20 a lot of data here. 

21 And this table breaks it down by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

154

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 sub-area. You can see the Aircraft Nuclear 

2 Propulsion program is well-represented in the 

3 early days from '55 at least up to '62. Initial 

4 Engine Tests and the STEP program are 

5 well-represented. Low Power Test Facility 

6 actually operated quite a bit longer than that, but 

7 they're kind of a paucity of data here for that 

8 particular facility. TSF is fairly 

9 well-represented from '64 and on. 

10 So, mostly, I guess we can say here our 

11 initial observation of the quality and the 

12 completeness of the external dosimetry data is very 

13 good. There seem to be some temporal and 

14 informational gaps, particularly dosimeters of the 

15 sub-areas of TAN. And we believe that maybe 

16 additional SRDB searches can help fill those gaps.

17 At this moment in time, Amy and John 

18 Mauro are looking at the completeness of the 

19 neutron dosimetry data. So, we're doing a 

20 completeness data on the neutron data.

21 And there is one kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

155

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 recommendation, if you will, that really has more 

2 to do with coworker modeling for this particular 

3 case. And this kind of cuts across what the SEC 

4 Work Group and some of the guidance Jim Neton has 

5 put out, revised guidance that just came out 

6 recently.

7 But we think, for this particular site, 

8 for TAN, that records sometimes don't provide the 

9 information on the sub-areas where a worker 

10 experiences exposures. And given the variety and 

11 uniqueness of some of the activities that took 

12 place in the different sub-areas, we believe that 

13 the complete data set really can't be used to build 

14 a coworker model for unmonitored workers at a given 

15 facility, because you don't have a homogeneous 

16 population.

17 It's not like you have a bunch of guys 

18 on a factory floor milling uranium or something. 

19 You've got all these different things going on. So 

20 to try to mix it all together and rank it and create 

21 a distribution, we don't feel that is really the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

156

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 best way to go.

2 Rather, we would think that the 

3 coworker model should really try to focus on, you 

4 know, if the granularity in the data is there, we 

5 think, at least at this stage, the best approach 

6 would be to build coworker models for the different 

7 sub-activities or sub-areas, if indeed it is found 

8 that a coworker model is needed given there's so 

9 much data available. There might not be a need for 

10 a coworker model. So, that was kind of very 

11 preliminary in nature. 

12 That pretty much sums up the status 

13 report. Are there any other questions, concerns, 

14 observations that anybody would like to raise? 

15 In that case, Phil, I guess you can move 

16 on. Thank you.

17 MEMBER MELIUS: Excuse me. This is 

18 Jim Melius. And I guess this question is for both 

19 John and for Tim. I'm just trying to get a sense 

20 of what the schedule is for going forward on the 

21 site, because there's sort of a lot of different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

157

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 sub-evaluations going on. And I'm trying to 

2 figure out, sort of, what are the next steps? 

3 There's some reserved parts of the original 

4 evaluation. You know, there's the Argonne-West 

5 evaluation, which is underway.

6 And then plus you have what appears to 

7 be a number of SC&A sub-Evaluation Reports coming 

8 out at some point. Though, some of those appear 

9 to be dependent on all the records becoming 

10 available.

11 Did you get all that? I know it's a big 

12 question.

13 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim. I can speak 

14 to kind of the general NIOSH schedule as to what 

15 we are doing. In the immediate future is, 

16 obviously, from our standpoint, to revise the 

17 current ER and get it to the Board as absolutely 

18 fast as we can.

19 And then, basically, as far as the 

20 addendum component to the areas that we reserved, 

21 we are waiting until after we get done with the ANL 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

158

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 ER, which is in full-blown right now. We have 

2 received all of those documents from the site, as 

3 of last week, that we had captured in the spring. 

4 So, the team is actually diligently 

5 working on ANL-West right now so that we can meet 

6 the goal of getting it to the Board, hopefully about 

7 a month before the Board meeting so that everybody 

8 has time in order to read and review that one before 

9 we present it in November.

10 Once we get that to the Board, then we 

11 will be going back on the addendum, the reserved 

12 areas, the ARA area with the hot cell that's there, 

13 Test Area North with the area that we reserved from 

14 there to due to the uranium work that was going on. 

15 And then, of course, the Burial Grounds in the '69 

16 and '70 time period. But right now our immediate 

17 is fixing the current ER and continuing the 

18 ANL-West evaluation.

19 MEMBER MELIUS: And just a follow-up on 

20 that, Tim. Where does a coworker model or 

21 development of coworker models fit into these? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

159

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 I'm just trying to -- it came up a little bit in 

2 John's presentation, and I'm just trying to get a 

3 handle on sort of the amount of work involved. It's 

4 sort of also buried within sort of the -- what you 

5 already determined to be feasible but which still 

6 need to be further developed.

7 DR. TAULBEE: Right. I don't see the 

8 coworker models really being started until after 

9 the ANL-West ER is complete, because of the 

10 staffing and, you know, the same people working on 

11 the project. So I don't see that until really this 

12 fall at the soonest that we would get underway with 

13 that.

14 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. That's fair. 

15 And John?

16 MR. STIVER: Again, I think some of our 

17 studies we should be able to wrap up over the summer 

18 and the first part of this fall, probably in the 

19 September timeframe.

20 There's one little problem we're 

21 encountering here, which has to do more with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

160

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 site's ability to host us. Tim and his crew are 

2 up there trying to get Argonne-West finished up.

3 I don't think that we're going to be 

4 able to do follow-up interviews probably until 

5 sometime late September or October, especially 

6 related to the Burial Grounds, you know, or some 

7 of these areas, CPP in the early years, where we 

8 would like to do some more focused interviews. So, 

9 those aspects, obviously, won't be finished up at 

10 that time. 

11 Anything we got in coworker models, 

12 obviously, is going to have to wait for another 

13 round of reviews. Unless they actually have those 

14 prepared, it will be sometime next year I would 

15 assume. 

16 But I think at least some aspects, like

17 the reactor study, bioassay review, some of the 

18 external dosimetry reviews, I think we can 

19 certainly have those wrapped up probably by 

20 September, I would think.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. That's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

161

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 helpful.

2 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: This is --

3 MR. KATZ: Phil, were you trying to say 

4 something?

5 MR. STIVER: We lost you, Phil.

6 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: I'll try this again. 

7 I was wondering how long you -- it sounds like 

8 there's going to be a lot of data entry on these 

9 records here you're waiting for from DOE. How long 

10 do you expect that to take?

11 DR. TAULBEE: Who are you addressing 

12 that to?

13 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: NIOSH.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Which records? 

15 Are you talking about the CX records?

16 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Yeah, the CX 

17 records.

18 DR. TAULBEE: Those I'm hoping that we 

19 can get by the end of the month, if not the first 

20 week or so of August. So, those I hope to be here 

21 within the month. I really, really hope so. In 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

162

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 fact, I really hope it comes sooner than that, but 

2 I can't promise that because of resources at the 

3 site I have no control over.

4 But from a data entry standpoint, we're 

5 not really going to be doing any data entry. It's 

6 more of an evaluation of the current claims: does 

7 that solve our gap issues, or fill in those 

8 particular areas where we wanted to do some 

9 additional follow-up? But that's relatively 

10 small.

11 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. I was 

12 thinking that you're going to have to do data entry 

13 on all those. I'm sorry, I had the wrong train of 

14 thought there.

15 DR. TAULBEE: No, the data entry has to 

16 do with the bioassay data and the coworker type of 

17 models. The current bioassay database has 

18 numerous issues in it. And we are looking at 

19 approaches on how to clean that up, and one 

20 particular approach is to do a second coding. And 

21 then you've got two blind codings and do matches 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and then find discrepancies between the two.

2 But that's something that we're still 

3 kicking around internally, but, again, I don't see 

4 -- if we start doing the data coding, that's going 

5 to be happening between now and the fall when the 

6 health physicists become available in order to 

7 actually process the data. Right now, they're not 

8 available. They're working on ANL-West.

9 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay.

10 MEMBER MELIUS: So, Tim, if I 

11 understand you correctly, then, the current 

12 recommendation is like a two-part Class 

13 Definition. But really the data needed to 

14 evaluate the first part of that definition you're 

15 really not going to have in-hand until after our 

16 meeting in July.

17 DR. TAULBEE: I don't believe so. If 

18 we do, I will certainly present it, but I don't 

19 believe that we will have that by then. I really 

20 don't.

21 MEMBER MELIUS: But, I mean, I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

164

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 think I want to rush you to present it, because I'm 

2 sure there's not really adequate time. And plus 

3 there's the issue of how do we evaluate it and so 

4 forth and be fair to everyone involved to look at 

5 it and have to have time to deal with it. 

6 I would just add, then, that if that is 

7 going to be the case, then I think another argument 

8 for when you do this revision, one, that you present 

9 it as sort of two separate Class Definitions. It 

10 makes it a little easier for the Board to look at 

11 it. And the second Class Definition, the roughly 

12 '74 period, the Board might be amenable to 

13 approving in the July meeting.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I'll need to talk 

15 with Stu and our OGC to address how we go about doing 

16 that. I am not sure how we fundamentally do that. 

17 But we can investigate.

18 MEMBER MELIUS: Yeah, I mean, 

19 whatever. I mean, the Board can separate them. 

20 But either way, it doesn't make any difference. I 

21 guess in terms of presenting it and making sure that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the rationale for the two different Class 

2 Definitions is clear in Revision 1. I think that's 

3 the most important thing.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: Do you know what I'm 

6 saying?

7 DR. TAULBEE: I'm following what 

8 you're saying.

9 MEMBER MELIUS: The same goes back to 

10 the questions I asked earlier so that we have that 

11 and I don't have to necessarily ask all the 

12 questions again at the Board meeting.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I also do think 

14 that within the next week or two the four cases that 

15 were identified in SC&A's report, Bob's report, 

16 that were the category fours, we should have those 

17 dosimetry records as well, I think, before the 

18 Board meeting. I'm hoping they come in next week, 

19 if not this week. So, that might be additional 

20 data that Bob can look at it and we can certainly 

21 look at as well.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

2 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: The only suggestion 

3 I've got is that I'd like to see something from both 

4 NIOSH and SC&A on what they see as their timeline 

5 going forward from here, if that's a doable thing 

6 before the Board meeting.

7 MEMBER MELIUS: Or at the Board 

8 meeting, Phil?

9 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Or at the Board 

10 meeting, yeah.

11 MEMBER MELIUS: I was thinking very 

12 importantly at the Board meeting, at least to the 

13 extent you can, whatever you've learned, you know, 

14 during the few weeks between now and the Board 

15 meeting, that would be helpful to have that 

16 prepared as part of the presentations for the Idaho 

17 meeting, I think would be helpful, because it is 

18 very complicated, confusing.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. I can certainly 

20 do that from NIOSH's side.

21 MR. STIVER: I'll take care of it for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

167

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 SC&A.

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay.

3 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thank you. 

4 All vacations are hereby suspended.

5 MEMBER MELIUS: From what I 

6 understand, nobody told Stu or Jim. I heard even 

7 LaVon's away this week.

8 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: That's what I hear. 

9 What's with this?

10 MR. KATZ: I think they're actually the 

11 -- there's a health physics meeting, annual 

12 meeting. I think that's where they are.

13 DR. TAULBEE: That's next week.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think there's good 

15 fishing somewhere.

16 MR. SUNDIN: This is Dave Sundin. Stu 

17 is actually touring with some senior -- doing a 

18 building walkthrough with some senior CDC staff 

19 right now.

20 MEMBER MELIUS: Oh, okay.

21 MR. KATZ: So, this is Ted. So, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

168

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 think you guys have sort of fleshed out in this 

2 discussion what to expect for the Board meeting, 

3 right? Because if we amend both those 

4 presentations -- and I want to compliment. The 

5 presentations were really very clear. It was very 

6 nicely done on both sides. But if you flesh them 

7 out to reflect the questions and issues that were 

8 raised here, and also the path forward on both 

9 sides, it seems like that's what will be laid on 

10 the plate for the Board, right?

11 Are there other preparations that we 

12 need, Board Members, in advance of the Board 

13 meeting?

14 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Josie, you got any 

15 input?

16 MEMBER BEACH: No, what we've 

17 discussed, I don't see anything additional that's 

18 needed at this time.

19 MR. KATZ: Good.

20 MEMBER MELIUS: I would just add I 

21 think you need to cut back on the length of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

169

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 presentations. I don't think --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, yeah.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, no. We don't have as 

4 much time, but that's absolutely right. I think 

5 we'll need to be more succinct. But I think you 

6 guys did a great job of being very clear on a lot 

7 of complicated matters.

8 DR. TAULBEE: I actually plan on my 

9 presentation being quite short, this next one, and 

10 just focus on the change in the Class Definition 

11 and why.

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I'll believe it when I 

13 see it, Tim.

14 (Laughter.)

15 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Tim, this is Gen. 

17 When you talk about the change in the Class 

18 Definition, I think you could borrow some of the 

19 words that when Bob made his presentation, 

20 verbally, he had, I think, a very nice way of 

21 explaining it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: You can maybe get 

3 that out of the notes, or he has it.

4 DR. TAULBEE: Okay. Thank you.

5 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: So, does anybody 

6 have any further input?

7 MR. KATZ: Are there any petitioners on 

8 the line? Can we just ask, Phil, if they're on the 

9 line and they want to say something about what 

10 they've heard today, by all means, you're welcome. 

11 (No response.)

12 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: I hope we didn't bore 

13 them to death.

14 MR. KATZ: How could this be boring, 

15 Phil?

16 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Yeah, but sometimes 

17 the discussions, you can lose a lot of the people.

18 MR. KATZ: I'm teasing, I'm teasing.

19 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Well, unless 

20 anybody's got anything else, I think, hopefully 

21 we'll have something to distribute here before the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally 

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

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

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

171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board meeting for people's comments, assuming that 

2 is something reasonable both NIOSH and SC&A have 

3 time to do.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. And let's work on 

5 getting those presentations, since you've done all 

6 the background work already, for the Board meeting 

7 as soon as we can in advance of it.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, they are due 

9 beginning of next week on our end.

10 MR. KATZ: Super.

11 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Well, I want to thank 

12 everybody for all the hard work they've done and 

13 for their input. You got anything, Ted?

14 MR. KATZ: No, I think you're ready to 

15 adjourn us.

16 CHAIR SCHOFIELD: Okay. Well, unless 

17 there's something else, I'm saying we're done.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

19 was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)