THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NEVADA TEST SITE
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Cincinnati, Ohio on August 7, 


2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

August 7, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 12 


INCOMPLETE RADIONUCLIDE LISTS 12 


AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL INTAKES DOCUMENT 25 

MATRIX DISCUSSION 105 


ORAU DOCUMENT 0008-6 176 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 209 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

ANSPAUGH, LYNN, SC&A 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HARRISON-NAPLES, MONICA, ORAU 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KATZ, TED, NIOSH 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAHATHY, MIKE, ORAU 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH 


ROLLINS, GENE, ORAU 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (9:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

Hello, this is the work group conference room. 


This is Lew Wade. John Mauro, can you hear 


me? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I can. 


 DR. WADE: We’ll begin the meeting now. 


Hold on for a second. So the court reporter 


is here and functioning. This is a meeting of 


the work group that is focusing on the Nevada 


Test Site site profile. It’s ably chaired by 


Mr. Presley; members Munn, Clawson and 


Roessler. All of the work group members are 


here in the room. 


Might I ask if there are any other 


Board members who are on the telephone? Do I 


have any other Board members participating on 


the telephone? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Any other Board members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: I take it that we do not have a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

quorum of the Board which is appropriate. We 


wouldn’t be able to have a work group meeting 


if we had a quorum of the Board. So again, we 


can begin. 


What I’ll do is we’ll go through 


introductions. And the way we’ll do that is 


we’ll go around the table here, and then we’ll 


go to those people participating. I’ll start 


by asking for members of the NIOSH and ORAU 


team who are on the line. 


I’ll then ask for members of the SC&A 


team who are on the line, then any members of 


Congress or their representatives who are 


participating. Then if there are workers, 


worker representatives, petitioners, claimants 


who are on the line, and then anyone else who 


would like to be identified. 


When I ask for Board members, NIOSH, 


ORAU, SC&A folks to identify themselves, I’ll 


need you to identify whether or not you have 


any conflicts relative to the Nevada Test 


Site. That’s the technical area that we’re 


looking at today. So we’ll start here going 


around the table. 


My name is Lew Wade. I have the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

privilege of being the designated federal 


official for the Board. I work for NIOSH, and 


I have no conflicts relative to this site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, NTS Work Group 


Chairman, no conflict. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A, no 


conflicts. 

MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no 

conflicts. 

MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH Health 

Physicist, I have no conflicts. 


DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, member of the 


Board and the NTS work group, no conflict. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no conflicts. 


MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board, no conflicts. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Board member, no 


conflicts. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Larry, Elliott, NIOSH, I have 


no conflicts for NTS. 


DR. BRANCHE: Christine Branche, NIOSH, no 


conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: That’s all of us in the room. I 


would hope that you could hear each of us as 


we spoke. Again, if you had any problems, let 


us know when you have that problem. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

I’m sorry. Now we’re going to go to 


the back of the room. 


 MS. HARRISON: Monica Harrison-Naples, ORAU. 


I have no conflicts for NTS. 


 MR. MAHATHY: Mike Mahathy, ORAU, no 


conflicts for NTS. 


 DR. WADE: Now we’re going to go out to the 


telephone and ask for members of the NIOSH or 


ORAU team who are on the line to identify 


themselves. Any other NIOSH or ORAU people on 


the line? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Any members of the SC&A team on 


the line? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, John Mauro, 


SC&A, no conflicts. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): This is Lynn 


Anspaugh, consultant to SC&A. When I was 


employed at Lawrence-Livermore, I did spend a 


lot of time doing experiments at the Nevada 


Test Site. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


Other members of the SC&A team? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: What about other federal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

employees who are on the call by virtue of 


their federal employment? 


MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Department of 


Labor. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jeff. 

MR. KATZ: Ted Katz, NIOSH. 

 DR. WADE: Other feds? 

 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Members of Congress or their 


representatives? 


 MS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): Hi, this is Cathy 


(unintelligible), representative for Senator 


Harry Reid. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you for joining us. 


Any other congressional staff or 


members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Are there any workers, worker 


representatives, petitioners, claimants who 


would like to be identified? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Anybody else from the Nevada Test 


Site who would like to be identified? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Is there anybody on the line who 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

hasn’t given an introduction that would like 


to be identified for the record? 


 MS. GLENN: This is (unintelligible) Glenn. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


DR. NETON: I’m going to mention that Gene 


Rollins from the ORAU team will be joining us 


on the line around 9:30. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


Anyone else who would like to be 


identified? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Before we begin let me talk to 


you a little bit about phone etiquette. 


Again, it’s important that the work group does 


its business with the possibility of others 


joining by telephone. That increases the 


capability of the Board to conduct its 


business. But for that to work it’s important 


that you on the line exercise a bit of phone 


etiquette. If you’re not speaking, mute your 


phone if at all possible so that we don’t hear 


background noises. 


If you are speaking, speak into a 


handset and not a speaker phone. Be mindful 


of the fact that background noises can be very 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

distracting to others when they might be 


second nature to you. So think about your 


situation and try and manage it so that all of 


us can have as productive a meeting as 


possible. 


Anything else that needs to be said on 


introduction? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Robert, it’s all yours. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR


 MR. PRESLEY: What I would like to do is 


start out and go through the matrix. I’m 


going to ask Mark Rolfes if he would kick it 


off, and let’s start with one and go through 


each one. I realize it’s going to take some 


time, and that way we can go through and mark 


the ones that are complete. If SC&A has 


comments or if CDC has comments, we can 


discuss those, but what I would like to do 


today is when we come to a conclusion on each 


one of these issues, mark it complete, and 


let’s move on. 


INCOMPLETE RADIONUCLIDE LISTS
 

MR. ROLFES: The first comment that we 


received from SC&A’s review was that some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

radionuclide lists are not complete. Our 


response, NIOSH’s response to this was that 


the Nevada Test Site TBD Table 2.2 was revised 


to include Chlorine-38, Aluminum-28 and 


Scandium-46. Other tables that identify 


radionuclides of concern were reviewed, but no 


additional changes were made to the TBD. 


We’ve added a note to chapter 5 


indicating that REECo reported radionuclides 


for identification or dose concern versus the 


time test for various operations. These 


radionuclide lists may not be comprehensive, 


but the lists have been reproduced, and this 


TBD is published by REECo because they reflect 


REECo’s historical account of the 


radionuclides of concern during the testing 


era. 


Table 2.8 has been removed from the 


TBD because of the special exposure cohort 


designation for workers involved in 


atmospheric testing from the early 1950s 


through the end of 1962. NIOSH believes that 


adding this additional information to Tables, 


2, 3 and 5d-13 is not appropriate at this 


time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

And also, NIOSH has completed or the 


ORAU team has completed a working draft of the 


chapter 5 revision and incorporated these 


updates. And this is currently in review at 


this time. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Does anybody have any comments 


or questions about Comment 1? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I would like 


to make one comment about that. It seems like 


this draft material that we have on ambient 


environmental intakes has greatly expanded 


this list well beyond what is stated here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Sir, can you give your name? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I’m sorry. 


This is Lynn Anspaugh. 


And I would also like to make a 


general comment that I think given the 


extensive revision on this ambient 


environmental issues that perhaps this table 


of comments and so forth, the matrix, may not 


be appropriate any more. 


MR. ROLFES: True, much additional 


information has been compiled in the ambient 


environmental intakes at Nevada Test Site 


based on air sampling and soil contamination 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

data. And this was a paper that was put 


together by Gene Rollins, and I’m going to 


have to defer to him. He should be available 


in about ten or 15 minutes with us on the 


phone. I’d like to go through in detail what 


was done if we could just delay it for 


approximately 15 minutes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Let’s do that, please. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): This is John 


Mauro. In a related matter, I noted over the 


weekend that the external dosimetry section 


has also been revised. I haven’t read through 


it all, but I did notice that it does 


represent a substantial change. So one of the 


things that might be worth discussing is, from 


the big picture, the fact that Gene Rollins 


has the new report that, I guess, dated July 


29th and the revision to the external dose 


dated July 30, both documents of which we did 


our best to review. 


And in fact, Arjun and myself and Dr. 


Anspaugh did have a chance yesterday to sort 


of collect our thoughts. So I think this may 


have this perspective of what this means with 


respect to the matrix might be important. So, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

yeah, I’d like to second that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: John and I talked yesterday 


morning. This is Arjun. John and I talked 


yesterday morning about what comments we could 


make at this meeting given there’s a lot of 


very complicated paperwork and a lot of new 


information. Like the external dose 


information is completely redone. And so one 


had a chance to really bring a considered 


opinion on a lot of these issues. So I don’t 


know, Mr. Presley, how you might want to 


proceed in that light in case we have, if you 


want us to look at this material then we might 


have comments at a later time or -- so we’re a 


little bit unclear as to what the process is 


going to be. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, my thought on a lot of 


this stuff is we beat it to death. If the 


rest of the working group thinks that we need 


to spend more time on this, we can, but I 


would like to see what you all think about 


your comments. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I’d like to weigh in on this. 


We’ve got a ton of new information that’s come 


in. They’ve completely redone this whole 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

thing, and to tell you the truth, I haven’t 


even had an opportunity to be able to review 


even a portion of this. 


And for me to be able to make a 


decision on something like that -- this is 


Brad by the way -- I don’t feel good about it. 


They’ve -- we’ve done everything. So I’d say 


that we need to have a chance for them to be 


able to make their comments, look back at it 


and go from there. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Brad, this is 


John Mauro. One of the things that we talked 


about yesterday -- I say we, Arjun, Lynn 


Anspaugh and myself -- is that one of the 


things that could be very valuable, and that 


we could accomplish today in addition to 


closing out items, of course, going through 


the matrix, and taking things that we can take 


care of, is to make sure that we do understand 


the new material that came out, the genomes 


write-up and what it is, and does it, in fact, 


I guess, replace previous material that we 


discussed before. 


For example, previously we were 


talking about mass loading approach, and now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

we’re talking about a different strategy, 


whether or not they complement each other. So 


there’s a lot for us to talk about I think 


with respect to the new material that just so 


we understand it. 


Not that we’re in a position right now 


to be critical or to make any informed 


commentary, but I think the thing that we feel 


would be valuable is for all of us to fully 


appreciate what the new material is, 


understand what the new direction is that is 


being taken in this new material. 


MR. ROLFES: As far as the update that was 


made to the external dose TBD, much of the 


information came directly in response to 


SC&A’s previous comments, and we’ve 


incorporated information into the TBD in order 


to directly address the comments that we 


received previously at previous working 


groups. I believe a couple of the additions 


were approaches for addressing personnel that 


might not have been monitored during certain 


time periods and performing certain job 


duties. 


And in order to address that issue, we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

have incorporated a coworker dose table with 


some instructions to the dose reconstructor on 


identifying personnel that were potentially 


unmonitored and how to assign dose to those 


personnel. That was the biggest change that I 


recall in the external dose TBD. 


MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. John and Arjun, 


my understanding as I was reading through 


these documents and going back to our most 


recent review of the matrix, which I have 


dated 4/18/07, my understanding was that these 


were actions that were in response to the 


original comments in the original issues that 


we had discussed when we were going through 


that matrix for about the third or fourth time 


back in April. So I guess I don’t see this as 


a new approach necessarily. I thought these 


were in response to your comments and requests 


for inclusion. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Let me just give you an 


example of there was no beta monitoring or 


rather there was no measurements from the 


badges that were worn up to 1966. So there’s 


no beta dose information in individual worker 


records, and we pointed that out. That’s an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

item in the matrix. 


And now in response to that NIOSH has 


proposed a quite complex method for beta dose 


calculations. It’s in this TBD in Section 


6.4. This is the first time that NIOSH has 


actually proposed a beta dose model because it 


was not there in the original TBD. 


Now at the pleasure of the working 


group you could accept just the model without 


review or ask us to review it or review it 


yourselves, and that’s always been my 


understanding anyway that when NIOSH puts more 


material on the table that the working group 


would have the option of just accepting it, 


reviewing it or asking us to review when there 


were major new items. And the difficulty is 


that there are major new technical elements in 


the new work. I don’t know if Mark would 


agree or Jim would agree. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. Let’s sort of 


categorize what we have here. We have our 


normal process where, I mean, SC&A reviews a 


body of work and offers comment. The work 


group discusses it. Based upon the work group 


comment, NIOSH makes some modifications and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

the process continues. It seems that what we 


have here is that, and there’s no bad people 


involved in here. What we have is a major 


quote-unquote response by NIOSH to the work 


group process that has resulted in certain 


documents that are relatively fresh. 


My sense is that we should discuss 


those documents today, understand what they 


are, and then the work group can decide 


whether or not they want SC&A to actively 


review them as part of this iterative process 


or whether the work group is satisfied with 


what it has. And I think that’s just where we 


are, and it’s where we’re supposed to be. 


Does anyone disagree with that categorization? 


Is that correct, Mark? 


MR. ROLFES: That’s fine with me. 


 DR. WADE: So just so I understand, there 


are two major documents. We have the ambient 


environmental intakes dated 7/29. 


MR. ROLFES: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: And then the external dose TBD, 


and the date on that is? 


MR. ROLFES: 7/30/2007. 


 DR. WADE: So these are both extremely fresh 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

documents. 


MS. MUNN: And I do not have a copy of the 


external dose document. I don’t know why I 


don’t. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don’t either. 


MS. MUNN: So if we don’t have a --


 DR. WADE: External dose TBD. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Didn’t we send that out e-


mail? 


MR. ROLFES: I’m sorry? 


 DR. WADE: External dose TBD. 


MR. ROLFES: I don’t believe it has been 


sent out by e-mail, no. 


MS. MUNN: So that’s why we don’t have it. 


 DR. WADE: Can I get it printed out and 


distributed? 


MR. ROLFES: I don’t have it with me. We do 


have a person with, Mike Mahathy has a copy of 


it in electronic format, and he can print it 


out if we can --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I can also e-mail it to 


everybody, or you can. 


MR. ROLFES: I have a computer but no 


internet access. 


 DR. WADE: What’s the work group’s pleasure? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

Do you want to receive it electronically, hard 


copy or both right now? 


MS. MUNN: We’d like to receive it hard copy 


right now and electronically. 


DR. ROESSLER: I’d like it electronically 


right now if you have it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s about 120 pages. 


 DR. WADE: That’s okay. So I’m going to set 


out to get how many hard copies made? One, 


two, three, four, six copies. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I wonder if it would be better 


if we used the electronic version from Mike 


instead of breaking that apart. I’m worried 


they’re going to break that apart on you, 


Arjun. 


DR. NETON: It should be out there on our 


website. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You say it’s on the website? 


DR. NETON: It should be. 


 DR. WADE: So then with documents in hand we 


can have a brief presentation of the two 


documents so people could understand what’s in 


front of them, and then you can go through the 


matrix and look at items and decide whether or 


not you want to have those documents reviewed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

by your contractor or just what your pleasure 


is as it relates to each item. Is that a 


plan? 


MS. MUNN: That would be much appreciated. 


Whenever we have a document that is in 


response to specific questions that have been 


asked by our contractor, it’s helpful if we 


can simply identify whether or not the 


question has been answered. Having it re-


reviewed to pursue further questions that 


might arise is impossible to make any judgment 


about without actually looking at the document 


itself. 


 DR. WADE: Now does everyone who needs it 


have the document, Ambient Environmental 


Intakes at the Nevada Test Site? That we all 


have? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. NETON: Now I did say Gene Rollins is 


the document owner, and he was getting on the 


phone shortly. So he should be able to 


communicate pretty clearly what changes have 


been made to that document. 


 DR. WADE: He has really two roles to play. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, maybe we can do Gene’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

document before we do all the other --


 DR. WADE: Gene, are you on the phone? That 


sounded like your cough. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes, Gene 


Rollins on here. 


DR. NETON: I didn’t want to throw you into 


the fire there, Gene, but since you are the 


document owner of that external profile, I 


assume you should be able to discuss both 


documents then, the external document and the 


resuspension one. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I’ll certainly 


try. 


AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL INTAKES DOCUMENT


 DR. WADE: We would prefer that you start, 


Gene, with the ambient environmental intakes 


document as the other is being copied for our 


work group members. So take a moment and 


collect yourself and sort of walk them through 


that document. Everyone has a copy of it in 


front of them. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): This is 


Anspaugh again. I’d just like to ask the 


question though what the status of this 


document is. Is it now part of the TBD? Is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

it intended to be part of the TBD? Or is it 


just for information purposes? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): When this 


document is going to be incorporated into the 


Technical Basis Document or into a separate 


technical information bulletin for use in dose 


reconstructions completed by NIOSH. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Okay, thanks. 


 DR. WADE: Gene, the stage is yours. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): As I think 


we’re all aware we’ve been through several 


iterations including a resuspension model, a 


mass loading model trying to come up with a 


method to estimate intakes by workers as they 


moved about the site. Being a dusty 


environment we thought that that might be an 


important pathway, and there was also a 


question about ingestion. 


So this paper attempts to address 


that. And the way I decided to go about it 


was rather than build a model, be it a 


resuspension or be it a mass loading model, I 


felt it was better to fall back on the 


plethora of air sampling data that we have 


available to us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

As you notice in the first part of 


chapter four, there’s a summary in there of 


air sampling monitoring that was reported in 


the annual environmental reports from 1971 


through 2001. And these data include air 


monitoring for Plutonium-239, -238 in some of 


the later years. Tritium, I went through the 


tritium and there was nothing of any dose 


consequence there so you don’t see too much 


about the tritium in chapter four. 


But I did summarize the plutonium 


data, and it was provided for most of the 


areas, and this data was actually gathered to 


estimate what workers in the field might have 


been exposed to it. So I thought the data was 


useful in that it was an attempt to monitor 


the atmosphere that the workers would have 


been exposed to. That was the reason they 


were collecting most of this data. There were 


some control stations, but this data that was 


summarized in the chapter four was mostly 


involved with working conditions. 


So in response to one of your comments 


that we needed to go back -- well, let me just 


continue on with the plutonium for right now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

So what I did was I went through in this 


paper, and I looked at all the areas and 


determined maximum concentrations. These are 


annual averages. In some cases it was maximum 


values that were averaged. In other cases it 


was average values that were averaged over 


each of the years for each of the areas. That 


information is summarized in Table 2-1, and 


that’s picocuries per cubic meter. 


The next step would be just to take 


that to 2,600 cubic meters per year which is 


what we used for annual ventilation rate. And 


you can come up with Becquerels per year that 


someone might have been exposed to. That 


information’s provided in Table 2-2. This was 


information that was previously provided in 


the TBD for information and for comparison at 


that time to the other models that I developed 


subsequently in a check. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Two-dash-one is average or 


maximum? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, it’s 


both. It’s both. If you read, let’s see, 


from 1989 through the year 2001, those values, 


the concentration values, represent average of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

average concentrations that were reported. It 


was just a way that they changed how they 


recorded the values in the annual 


environmental report. There’s no slight of 


hand going on here. It’s just how the data 


was presented. 


MS. MUNN: And, Gene, this is Wanda. 


There’s nothing in there any higher than the 


third power, right? The highest dosages that 


I saw. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, I think 


you’ll find that the highest concentration, 


and therefore, the highest intake occurs in 


Area 9 in 1972. 


MS. MUNN: Right, that’s what I see. Thank 


you. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): For 1971 


through 1988, excuse me, from 1971 through 


1988, those are averages of maximum values, 


and then from 1989 through 2001, they started 


reporting average values for each of the 


areas. And so what you see there for those 


years is average of the average value. But as 


it turns out, the way I’m going to apply this 


or proposing to apply it, we’re going to be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

using that value for Area 9 in 1972, which is 


an average of maximum values for the year. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Gene, this is 


John Mauro. So that number in Table 2-1 for 


Area 9 for 1972, which is 4.3 times 10 to the 


minus 3 picocuries per cubic meter, if I am, 


if I understand this, that’s one of the things 


I was hoping to accomplish here is so there 


were a number of measurements that were made 


in Area 9 in 1972. 


I guess if we can go into the dataset, 


we’d see them. Are we talking about these are 


continuous measurements that were made, are 


these short-term measurements? And were they 


made at the same time and same location that 


the workers were working? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): They were made 


at the same time in the same location where 


workers were working, and, John, I don’t have 


the information available to me, but I’m sure 


I can find it. Typically, when you do area 


monitoring like this outdoors, it’s 


continuous, and they change the filter papers 


out on some kind of schedule. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And so out of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

those, let’s say there were 56 samples 


collected or whatever, each one was separately 


evaluated, and this is the highest of all the 


ones that were collected? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Right, that’s 


what the annual environmental report, the way 


they reported it and talked about in the text, 


that’s what it leads me to believe. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That’s very 


helpful to me because I just wanted to make 


sure I understood that number. 


MS. MUNN: Now the highest inhalation intake 


for 239 anywhere is 1972, Area 9, less than 


half a Becquerel, right? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


Now, here comes the problem that we’ve 


been wrestling with for some time. We know we 


have measured radionuclide persistent in the 


soils at NTS, and those radionuclides include 


Strontium-90, Cobalt-60, Plutonium-238, -239, 


Europium-252, 54 and 55 I believe, Americium241, the two plutoniums, Cobalt-60, Cesium137, Strontium-90, Europium-152, Europium-154 


and 155. Those are what was considered to be 


the radionuclides important to dose that are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

persistent in the soils at NTS. 


So what I wanted to try to do was to 


take the air monitoring data and somehow 


relate it to what intakes of these other 


radionuclides may have occurred 


simultaneously. As you pointed out it’s not 


appropriate to use the McArthur data to 


estimate what was going on back in 1963 or 


that timeframe. So the first thing I did was 


take the soil concentrations provided in Table 


3-1 for the various areas, and I corrected it 


back to 1963. 


Now Table 3.1 shows the inventory. 


Table 3.2 shows the aerial soil deposition 


which is just the inventory divided by the 


area that was contaminated and then decay-


corrected back to ’63. And those values are 


shown in Table 3-3. 


Now we get into where I start 


developing scaling factors. This is Section 


Four starting on page 11. I wanted to 


normalize everything to Pu-239 because that’s 


where I had my air sampling data, the most air 


sampling data available. You’ll see in Table 


4-1 the scaling factor, of course, for Pu-239 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

would be one. 


But when you compare the ratio of 239 


to all of the other radionuclides, you can see 


that the ratios vary depending on what area 


you’re in. So to be conservative I went 


through for each of the other radionuclides 


and picked the highest ratio of any of the 


area and from that developed the scaling 


factor that I could multiply the intake of the 


plutonium by to give me derived intakes for 


the other radionuclides. And that’s shown at 


the bottom of Table 4-1. 


Now relating all of the intakes to the 


plutonium, what you said a little bit less 


than a half a Becquerel, now I’ve got values 


for intakes for all of the other 


radionuclides. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And that would be 


for 1963? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, it would 


be the highest value for any of the time 


periods that we have measurements for. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I 


understand. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I mean any of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

the areas, but yeah, it’s all based on the 


highest value which happened to be in 1972. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): No, I understand. 


No, I’m with you. This is very helpful. Keep 


going. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay. 


MS. MUNN: All done based on the next to the 


last test or the last test, right? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


Okay, actually the next thing I wanted 


to investigate, and Dr. Anspaugh, I’m glad 


you’re on the phone because this is where your 


formula or your model comes in for 


resuspension, and I want to make sure that I 


understand it correctly. But we seem to all 


agree that resuspension of the phenomenon that 


occurs early after deposition or during plume 


passage and that over time the material that 


is brought back up into the atmosphere versus 


what’s deposited will slowly decrease and 


approach as shown in Dr. Anspaugh’s formula 


here. It will approach a value of ten to the 


minus nine. So it’s long time after 


deposition we’re approaching the one-time ten 


to the minus nine. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): With an 


uncertainty of a factor of ten. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay, but as I 


go on with this I think you’ll see where this 


uncertainty is going to drop out. Well, it 


may propagate; it may drop out. Let me just 


continue with this and show you what I’m 


trying to do with this. 


I wanted to account for the fact in 


1963 and maybe 1964 about the fact that what 


we’re seeing out there in the air monitoring 


data in 1972, for example, may not be 


representative of what was going on in 1963 


which was six months after the last 


atmospheric test. 


And so what I did was I took Dr. 


Anspaugh’s model here, and I integrated it 


over the time period, basically six months 


from the beginning since -- the last 


atmospheric test was in July of ’62. So I 


basically truncated out the first six months 


of his curve there shown in Figure 5-1, and I 


integrated it for 365 days starting six months 


after the detonation. 


And then I compared that to an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

interval of the constant, one times ten to the 


minus nine, to determine what the ratio would 


have been. How much more would you have been 


expected to see in the atmosphere over that 


first six month period as opposed to what you 


would see in 1972. 


And I came up with these scaling 


factors that you’ll see, well, actually, it 


was one factor, and that factor --


DR. MAURO: 3.69. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Right, you’ve 


got it, John. Okay, there it is, 3.69. So 


what I did there to account for this early 


resuspension phenomenon was for 1963, I would 


recommend increasing the intakes that I just 


calculated in the previous section increasing 


them all by a factor of 3.69. And that 


instruction is provided in Table 5-1 where you 


see I’ve increased the potential intakes for 


1963 versus those for all subsequent years. 


And that, hopefully, is helping me get my arms 


around the early resuspension. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Could we talk 


about that a little bit? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Sure. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Or do you want to 


continue and finish your description? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, we can 


talk about that. It’s probably a good time to 


talk about that before we go further. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Because in 


reviewing, reading this carefully, that was 


the one place where I was thinking about how 


well this will serve us in terms of the 


resuspension model. And in effect when you 


look at Dr. Anspaugh’s curve, we effectively 


go from ten to the minus fifth to ten to the 


minus nine, covering four orders of magnitude 


over that time period. And I understand what 


you did. You sort of truncated off of the 


front end the 180 days which really took off 


three orders of magnitude. 


So in other words during those first 


180 days is when you really get a precipitous 


drop in the resuspension factor so really the 


difference between the 180-day period after 


the test, and then, of course, 1972 is really, 


according to the curve, about a factor of ten. 


And you integrated and you get the 3.69 as 


being what I would say the integrated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

difference over between I guess, the 180 day 


and 1972. Is that correct? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So now --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Just for your 


information if you integrated it from time 


zero, the factor would be more like 400. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I 


understand. But I understand why you did not 


do that because we’re picking it up 180 days 


after the last test. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So I understand 


that. 


Now, and these are more by the way of 


understanding the processes. But if you’re in 


1963, let’s say 180 days after, a person’s 


working, and it’s -- they’re out there in the 


field, and it’s 180 days after. For that 


particular year would I be correct to say it 


would be more likely for that person in that 


year it was probably more like a factor of ten 


as opposed to 3.69? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): No. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): No? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): No. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I don’t quite 


understand. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Looking at the 


curve, if you go out to 180, like I said, you 


backed off -- I’ve got my notes here, John. I 


did it several different ways trying to be as 


reasonable, but not being overly conservative. 


The 3.69 would represent -- and I’m probably 


going to use incorrect terminology, but for 


lack of a better term, as I said in the paper, 


the one times ten to the minus nine is a value 


that I would relate to a mass loading factor, 


something that occurs long after deposition. 


So if you take the constant and you 


integrate under that for 365 days, then you 


get a value. And if you take the early part 


of this curve starting at 180 days, and then 


integrate that out to 180 plus 365 -- I can’t 


do that math right now without a little 


calculator, but it’s -- then you compare those 


two values, you get 3.69. 


Which tells me that if you knew how 


much an individual inhaled in 1972, then you 


can estimate what he might have inhaled in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

1963 once you do the decay correction, of 


course, based on this curve and the interval 


of the various areas in comparison to one 


another. So you’ve got one interval divided 


by another interval. That’s why I think some 


of the uncertainties cancel out. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So somehow that 


accounts for this plus or minus factor of ten. 


That’s where I sort of tripped up, and I was 


hoping to get some clarification. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): It seems to me 


that both of these intervals would have that 


same uncertainty in it. In other words our 


inability to predict exactly what the value 


might be. But if it’s lower, if the actual 


values are lower than we thought then it would 


be below on both the numerator and 


denominator. And if it’s higher than what we 


actually thought, it would be higher in both 


the numerator and the denominator. So the 


ratio should stay about the same. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Oh, I think I got 


it. Yeah, I see what you’re saying. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I think that’s 


a bit of a leap of faith. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Dr. Anspaugh, 


there’s always going to be uncertainties in 


anything that we do. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I wouldn’t 


argue with that, I guess, but how do you best 


express the uncertainty and still retain your 


mandate to be claimant favorable? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I think I 


started by taking starting with the intakes to 


begin with and the highest actual value that 


was ever measured. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Yeah, I 


understand that if that’s the appropriate 


source term, and we’ll get to that later. 


MS. MUNN: Well, being claimant friendly 


doesn’t mean that we need to be scientifically 


unreasonable. There has to be a reason to 


adapt a philosophy in going forward here, and 


if your uncertainty is the same in both the 


numerator and denominator, then I think I 


understand what Gene’s saying. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Right, I 


believe, Gene, you’re saying that if the 


uncertainty is high early, the uncertainty is 


also, it’s high in the up direction early, it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

has to be high in the up direction late, and I 


don’t think that’s the way uncertainties 


necessarily operate. 


MS. MUNN: How would you say? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, I would 


treat uncertainty as a random variable. In 


other words I don’t think the, was it 3.69? 


DR. MAURO: (by Telephone): Yes. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I don’t think 


that really includes the uncertainty in that 


number, but I don’t want to belabor that too 


long because I think there are far bigger 


problems. 


DR. NETON: I think, at any rate, we could 


propagate that uncertainty through if need be. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): If I may, this is 


John Mauro. I think really right now all 


we’re really trying to do is get a full 


appreciation of the rationale of why that was 


done so that we ourselves can, I guess, 


discuss it a little bit more. And we have 


read it and had a chance to talk, but this 


very helpful because it’s starting to clarify 


exactly what was done and rationale behind it. 


So I’m right now more interested maybe so I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

understand what was done. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay, I 


appreciate that, John. We can, I would 


appreciate it if you folks would take some 


time and think about it. We can discuss how 


these errors would be reasonably propagated. 


It might be better to do that after we’ve had 


a chance to think about and maybe at a later 


date. But let me, if it’s okay, I can move on 


with how I handled the early fission and 


activation products. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m sorry, this 


is John Mauro. Before we leave Dr. Anspaugh’s 


curve, one of the questions I asked Dr. 


Anspaugh yesterday was what does this curve 


represent? In other words, and I can 


understand, and certainly, Lynn, you can jump 


in any time you want. 


These are measurements empirically 


measurements made under a certain sets of 


conditions where, as I understand it, there 


was a mild amount of disturbance of the soil. 


So if you were looking, in other words, if you 


were trying to say, well, in general, what is 


a reasonable resuspension factor as a function 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

of time following initial deposition, this 


curve, plus or minus a factor of ten, would 


sort of represent it. 


But I also understand that the types 


of activities that may have been taking place 


at any one of these locations at any given 


point in time were very variable and in some 


cases may have generated quite a large dust 


loading. And for any given job action that 


this curve would really not represent that 


situation. 


And I’m not quite sure, I thinking 


about does everything sort of average out 


though over the long term so it’s okay. But 


certainly in any given year, let’s say at any 


given location, depending on what they were 


doing, a given worker in that year in that 


location could very well have experienced 


resuspension factors that -- I mean, I’m just 


going to throw a number up -- that could have 


been a factor of a hundred times higher for 


some period of time. 


And I’m not quite sure how to deal 


with that because I’m starting to see the 


mechanism that you used and how they link. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

But then I think about the reality of the 


worker in the field and whether or not somehow 


that might have, that kind of transient 


situation that may have extended for a short 


or a long period of time at a given location 


where the activity may have been quite a bit 


higher for the radionuclides, but perhaps not 


because you did go with that max number. So 


that may take care of that. 


So bear with me. I’m just trying to 


understand that if you do have this kind of 


very erratic dust loading going on during work 


activities whether or not this curve is going 


to serve you well. 


MS. MUNN: John, this is Wanda again. Do 


you have an indication that there’s a mass 


loading factor for that area during that 


period of time that is higher than what’s been 


considered by the work that’s been done so 


far? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes. I have lots 


of data on resuspension factors and mass 


loading factors for a whole broad range of 


different kinds of activities that take place 


either outdoors or indoors. And for example, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

a resuspension factor of ten to the minus 


eight, in general, is a pretty low 


resuspension factor especially if they are 


even ten to the minus seven is a pretty low 


value in a place where, let’s say, where a 


vehicle might be driving by, someone may be 


digging, you know, people are disturbing the 


soil. And there’s empirical data that shows 


under those circumstances, resuspension 


factors of ten to the minus four, you know, 


are not unusual, but, of course, not for very 


long periods of time. 


MS. MUNN: Very brief, sporadic periods. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That’s correct. 


So what we got is this interesting dilemma, 


and I’m trying to come to grips with it is 


that perhaps over the long term, if a person’s 


working there for ten years -- I’m going to 


say ’63 to ’72 -- maybe that doesn’t matter, 


especially since you’re assuming that he 


continuously exposed for 2600 hours per day. 


So, I mean, all I’m going is trying to settle 


in to make sure that I understand what was 


done, and then think about it from the point 


of view. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

Maybe over the long term these 


differences really all sort of average out and 


that fact that you’re operating off 


resuspension factor curve that Lynn developed 


may be appropriate even though over some short 


periods of time it could be off by orders of 


magnitude. I guess that’s what I’m struggling 


with, and I’m not quite sure where --


DR. NETON: John, if I remember -- this is 


Jim. This is exactly where we were at the 


last meeting. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes. 


DR. NETON: I mean the model’s slightly 


changed here, but this was exactly the issue 


that we were dealing with the last time we 


met. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And that’s when 


you came up with the five milligrams per cubic 


meter, and I was real happy with that. In 


fact, I was the first to say, wow, that’s up 


there because I know five milligrams per cubic 


meter is a very high dust loading. And to 


assume that you’re operating at that level for 


2600 hours per year. It’s right in the 


record. I would say that’s certainly up 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

there, if not off the charts. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): John, what 


everybody needs to keep in mind is I’m not 


using resuspension factors to estimate 


intakes. I’m using empirical data. So don’t 


get too wrapped around the axle about what the 


absolute resuspension values are because I’m 


not using those. I’m only using the ratios. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, you’re 


right. That’s good. You’re right. It’s good 


that you remind us of that. 


 DR. WADE: Before we move on just for 


clarification, the only profession would bill 


for 2600 hours in a day are attorneys. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. We need 


to keep in mind that in the earlier years at 


the test site they did not go right in behind 


another shot and shoot a shot right on top of 


it. They would go to a clean area and shoot 


the shot. One of the things that they did out 


there was they did keep the dust down to a 


point where a lot of time you’d be working in 


mud. I think you can agree with me on that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

But, you know, as far as the area 


being dirty all the time where the people were 


working or where the bulldozers might be 


scraping the top layer off to where you could 


do something, that was not done in a dirty 


area all the time. Do you agree? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I wasn’t there 


so I really can’t comment, but it’s 


information. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I think what 


you say, Mr. Presley, is correct, but I would 


also add that a lot of people have expressed 


concern about what the shock wave from a shot 


some distance away and even under ground might 


have done to temporarily increase the 


resuspension to a dramatic amount. 


MR. ROLFES: Dr. Anspaugh, this is Mark 


Rolfes. Because of the SEC that was 


designated for years prior to 1963, NIOSH is 


no longer going to be reconstructing internal 


dose for personnel that were not monitored. 


So the issue of resuspension from a blast wave 


from an atmospheric detonation is no longer 


and issue for NIOSH to come up with a solution 


to. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I’m sorry, you 


have shock waves from underground shots just 


as well. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): But would not 


any resuspension from those have been captured 


in the air monitoring data? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Should have been. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, maybe, 


maybe not. You know that’s difficult to say. 


It certainly would not have been captured in 


’63 through 1970. 


MS. MUNN: Why not? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Because there 


weren’t any air samplers. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): He’s correct. 


The air sampling that I have started in ’71. 


MS. MUNN: But I though we had just been 


through an exercise where we explain how 


extrapolation back from all of the areas 


following that time were defensible. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): We had 


underground shockwave effects post-1971 that 


would have been captured by the monitoring 


data. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Would that have 


been remarkably different than what occurred 


after 1962? 


 MR. PRESLEY: It would have been a whole lot 


less. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, probably 


not if your air sampler was placed in a 


location where it might have received the 


benefit of a shock wave, and I doubt if 


anybody put an air sampler there. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): But it was put 


in a location where it would measure what 


people were exposed to which is what we’re 


really interested in. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, that’s 


another issue. Where were these samplers 


place and why? Was it truly because that’s 


where the people were? I really don’t know. 


It’s just an issue. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): That’s what 


they said in the environmental report. In 


fact, we produced some of the language at the 


very beginning of this report. 


MS. MUNN: That would be the logical reason 


for place them. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

DR. MAKHIJANI: Just one technical point in 


regard to differences in tests between 1963 


and 1970 and the post-Baneberry tests is that 


as I understand it from the Office Technology 


Assessment report that was done on this and 


the venting, the test protocols were revised 


so as reduce the chance of venting because 


there were a number of major ventings in the 


early periods. 


So that in regard to shock waves and 


any surface effects from post-’70 tests, they 


may be different in the early tests because 


the formulae that were used to calculate the 


depth of tests and the depth of tests were 


changed so as to reduce the chances of 


venting. So I think the tests were conducted 


at greater depth in the post-’71 period. 


Is that right, Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): John Mauro, one 


more question. When these measurements were 


made of the air concentrations such as the 4.3 


times ten to the minus three picocuries per 


cubic meter, did they also -- because I know 


we used to do this -- also measure the mass? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

That is, how many milligrams per cubic meter 


were in the air at the time the samples were 


taken? 


And I know you also have information 


on the number of Becquerels per square meter, 


Becquerels per gram in the soil. So what I’m 


getting at is I’d sure be interested in 


knowing what the dust loading was at the time 


that these air samples were collected. Is 


that part of the database? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): It was not 


included in annual reports. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, that would 


be really interesting because if it turns out, 


you know, we’re looking at some of these 


numbers, it’s also fairly high dust loadings. 


I would say that will give me a degree of 


comfort. So I can say, oh, when you got these 


high readings because a lot of dust was being 


kicked up, and it’s up there in the range 


where in my world, you know, here in the 


milligram per cubic meter, the dust loading 


range, you’re up there. It’s unlikely you’re 


going to get much higher than that, especially 


not for prolonged periods of time. And I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

would just be interested in seeing that data 


if it exists. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I can inquire 


and find out whether or not that type of data 


would be labeled. I agree with you; it would 


be very interesting. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I think that 


there are research data on, not part of this 


routine surveillance monitoring, but there are 


research data on this issue and the long-term 


average mass loading at the Nevada Test Site 


is not nearly as high as you might think. 


It’s less than 50 micrograms per cubic meter. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Dr. Anspaugh, 


wasn’t the development of your model based on 


empirical measurements? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): It was based 


on empirical measurements made not only at the 


Nevada Test Site but at many location 


following Chernobyl although at late times. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): So your data 


should include some of what John’s asking 


about. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, we have 


data that looks at mass loading and at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

same time Becquerels per cubic meter, yeah. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, maybe we 


could ask if you could share some of that with 


us or point us where we could go find it. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Okay, it’s 


been, that data’s been published, and I can 


certainly give you some pointers where to find 


it, sure. 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Thank you. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Gene? 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes, sir. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley. Do you want to 


continue? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): All right. Do 


you want to move on to the corrections for 


early fission and activation products? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): This part was 


particularly intriguing to me and the results 


were interesting. What we did here we took 


the McArthur data which first of all we 


corrected it for the refractories. Dr. 


Anspaugh pointed out that we needed to do 


that, and so according to the formulas 


provided by Hicks, I put the refractories back 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

in. They’d been taken out. It would have 


been appropriate for the offsite to make the 


data applicable to onsite conditions. 


What I wanted to do there was 177 


radionuclides that were calculated as a 


function of time after detonation, I wanted to 


see how important each of those would have 


been to total dose. And to do that I set up a 


screening spreadsheet that allowed me to do 


that. And by using the ICRP ’68 organ doses, 


I could determine the relative importance of 


each of those radionuclides as a function of 


time after detonation. 


Now that in and of itself would not 


have been very helpful unless I had something 


I could compare it to, and since information 


was provided for strontium in the Hicks data, 


and because I’ve already calculated what the 


scale intakes of strontium would be -- those 


were done in the first five sections of the 


report -- then I could determine what the 


relative contributions of all the other 176 


radionuclides would be as it compares to the 


dose delivered by Strontium-90. 


If you go to Figure 6-1, the first 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

couple figures in this section, 6-1 and 6-2, 


6-3 -- I have several datasets that were 


pretty close to one another back in the middle 


of 1962, and I wanted to determine which of 


those would likely be the most claimant 


favorable. And there’s a discussion in there, 


I won’t go into the details, but it appears 


that Small Boy, if we could use that data to 


normalize the doses to using the Small Boy 


data is going to give us the most claimant-


favorable doses. And I looked at Little 


Feller One and Turk in comparison to Small 


Boy. 


What we did here, the spreadsheet was 


developed, and it basically gave me fraction 


of the total dose provided by Strontium-90 as 


a function of time after detonation. Now 


something else that I needed to do because 


americium -- and these are, these dose 


factors, multiply the quantity given by Hicks 


times the dose diversion factor which in this 


case they have 50-year committed doses. 


And so for many of these short-lived 


fission products, the one year annual dose is 


not remarkably than the 50-year committed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

dose. But there are some exceptions, and one 


of them most notably is Americium-241. So one 


thing I had to do was go in and develop an 


annual dose for Americium-241 and use that in 


these calculations because using the 50-year 


committed skewed everything out. 


I also did the same thing for 


strontium because we’re using strontium to 


base everything else on so I wanted to get a 


good annual dose for strontium. And strontium 


does linger in some of the organs, and so for 


some of the organs a 50-year committed is 


remarkably different than the annual. 


So I went in and corrected the dose 


conversion factors, the ICRP, and for those 


two radionuclides I actually used annual dose 


conversion factors. And those dose conversion 


factors are just for Becquerel. So we would 


take the relative quantity given by Hicks for 


each of the radionuclides, multiply it times 


its organ dose conversion factor. And then we 


would sum all those up and figure out from 


that how much of the total dose would be 


provided by Strontium-90. 


And you can see how those factors 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

change if you go to Figure 6-4 through 6-10. 


And what I did in each case, and I could group 


some of these organs together because you can 


see the way the curves run. Some of them need 


to be singled out, but basically I wrote an 


expression for each of these curves and then 


integrated it from zero to ten years, and I 


could determine from that the correction 


factors that I would need to apply to account 


for all the other radionuclides. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Gene, just a question. The 


days after detonation is when the intake 


occurs? Is that, what does it represent? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): This really 


does not have anything to do with intakes. 


What I’m trying to develop here is an 


adjustment to take into consideration all 


those other radionuclides that were providing 


dose to the various organs. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): So this really 


has nothing to do with intakes. This is just, 


I’m trying to determine the relative 


importance of all those other fission and 


activation products. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, yes. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Ones that we 


have not accounted for. 


MS. MUNN: And that really is a key issue, 


how important are they. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Right, and 


that’s one of the things we’ve been grappling 


with for awhile here. And it all depends on 


what organ you’re talking about. If you go to 


Table 6.1, you could see the relative 


importance. Now these factors that are given 


in the right-hand column over there, those are 


the factors that you would multiply the dose 


from strontium, the dose that a person 


received from strontium, to get the total 


dose. So to get the strontium dose, you go 


back to Section Five, Table 5.1, and you 


calculate the dose for the strontium intakes 


provided in Table 5.1. Then you would 


multiply, depending on which organ, by these 


values in Table 6.1 to account for all the 


other fission and activation products. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Now I’m confused. Won’t 


this correction factor be a time-dependent 


correction factor? If you look at your chart, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

there’s the --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes, but I’ve 


integrated it over ten years. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh. What happens if 


somebody just worked for two years? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, then you 


give him two years and then you multiply it by 


these factors in Table 6.1. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, no, I think your 


correction factor will vary depending on which 


two years you integrate it over. At least 


that’s, I may be wrong, but that’s just a 


quick comment. But just looking at that, 


looking at Figure 6-4, because your fraction 


of a total dose varies from very small to, you 


know, you’ve got fractions of one percent, and 


then you’ve got five percent. So those ratios 


could change by orders of magnitude depending 


on when you’re actually doing the integration. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay, but at 


the same time you’ve got another, this where 


we come back to John Mauro’s concern about the 


episodic nature. Because if you give a person 


ten years of intake and multiply it by this 


factor, say the factor’s ten, are you giving 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

one year of intake and multiply it by a 


hundred, you get the same answer for the one 


year. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, that’s just 


hypothetical because if you look at 300 days, 


and you figure 6.4, you’ve got something like 


.002. If you look at 3,000 days, you’ve got 


something like .03 or .04. And the ratio of 


that, you know, the answer is going to depend 


on when you do the integrations. So if 


somebody worked there for a couple of years, 


you could have a much lower or much higher 


correction factor for many of the workers. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yeah, but 


you’re going to have a much lower intake 


because he’s only going to be there for two 


years. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but it’s not a given 


that it would balance out. So this is kind of 


a revisiting that earlier that you do the 


integration, the correction factor 


uncertainties will cancel out. In this 


particular case I don’t believe they would 


cancel out because if you’re dealing with 


orders of --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay, in 


response to your concern we could easily chop 


this up into one-year increments. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Just a minute. If you’re 


short-term intakes can overwhelm annual 


average intakes depending on the nature of the 


episode. So if you’re dealing with three, 


four, five orders of magnitude, you could have 


a one-hour intake that’s greater than an 


annual average intake under normal conditions. 


That’s the whole problem with episodic 


intakes, and this seems to me to be a similar 


kind of problem. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): It’s exactly 


the same kind of problem. It’s exactly the 


same kind of problem. But what we’re trying 


to do, what I’m trying to do here is come up 


with a method that we can approach this in a 


reasonable fashion. Now we can easily chop 


this into one-year increments. 


MS. MUNN: Would that resolve your --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t know. I mean, this 


was just a comment because I couldn’t relate 


constant factors to the variable fraction so 


I’m not sure. I mean, it may. I’d just have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

to study this a little bit. 


MS. MUNN: Do you think if you were working, 


if you were dealing from the year where the 


empirical data was highest, then you should be 


able to reasonably bound the dose of an 


individual for that year. Is that not true? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, for that year. I 


guess we’re discussing many different things 


at once, but this was just a comment on this 


particular piece as to how you do the 


integration. The earlier piece of using the 


1972 value if it is representative of what 


people were actually breathing, then, of 


course, if we use that maximum, you’d be 


claimant favorable. 


But in that case there’s the problem 


of backward extrapolation into a period when 


there were no measurements and where the 


nature of the activities may have been 


different and the nature of the resuspension 


landscape would have been different. 


So I think, you know, as John said in 


the beginning that we don’t have a considered 


response to this. We just read it, and so 


we’re just asking some questions as to how 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

this was done just to understand it. And my 


comment about this was simply that the 


variable nature of the fraction that doesn’t 


correspond to the constant nature of the 


correction factor, that’s all. 


MS. MUNN: But an annual breakout would come 


closer to what you would anticipate being 


acceptable? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, as I said, obviously, 


an annual would be more accurate than doing a 


ten year integration, but I don’t know, I 


haven’t studied this to be able to give you a 


considered response as to what would work 


because it depends on going through the whole 


method. 


And I think the main job of doing this 


is being done by John and Bob Barton and Lynn, 


and I’m kind of just a reviewer in this that I 


make this comment and that. So I think 


basically John is going to sign off on this 


and not me because from the beginning he’s 


been doing this. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Keep in mind 


this time equal zero on this graph is really 


about July of 1962, and so your point is well 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

taken. The integration over the first ten 


years into 1972 may not be necessarily 


claimant favorable for somebody who only 


worked a couple of years in the middle ‘60s. 


But it’s going to overestimate for anybody 


after that. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we will make a large number 


of other individuals compensable. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, that’s 


why I decided it was time to run some numbers 


and see what kind of dose we’re talking about. 


If you go to Appendix A, I’ve done some of 


that. I don’t seem to have Appendix A in my 


copy. I’m going to have to remember that I 


guess, what I did there. 


MS. MUNN: Don’t you have Table A? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I’ve got it 


around here somewhere. I’ve just got to 


locate it now. 


Yeah, this is the dose from 30 years 


of intake shown in Table 5-1 with the 


correction for fission and activation 


products. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are you talking about Table A1, Gene? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): No, yes, it’d 


be Table A-1. No, Table A-1 is not corrected 


for fission and activation products. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: There is no other table in 


the appendix. 


MS. MUNN: But you’re saying there should be 


a table in Section Five? 


MR. ROLFES: Gene, there was a table --


MS. MUNN: I only have scaled intakes, Table 


5-1. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): You don’t have 


an appendix in your copy? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: We do. There’s only one table. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): And that’s 


Table A-1? 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Goes through ’63 to 2003 on 


the first page and then it’s alpha, and then 


on the second page it picks up at ’67 through 


electrons. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): These are the 


doses, and these have been corrected for 


short-lived fission and activation products 


using those correction factors that we were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

just discussing. 


MS. MUNN: And they barely reach a millirem. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct, and 


I’ve only provided those organs that do reach 


a millirem. 


MS. MUNN: Which indicates a lack of 


significance essentially. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Inconsequential I think is his 


finding as he’s proposed it, but we’d have to 


see the rest of it. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, except 


for possibly bone surfaces I would agree with 


you. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Now this is only, this is 


not correct. This doesn’t include the 


multiplication. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): No, this is 


corrected for fission and activation products 


and for early resuspension. All the 


correction factors are in this. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So the table that we were 


just looking at, 6.1 was it? Was Table 6.1 


fission and activation product correction 


factors in there? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes, it has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

been. It’s in there. I thought this would be 


helpful for you to put it in perspective. 


DR. NETON: Gene, it looks like all of the 


dose is due primarily to the alpha which would 


be the americium? Because the electron doses 


are very small. 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Right, the 

americium and the plutonium. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Gene? 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes, sir. 

 MR. PRESLEY: It’s Bob Presley. We quit 


testing in ’91, yet the bone surface data 


continues to climb through ’95, drops off six 


and seven, and then starts dropping off to 


2003. Can you explain to me why that climbed 


after we --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Because I 


postulated that we had 30 years of intake, so 


the years of intake would be 1963 through 


1992. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, thank you. 


Anybody have anything else on this 


one? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I’d just like 


to mention that I think Gene is on the right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

track here, but there are a couple of 


technical glitches, if you will. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Oh, and I 


forgot to mention, we haven’t gone over the 


ingestion model yet, but that Table 7-1 also 


includes the ingestion of 100 milligrams of 


soil per day. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And you use the 


same basic approach in terms of prorating by 


radionuclide? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct, except 


this time I used --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Except that 


you’re keying in on the --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): -- ingestion 


dose factor. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So if we’re okay 


with the inhalation, we should be okay with 


the ingestion. They’re really the same thing. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Let me --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): And I will 


mention to you that the ingestion at 100 


milligrams per day, the ingestion dose turns 


out to be limiting in many cases. I found 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

that an interesting result. And that 100 


milligrams per day is twice what the EPA 


recommends, so there’s another safety factor 


there. 


MS. MUNN: So I have, I noted only one 


action item out of that. Bob, I know that Dr. 


Anspaugh’s going to get data on number of 


Becquerels per square meter. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Actually, dust 


loading I think is what he’s going to help us 


with. 


MS. MUNN: Right, right, and then it was my 


understanding that you, Gene, were going to 


take a look at that and indicate somewhere in 


the final issuing of the ambient air intakes 


paper that you have here whether that 


reference in any way changes your conclusions 


that you’ve reached here. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): To the best of 


my ability, but I could use some help, Bob. 


MS. MUNN: Did I understand that action item 


correctly or not? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, I’ve got two things so 


far, dust in the air and we need them to go 


back and look at mass loading. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

MS. MUNN: Well, I thought that’s what the 


dust in the air was going to do for us. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Mr. Presley, 


if I might, I’d like to just mention that a 


couple of key issues that I believe need some 


investigation or consideration. One is that 


the Nevada Test Site as you’ve all seen as a 


nice map has some definite boundaries, but the 


reality is these boundaries were pretty fuzzy 


and in 1963, for example, we had some major 


plutonium dispersal experiments that were just 


barely offsite. Those are not included in the 


McArthur and the papers because they were 


evaluated separately by the Nevada Ecology 


Group --


 MR. PRESLEY: Can you speak up, please? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Three of these 


tests produced plutonium detected offsite, 


whatever that means. And I think that it’s 


likely that plutonium was also detected onsite 


in 1963 from these plutonium dispersal 


experiments. And also, of course, they were 


NTS workers who participated in these 


experiments, and this kind of a source term is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

not considered in this evaluation. 


The other problem with the source term 


that at least needs some evaluation is that we 


have hundreds of the underground tests that 


vented. And these produced the traditional, 


largely short-lived source terms that have not 


been evaluated in this evaluation. And the 


most dramatic of these was Baneberry in 1970, 


and this was a particularly difficult 


situation because people had to be diverted to 


discard their clothing and take showers. In 


some cases vehicles were confiscated --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): And did they 


participate in bioassay at that time? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


MR. ROLFES: Yes, they did. 


MS. MUNN: Must have. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): That remains 


to be seen. I don’t know that they did, and I 


don’t know that they didn’t, but I think we 


need some clarification on that. 


MR. ROLFES: Dr. Anspaugh, NIOSH has done 


some bounding calculations with the bioassay 


data for the people that were involved in the 


Baneberry event. We’ve done some bounding 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

intakes of radioiodines for the people that 


were directly involved. And so that could be 


used to bound the environmental intakes for 


personnel that were not monitored. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Along these lines 


-- this is John Mauro -- in all of these, this 


almost goes back to the beginning going full 


circle, for your intakes that I believe are in 


Table 2-2, your annual intakes which, of 


course, are based on this picocuries per cubic 


meter dust loading that’s in Table 2-1, are 


there any bioassay records at all for any of 


these time periods for plutonium in urine that 


can help to demonstrate that, yes, those 


intakes are, in fact, upper bounds? 


You know, in the past it’s always been 


very helpful, we know that air sampling has 


its problems in terms of being representative 


of what the person actually inhaled. And 


there’s a premise that we’re operating on here 


is that if you take the highest dust loading 


observed -- this happened to be in Area 9 in 


1972 -- and assume that everyone gets that all 


the time, that was certainly on first 


inspection that absolutely looks reasonable. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

But if there are bioassay data that go along 


with these measurements, that would enrich 


your argument greatly. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): John, Gene 


Rollins, my experience doing dose 


reconstructions is that intakes of the 


magnitude shown in Table 2-2 could not have 


been detected. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Oh, I see. Okay, 


thank you. That answers my question. 


MS. MUNN: And again, we’re back to the, so 


how significant is it. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Let me ask you 


this then. Yes, so there are bioassay -- let 


me see, I’m stepping out of the box that I put 


myself in. There’s all this air sampling 


data. There is a lot of bioassay data. But 


you’re saying there really is no relationship 


between this model and the people you have 


bioassay for. In other words I may need a 


little help here. 


So we have a number of people that 


have bioassays for a variety of reasons. And 


then we have these models, but there is no 


confluence of the two. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

DR. NETON: John, I think what he’s saying 


is even if we had bioassay samples for these 


people, the missed dose would be probably 


almost an order of magnitude higher than what 


the doses are that were calculated in this 


table. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So the bioassay 


data you do have, by and large, you’re saying 


for plutonium for all intents and purposes 


shows nothing above any detectable levels. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That’s important 


to know. I didn’t know that. 


DR. NETON: But it still would be 


potentially an order of magnitude higher in 


its missed dose, so it wouldn’t really be 


informative to say that these calculations 


were bounding. You know what I’m saying? 


MS. MUNN: The missed dose is bounding. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, that’s the thing that 


we were discussing yesterday is, is there any 


way to benchmark this model with individual 


measurements? 


DR. NETON: Probably not for plutonium 


anyway. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean, there is a variety 


of radionuclides here, and they did do 


bioassay for a number of radionuclides at the 


Nevada Test Site after ’67, right, as I 


understand it. So we were wondering whether 


it would really -- there’s a lot of constructs 


in this model, a really very large number, 


unusual number of constructs that are hung on 


measurements other than being back 


extrapolated, and --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Let me make an 


observation here based on my experience doing 


missed dose calculations, I’ve done over a 


thousand dose reconstructions now, the intakes 


shown in Table 5-1, those typically would not 


have been detectable either in vitro or in 


vivo bioassay. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we understand that. I 


mean, there are, when you’re talking fraction 


or picocuries for, small fraction or 


picocuries per cubic meter, you wouldn’t get 


detectable amounts. We’re just wondering 


whether the final result, whether the model 


can be validated in some way because there are 


so many layers of assumptions that go into the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

final result. We understand the final result 


shows a very low dose, but is there some thing 


that you can hang your hat on in terms of 


saying that this final result is reliable 


given the number of assumptions that have gone 


into it. 


DR. NETON: I think one thing to point out 


is the conservatism built at every step along 


the way, and it tends to hopefully ensure that 


the model is bounding in that respect. And 


given that most of the dose from what I see in 


the final table comes from alpha intakes, 


those are the ones that you’re really going to 


have to nail. 


Some fission product measurements that 


show low values would not necessarily be 


informative because most of the dose, 90-plus 


percent of the dose is coming from plutonium 


and the americium. And as we know, the missed 


dose from those measurements is quite large. 


So, I don’t know, I think it would be 


interesting to hear additional perspectives on 


this, but I think it sounds like for our 


discussion here that there’s a lot of 


conservatism built in here that maybe needed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

to be pointed out more directly. 


MR. ROLFES: The data that we can hang our 


hat on is the air monitoring data that we 


started with as the basis for this model. And 


all the hypothetical things that are subject 


to discussion are the correction factors that 


we have applied which result in higher doses 


essentially. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we understand that, 


obviously, if you use the highest measurement 


from the highest area that that gives you a 


large amount of conservatism. But, you know, 


we’ve had extended discussions over years 


about indoor where we had an idea of where the 


air monitor is, and we had an idea of where 


the worker is. 


And the uncertainties involved in even 


using indoor air monitoring data and the 


correction factors that need to be 


incorporated in terms of actual inhalation. 


And with outdoor air monitoring data not even 


from the period where we’re actually applying 


it, if that is the base of the calculation 


model, I mean, I don’t know how reliable can 


be said to be in light of the discussions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

we’ve had. 


DR. NETON: I think the key here is to go 


back to this dust loading comparison because I 


think I heard something very interesting from 


Lynn Anspaugh had talked about the long-term 


average dust loading, I think, is something 


around 50 micrograms per cubic meter. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


DR. NETON: And if you remember the previous 


model John Mauro pointed out was allowing for 


5 milligrams per cubic meter. And even under 


those conditions the doses were very low. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So why was that abandoned, 


and we’ve got back to the first model that’s 


more refined rather than -- if we go back --


now I’m remembering that, you know, this was 


really the initial model proposed by NIOSH 


that we criticized in the site profile review. 


And I remember referring to Lynn Anspaugh’s 


paper and saying the way, what the paper says 


is not the use that has been made of it by 


NIOSH. When you went to a mass loading model 


and now we’ve gone back to square one in a way 


that’s more refined. 


DR. NETON: Gene might be in the best 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

position to answer that. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, we really 


haven’t gone back -- well, we really have gone 


back to square one because when I was trying 


to reconcile the intakes that my effort at a 


mass loading model with the uncertainty 


factors were resulting in, I couldn’t 


reconcile those intakes with anything that had 


been measured out there from orders of 


magnitude and higher. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m not 


surprised. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): But I wasn’t 


comfortable going there because you could see 


these doses can get quite high for certain 


organs. 


DR. NETON: Right, I (unintelligible) the 


bones surfaces ended up being the limiting 


organ --


MS. MUNN: It appears to be. 


DR. NETON: -- in even the other model, but 


I don’t recall how high they were. I’ve 


forgotten now. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, they 


would be probably a hundred times higher than 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

what you see in A-1. 


MS. MUNN: But the question still is how 


significant is that? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So I’m a little bit puzzled. 


(Unintelligible) were a hundred times higher, 


I mean, it would be a dose that may make a 


difference in a few cases that would be worth 


calculating, but I don’t understand how we 


went --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Every lung 


cancer and every respiratory cancer would 


probably be compensable. 


DR. NETON: I’m not sure about that. The 


lung doses are very small. I mean, you’re at 


five millirem. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, okay, I 


take that back. 


DR. NETON: I think the bone surface doses 


were the ones in my recollection that were 


pretty high. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yeah, you’re 


right, bone surfaces and --


DR. NETON: Possibly liver in the later 


years because you could get up to -- well, 


you’re into three rem range. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

MS. MUNN: That’s low. 


DR. NETON: I think somewhere in between 


maybe it appears --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): The red bone 


marrow would go up remarkably, and that means 


leukemia is --


DR. NETON: Yeah, leukemias. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): -- would be 


compensable. 


DR. NETON: I think it sounds to me that 


this look-see at the dust loading data that 


might be available could help bound this 


model. So almost sort of a hybrid of the 


first model and this one which is based on 


resuspension and look at the dust load and see 


if it makes sense. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): This is John 


Mauro. I’m starting to get a full 


appreciation of what was done here, and it was 


quite an undertaking by the way, Gene. I have 


to commend you for the effort --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Thank you. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- and the making 


use of the of the vase array of tools and 


approaches. And what I see here is the rock 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

that you’re standing on is this .4131 


Becquerels, Table 2-1 for Area 9. I guess 


it’s the picocuries per cubic meter, 4.29 ten 


to the minus three Becquerels per cubic meter. 


That’s the rock you’re standing on. 


And now what happens from there I 


think the links that occur from there on are 


all what I would say valid theoretical 


processes. That is, you go to the Hicks 


Tables to see the mix of radionuclides. You 


go back in time, and you correct for the 


changing resuspension factors. And I 


understand what you did there, and I certainly 


we’re going to look to Lynn because that is in 


effect a 3.69 adjustment factor. 


And each step starting from that rock 


you’re standing on, the plutonium, everything 


builds from there. And from what I’m hearing 


all those steps you took from there seem to be 


within the range of a reasonable strategy 


that’s scientifically valid in the literature 


in terms of the way in which you applied the 


Hicks Tables. 


And then from there, once you know the 


Hicks Tables, you’ve got the ratio of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

radionuclides, and then you have the 


adjustment factors that I guess keyed back to 


the Strontium-90. So that everything’s really 


linked to this dust loading and then buying in 


on the Hicks models, buying in on and making 


proper use of Lynn Anspaugh’s model to take 


into consideration this change in time and to 


take into consideration the changing mix of 


radionuclides as you go back in time and the 


change in the resuspension factor. 


Now that being the case you ask 


yourself, okay, I think I see what we’ve got 


here. Is there anything that we can do to 


validate this. And I think one of the things 


we talked about is the dust loading. Is any 


information there that will give us a hook to 


say, yeah, and understanding where the air 


samples were taken. 


In other words the rock you’re 


standing on, that rock has got to be 


bulletproof. I mean, that’s really what it 


comes down to. The 4.29 minus three needs to 


be bulletproof for the plutonium in the air 


at, again, location number nine in 1972. That 


is, we all have to be confident that, yes, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

that, in fact, represents a reasonable upper 


bound on what the dust loading was where 


people were working were breathing. 


And there was no situation where the 


dust loadings could be a prolonged exposure to 


significantly higher dust loadings could have 


at all be plausible. I mean, we have to make 


sure, if we can say that, we’ve really locked 


this up. 


And then, of course, there’s the step 


in terms of the applicability, the way in 


which you applied Lynn’s model seems a little 


fuzzy right now, and certainly I can talk to 


Lynn about that and fully appreciate whether 


that 3.69 is the appropriate value because 


that used to be a real listing. In other 


words after you leave the picocuries per cubic 


meter plutonium, from there on everything else 


seems to be realistic. 


That is, all the ratios are based on 


Hicks which is the real world numbers. There 


may have been this business of the 


refractories dropping out. Lynn had pointed 


out there may be a little error there that we 


may want to bring up. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I put them back 


in. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, you did, 


but I think you have to put more in. 


Lynn, you explained to me very nicely 


yesterday why you felt a factor of two wasn’t 


enough. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Well, what 


Gene did was multiply by a factor of two which 


would bring the refractories up to the level 


that they were even both onsite and offsite. 


But remember, Hicks dropped them out in order 


to calculate the refractories offsite. And so 


the question is where were they, the ones that 


dropped out. Well, they were onsite. So the 


correction factor should be more like a factor 


of three because you have 1.5 onsite and .5 


offsite. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): That’s a good 


point, Dr. Anspaugh, and I can easily do that. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): And one other 


point --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I think what 


you’re going to see if you do that though, the 


doses are actually going to go down. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): That could 


well be. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Because you’re 


working backwards. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): The other 


problem with strontium, by the way, you’re 


absolutely right. Strontium is a refractory 


element, but it has two precursors that are 


not. One’s krypton, and one is rubidium. And 


in Hicks, it allows for the fact that 


strontium itself was refractory, but its 


precursors were not. So that correction is a 


little bit more difficult than indicated. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, I would 


certainly be receptive to more defensible 


methods of putting those refractories back in. 


If you could provide that support, I’d be most 


grateful. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Okay, and 


also, I’d like to make a few more comments 


about the mass loading. I can send you some 


mass loading data which would more or less go 


with --


 DR. WADE: Could you speak a little closer 


to the handset, please? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I can send you 


some mass loading data and those mass loading 


data represent ambient conditions at the test 


site which would go along with the ambient 


environmental radiation measurements, but 


neither is going to be representative of the 


guy driving a bulldozer across the field. So 


it’s important to remember that the mass 


loading data is what it is, but it doesn’t 


necessarily represent what the person would 


have experienced in doing soil disturbance. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Again, if it’s 


true what I was led to believe and what the 


environmental reports say that these air 


sample results are where the people are 


driving bulldozers. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I think 


it’s important that we look, that needs to be 


really nailed down. Because if the air 


samples were taken right there in the heart of 


where the action was, you know, where the 


people were digging and working at the time 


they were doing it, well, you certainly have a 


real strong argument. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, that’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

the point that they made. I’ve talked to the 


people that were involved in those 


measurements out there, and that was the whole 


point of doing it. It doesn’t make any sense 


to pull an air sample that’s not 


representative of what anybody’s exposed to. 


MS. MUNN: Well, any Health Physicist I’ve 


ever known in my life would want to be taking 


the measurements where the activity was 


occurring. They wouldn’t take them somewhere 


else. 


DR. NETON: I think one of the things we 


need to look at though is if there were 


continuous, 24-hour-type samples. You have 


sort of a dilution effect going on where the 


activity would increase the airborne, but then 


while the sample’s being collected over the 


next 20 hours, it’s collecting somewhat 


cleaner air. So we need to look at that 


pretty carefully. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I do not 


believe that these samples were taken for 


radiation protection purposes, but it’s 


important to know exactly why they were taken. 


DR. NETON: Exactly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91

 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad talking again. 


Something else we need to look at is the very 


time when these samples started to be taken. 


As Mr. Presley put it, everything was being 


watered down, but then they were coming out 


the next day, and from what I understood from 


these people, there was contamination there. 


The one big factor in that is wind, 


and that was moving tons and tons of soil, 


topsoil, everything else, and this is what 


initially started putting them into a lot of 


these air samples. This air data that came 


out of that was trying to track what was 


blowing and what was going on. A lot of it 


wasn’t for protection of the individuals. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I raise a minor 


question? On page two, the annual breathing 


rate implying that only about 1.04 cubic 


meters per hour. That’s less than what we 


normally assume of 1.2, and I wondered why 


that was done. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I can’t address 


that. I’ve just been, the project as a whole 


moves 2,600 cubic meters per year. That’s a 


value that we’ve been using in all these TBDs 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

to my knowledge, and I didn’t calculate that. 


I was handed that. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim? 


DR. NETON: For onsite environmental, which 


is a little different than onsite, this is 


sort of like onsite occupational if you want 


to look at it that way. The environmental one 


is essentially people walking around the site 


with light activity. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


DR. NETON: But I can see a case could be 


made in this particular situation that these 


are really onsite light workers. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we use 1.2 for light 


activity normally. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, but that’s for a worker 


who was actually physically in a plant doing a 


job for light activity. Whereas, someone, 


normally your environmental measurements are 


people who onsite working but just in the 


general environs of the plant, maybe 


administrative personnel and people walking 


about, that sort of thing. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it just didn’t match 


with what I understand that NIOSH normally 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

does, but --


DR. NETON: We’ll need to take a look at 


that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s just a minor point. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): This is John 


again. There was, awhile back we talked about 


something that had to do with, it was some 


clean up activity at the site prior to the 


time periods when your air sampling data are 


here. Is there any reason to believe that the 


concentrations of radionuclides in the air 


might have been much higher some time between 


’63 and ’71 because of the clean up that may 


have taken place at some of these locations, 


you know, prior to 1971? 


So therefore, we might be 


underestimating the exposures. You see, 


everything’s linked to this 1972 number, and 


if it turns out that that reflects some degree 


of clean up that had taken place prior to that 


date, then also the rock doesn’t look so good. 


Is Area 9 one of the areas that were cleaned 


up? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Dr. Anspaugh 


could probably answer that better than I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

could. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I really don’t 


know the answer to that, but the question is 


answerable by going back to the people in 


Environmental Management at Nevada Operations, 


I believe. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That ought to be something 


that would come to light. My -- this is Bob 


Presley. My recollection, you know, when we 


got through with something out there, 


unfortunately, we moved off and left it. And 


I don’t know how much clean up was done in the 


early days. The clean up that I would be 


involved with was after ’91. 


Why don’t we take a break for about 


ten, 15 minutes, come back at 15 after 11. 


 DR. WADE: We’re going to mute the phone 


now. 


Now I have given out to Board members 


and selected others a copy of the TBD on 


occupation external dose, so now work group 


members have that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And that’s on our website, and 


it’s not a draft. 


 DR. WADE: Does anyone need a copy of the, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

hard copy of the ambient air intakes, the 


document we were just discussing? 


So we’ll take our break. 


(Whereupon, the working group took a break 


from 11:00 a.m. until 11:23 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: This is the work group with Lew 


Wade. We’re going to start up again. I’d 


like to make a couple of sort of observations 


before we begin based upon the talk in the 


hall here, and I had a very productive 


discussion with Brad Clawson. 


But before we begin, Dr. Anspaugh, 


your comments are most important to us, and 


we’d like for you to do what you can to 


project a bit louder in the room here. So I 


don’t know what that means, if you’re speaking 


into a handset or if you’re using a speaker 


phone, but if you could give some thought to 


how we could hear you more clearly. People 


are hanging on your words, and they’re not 


getting every word you deliver, okay? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Okay, I’ll do 


my best. 


 DR. WADE: That’s pretty good. Shouting is 


acceptable. But thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

So let’s just take a pause as to where 


we are. I know that there can be great 


frustration in meetings like this for a 


variety of reasons, and let me talk about two 


or three things. 


The process is always changing. NIOSH 


puts out a document, a work group reviews it, 


asks SC&A for comments, SC&A makes comments, 


the work group endorses those comments, NIOSH 


sets off to change the document, and a new 


document exists. And the timing of that 


relative to work group meetings, in spite of 


all of our best efforts, it’s hard to control 


precisely. 


So I think there are two very 


important things that can happen at this 


meeting, and I think they’re both happening to 


a degree. As Jim mentioned, I think it’s 


important that the work group goes through the 


matrix and, where possible, closes issues or 


issues very specific instructions as to the 


next step. And I think there’s a lot of that 


in this matrix that lends itself to that. 


We have these two big things that have 


appeared as a result of good scientific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

process of the work group, and I think it’s 


important that the work group understands 


what’s contained in them, not debate them to 


closure, and decides if it wants its 


contractor to look at them. And if you want 


your contractor to look at them, then it’s 


important that your contractor is able to ask 


clarifying questions while everybody is 


together so that they can go back and do a 


meaningful review. Otherwise, we’ll come to 


the next meeting, those clarifying questions 


will be asked, and we’ll be a step further 


behind. 


So that’s what’s going on here. Two 


big documents have recently appeared. No 


one’s a bad person because of that. The 


question is the work group needs to understand 


it. Your contractor needs to understand it if 


they’re going to be asked to review them, and 


that’s time well spent here. And trying to go 


to closure for those things in the matrix that 


are a bit more mature and don’t have these big 


items looming I think is also appropriate. 


So the ultimate Pollyanna I am, and 


that is this is good. We’re doing the right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

kinds of things. I appreciate the 


frustration, and you know, it would be nice if 


this was perfect, but it’s not going to be 


perfect because we’re doing this in real time 


and things are evolving. And that’s the 


nature of the process we’re in, and I think 


that’s okay. 


So Robert, comment or critique to 


that? Anybody else? 


 MR. PRESLEY: The only comment that I have 


is the same one that Jim and Wanda and Brad 


probably had, too, is they would like to see 


us go through this matrix and say what’s 


complete and what’s not complete on it and put 


that aside. And then come back with some 


action items for SC&A and CDC or NIOSH, and 


let’s move on with what needs to be done 


rather than hash this out over and over and 


over and over again. 


MR. ELLIOTT: If I could add an observation. 


What I also think is in the balance here on 


the issue that we just talked about, a 


component of dose which is actually a very 


minor component of dose. If you look at the 


broad spectrum of dose, it gets reconstructed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

for these claims. And in that I think you 


have to ask yourselves how much time, effort 


and resources are we going to expend on 


researching, analyzing and discussing, 


debating and attempting to resolve a very 


minor component of dose that may only affect a 


limited, very limited, maybe a handful of 


claims that are best estimate cases? 


And so we have to take this into 


consideration in the program with our 


resources that we have. How far do we pursue 


something? And so I’d just ask you to think 


about that in the balance of deliberations. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You know, if what we’re 


deliberating about is going to help the total 


program, or if it’s maybe one-tenth of one 


percent, then is it worth going in and really 


deliberating this for one-tenth of one percent 


of outcome? 


MR. ELLIOTT: I don’t want to see one 


claimant not get --


 MR. PRESLEY: No, I don’t either. 


MR. ELLIOTT: -- compensated if this is the 


dose that prevents them from that. But at the 


same time, we have to make hard decisions in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

the program about how much effort to extend on 


a given issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Larry. 


Lynn? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do you want to continue going 


through your document? 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): I’m not quite 


sure what you mean by my document. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’m sorry, not Lynn. Gene, 


Gene Rollins. I’m sorry. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think we’ve done this. 


You’ve had your discussion on this document I 


think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are we complete? Everybody 


satisfied? 


DR. ROESSLER: I think it would be helpful 


if Gene were to make a concluding remark about 


the significance of the numbers that are being 


generated. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Did you hear that, Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes. We didn’t 


go through the ingestion, but that’s pretty 


straightforward. I basically used the, 


developed the intakes of Becquerels per year 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

ingestion based on the most contaminated area 


at NTS to assure that we’re not 


underestimating potential ingestion dose. 


Then I applied the same type of correction 


factors that I did for the inhalation intakes. 


And what was interesting to me was 


that by assuming 100 milligrams per day, in 


many cases those ingestion doses came up 


higher than the inhalation doses. But in 


Table A-1 you see the combination of both 


ingestion and inhalation with all the 


correction factors applied. And I did that to 


help everyone gain perspective as to the 


magnitude of the doses we are talking about. 


Having said that I guess that 


concludes my remarks. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Gene, this is 


John Mauro. Before we broke, I raised one 


question that was sort of left on the table, 


and that is to explore a little bit this idea 


of whether or not there was some clean up. 


And I guess that’s one area that I think --


remember, my main concern is that that one 


number, the 1972, Area 9, that we’re standing 


on seems to be really important and very good, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

very good strategy. We have to make sure that 


it’s solid. 


And one thing that, one issue that I’m 


concerned with is that this clean up question 


does not somehow undermine the validity of 


that number. And we really did not explore 


that or discuss whether or not there’s 


anything that needs to be done to make sure 


that the clean-up issues that may have 


occurred between ’63 and ’71 somehow doesn’t 


undermine that number. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I hear what 


you’re saying, John. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Gene, this is Larry Elliott. 


Let me answer this. I guess is it a matter of 


determining if and when the clean up activity 


occurred? Is that what you’re after, John 


Mauro? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Maybe it’s even 


simpler. I just want to make sure that the 


fact that there may have been some clean up at 


some of the locations does not undermine the 


fact that that number that was selected as the 


rock we’re standing on may not be the 


reasonable upper bound. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

In other words, there may have been 


some -- for example, let’s say Area 9 had some 


clean up in the late 1960s. I’m making this 


up now. And therefore, the numbers of the 


1960s for air dust loadings may have been much 


higher than the number that we’re looking at 


in Table 9. I know that this question has 


come up before, and that there was some clean 


up. And it would be nice to put that to bed. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, let us take that as a 


constructive comment. We’ll consider it as we 


move forward with trying to finalize this 


particular document, and we’ll let you know. 


We’ll let the working group know what NIOSH’s 


reaction is, and how we attempt to address 


this. We’ll take it as a constructive 


comment, and we’ll work from there, and get 


back to you. I’m not ready to commit today 


that we’re going to go try to pursue this to 


the nth degree. But I want to talk with staff 


and with Gene about how they feel about this 


and how solid that number is. 


MS. MUNN: And with respect to the data on 


when and where the air samples were taken, do 


we already have that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think we need to look into 


that. I think we need to look into the 


strategy used to employ collecting air 


samples. And that needs to be developed, I 


think, over time, not just looking at a 


specific year and saying that’s the way it was 


done. And I do believe, Brad pointed out very 


appropriately that in many instances they were 


looking at what left the site, not so much as 


what people were working in on the site. 


So let’s just look at that. And I 


think we also need to come back with a better 


understanding about the mass loading effect 


here. But at the end of the day I still say 


that, you know, we need to consider this as 


the component of dose that it is. It’s not a 


huge contributor here. And so in that balance 


we’ll figure out what we’re going to do here, 


and we’ll report back to you. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Now it would be the pleasure of 


the work group to go to the matrix and start 


going through it. You have one other document 


that is new to you. So it’s up to you, Mr. 


Chairman, how you want to proceed. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105

 MR. PRESLEY: Do you want to take the time 


to go through this now or do you want to go to 


step through the matrix? 


MS. MUNN: Maybe the matrix is something 


we’re more familiar with, but I haven’t had a 


chance to look at this. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Why don’t we do that? 


DR. ROESSLER: And then if somebody 


identifies something that will relate to this 


document, then we can do that next. 


DR. NETON: I think a number of the matrix 


items indicate that the TBD will be modified. 


And where that modification has been maybe it 


can be pointed out. 


MATRIX DISCUSSION


 MR. PRESLEY: I’m just going to start then 


with comment one. I have that marked from 


earlier meetings that comment one was complete 


and that we were going to put the business 


about the radionuclides to bed. 


MR. ROLFES: Yeah, that’s correct. We have 


incorporated those additional radionuclides 


into the TBD, and let’s see, this is chapter 


five. We have a drafted version of chapter 


five that has been sent informally to NIOSH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

for review, I believe. 


Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Excuse me? 


MR. ROLFES: Gene, this is Mark. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Okay, Mark. 


MR. ROLFES: We have incorporated the 


radionuclide list into the drafted version of 


chapter five, correct? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


MR. ROLFES: And that will undergo internal 


review, and if we have any comments on that, 


we will provide those to ORAU and the work 


group. And that should be published shortly 


after. 


 DR. WADE: And the work group will see that, 


and so the work group can’t close this issue 


until it sees that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Work group will review for 


completeness. Is that still in the --


MS. MUNN: Will review chapter five 


essentially, right? 


 DR. WADE: And this is the internal? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): That chapter 


has not been signed off to my knowledge. 


MR. ROLFES: Correct, it hasn’t been 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

approved by OCAS yes, but I believe Cheryl had 


provided an informal draft to us. 


 DR. WADE: So NIOSH is saying basically it 


heard the message of the work group, and it 


has acted consistent with that. It believes 


it will provide the work group with evidence 


of that once it’s publicly available. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment two --


MR. ELLIOTT: Just for clarity here, I hate 


us to commit to a timeframe, but I think it’s 


that question hanging there. I’ll ask it if 


nobody else is going to ask it. How soon do 


we expect to see comment resolution done on 


this and it’ll be a final? 


MR. ROLFES: I believe the document was 


going to be provided to Document Control 


sometime this week as well, and so it should 


be approximately two weeks is the normal 


turnaround time for these. 


MR. ELLIOTT: So what we’re talking about 


here in government-speak, folks, is an 


informal document draft was sent to us so that 


we’d have courtesy advance view of it so that 


we might be able to speak to it in some degree 


here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

A final draft will come forward and 


get put into our comment resolution process, 


and that’s two weeks to achieve addressing 


those comments, receiving those comments, and 


then another two weeks to address the 


comments. So it’s probably two months down 


the road. 


MR. ROLFES: I’d say that’s an upper bounds. 


It should hopefully be sooner than that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We can say first of October? 


MR. ELLIOTT: We’ll strive for that. 


MS. MUNN: Hopefully, we will be able to see 


it and say something about it at our October 


meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s what I wanted to do. 


Let’s see, the October meeting is, some of us 


are going to be out there on the second. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, some of us will be there 


afterwards, too. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But you know, if you could 


strive to get it to us a day or two before the 


meeting, at least where we’ve got something. 


MR. ELLIOTT: That provides you discomfort, 


Mark? Gene, do you feel a chain being pulled? 


Gene? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): My 


understanding is one of the things that was 


holding this up was the resolution of this 


white paper that we’ve just finished talking 


about. Because there are some internal dose 


implications in this that are touched on in 


chapter five. And so she was waiting for the 


outcome of our discussions to put the 


finishing touches on that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do we have enough information 


for you to put the finishing touches on it 


now? Or do SC&A and NIOSH need to go back and 


do some discussions and come to some kind of 


agreement on some of these issues? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Again, I think we’re back to 


what I said earlier. We had very good 


discussion here today about, we’ve heard some 


good constructive comments and input. We need 


to react to those, address those and tell you 


how we’ve done that. I think we should be 


able to come to you with a finalized document. 


 DR. WADE: Again, just being the keeper of 


the keys here, if this works according to 


plan, then the work group is likely to get 


this document the week before the October 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

meeting. And again, you’re going to be under, 


it’ll be the same discussion. If we just got 


this, you’re going to have to anticipate that 


and decide on how you want to hold your 


discussion. But NIOSH is looking to try to 


get you something before the October meeting, 


but I don’t hear them getting it to you months 


before the October meeting. 


DR. ROESSLER: Does that imply that we might 


have a work group meeting associated with the 


next Board meeting? 


 DR. WADE: I took that from the Chair’s 


comments, but I --


 MR. PRESLEY: Now, we have a, that’s 


something we’re going to have to discuss 


because right now the Procedures Work Group 


has a meeting before. The Procedures Working 


Group has a meeting on the second all day 


long. And that’s already tying that up. 


Where we can get back together in the next two 


months, whether we’re going to have enough 


information to get back together sometime in 


the next two months probably will come out of 


this meeting today. 


 DR. WADE: Let’s even take a moment and look 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

at the sort of big perspective here. What’s 


going on in the world that you live in is that 


an SEC petition for the Nevada Test Site 


underground test phase is working its way to 


you. When will that petition likely be 


presented to the Board? 


MR. ELLIOTT: At the October meeting, I 


believe, is what we’re targeting. 


 DR. WADE: So at the October meeting the 


Board will see the underground test phase of 


Nevada Test Site petition in front of it. At 


that point the Board is likely to take up a 


review of that petition evaluation report. 


It’s possible these materials will be germane 


to that, so you’re going to have to start to 


coordinate. Now, it doesn’t seem that the 


timeframe is unreasonable, but this work 


group’s reports will be quite influential to 


the Board’s deliberations of the SEC petition. 


MS. MUNN: It’s also a concern to me that 


we’re developing action items on some of the 


material that’s necessary to be incorporated 


into chapter five before we can move forward, 


and it muddies the water. 


 DR. WADE: I think sometimes, and maybe this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

is one of them, we just have to say let NIOSH 


present its chapter five based upon what it’s 


heard here today in a review able form to the 


work group. Otherwise, I think we’re just 


getting more and more delay built upon delay. 


So if Larry’s comfortable saying we’ve heard 


the discussion as it relates to Gene’s 


document. We will complete our chapter five 


and share it with you. I think that’s the way 


to go. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have no problem with that 


whatsoever. 


MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. WADE: That’s one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Next one, comment two, TBD 


does not provide adequate guidance, for dose 


estimates to the gonads, skin and 


gastrointernal (sic) tracts for early reactor 


test and re-entry personnel. We talked about 


hot-particle doses to the skin. I have that 


also marked complete. You all were going to 


address that in another document as I 


understand it. 


MR. ROLFES: Correct. There’s certain areas 


of the Site such as the Nuclear Rocket 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

Development Station where this is a 


possibility, so we’re aware of that. And when 


we have factual information for a claim, we 


would adequately, we would assign that dose to 


that claimant. And we have a path forward for 


doing that based on information that was 


suggested to us by SC&A, the NRDL report. 


The other issue is the science issue 


of addressing hot-particle exposures, and Jim? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, that’s more of a generic 


issue. I think as Mark says there’s two 


phases here. One is do we, is it appropriate 


that we address these hot particles at the 


nuclear test stations. And I think we agree 


with that. How they’re calculated is guidance 


that needs to be added into the external dose 


implementation guide, and specifically, that 


will address using VARSKIN to calculate dose 


to small areas of skin. I think I addressed 


this at a meeting several meetings ago where I 


talked about using the VARSKIN model to do the 


doses to one square centimeter of skin if 


that’s appropriate. 


And secondly, the ingestion hot-


particle issue, we had researched that and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

determined that not to be, we would not do our 


dose calculations any differently for 


ingestion of a hot particle versus ingestion 


of any other sized particle. There’s just no 


support for it scientifically at this time 


that we can find. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Was there a debate with 


Joyce around that if I remember? 


DR. NETON: I don’t recall that 


specifically. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s been awhile. 


DR. NETON: It’s been awhile that we 


discussed this, and I don’t recall, I think 


Joyce may have suggested that the new GI tract 


model that’s coming out might have some 


relevance here, but I think my position at 


that time was it was not available as a 


standard model so we wouldn’t use it until it 


was official. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I recall some kind of 


discussion, but I’m not sure what --


DR. NETON: But those were sort of separate 


and apart from this issue here because the 


NRDL report does have some very good data in 


there about particle sizes and doses as a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

result of the fires and reactors. 


MS. MUNN: So my only question is -- I agree 


with your assessment. Have words been added 


to chapter five and six to indicate that that 


has been taken into consideration and that 


this is the conclusion? That’s my only 


question about the action item. Is it 


incorporated yet? 


MR. ROLFES: Gene, do you know if this 


wording was incorporated in the draft? I 


haven’t had the opportunity to review the 


draft at this time. Gene, do you know if 


chapter five contains information on the fact 


that we will not be changing our internal dose 


calculation methodology? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): I was told that 


it was. I’m almost certain. I’m trying to 


find it right now as I’m going through this 


thing, but it’s --


MR. ELLIOTT: That’ll be one thing for us to 


check. 


DR. NETON: This is not a draft document by 


the way. This one is a released, signed 


document. But there are separate sections in 


here that address the nuclear reactor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

personnel. I don’t recall the exact wording 


that went into it, but it addresses several 


issues. One is planer contamination, and one 


is worker contamination. Well, we’ll have to 


go through it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, the volume six does --


I agree, it’s as I said. I read parts of it 


quickly, but it does have new material on this 


particular question. So to some extent, at 


least, is responsive to the comment that was 


made. What’s in there we don’t have an 


assessment. 


DR. NETON: And it’s true, the working group 


will review that section for adequacy. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m looking at 


chapter six right now, and I notice on page 36 


they talk about the nuclear and ramjet engine 


tests and the different exposure scenarios. 


And I’m looking for anything related to -- I 


see beta particle. So, I mean, certainly that 


is addressed to some degree in that chapter, 


the new chapter. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What I’ve got down for our 


action item that the working group will review 


for completeness, but NIOSH will verify that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

the information has been added to the TBD. Is 


that correct? 


 (affirmative responses) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment three, doses from 


large, non-respirable particles to the GI 


tract and skin for workers in the early 


atmospheric test periods have not been 


evaluated. And that one I also have marked 


complete with the fact that the working group 


needs to go back and look at chapter five and 


six. 


MR. ROLFES: This is essentially the same 


issue as number two, and I think we discussed 


both of those. And I believe it’s the same 


response that we’ll just verify that we do, in 


fact, have the statements to address these 


findings within our approved technical basis 


document. 


DR. NETON: One thing that I think I would 


like to bring up here though is that it’s sort 


of implied here that outside of the nuclear 


reactor test areas there are the existence of 


these large hot particles sort of potentially 


throughout the site. We’re not necessarily 


aware of that condition existing at Nevada 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

Test Site. 


If SC&A or others could provide 


evidence or documentation if that’s the case, 


we’d certainly be interested in looking at it. 


But at this point it’s sort of one of those 


prove a negative issues. Where were these 


other particles that could have potentially 


added hot-particle doses? Right now I don’t 


know that we’ve uncovered any existence of any 


sort of particles. 


That being said, however, the same 


principles do apply. If we become aware 


through a CATI interview or some other means 


that there were these isolated pockets, we 


would certainly address them just as we would 


do for the nuclear reactor test personnel. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I need just a little bit of 


clarification. This is Brad. On this nuclear 


test, you’re going to be covering all the 


different tests that went on, but you’re also 


going to be covering the ROVER explosion? 


MR. ROLFES: I’m sorry, did you say the 


ROVER? 


 MR. CLAWSON: ROVER, when they took care of 


the reactor. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

MR. ROLFES: Sure, ROVER would have been 


part of the nuclear rocket development 


station. 


 MR. CLAWSON: So it’s covered in that? 


MR. ROLFES: Yes. 


 MR. CLAWSON: It’s not going to be covered 


as an incident or anything like that. 


MR. ROLFES: Exactly, that would be one of 


the primary areas where the concern about how 


critical exposures would be involved. The 


ROVER test at Area 25 at NRDS, I believe that 


that was one of the things that was documented 


in the NRDL report. And so NIOSH is aware of 


that, and basically, we are going to be 


considering hot-particle exposures primarily 


for that location. 


We don’t have any information to 


indicate that there were hot-particle 


exposures in other parts of the site at this 


time. However, if we do have new information 


that comes available, then at that time we 


could address those exposures. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Something might come out of 


say where we had a tunnel shot then, or 


something like that, we might have a hot 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

particle. Somebody might bring that up in an 


interview or something like that. That’s the 


only place I could see where you might have 


one. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Or some, when the people 


went through the Baneberry cloud by accident, 


it could have had hot particles. So there’s 


certainly --


DR. NETON: Some scenarios --


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- scenarios that you know 


are plausible for the events that happened 


there that could result in hot-particle 


exposure. I haven’t come across a document 


that says here’s a person with --


DR. NETON: Exactly. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe Lynn has something, 


some light to shed on this. 


MS. MUNN: Doesn’t sound like it. 


MR. ROLFES: The large hot-particle issue as 


Jim mentioned is not going to be a 


considerable internal dose issue for us. 


However, for external dose it could be 


significant for the skin, and still that’s 


going to have a very limited scope because 


it’s not going to significantly affect doses 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

to other organs besides the skin. So, at 


least I’m not aware of any significance for 


other organs. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s important for a common 


cancer. 


MR. ROLFES: Important for a skin cancer 


possibly. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Very common cancer. 


MS. MUNN: I think you just answered comment 


four. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: So it should be in there, word 


should be there. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Comment four was oronasal 


breathing. 


DR. NETON: Well, I think this is sort of a 


confusing comment to me because it talks about 


oronasal breathing, but then it talks about 


actually hot particles and ingestion due to 


the impaction of a particle and then 


swallowing it. But outside of the nuclear 


reactor test personnel, which we agree we’re 


going to cover using the NRDL -- I don’t want 


to say methodology, but approaches or data, 


it’s not clear to us that there are other hot 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

particles that are going to contribute 


significantly to the dose. We’ve just gone 


through Gene’s bounding attempt here at 


internal doses from resuspension, and they’re 


very small. So whether that particle is large 


or small, it’s a small dose. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This has nothing to do with 


resuspension. This would be an initial, 


initial deposition. 


DR. NETON: Right. Again, a similar 


argument, it certainly applies to the nuclear 


test personnel, but the general workers at the 


site outside of a few isolated pockets would 


not be affected by this to our knowledge. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Four, I’ve got, it’s noted in 


here that this is would come out in a complex-


wide guidance. 


DR. NETON: Well, again, this is a slightly 


different issue though. Oronasal breathing 


has to do with apportionment of a general dose 


from a person breathing through their mouth 


versus breathing through their nose and 


supplementing with their mouth. That’s a 


generic issue that we’re addressing, and that 


issue has been resolved, addressed by us in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

draft form at least. I’ll more than likely be 


presenting that at the next Advisory Board 


meeting on that issue. But that really is 


not, oronasal breathing happened to be in the 


sentence here or this comment. But it’s 


really sort of an ancillary --


DR. MAKHIJANI: You’re right, you know. I 


wrote those words, and I think I didn’t use 


the felicitous phrase that what was meant 


here, because we’re dealing actually with non-


respirable particles. And so I think I 


should, looking back on it I should have used 


different words. It’s really swallowing of 


non-respirable products --


DR. NETON: That’s exactly it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- is what it should say. 


And so let me make a correction to the 


original words. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s use your felicitous 


language. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Swallowing of non-respirable 


particles. I put in the correct. 


DR. NETON: Then I think we remove the fact 


that this is addressed on a project because 


it’s really not. It’s a unique issue related 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

to the swallowing of non-, large non-


respirable products. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s what I meant. 


DR. NETON: And we agree that we will deal 


with that as part of the NRDL report language. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry about that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for that 


clarification. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I know. It suddenly 


struck me just listening to Jim that it’s not 


used the right words. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But still we want to have a 


presentation on that at the next meeting. 


DR. NETON: Well, oronasal breathing, but it 


really is not necessarily related to this 


comment. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So this will be in your 


volume five of the internal, this will be 


addressed in the volume five revision of the 


internal dose. But this is a site-specific 


issue. 


DR. NETON: Yes, this is a site-specific 


issue at this point. 


MR. ROLFES: Ingestion of particles will be 


addressed in chapter five. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125

 MR. PRESLEY: Comment five, resuspension. 


DR. NETON: This is all related to Gene’s --


MS. MUNN: Resuspension model, mass loading 


approach. This is all what we’ve just been 


talking about this morning. 


 MR. PRESLEY: My comment on that is we’re 


going to address it today. 


MS. MUNN: We have three action items to 


close it, right? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Let’s see. I have two action 


items, mass loading and dust sampling. That’s 


all going to be rolled into one. Larry’s 


going to look into the problem and get back to 


us on clean up of Area 9. 


MS. MUNN: And where and when the air 


samples were taken. 


DR. ROESSLER: Why. 


 DR. WADE: And why. 


MS. MUNN: Where, when, what. 


DR. NETON: I’ll assign that to NIOSH staff 


and not Larry. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Why don’t I put down NIOSH? 


MS. MUNN: As we requested, NIOSH. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And then when and where the 


air samples were taken? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

DR. ROESSLER: Why. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Where, when and why. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think we know when, but 


verify it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Air samples were taken. Looks 


like three action items. 


 MR. CLAWSON: What were they again? I want 


to get them. 


MS. MUNN: No, it was all, Dr. Anspaugh was 


going to get the data on dust loading. 


 MR. PRESLEY: He’s supposed to get back with 


Mark on the data. 


MS. MUNN: Back to Mark and Rollins. And 


Rollins will include his conclusions in the 


reference to the final ambient intake. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Review this document after 


they’ve got that all down? 


 MR. PRESLEY: We need to. 


MS. MUNN: They’ll let us know when it’s 


there, and then we have to ask NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Then the document will be ready 


for review. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I put down that working group 


will review for completeness. How’s that? 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, comment six, the use of 


site average air concentration values where 


worker location is not known, and there was a 


comment there about claimant favorability. 


And I also marked that complete. 


MR. ROLFES: This is also no longer really 


an issue because we’re using the highest 


documented air concentration. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This, yeah, this relates to 


the same paper. 


MR. ROLFES: Exactly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, comment seven, again, 


resuspension dose to monitored workers, 


especially in the early years. I’ve got that 


marked complete with a question mark. We have 


added neptunium. I have a note on here that 


we want to add a couple of radionuclides. 


MR. ROLFES: Correct. NIOSH has 


incorporated those two additional 


radionuclides into the draft of chapter five, 


and that will be a revised, the revision will 


be approved shortly, I believe. We also did 


make a note in there that Sodium-24 was 


potentially important to internal dose during 


the re-entry the first two weeks after an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

event. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is this going to be done under 


chapter four or chapter five? 


MS. MUNN: Chapter five. 


MR. ROLFES: This will be chapter five. 


Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): We’ve 


specifically talking about the potential 


contributions from Sodium-24 and Neptunium239? 


MR. ROLFES: Correct. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): When I ran the 


calculations in section six of my paper, what 


they indicated was that in the first maybe 


several weeks after detonation Sodium-24 did 


play a relatively important role. As I 


recall, it may have been in the 15 to 20 


percent of the total dose, but its importance 


diminished pretty quickly. But Neptune-239 


did not contribute anything significant to the 


dose. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Just so I’m understanding, 


the comment was about re-entry workers in the 


tunnels. This is no longer an outdoor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

environment, you know, resuspension. We’re 


talking about resuspension in an inside tunnel 


environment. We’re not talking about what’s 


covered in the white paper that we’ve been 


talking about this morning. This is a 


different issue. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This was the tunnel workers. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): My information 


that I have learned about the tunnels at NTS, 


I’ve never been in a tunnel at NTS. I have 


been in tunnels at Yucca Mountain. And my 


experience is unless there’s a great deal of 


ventilation involved, those are wet 


environments. Water actually drips onto you 


from the top of the tunnel. 


MR. ELLIOTT: No. 

 MR. CLAWSON: No, it’s very, very dry. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, super dry. 

MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, at NTS 


it’s not. The alcoves at NTS are dripping 


water. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: You mean Yucca Mountain. 


MS. MUNN: You mean Yucca Mountain. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yucca Mountain, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

correct. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, that’s true, but at NTS it 


certainly looks different now. It looks very 


dry, and I’ve been both places, too, Gene. 


Yeah, they’re very different. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): When the 


tunnels were operating at NTS, they went to a 


great deal of effort to get the water out of 


there. In fact, the tunnels themselves were 


quite dry. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. 


DR. ANSPAUGH (by Telephone): They tended to 


get quite contaminated because some shots 


vented and contaminated the tunnel while they 


were trying to drill a new drift for the next 


test. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. This is also 


when they came into the ponds that were 


outside of the tunnels, and the contamination 


was coming from that. 


DR. NETON: It seems to me that if anyone 


that was monitored for bioassay samples, were 


the tunnel workers. Is that not right? 


MS. MUNN: I would think so. 


DR. NETON: I knew we had plenty of tritium 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

data on tunnel workers, lots of it. 


MR. ROLFES: The great majority of the data 


that we do have were tunnel workers. 


DR. NETON: So I think this is a case where 


we could do some evaluation using bioassay 


data to help establish bounds, verify, 


validate, whatever the words are. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I just wanted to point out 


that this, we’re no longer talking about the 


white paper, and to make sure that --


DR. NETON: Good point. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- there’s not a confusion 


about what we’re doing. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it’s a different thing and 


requires different words. 


DR. NETON: I think we probably need to go 


back and look at that in light of that and 


look at the bioassay records that may be 


available to help bound that. I know there’s 


lots of tritium data, and I’m sure at least 


some data for other -- keeping in mind that 


this is all after 63 years which is when 


bioassay started. 


MS. MUNN: Still appropriate for that to be 


in chapter five or was the original notation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

about being in chapter four? 


MR. ROLFES: The comment initially from SC&A 


was that the TBD does not specify procedures 


for estimating environmental internal doses in 


such cases. So it appears that we addressed 


it as an environment internal dose issue 


addressed by the white paper that was 


assembled by Gene. 


Gene, do you know if there’s any 


indication or any discussion of this issue 


within chapter five in the internal dose 


section? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): No, I don’t 


know. I was just trying to think through this 


for a moment. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we’ll take it up, and 


we’ll look at it in chapter five and make sure 


that, in light of Arjun’s correction here for 


us, if we do address it properly. 


MS. MUNN: Well, chapter five’s the right 


place for it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I’ve got this marked 


NIOSH will look at the data after 1963 for 


bioassay and --


MS. MUNN: Correct chapter five accordingly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Moving right along, 


comment eight, use of 1967 external dose data 


for 1963 through ’66 is not, was not claimant 


favorable. I’ve got that marked complete that 


guidance would be added to chapter six. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn’t get that far in 


volume six, I guess, Mark. 


MR. ROLFES: What we have done is 


incorporated -- let’s see. Everybody was 


monitored after 1957 at Nevada Test Site by 


the universal badging and dosimetry program. 


If there is an issue, it appears that the 


external dose data for an individual for 1963 


to 1966 is inadequate for dose reconstruction. 


What we would do is use the coworker doses to 


assign dose to that person. And we’ve 


incorporated a coworker dose table into 


chapter six into the external dose technical 


basis document which we do have copies in 


front of us now, I believe. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So you’re not back 


extrapolating anymore? 


MR. ROLFES: No, we have measured dosimetry 


information. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So we can mark comment eight 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

complete to be reviewed by the working group. 


DR. NETON: I think what we might want to do 


is identify somehow in the document which 


sections pertain to which response. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Boy, that would really help. 


DR. NETON: It would help facilitate --


MR. ELLIOTT: Doesn’t this response number 


eight do that, 6.3.2.1.5.3.1? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, well, this particular one 


does. 


MR. ELLIOTT: How much more specific do we 


need to get here? 


 MR. PRESLEY: You can do it do all of them. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I see, okay, I got the point. 


MS. HOWELL: I thought that was somebody’s 


social or something. 


DR. NETON: I sort of envision like a little 


yellow highlight. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, we could highlight. 


 DR. WADE: Everybody’s doing the right 

thing. 

MS. MUNN: You only have seven points. 

DR. NETON: And it overlaps quite a bit. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, comment nine, lack of 


environmental external dose data for ’68 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

through ’76. We had that marked see response 


eight, and I had that complete a long time 


ago. Anybody have a problem with that? 


MS. MUNN: Nope. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Nine, the TBD does not provide 


any data pre-’63 external environmental dose. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is ten. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I mean, this is ten. I’m 


sorry. I have that marked also complete. 


Somebody has gone in and added a statement 


down here at the bottom for unmonitored 


workers badged in April 1957. And then 


coworker external dose information has been 


added to the TBD. TBD page change approved 


1/11/07. We have that marked complete. 


Anybody have a problem? We will review that 


when it comes down. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, when you say complete 


then the work group still needs to review --


 MR. PRESLEY: I’ve got it in red here that 


the work group needs to do reviews, and NIOSH 


will mark the appropriate sections we need to 


review in this document. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): If you want to 


make a mark, that’s section 6.4.1.2, Table 6­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

11. 


MR. ELLIOTT: We’ll just see that it gets 


added to the matrix. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, that will help. 


Use anything but red, green or purple. That’s 


what everybody else is using. 


Comment 11 is a correction factor for 


external environmental dose due to the 


geometry of organ relative to badges and the 


angle (sic) of the dose. 


MR. ROLFES: Now, awhile back we did prepare 


some various dose correction factors for 


external environmental dose, and what we 


determined is that all those factors were, in 


fact, less than one or less than the actual 


dose conversion factor that we use in dose 


reconstructions. 


And so we didn’t think it would be 


claimant favorable to use a lower dose 


conversion factor. So we basically are not 


going to be using the environmental external 


dose conversion factors in dose 


reconstructions. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that going to be addressed 


in chapter five or --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

MR. ROLFES: I don’t think it warrants an 


update to the TBD. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So just no change? 


MR. ROLFES: Exactly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We don’t need to do any 


review? 


DR. NETON: It does say this guidance has 


been added to the TBD. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Category. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So this should be in the --


DR. NETON: That’s what it says, yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Just it ought to be in this 


right here? 


DR. NETON: Included in Attachment C. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll need to talk about that 


at the meeting down the road. 


MR. ELLIOTT: It’s just not an artifact, 


that sense is it, Mark? I mean, it kind of 


seems contradictory to --


MR. ROLFES: Sure. I guess since SC&A asked 


us to do this, I believe they asked us to 


document it. And I believe since the work was 


done it may, if it, in fact, was incorporated 


into the TBD, it may have just been done to 


put this issue, to address this issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

Gene? 


 (no response) 


MR. ROLFES: Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Yes. 


MR. ROLFES: Do you know if the dose 


conversion factors that were calculated by 


Rich were incorporated? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): That discussion 


has been added. 


MR. ROLFES: So we didn’t incorporate the 


actual dose conversion factors, but we 


document it in the site profile that the dose 


conversion factors were, in fact, less than 


one for the actual dose conversion factor that 


we would use from our implementation guide. 


Is that --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This is not Attachment C. 


Attachment C is something else, beta photon 


ratio estimate. I think that you must have 


changed where you decided to put it. So 


what’s in the response in the matrix, I think 


it’s some place else in this revision. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I agree. I think we need to 


correct our response in this matrix and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

provide the exact location of the guidance 


that’s given in the document. 


MR. ROLFES: This was from a previous 


meeting, and we had several attachments that 


we had for discussion. So the attachment is 


probably incorrect, and it’s not referring to 


the approved technical basis document now. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): It’s actually 


in 6.4.1.6 now. 


DR. ROESSLER: What page? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Forty-four 


depending on how your machine paginates. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, it’s 44. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It’s not in a TBD right now. 


MS. MUNN: No. 


DR. NETON: Well, it is on page 45, 


correction factors for external environmental 


dose. It’s discussed in there. And 


essentially the language in the comment 


resolution matrix is lifted right out of this 


write up. 


MS. MUNN: Operation dependent photon 


fractions. 


DR. NETON: I think it’s the same issue the 


working group to review for. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

MR. ROLFES: Yeah, on page 46 as Jim has 


indicated it says that the results of these 


calculations show that the correction factors 


for external exposure from environmental 


radiation fields found at the Nevada Test Site 


are not significantly different from unity, or 


one, for most organs. These values are less 


than one. The new DCFs would not have a 


significant impact. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark this one complete. 


Response 12 has to do with radon dose 


in G-tunnel are not claimant favorable so it 


has to do with Gravel Gerties’ radon dose. 


And I marked this complete a long time ago 


because we went back and discussed it, the use 


of the Gravel Gerties. Any anybody have 


anything else on that, Mark, with regard --


MS. MUNN: Did those words go in with 


respect to the non-use of the Gravel Gerties. 


 MR. PRESLEY: They were going into chapter 


four. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Volume four is also being 


revised and we’ll see one or --


MR. ROLFES: If it’s not currently in there, 


we will make sure that it is put in there as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

well. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’m going to mark this then 


the working group will review that you’ll give 


us a copy. 


MS. MUNN: It almost seems that that last 


paragraph that’s been added to the response 


here is almost --


 MR. PRESLEY: And we’re going to mark that 


complete. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I’m sorry. I’m lost. Did we 


put some guidance in chapter four to this 


effect that it’s --


DR. NETON: We don’t know. They’re still in 


draft form. When we issue it, we’ll make sure 


it’s --


MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, chapter four is still in 


draft, okay. So the working group is going to 


review that. 


DR. NETON: We’ll make sure when it comes 


out that it’s in there. Point out somehow 


where it is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Review. NIOSH will provide a 


copy of the document. Everybody agree to 


that? 


 (affirmative responses) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142

 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 13 has to do with 


environmental dose due to Iodine-131 venting. 


It needs to be taken into account of non-


monitored workers. And I have that marked 


complete with a bunch of question marks. Did 


you all get your results as provided? Does 


everybody have --


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): The results of 


the sample calculations that I think we 


discussed last time? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): That’s been 


added to chapter five. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, so we need to mark that 


and review it. 


Fourteen, there are no internal 


monitoring data until late 1955 or 1956, some 


plutonium from then on, some tritium, mixed 


fission products. I have this marked as 


complete, and Mark has added a note here that 


the TBD team will evaluate the issue on 


conjunction with the model identified in 


response five, the resuspension model. 


MS. MUNN: That’s what we just worked on 


this morning. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143

 MR. PRESLEY: So there again it should come 


to us for review and that ought to be 


complete. 


DR. NETON: It does point out in here that 


prior to ’63 the SEC was granted because of 


the lack internal data. So we’re really 


focusing here on ’63 through ’67. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Fifteen has to do with 


resuspension of radionuclides by the blast 


wave, and I have it was. And as I see it that 


would be complete, and we need to review after 


you all have had your chance to go back 


through the data. Is that correct? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Most of this is actually not 


germane anymore because of the SEC 


designation. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So that had to do with what? 


Sixteen, use of photon dose that was 


done by DTRA. That was the basis for our 


estimating internal dose, where there are no 


data. I’ve got that marked as addressed 


today. 


DR. ROESSLER: We did that a long time ago. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, it’s done. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144

 MR. PRESLEY: Mark complete? 


MR. ROLFES: This initial comment, I 


believe, was for the atmospheric time period, 


and during the earlier ’63 as we said we now 


have an SEC designated for those workers 


because of the lack of internal exposure 


information. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’ve got that marked complete. 


Seventeen, ingestion doses need to be 


better evaluated, and that was covered. It 


was complete. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This maybe a little bit 


different than -- oh, no, I’m sorry. I take 


that back. The only point here that you 


separately submitted review of TIB-0018 to 


you. I was not involved in that, and I 


actually haven’t read our review. That’s on a 


separate track. 


John? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I guess I’m 


a little bit confused here. Ingestion doses, 


as I understand it, is very much part of 


Gene’s most recent report and --


DR. MAKHIJANI: It is, but to the extent 


that --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- and in effect 


that’s the proposed remedy. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, but --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And that remedy 


is subject to review and approval by the 


Board. The fact that we have -- now reference 


here is made to OTIB-0018, I don’t think that 


no longer has any standing. Is that correct? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s what I’m confused by. 


I don’t know, since I wasn’t involved with 


that, I don’t know what, you know, whether 


that belongs here or not. You’re more 


familiar with it than I am. 


MS. MUNN: I think that the appropriate word 


used earlier was artifact, isn’t it, from when 


we first started this matrix where we were 


then as opposed to documents that have been 


issued specifically for NTS since then. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And that’s fine. I mean, I 


just, then OTIB-0018 should be removed --


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think so. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- from here. It’s not 


relevant. 


MS. MUNN: I think so. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean, I’m not, I haven’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

dealt with it so I just don’t know. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So we need to take that out, 


and I’ve marked this complete. This is going 


to be discussed again through comment five’s 


discussion, and it should be added. 


Okay, 18, recommended use of ORAU, 


Technical Basis Document 0-0-0-2 for post-1971 


tunnel re-entry workers. And I have that 


marked complete. That’s been done. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: This TBD work is for volume 

five? 

MR. ROLFES: I have a note in here that says 


that we have stated -- let’s see, the 


limitations of the application within section 


six of the document. And, let’s see, I’m not 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Section six of OTIB-0002. 


MR. ROLFES: Yes. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so we agreed, I think, 


that that was not applicable to the tunnel reentry workers, right? 


MR. ROLFES: Yes, and I believe that we have 


alternate approaches such as OTIB-0018 that we 


would use rather than OTIB-0002. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so, I mean, is that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

specified somewhere? So I’m a little puzzled 


that says TBD work completed. But I would 


imagine that this would go in your volume five 


revision which is still in draft. 


MR. ROLFES: Sure, it has been drafted. 


Gene? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): The original 


problem with that was that OTIB-0002 was being 


used where, in situations where the OTIB 


itself prohibited its use. And so the fix for 


that was to reiterate within chapter five to 


be diligent in the application of OTIB-0002. 


And the limitations are spelled out, and we 


took the limitations that were in OTIB-0002 


and specifically put them into chapter five. 


MS. MUNN: It says revised guidance to 


observe limitations has been included. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’ve got down here it’s been 


included in chapter five, and we will review 


it. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): This is John 


Mauro. Just for my own edification, from our 


previous discussions my understanding was that 


the primary approach for reconstructing 


internal doses to workers involved with tunnel 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

entry is based on bioassay data as opposed to, 


say, some generic OTIB? Am I correct in that 


assumption? 


DR. NETON: Well, we have bioassay data, 


yes. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Right, and where 


you don’t have bioassay data the approach 


might use OTIB-0002? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, that’s 


correct, but OTIB-0002 was an efficiency 


method that we developed early on. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I recall 


it, and that was for, if I remember, wasn’t 


that placing upper bounds of denial? 


DR. NETON: Right. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Right. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Now so I guess my 


question, you know, it’s probably because I 


haven’t read these things in awhile, so for 


tunnel entry workers who may have an internal 


exposure, there is at least some bioassay data 


that you would use to reconstruct the doses of 


those workers. But I presume that there are 


some tunnel entry workers who do not have 


bioassay data and that there’s some protocol 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

to be followed for those workers to evaluate 


their internal exposures. Could you just give 


me a 30-second sound byte on that strategy? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Typically, 


where OTIB-0002 became very helpful was like 


in the case of Hanford and SRS where you had 


individuals with a great deal of bioassay 


data, but it was all below MDA. So by 


applying OTIB-0002 we could say we provided an 


upper bound because OTIB-0002 provides 


intakes, I think if I remember correctly, 28 


radionuclides. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, sure, no, 


I’m very familiar with it, and it’s for the 


purpose of denial. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I guess my 


question goes toward, okay, we have a worker 


in a tunnel, no bioassay data, and you want to 


evaluate. In theory, you could apply OTIB0002 for the purpose, and you (inaudible) a 


dose for denial. I may be a little bit 


confused here, but how do you go about if you 


decide he needs to be compensated? I mean, 


are you saying OTIB-0002 will always, there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

are any circumstances where you have a worker 


that’s in a tunnel, was not bioassayed, and 


it’s possible he should be compensated? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Say that again, John. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I might be a 


little confused here, but I’m envisioning 


something very simple. You’ve got a worker in 


a tunnel. He worked in a tunnel. You know 


that there was some airborne activity, in 


fact, you may have added some other workers 


that worked with him that bioassay data were 


collected, and you reconstruct his doses, best 


estimates, using his bioassay data. But these 


other workers don’t have any bioassay data, 


and I guess I’m not quite sure what do you do 


about that worker. 


Let’s say you run, now what I’m 


hearing is, well, in that case you would run 


OTIB-0002, but is it possible that you’d run 


OTIB-0002 and find out that you need to 


compensate this person using OTIB-0002 or that 


would never occur? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): We could not 


reach a compensation decision based on OTIB0002. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That was my, 


that’s exactly where I’m headed now. So you 


run OTIB-0002, and you find out, my goodness, 


if we, you know, we’re getting doses that 


result in something we need to compensate, but 


we can’t do that because OTIB-0002 was never 


intended for that purpose. At that point in 


the process what do you do? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Well, we have 


another tool out there called OTIB-0018, which 


is a method that’s in some ways like OTIB0002, but it’s based on air monitoring data. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So basically, 


you’re going to assume that the person may 


have been exposed at some fraction of an MPC. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct, but we 


can’t come to a compensation decision on the 


use of that tool either. 


DR. NETON: John, I think a lot of it gets 


down to the specifics of the case. I mean, 


what the guy was doing, how often they were in 


there, how many re-entries, that kind of 


stuff. So --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): So this is all 


laid out in one, as I said, your protocol, it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

may all be laid out there. I haven’t read it 


in some time. I just wanted to get an idea. 


So what I’m hearing is that for those workers 


that were tunnel workers, you have a sequence 


of events. 


One, we have the bioassay data. You 


do, great. You make use of that. You could 


then at that point go to OTIB-0002 and find 


out, okay, he doesn’t exceed, you’re done if 


he doesn’t exceed a POC of .5, you’re 


finished. If he exceeds a POC of .5, what I’m 


hearing is you may resort to OTIB-0018 which 


is a more realistic version that keys into 


MPCs. Is that the protocol that’s laid out 


right now in your dose reconstruction for 


tunnel workers? 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, that’s all 


I really need to understand because we will 


come to a point where we will be talking about 


OTIB-0018 when we get into the procedures. 


That’s going to be our next meeting at the end 


of this month, I believe. So I guess the use 


of OTIB-0018 in that capacity and for that 


purpose, I guess is best discussed when we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

discuss these procedures. 


 DR. WADE: We’re at a break point for lunch? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Let’s break for lunch and come 


back no later than 1:30. 


 DR. WADE: And we’re going to break contact 


with the line and dial back in. So we’ll dial 


back in a couple minutes before 1:30. Enjoy 


your lunch. 


(Whereupon, the work group broke for lunch 


from 12:37 p.m. until 1:37 p.m.) 


 DR. WADE: This is the work group conference 


room. We’re just about ready to begin. Could 


I ask if there are any Board members on the 


call not present here at the table? Any Board 


members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, ready to go. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We will kick back off with 


comment 19. There are no beta dose data until 


1966, the TBD does not specify a procedure for 


estimating pre-’66 beta dose. And I’ve got 


that marked complete because I believe the SEC 


takes care of that. Is that correct? 


MR. ROLFES: No, we have developed some 


beta/gamma ratios, and we have added those to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

the TBD so I guess it would be up to --


DR. NETON: It’s fairly extensive beta 


dosimetry in the new TBD. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So that needs to be we will 


get a notice on that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s in here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that in this one? Mark 


that complete. 


Twenty, there appears to have been 


internal (sic) non-use of badges --


DR. ROESSLER: Intentional 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- or intentional non-use of 


badges in some circumstances. We have looked 


at that. NIOSH, not NIOSH, but SC&A has 


looked at that. Mark has comments, and I have 


that marked that we need to address that 


today. 


MR. ROLFES: And there should be a statement 


in the TBD, let’s see, this would be 


incorporated as a page change into the 


external TBD basically documenting the 


prevalence of the intentional non-use of 


dosimetry, how to identify it in an individual 


that might have removed their badge, and how 


to address the non-use. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

So what we had proposed to do is we 


could use coworker information or take a look 


for a person that was approaching regulatory 


limits. And if he had consistently for the 


first three quarters of the year been 


receiving, say, in his first three quarters if 


he was approaching the five rem dose, total 


dose for that year, and suddenly dropped off 


for the fourth quarter, what we would do or 


propose is to assign the highest recorded dose 


in the first quarter, second quarter or third 


quarter to the fourth quarter. And we feel 


that that would be a claimant-favorable 


approach to address this issue when 


appropriate. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, you’re going to do 


some tests of actual data to see how prevalent 


it was, and is there any kind of compilation 


of that information? 


DR. NETON: I don’t know that we’ve tested, 


we did those tests for Rocky Flats where we 


tried to show the curvature of the probability 


distribution as you approach the regulatory 


limit. And we certainly did find that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: You didn’t find that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

DR. NETON: We did. We did. But then, you 


know, the problem with that test is that you 


don’t know whether that’s an effect of them 


removing their badge or whether it’s just 


prudent protection control saying, well, 


you’re reaching a limit, quit working. So I 


think what Mark proposed here, something much 


simpler, which is for those, this would only 


pertain to those who are fairly high-dose 


individuals to begin with. But if they did 


tail off in the certain quarter, we would 


propose as you suggested to consider using the 


highest quarter prior to the dose tailing off. 


I think those probability plots are just not 


sufficiently robust to give you a good sense. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: I can’t imagine anyone could 


argue that as being anything other than 


claimant favorable. I would argue that it 


flies in the face of good judgment in terms of 


good radiation protection practice. 


DR. NETON: And to some extent I think this 


needs to be evaluated almost on a case-by-case 


basis because you run the situations -- I 


think I pointed this example out before. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

first NTS case we did was a tunneler who had 


huge amounts of tritium in his bioassay 


samples, and then he quit having external 


badge result readings yet his tritium bioassay 


samples continued to be elevated. 


As you know, tritium clears very 


rapidly from the body. And so that was very 


positive evidence that that person was still 


continuing to work in the environment even 


though he was leaving his badge on the rack. 


And in fact, we found letters to congressional 


staff from his supervisor requesting that the 


exposure limits be raised because they were, 


would impede national security work and that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I’ve seen some of them. 


DR. NETON: So, but those are kind of easy 


to spot when you see things like that. It’s 


the issue where someone just, many people will 


state maybe that they did this, and there’s no 


reason for them to do that if they have very 


low doses. You know what I’m saying? So it 


really, in these cases, I think applies 


primarily to people with the doses that are 


approaching the exposure limit, regulatory 


limits. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

DR. ROESSLER: So when it says here in red 


if it is indicated in the claim that the 


worker removed his dosimeter, so you’re not 


actually going to do it that way then? 


DR. NETON: Well, we would have to look at 


it from several different perspectives. I 


think just an assertion might not be taken a 


face value if there were other mitigating 


factors, and you have to look at the whole 


picture. 


DR. ROESSLER: Or you may do it for some 


that where they don’t necessarily have it in 


the claim but looking at the records it would 


show that it’s suspicious. 


DR. NETON: Right, look if the bioassay 


continued to be sampled and remained high or ­

-


DR. ROESSLER: So that maybe is not --


DR. NETON: So his work assignment certainly 


would have to be consistent with receiving 


exposure. There’s a number of things one can 


look at, but this is a sort of a problem that 


we’ve had at many sites as you know. Rocky 


Flats this issue came up. And if a person, if 


it was convincing that they didn’t wear their 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

badges for whatever reason, then a coworker 


model as Bob suggested would be, we would 


treat them essentially as an unmonitored 


worker at that point. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We will address this then when 


section six comes out. 


MR. ROLFES: I believe the documented 


information that we have on this issue was 


primarily during the SEC time period at Nevada 


Test Site in the late ‘50s, and this was for 


people that were critical to the functions. 


They needed these people to complete the job 


prior to the moratorium that was fast 


approaching. And so they didn’t have time to 


train new people to complete the jobs. 


And this is the time period where we 


have documented evidence. If we find evidence 


like that or a compilation of various pieces 


of information that indicate that this 


occurred, then that would be evaluated on a 


case-by-case basis, and we will incorporate 


some instructions on how to address that 


issue. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Is the documentation that 


you talked about the same as what Jim was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

referring to prior to the moratorium? 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


MR. ROLFES: Yes, it was, in fact, I believe 


in 1959. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn’t remember it as 


before the moratorium. 


DR. NETON: Well, the tunneling was very 


early. I don’t --


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the moratorium was in 


1958, and it extended into 1960. No, I’m sure 


about that. 


MR. ROLFES: It could have been ’58 then. I 


believe it was 1950-something. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the document that you’re 


referring to, if we’re talking about the same 


one, is from ’59. 


MR. ROLFES: I believe the Advisory Board 


has the same set of documents. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I mean, we’ve talked to 


this person, and I think this person made a 


presentation to the Advisory Board actually. 


DR. NETON: I might have missed the Las 


Vegas one. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: In Las Vegas. So it’s 


actually part of the public record. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

reason I mention this is that in the 


interviews that we did, this problem seemed to 


extend beyond the SEC period into the mid-‘60s 


or ‘70s. I mean, the people that had 


different dates when this problem was no 


longer a big issue. And in two different 


interviews we got different answers, but both 


of them were beyond the SEC period. 


MR. ROLFES: That’s very possible, but what 


we would have to do is take a look at the 


claim and look at the facts of the case on a 


case-by-case basis. We’re not saying that it 


didn’t occur. It could have occurred and --


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, I mean, it’s 


interesting that you actually have found 


documented evidence of this, and that you’ve 


gone through it and so on. So that settled 


that issue, and I just wanted to make sure 


that we’re talking about the same period. 


MS. MUNN: To be resolved on a case-by-case 


basis. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-one has to do with the 


TBD does not contain information about 


extremity dosimetry. I marked this one 


complete. It has to do with bomb workers, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

assembly workers. 


MS. MUNN: There’s an OTIB out on them. 


DR. NETON: It’s in the TBD; it’s addressed 


in the TBD now. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s in volume six. 


MR. ROLFES: I guess I didn’t get that part. 


DR. NETON: I’m reading the comment. I 


thought it was. I need to go look and see. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): It’s on page 


30. 


DR. NETON: Thirty? Thank you. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: 6.3.2.3. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 20, we got anybody on? 


There are no neutron dose data. 


DR. ROESSLER: Twenty-two. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-two, there are no 


neutron dose data until 1966 and partial data 


until 1979. I have this marked complete with 


some question marks, make sure that we have --


MS. MUNN: The information has been 


incorporated. 


DR. NETON: Attachment D discusses the 


neutron issues starting on page 117. There’s 


additional neutron discussion within the text 


of the document. Document D has been added. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163

 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-three, adequacy of soil 


data for estimating resuspension, and that 


should be in Gene’s thing with the data to 


come back to us from NIOSH after they have had 


a chance to look at that, correct? 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-four, presence of high-


fired oxides resulting from atmospheric 


weapons testing and reactor testing needs to 


be investigated. And I have this marked 


complete. 


MS. MUNN: Yup, the TIB is out. 


DR. NETON: And the Department of Labor has 


been notified of which cases we want to re-


look at based on Super-S including those at 


Nevada Test Site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’re waiting on the TBD then. 


MR. ELLIOTT: No, no, the TBD is done. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Are there any NTS cases? 


DR. NETON: That’s a good question. I mean, 


if there were, they went over. I have not 


seen --


MS. MUNN: It’s all done. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It’s all done? 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is under Technical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

Information Bulletin for Super-S for highly 


insoluble compounds. 


 MR. PRESLEY: TIB, okay. 


MR. ELLIOTT: It’s already, it’s out there. 


DR. NETON: I’m not saying the cases have 


changed, just --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Just as a curiosity which, 


whether there were any that you thought needed 


DR. NETON: Any case at the Nevada Test Site 


that was denied that would be re-looked at if 


it’s not SEC. 


 MR. PRESLEY: NIOSH documentation on site 


expert review is inadequate. And we have 


worked with that. SC&A, I think, has looked 


at the data and --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I sent you a memo on that. 


I interviewed Mark. I looked at the data on 


the O drive, and basically, I found that the 


documentation was incomplete. Mark had an 


explanation for that. I documented that in 


the interview, and we have, the explanation 


was that things that were not relevant were 


not written down. 


But there’s been a kind of a little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

bit of a difficulty as to how you define that, 


you know, on the spot. And in any case I 


didn’t find documentation relating to several 


hours of interviews with Mr. Brady. And I 


sent you the memo. I don’t know what the 


status of that memo is or whether other 


working group members have seen it or -- I 


don’t remember. I think I just sent it to 


you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: As far as I’m concerned it’s 


complete. You all --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it is what it is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And it’s there. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Perhaps just as sort of a 


procedural suggestion since Mr. Gibson is 


considering worker interviews and 


documentation that might be passed on, there’s 


a whole bunch of comments we’ve made on this 


issue that might be passed on to him for his 


working group’s consideration. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Because I don’t think there’s 


any action, nothing to be reviewed or anything 


else. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, there’s no further 


action on this. I think on both sides we’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

complete. It’d done, and whether it had to be 


reviewed, it’s reviewed. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Could I just ask for a little 


clarification though, Arjun? Am I hearing 


that there were interviews conducted but were 


not reflected or accounted for in the 


documentation of who we respond? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, there was quite a bit 


of confusion about interviews with one person 


who happened to be quite important. He was a 


pretty senior person in Health Physics at NTS, 


and SC&A, I had interviewed him at some 


length. And that interview published in our 


review, and I interviewed him in 2005, just 


prior to, as we were preparing. 


He was ill but very lucid and 


excellent memory, and so he said some very 


important things. And so the question, and he 


said that NIOSH had contacted him or contacted 


him very briefly about one question only, 


rads, different rads, Roentgens and rads, 


something like historically. 


And then there was quite a bit of 


confusion as to who had contacted him. And 


then NIOSH said that there were five hours of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

interviews conducted with him if I remember 


correctly, right, Mark? 


MR. ROLFES: Sure, that’s correct. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And then so the question 


was, well, where’s the documentation of the 


interviews and whatever documentation was 


there was posted on the O drive. And I did 


not find more information than that in terms 


of documentation. It seemed --


MR. ELLIOTT: So it’s in the O --


DR. MAKHIJANI: That is on the O drive. 


MR. ELLIOTT: It’s the O drive, but it 


wasn’t evidently referred to in our technical 


basis document or any, I guess I’m lost or if 


it’s in the O drive, what’s the problem? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: There wasn’t a substantial 


account of five hours of interviews. It was a 


reflection that there was a discussion of 


what’s the difference between rads, rems and 


Roentgens and that was it. And it seemed a 


little surprising, and the contract, you know, 


when I interviewed him, he was -- it’s no more 


a statement than that. 


There was five hours of interviews 


conducted, but -- which he did not remember, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

and there’s -- wasn’t a substantial record of 


that. The difficulty was that there had been 


prior interviews in which the documentation 


had not been very good in other reviews that 


he did. So we just completed this item and 


submitted it to the chairman of the working 


group. 


MS. MUNN: But we had your notes of your 


interviews with him, did we not? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: I seem to recall --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, we do. 


MS. MUNN: -- recall that a long time ago. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it’s in the site 


profile review. 


MS. MUNN: That’s what I thought. So it is 


on the record, right? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: What he said to me and as 


reviewed by him, we went two rounds just to 


make sure that I got what he said down 


correctly, and then we published it, yes. 


MS. MUNN: So we have it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, we do. 


MS. MUNN: And it’s part of the public 


record. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

DR. NETON: It’s .149 of the site profile 


review. 


 DR. WADE: Back to Arjun’s question of that 


information coming to the working group 


looking at the efficacy of interviews, I think 


it’s a good suggestion. How will that happen? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t know. I mean, 


that’s your pleasure. I have, Kathy DeMers 


and I have worked, we’ve interviewed from our 


side most of the -- there’ve been a few other 


people involved from time-to-time. We could 


go back and gather up the diverse information 


and simply give a little bibliography of what 


we’ve got to that working group or the various 


chairmen of the working groups could 


communicate with Mr. Gibson. I don’t have a 


process in mind, but --


MS. MUNN: I think we have the information 


already. I don’t think there’s anything more 


that needs to be done other than perhaps our 


group may need to review that one more time. 


I may need to take another look at it. 


Personally, I don’t --


MR. ELLIOTT: You’re speaking as the Chair 


of the Procedures Working Group? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

MS. MUNN: Well, yes, partly, because --


 DR. WADE: But there is a work group, a 


newly appointed work group to look at the 


efficacy of the interview process. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Perhaps Mike Gibson is the --


 DR. WADE: Now who, is anybody on that 


working group? 


MS. MUNN: Not here I don’t think. 


 DR. WADE: So at a minimum, Robert, if you 


could let Mike Gibson know that this issue has 


come up and then he could pursue it with SC&A 


that would be fine. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and I think what Arjun 


was trying to get to is how when we do these 


interviews and worker outreach how we make 


sure that it gets to Mark and that group. 


 DR. WADE: If we let Mike know that it’s 


there, I’m sure Mike will contact SC&A and 


make use of it. We just need to make sure 


that the alert is given. 


DR. ROESSLER: I have one question on this. 


The other people who are listed here who have 


been interviewed, who interviewed them and 


where are the records for that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

DR. MAKHIJANI: All of the records, I found 


all the records posted --


DR. ROESSLER: On the O drive. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that were there. There 


are quite a few records. I personally -- and 


many of them were provided to us before, and 


there’s no question that NIOSH did -- just for 


the record it’s important to say there’s no 


question that NIOSH did extensive interviews 


with Health Physics personnel at the Nevada 


Test Site and documented many of them. 


We have, we do have much of that 


documentation. We re-interviewed many of the 


same people, and so there wasn’t a question 


about all the interviews at the Nevada Test 


Site. It was just --


DR. ROESSLER: This was Mr., the one that 


you mentioned? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the one interview we did 


had information that became quite central to, 


have been central to our discussions including 


this question of non-wearing of badges and so 


on which also came up in the other interviews. 


And so it became a little bit important --


MR. ROLFES: I think the issues was --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

DR. MAKHIJANI: -- to kind of figure out 


what the documentation was that was available. 


That’s why we looked into it. 


MS. MUNN: Well, my concern here with the 


wording of the original comment and where we 


went with that. The comment that the site 


expert interviews is inadequate. My question 


then becomes is it inadequate? Was that word 


chosen simply because one individual was, the 


reports of interviews with one individual were 


not as extensive as you expected them to be? 


Or are you saying that the interviews, is 


there an inference here that the interviews 


that were made were inadequate? I didn’t get 


that feeling when I had read this two years 


ago. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you’re pushing my 


memory now because it is almost two years ago. 


I will have to, we did an interview with, we 


did, you know, a question and answer exchange 


with NIOSH about this, and I believe some of 


NIOSH’s response is documented in that. I 


don’t, I think it is in the context of this 


site profile which is why this comment is here 


but may have been some other context. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

MS. MUNN: I think it was this one. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: But NIOSH informed us that 


they wrote down things only if they considered 


them relevant. 


MS. MUNN: If they were pertinent. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And we believe that when 


you’re interviewing, I mean, there may be 


something, you know, personal about their 


family life or something which you won’t write 


down, but we normally document whatever is 


said about that site and operation whether we 


feel it is important or relevant. And then we 


make a separate judgment about whether to 


include that in our analysis. 


The documentation of the interview is 


there as to what the person said in its 


entirety. It’s a summary, but we don’t omit 


things on the spot because they’re not -- in 


our judgment it becomes inadequate if you’re 


making judgments on the spot about what’s 


relevant to your analysis and not including it 


even if the interviewee thinks it’s relevant. 


Because the interview is not about what you 


think is relevant, but about what the 


interviewee thinks is relevant. Otherwise, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

there’s not much point in interviewing them. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I am not sure I’d go that 


far, but what I think I’m hearing is a 


difference of opinion on what constitutes an 


interview and how it should be done. And I’m 


not at all sure that we can, we, either as a 


working group or as a Board, can devise that 


kind of characterization. 


 DR. WADE: But the Board has put forward a 


work group to look at the issues related to 


the interview process and how it’s used. And 


they should consider this. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Part of this came out in the 


meeting in Las Vegas when any of the 


petitioners and so forth said, yes, they’d had 


interviews done, but a small fraction of it 


was put in there. And this is part of why we 


started this work group is to make sure of how 


you interview, the workers outreaches, and how 


it is implemented that it’s being done 


correctly. 


 DR. WADE: And that’s where it belongs with 


that work group. For this work group, your 


group’s on the interview of the individuals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

are included and are now part of the record of 


deliberations of this group. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s right. And our 


closure for the NTS process, this item is 


closed in the sense that there’s no further 


work to be done here. We’ve reviewed what 


needed to be reviewed. NIOSH put up the 


documentation that they have, and so there’s 


no, I mean, whether it was good or not, good 


or adequate or not, whatever was done is done 


and cannot be remedied unless you go and re-


interview people who are dead. 


MS. MUNN: So this really has gone to the 


other work group. 


 DR. WADE: Well, we need to make sure it 


gets there. 


MS. MUNN: This was what, Bill Brady’s 


interview that was the primary concern? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. But there was a more 


general concern, and I will pull up as we 


discuss. I can pull up, not the whole thing 


up, but I will pull up the information for you 


just to let you know as to where the general 


comment came from if I can find it. I’ll try. 


MS. MUNN: Well, that’s okay. I don’t need 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

it. I just wanted to make sure I understand 


just exactly what the language promoted there 


and exactly what we needed to do with it which 


sounds like it needs to be referred to Mike’s 


group. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Got a note to do that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I believe it is just 


for the record. It’s on page 109 of SC&A’s 


site profile review, the comment. So there 


was a more general issue that we raised, and 


we felt was important that we raised. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody have any more 


questions about the matrix? 


MS. MUNN: No, I just have one that I didn’t 


get a note on, on comment 18. I noted 


everything else, but I was too eager to get to 


lunch I think. What was that action on 18? I 


think it was just we’re going to read section 


six. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Work group to review for 


completeness, chapter five, marked complete. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This one I believe that 


would be volume five rather than -– 


ORAU DOCUMENT 0008-6


 MR. PRESLEY: Now, Jim has to depart in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

about 20 minutes, but I would like for us to 


start, if everybody would like to, go through 


and see who has comments on the ORAU document, 


0008-6, at least start it. You, I believe, 


said you hadn’t had a chance to go through 


this? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I’ve begun going 


through it on a very preliminary reading, and, 


as I mentioned in the morning, this is a very 


substantially new document with lots of the 


information that’s responsive to the points 


that were raised. And I did some in 


preparation for this meeting. I haven’t done 


an analysis of it or anything because the 


working group hasn’t authorized it. I just 


did a little bit to prepare for this meeting. 


I believe John’s gone through it somewhat. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I have, I’ve 


read through all of it except, I think, the 


attachments. If I recall there was about a 


little over 100 pages, and so I got through 


the main body. And it addresses a broad range 


of issues that we talked about in the past 


that needed to be addressed. So it’s very 


responsive to a lot of the issues that, when I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

say response, it addresses many of the issues 


that we raised regarding external dosimetry. 


However, I guess the meat of it and 


exactly, okay, the method that they’re 


recommending to use to deal with various 


external dosimetry issues, a lot of that 


material is provided in the appendices, and I 


have to say I didn’t get that far, ran out of 


time. But my reaction when I made my initial 


read was that it did cover a lot of topics or 


addressed a lot of topics that we raised in 


the past which is good. And the degree to 


which the methodology is adopted to deal with 


those topics we really haven’t had a chance to 


look very closely at. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Working group, what do you 


want to do with this? 


MS. MUNN: Well, John, are you going to be 


able to address those attachments inside the 


purview of your current requirements? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Only if so 


authorized by the working group. Right now 


the only action item I have for SC&A is to, is 


Lynn Anspaugh looking into this dust loading 


issue. Right now as far as action items as a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

result of this meeting for SC&A, that’s it. 


So I really am looking to you as to what you’d 


like us to do. 


 DR. WADE: Let’s talk a little bit about it. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s do. 


 DR. WADE: On two levels. First, before we 


get specifically to that question, it’s always 


beneficial with a document like this that 


needs to be reviewed by work group members, if 


there are any clarifying questions, this would 


be the time to ask them. Maybe there’s no 


time for that in terms of your preparation, 


and that’s fine. But now look at the path 


you’ve laid out for yourself as a work group. 


And again, you’re pretty far along in 


terms of the maturity of this work group. 


You’ve raised a lot of, SC&A’s raised a lot of 


issues. You’ve raised a lot of issues. NIOSH 


has addressed those issues either in this 


document or in chapter five that you will have 


soon. And then it’s to the work group to 


review those documents to see if, indeed, the 


closure you think you have in the matrix has 


been realized. 


So the question is what do you want 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

SC&A to do in the interim. They could sit 


idle and do other things, they have much work 


to do, and wait for the work group to review 


it, and then you could say to SC&A we think 


there is still a need for you to review this 


subset of the items. Or you could ask SC&A to 


begin now to review all of the items in the 


matrix as they appear in these documents. 


It’s up to you as to how you want to 


proceed, but do you expect to use your 


contractor again? If you do, when would you 


like to activate them to the task at hand? 


And that’s up to the work group entirely. 


MS. MUNN: I would like for us to consider 


the possibility since I’m one of the 


individuals who hasn’t had an opportunity to 


go through this ORAU document, I’d like to 


have an opportunity to do that. But I’d also 


like to have an opportunity to try to solidify 


some of the questions that might exist in it 


before we have another face-to-face meeting if 


it’s feasible to do so since it appears that 


John has gotten most of the way through the 


document and is just now getting into the meat 


of it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

It seems logical for us to try to 


identify what lack of agreement still exists 


after John has gotten through the appendices 


here and all of us have had an opportunity to 


review this and chapter five. Perhaps the 


reasonable thing then is for us to 


individually bring up any issues that we feel 


and have a phone conference at some juncture a 


month down the road, sometime in perhaps early 


September, something of that sort. 


And at least then define what the 


issues remain. Because if we don’t define 


what the issues are that remain, it’s almost 


impossible for us to say whether or not we 


want the contractor to do anything else. 


 DR. WADE: That’s a reasonable path forward. 


You could, the work group could take it upon 


itself to review the document in front of you, 


chapter six, relative to the open questions in 


the matrix. And then have a discussion in 


about a month’s time that each of you would 


say I would like our contractor to look at 


matrix item 16 and see if, indeed, they agree 


with the NIOSH approach relative to the SC&A 


comment. That’s fine. That’s a path forward. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

DR. ROESSLER: I guess before Wanda 


mentioned that I had another thought. And 


that’s if SC&A has the time and the budget to 


do it, it seems they’re the ones who could 


more efficiently do, as someone mentioned, 


identify the areas that, where there’s, 


agreement has not been achieved, where we have 


a lack of agreement. And then we could zero 


in more quickly on what we still need to 


resolve. 


 DR. WADE: That’s also a reasonable 


approach. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. You know, 


looking at this, and I’m not going to pull 


anybody’s leg, a lot of this is pretty... I 


can sit there and look at these numbers all 


day, and they’re not meaning anything to me. 


But most of these comments that are coming out 


here, just looking at it over a third of this 


stuff that’s in our matrix here pertains to 


portions of this, and they’re SC&A’s issues. 


Now I think we’ve had plenty of discussion 


today, and we’ve got a fairly well defined of 


what the issues are. Myself, I’d like to see 


them get taken care so that we could come to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

closure with this. 


 DR. WADE: So you’re advocating that for 


every item in the matrix that currently says 


that has now been addressed in chapter six, 


you would like SC&A to look at that and offer 


their opinion as to whether or not it, indeed, 


has been addressed in chapter six to their 


satisfaction? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Correct. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Can I ask a 


question? Does this also apply to Gene 


Rollins’ piece dealing with resuspension? In 


other words --


 DR. WADE: It could. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- so in effect 


we have a matrix which responds by either 


making reference to a new chapter six or 


making reference to the new Gene Rollins’ 


report. So are we, right now -- I’m not 


writing this down so I’ve got to get an 


appreciation for what our mandate is. 


 DR. WADE: We haven’t come quite to that 


yet, but your mandate could be chapter six and 


Gene Rollins’ report. It could be one or the 


other. It could be neither. The work group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

has to sort of now talk about that and decide. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. One of 


the things that I’m worried about if we do 


this is SC&A will take this document, and 


we’ll come up with another 30 or 40 items that 


we’ve got to go through back through a matrix 


and check. I have no problem with SC&A 


looking at this and commenting, but I don’t 


want to come back in here a month down the 


road with another matrix and 25 more items 


that we need to go back and re-do for this. 


MS. MUNN: My charge would be -- John, if I 


were writing the charge to you, my charge 


would be that you be asked to compare, as Lew 


had said earlier, the matrix items against the 


two documents that have now been offered as 


solutions to that and simply respond whether 


they do or do not meet your criteria for the 


original matrix item. That would be my charge 


if I were writing it. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, and within 


that context, I guess it would be, we would 


just offer up a perspective, for example, when 


we discussed some of the matters earlier, I’ll 


give you an example. One of the things we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

talked about with regard to Gene Rollins’ 


report is this high-end value. 


The way I see it right now is all we 


would do is say, okay, we reviewed Gene’s 


report. We noticed that a great deal depends 


on this one particular measurement made in 


Region 9 in 1972. And SC&A’s perspective is 


that it’s important that we, you know, fully ­

- perhaps the commentary would go something 


like this. We believe that a fuller 


understanding of the degree to which that 


particular sample is, in fact, representative 


of the working environment that people were 


exposed to, that any clean up that may have 


taken place may not somehow undermine the 


validity of that being the bounding value. 


In other words we would not really do 


very much except to, I guess, write down many 


of the things that we already talked about on 


the phone as being, well, we think that this 


might be important. Maybe that’s just the 


extent, and get that -- by the way, that’s not 


a, we wouldn’t do any research. In other 


words we would just write down -- because 


we’ve been doing this on the run right now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

We read the report. Lynn, myself and 


Arjun talked about it. We actually may in 


fact made a very nice list of some of the 


things, some of his perspectives on this many 


of which have been clarified as a result of 


this conversation. What might be helpful is, 


you know, for us to finish reading both 


documents and, within the context of the 


matrix, point out places where some 


clarification might be helpful. 


And I understand that there’s a gray 


line. Does that mean we’re going to create a 


whole bunch of new issues. And I understand 


that concern, too. So I’m just trying to find 


the right balance whereby we could provide the 


working group with a perspective very quickly, 


within a matter of, say, a couple of weeks, a 


week or two so that that would part of the, 


your contractor’s perspective on these two 


documents as they relate to the matrix. 


And then as NIOSH, I guess, is in the 


process right now of looking into many of the 


matters we talked about, and also finalizing 


these chapters, that would be part of the 


material that they have before them. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

MS. MUNN: John, in your view wouldn’t the 


discussion between Gene and Lynn with regard 


to the mass loading help resolve the major 


part of the question that you have with 


respect to the not quite half Becquerel 


reading in ’73? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, that would 


go a long way toward dealing with that and 


this issue of clean up and the fact that the 


air sampling was, in fact, taken for the 


purpose of understanding what the exposures to 


the workers might have been as opposed to some 


other purposes. Very often these air 


samplings are taken to see if, in fact, 


there’s anything moving offsite. Were they 


taken while the people were working? Now we 


wouldn’t look into that. 


I think that as a result of our 


conversation today it became clear that that’s 


an important, it’s important that that number 


be shored up in terms of, yes, we have 


documentation that, you know, there was no 


clean up prior to the time that was taken. 


Too, we have documentation it was taken at a 


location where people were actually working so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

that it does reflect anthropomorphic 


activities that might have resulted in 


elevated levels of airborne dust. 


So all of these questions regarding 


being assured -- I’m using this as one 


example. So in other words these are, in a 


way what I’m saying now is this is some of the 


observations we’ve made as we read these 


documents. And they are all, you know, they 


can all be given a home. Where do they come 


in? Where do they fit in within the matrix? 


And they can be made almost as a list. 


Where I’m going with this I’m not 


talking about analysis. We’re not going to 


answer the questions. We’re just going to 


lend areas where we feel there may be some 


softness in the material we’ve seen and that 


might, you know, if it were addressed a little 


more thoroughly with regard to X, Y and Z, 


would make for a stronger position. I guess 


that’s what I had in my head. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I think that you have clearly 


before you a finalized technical basis 


document that responds to the comments that 


SC&A provided on the original site profile. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

would say to you that the, is it chapter five 


or the environmental ambient dose and the 


resuspension model, you know, need to wait 


until we come back to you with the final 


document that is similar to this one you have 


on the table today. And then you can examine 


how we have addressed the comments that have 


been provided earlier and from today’s 


conversation. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, I 


understand and that’s even better. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I think the positions 


of the white paper and the external dose, I 


agree with Larry. I think I get the spirit of 


what he was saying are quite different because 


first of all the white paper is a step in the 


long discussion we’ve had about the same issue 


and the fine technical points that need to be 


raised for amending and finalizing that paper 


have already pretty much been put on the 


table. There are one or two more things that 


can be done in an exchange of e-mails. 


This external dose document is 


responsive to a whole list of issues, and as 


Dr. Roessler said earlier, on those issues the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

matrix can be put to bed in the sense that it 


says the issues have been addressed. And the 


question I think is that this is a complicated 


document. I don’t know if John’s going to get 


back to you in two weeks, but I can assure you 


I’m not going to get back to you in two weeks 


because I think this is a, there are three 


different beta dose models in here. 


Each one of them is, I’m sure took a 


lot of thought, and I think if we’re going to 


look at it, we should do it the respect and 


not shoot from the hip and say this is a 


problem; that’s a problem and create 25 new 


issues that will go away. We need to, if you 


want us to look at it, I think it should be a 


considered look that will, otherwise, you 


know, Ms. Munn has put forward, you know, an 


alternative approach that you should raise the 


issues for us to look at, or we can look at 


the whole document. 


But I don’t think that this volume, 


volume six, can be covered in terms of what 


the response is in a hurry. I think John was 


more talking about the white paper which I 


think is a different game altogether. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

DR. ROESSLER: I guess I’m, it sounds more 


open-ended the way you put it. What I was 


specifically thinking is that we have the 


matrix today. We went through it, and we said 


this is closed if. And I think it’s those 


points on the matrix where we said if NIOSH 


has adequately dealt with this particular 


item. That’s what I’m thinking of is that you 


concentrate specifically on the matrix and 


specifically check the items in the new 


documentation that NIOSH said they were going 


to do. Make it very specific. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I agree with you. I heard 


you. All I’m saying is for instance, is one 


very brief item in the matrix that says there 


are no beta dose measurements for 196. And a 


very good portion of this document deals with 


that one line because there’s not 


measurements, quite an elaborate amount of 


thought had to be put into what NIOSH was --


DR. ROESSLER: But you direct it to that 


particular item because that’s what the 


question was. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It was a non-trivial job I’m 


sure to produce it. And all I’m saying it’ll 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

be a non-trivial job to just look at that one 


item. If you want us to go through and say, 


yes, there’s some text in here that covers it, 


I think that can be done in a day. Is there a 


section number that you can point to that 


addresses a matrix --


DR. ROESSLER: Evaluate it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- item, yes or no. But to 


actually tell you whether we think it’s 


adequate is going to take some time. 


 DR. WADE: I think we’re closing on the 


intellectual territory, and I don’t think 


we’ve agreed at all on the timeframe, but 


let’s, so let’s sort of review it. 


What we have in front of us is this 


document which is chapter six. So if you go 


through the matrix, there are a number of 


items, say, 12 -- I don’t know how many --


that basically say item closed; issue 


addressed in chapter six. So I think SC&A 


should start with those items and do the 


detailed analysis Arjun is talking about and 


see if SC&A agrees that the item has been 


dealt with in chapter six and addressed to 


their satisfaction in chapter six. If the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

answer is yes, put a big check. If the answer 


is no, then you say, no, these questions 


remain. So that’s done. 


Now you’re waiting then for chapter 


five. And when chapter five is officially 


released, then you can do the same thing for 


chapter five. But that you can’t do until 


chapter five is in front of you. And dealing 


with the white paper might not be the most 


effective way to do that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: That’s right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And on chapter five we may be 


able to sit down as a Board, everybody have a 


copy and say this is addressed; this is 


addressed; this is addressed. 


DR. ROESSLER: Or the work group. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Or the work group. I’m sorry, 


work group. 


 DR. WADE: So John and Arjun, you understand 


the charge. That you’re to take every item in 


the matrix that claims that its resolution is 


contained in chapter six. And you’re to 


review those items to see if you agree that 


the item is closed based upon what’s in 


chapter six. Say, yes, you agree or, no, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

don’t agree. These are the concerns that 


remain. Is that clear? And you need to take 


as much time as you need to do a thorough job. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That’s very 


clear. And the other half is really not to 


take any action right now related to the white 


paper because, and just sit tight until the 


official --


MR. ELLIOTT: It’s a moving target, John. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- and then we’ll 


get our mandate or not after the official 


version is issued. 


 DR. WADE: Once chapter five is released, 


then you can do, the work group, I assume, 


will ask you to do exactly the same thing for 


chapter five. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Am I correct that 


Gene’s report is for all intents and purposes 


a draft, early draft of what --


MR. ELLIOTT: A working draft. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): A working draft 


of chapter five, okay. So it would be 


premature for us to be looking at that. I 


understand. So we’re really limiting 


ourselves right now to matrix items related to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

chapter six. 


MR. ROLLINS (by Telephone): This is Gene 


Rollins. I need to clear something up I 


think. The white paper was to assist in the 


revision of chapter four. 


 DR. WADE: We have three chapters in play, 


four five and we have six. 


MR. ELLIOTT: So there are two more chapters 


to be produced for you. And not to queer the 


deal here or confuse, but if it would be 


helpful, we can insert into the matrix the 


specific text location in the document that we 


produce. And then if you have that, you may 


look at it as a working group and say to your 


satisfaction on an individual basis it reads 


to your liking or doesn’t. Or you may choose 


that if it’s the beta dose analysis modeling 


that you need to have SC&A look at, you might 


choose to go different ways with an issue. So 


if that’s helpful, we can put that into the 


text of the matrix where our treatment of an 


issue resides in the document. 


MS. MUNN: That kind of specification would 


be enormously helpful. Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

MR. ELLIOTT: So we’ll strive to toward that 


then. 


DR. NETON: I would offer in the spirit of 


efficiency that we can have technical working 


group exchanges during this if SC&A has issues 


that they want to discuss that are, need 


clarification or confusing. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I had thought you would do 


that. 


DR. NETON: Those have worked well in the 


past for getting things through a log jam if 


it becomes an issue rather than wait a month. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: You and I have had the most 


efficient calls. 


DR. NETON: We do well. 


 DR. WADE: Everybody understand? 


 MR. PRESLEY: SC&A will review chapter six 


and will get back to the working group on 


items that pertain to the NTS matrix is what I 


have here. 


 DR. WADE: I would state it the other way. 


That SC&A will look at the subset of matrix 


items that are answered in chapter six 


purported to be answered in chapter six and 


will answer the question are they adequately 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

addressed in chapter six. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): To further on 


that, I assume we sit tight until we see this 


revised version of the matrix where, you know, 


it’s more explicitly points to the sections of 


chapter six as was just mentioned earlier --


DR. MAKHIJANI: John --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- on that as 


opposed to taking the action now using the 


current version of the matrix. 


 DR. WADE: That’s open for discussion. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s not necessary, John. I 


think it’s quite clear. I mean, this will be 


forthcoming relatively soon I presume. 


MR. ELLIOTT: My offer was for chapter four 


and five, but you know, if it’s helpful to the 


Board, I think we could go in --


DR. WADE: Yeah, you should go on chapter 


six with what you’ve got. Four and five, it 


would be good to start that. 


DR. NETON: Because starting with chapter 


six is if we start pointing out individual 


sentences, then you’re going to lose the 


totality of what we said in there because it 


may exist in several places now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Oh, okay. That’s 


why I asked the question. So what I’m hearing 


it’s not going to be that much more help to 


try to identify all the different places. 


Just a matter of here’s the issue. It’s 


answered in chapter six. We’re just going to 


take a look at chapter six. 


DR. NETON: Right, there’s a neutron 


section, a neutron appendix. I mean, it’s 


going to be in there if it’s a neutron issue. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Gotcha, okay, I 


understand. 


 DR. WADE: And then pending the receipt of 


that and then the completion of chapters four 


and five, then the work group can decide when 


it next wants to get together, possibly by the 


phone or possibly face-to-face. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It looks to me like it’s going 


to be maybe some time near the end of 


September. 


MS. MUNN: Well, that’s getting us awful 


close to the October meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Larry’s already stated that 


he’s up against the wall right now on some of 


this stuff. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199

 DR. WADE: Well, again, there are two 


pathways. On chapter six SC&A can start right 


away, and they can let you know. Once 


chapters four and five are done then the work 


group needs to decide how it wants to engage 


SC&A on that. It might be able to do that on 


a phone call, might want to get together. I 


don’t know. That’s up to you. 


MS. MUNN: But there’s not, if the work that 


needs to be done on six is not going to be any 


more overwhelming than what we’ve identified 


that it will be, then it would seem beneficial 


to be able to have a phone call getting the 


input of the respective individual members of 


the work group with respect to their view on 


whether or not their concerns are addressed 


her and getting an update on where SC&A and 


NIOSH are with that. It would be very helpful 


if we could do that midway between now and the 


next meeting. I don’t know whether that’s --


 MR. PRESLEY: But to do that NIOSH has to 


get that --


MS. MUNN: I guess the bottom line question 


is --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- complete? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

MS. MUNN: No, no, I’m just talking about 


six. I’m just talking about six. It would be 


nice if we could get that off the table before 


the next, at least get identified clearly 


whether there are any remaining issues on 


that. 


 DR. WADE: So as always, John, the question 


comes to you now of when do you think you’ll 


be prepared to report on the task you’ve been 


given today? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Well, I would 


like to caucus with Arjun and our other 


external dosimetrists to finish reading the 


report, and that may take a day or two just to 


read it, and so that we get a sensibility of 


the scale of the problem. And then I will get 


back to the working group let’s say toward the 


end of -- today is Tuesday? 


If I can get back to the working group 


toward the end of this week to lay out when we 


think we’ll be able to send in our 


commentaries on chapter six and give you a 


date. I’d hate to try to set a date right 


now. I notice I mentioned two weeks, and I 


got a reaction from Arjun which is I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

understand. I really don’t know until we 


finish reading it what we’re about to take on. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so if you do that, then the 


Chair of the work group can look at that, and 


if it looks reasonable to schedule a call a 


week after that date within the timeframes 


Wanda mentioned, then I would say do it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many of us are going to be 


up here for that Procedures meeting in 


Cincinnati on the 29th? 


MS. MUNN: Me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And I am. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I’m going to be here. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’ll be at the 


29th meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Brad could call in. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Brad could call in and the 


same way with Jim. We’re going to be here. 


Wanda and I have to be here for that 


Procedures group. 


 DR. WADE: That presupposes that John’s 


material will be to you before then. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Either the 28th or 29th . 


 MR. CLAWSON: That will all depend on John, 


what he brings out the end of this week, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

we can, after what John says, we can shoot for 


that. 


DR. NETON: It would be nice if NIOSH would 


have a chance to react as well because what 


will happen is SC&A will present something, 


and then we’ll say, well, we just read this. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I want to make sure that you 


all, I don’t want to come up here like we did 


today and --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, part of the 


goal is to have as many items resolved without 


further work and further revisions. And it is 


most helpful to have the greatest clarity 


between us as to what was being said. And in 


the past Jim has mentioned that we’ve had some 


good luck with just resolving issues without 


even having to bring them up because it was 


something that we thought was being said that 


wasn’t being said, but it was something else. 


There was more data some place else that we 


hadn’t seen or something like that. 


And there is one external dosimetrist 


that we haven’t even seen this document. We 


haven’t touched based with him on his 


schedule. So I think it’s a, it’s your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

pleasure, but I just -- this is, from my half, 


look at half of it, the reason I didn’t, 


normally, I turn the pages and at least try to 


reach the end before. But this thing is a 


complex thing, and I couldn’t turn the pages 


to reach the end because I wouldn’t be able to 


say anything about any page. So it’s an 


unusually difficult document. 


 DR. WADE: Let me propose this. What about 


at a certain time next Wednesday, we have a 


mini-conference call between John Mauro, the 


Chairman, Jim and I. We assess the situation 


and decide what would be the appropriate 


action in what timeframe. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That Wednesday, the 15th? 


 DR. WADE: I was picking a day to give 


everybody a chance to, Wednesday, the 15th . 


Does that work? 


I didn’t hear that. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): That’s fine with 


me. By that time we certainly should have a 


pretty good idea of what our, the level of 


effort that’s going to be necessary to provide 


you with our commentaries. 


 DR. WADE: And who do you want us to use as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

a NIOSH point of contact, you or Jim, Larry? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Jim is fine. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so let’s say at one o’clock 


eastern time on the 15th . One o’clock eastern 


time on the 15th . At a minimum the Chairman, 


John Mauro, myself and Dr. Neton will have a 


call. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And Mark, I’d like Mark. 


 DR. WADE: And Mark. And at that point 


we’ll say how’s it looking. And based upon 


that say let’s try for a phone meeting on the 


29th
 or --


 MR. PRESLEY: Can you send a thing out on 


that? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


Could I ask you, Jim, to do that? 


DR. NETON: Sure. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Call-in number. 


DR. NETON: Do you want me to send an e-mail 


to the work group? Let me get the attendees 


down. I wasn’t --


MR. ROLFES: I can take care of that. 


DR. NETON: Mark’s got it. 


 DR. WADE: Well, that’s good. 


MS. MUNN: Don’t set your upcoming date on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

the 29th . I can assure you the work group is 


going to take the entire day. 


 DR. WADE: Well, then Robert can then 


communicate. Once he decides he can 


communicate to the work group his proposal. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If somebody wants to sit in or 


listen on to what’s going on. 


 DR. WADE: So, Mark, if you would put out, 


give the rest of the work group the 


information as well, but with no requirement 


that they call in unless they’re curious. 


MR. ROLFES: Okay, all right. I’ll cc the 


work group. 


MS. MUNN: My calendar says that we have a 


full Board call scheduled the 4th of September. 


DR. NETON: Correct. 


MS. MUNN: In any case, I have no feel for 


how full that dance card’s going to be. 


 DR. WADE: Not too full. I’m thinking 


that’s not going to be too full. So I think 


the afternoon of the fourth, though we 


probably wouldn’t start until 11:00. But I 


would say by one or two we should be done 


because the agenda isn’t looking full to me 


for a call. There’s lots of things we can do, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

but we can’t do many things on a call. 


MS. MUNN: That’s right. 


 DR. WADE: So that’s a possibility of using 


some time then afterward. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What I have then is action 


items is mass loading and dust sampling. 


Comment on the clean up of Area 9. NIOSH will 


look at the problem and get back with the 


working group. And when, where and why air 


samples were taken at NTS. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, we’re going to address 


all of those in our chapter four, five, four 


and five. 


DR. NETON: Resuspension goes to four. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And the matrix goes away 


except for Arjun has to look at the --


MR. ELLIOTT: There are issues in the matrix 


that go to chapter four and five. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll keep an eye on them. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Just going through it today 


I’m pretty confident that whatever items we’ve 


raised --


DR. NETON: There’s something in there. 


It’s just whether or not it’s --


DR. MAKHIJANI: --there’s some text in here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

Just reasonably clear so basically it’s the 


review that remains. So from that point of 


view the matrix items will get closed in that 


there’s some text in there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And I’ll let Mike Gibson know 


about the interviews and the clarification of 


the NTS interview data. 


Anybody else have anything else? 


 (no response) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark? 


MR. ROLFES: I have nothing else. I know 


there’s many issues that are debated, you 


know, that we’ve put on the table. And 


there’s different approaches to complete a 


dose reconstruction. We are trying to get the 


claimants a timely answer. That’s the bottom 


line. And we want to make sure that the 


compensation decision is correct. Many of the 


issues that we are discussing can be discussed 


for years to come, and we are trying to 


address these, you know, as expeditiously as 


possible so that we are providing timely 


responses to claimants. Many of the issues 


that we’re discussion are not going to affect 


compensation decisions, so there is always 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

208 

going to be, you know, a person that is 


reviewing each claim to make sure that we have 


been claimant favorable so that we are 


verifying that the compensation decision is 


correct. And I want to keep that in mind 


with, you know, a good path forward for this 


document so that we can be expeditious and 


make correct scientific decisions. 


 DR. WADE: Well said. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I appreciate that. 


MS. MUNN: Are we done for the day? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have nothing else. 


DR. NETON: Are we going to sign off here? 


MS. MUNN: I think so. 


 DR. WADE: Goodbye out there. 


(Whereupon, the work group meeting adjourned 


at 3:50 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

209 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of August 7, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


17th day of October, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102