NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Work Group on Sandia

Monday, August 13, 2018

The Work Group convened telephonically at 2:00 

p.m., Eastern Time, Henry Anderson, Chair,

presiding.
2 

Members Present: 

Henry Anderson, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official 

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Chris Corwin, DCAS

Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Kurt Grimes

Joe Guido, ORAU Team

Chuck Nelson, DCAS

Jim Neton, DCAS 

Lavon Rutherford, DCAS
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Work Group on Sandia 

Monday, August 13, 2018 1

Roll Call/Welcome 4

Evaluation Report Addendum for SEC Petition 

188 (1995-1996) 6

Presentation 6

Discussion 12

Motion to Approve Proposal 19

Presentation Update of the Evaluation of 

Remaining SEC Period (1997-2011) 20

Adjourn 26
4

Proceedings

(2:01 p.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome

Mr. Katz: Welcome everyone to the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health. This is the Sandia 

Work Group, and today is a pretty simple agenda. 

We have a presentation by NIOSH on an addendum 

to the Evaluation Report that's been done on Sandia 

for the SEC petition, that's been continuing work over 

a quite a number of years now.

And so we'll have a presentation on that and an 

opportunity also for the petitioner, if the petitioner is 

on the line, to comment. We'll have questions and 

that's it for the agenda, but if you want, the 

presentation that Chuck Nelson is going to provide 

for NIOSH on this addendum, it's published on the 

NIOSH website so folks can follow along on the 

NIOSH website if they want. And that's the NIOSH 

website for this program, and you go under 

scheduled meeting, today's date, and you can pull 

that presentation up and see the -- Chuck's slides.

Also, I just would remind everyone on the call to 

please keep your phones muted except when you're 

addressing the group. And if you don't have a mute 

button, press *6 to mute your phone and then press 

*6 again to take your phone off of mute. That would 

be much appreciated.

Okay then. So my -- the new chair for this Work 

Group is Dr. Henry Anderson, and he's present, and 

I also have Members Ms. Josie Beach and Dr. Gen 

Roessler, they're on the line, so all present for the 

Work Group. There are no conflicts of interest for 

Work Group Members from among the Board for any 

of the Work Groups including this one, so we don't 

need to address that. But, program people, please 

address conflict of interest as we go through roll call.

(Roll call.)
5

Mr. Katz: Okay. So then that takes care of all of the 

preliminaries. Again, in case anyone joined us late, 

please mute the phone while you are listening. You 

press *6 to mute your phone if you don't have a mute 

button on your phone. And you press *6 again to 

take your phone off of mute.

And, Andy, it's your meeting.

Chair Anderson: So, thank you. As a new chair, I've 

been taking a bit of time to get up to speed on this 

site. As mentioned, it's been underway for quite 

some time, and it's had several steps to it, and now 

we're looking at additional information and NIOSH 

review on expanding the SEC petition here, and I'll 

turn it over to Charles, Dr. Nelson, to give us an 

update on where we stand on the '95 and '96 period. 

And that still leaves outstanding the remainder of the 

original evaluation, a period of '97 through 2011.

Member Beach: Hey, Henry, this is Josie. This is 

officially our first Work Group meeting, I believe.

Isn't it, Ted?

Mr. Katz: Yes, that's absolutely true.

Chair Anderson: Oh, what happened?

Member Beach: I didn't know if you knew that.

Mr. Katz: Yes, just a bit of history. The Work Group 

was formed upon the receipt of the petition, but so 

far -- NIOSH has presented several times to the full 

Board because the Evaluation Report initially was 

presented first to the full Board and then 

subsequently in establishing parts of the Class, that 

there was really no matter to dig into in those earlier 

actions, so the Work Group never -- never needed to 

been convened yet and we're completely convening 

this Work Group today because -- just because we 

have the opportunity to, and it's helpful for the 

Board.

This is also a recommendation to add from the 
6

program, and it's helpful to the Board if there's 

already a recommendation from the Work Group 

associated with NIOSH's recommendation --

Chair Anderson: Okay. I remember -- I went 

through my prior meetings, and I noticed it was 

presented several times. I just assumed I was -- you

know, I wasn't on any other calls. So, okay. Well --

-

Mr. Katz: Right, right.

Chair Anderson: Sorry about that, but --

Mr. Katz: No, no. That's all good. That's all good.

Chair Anderson: So, Charles, let's go ahead then.

Evaluation Report Addendum for SEC Petition 188 

(1995-1996)

Presentation

Mr. Nelson: Thank you, Dr. Anderson. My name is 

Chuck Nelson. I'm the Lead Health Physicist for 

Sandia National Lab. Can everybody hear me okay 

out there?

Mr. Katz: Yes, you're very clear. Thank you.

Mr. Nelson: Okay. Well, I took over from Dr. Sam 

Glover in 1996. So I'll just go through this 

presentation. Incidentally, this same presentation or 

something very similar will be used at the Advisory 

Board meeting next week. So this will be good 

practice for me.

Okay. So let me give you a little history about SEC188. It qualified back in October 21st, 2011 with an 

83.13, and the petitioner proposed a Class that 

basically included security folks, police, and firemen 

that worked in any area of Sandia for the period of -

- that was Sandia Albuquerque for the period of 

January 1, 1963 to May 21st, 2011. And based on 

that, NIOSH proposed a Class to be added to the SEC 

on February 21st, 2012. And in which case, they 
7

recommended all personnel -- not just the security, 

police, and firemen, but all personnel that worked in 

any area of Sandia National Lab in Albuquerque from 

the period of January 1, '49 through December 31, 

1994.

Okay. The basis for that particular Class, the '49 to 

'94 Class, was insufficient monitoring data and 

information to reconstruct internal doses, that was all 

lacking. And it was basically due to internal 

monitoring program documentation, internal 

monitoring data, and the lack of process information.

However, it was concluded that external doses, 

including medical x-rays can be reconstructed 

through May 21st, 2011. So at this point I'm on Slide 

4 now. If that helps you all follow along.

So after that last SEC Class in '49 to '94 that was 

added, NIOSH did commit to following up and 

evaluating the monitoring program -- the internal 

monitoring program and look at the completeness, 

how sufficient it was, and how appropriate it was for 

the entire Sandia Albuquerque population. So 

starting in January 1st, 1995 and it would conclude 

all the way through, as the petitioner requested, May 

21st, 2011.

And we committed to providing that in an addendum 

which we have done, and we have submitted it to the 

Advisory Board. With regard to the remainder of the 

period, '97 through 2011, we'll talk a little bit about 

it at the end of the presentation, or we could maybe 

go in sequential order if you all want. I can hold off 

on the last couple of slides and just get those slides 

afterwards depending on how you all want to conduct 

that. Okay.

So for this particular time period, we're talking -- our 

focus now is 1995 and 1996, we looked at many data 

sources. We interviewed 17 -- there were actually 

17 interviews, there were 15 people. There were five 

security personnel interviewed, there was seven total 

health physicists who had -- staff type individuals 

that interviewed an industrial hygienist, a database 
8

manager, and a researcher. And that's all since the 

last SEC designation.

And also, along with that, we reviewed over 800 

documents that we captured, and they included stuff 

like internal memos, radiation work permits, 

radiological surveys, incident reports, air samples, 

internal dosimetry records as well as breathing zone 

monitoring. So your personal air sampling. Then to 

go along with personal air sampling. I still am not 

used to saying DAC hour but it's Derived Air 

Concentration hour tracking. So we looked at some 

of those, some documentation associated with that.

Okay. So I'm on Slide 6. Okay. And let's 

acknowledge we're looking at the fitness of the 

monitoring program, how well the data was collected, 

can we get the data, is it available, and what the 

program compliance, how well they were in 

compliance with their written procedures. And along 

with that, we looked at the Noncompliance Tracking 

System which is a common thing that we do when we 

look at the sites in this time period.

And the Occurrence Reporting System as well as the 

site's internal assessments and procedures. So after 

looking at all of this information and data for these -

- this time period, '95 to '96, we came up with the 

following proposed Class extension and it is as 

written.

All employees that worked in any area at Sandia 

National Lab in Albuquerque, New Mexico, during the 

period of January 1, 1995 through December 31st, 

1996. And there were two bases -- or reasons for 

this with many subparts, and this is Slide 8.

And so, our basis for this proposed Class was internal 

monitoring program concerns as well as air 

monitoring data deficiencies. And I'll go into detail 

about each of those subparts and what we saw, what 

our concerns and deficiencies were. But first let's just 

talk a little bit about the history of Sandia, their 

internal monitoring program development.
9

In the early years in Sandia as we concluded in the 

previous SEC prior to '94, that their internal 

monitoring program was really performed on an ad 

hoc basis, and it had been done that way for decades 

-- several decades prior. And we didn't start seeing 

some formalization to the program until about 1993. 

In fact, their first interim internal dosimetry policy 

was established in December of '93. Then you start 

seeing some hiring of internal monitoring, internal 

dosimetrist people with, you know, some good 

experience and what a health physics program 

should have.

And so along with that we started seeing very 

obviously that the internal dosimetry program began 

undergoing continual development and 

improvement. We start seeing all these procedures 

being developed, a lot of internal memos discussing 

the program and how to come in compliance with the 

upcoming rules and how they were going to do that. 

And you start seeing procedures being developed.

Then in '95, '96; our time period that we're focusing 

on for this addendum, work included monitoring 

approach changes which I'll talk about in a little 

while, procedure development, data collection, and 

review and retention formalization of that data.

So now I'm on Slide 10. And although we saw the 

internal monitoring program was improving and 

evolving, we had some concerns in the '95 and '96 

time period such as documented program 

assessments, internal memos, interviews conducted 

by NIOSH revealed that there appear to be some 

insufficient radiological internal dosimetry staff --

staffing levels.

You know, they were gearing up with all of this 

program elements, and there was some discussion 

about shortage of these personnel. When we dug in 

further and we found out in the previous evaluations, 

they had this database called WebDose, and we 

found a lot of issues with WebDose. It was -- in 

summary, it was a lack of a fully functional internal 
10

monitoring database which made it really tough to 

get reliable records.

And we also found some questionable things with 

retention and retrieval. We also noted we 

interviewed the internal dosimetry manager at that 

time, and we also had some internal memos from the 

same individual, and he stated that there were some 

data entry errors due to hand entry and the lack of 

adequate personnel to enter this data in the 

database.

So as we see this program developing, we also saw 

that, you know, there were behind the eight ball a 

little bit, trying to get caught up. And it was a lot of 

effort there but we're seeing some holes that, you 

know, led us to have some concerns during this time 

period.

Okay. I'm on Slide 11. Now, regarding air 

monitoring data availability, before they were doing 

pretty much bioassay monitoring and they started 

merging over to personal and area monitoring in the 

form, generally, of breathing zone samplers, little 

personal air samplers. And what we found out is we 

found those documents when we did site data 

captures that I'll talk about a little later that when we 

ask for a record that we couldn't find them in those 

time periods.

Also during the '95 and '96 time period, the 

procedure requirements for air sampling records, 

review and retention, we just didn't find a whole lot 

of evidence of those. And also going back to talk 

about personal air samples, 3D zone or BZ samplers, 

when you do those type -- use those type of samplers 

you generally accrue DAC hours and you track those 

to determine if an individual might need further 

internal monitoring. Well, we didn't see good 

procedures for that until about June of 1996.

So continuing on with the air monitoring data 

availability on Slide 12. We were also looking for 

evidence of those DAC-hour tracking and accrual 

records for '95 and '96 but we did find procedures in 
11

'97 for that, and that led us to these concerns. Let's 

see. Also, we also noted personal air sampling 

monitoring wasn't stored in the WebDose database.

So based on all of this, it led us to make the following 

conclusions for the '95 to '96 time period. And this 

is all regarding internal dose reconstruction 

feasibility. NIOSH has uncertainties and concerns 

associated with the transitional and developmental 

nature of the Sandia internal monitoring program in 

'95 and '96. And although the -- while the site was 

making several improvements during this time period 

including the increase in the use of personal and area 

air monitoring, it seemed to be lacking the 

formalization, and NIOSH did not find adequate 

evidence that some key implementing procedures 

were fully in place during this time period.

Until really, we saw some of it coming in '96 and '97. 

That's why we added the -- these couple of years 

where we were having these issues. So a conclusion, 

continuing on to Slide 14, air monitoring data has 

been judged insufficient due to lack of required 

retention, record retention and review procedures 

during '95 and through December 1, 1996.

So for both '95 and '96. Again, we didn't see a fully 

functioning internal monitoring database which 

allowed us for efficient and reliable record retrieval, 

and seeing a lack of retention of some of these 

records. So based on this lack of data availability and 

the internal monitoring program concerns that I 

discussed, we basically determined that dose 

reconstructs for internal doses for '95 and '96 period 

is not feasible.

So on to Slide 15, moving on to talk about the 

number of claims affected by this proposed Class 

extension. There were 243 total claims for workers 

with employment during the '95 and '96 period. Out 

of those, five claims had internal dosimetry data and 

95 had external dosimetry data.

Then at the end of Slide 16, one of the standard 

tables that you all like to see, certainly at the 
12

Advisory Board meeting, is the feasibility findings. 

So, this is just a summary of kind of what we talked 

about. First for internal doses, we determined for '95 

and '96, dose reconstructions are not feasible. Then 

as indicated in the previous SEC evaluation, external 

doses are able to be reconstructed for beta and 

gamma, neutron, and occupational medical x-rays.

So viewing all that together in summary, NIOSH has 

determined that workplace monitoring data and 

documentation are insufficient to reconstruct internal 

doses from January 1, 1995 through December 31st, 

1996. And then -- so the Class definition, again, 

would be all employees that worked in any area of 

Sandia National Lab Albuquerque, New Mexico during 

the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 

1996.

And as always, Slide 18, although we found we 

weren't able to reconstruct internal doses for '95 and 

'96, we will only use any available internal monitoring 

data that becomes available for an individual claim.

Then I guess I will skip the last two slides to go in 

line with the agenda because the agenda just says 

presentation for '95 and '96. Then Item Number 2 is 

updating the '97 through 2011 period. So that would 

be the end of this presentation for '95 and '96.

Discussion

Chair Anderson: Okay, thank you. Are there -- of 

the other two Board Members, are there any 

questions you have?

Member Beach: Yes, this is Josie. I have one back 

on Slide -- let's see. I think it's 11. I only numbered 

these haphazardly. Give me a second.

Chair Anderson: Sure. The only thing that I would 

add is it would be helpful if on the slides we would 

put --

(Simultaneous speaking.)
13

Chair Anderson: -- the number on the corners.

Member Beach: So, you guys, you cut it off at the 

end of '96. I understand that. You talked about the 

procedures improved in June, but that one bullet that 

says they seemed to lack formalization and that 

NIOSH didn't find adequate evidence of 

implementing the procedures until '96, '97 that's 

pretty loose. I guess I'm wondering how -- why you 

came to the cutoff at the end of '96 and not into '97 

a little bit.

Did you find that the WebDose ---

Mr. Nelson: Well --

Member Beach: -- was up and running by the first of 

the -- '97?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, that's what we -- we felt more 

comfortable about the use of breathing zone air 

monitoring and the tracking of the DAC hours.

Member Beach: So you saw a lot more in there? 

More ---

Mr. Nelson: Yes. Well, yes. '97 seemed to be a 

defined year when that got better then we wanted to 

-- we'll go on and talk about '97 through 2011 and 

where we are with that.

Member Beach: Yes, I was just interested in the cutoff.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: I will add, Josie, this is Bomber --

Lavon. We clearly saw the '95, '96 period definitely 

lacked DAC-hour tracking and it was proceduralized 

in June of '96, I believe.

Mr. Nelson: Yes.

Mr. Rutherford: And we did see that tracking starting 
14

in 1997. So that's where we stopped at this point. 

But there are still other issues that we're working on, 

and we'll get into that later.

Member Beach: Okay. And the external, are you 

going to go -- do you have documentation for that or 

coworker modeling?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, that was covered in the last SEC, 

and it trickled all the way through 2011 that showed 

that it was feasible.

Member Beach: Right. Okay.

Mr. Nelson: So this --

Chair Anderson: Can we talk about what the years -

- so, maybe review that determination or at least a 

descriptor of what data was available via -- the group 

here is pretty broad when it's all employees and the 

question is if at some point they're going to be able 

to do dose reconstruction. The question is then which 

employees and who's covered by what.

I mean, the internal -- inadequate and that sort of 

means you don't necessarily have to describe or 

discuss who was internally monitored and what the 

procedures were at the time, but at some point we're 

really going to need to know, you know, is it going to 

be feasible or not. If it is going to be feasible, it's 

feasible for who? Which employees?

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, it -- Dr. Anderson, you're 

talking about the internal monitoring. I think that's 

what you just said. And the internal monitoring, we 

would discuss that later for the '97 to 2011 period in 

the final addendum.

The external data -- external dose determination 

from NIOSH was issued in the original SEC-188 

Evaluation Report. SC&A can review that as part of, 

you know, if the Work Group wants them to review 

that but they're -- again, that Class was already 

included, and our determination was in that.
15

Chair Anderson: No, I am just kind of trying to set 

up the kind of information we need because all of the 

subsequent determinations aren't to add them, and 

it's really is there sufficient information to do dose 

reconstruction.

So a group shouldn't be added to the SEC but if the 

-- there's deficiencies that continue into the -- up to 

2011, you know, then that becomes a bit of a moot 

issue. But I don't remember us reviewing -- or, SEC 

reviewing the external dose where it's like on the 

slide here you say it was determined that it was 

feasible to do dose reconstruction.

And I don't know how thoroughly that was reviewed 

by the Board Members at the time.

Mr. Rutherford: Well, I don't think it was very 

thoroughly reviewed at the time.

Chair Anderson: Right.

Mr. Rutherford: I think -- what I would -- I mean, 

just, you know, my thoughts are since this 

recommendation is for an addition as you pointed 

out, that the Board may want to consider the '97 

through 2011 period. If we determine dose 

reconstruction is feasible, internal and external, 

during that time period, that may be the time when 

the Board and -- you know, would want to look at 

that a little closer. That's just my thoughts.

Chair Anderson: I -- I mean, that's kind of where I 

was headed. I just don't want a it's feasible 

determination to now having two different groups to 

be added, have that and assume that that's been 

thoroughly vetted, that it is, in fact, feasible for the 

external radiation.

Mr. Katz: Right. This is Ted. Bomber, so I think the 

bottom line, I think, of what Andy is getting at is 

should the next DR report find that internal is feasible 

for the final period of the Class -- and I think that 

report comes out later this year, the end of the year. 

But then it probably would be helpful for that report 
16

to go thoroughly into the external matter if the 

original report didn't, just so that the Board is -- you 

know, as much of that work has been done as 

possible.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. I understand now.

Mr. Katz: Yes. 

Mr. Rutherford: I -- okay.

Mr. Katz: I think that's the point.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes. I think what we could do is go 

back and we'll look at our evaluation again on the 

external, and we can even include that somewhat as 

an additional information in the addendum and in the 

presentation as well.

Mr. Katz: Yes, that -- I think just to be fine if their -

- that's light on the detail that normally gets -- is 

needed when we come to a potential denial and that's 

when it would be -- and it would be good to make it 

robust.

Chair Anderson: I mean, I -- looking at this, I'm 

supportive of adding this group to it, but in doing so, 

I don't want it to be implied that because you're able 

to -- can't be done for the external doses that we're 

signing off on that as well.

Mr. Katz: Right. And that's the -- Andy --

Chair Anderson: I mean, that's my -- and I think 

external people looking at it and reading things could 

well come to the assumption, oh well, the only 

problem here to address going forward is the internal 

dose and as now you're saying, that program is 

moving forward. I don't want us to just review at 

what point are we comfortable that the internal 

dosimetry information can be used.

Member Beach: It sounds like a follow-up would be 

a Work Group meeting for the -- for what's left. I 

mean, once this one is done then we'll have to figure 

out where we're heading. Right?
17

Mr. Katz: Well, we -- Josie, we don't need to wait for 

them to see --

Member Beach: Yes -- I know.

Mr. Katz: -- the final ER report and then that's what 

we're trying to set up in what--

Member Beach: Right.

Mr. Katz: -- in all of what Andy's trying to say.

Member Beach: Yes. No, I agree.

Mr. Katz: Getting as much work done on that in 

advance of when that report gets presented so that 

we don't have a long tail end digging into it. 

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I have a comment.

Mr. Katz: Go ahead, Gen. You're a little bit light, 

your volume.

Member Roessler: Okay. I'll try speak a little more 

into the phone. And actually on this period I have a 

question later, but I didn't remember much about this 

site. So I thank you for a nice, clear presentation and 

concisely putting a picture together. My comment is 

on Page -- on Slide 16, you have a couple of typos 

and maybe you want to look at those before you 

present this to the Board.

Mr. Nelson: Okay. I appreciate that.

Member Roessler: Yes, in the heading it should be 

SEC and then in one of the column headings there's 

a space missing. And that's all I have to say at this 

point.

Mr. Nelson: I want to make sure I captured that. 

You said the heading, SEC?

Member Roessler: It looks like SEG on my slide.
18

Mr. Nelson: Oh, really? Okay.

Chair Anderson: -- see on mine.

Mr. Nelson: Okay. I'll check and make sure on that.

Member Roessler: And then the second column 

heading, I think you need a space. See, I'm kind of 

an editor. So --

Mr. Nelson: Well, I appreciate it.

Member Roessler: -- dose reconstruction space and 

then the I-S.

Mr. Nelson: Is? Okay. Okay, thank you.

Dr. Neton: That's interesting. This is Jim. My slide 

clearly says SEC on it.

Member Roessler: And mine clearly -- this -- and 

that's --

Dr. Neton: Are you looking on the Skype or are you 

looking on the --

Member Roessler: No, I'm looking at the one that 

was posted on the website.

Dr. Neton: Okay. That's the difference then, I'll bet.

Member Roessler: Okay. Maybe that was corrected.

Chair Anderson: It looks fine to me.

Member Roessler: Well, I need new glasses, but this 

one's pretty clear. So --

Mr. Nelson: I'll definitely make sure it's -- before it 

went over to the Advisory Board that that's taken 

care of.

Member Roessler: Thank you.

Mr. Nelson: I appreciate it.

Chair Anderson: Are there any other comments?
19

Do we want to hear from the petitioner?

Mr. Katz: Let's check and see did -- first of all, do we 

-- has the petitioner joined us? That's the question.

Okay. Not hearing the petitioner. Mr. Grimes, Kurt 

Grimes, you -- would you also -- do you have any 

comments or questions you want to raise at this point 

about this addition?

Mr. Grimes: No. Any comments or questions I would 

have would be related to -- from 1997 through 2011.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Well, maybe -- how about if let 

them discuss this then and then if you want, if you 

have any comments or questions you could ask them 

after they talk about that.

Mr. Grimes: Sure.

Mr. Katz: Is that good with you? Okay. Andy?

Motion to Approve Proposal

Chair Anderson: So my sense of some of the 

questions is that I think we need to move forward as 

the -- and as Chair I don't know if I can do that. If 

one of you want to propose that we vote to support 

the addition of this group to the SEC.

Member Beach: Sure, Andy. I'll make that proposal 

-- this is Josie -- that we agree with this proposal.

Member Roessler: And I second it.

Chair Anderson: Is that okay, Ted?

Member Roessler: Yes, I second it.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Now we've got it. So, with 

that -- and I also support it so I think we can indicate 

that we voted unanimously to add this to the SEC188 Class.

Mr. Katz: Right. Thanks, Andy.

Chair Anderson: So we can do that out in Providence 
20

after the update for everybody.

Member Roessler: Right.

Chair Anderson: And then we'll move on to talking 

about '97 to 2011.

Presentation Update of the Evaluation of Remaining 

SEC Period (1997-2011)

Mr. Nelson: Okay, Dr. Anderson. Thank you. This 

is Chuck Nelson again. I'll go ahead and cover these 

last two slides, 19 and 20. And, you know, as we 

mentioned, we went through '96, December 31st, '96 

made the cut-off. So from the period of '97 through 

2011, we were in the middle of -- well, what we did 

is we got a -- let me follow my slides here before I 

get out of order. Okay.

We did an extensive evaluation of the whole entire 

period, '95 through '97. However, when we received 

the last version, we got many versions of WebDose. 

Every time we comment, we get a new version. 

When we got the last version of WebDose, we had 

some issues with some of the internal monitoring 

data within the WebDose. So we've been in 

communication with the site exchanging data 

requests and requests to clarify things. And they 

have promised to get us that information in 

September.

So that's the current plan there. We also had -- and 

we got that latest version in May of 2018. There was 

no way that we were going to get that in time for this 

next Board meeting. So we went forward with the 

'95 to '96. We also got -- Chris Corwin, do you 

remember the number of air samples that we got?

We requested many, many air samples and we had a 

lot of data to look at so we could get a look at the air 

monitoring program.

Ms. Corwin: I can't remember the exact number, but 

it was at least hundreds.
21

Mr. Nelson: How much -- hundreds, wasn't it?

Ms. Corwin: At least, yes.

Mr. Guido: This is Joe. It's like 6,000 pages.

Ms. Corwin: Yes.

Mr. Nelson: About --

Mr. Guido: A page, you know -- a page may or may 

not represent an air sample because sometimes 

they're spread across a couple of pages and 

sometimes a page has multiple air samples on it.

So, we're -- that's a -- to what we're doing right now 

but that's one of the things we're looking at when we 

get that air sample data. But I think it was, you 

know, thousands of pages.

Mr. Nelson: So we felt we needed to go through 

some air sample data also. So that's really what's 

holding us up on these final years right here.

So just to put that in a summary; Slide 20. Analysis 

is ongoing, and we really need to look at this data to 

accurately assess and present the availability of the 

internal monitoring data and how sufficient it is for 

that time period.

We expect to be done with that Evaluation Report by 

the end of 2018, and when that does occur then it 

will be a separate report -- Evaluation Report from 

January 1, '97 through May 21st, 2011.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Then we are making some 

progress.

Mr. Katz: You know, and, Chuck, can I just ask in 

terms of the time line. Just -- I know it's hard to 

forecast this very precisely, how long it's going to 

take to analyze a bunch of data, organize it and so 

on. But we have a Board meeting in December, a 

couple of weeks into December. So when you say 

late, are you thinking sometime in November, 

sometime in December? It's just -- it will help us to 
22

know planning forward.

Mr. Nelson: I think I'll let Lavon Rutherford answer 

that one.

Mr. Rutherford: All right. You know, Ted, it's -- right 

now we're right -- you know, if everything fell 

perfectly, we'd be right at the cusp of, you know, the 

first -- end of November, first of December of having 

it.

So I doubt if it's going to be ready for that meeting. 

But, you know, I -- we're going to shoot -- that's what 

we're shooting for. Okay?

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: We're shooting to try to get that 

addendum done and -- so we can present at that 

meeting.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: There are definitely a lot of obstacles 

in the way.

Mr. Katz: I completely understand. I just -- but it's 

still helpful. Thanks.

Chair Anderson: Yes, it sounds like we can get an 

update presentation there, but, depending what the 

conclusion is, I think the committee probably will 

want SC&A to take a look at that as well.

So I don't think we can -- unless it's to add the whole 

group, that we would be prepared to do something 

that, you know, in the last few weeks or something 

before the Board meeting.

Mr. Katz: Have courage, Dr. ---

Chair Anderson: No, well -- I was just trying to -- I 

-- you know, I just want to be sure we have reviewed 

all of the information very rigorously if, in fact, it's --

as we get closer to kind of the current day period and 

this better monitoring and things going on. The 
23

activities that are ongoing today, one would hope 

that there would be, you know, good solid data 

available to -- at some point here.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Anderson: To become feasible, but we need to 

then be sure that we --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: You know, I think for -- I think could be 

probably -- in part to help the people at the site 

understand how this process works and --

Chair Anderson: Right, that's --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Anderson: -- get something down in the 

minutes and notes of the meeting --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Anderson: -- still quite a bit of review work to 

be done.

Mr. Katz: For -- right, for claimants' benefit. If they 

end up recommending against adding more Class at 

the end then pretty certainly there won't be a final 

action on the SEC at the December meeting even if 

the report is ready in time. That's the bottom line.

Member Roessler: Henry, I have a question.

Chair Anderson: Sure.

Member Roessler: Yes, this is Gen. And I looked at 

this on the website, and maybe I didn't take enough 

time, but there's a really defined end date of May 

21st, 2011 for this period.

What is the reason for that?

Chair Anderson: I have no idea. I saw that. I --

(Simultaneous speaking.)
24

Mr. Nelson: Yes. Well, what I was going to say is 

that was the date that the petitioner specified. And 

I'm not sure what the driver was, quite honestly, for 

that date.

Member Roessler: That would be something I think 

we'd need to know.

Mr. Nelson: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: That's something we can look into -

- or we can verify and we'll make sure we have an 

understanding of that.

Member Roessler: Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Any other comments or issues?

Mr. Rutherford: I will say, most likely, it's tied to an 

employment date, but I need to verify that. So --

because usually what happens with petitioners is 

petitioners will define a Class based on employment 

dates. I don't know about that in this case. I don't 

know if that's true or not. So --

Chair Anderson: Okay. We'll just have to keep that 

in mind.

Any other comments? We got an update. We've got 

a semi-time line on the -- moving forward. I think 

we've got what we need for presentation and 

discussion with the Board in Providence.

So, Ted, we have anything else to cover now?

Mr. Katz: I just would give Kurt the opportunity, if 

you do want to say something about what you've 

heard now or ask any other questions, that would be 

helpful to you now since you're on the line, you're 

welcome to.

Mr. Grimes: Oh, okay. No, what it sounded like is 

that additional information is being compiled and 

then that will be discussed, if possible, at the next 

meeting, the one you were talking about in 

December. But, potentially, that's not going to 
25

happen. It may not be done, as Mr. Rutherford said, 

by that time, so it would have to be considered later 

on.

Was I correct on that?

Mr. Katz: Yes. I think you got that all straight.

Mr. Grimes: Yes, okay. Yes, the only thing, and we'll 

probably be calling in anyway the next time you meet 

and giving our official, on the record, you might say, 

comments. But probably what it's going to center 

around is the internal measurements because I know 

that's been part of the difficulty there is getting 

those, and it sounds like maybe from -- at some point 

in 1997 on that the program became more 

structured, more accurate, and more reliable. But 

that's only as good as if they are actually doing those 

internal measurements.

And I'm -- that's one of the concerns we have in our 

occupation is that -- and I believe the Chairman 

brought it up before is the fact that at some point in 

time during that time period, we may have to look at 

whether or not all classifications of employees at 

Sandia would be covered by dose reconstruction due 

to them being monitored internally, or whether or not 

-- or they would not be able to do dose reconstruction 

on all employees.

As of right now, the petition has included all 

employees of Sandia, but I do foresee at some point 

in time where it's going to come where we're going 

to have to start looking at employee populations as 

far as whether or not they were actually monitored. 

Because I know in our employee population, we were 

not, unless there was some type of serious incident 

that took place that, you know, required that, then 

we were not monitored.

I know there are probably others at Sandia who were. 

Maybe some of the health physicists, some of those 

occupations, they were probably more monitored 

than we were, obviously. The thing is though, is we 

worked around them. It wasn't like they worked in 
26

isolation. We were actually there with them.

I mean, I worked around it from 1991 until 2006, and 

I don't believe I ever had any internal measurement 

done on me.

So that's -- the Chairman, I believe, brought that up 

earlier, and I think that is going to be something that 

somewhere down the road we'll have to sort of start 

looking at that. It's not necessarily for the entire 

population of the labs which is what we -- what had 

been covered so far under the SEC, but we're not --

we'd have to break that down into specific 

populations of employees.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Kurt. So, you know we have a 

meeting next week, right, of the full Board, Kurt, so 

that will be an opportunity during public comment 

session and certainly the petitioner during the SEC 

discussions that --discussion of this petition, those 

are options to talk about these things too.

Mr. Grimes: Exactly. That's why I mentioned we 

would be following up with it in a more formal basis 

later on, but since you did give me the opportunity 

to say something, I went ahead.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Okay. You stated it more concisely 

than I did. So thank you.

Okay. Any other comments?

Ted?

Adjourn

Mr. Katz: I think we are ready to adjourn. Thank 

you, everybody.

Chair Anderson: I'll entertain a unanimous motion to 

end --

Mr. Katz: We're usually not that formal, but ---
27

Member Roessler: I'm good.

Mr. Katz: The meeting is adjourned.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Katz: Thanks everybody.

Member Beach: Bye.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:49 p.m.)