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 telephonically on Sept. 5, 2006. 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

Sept. 5, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


COMMENT 1: RADIONUCLIDE LISTS 19 


COMMENT 2: TBD INADEQUATE GUIDANCE 28 


COMMENT 3: NON-RESPIRABLE PARTICLES 38 


COMMENT 4: ORO-NASAL BREATHING 42 


COMMENT 5: RESUSPENSION MODEL 44 


COMMENT 6: AIR CONCENTRATION VALUES 70 


COMMENT 7: RESUSPENSION OF DOSE 80 


COMMENT 8: EXTERNAL DOSE FOR 1963 TO 1966 81 


COMMENT 9: ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNAL DOSE, 1968 - 1976 81 


COMMENT 10: PRE-1963 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE 104 


COMMENT 11: GEOMETRY OF ORGANS RELATED TO BADGE 109 


COMMENT 12: RADON DOSE AND G TUNNELS 112 


COMMENT 13: RADIUM 131 113 


COMMENT 14: INTERNAL MONITORING 114 


COMMENT 15: RESUSPENSION OF RADIONUCLIDES 116 


COMMENT 16: PHOTON DOSE 116 


COMMENT 17: INGESTION OF DOSE 116 


COMMENT 18: OTIB O-2 117 


COMMENT 19: BETA DOSE DATA UNTIL 1966 118 


COMMENT 20: INTERNAL NON-USE OF BADGES 120 


COMMENT 21: EXTREMITY DOSIMETRY 120 


COMMENT 22: NEUTRON DOSE DATA 122 


COMMENT 23: ADEQUACY OF SOIL DATA 124 


COMMENT 24: HIGH FIRED OXIDES 125 


COMMENT 25: INTERVIEW DATA 128 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 143 

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 

PARTICIPANTS
 

ANSPAUGH, LYNN, SC&A 


ARENT, LAURIE, ORAU 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAU 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


GRIFFITH, RICHARD, ORAU 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, LABOR 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


ROLFES, MARK, ORAUT 


ROLLINS, EUGENE, ORAU 


SHOCKLEY, VERN 


SMITH, CHERYL, DADE MOELLER 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(2:00 p.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade and I have the continuing 


pleasure to serve as the designated federal 


official for the Advisory Board. And this is a 


meeting of the work group of the Advisory 


Board. Particularly this is the work group 


that look -- is looking at issues related to 


the Nevada Test Site’s site profile. As 


currently constituted that work group is 


chaired by Robert Presley with Gen Roessler and 


Brad Clawson as members. There is a nuance to 


that that I’ll get into briefly that -- that 


speaks to Wanda’s role with the Board and with 


the work group but right now I want to make 


sure as to Board members on the call so Robert, 


I know you’re on the call. Gen, I know you’re 


on the call. Wanda, I know that you’re on the 


call. Are there any other Board members on the 


call at the moment? 


(No response) 

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 

DR. WADE: Any other Board members? 


(No response) 


DR. WADE: Brad, I assume that you’re not with 


us at the moment? 


(No response) 


DR. WADE: Okay, let me deal with the situation 


with regard to Wanda. I harken you back to 


some time ago when we received notification 


that Wanda was going to be respectfully retired 


from the Board. Following that announcement 


and based upon that information the Board did 


reconfigure its work groups and in particular 


on this work group it constituted with Brad, 


Gen and Robert as chair without Wanda’s 


membership. We have since been notified by the 


White House that Wanda was to be rotated back 


on the Board and I am now operating on 


instruction that Wanda is a member of the 


Board. And that’s good news for all of us I 


believe. But since the Board took the 


legitimate action to reshuffle its working 


group, and Wanda was removed from the Board -- 


from this working group, only the Board can 


restore her to this working group. Therefore, 


technically today Wanda is not a member 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 

8 

working group. What I would decide, absent 


comment from anyone on the call, is that I 


believe very strongly that it’s in the best 


interests of this process to have Wanda 


participate as fully and completely as she is 


willing to do. I discussed this with the chair 


of the working group, that’s Robert Presley, 


and he concurs. So it is my intention, again 


not prejudging any comments I might hear in the 


next two or three minutes, to have Wanda 


function fully on this working group 


interaction, not as a member of the working 


group but as a member of the Board. And since 


again the working group will not be taking any 


formal action I see no reason not to do that. 


But before I do I would like to hear from 


anyone who would like to speak to that issue. 


So again, what -- what I’m proposing is that 


Wanda participate fully in this call on issues 


related to the Nevada Site site profile. Is 


there anyone who wishes to speak to that issue? 


(No response) 


DR. WADE: Okay. Hearing no comment, then 


Wanda, please join us to the degree that -- 


that you would like. You’ve always made 

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 

tremendous contribution to these activities. 


Let me then ask for NIOSH and members of the 


NIOSH team to identify themselves, and 


particularly to specify whether or not they are 


conflicted on issues related to the Nevada Test 


Site. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I have no 


conflicts for the Nevada Test Site. 


 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes. I have no 


conflict. 


MR. SHOCKLEY: This is Vern Shockley. I do 


have a conflict. I worked at the test site for 


the University of California -- Lawrence 


Radiation Laboratories from 1964 to 1974 as a 


member of the Health and Safety Organization. 


 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. This is the 


court reporter. Could I get the spelling of 


your last name, please? 


 MR. SHOCKLEY: S-H-O-C-K-L-E-Y. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you for joining us, sir. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And Vern, you’re currently 


helping NIOSH out with its site profile there 


for --


MR. SHOCKLEY: Right. I am in Spokane, 

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 

Washington, and Ron Kathryn (ph) and I wrote 


the Section 3 of the site profile, which is 


occupational medical. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Vern, we’re glad to have you. 


MR. SHOCKLEY: Okay. Thanks. 


 DR. WADE: Are there members of the NIOSH team, 


the broad NIOSH team? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with the General Counsel’s Office of Health and 


Human Services, and I don’t have a conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Any other federal employees who are 


on this call in an official capacity? 


 MR. STAUDT: This is David Staudt in contracts, 


and I do not have a conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, David. Welcome. 


 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Who was that? 


 MR. STAUDT: This is David Staudt, S-T-A-U-D-T, 


and I’m a contracting officer. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, okay. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch from Labor’s on the 


line. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jeff. It’s always a 


pleasure to have you with us. Any other 


federal employees on official duty? 

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 

(No response) 


DR. WADE: SC&A team members? John? 


 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John Mauro from SC&A. 


I do not have a conflict, but as everyone knows 


we do have a firewall separating folks at SC&A 


that are working on the Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency program for dose 


reconstruction and the NIOSH dose 


reconstruction work. I just wanted to let 


everyone know that that firewall is in place 


and this side of the firewall does not have any 


conflict. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani. I do 


not have a conflict. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn Anspaugh from -- 


working with SC&A. I have a conflict that has 


been disclosed, and I did work at Lawrence 


Livermore National Laboratory from ’63 through 


’96. I did participate as an expert witness in 


the Prescott case which involved NTS workers, 


and I am funded by DOE to do work on dose 


reconstruction in Russia at the present time. 


 DR. WADE: I thank the professor. We’re glad 


to have you with us. Other members of the SC&A 


team? 

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 

(No response) 


DR. WADE: Anyone else on the line who wishes 


to identify themselves for the record? 


 MR. ROLFES: We have -- Lew, this is Mark 


Rolfes. We have other members of the ORAU team 


on the line as well. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Please identify. 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Eugene Rollins, R-O-L-LI-N-S. I am with -- subcontracted to NIOSH 


from Dade Moeller and Associates. I was the 


team lead on the production of the NTS TBD. 


 DR. WADE: Any conflicts? 


 MR. ROLLINS: No conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Other members of the 


broad NIOSH team, ORAU -- ORAU? 


 MS. SMITH: Cheryl Smith. I’m Dade Moeller and 


Associates and I have no conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Other members of NIOSH, ORAU, 


federal employees on an official capacity, SC&A 


team, anyone who wishes to identify? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, Lew Wade, this is Brad 


Clawson. I apologize. I just got on. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Brad. Brad is a member of 


the subcommittee. Brad, if you -- if 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 

13 

didn’t hear my long monologue, Wanda, who is 


now again a member of the Board but not 


formally a member of this working group will be 


fully participating in the working group as it 


leads to in my opinion a considerably better 


product. I assume you’re okay with that. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That's fine. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Good morning, Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Hi, Wanda. It’s good to have you 


back. 

 MS. MUNN: Thank you. It’s good to be here. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, Robert. I think it’s all 

yours. 

 MR. PRESLEY: All righty. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Robert, this is Larry Elliott. 


Before you start if I could make an 


announcement, and also I have a question for 


Mark. Mark, do we have the document owner 


online here, on the call today for the Nevada 


Test Site? The document owner at ORAU? 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene, are you the document owner 


or are you just simply the team leader? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm not sure what the distinction 


is. I’m not exactly sure what the distinction 

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 

is. I am the team lead and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is a -- This is the 


proposed conflict of interest policy that is 


currently out for review and comment. We would 


like, you know, to make sure that we have 


identified an individual on the ORAU team who 


is serving as what is called the document owner 


or the -- the editor of the full site profile, 


the owner if you will of -- of all of the 


information that is not only included but that 


which is excluded from the -- from the site 


profile. I just think it’s important that -- 


that, you know, we identify somebody that steps 


up and takes the lead in that regard. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay, Larry. I just checked the 


-- the signature sheet and I am listed as 


document owner. 


THE COURT REPORTER: And excuse me. Who was 


that speaking? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That was Gene Rollins. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Right. Okay, thank you. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And Gene’s not conflicted in that 


-- in that regard? 


 MR. ROLLINS: That's correct. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, Bob. The other -- 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 

15 

other announcement that I had to make -- I’m 


sure there are -- there are working group 


members of the Board online that are not aware 


of this current situation. Dr. Jim Neton last 


week underwent colon surgery. He was diagnosed 


on Wednesday afternoon I believe with two -- 


two cancers in his colon and so they removed a 


large portion of his colon. He’s doing fine 


but I just wanted to pass the word along that 


he will be out of -- out of the picture so to 


speak for awhile, for about four or five weeks. 


So just pass that announcement on for everyone 


who might be so interested. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And Larry, when you talk to him, 


which I know you will be doing, please tell him 


we’re thinking about him. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: He gives his best regards to 


everyone and encourages everyone to get a 


colonoscopy at age 50. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s right. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: God bless him. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for the time. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Larry. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Larry. Mark? 

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

 MR. ROLFES: Yes? 


 MR. PRESLEY: When we -- when you sent out your 


comment sheet --


 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- I have comments from comment 1 


and 24 and 25. Were -- Were there anything in 

between those? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, I have -- this is 

Arjun. I had some questions in between, mostly 


I don’t. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have some questions, too. The 


problem is, is I just want to make sure that -- 


that’s all there was was the two pages. 


 MR. ROLFES: We did send out about 30 pages of 


the matrix with the comments back and forth but 


there weren’t too many outstanding issues I 


believe. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. The problem that I have, 


for some reason what I got only printed the 


first and the last page so -- and I -- I was 


not able to get any more for some reason on 


that. I don't know why, whether it’s my 


computer or something with the email. 


 DR. WADE: Are you in front of the computer 


terminal now, Robert? 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: I am but I -- but I’m on -- Lew, 


I’m on dial-up so it’s not going to help us. 


So Mark, what I suggest is why don’t I take the 


comments from the working group -- 


 MR. ROLFES: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and we will start with comment 


1 and just work all our way down through here. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, are you working 


from -- from the matrix or from your sheet? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’m working from my sheet. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay. So that -- Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The one that went out on the 


28th. 


 MS. MUNN: All right. 


 DR. WADE: Is there anyone else that -- that 


needs that sheet e-mailed to them right now? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Clawson. I just want to 


make sure that I’ve got the right one. I’ve 


got it 8/30/06, Summary NIOSH Responses to 


SC&A. It’s 30 pages long. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. You got -- You got the 


good one. I can’t -- for some reason I cannot 


-- have not been able to get that off my 

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 

computer. 


 MR. CLAWSON: But this is the correct one that 


we needed, correct? 


 MR. PRESLEY: What I’m going to do, Brad, we’re 


going to use that one, but I’m also going to 


use the one that, just to start down through 


here with our comments. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The one that -- that we sent out 


that’s got everything on it that -- that the 


last time I sent it out was 8/27/06. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Then we can -- we can 

interchange. 

 DR. WADE: Do you want that sent to you, Brad, 


or do you have it? 


 MR. CLAWSON: No, I -- I have it. I just 


wanted to make sure that I had the most current 


revision there that -- that mine states that 


it’s a essence Summary of NIOSH Responses 


revised of 8/30/06, so I think I’ve got the -- 


I’ve got the right one. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm sorry we can’t work from that 


matrix because I --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

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

 MS. MUNN: -- the thing I like most about the 


matrix is -- is having so many of them shown as 


complete. That -- That format is very helpful 


as we’re going through this -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- complex data here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: When I read one off, if nobody 


has a comment and it’s complete, what we’ll do 


is I’ll just mark it complete with no comment 


on my sheet and we’ll go on. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, it might be 


possible to work from both simultaneously. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. Because your 


numbering is the same as in the matrix. I’ve 


got both of them in front of me and if you like 


I can -- I can just prompt if there’s anything 


in the matrix that you’re not going through 


because I do have both of them in front of me. 


COMMENT 1: RADIONUCLIDE LISTS


 MR. PRESLEY: Let’s do it that way, and I’ll 


start with comment 1 and we will -- we will go 


through it, and then we’ll -- we’ll go right on 


down through there if that’s all right with 

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 

everybody. Comment 1 was about the 


radionuclides and on -- on that NIOSH has 


agreed that the nuclides will be added for 


response 1a. And I think that has been 


accepted by SC&A; is that correct? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is there any more or further 


comment that we need to discuss on that? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: There is one small 


clarification in the matrix in item 1d of 


8/30/06, the one that Mark Rolfes sent out. It 


-- It says, or generally it says because of 


the pending petition. I presume this refers to 


the atmospheric SEC petition that the Board 


already voted on; or is this the next NTS 


petition? 


 MR. ROLFES: Arjun, I believe that was the 


atmospheric weapons testing pre-1963 time 


period. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I think that’s a 


clarification, since this is I think probably 


going to be a public document, that might be 


important. I -- I understood it that way but 


I think maybe it ought to be -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, can you go ahead and just 

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 

add that comment on there, please? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 


DR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn Anspaugh. I also 


have a question about that. It -- It seems to 


me that as long as this 250-day rule is in 


effect that the SEC petition does not remove 


the need for some of this information to be 


used for what I guess is known as a partial 


dose reconstruction? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would say that that’s correct. 


Would you not -- would everybody agree with 


that until we can get this 250-day question 


answered? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Clawson. I agree with 


you on that. That’s still a pending question 


we’ve got out there. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Do we have any history on where 


we’re at with that? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. The --


Yes, the -- the atmospheric testing SEC 


petition pre-1963 should become I believe 


effective as a designated class later this 


week, the 7th. Am I right on that? Mark or 


anybody, help me out there. And the 250-day 


health endangerment criteria remains a topic 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 

22 

general concern, certainly one that would be 


specific to any class where that type of health 


endangerment has been prescribed. 


 MS. MUNN: Didn’t we identify a working group 


for that, Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I believe you did. 


 DR. WADE: Yes, we have. And to my knowledge 


that working group has yet to get to meet. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That -- That would tell me that 


we really can’t do anything with this response 


until after they make their decision and it 


comes back to the Board. This is Bob Presley. 


 DR. MAURO: Bob, this is John Mauro at SC&A. 


think the -- at least with regard to this list 


of radionuclides and the need to complete the 


list as thoroughly as possible. Certainly 


there’s agreement that that in fact is going to 


be acted upon by NIOSH and certainly is 


applicable to issues related to the site 


profile. However, what I would say is that 


it’s -- the degree to which having that 


information, namely these other radionuclides, 


will only help us when the day comes when we 


have to deal with the less than 250 work day 


issue. So I think that it’s -- I hate to say 


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 

23 

it this way but I think that we’re moving -- 


moving forward in the way we planned to move 


forward on this particular issue is only going 


to benefit us not only here on the site profile 


but also on any issues that might arise from 


the 250 work day new task order that we’re 


going to be engaging in. 


 MR. ROLLINS: John, this is Gene Rollins. I --


I went back and looked at the original comment, 


1d. It -- It was more or less specific to 


internal dose, and that’s the reason we decided 


we could -- we could drop it off with the SEC 


petition because we’ll not be doing internal 


doses prior to ’63. However, in response to 


your concern about how we’re going to calculate 


external doses, we are working on that. As we 


move through our discussions today I think 


we’ll be able to explain to you how we’re going 


to approach that. But we’re not -- We’re not 


throwing these radionuclides away. We’re just 


-- We’re just trying to address the comment as 


it was originally written, and it was 


concerning specifically internal dose. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. I -- I agree 


with Gene because NIOSH has said they cannot 

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 

calculate internal dose up to and including 


1962, so however the 250-day issue is resolved, 


NIOSH hasn’t said that they can calculate for 


less than 250 days but not for more than 250 


days. So -- So the 250-day issue is going to 


just have to -- resolution of that will have to 


take into consideration the fact that NIOSH has 


said they cannot calculate the doses and it’s a 


separate thing from dose reconstruction. It’s 


a -- It’s how do you estimate health 


endangerment when you cannot do dose 


reconstruction in a particular category. I 


mean maybe -- maybe Mr. Elliott might -- might 


correct me if my understanding of that is 


wrong. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Arjun, I think you said it very 


clearly and much better than I tried and 


attempted to earlier. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right on target. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. This is Bob Presley. And 


with what’s been said it looks like that 1a, 


1b, 1c and 1d are all answered and that the 


250-day change will come down the road and fall 


out where it may. 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I -- I think, Mr. Presley, 


it might be useful to just specify that that 


issue is pending but that NIOSH has already 


said that internal doses can’t be calculated. 


Maybe -- Maybe some editorial clarification is 


necessary here so this misunderstanding doesn’t 


arise. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What we can do then is put a 


comment there that says that we will add 


something to this comment after that concerning 


the 250-day decision when it comes down. 


 MS. MUNN: The current NIOSH response on the 


matrix is NIOSH will add the radionuclides that 


concern this table 2-2 along with the areas of 


concern. It shouldn’t be a problem to add a 


comment about the 250-day there, should it? It 


already says NTS TBD tables that identify 


radionuclides of concern will be reviewed and 


revised as appropriate. That’s probably the 


appropriate place to add a comment about 250 as 


well, is it not? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. Where’s that at, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: That’s the original NIOSH response. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Similarly under the meeting comments 

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 

from the 25th we indicated that -- that the 


nuclides are going to be added. So are we 


going to add another column to our matrix or 


are we going to perhaps put a dash underneath 


our site profile comments from 7/25 and add 


comments from this meeting? It might be 


simpler to do that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Simpler to do that or, Mark, do 


we want to go back and use your matrix and put 


another column there or not? 


 MS. MUNN: The problem with adding columns is 


we end up with a new column every time we have 


a work group meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: And in other -- other work groups we 


found that to be a bit too cumbersome. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Why don’t we just add a comment 


then about the 250 days at the end of this 


where we have those other comments started. 


And I’ll add something in there, a comment 


about that before --


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps we could change the -- the 


title of the column to comments from the most 


recent working meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, comments from 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 

27 

comments from today’s meeting. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. We can do that. 


 MS. MUNN: Should work. Mark? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes? 


 MS. MUNN: Will that work for you? 


 MR. ROLFES: That works fine for me. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. ROLFES: That’d be great. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. It’s somewhat 


difficult to hear. It sounds like someone 


maybe is on a speakerphone and there’s a lot of 


noise in the background. 


 DR. WADE: Unfortunately that’s me at an 


airport. If it’s really difficult then -- 


 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: -- then I’ll hang up and I think 


with Liz and Larry on the line you’ll be okay 


but --


DR. ROESSLER: No, I think we need you. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. I’m trying as best I can to 


shield that but I -- I’m somewhat limited. 


Sorry. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Are we ready to move on 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 

28 

Comment 2? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yep. 


COMMENT 2: TBD INADEQUATE GUIDANCE


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. With this we said that 


NIOSH will revisit and evaluate this item and 


revise the TBD to reflect the findings and 


right now the Board has no further -- or the 


working group has no further action. Mark, did 


you have anything marked? 


 MR. ROLFES: I may have, saying that we’ll 


revisit and evaluate this and revise the TBD to 


reflect any findings. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Arjun, did you have anything? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark? Mark? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, NIOSH. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Makhijani? Were you asking me, 


Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, uh-huh. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Makhijani? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, Arjun. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I didn’t have any -- 


I had a question between item 2a and 2b and c, 


the new notes that have been added by the ORAU 

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 

team. Under 2a it said, this is not a complex-


wide issue. And then under 3 -- 2a and -- I'm 


sorry, excuse me -- 2b and 2c it says this is a 


complex-wide issue. I kind of got a little 


confused about how those distinctions are being 


made and what that means in the context of this 


complex -- this resolution. Does it mean that 


when it’s complex-wide there will be some kind 


of complex-wide technical information bulletin 


or will it be -- I -- I got confused as to -- 


as to the nature of those notes and the comment 


resolution process. 


 MS. MUNN: I can see how that would be a 


problem. When I -- When I read it myself, 


Arjun, I took that to mean that they were being 


very specific with respect to the -- to that 


portion of the comment but I can see your 


concern with respect to the complex-wide issue 


because we have the same thing with the 250-day 


issue, all of the hot particle issues, the 


mouth breathing issues. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: All of those things (phone static) 


complex-wide. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, some -- some of these 

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 

things are -- seem to be specific; the 2b and 


2c seem to be very specific to NTS. And some 


of them do have implications for other sites -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- like Hanford and Idaho. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But like the Idaho reactor got 


stationed there but I -- I did get confused as 


to what it means about our comment resolution. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Mark, or Gene Rollins, can you 


help out with some understanding on what is 


meant by these terms in this matrix? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, this is Gene Rollins. From 


our point of view we will take the data as it 


was presented in the referenced report and we 


will apply that as appropriate to the Nevada 


Test Site. That methodology, if it is deemed 


to be useful -- I would imagine if it is deemed 


to be useful across the complex or across the 


project then that would be up to OCAS to decide 


whether or not they wanted to try and take 


those same methods and use them for other 


applications at other sites. We -- We fully 


intend to -- to do it specifically for NTS. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. That -- 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 

31 

clarifies it for me anyway. And then maybe 


from -- if that might be, yeah, actually useful 


in that context to identify what might be 


applicable to other sites and I -- and I do 


agree that, you know, these 2b -- 2b and -- and 


2c may be applicable to other sites but 


drillback and tunnel re-entry and so on may not 


be applicable to other sites. I agree with 


that. 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. Gene, what report 


are you referring to? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is the NRDL report. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. That’s what I assumed. 


Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it’s -- it’s -- I have 


enough explanation for me. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's fine. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. From a -- From a 


Board point of view this raises again the -- 


again the same question that we’ve wrestled 


with in other working groups with respect to 


the Board’s follow-up and understanding of 


whether these actions have in fact been taken. 


And I’m -- I’m not certain we are clear yet 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 

32 

how the Board is going to be able to track 


that. Lew or -- or Larry, do either of you 


have any better information than I do about our 


system for assuring that these potential action 


items like this one where we’re discussing the 


possibility of some process being incorporated 


into perhaps a workbook or a TIB? Do we have 


any current information on exactly how the 


Board is going to track those? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think that is something that we 


need to work out together with the -- with the 


Board and across all the working groups of the 


Board. We are -- are finding ourselves dealing 


with whether a comment -- a review comment is 


site specific or does it have general, more 


broader impact and application across sites. 


And so I think we’re going to have to talk 


through a process of identifying and tracking 


those generic issues so that they don’t get 


lost and so that we do keep momentum in 


resolving those issues. 


 MS. MUNN: We talked about this before but to 


my knowledge we have never actually put 


anything in place. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. We’ve talked about 

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 

this sort of overarching matrix but I think at 


the September meeting we need to have a formal 


agenda item to decide not only that that’s a 


good idea but who is going to carry that out 


and right now it’s falling through -- between 


the cracks for working groups. I think it’s 


something on NIOSH’s agenda though. So I’ll 


make sure that that’s an agenda item for 


September. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Lew. That was what I was 


going to suggest. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I had one other comment in this 


regard. It says here under 2b in the middle 


column that this evaluation will need to 


reflect current Project positions related to 


hot particle dose reconstruction at other DOE 


sites. I -- I didn’t -- I thought that there 


would be an evaluation for NTS that would be 


reflected at other sites. This seemed to say 


the opposite thing. 


 MR. ROLLINS: We’re actually -- this is Gene 


Rollins again. There is currently in existence 


guidance on how to assess particle -- doses 


from discrete particles. And this would be 


strictly from an external skin 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 

34

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ROLLINS: What we want to make sure of is 


that we don’t get crosswise with that guidance. 


That if that guidance needs to be changed we’ll 


review that but we -- we want to stay in 


concert with it as much as possible. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. So that -- you might 


change that guidance or draw from it? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Correct. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. All right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Any more comments on 2? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think -- This is Larry Elliott 


again. I think we have a tendency to talk in 


jargon here. And Gene and Mark, maybe this 


point and 2b in the middle column that Arjun 


just raised would be better served if we 


provided an edit for clarity. I think you --


you guys can read this and understand what it 


means but -- but folks on the outside perhaps 


get lost in our jargon and we need to be very 


clear and specific in -- in our intent, in our 


words. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: True. Project position doesn’t mean 


much to me. 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. I know it means something 


to these guys but on the outside, to everybody 


else it means nothing perhaps. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I think we can work on 


clarifying that language a little bit, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mark. 


 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are we ready to go on to Comment 


3? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, I'm sorry. This 


is Arjun. I see on Comment 2d some work has 


been completed and I wonder whether the reports 


that have been digitized can be put on the O 


drive so they can be looked at. 


DR. ROESSLER: Did you say 2b or --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: 2d as in David. 


DR. ROESSLER: David? Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: In the middle column there, 


four of the reports have been fully digitized. 


DR. ROESSLER: I see it. Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then later on something 


else; 2e is also completed. And so there are a 


number of completed items and I just had that 


request. 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, Mark and Gene, can you help 


me out here? I don't know what these reports 


contain. Are they something that we can put on 


the -- the drive, the shared drive for folks to 


view? 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. My question was do 


they need to be -- do they need to be scanned 


for content? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I was just going to make the 


comment this is -- this is pretty fresh data -- 


this is Gene Rollins again -- and I’m not sure 


that it’s been -- had a complete internal 


review. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLLINS: And I’d be hesitant to put it up 


there until internally we were satisfied with 


it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. I thought that some 


work had been completed. 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That one -- I guess 2e is 


completed. 


 MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl Smith. The reports 


that this data is based on are on the O drive. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. 

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: This is John Mauro. I’d just like 


to emphasize that the subject we’ve been 


talking about is probably going to be an 


extremely important one in terms of superficial 


dose from -- in talking about the Hicks tables 


and the Baneberry test and the fact that we’re 


concerned with superficial exposures to skin. 


So this issue is going to be -- how we come to 


grips with the dealing with the particles of 


skin dose and superficial dose; it’s going to 


be very important because as you know, those 


particular cancers are -- we will have to deal 


with, notwithstanding the fact that we have -- 


will have in the future perhaps an approved SEC 


for the pre-’63. So I see this particular 


subject as being something that we’re going to 


need to look at real closely as we move through 


the process. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Any more comments? 


 (No response) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are we ready to move on to 3? 


 MS. MUNN: The -- Under response to the TBD 


Team Input, that it’s the -- essentially the 


same note that we discussed earlier with 


reference to Project position. Any change 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 

38 

language that we make to the preceding 


statement perhaps should be carried through to 


2f plank as well. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. We can do that. Any more 


comments? 


 (No response) 


COMMENT 3: NON-RESPIRABLE PARTICLES


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, let’s move on to Comment 3. 


NIOSH had a response that they agreed that 


large particle ingestion and skin deposition 


could be important for individuals resolved -- 


or involved in underground testing. On that 


one the comment was --


 MS. MUNN: They’re going to revise the TBD. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. Yes. Has 


anybody got any comments to the fact that the 


TBD will be revised? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I didn’t have any comment 


about that, but I just want to make sure. This 


-- This relates to internal dose, right? No, 


it says actually skin also so the atmospheric 


testing should -- should -- should make that 


exception to skin dose because it says NIOSH 


does not intend to extend these evaluations for 


individuals involved with atmospheric testing 

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 

but I thought that NIOSH is -- I’m a little 


confused because from the second column talks 


about internal dose but the first column talks 


about skin dose also. 


 MR. PRESLEY: First the original response 


mentioned ingestion and skin dose. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, do you have a comment on 


this? 


 MR. ROLFES: Well, for the pre-1963 SEC period 


we won’t be constructing internal doses; 


however we will still evaluate any external 


doses received from large particle deposition 


on the skin surface. So I believe we are 


working on that. Just haven’t approached it in 


a technical basis document. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. So the 3a response 


actually doesn’t say that. It said due to 


pending SEC petition for workers involved NIOSH 


does not intend to extend these evaluations. 


And above it’s talking about -- it says 


internal and external dose guidance in that 


same item there. 


 MR. ROLLINS: We should probably qualify that 


response to only refer to internal dose prior 

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 

to ’63. I see where your concern is. 


 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yeah. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Was that Mr. Rollins? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes, it was. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You all will change that response 


then? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, we can do that. That will 


update the response to show that it’s for 


external dose reconstruction. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Good. Okay. Does anybody have 


any problem with 3c? 


 MS. MUNN: Did we jump over 3b? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, I did. I'm sorry. 3b, 


large particle ingestion and skin disposition 


(sic). 


 MS. MUNN: The same -- ditto response from 3a I 


think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I had -- just 


had a thought that I’d like to throw out to the 


working group. As NIOSH works through these 


issues the degree to which consideration is 


given while they’re in the literature 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 

41 

developing methodologies looking at data to 


address these issues and the associated I’ll 


say revisions to the site profile, the extent 


to which the -- the time period of exposures 


might be relevant -- for example, whether we’re 


dealing with underground testing or we’re 


dealing with above ground testing, the degree 


to which the kinds of information we’ll be 


looking at will shed some light on this 250 


work day issue. We may be able to what I call 


-- kill two birds with one stone. Rather than 


going back to revisiting that issue again later 


on when we are engaged into the less than 250 


work day issue, it would be very helpful to 


accomplish as much as we could on -- because 


these issues are going to surface again with 


the 250 work day issue. So while you’re in the 


literature looking at that it might be helpful 


to the other working group to keep that in the 


forefront while you’re working the problem. 


 MS. MUNN: Good comment, John. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s a good comment. Anybody 


have any more comments about 3b? 


 (No response) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 3c? 

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

 MS. MUNN: And response is applied. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody have any more comment? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 4: ORO-NASAL BREATHING
 

MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Moving on to comment 4. 


Comment 4 is one that we had issue with. It 


has to do with oral nasal breathing. And the 


working group and SC&A has a issue with oral 


nasal breathing. NIOSH will revisit and 


evaluate -- and evaluate comments and prepare 


written comments for the next working group 


meeting. Mark, is this going to take effect? 


Is somebody going to give a report at the next 


meeting on this? 


 MR. ROLFES: I will have to speak with Larry 


about this, and I guess Brant Ulsh, to see what 


we can have by the next working group. 


 MS. MUNN: This is another of those complex-


wide issues that keeps coming back to haunt us. 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I think we can get you an 


update maybe in September. We are evaluating 


the oro-nasal breathing issue and that will be 


-- be able to get some updates for you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that going to be in a -- in a 


working group meeting or do you want to discuss 

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 

anything like that with the full Board? 


 MR. ROLFES: Larry, is this something that we 


could discuss -- or Lew? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we would be making a 


presentation to the full Board on how to handle 


oro-nasal breathing as a general issue cutting 


across many sites. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s what I’d like to see done. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And then, you know, we’ll take up 


whatever changes need to be made or reflected 


upon that or referenced to that particular 


technical basis or technical information 


bulletin, whatever it may be in certain site 


profiles where it’s become an issue. 


 MS. MUNN: It would be very helpful to put this 


to bed, Larry. Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is -- Larry, can that be done at 


-- at Nevada or --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don’t -- I don’t imagine 


it’s going to be something we’re ready to 


present in Las Vegas this next Board meeting. 


Jim Neton, as I mentioned earlier, is going to 


be out for a few weeks and I know he was -- he 


had been working on the framework for this. 


don't know exactly where it’s at but it’s 


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 

44 

certainly not ready I don’t believe for prime 


time yet. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Then what we can say is 


that -- that this will be given to the full 


Board sometime in the -- in the future; is that 


correct? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: If you would, please. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Hopefully we can do that at the 


meeting following Nevada. 


 DR. WADE: All right. 


 MS. MUNN: I think it holds up several things. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I’ll put it on the agenda for 


the meeting after Nevada. 


 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Lew. 


 MS. MUNN: It’s good to know Jim has something 


going on it. That’s -- Thank you. 


COMMENT 5: RESUSPENSION MODEL


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 5 has to do with the 


resuspension model, and the response was way 


too long on this to -- to list. The working 


group had a issue with this that SC&A used Dr. 


Anspaugh to help with this and I think this is 


being acted on and worked on as we speak; 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 

45 

this not correct? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I can give 


you an update as to where we are on this. 
I 


have developed a mass loading model and have 


proposed a revision to section 4.2.2. That 


proposed revision is under review right now but 


I believe it will -- and in addition to new air 


concentrations and intakes predicted by the 


mass loading model I also have provided some 


guidance to dose reconstruction about 


considerations for minimizing and maximizing 


for -- for compensable and non-compensable 


cases. I think once we get -- once we finish 


internal review on this I think we -- we can 


probably provide that to you for your review. 


So that’s -- that’s where we are on this right 


now. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Gene, do you have 


any -- any reasonable feel for how long your 


internal review is likely to take? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I don’t -- I don’t think it’s 


going to take very long because this is -- this 


is pretty straightforward -- pretty 


straightforward calculations. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Excellent. 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 

46 

DR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn Anspaugh and I -- I 


also wanted to say that I’m preparing a report 


for review by the SC&A folks, and my report 


should be done sometime next week. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The working group going to be 


able to get a copy of that? 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: Certainly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any 


comments or anything to -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Does that --


 MR. PRESLEY: Go ahead, Gen. 


DR. ROESSLER: Does that report -- this is Gen. 


I’m sorry, Bob. That report will come from 


Lynn before the September meeting? 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: Well, I’m going to send it to 


Arjun and John and if they agree with it I 


suppose it could be, but it’s up to them. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. If not then maybe they can 


supply us with a copy when we get to Nevada. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, we were being 


extra cautious in this case to subject this 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 

47 

appropriate review before giving it to you as 


our report because of the conflict. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No problem. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we -- This is John Mauro. 


We have only recently went through a vetting 


process for the conflict issues. But I’m very 


happy to hear from Lynn right now that he has 


made some progress on that. Let me ask a 


question though of the working group. It 


sounds like we’ve got two work products in the 


middle right now dealing with this issue of 


resuspension. One is the work that -- the new 


work that Gene is working on in terms of using 


what I believe to be a mass loading approach. 


But in parallel, Lynn Anspaugh is looking at 


the problem as characterized in the site 


profile as it currently exists, which is based 


on a resuspension approach. Bear with me for a 


minute. Are we in a -- in a position where the 


process would be best served is once we get 


these two work products in the hands of the 


working group, we may very well be at a point 


where a special conference call could be held 


if it’s, you know, where well in advance -- 


let’s say a week before the -- the meeting 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 

48 

Las Vegas because I have a funny feeling that 


what’s going to happen here is we’re going to 


be critiquing a work that’s currently in the 


site profile based on -- based on conventional 


resuspension factors. Meanwhile Gene will be 


coming out with a -- a new model which 


basically say, listen, we’re not doing that any 


more. And it’d be great if we could sort of 


get together, maybe for an hour or so and say I 


think we’ve got this problem licked or -- or 


where does the problem actually -- whether or 


not there’s still some residual problems we 


have to deal with. 


 MR. ROLLINS: John, I think your point is -- 


This is Gene Rollins. I think your point is 


well taken because it sounds like Dr. Anspaugh 


is going to be critiquing a -- a method that we 


have abandoned. 


 DR. MAURO: That -- That -- Thank you. 


That’s exactly what I was saying. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I have a slightly 


different suggestion because I -- I -- I really 


am concerned that we should have some internal 


review because when you -- we’ve set up a 


process to deal with the conflict of interest 

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 

question and -- and I think as a person who did 


the TBD review I’d like a chance for -- for 


John and me to -- to -- to -- to look over Dr. 


Anspaugh’s material before -- before because it 


should be presented to the public as -- as -- 


and so I guess if I’m supposed to be the 


document owner of this thing so I’m especially 


concerned that -- that I should be. And so --


And I think that if we get the report from Dr. 


Anspaugh sometime next week we have to digest 


this material and then compare it to what Gene 


Rollins is doing. It might be better as a 


process since NIOSH has abandoned their 


resuspension approach for -- and Dr. Anspaugh’s 


earlier paper anyway recommended that 


resuspension not be used many years down the 


line for calculating doses many years after 


initial deposition, that maybe Dr. Anspaugh 


should review what -- what NIOSH is currently 


doing. And if it’s close to ready maybe -- 


maybe we ought to suspend that part of Dr. 


Anspaugh’s review while the rest of his review 


goes on until we see something from NIOSH. 
I 


don’t know; that seems like a -- like a better 


process rather than reviewing something 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 

50 

no longer being used. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Arjun, I 


agree. 


 DR. MAURO: Lynn, how far away -- did you say 


you were about a week away or less to delivery? 


See, it sounds like you’re in the home stretch 


to getting something to Arjun and I, might as 


well let that finish. But if you feel as if 


you’ve got a lot more to do maybe we should sit 


tight and wait for Gene’s work to come through 


the pipeline. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: Well, I’m kind of in the home 


stretch and I’m -- I might say I’m also quite 


concerned about how the source term is treated 


in terms of what radionuclides at what time. 


So it’s not just mass loading versus 


resuspension factors. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


DR. ANSPAUGH: So I think it might be better to 


just proceed because I think there are some 


significant issues other than just mass loading 


versus resuspension factor. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, yeah, I agree with you, Dr. 


Anspaugh, that there are -- there are lots of 


other issues and I also agree with 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 

51 

characterization of them. I was just -- my 


comment was more oriented to -- but I’m also -- 


I’ve got some other commitments next week and 


it’s going to be very, very difficult for me to 


give this the kind of time it needs. But I 


wasn’t aware the -- this is a new development 


for me in terms of my own agenda and so it -- 


it’s a little bit complicated unless it can be 


done sometime this week. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. It sounds like 


we have to let this play out because we’re 


dealing with not only resuspension factor 


versus mass loading but also issues related to 


I guess the picocuries per gram vertical 


profile in any given location -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: -- at Nevada Test Site, upon which 


the dust loading or the resuspension factor 


would operate. Yeah, I guess we let –- we just 


-- we let -- let nature take its course and let 


-- let Lynn finish up and deliver his report. 


Arjun and I will do our best to quickly review 


it and get it into the hands -- finalize it, 


get it into the hands of the working group. 


Gene, I guess you -- you -- you do the same 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 

52 

then we’ll just take it from there. 


 MR. CLAWSON: But -- This is Clawson. You 


know, something that’s been happening that I 


may not be as astute at this as my colleagues 


but I sure get an awful lot of stuff at the 


very last minute that we’re expected to work 


on. I would really like to be able to have 


some time to be able to review this and give it 


the inspection that it needs, too. 


 MS. MUNN: It’s the problem we have universally 


perhaps. There’s just nothing we -- we have 


too much material to deal with for each of our 


-- our meetings and we’ve -- as working groups 


we have to get through them before the full 


Board meets, and as contributors to the 


process, both our contractor and our NIOSH and 


ORAU people, have an enormous amount of work to 


do before they can produce material for us to 


look at. So we’re constantly behind the curve. 


And you are not alone in your desire to have 


the material earlier but I think everyone who’s 


involved in this feels the pressure of time and 


-- and none of us has quite the time we’d like. 


DR. ROESSLER: So Wanda, I think addressing 


both comments, one question I have on 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 

53 

issue, and I’m looking at the notes that we 


have on it and I think this is probably my 


wording. I was wondering at the time of our 


working group meeting how significant this 


particular evaluation was when -- when it comes 


to the compensation issue. Is this high on the 


priority list or is it down a ways? Is it 


something that we really need to push to -- to 


get a resolution? 


 MS. MUNN: And I have the same concern that you 


have, Gen. My problem is that without a work 


product like the things that Dr. Anspaugh and 


Dr. Rollins are producing, without the two to 


compare I’m at a loss to try to evaluate 


whether it really and truly is a large enough 


factor to be taking this kind of resource 


space. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins again. The 


-- The first time we responded to this concern 


I provided to you some tables that gave some 


examples of dose to various organs under 


certain assumptions. And the mass loading 


model that I’m currently working on is -- is 


probably going to end up on the higher end of 


the doses that were given to you in those 

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 

tables. So if you have the responses that were 


-- that were sent out on a 7/16/06 document 


then you can go in there and see doses that 


would result to various organs for 30 years of 


exposure. And these are 50-year CEDE doses. 


 DR. ROESSLER: I don't have that with me. I 


remember we had it at the work group but what I 


recall is that those doses were very, very low. 


 MR. ROLLINS: They are with the exception of 


certain respiratory organs. 


 MS. MUNN: And how would you rank those? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, the highest would be the 


thoracic lymph nodes. And -- And this would 


be on the upper end of -- of all the types of 


intakes that we discussed which would be 


comparable to what my mass loading model is -- 


is producing now. We’re talking -- to the 


thoracic lymph nodes we’re talking six rem. To 


the lung we’re talking one rem. Now, one rem 


to the lung may sound like a lot but over 30 


years, especially if an individual was a 


smoker, that’s not going to do much to the POC. 


 MS. MUNN: No.. 


 MR. ROLLINS: I really don’t see that these 


would make much of a difference in very many 

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 

cases. However, in the instructions that I 


have recommended to be put into the TBD there 


are instructions about what to do to minimize 


and maximize, and when it appears that these 


doses may make a difference in the probability 


of causation between compensable and noncompensable. That’s when they -- That’s when 


the dose reconstructor has to -- has to sharpen 


his pencil. And I provide instructions in 


there about how to do that. So it’s really a 


package that’s based on -- it’s not going to be 


just a hardwire thing, you -- you either use it 


or you don’t. But I -- I do have what I think 


is a simplistic way to over estimate that I 


believe most of us could agree would be an 


overestimate. Any underestimate really is not 


-- is not really an issue. But until we can 


get it reviewed and in your hands I don't know 


if we can discuss it. But the point that I’m 


making is I don’t see it as a huge issue from a 


probability of causation viewpoint. Something 


else that I would like to point out, and I ran 


these calculations, that the upper end of the 


intakes that the current mass loading model is 


assuming -- let me find that piece of paper 

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 

now. 


 MS. MUNN: While you’re looking -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: If you -- If you -- If you 


assume that the material was a Super Type S 


material, and these intakes are going to be 


just for your information a little over 200 


becquerels per year for plutonium 239/240. 


Using the chest count NDAs that were in effect 


at NTS, if they had constant exposure at that 


level then chest count would detect it in 1.3 


years. And if you were just analyzing urine 


and it was Type S material, then these large 


magnitude intakes would be detected after two 


years of exposure. So I -- I really do 


believe that these may represent an upper 


bound. 


 DR. MAURO: Gene, this is John Mauro. Are we 


talking about post-’62 or does -- do these 


statements also apply to -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: This wouldn’t -- This wouldn’t 


matter. I’m just talking about plutonium right 


now and that could be anytime. 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, the reason I -- I -- I 


hear what you’re saying related to the doses 


that you’re coming up with. You see, I sort 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 

57 

have an eye on toward the less than 250 -- 


whatever models and approaches strategy that’s 


developed here, the scenarios and the 


assumptions. That’s going to be our first step 


toward dealing with internal exposures for less 


than 250 days. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, internal exposures we’re 


not going to do for the SEC group. 


 DR. MAURO: But they -- But there is an issue 


there as it relates to the less than 250 days 


unless I’m -- unless I’m incorrect. In other 


words, the day will come when we’re going to be 


looking at resuspension as an issue for people 


who worked at the Nevada Test Site pre-’60 or 


pre-’63 for a few weeks, you know, less than 


the 250 workday time period. And these models 


in the approach that you’re taking would have 


applicability there. And I guess my -- what I 


have in my head right now for better or worse 


is that there might be relatively short periods 


of time post- above ground test where the 


exposures from resuspended material could be 


relatively high for a short period of time, all 


of which would be missed by either, you know, 


subsequent urinalysis or chest count. 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 

58 

something that’s on the table right now? In 


other words, am I bringing something up that 


really is overreaching? Should we only be 


worried about the post-’62 chronic type of a 


situation where the short-lived radionuclides 


have in fact decayed away and we’re on into a 


stable situation? Or are we engaged in a 


discussion that is going to have implications 


related to the above ground testing less than 


250-day scenarios? 


 MR. ROLFES: John, this is Mark Rolfes. I 


believe the less than 250-day issue is being 


addressed separately and what we are speaking 


about right now only concerns 1963 forward. 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. That’s very helpful. It 


does help parse out the problem so that we can 


deal with it in, you know, appropriately 


because I think that the -- the less than 250­

day pre-’63 resuspension exposure is going to 


be very important, and the models that are 


used, the approach that’s taken to look at that 


problem may very well be very different than 


the way you’re coming at the problem let’s say 


for the -- for the more chronic situations 


post-’62. 

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

 DR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn Anspaugh and I’d 


like to remind you that some of these 


situations may not have been chronic. For 


example, in area 19 the source term was 


actually laid down in 1968. And so if you were 


there in 1968 the situation would have been 


very different than what you’re assuming for 


the chronic. And likewise if you were in area 


11 in 1956 you could have gotten a very big 


snootful (phonetically) of plutonium. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: And I’m -- I would venture to 


guess that it might not have been detected. 


 MS. MUNN: And that’s a potential for 


significant acute dose, wouldn’t it? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Haven’t we already agreed that we 


can’t do internal dose prior to ’63? 


 MS. MUNN: I thought we had pretty much 


discussed that and come to the conclusion that 


that was -- right. I thought there was even a 


comment in our -- in our matrix somewhere to 


that effect. 


MR. ROLLINS: It’s my understanding -- 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. That's 


correct. And like I said, I may be raising 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 

60 

issue but I’m thinking in terms of, well, the 


people, the cohort that’s covered pre-’63 has 


to have worked at the site for more than -- 


more than 250 work days currently as the 


current evaluation report stands. And --


 MS. MUNN: As the law requires. 


 DR. MAURO: Right. But we have been asked, and 


you folks have seen our proposal of work, to 


look at the -- all these folks that worked at 


the site for less than 250 days which are 


automatically excluded from the cohort unless 


somehow a demonstration can be made that the 


exposures to those people pre-’63 for less than 


250 days could very well have been substantial. 


And I -- I realize I’m blending -- blending 


into this conversation the 250 days only 


because I realize that it’s going -- it’s going 


to be very important when we move into that 


phase of work. And the models that are being 


developed right now, I just want to make sure 


it’s clear, models that are being looked at and 


being developed now are in fact being developed 


not -- not specifically to deal with the pre­

’63, although Lynn points out it may also -- we 


may have some surprises post-’63. I think 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 

61 

degree to which we all understand what the -- 


this particular issue is and once Gene finishes 


the work what its constraints are; that is, it 


will be used for a particular purpose. And it 


may not be designed or intended to be used and 


that’s fine, for these pre-’63 short term 


exposure scenarios. 


 DR. ROESSLER: Thank you, John. I think that’s 


what we’re looking for is when they finish this 


work, Lynn and Gene, that we have some 


explanation and evaluation of the significance 


of it. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. Let me 


try to clarify something here. The -- The 


class designation that the Secretary has made 


for pre-1963 Nevada Test Site workers is based 


on the evaluation reports claim that we find it 


not feasible to do internal dose reconstruction 


for that time period. So what -- what Gene is 


working on now as I understand it will deal 


with post-1963 intakes. 


 MR. ROLFES: That's correct, Larry. This is 


Mark. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It was not -- It will not be 


developed to say -- let me say what it won’t 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 

62 

at this point in time because we’re not -- 


we’re not expending resources at this point in 


time on a site specific basis to attend to 


health endangerment for less than 250 days. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. John, you know, and -- 


and Mark -- Mark, I think it really would be 


helpful if there were a general note with this 


matrix that says, does not cover any issues 


relating to internal dose up to December 31, 


1962 because of the SEC petition; that none of 


the new methods will apply to that. And 


really, you know, John, you -- you and Dr. 


Anspaugh and I and -- and Jim Melius and the 


working group will have to define the 


parameters for what we’re going to consider in 


the development of this less than 250-day issue 


because, you know, Dr. Anspaugh said this 


before, that -- that the -- the chronic doses 


are not the issue. Perhaps in that case it 


might be the impulse doses, you know, very 


short term doses like in 1956. And -- And 


exactly how we’re going to consider that should 


-- should really be developed on -- on its own 


merits and -- and we need -- we need a chance 


to look -- look at the -- and Dr. Anspaugh, 

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 

you’re going to do a separate paper for us on 


that question, right? That was my 


understanding that we were going to approach 


this in two discrete steps. Or are you rolling 


-- if you’re rolling the things into one that’s 


all right, too. I mean we can -- we can look 


at it. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: I intended to roll a lot of 


stuff into one report. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay, fine. All right. 


Then -- Then -- Then I expect we’ll -- we’ll 


see this from you next week and -- and -- and ­

- and when we’re done we can -- we can share 


that both with Mr. Presley as well as with Dr. 


Melius so that both working groups can look at 


it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that would be a good 


idea. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that okay, John? 


 DR. MAURO: That’s perfect. I just needed that 


clarification so we know where we are. Thank 


you. And I -- I’m okay now. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. With regard to the 


250-day issue that’s still open, that’s a 


question of whether health was endangered 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 

64 

workers who worked less than an aggregate of 


250 days. That’s a judgment that the Board 


will have to make and a recommendation they’ll 


make to the Secretary. It’s not that NIOSH is 


proposing to do partial dose reconstructions to 


people exposed to less than 250 days so they’re 


very different questions and they really need 


to be dealt separately. And I -- I realize 


that there’s sort of an overlap of the 


questions, but you have to keep that clearly in 


your mind. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Lew, this is Bob Presley. Let me 


ask a question. When -- When we do this 250 


days or less than 250 days, are we going to 


make that site specific? 


 DR. WADE: Really you have to follow the 


evidence and the materials presented. I don't 


think there’s anything limiting you from being 


as fine in your definition as the data 


supports. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: My memory of discussions that have 


taken place is that this has focused primarily 


on the site that we’re looking at now because 


of the different method of -- of employment 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 

65 

the fact that people actually lived on-site. 


 DR. WADE: I took Robert’s question as site 


specific to be sites within the Nevada Test 


Site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No. No, what I mean on that is 


we have the Nevada Test Site and we have the 


Bikini-Atoll where people lived on site. And 


then we also have the area up at Amchitka where 


people lived on site that would be less than 


250 days. 


 DR. WADE: I think these issues as currently 


identified are -- are being looked at for the 


Nevada Test Site period for Pacific Proving 


Grounds period. And then there is an issue for 


the Ames site that’s being looked at. So I 


mean I think a judgment needs to be rendered on 


each of those specifically. Whether or not the 


Board chooses to draw broader conclusions from 


its efforts and extend them beyond is for the 


Board to consider. I thought your question was 


inwardly focused, Robert, to say, might this 


250-day judgment be made on sub-areas of the 


Nevada Test Site. All of that is open to the ­

- to the Board and the working group’s 


prerogative at this point. 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: We can -- We can do the sub-


sites too because that’s no problem. But I had 


a -- I was wondering because we had discussed 


the other sites as well. 


 DR. WADE: I think the Board will render a 


judgment on the Nevada Test Site. It will 


render a separate judgment on Pacific Proving 


Grounds and a separate judgment on Ames. Now, 


maybe those judgments will be the same but I 


think it’s appropriate for the Board to take up 


each in turn. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. I agree with that. 


 MS. MUNN: That certainly is reasonable. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: It would be a mistake I think to 


make an -- an overarching statement with 


respect to the 250-day issue that covers all 


sites. They’re so -- so unique in their 


character. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do we have anything else on Issue 


5 then? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just as a -- John, I think that 


this is correct. Correct me if I’m wrong -- 


This is Arjun -- that the proposal as it 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 

67 

currently written and I believe approved or in 


the process of approval, and Dr. Melius has 


seen this I think, is that we would do these 


three sites -- do a technical study of these 


three sites, Nevada, BPG and Ames. And if 


there are any lessons that might be more 


broadly useful that we would try to draw them 


technically without arriving at any -- it’s not 


-- I understand that we’re not making any 


policy judgments or anything and are not 


authorized to go there. But if there are any 


technical pointers that we -- we might draw 


some technical conclusions as to what areas of 


inquiry or how -- what the procedure might be 


to address this issue at other sites. I do 


believe that that much generalization 


potentially is part of the current scope of 


work as I understand it. 


 DR. MAURO: Yes, Arjun, you’re correct. That 


language is in fact in our proposal of work and 


certainly the full Board has our proposal 


before them; if there’s any aspect of that 


proposal of work that’s overreaching -- we’ve 


been there before. We will, you know, make the 


appropriate changes. But right now certainly 

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 

at a minimum we are going to look very closely 


at what the potential short term doses, high 


end doses might be at the three loca-- 


facilities and characterize them. Say this --


whether they’re external, whether they’re 


internal, and the magnitude of the -- the 


annual doses and the committed doses. And --


And then that story will be told. What it 


means in terms of whether or not that 


constitutes something that one would consider 


comparable to a criticality exposure, that’s -- 


that’s going to be a subject that I think the 


working group and the Board will, you know, be 


engaged in. The degree to which, you know, we 


take it a step further and say, okay, here’s 


the results of our investigations which will be 


just quantitative or semi-quantitative in terms 


of doses and durations of exposure, you know, 


time periods over which they occur. Then 


taking it that next step is really -- if you’d 


like us to try to reach some generalizations of 


what we found that might be helpful, great. We 


can try to do that. Or if you feel as if it 


would be overreaching we certainly will 


withdraw 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 

69

 DR. WADE: This is Lew. I don’t want to prejudge that, John. I -- I think it’s just 


important that we look at what needs to be done 


at -- at a minimum and that is the Board will 


need to render judgments on those three sites 


individually. Beyond that I leave it to the 


Board’s wisdom in terms of how it might want to 


provide guidance. But it’s critical that the 


Board be in a position to render judgment on 


each of those three sites individually. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Lew. Any more 

comments? 

 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, this is Brad Clawson. Is 

there any time frame that we have got set for 


the group to be able to look into this 250 


days? The only reason I throw that out is it 


sure seems like this is coming up an awful lot. 


It seems like a stumbling block every time we 


kind of address it. And I was just wondering 


if there’s any kind of in the foreseen future 


the opportunity for this group to be able to 


get together? 


 DR. WADE: I think there is pressure for the 


group to get together. I mean you have to 


understand that this was waiting the clearance 

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 

of the issues with regard to SC&A’s conflicts 


so we started a bit behind. But I know that 


Dr. Melius, the chair of the working group, 


feels the pressure and is looking at scheduling 


an interaction as soon as possible. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are we looking for something 


prior to our meeting in Nevada or are we 


looking for something after the Nevada meeting, 


Lew? 


 DR. WADE: I don’t want to pre-judge. I mean 


my hope is before but I don’t want to pre-judge 


what reality would actually be. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I understand. We have a lot to 


do before -- before Nevada as it is. 


 DR. WADE: I understand. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Any more comments on 


Response 5, Comment 5? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 6: AIR CONCENTRATION VALUES
 

MR. PRESLEY: Let’s move on to Number 6; the 


issue had air concentration values and this is 


one that SC&A agreed with NIOSH’s belief that 


dose reconstruction involved ambient internal 


dose at the test site and there was no further 

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 

action required on this subject. Anybody have 


any more comments? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Isn’t this part of the 


resuspension review? I’m a little confused. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't think so. Not on this 


one. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I think 


we’ll find that it is part of the resuspension 


model -- I mean of the mass loading model. And 


it’ll probably hinge to some degree on some of 


the -- some of the work that Dr. Anspaugh is 


doing. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: I think we’ll find that’s true or 


at least that’s what my notes indicate for -- 


for our response to Comment 7 also. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, because it says here 


resolution will be included in work performed 


for Item 5. In Item 6 in the middle column you 


wrote resolution will be included in work 


performed for --


 MR. ROLLINS: I think if I -- if I could come 


up with a model that we can agree on is 


bounding, then I think that takes -- that will 


take care of Comments 6 and 7. 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I agree. I had a question 


about the column 2 in the middle where you say 


table 4.2.2-3 represents a reasonable 


underestimate. Actually what is a reasonable 


underestimate? I thought we did reasonable or 


best estimates and maximum estimates and 


minimum estimates. I have not come across 


reasonable underestimates before. 


 MR. ROLLINS: That may have been just me trying 


to find the right word to describe it but the 


minimum intakes represent trivial doses to all 


organs. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Yeah, because this is 


not a category that belongs in the regulation. 


But for compensable cases you’re supposed to 


make a best estimate giving the claimant the 


benefit of the doubt. But an underestimate 


doesn’t do that. 


 MR. ROLLINS: The -- The revised guidance that 


I have proposed basically says for compensable 


cases we need not consider these intakes. 


 MS. MUNN: And Arjun, one of the -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: One of the concerns some have is 


with respect to unreasonable overestimates 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 

73 

underestimates regardless of which is being 


done. I guess the -- again we’re probably hung 


up a little bit on our own wording and the way 


we use terms in one group as opposed to the way 


we use terms in another group. That -- That 


was one that made perfect sense to me. But I 


can understand why you have concern with the 


language. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I -- I agree with 


you regarding unreasonable either way. We 


should not be making unreasonable estimates in 


either direction because the idea should be 


scientifically sound. But I -- this -- I had 


not come across this term before and so I got 


puzzled by it. Maybe it’s one of those 


editorial things. Maybe Larry can clarify 


where this belongs in the larger scheme of 


things. 


 MS. MUNN: We probably need to consult a 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. Don’t read 


too much into that word because that was just 


whatever happened to come off -- came off the 


end of my pencil when I wrote it. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, that would have been the same 

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 

word that came off the end of my pencil had I 


been writing it but the way we were using the 


term perhaps we -- perhaps Arjun has a point. 


It might be wise for us to adjust the term just 


a little bit. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Gene, this is Bob Presley. Can 


you -- Can you do that? Can you look for a 


better word there than unacceptable? 


 MR. ROLLINS: How about reasonable? Reasonable 


underestimate. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, reasonable underestimate. 


 MR. ROLLINS: What if we just take the word 


reasonable out, just say underestimate? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's fine. Does anybody have a 


problem with that? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, the only -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I’m lost. I’m trying to figure 


out where -- where this reference is. Can you 


help me out Arjun or somebody? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Page 11, Larry, in column 2 in 


the middle. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Comment 6 or Comment 7? 


 MS. MUNN: Response 6, halfway down. Page 11, 


response 6, halfway down, column 2 under NIOSH 


Response. Table 4.2.2-3. 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Is this the second column? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Yes, under NIOSH Response. 


First column is SC&A Comment Summary. Then 


it’s NIOSH Response. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Represent a reasonable 


overestimate? 


 MS. MUNN: No, that’s under it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s a little bit further 


down. 


 MS. MUNN: That’s two lines above it. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Represent a reasonable 


underestimate. 


 MS. MUNN: Reasonable underestimate. And I, as 


I said, I understand that but the way we’ve 


been using reasonable in a more -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it’s best if you just 


delete reasonable and then it would read 


correct I believe. Read, represent an 


underestimate. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That would correspond to the 


minimum dose, right? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, right. If the claim is 


compensable just based on the dose at hand 


that’s an under -- underestimate. 

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

 MR. ROLLINS: Then we’ll just remove the word 


reasonable from the response there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Lynn (sic). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think the word reasonable is 


appropriate when used in conjunction with 


overestimate. We want to make sure that our 


overestimates are plausible and reasonable. 


 MS. MUNN: Hey, you just used a good word. You 


just used the word that would be -- well, it 


would certainly be acceptable to me and I think 


have the same connotation. A plausible 


underestimate. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: May we put plausible instead of 


reasonable? We can use reasonable 


overestimates and plausible underestimates. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I am really confused by 


this discussion because the regulations 


specified three different kinds of doses and 


here we’ve got only two. And that’s part of my 


confusion is that the best estimate in which 


you give some benefit of the doubt in terms of 


parameters which makes an overestimate but it’s 


not a maximum efficiency type of estimate. And 


then there’s a minimum efficiency type 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 

77 

estimate. And the thing that is confusing me 


is here we’ve got a whole new lexicon that is 


replacing our regulatory lexicon that we’ve 


been dealing with for all this time. And --


And it’s con-- that’s -- and there are only two 


terms here where in -- in the actual regulation 


I presume, in the way the calculations are 


being done, there are three different types of 


calculations. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, in the regulation we only 


talked about efficiency measures and best 


estimate doses. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. But there are two 


efficiency methods. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The efficiency methods would 


cover an underestimate or an overestimate. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. But here there is no -- 


not -- no talk of a best estimate. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That’s true. Yes, you’re right, 


Arjun. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So that’s what’s confusing me 


is they only talk about a method for efficiency 


as I understand it, and that’s okay, if that’s 


-- that’s the intent. And that we’re not doing 


anything for best estimate in this 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 

78 

That’s -- That’s my question I guess is that 


is this going to apply only to minimum and 


maximum cases or is it going to be -- include 


the best estimate type of case? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, a best estimate dose 


reconstruction would in and of its nature 


consider all types of radiation dose. And 


certainly I think this comment deals with the 


average air concentration values. And so in a 


best estimate sense we’d want to include that. 


So I think that -- I think this needs to be re-


couched to reflect how this information would 


be used in any type of dose reconstruction 


whether it be an efficiency measure or a best 


estimate case. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. That 


information and that guidance has been proposed 


in my revision that hopefully you’ll be seeing 


soon. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: That was not meant to be done in 


this matrix. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: And Arjun, I don’t think there is 


any question in anyone’s mind with respect 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 

79 

the, as you stated, the lexicon of the -- of 


the statute and what we’re doing here, of the 


guidance that we’re following. But if we see 


this language as explanatory rather than 


specifically related to the guidance then from 


a purely explanatory point of view when a 


person like me reads it, I see plausible 


underestimate; that means something very clear 


to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with the 


guidance that’s being followed. That’s just an 


explanation of whether or not this is in fact a 


reasonable number to use for an underestimate 


or an overestimate either for that matter. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, I agree with you. 


think I’m clear after what Larry said. I have 


no problem now. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think the sentence that I guess 


this is Gene’s wording; or I don't know whose 


wording it is but, you know, this is -- and 


later on in that same passage it says for cases 


where compensability is affected by the maximum 


intake a dose reconstructor must make every 


effort to obtain work locations and apply 


intakes for those locations provided in Table 


4.2.2.2. To me that goes to the best estimate 


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 

80 

issue. 


 MS. MUNN: Agreed. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. I guess I -- I -- I 

guess I just got confused. I’m -- Yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It’s easy to get hung up on 


words, isn’t it? 


 MS. MUNN: It sure is. Semantics just kills 


us. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Moving right along -- 


 MS. MUNN: Please do. 


COMMENT 7: RESUSPENSION OF DOSE


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 7 has to do again with 


resuspension of dose. And again I think that 


what we did here with 6 also applies to 7; is 


that correct? 


 MS. MUNN: And it’s all in the draft response 


that’s in internal review right now, correct? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s, as I understand it, that 


is correct. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John. Yes, I see that I 


guess 5, 6, and 7 are all -- all the same 


cloth. And once we get through this process 


with Lynn and -- and Gene we’ll probably be 


able to address all three issues. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. That’d be great. 

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 

COMMENT 8: EXTERNAL DOSE FOR 1963 TO 1966


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 8 has to do with external 


dose for 1963 to 1966, that it is not claimant 


favorable. And NIOSH agrees -- or SC&A agrees 


with NIOSH’s response and we have no further 


action required. Does anybody have a question 


with this? 


 MS. MUNN: This is another one of those issues 


we discussed earlier that leaves us with the 


understanding that some change is going to take 


place but we don’t have the feedback mechanism 


for the Board to be aware that -- when it’s 


complete. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. Arjun, do you 


have any -- any other response on this? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, Mr. Presley, I don’t. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. 


COMMENT 9: ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNAL DOSE, 1968 TO 1976


 MR. PRESLEY: How about let’s go back -- go 


down to 9, lack of internal environmental dose 


for ’68 through ’76. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: External. 


 MR. PRESLEY: External I mean. I'm sorry. 


SC&A agreed with NIOSH’s response and we had no 


further action required. Anybody 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 

82 

anything? 


 MS. MUNN: From the matrix it shows completed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I just want to 


point out the reason this is a non-problem is 


universal badging beginning in ’57. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 DR. MAURO: Universal badging puts us in a 


position -- puts us all in a very good position 


to address external doses. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: I guess this would be partial dose 


reconstructions for pre-’63 people and post­

’63. So the key here is this universal badging 


after 1957. The degree to which -- so we’re -- 


we’re in agree-- we’re in agreement that that 


certainly will solve the problem with universal 


badging. The degree to which the Board or the 


working group would like us to look into that 


data set, that statement, you know, we’re -- at 


this time we’re not taking any action; we’ll 


look for direction from the Board as to whether 


or not you’d like us to follow up, perhaps 


going on the O drive and looking at that data. 

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 

That -- The type of thing we’re doing, for 


example, at Rocky in terms of following up on 


data sets for air sampling and urinalysis and 


that sort of thing. 


 MS. MUNN: This is true of Comment 9 and 


Comment 10; is that correct? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s what I was going to say. 


Nine and 10 are almost the same thing. 


 MS. MUNN: John raises a good issue with 


respect to whether or not the Board is going to 


feel follow-up is required with respect to the 


data itself. This is a bit of a sticky wicket 


and it’s both a time consuming issue and almost 


an ethical issue in terms of the reliability of 


the data. I have a tendency to feel that 


unless there are very clear evidence cited 


which leads us to believe that there’s some 


sort of pervasive shortcoming in this data, 


that we can spend an enormous amount of time 


looking at it and find some shortcomings one 


place or another but seldom find any ongoing, 


continual site-wide problems with data 


reporting. I don't know how the rest of the 


working group feels about that. Certainly in 


some other working groups an enormous amount 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 

84 

time has been spent on this question. 


 DR. MAURO: Wanda, I can help add a little bit. 


You’ll see as we move on, as we move into 


Comment 10 and 11, the fact that we have 


universal badging post-’57, and then of course 


the implications being we can -- all -- all 


workers and all claimants who, you know -- 


where you would want to do a partial dose 


reconstruction. But there’s still issues 


related to, for example, correction factors 


associated with Number 11. There are issues 


related to Number -- Comment 10 which have to 


do with co-worker models where you’re going to 


use the post-’50 to ’57 data as a surrogate for 


pre-’57 external exposures. So I -- All I 


want to do is alert the working group that this 


universal monitoring of data, film badge data 


for all workers post-’57 -- ’57 and onward is a 


rock that we’re all going to stand on and -- 


because from there everything will flow. And 


the working group and the Board has to be 


confident and comfortable with -- with that 


rock. 


 MR. PRESLEY: John, this is Bob Presley. 
I 


know we’re on 9 but when you get into 10 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 

85 

working group asked NIOSH to develop a coworker model for workers from ’51 to ’57. 


 DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And I’m just wondering if this 


could be used, if they -- if NIOSH does this 


then if we could go back and look at this and 


use it as a model to say that yeah, everything 


is going to be all right to use this data after 


1957. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, this is Arjun. I think ­

- I think this -- this -- the -- the -- 


problem of data integrity regarding what’s on 


the badges and what portion of the worker’s 


dose was actually recorded on the badge because 


they were taking it off because of work rules 


and financial incentives, has come up as a -- 


an important problem in all of our worker site 


expert interviews. It came up when Kathy 


DeMers and Tom Bell went to Nevada and 


interviewed Martha DeMar (phonetically) and her 


colleagues completely independent, as one set, 


and they came up also quite strongly when I 


interviewed Mr. Brady who unfortunately passed 


away in -- in July. And -- And, you know, I ­

- I think -- I think NIOSH’s proposal 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 

86 

examine statistically whether there is a 


problem or not appears reasonable. But I made 


this comment at the last working group meeting 


that I think -- I think this evidence has been 


-- we do need to determine how pervasive it was 


if -- if that can be done. But this evidence 


has been -- not been put forward as an 


anecdotal piece of evidence. It’s been put 


forward by the responsible health physics 


authorities on the site, the site experts. And 


if we are going to disregard it I think the 


introduction of site expert evidence by NIOSH 


as for instance in Bethlehem Steel as regards 


the integrity of how the air sampling was done, 


would also be in question because it is exactly 


the same type of evidence. And because it was 


from the experts who were responsible for doing 


that thing at that time. And I -- I just 


don’t see -- it’s -- it’s quite different than 


somebody down in the trenches doing one thing 


and not being responsible for health physics. 


Or for instance taking what Roger Falk said 


about Rocky Flats seriously because he was the 


responsible health physics official for 


internal dose at the time and had a big picture 

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 

view, worked in the labs, took the samples and 


so on. I mean I’m presuming he did all that. 


So I -- I think that -- I think that this -- 


this piece of evidence for Nevada is different 


than other pieces of evidence because of how 


systematically it has come forth and from whom 


it has come forth in my opinion. 


 MS. MUNN: Arjun, you and I have had a brief 


exchange about this kind of thing before, and 


as I tried to point out then, not very well as 


I now find having read the transcript of that, 


I do believe that you’re going to find these 


kinds of stories on almost every site that you 


visit. And it is I believe fair to say many 


such stories were told routinely as a part of 


the macho image that many of our workers liked 


to present. This I know from my own experience 


listening to the stories and listening to 


people talk about the way they went about doing 


their job. It was considered a manly man thing 


to do and there was no hesitance about bragging 


about not always using your badge in the way 


that it was intended; whether you had been 


instructed to do so or not was a secondary 


issue. The question arises how much effort 

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 

needs to be put into identifying how pervasive 


that was when I don't know that there is any 


way we can actually determine that. Nor is 


there any way that we can assess who did and 


who did not actually do such things. It’s a 


little bit like locker room talk. You hear a 


lot of stories that’s very hard to get to the 


real truth of. So the question becomes really 


how much effort needs -- do we need to 


officially devote to tracking these issues? 


Certainly they need to be tracked; no question 


about that. But there’s an issue with respect 


to how much checking needs to be done and how 


it needs to be done if we are going to make the 


best possible use of our time and try to be as 


realistic as possible in addressing these very 


human issues which affect all of the sites. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Wanda’s got a real -- This is 


Bob Presley. Wanda’s got a real good point 


there, you know. I’ve -- I’ve heard this 


stuff and been around it for years. I honestly 


think that things like this are -- let’s see. 


How do I say this? They may have happened but 


they didn’t happen as much as a lot of people 


would lead us to think. And I don't know 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 

89 

much effort that we really need to put into 


something like this. 


 MS. MUNN: I certainly agree with Arjun that we 


need to address it. This needs to be 


addressed. The issue is to what depth and how 


much. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, I mean that’s all -- 


all I was trying to say. And of course, how 


much effort, this is entirely the Board’s 


discretion, especially as it concerns somebody 


like me or -- or John or SC&A. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Arjun, this is Larry Elliott. 


heard you say that you had indication of this 


coming from the health physics experts there at 


the site. Can you name those for us or -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, yes. I thought I did. It 


was Jay Brady. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, Jay Brady. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And also I believe it is -- if 


I -- now, this is from memory, Larry. I 


believe it is also documented in the interviews 


that -- that Kathy DeMers and Tom Bell did with 


Martha DeMar and her group. I was not present 


there and the last time I looked at it sometime 


back. I will check the conversation there. 


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 

90

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think your -- with me your 


point is well taken. If there are people who 


were in the monitoring program that observed 


this or, you know, we’d like to know who those 


folks are so that we can -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- talk to them about it -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to determine how pervasive it 


was, whether it was localized in a certain era, 


time frames or certain facilities or what -- 


what -- what triggered, you know, this kind of 


a -- of an action to tell a worker to park 


their badge and not wear it for a day or two. 


I think we also need to -- I agree. We need to 


treat this -- we need to address this -- this 


as a general issue and -- and I'm not sure, you 


know, how best to go about doing that but I 


would offer this for the working group’s 


consideration. I -- I think it goes to an 


understanding, trying to arrive and achieve an 


understanding of what impact this might have on 


an individual’s dose reconstruction. And from 


that point I think -- I think you can quickly 


hone in on the most likely type of dose 

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 

reconstruction where this might have an impact; 


it would be a best estimate. And from there 


how many days would this have occurred and what 


kind of exposure was not really monitored by -- 


by this type of behavior? So I think we have 


to speak to all of those aspects when -- when 


we address this. 


 MS. MUNN: Larry, there was a considerable 


conversation about -- I shouldn’t say 


considerable -- some conversation about this in 


-- you might find in earlier transcripts where 


SC&A was talking to us about Brady’s assertions 


during their interviews with him. And it’s 


enlightening to hear those but not particularly 


surprising I think, although as Arjun points 


out, having an individual who was responsible 


for some of these activities to make some 


statements like that is a fairly weighty thing. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: It’s unfortunate that he’s no longer 


with us but that is one -- I -- I wouldn’t be 


surprised that SC&A would have the transcript 


or at least their notes with their conversation 


with him. It might be helpful for you and your 


group to take a look at those notes if 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 

92 

Arjun, have they been provided for NIOSH 


already, Brady’s notes? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, the -- the -- as I 


said, this came up independently in two 


reviews. I’m looking at them now. Attachment 


4 of our site expert interviews consists of a 


summary where the site experts are not 


identified but as I said, I believe that Ms. 


DeMar was one of them. And I think that NIOSH 


has also extensively been in contact with her 


in their TBD review process. And the -- And 


the -- that’s in our site profile review. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. I knew I’d read it somewhere. 


I just didn’t know where. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Mr. Brady’s interview is 


also on our site profile review. Now, in 


regard to the site expert interviews, we have 


more detail, we have the individual interviews 


that were conducted and that went through a 


declassification review -- well, all of it went 


through a declassification review but the 


individual interview records are much more 


extensive than the master summary and -- and -- 


and I presume that we could provide that to the 


Board and to NIOSH. I believe that they -- 

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 

they should be in a proofread condition to be 


provided. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And if -- if you would like I 


will -- I will call Kathy and review them and 


have them sent along. 


 MS. MUNN: Would that be helpful for you, 


Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, yes. Yeah, it’d be most 


helpful, Arjun, if you could, you know, make 


sure Mark’s aware of where he can access this 


to share with the site profile group. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, should -- should I, John 


-- somebody give me some guidance here. 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. The only -- Arjun, the only 


thing to keep in mind is the -- the notes 


themselves that you folks took, as I recall 


some individuals did not want -- I guess if we 


treat this as Privacy Act information; I'm not 


sure. The fact that some of the interviewees 


would have preferred us not to name them, not 


to reveal their names. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, that’s true. How do we 


handle that? 


 DR. MAURO: Now, in your notes, though, 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 

94 

names are there I presume. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. We normally, unless we 


have explicit permission from the interviewee 


we normally don’t publish the names. We 


sometimes do publish and I -- I personally when 


I make interviews I do try to get the 


permission from the interviewee to publish 


their name because -- because the whole process 


becomes easier for all of us that way. But --


But I think that many interviews have been 


published without the names because of that. 


do not know from Nevada Test Site who -- who 


were the people who might have requested this 


because I didn’t go through the whole process. 


Kathy DeMers did that. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Can I just remind you that 


as employees of Health and Human Services there 


shouldn’t be any privacy concerns with sharing 


names with NIOSH or with Board members, 


although I realize you can’t make them public. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, my -- my question goes to 


just our own interview process where, not as a 


matter of privacy but where we tell people that 


we will only publish their -- they might be 


afraid of I don't know, job issues or anything 


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 

95 

like that. I’m not quite sure how that is to 


be handled and whether we should -- 


 MS. MUNN: No, but by the same token it’s very 


difficult for people in the position of 


overviewing what has transpired to take very 


seriously any significant quantity of anonymous 


data. You know, it’s -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that’s pretty hard to do. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I mean we have the notes. 


I -- I -- And --


 MS. MUNN: Oh, I understand. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I’m happy to have whatever 


guidance. And they were -- they were produced 


under -- under the -- under the request of the 


Board obviously. And so I just -- I just 


needed some guidance because we -- we’ve 


conducted them on one basis and perhaps we need 


to go back to them and tell them that we’re 


doing this or -- or something. 


 MS. MUNN: It would be helpful I think to be -- 


to be up front about individuals who maintain 


that improper procedures were followed and that 


they were a part of it. That would -- I think 


be part and parcel of accepting this statement 

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 

as being realistic. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Mr. Brady did say that he 


was a part of it and --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- in his interview. 


 MS. MUNN: I remember that. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I do not believe that any of 


the others said they were a part of it. I 


think they just said that these things -- or 


some of them may not have gone back. I think 


we did identify the time frame. This -- This 


is not alleged to be a current problem or -- 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- or recent memory problem. 


It’s a problem that’s supposed to have gone on 


maybe to the mid-’60s or the early ’70s. It’s 


sort of -- the end date is unclear but -- but 


it seems by general agreement that -- or by the 


testimony of the people that -- that this 


stopped sometime three decades or more ago. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, in early times it was common 


locker talk, that’s true. 


DR. ROESSLER: This is -- This is Gen. It 


seems Wanda has brought up a very important 


issue and we’re basing an awful lot on what one 

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 

person has said; we can no longer ask him any 


further questions. I’m just wondering if there 


-- I just think we need to go a little bit 


further on this and identify other people who 


are willing to have their names go on the 


record who would provide information in support 


of Mr. Brady. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Clawson. Didn’t we have 


some of these things, when these people did 


this, as an affidavit? I guess me and Wanda’s 


got into this a little bit before. I keep 


hearing the terminology that we have a expert. 


And basically I take a little offense because I 


can tell you right now I know more about my 


facility than my health physicist does because 


I just had to escort mine through the facility 


but he wrote my whole site profile for it. One 


of the things that we’ve got to be able to do, 


and what we’ve been chartered with to do is to 


be able to get the information and get it as 


most correct as possible, and in doing this we 


need to look at all avenues. And a lot of 


times -- what’s the old expression, that if it 


-- if it looks like it nine times out of ten it 


is it. It may be locker room talk but usually 

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 

there’s good reason for that locker room talk. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Also, Ms. Roessler, the -- the 


-- the -- this is not just one person and that 


was the reason for my statement. It was -- Mr. 


Brady was or did retire as a principal health 


physicist. He was there almost throughout the 


whole period of testing. And this also came 


from other health physics ex-site personnel who 


were interviewed, which is also documented in 


our review, so this came independently from two 


separate directions from the health physics 


people. And my specific -- I mean Mr. 


Clawson’s concern is an important type of 


concern and -- and the one I was expressing was 


complimentary to that I think, is that if these 


views are not taken seriously I think it will 


have some implication for a lot of other 


conclusions and documentation that has been put 


forward on the same basis for demonstrating 


that dose reconstruction is feasible. 


 DR. ROESSLER: Well, I’m -- I’m suggesting that 


we do need to take it seriously, but I’m 


looking for other names or other support for 


Mr. Brady’s statement. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, yes. I -- I -- And I’m 

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 

not suggesting anything otherwise. 


 DR. ANSPAUGH: This is Lynn Anspaugh. I’d just 


like to comment that there are certain time 


periods and certain activities where this was 


much more likely to have occurred than others. 


And I think we can narrow down the time period, 


the activities and the people potentially 


engaged in this practice by doing a little more 


work. 


DR. ROESSLER: That’s what I would support. 


think we need more work. Right now it seems 


like there’s a big question hanging there. 


 MS. MUNN: But the bottom line, the issue that 


we as a working group need to address and 


address today is how much effort, how much 


detail are we asking anyone to put forth? 


That’s the real question. Not what -- I think 


from our conversation it appears there’s a 


general consensus that it needs more looking 


at. The question here is how much looking at? 


Because some of the other working groups have 


gone into such extensive looking at that we run 


into serious trouble in trying to accomplish 


some degree of closure. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Wanda, this is Larry Elliott. If 


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 

100 

I -- If I could make a comment here I’d -- I’d 


sure like to, and it goes -- my comment goes to 


the use of the term affidavits. And I don’t 


want us to get -- I don’t want people on the 


working group or supporting the working group 


to get confused about affidavits. I’m not sure 


if SC&A in doing their interviews -- maybe John 


or Arjun can speak to this -- if they -- if 


they treat that interview process in a similar 


manner as acquiring an affidavit type of 


testimony. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: When we use affidavits -- when we 


take affidavits, either in a -- in a -- the 


computer assisted telephone interview of a coworker for a survivor or a claimant, there is a 


-- there is a acknowledgement that the 


information is being provided as truth. 


Otherwise it’s considered, you know -- it could 


bring repercussions as being, you know, 


fraudulent and --


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and that. And so we take that 


very seriously when we do the computer assisted 


telephone interviews. Or if we -- if we talk 

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 

to workers and we -- and they want to give us 


this kind of information, then when we start 


talking about affidavits to attest to the 


veracity of the -- of the input we find that 


gets to be very -- very tenuous. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Some people walk away, won’t -- 


won’t --


 MS. MUNN: Won’t do that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Won’t attest to the veracity of 


the information they’re giving, while others 


will. So I would just offer that. I -- I 


don't know. Has SC&A approached these with an 


affidavit-like interest or -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- are these just -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: At least I have never told 


anybody I’m interviewing that this is 


equivalent to a legal type of setting. I --


-- I trust that the person is giving me the 


best --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- of what they know and their 


memory, and we provide if our -- our normal 


process is to do the interview, document it in 


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 

102 

notes, and provide the notes to the interviewee 


for correction. And if, you know, the -- if 


it’s in a certain type of facility then it goes 


through a declassification process. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And I think that’s perfectly the 


appropriate way to handle it, Arjun. I don’t 


like getting legal with these folks either. It 


chills -- It chills many folks. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Exactly. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They won’t -- don’t want to 


contribute. And I think we do need to have 


their contribution. But I would offer that at 


a point in time where let’s say the Department 


of Labor is following up on the eligibility of 


an individual, they’re very strong on the use 


of affidavits and whether or not that leads to 


fraudulent or perjury, you know, in the actions 


of the -- of the interview, you know, I just 


think we need to keep that all in mind. I 


don’t want to see us, you know, force ourselves 


to use affidavits to -- to achieve a test of 


verifying the -- the contribution that’s being 


made. But I do want to make sure that 


everybody understands how that word affidavit 


is used in the program. 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Larry, this is an 


explanation for -- I’ve said how we do it, and 


generally in my experience, the use that we 


make in our conclusions is that we don’t treat 


any of the materials in the interviews as true 


or not true. To the extent possible within the 


context of the review we -- we might try to 


verify it or document it or raise it as a 


concern. In this particular case what I did 


was I -- I looked at whether there was any 


supporting evidence in terms of why this was 


being done, and there was. There’s a -- 


There’s a -- There’s a historical record that 


there were pay practices associated with being 


in forward areas and people were afraid of 


being laid off or -- or sent back to non-


radiation work which was lesser paid. That is 


reasonably well documented. And -- And so 


where we left it was not at a conclusion that 


this actually happened, but this was an issue 


in dose reconstruction that needed to be 


addressed before you could be confident that -- 


that you had a set of data that was good. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand and I applaud you. 


I think your approach is appropriate. 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 

104 

we’ll make the best use of it as we can. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Excuse me. This is Lew. I’ve got 


to get out. I’m in a security situation here 


at the airport so I’m going to have to break 


away. Liz and Larry, I will leave it to you, 


okay? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: What airport are you in, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Cincinnati Airport, and something’s 


going on. I don't know if you can hear the 


ruckus in the background. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we can hear the ruckus. 


 DR. WADE: Sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: Good luck. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Get outside the gates, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah. 


COMMENT 10: PRE-1963 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. In response to Comment 9 


and 10, I don't think we have any further 


action for 9. But if NIOSH could get with SC&A 


to make this model and use the comments that 


SC&A has, I think that that would probably 


satisfy the working group with the outcome; is 


that correct? 

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

 MS. MUNN: Well, we have Comment 10 is shown on 


the matrix as completed now so I guess we -- if 


-- if that’s correct it was -- I thought it was 


correct when I read it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, now, what I have on Comment 


10 says it has to do with the after the 1957 


all workers were badged. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But NIOSH did agree to develop a 


co-worker model for workers from 1951 through 


1957 --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- through April 1st, ’57. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And if they could work with SC&A 


with what comments they have it might be a -- 


that document that would come out of that a coworker model might have to work through in our 


deliberations as far as the badging and the -- 


the -- the need for additional environ-- or 


external dose data. 


 MS. MUNN: So you just see that as a delivery 


item before we close out. Would that be 


correct? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I -- I do now. I sure 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 

106

 MS. MUNN: Rather than as a follow-up item that 


falls into the category of needing to be 


tracked. 


MR. ELLIOTT: How close are we, Gene, on a coworker model? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Cheryl, are you on the line? 


 MS. SMITH: Yes, I am. There was a revision to 


the TBD, the external, Section 6, TBD, that 


included a workup and an average co-worker dose 


that could be assigned for the years ’51 to 


’57. And I don't know where that is in the 


review process. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, maybe you can check 


and Mark can check and we’ll -- we’ll ascertain 


where -- what the status is and how quickly we 


can --


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. This is --


hearkens back to what we talked about before. 


I think -- I think we’re all in agreement that 


there is a -- there is a need for a co-worker 


model. NIOSH agrees and we felt the same way. 


NIOSH is moving forward with a co-worker model 


so there really is -- there really is no 


disagreement at this time. There is agreement 


that this is -- this -- this in fact is 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 

107 

issue. And it’s being -- And we all agree 


that it needs to be dealt with and it is being 


dealt with. Now, this goes back again to the 


question, okay, once it is put in place; you 


know, we have had lots of experience now 


involving looking at co-worker models and in 


some cases we’ve agreed, yes, that looks like ­

- it looks fine and -- but in other places we 


came away -- we’re still struggling with a coworker model on Y-12 for example. So it’s 


really in the hands of the working group how to 


sort of I guess package this. Yes, this is 


completed. The co-worker model is being -- is 


going forward. Everyone’s comfortable with 


that. Whether or not we’re all going to be 


comfortable with the final form that model 


takes, that’s -- maybe that should be something 


that -- I don't know whether that’s part of 


this matrix or something else. And that goes 


toward the very beginning of this conversation 


when Lew had mentioned we really haven’t come 


to grips with this aspect of the closeout 


process. 


 MS. MUNN: That was my concern, John. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

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

 MS. MUNN: But it looks like this item is 


closed for the most part for us. It’s just 


that as Bob says, he -- if there’s -- if there 


are implications in the final model for other 


parts of -- of what we’re looking at and it 


behooves us to be very interested in when that 


co-worker model is going to be available. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I think 


what we need to do is -- is that may be 


something that somebody from NIOSH can report 


on when we get to Nevada is when that would be 


-- could be made available to the working 


group. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know if we can make it by 

Nevada. 

 MR. PRESLEY: No, no. Just give us an update, 

Larry. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. An update, that’s fine. 

 MR. PRESLEY: You all have --

 MR. ELLIOTT: As you might expect, with Jim 

Neton’s absence we’re -- we’re scrambling here 


to fill all the gaps and holes, and I don’t 


want to take on something I, you know, I would 


hate to commit to here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, no. That's fine. 

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. ELLIOTT: I’ll have a status for you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don’t see that we’re going to 


be able to make any kind of commitment on the 


NTS anyway. We just got too many things -- too 


many things going. 


 MS. MUNN: Too many things still outstanding. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 MS. MUNN: And you’re right, Larry. Jim leaves 


some pretty big holes when he’s gone. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is everybody content with Comment 


9 and 10 and ready to move on to 11? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am, Mr. Presley. 


 MR. ROLFES: Bob, this is Mark. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, Mark. 


 MR. ROLFES: I’ll see if I can get you an 


update in the next couple of days. I can check 


into this and see if I can send out an email -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’d be great. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- something like that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’d be wonderful. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Great. 


COMMENT 11: GEOMETRY OF ORGANS RELATED TO BADGE


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 11 has to do with the 


external environmental dose due to the geometry 


of organs related to the badge. There 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 

110 

one, two, three, four, five responses to this. 


Anybody have anything on Response a, NIOSH will 


develop a corrective -- a correction action or 


a correction factor for this? 


 MS. MUNN: Appears reasonable to me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Bob, this is Larry. Just a 


suggestion. Maybe instead of going through 


each one of these if we could just pick up a 


comment and -- and if you could see if there’s 


any news to report, any status update to be 


given, or if there are any questions relevant 


to what has already been put to paper here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s good. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I mean just for the sake of time 


I’d like to see if -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, and we are running way 

late. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. Well, I don't know when -- 

how long is this call open for, Mark? Is this 


just --


 MR. ROLFES: Well, it’s scheduled until 5:00 


p.m. and so --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Because at some point the 


-- the conference line will drop and I wasn’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 

111 

sure when; so we got until 5:00. Good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Has anybody got anything to add 


to the -- to the -- any of the responses for 


Comment 11? 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Only one 


thing, and it’s good news. On 11d it appears 


that the co-worker model will engage the issue 


of data integrity. I don't know if you have 


that in front of you. You’ll see that 


regarding 11d one of the NIOSH -- the words 


deal with this issue. NIOSH will provide an 


adjustment dose for workers that hid or did not 


wear badges. So this hearkens back to the 


previous issue we’ve discussed. If it’s 


possible, notwithstanding the outcome of the 


data integrity question, apparently NIOSH is 


investigating, well, if we do have an issue 


related to that that’s -- that’s real, the coworker model is at least going to make a -- 


make a run at trying to deal with that issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree. 


 DR. MAURO: Important to point out. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody else have any questions 


or any comments on 11? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I had a question about 11c. 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 

112 

the second column it says claimant favorable 


assumption near the bottom there. 11 -- I 


think it’s 11 -- yes. Claimant favorable 


assumption is made that photon energy range is 


100 percent 30 to 250. And then in the next 


column it says minimizing assumption is 25 and 


75 percent. I guess that’s all right. I'm 


sorry. That’s okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I was going to say -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- that we agreed at our last 


meeting that it would be -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I think that’s fine. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- a 25 to 75 split or best 


estimate. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, that’s --


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, that’s -- what is there 


seems fine. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. Any more comments on 


11? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 12: RADON DOSE AND G TUNNELS


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 12, responses 12a, b and 


c had to do with radon dose and the G tunnels. 

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 

And they -- They say that they are not 


claimant favorable. Had to do with the radon 


dose and the gravel gerties. Does anybody have 


any other responses or comments for 12a, b, or 


c? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, the OCAS-related matrix shows 


OCAS is drafting a response and sending it to 


Rollins for incorporation into chapter 4 so 


obviously that’s underway. 


 MR. ROLFES: That is correct, Wanda. I 


recently provided Gene Rollins with some 


information regarding radon measurement at the 


Nevada Test Site. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. ROLFES: So we’re continuing to look for 


additional information. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Well, we can say that 


that’s ongoing; is that correct? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Yes. They are underway, in 


process. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Excellent. 


COMMENT 13: RADIUM 131


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Item 13 was the 


environmental dose used for the (telephonic 


interruption) or radium 131 (telephonic 

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 

interruption). And NIOSH agreed that current 


guidance in the TBDs may not be accurate or 


adequate, and that they will revise the 


technical basis document. Mark, do you have 


any comment with this? 


 MR. ROLFES: I do not. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So that’s -- that’s being -- 


that’s being worked on as we speak; is that 


correct? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. Gene, is that 


correct? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Arjun? Arjun, do you have 


anything? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's fine. That's fine. No, 


I’m fine with that. 


COMMENT 14: INTERNAL MONITORING


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll go on to 14, had to do with 


the internal monitoring data until late 1955 or 


’56, plutonium from then, tritium from ’58, 


mixed fusion products from ’61. And the 


comment or response there that SC&A petition 


will take care of cases for the years 1951 


through 1957. NIOSH -- NIOSH will prepare a 


comment for the worker cases from ’57 to ’62 

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 

and then SC&A would add -- they would like to 


see that added from 1962 to 1967. Arjun, do 


you have a comment on that? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I -- I thought that --


that we agreed that the internal dose doesn’t 


need to be addressed up to 1962 so -- 


 MS. MUNN: And that’s what I see -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: ’57 to ’62 can be deleted from 


there. It’s a little confusing as it stands. 


But the -- Mark’s last comment I think in the 


fourth column is appropriate. At the working 


group meeting it was agreed that our resolution 


would be limited to ’63 to ’67. That --


That’s the thing that I believe needs to be 


done. 


 MR. ROLFES: And Arjun, I can take care of 


those statements of clarification earlier on -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- in the matrix as well -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- so that -- so that the SEC 


issue is better addressed in our approach. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I think that this can be 


simplified. 


 MS. MUNN: And the late-breaking station 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 

116 

sensitivity study is currently in progress, 


right? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Is everybody comfortable 


with 14? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 15: RESUSPENSION OF RADIONUCLIDES


 MR. PRESLEY: Fifteen, resuspension of 


radionuclides by the blast wave. Let’s see. 


 MS. MUNN: Shows on the matrix as complete. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It does, and there was no further 


action for the working group. Does anybody 


have any comments? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This will be covered, you know, 


in that separate process in the 250. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


COMMENT 16: PHOTON DOSE


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment 16, photon dose. 


 MS. MUNN: Same process. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Same thing, no action to be 


required by the working group. Anybody else 


have any comments? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 17: INGESTION OF DOSE


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 17 is the ingestion of dose 


needs to be better evaluated. Our comment 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 

117 

SC&A agreed with NIOSH’s response. No further 


questions required by the working group. 


 MS. MUNN: Complete. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well -- Well, the -- the -- 


the final resolution here is that it’ll be 


resolved as part of the resuspension dose 


question. But there’s some work to be done 


here, but it’s not explicit under this item. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. Do you think we need 


additional words in there, Arjun? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I don’t -- I don't know 


what Dr. Anspaugh has in mind in that regard 


actually. I -- I neglected to point that item 


out to him. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, in view of the fact that the ­

- our meeting notes say it’s part -- this is 


part of the reconstruction dose investigation. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Does that cover your concern? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, right. Exactly. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So we’re all right with 17? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


COMMENT 18: OTIB O-2


 MR. PRESLEY: Eighteen recommends use of ORAU 

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 

OTIB’s O-2 and NIOSH has agreed with O-2 


Technical Information Bulletin. You get down 


to the last thing we’ve got on here is no 


further action required by the working group, 


that SC&A agrees with NIOSH’s response. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Put that one to bed? 


 MS. MUNN: They seem to be done with OTIB 2. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What did you say, Wanda? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe -- I believe, Ms. 


Munn, that’s actually a revision to the site 


profile and to the dose reconstruction here. 


Is that right, Mark? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, that’s correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So that’s a revision to the site 


profile? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: That’s good. I missed that note, 


looking at the OTIB. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. We’ll put that in 


there then. 


COMMENT 19: BETA DOSE DATA UNTIL 1966


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Comment 19 is another one 


where we had issue. It has to do with the beta 


dose data until 1966. NIOSH will revise 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 

119 

beta dose -- beta dose issue for up to 1966. 


Mark, do you want to comment on that? 


 MR. ROLFES: Do we have Richard Griffith on the 


line? 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Yep. 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, could you give us a little 


update, Dick? 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Okay. Well, a lot of this has 


been involved in digitizing the Harry Hicks 


fallout data and then applying beta to photon 


conversion ratios, nuclide by nuclide, summing 


it over each of the situations and then putting 


them into a summary table that allows us to 


pick an upper bound for the -- as a function of 


time from one hour to 50 years for the -- the 


fallout scenarios. Then -- And we find that 


for any given test series that the -- the 


values time by time are pretty close to each 


other so that there’s not a -- a wide scatter 


that we have to worry about. 


 MR. ROLFES: Thanks. Okay. And this will all 


be incorporated in the technical basis 


document. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah, actually we have just 


finished a draft revision of the document 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 

120 

there is a new appendix -- well, there is an 


appendix D which has been revised that includes 


basically a fair amount of this information 


already. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We decided that the technical 


basis document will be revised to incorporate 


the changes; is that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFITH: That's correct. The revision 


has already begun. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Any further questions or 


comments? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 20: INTERNAL NON-USE OF BADGES


 MR. PRESLEY: The 20 has to do with the 


internal non-use of badges and circumstances. 


I think we’ve probably beat this question to 


death. As we have the same response as 11d, no 


further action required. Does anybody have any 


more questions on that? 


 MS. MUNN: OCAS is going to draft a response, 


right? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. We’re going to 


take a look. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


COMMENT 21: EXTREMITY DOSIMETRY
 
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

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Comment 21 has to do with 


the technical basis document not containing 


information about extremity dosimetry -- 


extreme dosimetry, I'm sorry. Status of bomb 


assembly workers is unclear. NIOSH has 


developed a guidance for assembling the 


dosimetry and has incorporated the information 


in the TBD revision. Is that correct, Mark? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's right. We’re taking a look 


at this. 


 MR. PRESLEY: More will come out in the future; 


is that right? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Gene, are we going to be 


doing this specific to the Nevada Test Site for 


extremity dosimetry? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I think we were going to be 


relying on some data from Pantex. 


 MS. MUNN: I was interested in Gene’s comment 


about core sampling being an issue. It seems 


to me it certainly would be. I can’t imagine 


why it would not be. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What was your comment, Wanda? 


I'm sorry? 


 MS. MUNN: Under -- Under the Input Column, 


the third column on the matrix, Gene had -- had 

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 

made a -- a -- had posed a question whether 


core sampling was an issue and pointed out that 


assembly was at Lawrence Livermore and LANL 


personnel and some Sandia folks doing core 


sampling. And I was commenting that I thought 


it was an appropriate issue to raise and it 


appears to me that people who handled the cores 


certainly would be individuals that would be 


concerned with extremity doses. 


 MR. ROLLINS: That’s a good point. We’ll be 


looking at -- at those activities. This is 


Gene Rollins again. I believe we’ll be looking 


at those activities also. 


 MS. MUNN: That’s good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Comment 22 has to do -- 


Arjun, did you have a question on 21, first? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, Mr. Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. You discussed that 


quite heavily the last time. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


COMMENT 22: NEUTRON DOSE DATA


 MR. PRESLEY: Has -- 22 has to do with neutron 


dose data, no neutron dose data until 1966. 


Partial data until 1979. The response on that 


was NIOSH will look for additional information 

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 

on neutron-photon ratios and demonstrate that 


the issue is a moot point based on scoping 


issues. Mark, do you have a comment on this? 


 MR. ROLFES: I do not but Gene, have we done 


any calculations to show that during 


atmospheric weapons testing periods that the 


neutron dose would be below say one millirem? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Richard? 


MR. GRIFFITH: Yes. 


 MR. ROLLINS: He’s on the line. I’ll let him 


respond to that. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah, now, you’re -- you’re 


talking about the direct dose as a result of 


atmospheric testing, right? 


 MR. ROLFES: I believe that’s the issue. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah -- Yeah, there is another 


new appendix in the TBD where two different 


approaches have been used to look at the 


potential neutron exposure to someone who was, 


you know, not -- not protected or was outside. 


And basically both of the calculations point to 


the fact that if they were at least six 


kilometers away from the test point that the 


doses would be under a millirem. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Okay. 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: And the note says you’re 


incorporating that in chapter six? 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Been done. 


 MS. MUNN: Done? It’s done? Good. 


MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Wonderful. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Complete then. 


MR. GRIFFITH: That’s our new appendix E. 


 MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


MR. GRIFFITH: We’re starting to run out of 


appendix --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. GRIFFITH: -- numbers. 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 MR. PRESLEY: You got -- You got A, B, C and D 


to go through. 


MR. GRIFFITH: Yeah. I hope this is it. 


 MS. MUNN: I hope so, too. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. Okay. Anybody else have 


any more comments on 22? 


(No response) 


COMMENT 23: ADEQUACY OF SOIL DATA


 MR. PRESLEY: How about Comment 23, adequacy of 


soil data for estimating resuspension dose. 

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 

And it said that SC&A agrees with NIOSH’s 


response. No further questions or -- from the 


working group. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, this is -- Mr. Presley, 


this is part of the same resuspension question. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Is that going to be taken care of 

in Chapter 4? 

 MR. ROLLINS: Yeah, that’s correct. Section 

4.2.2. 

MR. PRESLEY: 4.2.2. Okay. So we can mark 

this one complete. Okay. 


COMMENT 24: HIGH FIRED OXIDES


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-four. It has to do with 


the presence of high fired oxides. And on this 


one the technical basis document is being 


revised to reflect -- to reflect additional 


guidance. Mark, do you have anything on that? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, then we’re also considering 


that I believe on a site-wide basis as well. 


Definitely -- Definitely some information into 


the Nevada Test Site to represent the TIB 


that’s being drafted. 


 MS. MUNN: I could hardly hear you. Did you 


say site-wide or complex-wide? 


 MR. ROLFES: Site-wide. There’s information 

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 

that is -- I'm sorry, well, complex-wide. I --


I apologize. 


 MS. MUNN: That’s okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: It’s -- It would be complex-wide 


I believe. 


 MS. MUNN: I would think so. 


 MR. ROLFES: And I thought that would be -- 


would be putting some information into the 


technical basis document for the Nevada Test 


Site but we can reference the OTIB that is 


being crafted. 


 MS. MUNN: How far along are you with the 


draft? 


 MR. ROLFES: I can definitely check on that as 


well. I know that it’s in the process right 


now. Although when it will be completed I -- I 


couldn’t guess. 


 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett. Sorry to 


interrupt. 


 MR. ROLFES: How are you doing, Liz? 


 MS. BRACKETT: Good. Hi. I’m not actually 


drafting it but there’s two issues associated 


with this. We currently have a draft that’s 


the merging of the original OTIB that addressed 


only lung doses. And then there’s the one 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 

127 

OCAS had written to address all other organs 


that has been reviewed by SC&A. But I believe 


they’re still reviewing the cases that we used 


to model it, and they’re a few weeks out on 


that. So I think between the two of us we 


still have a few weeks to get to the end point 


of -- of finishing up -- finishing up the 


draft. And then on the SC&A side to finish 


reviewing those documents or -- or those cases. 


 MS. MUNN: Did we -- Did we continue to hang 


your name on this, Liz, or did someone else? 


 MS. BRACKETT: Yeah, my name is not on this 


document. The original authors were Don Bihl, 


Roger Falk and Tom LaBone. Tom LaBone is kind 


of -- we’ve given it to him to -- to -- to 


merge the two documents and -- and I am 


reviewing it right now but -- but Tom LaBone is 


the one who’s putting it together at this 


point. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. I’ll be glad to see that. 


That’s another one of those things that keeps 


coming up over and over and over again. 


 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, it does. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark? 


MR. ROLFES: Yes, Bob. 

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 

MR. PRESLEY: When y'all give us your update in 


Nevada on the actions that’s been, can you go 


ahead and make this part of that update, 


please? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I will. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. And that way everybody 


will hear what’s -- what’s going on. Arjun, do 


you have any --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. No, Mr. Presley. I --


think this is okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


COMMENT 25: INTERVIEW DATA
 

MR. PRESLEY: Okay. We’re down to Comment 25. 


This has to do with documentation of the site 


expert interviews -- the inadequacy of the 


critical site expert reviews. We’ve probably 


beat this to death. The working group has an 


issue with this. Provide -- And we have asked 


NIOSH to provide interview data to SC&A site 


experts and with what SC&A is going to provide 


NIOSH would you all not be working back and 


forth on this problem? 


 MS. MUNN: This is essentially a -- isn’t this 


pretty much the same thing we discussed 


earlier? 


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 

129

 MR. PRESLEY: That is correct. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, it is -- it is not. 


The -- The -- Earlier we discussed -- the 


SC&A interviews are -- are documented and it 


was just, you know, going through a little bit 


of a process to be respectful of the people we 


interviewed before we took the -- sent them 


along. We have all the documentation. The --


The issue here was that the NIOSH interviews 


that were conducted do not seem to be well 


documented at least so far as we could 


determine or the documentation was not -- a 


mixture of that and the documentation not being 


available. And that was part of our site 


profile review that when we asked for the 


documentation, the documentation was incomplete 


by NIOSH’s own description. So that was an 


issue as to how NIOSH was documenting 


interviews and that they should be better 


documented. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. So there -- what -- Larry, do 


you know the status of this right now? Do you 


know whether these things are in the hands of a 


classifier yet or -- or whether they’re still 


being compiled? 

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

 MS. ARENT: This is Laurie Arent. I’ve been in 


and out of this call this afternoon and I 


actually have compiled all of the information 


that the TBT -- TBD team has submitted, and it 


was sent to the -- the classifier at the Nevada 


Test Site on Friday, September 1st. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


MS. ARENT: It’s -- It’s approximately -- 


It’s close to 200 pages and I do not have an 


estimate from the classifier at this point how 


long that’s going to take so we’ve done what we 


can do to move that along. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. It’s good to know it’s in the 


hands of the classifier. 


MS. ARENT: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. So then this -- this 


issue then will be resolved as soon as it comes 


out of classification back to NIOSH to give to 


SC&A; is that correct? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we will see. This is Larry 


Elliott. We will see what the derivative 


classifier review says to us. But I think the 


bigger issue here is how, as I read the comment 


from SC&A, is how well or how poorly we have -- 


have referenced these interviews. How -- 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 

131 

can one track what has been provided and 


contributed to our understanding by -- by the 


site expert. Is that clear? So we -- you 


know, whatever comes out of the classification 


review, we still need to do a better job I 


think in this site profile of documenting site 


expert contributions. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Larry, the question that was 


raised in the review based on information that 


NIOSH gave us -- NIOSH/ORAU -- which is there 


in the review, you know, is part of our 


exchanges in conference calls and so on, was 


that we were told that what is documented in 


the course of the interview is what the 


interviewer thinks might be important later on. 


And -- And my -- our feeling was that you have 


to take the interviewees’ information as they 


tell you and document it and then make a 


technical judgment of whether it’s sensible, 


whether it’s not sensible, whether it meets the 


test of credibility and what level -- what 


level of attention to give it in dose 


reconstruction. But if you never document 


something you don’t get the chance to make that 


judgment. And -- And it’s not that one has 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 

132 

hang on every word. We don’t do that either 


but we try -- we try to be complete, to -- to 


write down all the technical issues that are 


raised. And I think it’s my impression at 


least that that is not being done. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we’ll have -- we’ll deal 


with the impression. I thank you for that 


clarification. We -- We -- My estimation 


here, we still need to deal with that 


impression. We need to address it. So I would 


look to Mark and to Gene to -- to resolve this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I’ll send you the 


reference. You know, I’ll send you a little 


bit more -- it’s not just an impression I 


think. I wouldn’t -- I wouldn’t say something 


like this if -- if it weren’t based on 


information supplied by NIOSH to us, and I’ll 


send you the reference to that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Then can we say with this 


response that SC&A will -- will work with NIOSH 


to -- to reconcile this issue? 


 MS. MUNN: After -- After the material has 


come back from the classifier. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 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 

133

 MS. MUNN: I think it’s important that our note 


shows that it went to the classifier on 


September 1. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Does anybody happen to know if 


Bart Hacker is still alive and well? 


 MS. MUNN: I don't know but in any case we’ve ­

- we’ve talked about his publications earlier. 


The position that I took as an individual was 


that those historic observations and 


interestingly titled documents of his are -- 


should be considered only insofar as their 


original documentation may have been concerned. 


I don't know what his current status is. I 


believe he’s still teaching students somewhere 


in a university if I remember correctly. The 


last time I -- No, he left the university. 


He’s writing the last I knew. 


 DR. ROESSLER: Was he in health physics, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: No, he was not. He’s a historian. 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, then okay, then. Thanks. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: The last I knew he was working 


at Livermore but that’s been quite some time. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. Bob Presley. We’ve gone 


through the 25 issues and responses. There’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 

134 

quite a bit of work to be done still by NIOSH 


and some by SC&A, getting back with NIOSH on 


some of the issues that we have. We are not 


going to be able to make any type of a 


recommendation that I can see on the test site, 


I mean site profile review at this time. I 


don't think we’re going to be able to do that 


at the test site or at Nevada at all. What I’m 


wondering is if -- Lew, did you get back on? 


 MS. MUNN: I think he’s gone in the security 


sweep of the Cincinnati Airport. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. At this time I do not have 


or have not seen any type of an agenda to know 


where the work -- this working group has to 


make their report, and what day. If Larry --


has any of you all seen -- have you all seen 


that? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No. Lew -- Lew will be here 


tomorrow and we will discuss the Board’s agenda 


and map it out as I understand, tomorrow. I 


can certainly convey to Lew where folks stand 


on this issue. I would encourage you to think 


of some report to give to the full body of the 


Board about your progress to date though, given 


the potential audience. I -- I think it would 

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 

I 

be proactive of you to do so in front of Nevada 


Test Site claimants and petitioners since we’re 


going to be there in Vegas. You’ll -- I --


think you’d be remiss in not saying something 


about your work on this site profile. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s -- That’s what I was 


going to ask, if you could make sure that we 


are not on the first day. What I would like to 


do is as far as the working group to send me 


any comments that they have on this meeting 


today. And then if we have time we will come 


up with a response. If we don’t, I would like 


to have a little bit of time maybe the first 


day or the first morning or something like that 


when the working group can get together and -- 


and come up with our response to be given out 


there at the -- at Nevada. 


 MS. MUNN: Bob? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, ma'am. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. My suggestion would 


be that -- that we do feed as much information 


as possible in to you and my suggestion would 


be that we prepare a small PowerPoint 


presentation for you to give, about ten 


minutes’ worth, just roughly identifying 

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 

matters that have been closed out and 


identifying the two different types of 


outstanding issues, which in the larger picture 


in my mind constitute site specific issues as 


opposed to complex-wide issues that are being 


worked in some way so that we can give a -- a 


very broad overview of this many things -- 


these many issues have been closed. These are 


open for this reason, and where they are. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’d like to do that. I don't 


have PowerPoint. It will just have to be a 


bullet type presentation. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, it’s easy enough to do a 


PowerPoint once you get the material. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, this is Brad. I’d give 


yourself more than ten minutes though. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’m afraid we’ll have more than 


ten minutes of questions to ask, yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, well, that’s -- I’m -- I’m 


talking about presentation time, not question 


time, Brad. That’s a different thing. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. Lew -- I’d say Lew will 


probably give us 20 or 30 minutes to do this. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We’ll talk about this tomorrow 


and I’ll make sure that I convey 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 

137 

interests. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Please do. And if anybody 


has any comments, and this goes for SC&A, too, 


please get the comments to me. We are leaving 


at 6:00 a.m. on the 10th and the only way that 


you all will be able to get in touch with me is 


by cell phone. So what I want to try to do is 


have this thing pretty well wrapped up by the 


10th of September. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, perhaps your working group can 


get suggestions to you fairly promptly -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- which would -- with ideas about 


how this might be constructed so that it flows 


properly. You have a first-class editor on 


hand who should be able to help you pull 


together at this point. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Sounds like a winner.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I’m not sure who you’re speaking 


of. We’re going to offer to Bob, if you have 


things that you want to put on PowerPoint, then 


send it to me. I could put it together into a 


presentation. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. I may do that then. I may 


let you. I may give you my comments that 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 

138 

have here and I’ll do that with everybody’s. 


Does anybody have anything else for the good of 


the working group? 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Well, this is Dick Griffith. 


I'm not sure if it’s for the good of the 


working group necessarily but who’s going to be 


talking to Jim Neton in the near future? 


 MS. MUNN: I hope that would be Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I will be, Larry Elliott. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Okay. Well, would you extend my 


regards? He was on an ICR -- one of my ICRU 


report committees and tell him if he -- if he 


gets bored and is looking for something to do 


we’ve got a sequel that’s coming down the track 


so --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFITH: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And we’ll get started on this 


working group or the presentation, go ahead 


from there. Larry, do you have anything else, 


you or Liz? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I do not other than to say this 


has been I think a very helpful session this 


afternoon and I thank the working group on 


behalf of the Institute and the Secretary. 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Well, we -- we -- we certainly 


thank you all for your help. Mark Rolfes has 


been very, very good to work with. And SC&A, 


do y'all have anything? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, Mr. Presley, I do not. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. There is going 


to be a site visit on Monday, the -- the 18th. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 DR. MAURO: Is there going to be any 


information provided? I -- I signed up for 


it. I just -- I’ll be flying in Sunday night 


late. You folks I guess have been on these 


kinds of trips before. Is there any -- going 


to be any information provided to the 


participants? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. I just talked to the lady 


today. We will be leaving the hotel, which is 


the Westin, at no later than 6:15. I was going 


to tell everybody to be in the lobby at 6:00. 


 MS. MUNN: That is so ugly, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If you’ll remember last time we 


were out there we had to wait on two or three 


individuals because they couldn’t get up. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: She is revising the agenda. 
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 

140 

will send it out to everyone along with a 


change. Your lunches are going to be $13.00 


instead of 12.00 and two people have asked for 


vegetarian lunches, and I think they’re going 


to be 8.00 -- $8.00. But she was -- I talked 


to her at about 11:30 today and she was 


supposed to get the information back to me, and 


I will forward it on to every -- to all the 


Board members and to NIOSH and SC&A as soon as 


I can get on the computer. And if it’s on 


there we’ll -- we’ll send it on. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But right now the tour is from 


like 6:00 in the morning until about 5:00 in 


the afternoon. And they have made arrangements 


for us to go where -- everywhere that we asked 


to go including the tunnels. 


 MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We won’t get to go into the 


tunnels but we will have a presentation at the 


tunnel. 


 MS. MUNN: That’s good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So, and again, we’re going to get 


to see where people lived and things like that 


so I think this tour is going to be more 

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 

informative to the Board than the last one we 


had. 


 MS. MUNN: I’m certainly glad to hear that. 


I’m assuming that it’s okay for us to bring our 


own drinking water and candy bars? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. I’m sure they’ll 


have drinks and water on the bus but we will 


stop and pick our lunches up, and make sure 


everybody’s got $13.00 to pay her. And we’ll 


go at it from there; I’ll get the information 


out. 


 MS. MUNN: This bodes walking shoes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. We need good walking 


shoes. Does anybody have anything else? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Bob, this is Ray. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


THE COURT REPORTER: I need to speak to Larry 


and/or Liz at the conclusion of this if that’s 


possible. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We’ll stay on. 


THE COURT REPORTER: I thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Everybody else gets off and we’ll 


have Larry and Liz stay on. Ray, I appreciate 


your help today. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Certainly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

142

 MR. PRESLEY: I hope we made it easy on you. 


 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, everyone was 


especially good about identifying themselves 


and I appreciate that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. Well, it’s now ten 


minutes -- nine minutes ‘til 5:00. I will 


close the working session. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. Thank you all, and good 


night. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you all. Good evening. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting was 


adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

143 

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 Sept. 5, 


2006; 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 


9th day of November, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102