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 April 18, 2007. 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

April 18, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 9 


COMMENT 20 RESPONSE 10 


COMMENT 21: EXTREMITY DOSIMETRY 19 


COMMENT 22: NO NEUTRON DOSE DATA UNTIL 1966 21 


COMMENT 23: RESUSPENSION DOSES 31 


COMMENT 24: HIGH-FIRED OXIDES 56 


COMMENT 25: SITE EXPERT INTERVIEWS 61 


RECAP OF RESPONSES 1 THROUGH 25 69 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 74 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCDONOUGH, ALEX, SEN. HARRY REID 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 


ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH 


ROLLINS, GENE, ORAU 


SMITH, CHERYL, DADE MOELLER AND ASSCS. 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

Let me introduce myself. I’m Lew Wade, and 


I serve as the Designated Federal Official for 


the Advisory Board. And this is a meeting of 


the work group for the Advisory Board that’s 


looking at the Nevada Test Site site profile. 


It’s ably chaired by Robert Presley, members 


Munn, Clawson and Roessler. All of them have 


identified themselves as being on the phone. 


Are there any other Board members that 


are on the call other than Presley, Munn, 


Clawson and Roessler? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Any other Board members on the 


call? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, let’s do our introductions 


starting with NIOSH/ORAU Team members, and 


please as is normally our custom, identify if 


you’re conflicted relative to the Nevada Test 

1 

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 

Site. 


MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes. I’m a 


health physicist with NIOSH, and I have no 


conflict. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I’m with 


NIOSH, no conflict. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott with NIOSH, no 


conflict. 


MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins with O-RA-U, and I have no conflict. 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl Smith. I’m with 


the ORAU Team, and I have no conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Other NIOSH/ORAU Team members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: How about SC&A team members? 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro here, no conflict. 


DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow on the phone, no 


conflict. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, no 


conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Any other SC&A team members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: What about other federal 


employees who are on the call by virtue of 


their federal employment? 

1 

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 

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


with HHS. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Liz. 


MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell with HHS. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Emily. 


MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm with CDC. 


 DR. WADE: Hello, Jason. 


Other federal employees here by virtue 


of their employment? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Are there workers, worker 


representatives, members of Congress or their 


staff on the call? 


 MR. McDONOUGH: Alex McDonough with the 


Office of Senator Harry Reid. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


Workers, worker reps, members of 


Congress or their staffs? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Is there anyone else who would 


like to be identified as being on the call for 


the record? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else like to be 


identified? 

1 

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 

(no response) 


 DR. WADE: Briefly as to phone etiquette, 


again, if you’re speaking, speak into a 


handset and don’t use a speaker phone to 


speak. It picks up all kinds of background 


noises. If you can, when you’re not speaking, 


please mute your telephone. And be mindful of 


background noises, you know, cats meowing or 


children crying or background music if you 


were to put the phone on hold. All of those 


things can be very distracting among others. 


So, Robert, it’s all yours. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR


 MR. PRESLEY: All right, thank you, Lew. 


This is Robert Presley. When we met 


the last time on 3/21/07, or let’s see. No, 


it wasn’t. It was 27 I believe. We got down 


through Response 20 is what I show, and what I 


was going to ask, 20 is on the non-use of 


badges. Is there anything that we need to go 


through on 20 before we go to item 21? 


 (no response) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Everybody satisfied with what 


their -- well, one thing I need to ask, has 


everybody got a new copy of the matrix 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 

10 

Mark sent out day before yesterday? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I’ve got a new 


copy of it. 


COURT REPORTER: Bob, this is Ray. I don’t, 


and I sure would like one if somebody could e-


mail it to me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I’ll ask somebody from 


NIOSH if they’ll go ahead and send that to 


Ray. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Can you send it to me as 


well? This is Liz. I’ll give you my e-mail 


address. It’s vhomokititus@cdc.gov.
 

DR. ROESSLER: It’s probably on this list 


here, so I’ll double check it. I’ll send it 


to both of you. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, thanks. 


DR. ROESSLER: The one that’s on this list 


is vah9. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That’s fine. You can use 


that one as well. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, if everybody’s – 


COMMENT 20 RESPONSE
 

MS. MUNN: Bob, I have a question about our 


Comment 20 and one of the common threads that 


we see running through here. We have repeated 

1 

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 

that the work group’s to review that work for 


completeness, and a number of the items that 


we went through on our last work group meeting 


I had scrawled done across mine, done, done, 


done. 


I guess is it going to be possible for 


us today to be that descriptive about comments 


like, working group to review for 


completeness? From my perspective most of 


these that we have looked at have reached that 


point. We have reviewed it, and in my mind 


they are complete, but we don’t say so 


anywhere on the matrix that we have. So I 


guess I’d raise that question with respect to 


Comment 20. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I was going to bring that up 


at the end, but that’s good because you may 


not be here. We were going to bring that up 


to where we’ve got like where it says TBD work 


completed. Working group will review for 


completeness. And one of the things that I 


will ask Mark, are we going to get a copy of 


the new Technical Basis Document to where that 


we can go through and make a review and say, 


okay, this is what we would like to see 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 

12 

here? 


MR. ROLFES: Bob, we can definitely provide 


copies if that would be helpful to you. 


They’re also going to be posted on our website 


as well for public access. So we can 


definitely, if you need a hard copy, we can 


definitely do that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What about it, Board members? 


Is that -- or working group members, I’m 


sorry. Is that something that we can say 


right now that when we’re through with this, 


and where we’ve got there’s things that say 


that the working group concurs, but they will, 


but they need to look at it from the Technical 


Basis Document, do we want to get a copy of 


that and then go through it before we meet in 


Denver? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, this is Brad. I think 


that we’ve got to. You know, we’ve got lots 


of these that they’re changing guidance to 


Chapter Five and Chapter Six, and the work 


group will review these. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s right. 

 MR. CLAWSON: So we’ve got to. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I think so, too. 
1 

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 

MS. MUNN: I agree. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Wanda or Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes, this is Gen. I agree. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, then, Mark, if you 


would, I would like to have it in hard copy, 


and you can go ahead and put it on the web, 


too. If you don’t mind sending me a hard 


copy? 


MR. ROLFES: Sure, is there anyone else that 


needs a hard copy? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. If you’d send 


me a hard copy, I’d appreciate it. 


DR. ROESSLER: I’d like mine by e-mail. 


This is Gen. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. Could I ask 


a clarifying question about schedule? Is that 


revision of the TBD ready? Because it says 


will be added. I’m not clear on when this is 


going to happen in relation to the next Board 


meeting which is very soon. 


MR. ROLFES: Arjun, this is Mark, and many 


of the issues have been updated, and the TBD 


has been revised since we’ve been meeting. 


There are a couple of issues that are drafted, 


and we’re basically awaiting the final review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 -- 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

and approval of those new issues. So the 


revised TBDs that we have currently approved 


and on our website may not address every issue 


that we’re discussing today. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. Like this 


particular one, is it in the TBD? 


MR. ROLFES: Which? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Response 20, coworker dose 


will be added to TBD to assist in identifying 


MR. ROLFES: The draft language has been 


added to an unapproved version so this is not 


yet available in the currently available site 


profile. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, in the grand scheme of 


things, how many of these working group to 


review for completeness items do you 


anticipate will actually be in a form for us 


to look at in the TBD between now and May 2nd? 


MR. ROLFES: I’d like to have Gene address 


that if Gene could speak to how many of the 


issues from the matrix we have completed a 


response and then approach to address the 


issues that were raised. 


MR. ROLLINS: I think if you’ll look -- 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 

15 

is Gene Rollins. I think if you’ll look at 


the matrix, we’ve identified those areas where 


the work has been completed for the TBD, and 


the draft changes have been put into a draft 


revision. I don’t know what the protocol is 


for providing that outside, for any outside 


review, but I don’t know that we typically do 


that. Maybe somebody from NIOSH could address 


that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Larry or Jim? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I guess I was thinking 


about something else when Gene was talking, 


but the idea is that these things have been 


drafted but not incorporated into the site 


profile. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. NETON: I think we would prefer to have 


these in the site profile before they’re 


issued rather than send these out piecemeal. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I’m 


sorry. I was -- the disadvantage of these 


teleconferences is that it allows us here in 


the government to do multitasking and I was 


elsewhere at that point in time. However, I 


picked up where Jim left off there, and I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

would say that these are pre-decisional 


documents and until we have placed our review, 


technical and peer, on top of them and stamped 


them with our approval, we’re not going to 


share them outside. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s great. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, this is Wanda, and I agree 


with that position. I’m just concerned over 


how close we are to the May meeting and what 


we intend to, what we as a working group have 


committed to with respect to that meeting, 


what we’re actually going to be able to 


produce. That’s why I asked. 


The question I originally asked was 


how much of this is going to be in form for us 


to truly review it and come to some decision 


on whether or not it has been completed and 


adequately addressed. It sounds to me as 


though we’re not going to have the documents 


in that condition. We’ll have the rough 


draft, but we won’t be able to have reviewed 


what we have asked to be completed for the new 


NTS site documents. Am I getting that 


correct? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Larry, from what I gathered 

1 

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 

from what you just said, we will not be 


getting a rough draft. 


MR. ELLIOTT: That’s correct. What you will 


see will be our final version when we say it’s 


final. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Now, and then what we can do 


at the meeting is say that we have gone 


through our 20-something items, and that we 


have resolved these, and so many items are 


tied back to the Technical Basis Document and 


so many have been completed. And if we don’t 


have the Technical Basis Document then we will 


at that point say we’re awaiting the Technical 


Basis Document and that will be it. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I assure you that we are 


seriously trying our best to produce all of 


this information in a timely way, but we don’t 


want something half-baked, half-cooked going 


forward as we think is our best effort. 


MS. MUNN: No, we don’t want to mess with 


this until it’s done, when you finish baking 


it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don’t want to go through and 


then somebody jump up here and say, well, 


that’s, or let’s change this and let’s change 

1 

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 

that. I don’t want to do that. I’d rather 


have a completed document that’s been gone 


through and the I’s are dotted and the T’s are 


crossed. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, so essentially bottom line 


here is I can actually look on the web and get 


what is finalized now. And anything else is 


going to have to wait until the release of the 


full document which will not occur until after 


the Denver meeting, correct? At which time we 


may or may not need the working group meeting 


to eval that. 


MR. ROLFES: That’s correct, Wanda. I just 


wanted to remind everybody that there have 


been some page changes to particular TBDs for 


the Nevada Test Site. For example on January 


11th, there were some related to comment ten 


about the external environmental dose, and we 


have resolved that --


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. ROLFES: -- as well as a couple of 


others. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, very good, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right, let’s --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, may I ask a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

clarifying process question just for us? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Go ahead, Arjun. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So I am presuming from this 


discussion that when you have looked at the 


revisions, then at that point we’ll decide 


whether the issue is closed or whether you 


want to review it yourself or assign pieces of 


it to us. So in the interim, there’s nothing 


for us to do other than the comment on the 


mass loading model that we started. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s the way I see it. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, great. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If any of the working group 


members see it any different than that, but 


right now that’s where I see it. 


Anybody else have any more comments? 


 (no response) 


COMMENT 21: EXTREMITY DOSIMETRY


 MR. PRESLEY: Let’s start with item 21 which 


has to do with extremity dosimetry. It has to 


do with the assembly workers at Nevada at the 


Test Site. 


And, Mark, do you want to take the 


lead on that? 


MR. ROLFES: Sure. Our response I’ll 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 

20 

read into the record that we have developed 


NIOSH has developed guidance for extremity 


dosimetry and has incorporated the information 


into the TBD. We note that few, if any, 


Nevada Test Site contractor personnel fall 


into the category of bomb assembly worker 


since these operations were conducted 


primarily by the national laboratory 


employees. If we do find that Nevada Test 


Site contractor personnel were involved, 


guidance will be developed for the laboratory 


employees -- I’m sorry, guidance developed for 


the laboratory employees will be applied as 


appropriate to those NTS contractors as well. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I think that’s great. 


Does anybody have any comment on this 


response? 


MS. MUNN: May I mark it done? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would love to. 


MS. MUNN: Do we have agreement from SC&A 


that this is adequate? 


 MR. PRESLEY: John or Arjun? 


DR. MAURO: I’ll take one shot and then 


Arjun can take a shot. One of the, certainly, 


the fact that guidance is being developed 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 

21 

extremity dosimetry and can be applied to 


these workers is, the answer’s, of course, 


that’s the intent. The degree to which the 


Board would want us, the Advisory Board, would 


want us to review that guidance is not the 


question. So I guess the answer to the 


question is, yes, this item is closed to the 


extent that the Board may or may not want us 


to take a look at what that guidance is when 


it’s finalized and published and whether it’s 


in this site profile or is a part of some 


other OTIB. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I’m going to go ahead 


and mark this closed then right now until we 


look at it. All righty? Anybody else have 


anything on item 21, response 21? 


 (no response) 


COMMENT 22: NO NEUTRON DOSE DATA UNTIL 1966


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, Response 22 has to deal 


with neutron dose data until, there were no 


neutron dose data until 1966 and partial data 


available ‘til 1979. We have a response from 


NIOSH. 


Mark, do you want to go ahead and go 


through 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 

22 

MR. ROLFES: Yes, we did look into the 


neutron dose concern from atmospheric nuclear 


testing, and we found that for civilian 


employees associated with the Nevada Test Site 


the closest workers were at a control point 


during atmospheric testing in Area Six. We 


found that the workers would not have been 


within range of a nuclear test that would have 


exposed them to a substantial amount of 


neutrons. And I believe we did a scoping 


calculation to determine that for anybody that 


was farther, for anyone that was out of Area 


Six during a test, they would have received 


less than one millirem of neutron dose. 


MS. MUNN: Does SC&A accept that? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We haven’t been asked to 


review that so, at least I haven’t reviewed 


it. 


John? 


DR. MAURO: No, the only thing I could say 


is that it does ring true based on some of the 


other knowledge I have regarding neutron 


exposures, so I guess my reaction is the 


answer that you gave does ring true; however, 


we have not confirmed that. I guess 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 

23 

about the best I can do right now. 


MS. MUNN: Well, this raises another 


procedural problem in my mind. I was of the 


understanding that no additional authority was 


necessary, that the purpose in our work group 


meetings here was to look at the questions 


that had been raised by SC&A, to get a 


response from NIOSH with regard to those 


questions, and to attempt to resolve them in 


the working group. So I guess am I hearing a 


hint that SC&A is of the impression that once 


that response from NIOSH is there, the SC&A 


responsibility has been fulfilled unless 


another specific request is forthcoming as to 


whether or not that responds adequately to 


their question? 


DR. MAURO: That’s my understanding. And on 


this particular set it’s my understanding that 


from the previous conference call we were 


given the action item to work with Gene 


Rollins in looking into the resuspension 


issues. So that was the only, in other words, 


at that last meeting that was the approach 


that NIOSH proposed to deal with resuspension. 


It was presented, material was provided 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 

24 

everyone including SC&A, and SC&A was 


requested at that time to look at that 


material. And it’s my understanding though 


that on these other matters, such as the one 


we just discussed, we don’t take any action 


unless we are asked to proceed. 


MS. MUNN: But then that begs the question 


as to how our working group is to resolve the 


issue. 


 DR. WADE: I think -- Wanda, this is Lew, I 


think the model we’re following is if you look 


at the materials in front of you, and you 


decide that you need your contractor to do 


something to bring it to closure, then they’re 


available to do that and can be tasked just by 


this work group. If you feel you’ve reached 


closure, then it’s finished. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, because -- this is Bob 


Presley. SC&A had a chance to comment this 


from the get-go when we first brought up these 


responses, and we did have some comments from 


them. And then this is NIOSH’s response back. 


MS. MUNN: And so when I asked the question 


so is this sufficient, and I hear, well, we 


don’t know because we haven’t been tasked 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 

25 

looking to see if it’s sufficient, that raises 


a big red flag in my mind. Am I missing 


something here? 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. I think, if, when 


you look at the material in front of you, you 


have doubt that you don’t think you can 


resolve the issue within the work group, then 


you simply need to task your contractor in 


whatever way you would like. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If we don’t think that this 


is, as a working group, that this response is 


good, then we have the right to go back and 


tell SC&A to look at it and see if they, what 


they believe. Or if we believe, then we 


should mark it closed. 


 DR. WADE: I don’t think this is different 


than any of the other work groups. I think 


we’re just talking about it a bit more 


formally. I mean, NIOSH spoke. SC&A spoke. 


Here’s the materials. The work group can 


check it off or say, no, we think that the 


site profile modification needs to be reviewed 


by our contractor. Then SC&A will do that and 


bring that result back to you. 


MS. MUNN: But I think you’re absolutely 

1 

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 

correct, Lew, that’s why I’m suddenly very 


concerned when I hear Arjun say, well, we 


haven’t reviewed that and so we’re not 


prepared to say whether that’s adequate or 


not. Then are we at some later time going to 


hear that our contractor did not agree to the 


comments that the work group felt closed the 


issue? That’s a concern to me. 


 DR. WADE: John Mauro can speak to that. I 


think SC&A would then be silent on the issue 


if they’ve not been tasked to look at it. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, it’s been our approach to 


only move forward on and we’re given direction 


as opposed to presuming that in this 


particular case we did not say, okay, I did 


not turn on the team to say, okay, let’s look 


at each of these responses and be prepared to, 


the only one we did that for is this 


resuspension question with Gene Rollins. 


The others we don’t normally go ahead 


because it could turn out to be a substantial 


endeavor spending considerable resources. And 


we felt that before we do something like that, 


we want to make sure the Board wants us to 


move forward. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27

 DR. WADE: And again I’ll speak clearly on 


this. I mean, with great respect SC&A is a 


very important part of this process, but 


they’re not an active player in this. They, 


if they’re tasked, they do the work and bring 


it back to the Board. If they’re not tasked, 


then they’re not authorized to do that work, 


and I would expect them not to do it and not 


speak to it, and certainly not to bill hours 


for it. 


I think, John, you completely 


understand that. 


MS. MUNN: Well, that, yes, you’re simply 


verifying what my original concept had been 


here. But since we’ve had what sounds to me 


to be some questions with respect to the work 


group’s view of whether this issue is closed 


or not, I was concerned that I was hearing 


something that was going to affect the 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Arjun’s points were exactly 


correct as he made them. I mean, we had a 


work group call last time. SC&A wasn’t tasked 


with looking into that issue; and therefore, 


they come here not able to speak because 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 

28 

weren’t asked to do that work. And I think it 


is progressing according to plan, at least as 


I see it. Again, if anyone has any questions 


they need to raise them now or they can raise 


them with me offline. 


MS. MUNN: I was just concerned about the 


tenor of the response there, Arjun. I know 


Arjun didn’t intend it that way, but it just 


was a concern for me. So when we’re saying 


this item is closed now, we accept the 


response from NIOSH as being adequate. 


 DR. WADE: If the work group says that, 


that’s fine. 


MS. MUNN: It’s done. 


 DR. WADE: If the work group said the item 


is not closed and doesn’t task SC&A, then the 


active work needs to be done by the work 


group. 


MS. MUNN: Very good. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, just to clarify my 


own response. I was not responding to the 


work group’s opinion of whether it’s closed or 


not. If I remember correctly, you asked 


whether SC&A had an opinion of that, and I 


just said that we hadn’t reviewed it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

MS. MUNN: No, no, I just said if --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I shouldn’t be speaking to 


the issue according to the protocol that Dr. 


Wade has just described. We haven’t reviewed 


it so we’re not, we don’t have an opinion 


about that. 


MS. MUNN: That’s clear to me now. Thank 


you, Arjun. 


DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. One other 


point I think that might be helpful is that 


we’re in the process where there will be 


eventually a TBD issued which will address all 


these items. At that time, of course, the 


Board would look at, or the working group 


could look at to revise TBD and make judgments 


as to which ones they, you folks feel have 


been adequately dealt with and are convincing. 


Or you may judge at that time that, well, we’d 


like our contractor to look at it. 


That’s one way to do it. That would 


be putting the process of closure at the back 


end after the TBD is issued. The alternative 


is to, any items like the ones we’re talking 


about right that you feel it would be some 


advantage for SC&A to look at in a focused way 

1 

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 

and then get back to the working group so that 


the TBD when it is finally issued does reflect 


the contributions that SC&A may have to this 


which is the way the resuspension factor is 


being dealt with. 


So, I mean, this is a process issue. 


It’s completely up to the working group on how 


you’d like to move forward. 


MS. MUNN: Right, and I think traditionally 


we have done a little of both of that. In 


this particular case it is my understanding 


based on the discussion that we had just a few 


minutes earlier before this one that we would 


want to see the final TBD before we made these 


absolute decisions with respect to the 


completeness of the response. The end result 


is what we’re going to be looking at. I 


thought that’s what we agreed to earlier. 


 DR. WADE: And just to anticipate -- this is 


Lew Wade again -- when the work group sees the 


modified TBD, it can task its contractor in a 


number of ways. It could say, it could ask it 


to do nothing. It could ask it to look at 


items six, seven and 12 in the matrix to see 


if they have been adequately covered. Or it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

could say we’d like your opinion on the entire 


document and get back to the work group. 


MS. MUNN: That was my view. It’s what I 


thought we had almost agreed to prior to this 


discussion. All right, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All righty, so is everybody in 


agreement that item or Response 22 has been 


completed and should be closed at this point 


until we can review the TBD document? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark it closed. 


COMMENT 23: RESUSPENSION DOSES
 

Okay, now the good one. Has to do 


with resuspension. Needs to be evaluated and 


has to do with hot spots and plutonium in the 


soil. 


Mark, do you want to do this, or do 


you want to turn this over to Gene? 


MR. ROLFES: Well, at our last meeting we 


had discussed quite a bit about our 

1 

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 

resuspension model and that floating model. 


And Gene Rollins had prepared a white paper. 


And at the last meeting we had agreed to have 


John Mauro take a look at some of the 


conservatisms. We had five conservatisms in 


the model, and I believe we were also awaiting 


some response. 


I believe John Mauro was going to pass 


that document on to Dr. Anspaugh as well for 


his opinion, and I don’t know if that has been 


done to date. But our response for this is 


basically the white paper that was prepared. 


And I believe everything has been done on our 


side, but we were just waiting for 


confirmation from SC&A. 


 MR. PRESLEY: John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I’d be happy to speak to 


that. We have been working on the problem. 


We have accomplished quite a bit. We do plan 


to submit a report to the working group on the 


items, but I could give you a status report, 


and I’ll try to keep it brief, what the 


elements are and where we think we have 


achieved closure and where there’s still a 


little bit more homework that we’re doing, not 

1 

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 

a lot, but things we’re looking into. 


With regard to, the model itself has 


certain elements to it, and that’s probably 


the best way to talk about is by each element 


and where we are on each one. 


The first is the dust loading that is 


being, well, the first is it’s my 


understanding that this particular model that 


was provided to us is to be used to 


(unintelligible) only as an upper bound 


method. And a more realistic treatment of the 


problem is going to be dealt with on a case-


by-case basis. And I’d like to ask NIOSH is 


that a correct understanding of the 


perspective of how we are to look at it, 


mainly, for denial purposes solely? 


MR. ROLFES: Gene, are you there? 


MR. ROLLINS: Yes. This is Gene Rollins. 


The way it was currently constructed, John, we 


recognize that it represents potentially very 


much of an overestimation of potential 


intakes. But that’s okay for most of the 


internal organ response that it could be 


problematic for some of the respiratory organs 


where the doses could be quite high. 

1 

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 

So the idea was to put forth a model 


that could be used in a majority of the cases 


to keep the cases moving. And in the event 


that we came across a respiratory cancer that 


these intakes did affect compensability, then 


we would sharpen the pencil and come up with a 


more reasonable estimate of what potential 


intakes could have been. And I wrote in that 


paper, I attached a proposed wording that 


would provide guidance to the dose 


reconstructors as to what actions they could 


take to reduce those bounding intakes or what 


we refer to as the maximum intakes. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, that’s good because that’s 


how we are reviewing the write up right now, 


the fundamental model that you’ve proposed. 


And within that context I can go through the 


elements that make up this model as a 


bounding. 


First and foremost, probably the most 


important assumption is that you’re assuming 


that the worker is located at Area 8 which is 


one of the highest areas of contamination 


second only to Area 30. We concur that Area 


30 is very less likely to be occupied, we’ve 

1 

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 

looked into that, than Area 8. So picking 


Area 8 seemed to be the reasonable bounding 


assumed area where the person might have been. 


If you have no other information, and 


we think of it like this. If you have a 


person, you know he was at the site, you know 


he was outdoors. It only applies, of course, 


during the post-testing, that is, post-1962 


time period. And it’s our understanding that, 


so when you’re in a situation where you want 


to reconstruct a worker’s dose that was 


outdoors post-’62, you’re not quite sure where 


he was, and you don’t know how much time he 


might have been out there. 


And we’re going to try to place an 


upper bound for the purpose of denial. And 


you also have some information that he was not 


in any tunnels. He was not associated with 


Baneberry, which is a major venting operation. 


In other words there are a lot of qualifiers 


that our perspective is that, yes. Our 


understanding is that this particular model is 


to be used with those qualifiers. If the 


person was, you know, if you have better 


information or if you know that he 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 

36 

involved in tunnel work or he was involved or 


close by during a venting operation, 


especially Baneberry -- I believe Baneberry 


was post-’62 -- then, or other important 


venting, then you really can’t necessarily use 


this. 


So that’s sort of like our first 


overarching observation. It’s almost like a 


qualifier. It’s within that context that we 


understand that this particular tool will be 


used. 


Now, given that context then we say, 


okay, picking Area 8 looks pretty good. We’re 


going to write all this up for you and our 


rationale for it. But looking good as a 


fundamental approach. Five milligrams per 


cubic meter is the dust loading that you’re 


assuming this person is going to experience. 


And assuming that he experiences that 


2,600 hours per year is certainly over the 


top. We agree with that. In fact, we have 


some data here from a lot of work that was 


done at the Nevada Test Site for Yucca 


Mountain where we have information on dust 


loadings and five milligrams per cubic meter 

1 

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 

as, and as a long-term average is certainly a 


bounding assumption. 


Now the places where we’re having a 


little difficulty, and bear with me for a 


moment. When you look at Area 8, what you, 


think of it like this. It’s a series of 


bull’s eyes where the explosion took place, 


and you have localized areas of relatively 


high concentrations, and then large areas of 


relatively low concentrations. It’s a pretty 


big area. 


So what we’re looking at is answering 


the question, well, is it possible, is it 


plausible that an individual who would be 


working in Area 8 may have spent a large 


portion of his time in one of the sub-


locations within this large Area 8 where the 


average activity to which he could have been 


exposed could have been substantially higher. 


Now, we’re looking at the disk, the CD 


that you had sent us, Gene. I really 


appreciate that. And that’s one of the things 


we’re looking at right now. And Steve Ostrow 


is on the line, who I asked to look at that. 


And based on the feedback from Steve --

1 

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 

Certainly you could give it if you 


wanted, correct anything I say. 


It looks like they’re all localized 


areas where the activity could be on the order 


of 100 to perhaps a thousand times higher than 


the average activity. 


DR. OSTROW: That’s in the MacArthur Report. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, that’s the MacArthur 


Report. 


So one qualifier, and this is not to 


say that the model is not reasonable, but one 


qualifier is if you postulate a scenario where 


the person is spending a lot of time in one of 


these sub-portions of Area 8 -- now that may 


not be feasible. It may turn out that no one 


really spent 2,600 hours per year in the 


center of the worst bull’s eye, so we’re with 


you 100 percent on that. 


But at the same time exploring the 


concept that there are these variabilities 


within Area 8. And the variabilities are up 


but they’re small. The variabilities are 


relatively large, and so we feel that some 


discussion -- and we’re looking into this a 


little bit so we’re going to contribute some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

written material that might be helpful -- but 


some discussion on the variability and why 


going with the numbers that you have picked 


are, in fact, in combination with some of the 


other assumptions, 2,600 hours, five 


milligrams per cubic meter, taken collectively 


still represents a bounding estimate. 


But when we found out that there were 


localized areas that were up to a thousand 


times higher, we started to say, hmmm, you 


know, maybe that five milligrams doesn’t do 


the deal anymore. But then again another area 


we’re looking at is it may turn out that the 


areas where it’s that high, there may have 


been rad safe controls in place -- and in 


fact, Steve Ostrow is looking into that also 


for me right now -- where those areas may well 


have been under some special control, fenced 


off, and people didn’t go there because they 


were so much elevated above the rest of the 


area. 


If that was the case, then that 


scenario that I just described is really off 


the table unless the person that’s out there 


is sort of downwind, not in the area but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

downwind of the area. So in other words there 


are nuances to the analysis which probably 


needs to be explored a little bit further. 


And I think at the end by doing what I 


would call a little bit more analysis of the 


scenarios that may apply to a given person 


that you’re going to use this for and 


demonstrating that these aspects to it such as 


this story I just told regarding localized 


higher areas, are appropriately covered with 


the model. 


And the last item -- and Gene and I 


spoke about this, and we’re checking this out, 


too -- is in 1964, in other words, right now 


the data characterizing the radionuclide 


deposition on Area 8, I believe was collected 


around 1990, the measurements, and reality is 


if you go back within time, because we haven’t 


applied this, to post-1963 and as a result the 


radionuclides that you see in 1990 are, of 


course, all the long-lived ones. 


If you go back to 1964, ’65 which is 


only a year or so after the above ground 


testing ceased, there might very well be a 


list of radionuclides that are relatively 

1 

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 

short lived but are still there and could 


possibly also, so you may have missed some 


part radionuclides. Gene had explained to me 


that they are coming up with a method for 


dealing with that. And in discussing these 


matters with some of the folks that I work 


with, the method has to do with certain 


adjustment factors to be made for that time 


period. 


I think that’s important that that 


particular concern be explored. And if it 


turns out that that is important, that is, if 


we don’t take that into consideration, it’s 


possible, notwithstanding the five milligrams 


per cubic meter, which we agree is over the 


top, you might miss some important doses to 


people who might have worked there let’s say 


at admin but in Area 8, and perhaps some of 


the higher areas in 1964, ’63, in post-


testing. So this is sort of like a snapshot. 


One last item and I’ll leave you alone 


related to all these matters is the concept of 


an enrichment factor. We reviewed some data, 


some very nice data of sort of Yucca Mountain 


on resuspension and enrichment factors. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

And enrichment factor simply says if 


you know what the picocuries per gram is in 


the soil that you have before you, that you’re 


standing on, and then you take an air sample, 


and you have a certain number of grams per 


cubic meter of dust in the air that you’re 


breathing, is it appropriate to assume that 


the picocuries per gram of radioactivity in 


the dust that you’re inhaling is the same as 


the picocuries per gram in the dust or the 


soil that you’re standing on that’s in the 


selected top few centimeters. 


It turns out that a lot of work was 


done, not a lot, some work was done on that 


subject then published, and we found that 


typically what’s used is an enhancement factor 


of a typical value of three. What this means 


is because the stuff that’s re-suspended are 


the smaller particles, and since there’s more 


activity per gram on the smaller particles 


than, let’s say, on the full distribution of 


dirt which is a distribution that includes 


larger particles, there’s more surface area 


per gram on the stuff that’s in the air. 


So that’s been studied, and so 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 

43 

an enhancement. It’s only a factor of three. 


So what I would say is this, that there are 


aspects to the model that Gene has put forth 


that probably need to be discussed a little 


bit, the kinds of things I’m talking about. 


In the end a factor of three multiplied, let’s 


say enrichment factor, is probably more than 


accounted for by the fact that you’re using 


five milligrams per cubic meter. But 


nevertheless, I think it would, the report, 


the site profile, would benefit from some 


discussion of all of these different issues 


that I just sort of painted across the board 


here. 


We’re going to send some materials, 


some references and some information, not a 


big report. It’ll be a small report only 


putting in a modest effort by some very 


knowledgeable people, but we will send that 


off. I’m hoping to have it out next week, and 


it’ll be in your hands, Gene, and hopefully, 


you’ll find it useful in helping to finalize 


the model that you’re using. Right now we’re 


not saying that the model that you have is in 


any way deficient. We’re saying that there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

are aspects to the assumptions that are 


imbedded in the model that probably need to be 


explored a little further in order to make 


sure that it’s bulletproof so to speak. 


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


appreciate the work that you’re doing, and 


I’ll look forward to seeing that report. 


There’s one other item that I would 


like for you to consider when you’re going 


through all of these pieces of data, and that 


is somehow it seems to me we need to reconcile 


empirical data that was gained from the air 


sampling program because as I understand it 


those air samples were not put in areas that 


typically, where people didn’t work. I mean, 


those air samplers were put out there to 


measure the airborne concentrations in areas 


where people worked. And we have a plethora 


of that data. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, you know, I have to admit 


we were not looking at that. 


Steve, is any of that data in the 


dataset that you’ve been looking at? 


DR. OSTROW: No, I’m aware of it, but we 


haven’t been looking at it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

DR. MAURO: Okay, so, yes, I understand what 


you’re saying, and I think it’s certainly 


worthwhile. In other words notwithstanding 


all of these things we talked about, if you’ve 


got some real air sampling data collected 


while people were working in terms of dust 


loading and the picocuries per cubic meter in 


the breathing zones, that would be great, but 


I thought you didn’t have that. I have to 


admit. 


If you have some of that, we’d be more 


than happy to look at it. And I don’t think 


very long to look at it to, as being another, 


I guess, facet of how to come at this problem 


and how to ensure that, in fact, what you’re 


using as a model is, in fact, bounding. 


MR. ROLLINS: John, if you go into Chapter 


Four of the TBD, which is where we had 


produced the resuspension model, the early 


part of that chapter has a pretty good 


discussion on air sampling data and provides a 


summary by area and by year. 


DR. MAURO: We will definitely go back to 


that. You know, I have to apologize. I did 


not go back to the original TBD. We’ve been 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

working with the new material that you 


forwarded to us. Had I had the presence of 


mind to do that I certainly would have done 


that. 


So, Steve, let’s put that on the list 


and take a quick look and crosscheck that data 


against the kinds of issues we’re talking 


about here. 


By the way, for the benefit of the 


working group, I don’t think it’s appropriate 


to use the upper bound on every one of these 


parameters so I’m not saying that. All I’m 


saying is that I think by disclosing and 


airing out these aspects of the model that 


they were taken into consideration and a 


prudent set of conservative assumptions were 


used and some realistic assumptions in 


combination so that you would come up with a 


model that’s not so ridiculously over the top 


as to be completely unrealistic but 


conservative enough that one could say that it 


is bounding. So, yes, we’ll be happy to do 


that, and I think we could do that pretty 


expeditiously, and it won’t affect our 


schedule. We could take care of that and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

still get our report out some time next week. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: John, this is Arjun. In 


your presentation did you say that Lynn 


Anspaugh’s preparing a paper, and do we intend 


to attach it as an attachment --


DR. MAURO: No, no, this --


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- from it or what is the 


situation with that? 


DR. MAURO: My plan is this. I’ve been 


looking at it. Lynn is going to send me his 


perspectives, and I’ll be getting that on 


Friday or earlier, but right now we’re 


planning to get it this week, perhaps Friday. 


Steve Ostrow is looking at certain issues that 


I believe I’ll be getting early next week. 


My plan was to pull it all together 


into a single report integrating all this 


information, telling the story the way I just 


described it. Then you and I and the rest of 


the team after I prepare the draft, then the 


people who have been looking at these 


different elements will, you know, we’ll 


discuss it. And my guess is we’re going to be 


okay, a little polish, and then we’ll move it. 


Hopefully, we’ll be 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 

48 

DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry for the public 


question on process. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, sorry, Gene, one more thing. 


Your relaxation length is fine. That’s 


another piece that we confirmed. So a lot of 


the pieces we confirmed, but we have these 


other areas that we’re looking at, and we’re 


going to try to package up for you. 


MR. ROLLINS: Thank you, John. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. What I’m 


hearing is that we need to give this time for 


SC&A to finish their review and then I presume 


that there will be an exchange with SC&A and 


NIOSH on SC&A’s review. And then we will get 


something back from NIOSH on this response. 


Is that correct? 


MR. ROLFES: Yeah, that’s correct, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Then the only thing I know to 


do is put a note here that will say we’re 


waiting for review. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, after all those words the 


answer is yes. We will be putting a report 


out, and I guess after that NIOSH will, we’ll 


hopefully come to closure and put this one to 


bed. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody on the working group 


have a comment? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I just wanted 


to find out about this air sampling data that 


they had. Is this air sampling data that was 


taken right there with the workforce or is 


this air sampling data that is run off a 


continuous process in roundabout areas? I 


guess this would be for Mr. Rollins. 


MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. This is 


information that I’ve extracted from the 


annual environmental reports, and these would 


be from, as I understand it, continuous air 


samplers that have been located in the field. 


And as I have been told, those locations were 


chosen based on areas where the majority of 


the work actually occurred within these areas. 


They did have control air samplers on the 


boundary or outside the boundary, and there’s 


some limited information in that area. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I’m just wondering if some of 


this air data that they were pulling out was 


actually right there with the workforce. 


Because as I’ve seen in many situations, you 


know, you may have a lot of particulates 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 

50 

stuff from the dust, but until you start 


stirring that up, you’re going to see a 


different result on that. And I just thought 


I’d kind of get a fairly good idea of what 


type of air sample data we did have. 


MR. ROLLINS: My understanding is that most 


of these data are from areas where work was 


ongoing. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I appreciate it. 


DR. ROESSLER: Bob, this is Gen. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, go ahead, Gen. 


DR. ROESSLER: I have a specific question on 


this comment, but you’re probably going to 


cover it with regard to the whole discussion 


today. I’m wondering what is the working 


group’s responsibility before the Denver 


meeting on this comment and maybe any other 


ones that come up where things are not quite 


closed? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, as I said awhile ago, 


the only thing that I know that we can do 


before the Denver meeting is come up with a 


statement that says that we have met, and 


we’ve gone through all 25 comments. And we 


have resolved certain comments, and we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

awaiting the TBD document for final review. 


And then also I can understand right now where 


we will probably be waiting on this Response 


23. 


DR. ROESSLER: So we will not, when the 


report comes out from SC&A next week, that 


will be information for us but until we can 


get together as a work group again, which 


probably will not be before the meeting, we 


can’t resolve some of these things. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s the way I see it. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay, thank you for the 


clarification. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, this is Brad again. 


Won’t we still have some overarching issues 


with the Nevada Test Site and so forth? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think we will. We may find 


something in that TBD. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I just saw we had like 


the nasal-oral breathing and so forth like 


that. I believe they were kind of like a 


overarching issue in many places. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. 

 MR. CLAWSON: And I just wanted to make sure 

we were there. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52

 MR. PRESLEY: And what we need to do is when 


we give our report on the ones that are going 


to be not site specific but program specific, 


we need to point those out. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I understand. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that what we will do 


there is if we get to the point where we need 


to make a recommendation, the only thing I 


know to do is to in our recommendation point 


out that we either recommend this or we don’t 


recommend this, but there’s a caveat that says 


we are still waiting for the nasal breathing 


model to be completed. Because that’s going 


to, as I understand it, that’s going to be 


program specific. Is that not right? 


Jim or Larry? 


DR. NETON: Yes, that’s right, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


Wanda, do you have anything on this? 


MS. MUNN: No, I don’t. It’s been clear 


from the outset that this was going to be a 


thorny one, and as long as SC&A can come to 


the conclusion that the process that’s being 


undertaken is adequate. From my understanding 


of the description it’s more than adequate. 

1 

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 

But as long as we have that feedback from the 


contractor, I believe we can go forward with 


it. We certainly can’t do anything until that 


happens. 


DR. MAURO: Now, Wanda, one more thing. The 


discussion I just had really would answer 


questions five, six, seven and 23. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: So in one fell swoop we’re going 


to hit a lot. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in addition, but please 


bear in mind that remember this particular 


response as we’re putting it together is going 


to deal with this, what we call bounding doses 


for the purpose of denial for that particular 


worker. And it would not apply to necessarily 


to the realistic --


MS. MUNN: I understand. 


DR. MAURO: -- or people that worked in 


tunnels or people that were exposed to 


venting. So as long as that’s understood that 


it does have very confined applicability. 


MS. MUNN: We’ve made those caveats from the 


outset. 

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Very good. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Hey, Bob, this is Brad again. 


You know I thought that we were kind of 


keeping track of kind of some of the 


overarching issues. And the reason I bring 


this up is I looked at some of our previous 


matrix, and you know, they had the stuff like 


the 250 days and stuff like that. And we put 


those under an overarching issue. And I just 


want to make sure we’re not missing those. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No --


 DR. WADE: This is Lew, the 250-day issue is 


being looked at by another work group. I 


think all of the issues that have been raised 


as sort of complex-wide issues by this work 


group have been captured by Dr. Neton and are 


reported regularly at meetings. If anyone 


feels there’s an issue when you compare the 


two, what this group thinks are overarching 


issues in Jim’s list, then you need to let us 


know. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What Brad’s saying, Lew, is 


that we need to note on this that these are 


overarching issues, and that somebody else is 


looking at these, and they will be taken care 

1 

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 

of down the road. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That’s correct, Bob, because 


earlier on to be able to get this matrix down, 


we took many of the overarching issues out of 


it because of what was going on with NIOSH and 


so forth. But I just wanted to make sure that 


as we look at these that we don’t forget that 


those are in the background there. I just 


didn’t want to miss them, and Bob covered it 


great. I appreciate it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I tell you what I will do. I 


will get with Mark between now and when we go 


and try to have this thing revised for us to 


have. And we will mark each one of these that 


we feel is an over –- a complex-wide issue. 


We will call them that and note them on there, 


and that way I’ll try to get this out before 


we leave to go out there. Everybody can look 


at it and agree that these are the overarching 


issues. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I appreciate that because what 


I have to do is I have to go back through some 


of our previous matrix and see what we had put 


in under this. And from the outside eyes 


looking in it, where they’re no longer 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 

56 

don’t want the concept that we’re not 


reviewing them at all. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 

 MR. CLAWSON: And I also feel it keeps me on 

line, too. 

 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll go ahead and do that. 

We’ll go back and mark these with some type of 


a something to where that everybody will know 


that this issue is not being, that we’re just 


overlooking it. We can do that. That’s no 


problem. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody have any other 


comments on 23? I appreciate John Mauro’s 


comments, and also Gene Rollins’ white paper. 


COMMENT 24: HIGH-FIRED OXIDES
 

Let’s go with 24 which has to do with 


the presence of high-fired oxides for 


atmospheric testing. And, Mark, do you want 


to read you all’s response? 


MR. ROLFES: Well, the high-fired oxides 


from atmospheric weapons testing is really not 


an issue right now because of the SEC during 


the atmospheric weapons testing period. 


However, we’re currently investigating 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 

57 

reactor testing that was done, and this is 


sort of one of those overarching issues as 


well. And I believe we’ve addressed high-


fired plutonium oxide in a separate Technical 


Information Bulletin which has been approved. 


I guess our job is now to incorporate 


some language into the Technical Basis 


Document to allow us to apply that Technical 


Information Bulletin to Nevada Test Site. And 


I’ll let Jim comment further. 


DR. NETON: I can add a little more to that. 


Mark’s right, we’ve issued, proved and issued 


TIB-49 which deals with dose reconstruction 


(unintelligible) plutonium that are strongly 


retained in the lung, and that was intended to 


address plutonium across the complex. And 


where we are right now is we’re working on a 


program evaluation plan, a PEP, to identify 


all respiratory tract cancers that had 


previously been denied and denied through the 


Super-S evaluation and determine which ones 


need to be re-evaluated and reworked under 


this new TIB’s guidance. 


In some sense the NTS cases that were 


affected by the solubility issue will be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

caught in this PEP, and Mark’s correct that 


for future cases the Technical Basis Document 


needs to be revised to include this guidance. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Jim, this is Bob. You 


mentioned a Technical Basis Document 49. 


DR. NETON: Well, it’s Technical Information 


Bulletin. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, now is that part, is 


this Table 5D-24 that’s mentioned in our 


response? Is that part of that? 


MR. ROLFES: No, it is not, Bob. The table 


that you’re referring to is within the site 


profile for Nevada Test Site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Then the only thing I know to 


do on 24 is mark it complete, and we’re 


waiting to further review. Anybody have 


anything --


MS. MUNN: Well, it’s complete because TIB49 has been issued and that Program Evaluation 


is going to look at any previously completed 


case where solubility was an issue in the 


calculation. 


Did I get that right, Jim? 


DR. NETON: That’s right, Wanda. This would 


only apply to respiratory tract cancers 

1 

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 

because of the longer retention in the lungs 


themselves. 


MS. MUNN: I suspect you may actually have 


seen one or two of those in lung studies 


you’ve already done. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we need to go through and 


evaluate not only which cases were evaluated 


for plutonium, but which ones could have had 


this Super-S material involved. And that 


would probably be most of them if we don’t 


know anything about the specific processes 


involved. Like Mark mentioned, the reactor 


fire? 


MR. ROLFES: Yeah, the reactor testing, the 


ram-jet testing at Area 25. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, there was more reactor 


testing than that out there, correct? We had 


Rover and are we looking at those, too or just 


the one? 


DR. NETON: Brad, we’ll look at every case 


that involved a plutonium intake for Rocky 


Flats and complex wide, and we have captured 


them all into a pretty big net right now. 


We’re reworking them one by one. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, 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 

60 

DR. NETON: And I think what needs to be 


done is the document, the site profile for 


NTS, needs to be modified to reflect this new 


guidance on Super-S whether it refers to TIB49 or what. It just needs to be incorporated 


in there so that that issue doesn’t arise in 


future dose reconstructions. 


MS. MUNN: We’ll just look for clarification 


in Chapter Five, right? 


DR. NETON: Right. 


MR. ROLFES: Correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, as I see this then --


this is Bob. We are actually waiting on NIOSH 


to come back with a response they put into the 


site profile. Is that correct? 


MR. ROLFES: That’s correct. 


DR. NETON: I think so. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. We’ve kind of 


got the overarching issue, right, the Super-S? 


DR. NETON: This isn’t an overarching issue. 


It’s well on its way to completion though. 


Actually, the issue has been resolved. We 


have a document that we can use to move 


forward. Now it’s a matter of just applying 

1 

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 

it complex wide and NTS is one of those sites 


that we’re looking at. 


MS. MUNN: That’s what the new TIB does. 


DR. NETON: Correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody else have a comment? 


 (no response) 


COMMENT 25: SITE EXPERT INTERVIEWS


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll go on to 25 which has to 


do with site expert interviews. It was said 


that this was inadequate. NIOSH went back and 


looked at quite a few interviews. They were 


supposed to get some paperwork to SC&A, and as 


I understand it that this has been done. 


Mark, do you want to comment on this? 


MR. ROLFES: I really have no additional 


comments to add. We have provided our list of 


interviews and the records and notes from our 


interviews to SC&A. And we feel that if we 


need to conduct additional interviews with 


subject matter experts from the Nevada Test 


Site when we are trying to address some of the 


issues that we are discussing, we will do that 


at that time. I really, other than that, 


don’t have anything else to add. 


 MR. PRESLEY: John? 

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: I’m going to punt over to Arjun 


on this one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, if I might 


throw a couple of clarifications. The 


materials you’re referring to Mark are on the 


O drive, right? There are one, two, three, 


four, five, six, seven, eight, eight different 


documents on the O drive documenting your 


interviews, and who you talked to, and when 


and so on. That’s what you’re referring to, 


right? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That plus you all were 


waiting, if I remember correctly, I don’t have 


my other paperwork in front of me, but you all 


were waiting on some paperwork to be 


declassified so you could comment on this as I 


understand. That was back six, eight months 


ago? 


MR. ROLFES: Correct, Bob, we received an 


indication that the materials were 


unclassified, and we distributed those at that 


time. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, just shake my memory. 


I’ve been so preoccupied with Rocky Flats. 

1 

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 

What was -- did the declassified materials 


refer to? 


MR. ROLFES: They were not declassified. 


They were determined to be unclassified. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, what did the 


unclassified materials refer to? 


MR. ROLFES: The unclassified materials were 


worker interview notes from subject matter 


experts at the Nevada Test Site. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And these are not on the O 


drive? These are additional to what’s on the 


O drive? 


MR. ROLFES: No, that is incorrect. These 


were distributed. I don’t have my computer in 


front of me, but these were distributed a 


couple of months back. I would have to check 


on my computer to determine what date I sent 


those out. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I’m just asking a sort of 


convenient question, so excuse me. I’m just 


asking whether all of the interview materials 


are now on the O drive so that --


MR. ROLFES: Once, again, I’m not in front 


of my computer so I wouldn’t be able to verify 


that at this time. So if they’re not there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

though I will make sure that they are. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, could you send me an 


e-mail about that? And because I only see two 


places where there’s any mention of Jay Brady, 


and you said you documented five hours of 


interviews with him. And I just want to make 


sure that before I say anything that those are 


the only two places that there’s some 


documentation. I may be wrong about that. 


MR. ROLFES: Let’s see, Gene Rollins, are 


you there? 


MR. ROLLINS: Yes. 


MR. ROLFES: Do you recall when we received 


the interview notes? I am looking through --


hang on just a second. I’m looking through 


some of my old notes here. Our old notes 


indicate that we compiled a log of interviews 


with site personnel including information from 


site visits, phone conversations and e-mail 


correspondence. 


The package was reviewed by the NTS 


derivative classifier. It was verified 


unclassified and passed back to us on 9/25/06. 


And it was shortly thereafter that I e-mailed 


that out to SC&A and the working group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

members. I can re-send that e-mail if you 


would like, and I will make sure that those 


notes are, in fact, on the O drive as well. 


MS. MUNN: I vaguely remember your, I think 


I saw a half dozen or so interviews that you 


sent out as I recall. I thought it was now a 


moot point, but I guess it’s not. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, that’s what I thought. 


I thought it was a moot point. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s see if I can find them. It 


was a straight message I do believe, and my 


memory is it’s been a month or so ago. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I 


remember when these things, I thought we had 


whipped this one because I remember that when 


Mark sent something out that said these things 


had been reviewed and that they were sending 


them on, whether it be on the O drive or hard 


copy, because we’ve got on here that the 


working group to review for completeness. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Bob, this is Brad. If my mind 


hasn’t slipped a cog or whatever, the comment 


that I remember was that they had been 


declassified and that we were going to have 


the opportunity to be able to review or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

whatever like that. And that was the last 


that I heard about it. I don’t think that I ­

-


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, we haven’t received 


anything back from SC&A on it. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Right. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, no, Mr. Presley, we 


have not prepared anything on it. It’s just 


that I in my review was not able to find 


documentation of this five hours of 


interviews. And the Jay Brady thing is kind 


of important because he has died since NIOSH 


interviewed him and since I interviewed him. 


And he was there from ’51 to 1990, and 


so a lot of his observations are very 


important because he was the principal health 


physicist. And so I was just looking for this 


where it says documented almost five hours of 


discussion. I didn’t find any more substance 


than what was given to us during the site 


profile review which was really just one point 


about rads, rems and roentgens which was 


during a telephone call documenting them and 


the date of conversation. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, the only thing that 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 

67 

know that we can do this then is to mark this 


awaiting SC&A’s review. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I don’t know what 


review we can do if we don’t have the 


documentation of this five hours, and I, it 


may be my fault, Mr. Presley, that I’ve not --


were sent to me, but I’m not aware that 


there’s anything more than what I’m looking 


at. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What we can do is ask that 


Mark re-issue this and get it to you as soon 


as possible. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And that you all review it, 


and when you sit down with SC&A to talk about 


Response 5, the white paper, that you all also 


review your comments with SC&A. And then SC&A 


can get back to the working group with the 


findings. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 


Presley, we will do that. 


DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John Mauro. Could 


we just itemize that action items? I know 


I’ve written down two so far. There’s the 


resuspension factor, of course, report. 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 

68 

now we have the second one dealing with the 


Brady interview. Is there anything else where 


we have an action item that I did not jot 


down? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Not from today. Those are the 


only two things that I see. 


How about it other Board members? 


MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I just request of 


Mark that when he sends those interviews, 


including the Brady interview, if he’d re-send 


those notes to the working group it would be 


helpful for me. Apparently, I have done 


something foolish and filed it under some name 


that is totally incomprehensible. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, can you re-do that, sir? 


MR. ROLFES: Certainly, I will be happy to 


send the e-mail to everyone involved. 


MS. MUNN: My apologies, I know I read them. 


They’re just not there. They’re not where I 


want them to be. 


DR. ROESSLER: Bob, this is Gen. I just 


want to clarify that SC&A is not only going to 


be looking at the NIOSH’s five hours with Mr. 


Brady, but also the interviews with the other 


site experts that they have listed here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69

 MR. PRESLEY: That’s correct. As I 


understand it, there was eight of these? 


MS. MUNN: There were more than that listed 


I thought. They talked to a bunch of people. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, there are eight sets 


of documents. Each one of them has a number 


of --


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, that was the number that 


stuck in my mind, that there were eight of --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Eight sets and each one of 


them contained sort of a nog of many different 


conversations and some documentation. 


RECAP OF RESPONSES 1 THROUGH 25


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Now this completes our 


response, our responses back on all 25 


questions. Has anybody got anything that they 


would like to go back and let’s review on 


anything from Comment 1 through 25? 


MS. MUNN: You should have asked me that in 


advance. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I went through this thing 


after Mark sent it the other night, and I am 


happy with what we’ve got on here. I think 


that we do need to do what Brad has asked, 


that we go through and mark the complex-wide 

1 

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 

issues. And then come up with a, some type of 


a table that says these are the issues that 


will be coming forth in the TBD and that the 


working group was going to look at those. And 


then, of course, we’ve got the two issues that 


SC&A and NIOSH have to close on. 


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


just, in Comment 22 where we’re talking about 


the neutron dose, were we only looking at the 


atmospheric testing or was there tunneling 


involved, too, or is that a separate issue? 


 MR. PRESLEY: On that right there, 22 --


MS. MUNN: The question is specifically 


atmospheric testing. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, because, now is this not 


going to be taken up in the petition that’s 


coming up or that we’ve already voted on? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, so this might be an SEC 


issue, the tunneling? 


 MR. PRESLEY: What do you think, Mark? 


MR. ROLFES: Let’s see, this Comment 22 was 


in light of the atmospheric testing and the 


concern about neutron dose data. 


MS. MUNN: It wasn’t intended to be broader 


than that I don’t think. This was very 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

specific. This was based on their findings, 


on the SC&A finding. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It had nothing to do with 


anything other than atmospheric testing. 


MS. MUNN: No, no, that’s correct. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I just wanted to make 


sure. Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody else have anything? 


MS. MUNN: I’m going to make my airplane? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I hope. 


Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Thank you very much. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do you have anything? I want 


to make sure that Mark doesn’t have anything 


or that John doesn’t have anything before we 


quit. But are you, as the designated 


government official, happy with what’s gone on 


here? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, that’s what I wanted to 


make sure that we have fulfilled our task. 


 DR. WADE: I’m generally a happy person. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, is there anything that 


we need to do to help you? I know we’ve 


probably made your day and put a little 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 

72 

on you today. 


And also, John, do you have anything? 


DR. MAURO: No, I believe we have our 


marching orders, and I understand what they 


are. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, how about you? Anything 


we can do? 


MR. ROLFES: No, Bob, I think you guys have 


done a wonderful job. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I appreciate you getting this 


out, and I’ll get with you probably the first 


of next week, and we’ll figure out how to mark 


these other things and then get this out. 


Do we have anything else? Do we have 


anything from Legal? We have any problems or 


anything, Liz? 

MS. HOWELL: This is Emily.. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Emily, no problem? 

MS. HOWELL: No. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz. I don’t 


think so. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Any of the other Board 


members, working group members have anything? 


MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad, no, not at this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

73 

time. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll get this out then 


sometime the first of next week prior to our 


leaving for Denver, and then all we can do is 


wait until SC&A and NIOSH come back on the 


other two issues. 


Anything else? 


 (no response) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you very much. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting 


concluded at 12:30 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

74 

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 April 18, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


17th day of June, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102