THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NEVADA TEST SITE
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Erlanger, Kentucky on 


November 15, 2006. 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

November 15, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


RADIONUCLIDES 15 

REACTOR TEST RE-ENTRY 17 

250 DAYS 57 


EG&G 65 

EXTERNAL DOSE DATA FOR 1963 AND ’66 70 


CORRECTION FACTORS, EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE 77 


CORRECTION FACTORS 87 


25/75 SPLIT 92 


STATISTICAL METHODS 93 


CORRECTION FACTORS WITH JOB MATRIX 100 


ENVIRONMENTAL VERSUS OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 102 


NO INTERNAL MONITORING DATA UNTIL LATE ’55, ’56 109 


RESUSPENSION MODEL 111 


RADON DOSE IN THE G TUNNEL 142 


INGESTION DOSES 148 


HIGH-FIRED OXIDES 164 


SITE EXPERT REVIEWS 166 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 182 

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
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


KUBIAK, MIKE, ORAU 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MCDONOUGH, ALEX, SEN. REID 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH 


ROLLINS, GENE, ORAU 


SHIELDS, LASHAWN, NIOSH 


SMITH, BILLY, CHEW AND ASSCS. 


SMITH, CHERYL, DADE MOELLER AND ASSCS. 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 


SUNDIN, DAVE, NIOSH 

6 

1 

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (9:00 a.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 MR. PRESLEY: Lew, you want to call us to order 


and... 


 DR. WADE: Okay, sure. This is Lew Wade and I 


have the pleasure of serving as the Designated 


Federal Official for the Advisory Board, and 


I'd like to call to order this meeting of the ­

- the working group of the Board. This working 


group is focused on issues related to the 


Nevada Test Site site profile, and it's chaired 


by Robert Presley, with Brad Clawson, Wanda 


Munn and Gen Roessler as members. And all of 


those individuals are here at the table. 


By way of background, there was some discussion 


earlier in the week as to whether we should 


hold this meeting or not, and in my role I 


suggested that we -- we go forward with the 


meeting. I don't know that we have a full day; 


I don't know that we don't, but I think that 


this is a very important process to keep going. 


One of the things that sort of caused me 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 

7 

think that having the meeting was in order is 


that out of this Nevada Test Site workgroup 


there have come some very important issues that 


have been sort of designated as more generic 


issues above the test site itself, and I think 


we need to keep those issues focused, and I 


think Jim Neton is here to talk to us today 


about some of those generic issues. And while 


it might not be the responsibility only of this 


workgroup, I do think that this workgroup is 


where those ideas started to come forward. And 


I think we need to talk about them here and 


then I think the Board needs to decide possibly 


who would have the responsibility of tracking 


them, but I think it is a terribly important 


issue. 


So again, I thank all of you who have made the 


trip. I know it's difficult and arduous, and 


this has been a difficult two weeks with Board 


meetings and there's a subcommittee meeting 


tomorrow, and another working group meeting on 


Friday. So I appreciate all of your efforts 


and your willingness to serve, and I 


particularly thank Robert for being here and 


leading us. So Robert, it's all yours. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Do you want to go through 


and say who's here? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I'm sorry, we should do that. 


Let's go around the table and say who's here, 


and then we'll do the phone line. This is Lew 


Wade and I work for NIOSH. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I'm Brad Clawson. I'm on the 


Advisory Board. 


 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell. I work for 


HHS. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. 


 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, Board member. 


DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, Board member. 


 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board. 


 DR. WADE: Now let's have those on the phone 


identify themselves. We'll start with members 


of the NIOSH or ORAU team. Anyone else out 


there? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I'm with 


the ORAU team, DMA, subcontractor. 


 DR. WADE: We appreciate your being here, Gene. 


I know this is a busy day in your life, I 


think, and we appreciate your being 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 

9 

MR. SMITH: My name is Billy Smith. I'm with 


Chew and Associates. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Other members -- 


MS. SMITH: My name is Cheryl Smith, Dade 


Moeller and Associates. 


 MR. KUBIAK: My name is Mike Kubiak. I'm with 


the SEC group on the ORAU team. I'm conflicted 


with NTS due to my MGW for our corporate. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Other members of the 


NIOSH/ORAU extended family? 


 (No responses) 


 SC&A team? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani. 


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


We're better when you're with us. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, sorry I couldn't be 


there. 


 DR. WADE: I understand. Other SC&A members? 


 (No responses) 


 Other federal employees who are on this call as 


part of their employment? 


 MR. STAUDT: This is David Staudt with the CDC. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, David. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with the Department of 


Labor. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jeff. 


 MS. SHIELDS: LaShawn Shields, NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Good morning, LaShawn. Other 


federal employees who are here by virtue of 


their employment? 


 (No responses) 


Any members of Congress, representatives of 


those members or representatives of claimants 


or petitioners who would like to identify 


themselves? 


 (No responses) 


 Are there other Board members on the call, 


other than the four that are with us here in 


the room? 


 (No responses) 


Good, we don't have a quorum. I guess I would 


like to go back and have members of the -- the 


NIOSH/ORAU extended team and then the SC&A team 


identify any conflicts that they might have, so 


let's start with the folks here. Jim? 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, and I don't believe I 


have any conflicts at NTS. 


 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, I have no conflicts. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, I have no 


conflicts. 

1 

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 

DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, no conflicts. 


 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Lew Wade, no knowledge, therefore no 


conflicts. 


(UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible), no 


conflicts. 


MR. SMITH: Billy Smith, I have a conflict. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, no conflicts. 


MS. SMITH: Cheryl Smith, no conflicts. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Gene Rollins, no conflicts. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else who needs to make that 


confession of the soul? 


 MR. KUBIAK: No -- well, Michael Kubiak again. 


I have a conflict through (unintelligible) MGW 


Corporation. 


 DR. WADE: Would you say that again, please? 


 MR. KUBIAK: Michael Kubiak. I have a 


corporate conflict due to employment with MGW 


Corporation. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Anyone else? 


 (No responses) 


Again, I would ask all of you on the phone to 


practice good phone etiquette and mute if 


you're not speaking. And Robert, I think now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 -- 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

I've done my job. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. What I thought we 


would do today is start through the comments, 


and I'm going to read them off and if anybody's 


got any responses, we're going to stop at the 


(unintelligible). 


Is that all right? If we have actions or if 


the response has changed or if Mark has 


something -- I want to thank you for this 


update spreadsheet very much. 


 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Very, very much. Has anybody got 


a problem with that? We'll go right through 


these things and try to -- 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And then once we get through 


them, Jim, do you want to talk about the 


overriding issues all at once or do you want to 


DR. NETON: No, I think they sort of 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- as we go through -- do them 


one at a time as we go through? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: They'll self-identify themselves 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 

13 

the comments and, where necessary, I can speak. 


 MR. ROLFES: Bob, before we begin, could I 


check with Gene Rollins on the phone to see -- 


on his availability? Gene? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes, I'm going to have to leave 


you about ten minutes before 10:00, and -- but 


I should be back on the phone call within 45 


minutes to an hour. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. If it's all right with the 


Board, I wondered if we could discuss some of 


the issues that we have Gene Rollins down for 


the assignment. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that --


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- that'd be great. That'll be 


good. 


 MS. MUNN: Gene, is that ten till your 10:00 or 


ten till our 10:00, or is it all the same 


10:00? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Oh, I think we're all on Eastern 


Time, I believe. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: He's on Eastern Time. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Well --


 MR. PRESLEY: I'm going to let you -- since 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 

14 

know which ones that he's been working on, I'll 


let you start it. 


 MR. ROLFES: I think -- okay, Gene, I don't 


know if you want to go ahead and take the first 


item that -- are still working on. I know we 


discussed the resuspension issue as one of the 


major issues. 


 MR. ROLLINS: As I -- as I mentioned to you 


days ago, I think that issue is going to 


require a good bit of discussion. Hopefully we 


can -- we can get some input from -- from 


everyone on -- on that subject, and it might 


take longer than 45 minutes to do that, so I 


would -- I would recommend maybe that we put 


that off until later so we can give it the full 


discussion that it needs. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Now Mark, I -- I presume that 


everybody has this matrix that was provided to 


us on Friday, this updated matrix. Is that 


what we're working from? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I believe so. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Do you have an extra copy? 


 MR. ROLFES: I do not have an extra copy. 


DR. ROESSLER: You know what, I think -- let 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 

15 

just make sure, I think I have it on my 


computer and then you can have my -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can you -- can you download it 


off my stick? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


DR. NETON: Should be able to. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can you get a copy off my stick? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah -- well, I'll borrow hers. 


Let's go ahead and go (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. WADE: Does anyone else need a hard -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I would --


 DR. WADE: Okay, I will -- here, you take -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: What we have tried to do with 


this matrix is to -- is to shade the items that 


we feel like we have resolution on. And the 


items that are not shaded are the ones that we 


need to discuss in a little more detail. 


RADIONUCLIDES
 

And so starting with comment one on page 1 of 


26, that had to do with some tables of 


radionuclides that were deemed as not being 


complete, and we agreed and said that we would 


add those radionuclides. 


And frankly, I don't know why that particular 


item is not shaded, but I don't think we need 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

any further action on that. Does -- do we have 


general agreement on that one? 


 MS. MUNN: It's my understanding at our last 


meeting that we did. My -- my only question 


was where are we with the Chapter 5 revision. 


Are we actually there, or is that still in 


process? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's still in process. The -- I 


believe ORAU has been working on it. I do not 


believe we've received an official copy of the 


revision yet for review. Is that correct, 


Gene? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Right. They -- they -- they're 


all coming up for two-year review and decided 


to put that review off a little bit until we 


could get some resolution from this working 


group as to what changes needed to be made so 


we wouldn't have to go back and revise again. 


But that -- that revision is imminent. 


 MS. MUNN: So my -- my understanding is 


correct, we did come to a reasonable consensus 


at our last meeting. Right? So you --


 MR. ROLLINS: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: So it's just a question of process 


here, not a question of issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17

 MR. ROLLINS: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. Ms. Munn, 


that's quite right. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Arjun. Arjun, as long as 


you're on the phone, are you going to be at the 


hearing today? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I intend to be. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. I'd be interested in your 


-- in your feedback after that's over. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'd be happy to give it to you. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Moving on, response -- responses 


1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), which -- 1 delta -- I show 


them as all being resolved. You might want to 


just look over those for a minute and -- to 


make sure that we're on the same page there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I show, Gene. This 


is Bob Presley. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay. Thank you, Bob. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, I agree also. 


REACTOR TEST RE-ENTRY


 MR. ROLLINS: And then comment two had to do 


with providing guidance for dose estimation for 


gonad, skin and GI tract for reactor test re­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

entry, including considerations for large hot 


particle doses to the skin and the GI tract, 


and to take into consideration the methodology 


outlined in the NRDL document. We agreed that 


that would be appropriate, and after we have a 


chance to look through that, and I think that's 


-- we recently brought on Billy Smith to help 


us with that -- with that consideration. I 


don't think he's had -- I'm -- I'm not going to 


put him on the spot because he hasn't been 


looking at it for very long, but we will take 


those methods into consideration and, as 


appropriate, we will revise the TBD to provide 


the guidance to incorporate those methods. 


DR. NETON: Right. This is Jim Neton. I've 


gotten into this as of -- as of the last couple 


days, and I've taken a look at the NRDL 


document and I think we need to be careful -- 


and it's alluded to later on in one of the 


responses -- about wholesale adaptation of the 


values that are in there, principally because 


that document was written in 1968 and it was 


their early attempt at trying to do some 


dosimetry for these large hot particles; that 


those methods have been largely superseded by 

1 

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 

some of the new ICRP models -- the ICRP-66-1 


model and GI tract model -- which I believe was 


around in that time period, but how it's 


applied and linked to this -- linked to the 


respiratory model is -- is unique now. So I --


I don't know that, outside of the source term 


evaluation that's in this document, there's 


going to be a whole lot of extra usefulness as 


far as guidance on how to actually calculate 


the dose from these hot particles. I just --


 MR. ROLLINS: Jim, this is Gene Rollins. 


You're -- you're exactly right, and that's why 


I -- I put the qualifier in, as appropriate. 


But there are -- there are some things in there 


I believe that could be of value, as you said, 


such as the source term estimations. 


DR. NETON: Well, there -- there appear to be 


some -- some pretty decent particle size 


distribution measurements and -- where they 


show that there's some fairly large particles. 


You know, as far as ingestion doses from hot 


particles, that gets into an area where we may 


have some complex-wide overarching issues. It 


appeared to me in a quick look at this document 


that what they were really trying to do was 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 

20 

calculate the GI tract dose from the inhaled 


and subsequently swallowed particles. I don't 


-- I don't think this is a de novo look at just 


ingestion of the particles, you know, off of 


the ground or anything. And in that case, I 


think the ICRP-66-1 model somewhat supersedes 


that -- that calculation and in fact that the 


doses would primarily be more relevant to the 


nasal/pharynx region, what's called the ET-1 


and ET-2 region of the -- of the GI -- of the 


respiratory tract. And I don't think that 


would be a change in -- a paradigm change in 


our way of doing business. We would just buy 


the ICRP models and use the appropriate 


particle size distribution that we could glean 


from this document. So I think that's fairly 


straightforward and I think it's indicated here 


we're committed to doing that, but I just 


wanted to sort of let people know that by and 


large the dosimetry done in here would not 


necessarily be relevant to our dose 


reconstructions. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. We raised the 


issue, not -- you know, not in the idea that 


NIOSH would be adopting the dose numbers, 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 

21 

as -- as an issue where hot particles appear to 


be important. There were measurements of these 


particles and there was a source term that was 


not covered in the site profile, and so the 


issue in our review was raised for NIOSH to 


evaluate it, and I don't believe we've made the 


suggestion that NIOSH should adopt the -- adopt 


the dose numbers, so -- so I support what -- 


what you just said, Jim -- 


DR. NETON: Exactly, I --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that obviously we're 


committed and you're committed by the 


regulation to using the most recent model, so 


the -- and I do agree also that the source term 


as well as the particle size measurements are 


probably the most useful part. 


I have a question about your statement that it 


is basically via -- ingestion via inhalation. 


I think the kinds of particle sizes that were 


talked about in -- in the Naval Radiological 


Defense Lab document are non-respirable 


particle sizes, and a lot of the discussion in 


there -- if I remember it correctly, I haven't 


looked at it in a while -- is about non-


respirable particles, so I don't -- I don'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 

22 

think that it would be covered by resp-- 


respirable particles alone. 


DR. NETON: Well, I think it would, Arjun. 
I 


did a quick look at this and I could be off 


base, but my -- my quick read of this was that 


they're really looking at particles that -- 


that lodged in the upper airways. And those 


are, by definition, non-respirable. They all 


get stuck in the -- in the head, you know, the 


upper airway region, and then would be 


swallowed. By non-respirable, they're not 


deposited in the deep lung. So I didn't see 


any indication in here of just sort of a source 


term where they calculated ingestion of 


material from the surface itself due to the 


picking up of the material on your hands or -- 


or from your face. It could be in there, maybe 


I missed it. But --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, I agree with that. No, 


I don't -- I don't think it's in there, 


although mine is from longer ago than yours. 


DR. NETON: No, I think -- I think this does 


raise some complex-wide issues. I noted in the 


matrix that there were -- was some disagreement 


whether this was complex-wide or not. I think 

1 

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 

-- I think the general issue of hot particles 


certainly is a complex-wide issue where it -- 


where it might exist. In fact, we don't -- we 


have not really done much in the area of hot 


particles because many of our facilities we 


didn't feel was -- was necessary to account for 


that. But in the area of skin contamination -- 


and this document, by the way, predated 


Varskin, too -- we don't see any real change 


necessary. If we -- you know, we would use 


Varskin for skin contamination dosimetry, and I 


think the smallest area of skin as documented 


by most bodies -- including the NCRP, NRC, DOE 


-- would be one square centimeter of skin to 


calculate the dose averaged over. And in doing 


so, our models easily account for that. It's 


just a matter of identifying the existence of a 


hot particle on that particular portion of 


skin. 


It brings up an interesting issue, though, and 


this sort of falls into the real overarching 


area, is even if you are capable of calculating 


a dose to one square centimeter of skin from a 


hot particle -- say for a beta emitter -- how 


relevant is the risk model that we use to -- 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 

that dose value, because you know the risk 


models were based on essentially parallel beam 


whole body exposures, to a large extent, and 


there's been a lot of experiments that tend to 


indicate both directions, either the risk is 


higher or lower, by irradiating a small area. 


Many areas of research have indicated that the 


actual do-- the risk is lower if you 


concentrate the area into one small particle, 


very analogous to an alpha irradiation where 


there is a smaller number of cells affected and 


that many of the cells will be killed through 


this process, so with no killing, then the risk 


of cancer will bound because dead cells can't 


be cancer cells. So there's some investigation 


we need to do in that area to see the 


applicability of the risk models to the hot 


particle dosimetry, but the physical 


calculation itself we believe we have covered 


using the Varskin calculation limiting the area 


to one square centimeter, where necessary. Of 


course the trick is to identify those 


situations. In this NDRL -- NRDL document 


there are some good indications of how 


prevalent these hot particles may be and what ­
1 

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 

- what -- what we might be able to use to 


calculate the dose. 


DR. ROESSLER: So to update this -- this is Gen 


-- table then where we have two conflicting 


things, one is that it is a complex-wide issue 


and one column says -- and it's probably Gene 


Rollins -- that it's not. I think you're 


saying that it is. 


DR. NETON: Well, I think hot particles in 


general are complex-wide issues and we need to 


-- I don't say that we're mishandling them, but 


I think we -- we need to develop some -- some 


direct guidance on -- on handling them. I 


think that would be useful. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could -- could I ask a question 


about what is happening in regard to the dose 


reconstructions that are being done like for 


tunnel re-entry and other -- I mean have you 


found this relevant for other than reactor 


workers. And if so, what -- what is happening 


with the dose reconstructions on this? 


DR. NETON: I can't answer that question, 


Arjun. I don't know if Mark can -- 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene, have we seen any cases where 


we've noted that a person was contaminated 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 

26 

a hot particle? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Cheryl, I hate to put you -- I 


personally have not -- I'm going to let Cheryl 


speak in just a minute, but from my -- my own 


experience in doing a limited number of NTS 


dose reconstructions, typically hot particles 


would not be associated with cancers except 


those that are affected by non-penetrating 


radiation, such as skin and breast. And 


typically what we have done and what I -- what 


I typically have done at Hanford doing dose 


reconstructions there is that we go through the 


records to see if there's any evidence that an 


individual was contaminated, and then we look 


at the areas in which the contamination was 


identified and we compare that to the 


particular cancer of interest to see if there's 


-- if there's a link-up. And if there is, what 


we have done in the past is employ the Varskin 


code to calculate what the potential dose to 


that -- to that can-- cancer location might 


have been. 


Now I'm going to let Cheryl speak to her 


experience 'cause she's probably done a few 


more of these at NTS than I 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 

27 

MS. SMITH: For the most part it hasn't -- has 


not been an issue because we're provided those 


records that indicate the other monitoring. If 


we have them -- okay? -- you can -- you can 


figure out where they made their entry. Quite 


frankly, contamination incidents -- you know, 


people will talk about them in their CATI, but 


we don't have enough specifics, we don't have ­

- I know I've seen at Rocky Flats some reports 


saying well, a person has been -- and -- and I 


think Hanford has these reports where, you 


know, they'll indicate where the person was 


contaminated, and there'll be a report included 


in the DOE files. But we've never seen 


anything like that. Now whether they actually 


did that -- and maybe Billy would be better 


able to speak to that -- kept files like that 


in individuals' case folders, I don't know. We 


have not seen it at this point in any of the 


cases that I've worked. 


 MS. MUNN: Arjun, this is Wanda. If I 


understood your question correctly, my memory 


from other working groups is that you 


personally have brought this issue up on other 


occasions, have you not? On other sites? 

1 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The dose reconstruction issue? 


No, Ms. --


 MS. MUNN: No, the hot particle theory, have 


you not --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it's in our review. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, but -- but I -- I guess I was 


misunderstanding your question. I -- I thought 


we were questioning whether this was an NTS 


issue or whether this was a more generic issue. 


I thought that was the topic of discussion. 


Was I -- am I off base? Isn't that where we 


started? 


DR. NETON: Well, I mean I would agree that we 


need to have more specific guidance to our dose 


reconstructors on how to deal with hot 


particles. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and -- and that's what -- and 


-- and I -- I guess I misunderstood what 


Arjun's question was then. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, yeah, because, you know, 


just -- I was just taking off from what Jim 


just said, Ms. Munn, that if there is specific 


guidance that -- that's lacking, what happens 


right now if this problem occurs in a dose 


reconstruction. 

1 

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. SMITH: Yes, I guess --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: How do they do it now? 


MS. SMITH: -- we can say that -- we've been 


pretty careful about -- because it's still kind 


of up in the air how to handle all of the skin 


cancer issues -- the beta/gamma ratios, you 


know, how we're going to apply those -- we've 


tried to keep those -- keep those cases -- not 


work those cases until we are -- do have a 


clear path forward. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, okay. 


DR. NETON: But this gets into the area, 


though, where, you know, you -- you're not 


likely to have hot particle dosimetry -- or 


measurements on many of these people, 


particularly in the early days, so then what -- 


what do you do? Is it -- since you can't prove 


a negative, do you default and everybody has 


hot particles or do you go with the weight of 


the evidence that it's not likely, and there's 


some good -- good analyses in this NRDL 


document I think that can be applied just to 


sort of get a handle around the frequency of 


these hot particle events in a specific 


situation. I mean it's just got to be -- it'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 

30 

case-specific, you know, the existence of these 


hot particles. But how you deal with that when 


they are there, I think we need to have a 


little better -- better guidance. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, Jim, this is Brad. Where 


would -- where would you say these hot 


particles are more prevalent or -- or are they 


a complex-wide issue or just NTS? 


DR. NETON: No, not just -- they're -- they're 


around. I mean it -- you've got to have -- for 


hot particles to be -- you've got to have some 


kind of -- more likely a reactor or something 


of that nature where you -- you've had a 


particulate, you know, fission products 


(unintelligible) activation products 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. PRESLEY: Or a -- or an accident. 


 DR. BEHLING: Were there any kind --


detonations that turned out to be a dud? I 


know that, for instance, in the Marshall 


Islands there were several detonations where 


the primary explosion took place but the 


fission product never did, and there were large 


amounts of plutonium fragments scattered all 


over the test site which are then potentially 

1 

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 

hot particles. Were there any such incidents 


at NTS where you had a test that didn't -- it 


turned out to be a dud but the material 


exploded from -- from the primary charge and it 


scattered hot particles? One particular case 


that I'm very familiar with in Marshall Islands 


was (unintelligible) plutonium device was -- 


was detonated and scattered a large amount of 


large particles, plutonium particles, 


throughout the area. Was there a potential to 


that at NTS? 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene or Billy, could you comment 


on that? I know that there were some plutonium 


dispersion tests at Nevada Test Site. I 


wondered if we could elaborate on that. I 


believe I spoke with Martha DeMarre about one 


of those instances where they did achieve 


criticality during one of those tests. Do we 


have any indication of a person being exposed 


to large particles of plutonium that could have 


contained fission and activation products? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. They did a 


series of safety tests where they were trying 


to determine whether or not the -- with the 


safety zone whether or not a device would go 

1 

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 

critical, it would -- just on the high -- high 


explosives, but I'm going to let Billy speak to 


that because he has far more experience in that 


area than I do. 


MR. SMITH: This is Billy. My experience is 


that there were some safety tests conducted at 


NTS, but I don't know of any incident where 


there were people exposed to hot particles as a 


result of those safety tests. Most of the 


safety tests that I'm aware of -- and my 


experience goes back to 1966 -- were conducted 


underground, and you know, safety tests were 


generally low -- very low yield tests. Most of 


them did not go nuclear anyway. And this was, 


as Gene has just indicated, a test to see 


whether or not you could make the thing go 


nuclear with the HE that was wrapped around the 


pit. 


 Before I comment further I'd like to make a 


comment about the NRDL report. This -- this 


report I think tends to try and -- and -- well, 


the comments that are in the matrix tend to 


indicate that the model may fit the NTS 


environment, and it seems to me that, given how 


the NERVA project worked over at Area 400 where 

1 

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 

they tested the nuclear rocket engines, hence 


passing hydrogen gas through the hot cores to 


accelerate it out through the nozzles, the hot 


particles that came out as a result of that 


would have been suspended up into the 


atmosphere and the distribution and isotope 


types that were created during that process 


were significantly different from the fission 


products that are created during a nuclear 


test. And from nuclear tests -- that were 


underground, anyway -- where some activity may 


have been released to the environment would 


have been scrubbed by the overfill that was 


above the detonation zone that a lot of these 


particles would not have gotten out into the 


environment, particularly the heavier 


particles, the transuranic particles. You 


would get the volatiles coming out of the hole, 


and they would be carried to the wind and the 


daughter products would be distributed along 


the downwind patterns. But in terms of the reentries, the tunnel re-entries or the vertical 


shot hole re-entries, these people were not 


necessarily exposed to any hot particles that ­

- that would have been created by any means. 

1 

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 

Does the silence mean I was cut off? 


 MS. MUNN: No, no, it doesn't. It means we're 


lost in thought here. 


MR. SMITH: Oh, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: So to recap, if I understand 


correctly, I'm led to believe that Jim's 


earlier statement was quite accurate. These 


types of cases will have to be reviewed on a 


case-by-case basis rather than on a wholesale 


approach, based on the type of incident that 


was involved and based on the -- the location 


of the individual, and will have to do what I 


think we're probably charged with doing, which 


is depend upon the weight of the data to define 


the approach. Is that a reasonable summation? 


MR. SMITH: Yes. I -- now Ms. Munn, I think -- 


I think the hot particle issue is a complex-


wide issue. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we understand that. 


MR. SMITH: The -- the -- and I think in terms 


of the NTS exposures, it's -- it's -- it's 


probably lower down the priority chain than 


other sites where hot particles may be more 


prevalent. We -- we did not experience hot 


particle exposures at NTS to any significant 

1 

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 

degree at all. As a matter of fact, I don't 


know of any dose reconstructions that -- that ­

- that have been looked at so far that have 


involved concerns with hot particle exposures. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and this will be true of a 


number of other sites, as well. Yeah. Thank 


you. 


 DR. BEHLING: I do have a question. I mean 


that hot particles existed is probably 


something that doesn't require much of a 


debate, but the question of how do you apply 


any kind of dose model, especially when you 


talk about a -- a hot particle that, as Jim 


Neton had talked about, is a non-respirable 


particle that starts out somewhere in the upper 


respiratory tract, gets passed from there into 


your GI tract and therefore exposes everything 


from the head back to -- to -- to the point of 


the colon and rectum. How do you -- how do you 


anticipate modeling such a -- an exposure? 


DR. NETON: Well, I think the 66-1 model can 


handle particles that are deposited in the 


nasal/pharynx region. It handles larger 


particles. And I think we would use standard ­

- standard dosimetry for that. I -- I'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 

36 

looked at NCRP Report 130 that was written in 


1999 that -- that dealt with this exact issue 


on ingestion of hot particles, skin 


contamination -- the whole hot particle issue. 


And their basic recommendation was unless you 


can show that there is some (unintelligible) 


transit time of the hot particle through the GI 


tract, to treat it just as a insoluble -- any 


other insoluble particle as it moves through. 


The ICRP models for calculating dose to the GI 


tract -- I won't say they're pretty crude, but 


they're pretty simple. It's essentially one-


half the dose of the contents of that 


particular portion of an organ, and to try to 


pretend that we could modify that any finer and 


increase the dose based on some other principle 


would be beyond what we're certainly capable of 


doing, and would be -- we'd be consistent using 


their guidance, which says use the standard 


models. So I think it can be handled with the 


new -- with the ICRP-66 dosimetry model. I 


don't -- I don't see that as a -- as a 


roadblock. The trick there, though, is to 


identify the existence of the hot particle. 


See, like in this NRDL report, the key 

1 

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 

information here is that -- it categorized it, 


you know, what -- what percentage and what 


(unintelligible) they have. I don't know that 


we're likely to -- how would you know that at 


these sites, and then that becomes a little 


problematic. How do you --


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, I was going to say, you 


can't -- how do you do that? 


DR. NETON: Well, it gets into the classic 


situation of how do you prove a negative. How 


do you prove the hot particles didn't exist? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: And I'm not sure. That -- that's 


something that we need to try -- we need to 


address, though. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. It may be that, 


you know, indirect evidence might help 


establish that. I -- I -- Ms. -- Billy Smith 


made a pretty categorical statement there that 


no one was exposed, or something close to it, 


to hot particles. Whereas I think the early 


tunnel re-entry workers, for instance, who got 


extremely high tritium doses and there were 


accidental -- there were -- there were mishaps 


in those tunnels in the early days that I think 

1 

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 

do bear some looking into. Now they -- I 


understand it's covered by an SEC, but because 


of the nature of the test site work being very 


episodic in relation to high radiation 


environments, it does concern the 250-day 


issue, and so it might be relevant. It may 


also be relevant for later tunnel re-entries in 


the -- in the '60s. So -- so I -- I -- I'm not 


talking about re-entries when there were no 


mishaps and when things went as anticipated. 


But -- but it wasn't error-free. 


 MS. MUNN: No. But Arjun, again, we're back to 


the -- to the matter of needing to rely on the 


data itself, the preponderance of evidence, 


rather than potential scenarios. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh -- oh, Ms. Munn, no, I 


wasn't -- I wasn't talking about creating 


speculative scenarios. On the contrary. I was 


just actually agreeing with -- with Jim Neton 


that, you know, it -- it's difficult to prove a 


negative and suggesting that there are 


documented incidents where it may be possible 


that there were hot particles, and looking at 


those -- that incident data, it may be possible 


to determine that. I -- I have always 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 

39 

uncomfortable relying on CATIs for these kinds 


of things because for the most part survivors 


don't know any of this, but -- but I think the 


incident data might help. So I'm just kind of 


trying to -- trying to suggest ways in which 


the speculation might be reduced, at least. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, this is Brad. Wouldn't 


some of these hot particles be suspended, like 


the PLUTO test of that reactor, and ROVER? You 


know, in our tour down there and stuff like 


that, they had people that were -- couldn't 


come out of their buildings till after they'd 


been cleaned up afterwards. You've got the 


cleanup peop-- don't they have any data on -- 


on any of this, because you know, John was even 


saying that they couldn't come out of their 


trailers till after everything had been hosed 


down and cleaned up. 


DR. NETON: I think that's what Arjun's 


suggesting is we would look at the existing 


reports that are out there related to the 


incidents, either planned or unplanned, and try 


to help bracket the universe of potential hot 


particle scenarios, where they -- where they 


more likely could exist, where they likely did 

1 

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 

not exist. Like I suggested earlier, several 


weight-of-the-evidence approaches is all we've 


got to go on, and I think -- I can't argue that 


we shouldn't do that. I mean I think we need 


to do that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can we put something in here that 


says that if -- that's going to be done on a 


case-by-case basis then for the hot particles, 


and let's get on with this? 


DR. NETON: I -- but I'm not going to say every 


single case by case, but... 


 MR. PRESLEY: Where you've got -- where you 


know that there is a known incident -- 


DR. NETON: Right, yeah, that's -- I would 


agree with that. We would evaluate -- on a 


general basis we would evaluate the incidents 


as applicable to the existence of hot 


particles. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. Right. 


DR. NETON: I think that's fair-- that's 


reasonable. 


 MR. ROLFES: We already have done some cases 


using Varskin in some of our dose 


reconstructions when we have contamination 


incidents. I can't remember the site 

1 

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 

specifically, but I do remember seeing a dose 


reconstruction where some Varskin calculations 


had been done because a hot particle was 


deposited I believe right inside the 


gentleman's nose. 


DR. NETON: Well, I do think this reactor 


experiment here, as -- as Billy Smith pointed 


out, is one of those unique scenarios that has 


been identified. It was pretty easy and it was 


studied well. Now the question is are there 


any other similar things out there that we need 


to look at, identify (unintelligible). 


MR. SMITH: This is Billy. I have a question, 


and -- and particularly coming from me, it's -- 


it's sort of a -- my experience at NTS started 


in 1966 and -- but I was on the weapons test 


side. I spent an awful lot of time over at 


Area 400 in 1966 to '68 working on another type 


of experiment with Project HENRY. But my 


question is, are the Pan Am records -- has 


anybody seen any Pan Am records that may have 


indicated that there were hot particles 


exposures to people from the NERVA experiments? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I haven't 


-- I haven't seen any indication of 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 

42 

MR. SMITH: I -- I can probably check with 


Martha sometime soon -- Martha DeMarre over at 


the archives, NTS archives, and see if there 


are any NTS records that include any of the Pan 


Am exposures. 


Now they did wear the NTS dosimeters, the 


external dosimeters, at that time. I'm 


positive of that because I wore those when I 


was there. But I'm not sure about any 


contamination records that Pan Am may -- was 


responsible for keeping at that time, what 


happened to those. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we also suggested a look 


at the NRDL records, the Naval Radiological 


Defense Lab records. There are a number of 


references in that document that we've all 


looked at now, and they might be helpful -- 


because the hot particle issue will remain for 


the reactor -- or re-entry workers, and they 


might be helpful in -- in sort of giving some 


idea of who was exposed and when and at which 


tests and so on. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Is that -- go ahead, 


Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: How large a task 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 

43

 MR. ROLFES: I'm sorry? 


 MS. MUNN: Do we have a feel for it? I was 


just asking how large a task it would be. 


DR. NETON: I would ask Gene and his crew 


whether --


 MS. MUNN: To look at the Pan Am and -- and 


again, look at the NRDL records as -- as 


indicators of where one might even have this 


concern, in an effort to try to put it to bed 


as to when -- when we do or do not need to 


incorporate that into our thinking. 


 MR. ROLFES: Billy, do you have a feel for how 


long this might take to speak with Martha and 


go through some of these records to determine 


whether hot particle exposure could have been 


significant for any of the reactor tests? 


MR. SMITH: I would say it would probably take 


-- take at least a week to -- you know, to get 


any indication at all after we get Martha's 


schedule adjusted to when she could start 


putting that kind of effort into looking at 


those records. 


But now, you know, the -- the Area 400, which 


was the area where these tests were conducted, 


were a rather small subset of the NTS 

1 

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 

population, so we're really not talking about a 


lot of people relative to the numbers of people 


that worked at NTS. So when you talk about NTS 


and these rocket experiments, you're really 


talking about a small number of -- of people. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Billy, this is Bob Presley. 


MR. SMITH: Yes, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You could look at the four -- 


Area 400 --


MR. SMITH: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and then look at the 


incidences that we had up at the tunnels -- 


MR. SMITH: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and those should be all 


documented, and then look at the incidents 


where we had any venting, and that would just 


about take care of it. Do you agree? 


MR. SMITH: I agree. I agree. 


 MS. MUNN: Will this be an undue personnel 


burden? 


MR. SMITH: Personally, I don't think so. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, Martha DeMarre -- this is 


Gene Rollins. Martha DeMarre will probably 


tell you that it is --


MR. SMITH: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45

 MR. ROLLINS: -- because she's a -- she's a 


very busy person and is having a hard time just 


meeting the day to day requests under this and 


other programs. But she's been very good in 


the past and she has come through and provided 


us with a great deal of information. And so 


that's -- that's one place we're going to 


probably get a little bit of resistance, but I 


-- I still feel like Martha will come through 


because she's a -- she's been very helpful in 


the past. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Billy or Gene, either one, 


this is Bob. Would that not be pretty well 


available from the industrial hygiene reports 


at the test site, especially in the -- oh, from 


say like '57 on -- if we could get our hands on 


the industrial hygiene reports. 


MR. SMITH: I'm not sure -- this is Billy. I'm 


not sure what -- what Pan Am's responsibility 


was, but I'm sure that there was a project 


report put together for each test of the 


nuclear rocket engines, and -- and those -- 


those would have been sent through DOE -- 


Smithall was the Space Nuclear -- PO -- Project 


or something like that. They had to report 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 

46 

NAVU at that time, so I'm sure those things 


were generated, and that would be part of the 


historical documents that -- that Martha would 


have. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Why don't we see then that -- if 


she has this readily available, and then go 


back and ask NIOSH if they have the time and 


the money to do this. 


MR. SMITH: If -- if Mark asked me to do that, 


I would go over and ask Martha to see what she 


could come up with. 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, and I believe we'll have you 


do that, Billy, so --


MR. SMITH: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. Okay, we need -- go 


ahead, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: We understand the -- the difficult 


part for members of the Board, I think, is 


trying to identify which of these items is 


worthy of the amount of time and energy that 


needs to go into it to track it down. Clearly 


we want to cover the most directly applicable 


issues rather than minor issues which might 


affect a very small number of people in a very 


small way, but not have a major impact on 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 

47 

-- your overall program work and the number of 


cases that are going to be involved. Just a 


simple issue of everyone's time, energy and -- 


and -- it's hard for some of us to lose track 


of the fact that it's all taxpayer money, so 


it's -- it's helpful when we can identify 


what's really of large enough magnitude to 


impact a variety of -- of issues rather than 


just a single minor issue that won't affect a 


POC for more than one or two people. So 


thanks, if you can get it done. 


MR. SMITH: This is Billy one more time. The 


person who was -- who was directly responsible 


for the health and safety program at Pan Am 


when some of these experiments took place was 


Bruce Church, and Bruce is a person who -- I 


don't know whether or not he's been interviewed 


or what information you can provide, but it 


would seem to me that having a discussion with 


Bruce would be invaluable in providing some -- 


some perspective on this issue at NRDS. 


 MS. MUNN: Can we do that, Mark? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, definitely. I think we 


should set something up, Billy. I think it'd 


be a good idea to speak with him if he'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 

48 

available. 


 MS. MUNN: We've done such a good job of 


covering --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- people otherwise. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What's that guy's name again, 


Billy? 


MR. SMITH: Bruce W. Church. As a matter of 


fact, he was a health physicist for Pan Am at 


the time when this took place and he ended up 


being in charge of the entire radiation 


protection program at NTS in his later years. 


He was at -- he was a Fed when he retired. 


 MS. MUNN: So is he still in the area, easily 

available? 

MR. SMITH: I think Bruce is up in Utah 

somewhere. I'm -- I'm sure he'd be easy to 

find. 

 MS. MUNN: Good. 

DR. ROESSLER: I know him. I think I can look 


him up on the Health Physics membership -- 


 MS. MUNN: That was going to be my next -- 


DR. ROESSLER: -- directory and see where he 


is. In fact, I can do it sort of right now. 


 MS. MUNN: Wonderful. 

1 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So -- so -- so Mr. Smith, you 


are going to interview him, is that -- is that 


MR. SMITH: No. No, no, no, no. I have a 


conflict because of my involvement in the 


health and safety program (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, so somebody from ORAU will 


interview him. 


MR. SMITH: Somebody else will be interviewing 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe Gene. 


MR. SMITH: -- Bruce. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: We'd just like to see the 


interview record when it's done. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Arjun, I'm sure they'd be more 


than happy to pass that on. 


DR. ROESSLER: Bruce --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. No, I say that because 


there -- there still -- from the last time -- I 


mean this is the last item, but I'm might as 


well say it since it's come up. There are 


still interview records that -- that we don't 


have, the -- the Brady five hours of 


interviews, and then there are two other 


interviews, Arnt -- Arnt* and Smith, that are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

now references in the site profile, that are 


not available so it's -- it's sort of 


impossible to track this stuff, or respond to 


what's going on if we -- if we don't have the 


record. 


DR. ROESSLER: I got -- I was a little slow 


there, but Bruce Church is listed in the Health 


Physics membership list. He's in Utah, and 


I've got phone numbers and an e-mail address, 


so I think he's probably quite accessible. I 


can give -- whoever wants them, I can give you 


that later. 


 MR. ROLFES: I'll coordinate with Gene to get 


something set up then. 


 MS. MUNN: And -- and what is the issue with 


the other interviews that SC&A doesn't have 


yet? Was that classification issues? 


 MR. ROLFES: These were passed through an 


authorized (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: All right. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- classifier. 


 MS. MUNN: Fine. 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene, has Laurie mentioned, or 


Cheryl, do we know anything about the status of 


those records or have we heard anything back? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. I don't quite --


records -- the interview records or when the -- 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, Gene's -- as I recall, I 


believe Laurie Raunt* was going to have those ­

- those interview records passed through an 


authorized derivative classifier in Las Vegas ­

-


MS. SMITH: Okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- and I didn't know --


MS. SMITH: Yes, I -- I don't know what the 


status on that is. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 


MS. SMITH: I know that she put them together, 


all our e-mails and -- in a long file and it 


was sent to us, and that was some time ago, so 


if you would like I could check on it. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I don't 


know what the status of that is, either. That 


-- in fact I'm -- Cheryl, I don't even know if 


the classifier is the same person that we used 


before, but she was very helpful. We'll --


we'll check on that and get back to you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Gene, there -- there are 


a number of interviews listed here on the last 


response, 25, and then I was just 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 

52 

preparation looking at your -- looking at your 


revised external site profile which you issued 


a couple of months back and there are two 


interviews, Arnt and Smith, 2003 and 2004, that 


I couldn't find. And it's kind of a general 


request. I mean if -- if -- if things are -- 


are available to make public and if they're 


cited like this as personal communications, if 


a record could be put on the site query 


database or the O drive or something that -- 


this wouldn't come up again and again. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. Cheryl, 


that sounds like a -- an action for you, 


Cheryl, since you and Laurie are the ones that 


are being cited. And typically when we do 


these TBDs, all the citations are sent with the 


revisions, so it could be they're already on 


the O drive. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Bob, this is Gene Rollins. I'm 


going to have to leave this discussion for 


about 45 minutes or so, but I will sign back on 


and let you know when I'm back -- back onto the 


discussion, but it looks like the next few 


items might be a good time for some discussion 

1 

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 

with Billy Smith. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Gene, thank you very much. We 


will catch you when you get back. 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'll be back in about 45 minutes. 


Thanks. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. All right, we're down to 


response 2(b). 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: 2(b) did you say? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. I think we've about beat 


2(a) to death. We've still got some stuff that 


needs to be done on that, as everybody's heard. 


The action on that, add guidance to Chapters 5 


and 6. I think that's kind of -- we'll do 


that, but we also have some other things to -- 


to add to that now, so... 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, I think 2(a) 


through 2(f) were generally covered because -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- some of them are complex-


wide and some of them are specific to various 


areas. But as I see it, I think we've sort of 


covered the waterfront on these. Do you agree, 


Jim? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree. I was just about to 


say the same thing. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: I just want to make sure 


everybody's got a chance to say something. 


DR. NETON: These are all related to 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: And my concern is that when we have 


these complex-wide issues that we don't close 


out what we're doing here until we've pretty 


much put that to bed, because otherwise we have 


this same process every time we -- the issue 


gets raised at every other site. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and -- and we were looking 


at some way of being able to track this, of -- 


of where we're at, because we've signed off 


quite a few of these because they're a complex-


wide issue. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, this -- this is still another 


topic that has to --


DR. NETON: I think we need to differentiate, 


though. It's certainly complex-wide, but as we 


talked about, there are specific issues here 


that need to be identified for NTS. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. NETON: When I was speaking of complex-wide 


issue, I was speaking more of generic guidance 

1 

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 

I 

to dose reconstructors on how to handle data if 


they had it -- you know, these type of data. 


don't know that we have something that says, 


you know, if you have identified hot particles, 


then you shall use a one square centimeter area 


of skin. I would suspect they would do that, 


but you know, without anything in writing and 


documented to that effect, I -- you couldn't 


guarantee that it would happen consistently. 


Or the fact that the GI tract model, at least 


in my opinion at this moment, is acceptable for 


dosimetry of hot particles as they move through 


that -- that part of the system. Those are 


just sort of overarching sort of white paper 


policy issues that we need to put in place -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- which are separate from the 


site-specific things. 


DR. ROESSLER: Is that something that should 


come up at the next Board meeting, those issues 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


DR. ROESSLER: -- plus you mentioned the risk 


model for the --


DR. NETON: The risk model for the skin 

1 

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 

dosimetry --


DR. ROESSLER: Seems like that should -- 


DR. NETON: -- issue's a little problematic in 


my mind. I mean I think we have to be 


conservative in applying the current risk 


model. 


DR. ROESSLER: Uh-huh. 


DR. NETON: We need to -- we need to take a 


position on that. 


DR. ROESSLER: Uh-huh. 


DR. NETON: And you're right, Gen, there are a 


number of issues that at the last Board meeting 


were brought up -- I think by Bob -- that are 


overarching issues, and that on -- that's 


covered on that list that we intend to provide 


the Board an update as to status of those 


overarching issues, at least -- at least 


identify them and where we are. Some of them 


are just beginning to be identified, some are 


going through closure, like the oro-nasal 


breathing issue. 


DR. ROESSLER: On the risk model I think you 


should -- it should be put on the record that 


what you are using, if you feel that it is a 


conservative model, and provide the evidence 

1 

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 

for that. I agree, I think it is a 


conservative --


DR. NETON: Right. 


DR. ROESSLER: -- claimant-friendly model. 


DR. NETON: We do, too, but we'd have to have 


some scientific, you know, citations we could 


put in there and document it. 


250 DAYS


 MR. PRESLEY: Comment three, we've gotten into 


this on two. SC&A has agreed with what NIOSH's 


interpretation of this are, except when you get 


down to 2(b) -- or 3(b) where we get into this 


250-day issue. Jim, will we discuss that 


further on down through here? 


DR. NETON: Now where does 3(b) get into the 


250 days (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: 3(b), telecon (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Page 6. 


DR. NETON: It says --


 MR. ROLFES: John Mauro has identified -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- (unintelligible) of those. 


DR. NETON: Time period will affect 250-day 


issue. What time period are we referring to 


there? Refresh my memory. (Reading) TBD will 

1 

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 

(unintelligible) conflict with large hot 


particle (unintelligible). I'm not quite 


seeing the connection between the response and 


the time period here. (Unintelligible) SEC, 


yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Jim -- Jim, I -- I think 


that John was -- was concerned about how the 


high doses from episodic exposures, or 


potentially high doses, would affect the 250­

day issue. But I think -- I think that should 


be -- it should be covered in that separate 


report that's going to be discussed on Friday. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think that would be -- that 


would not be relevant to this discussion. This 


is a site profile issue and the other one's an 


SEC issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, the other one's SEC. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the only way it's 


relevant is if you can calculate the dose. 


Right? I mean --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- if you can do that, then -- 


then it's -- then it's relevant here. 


Otherwise it doesn't belong here. 


DR. NETON: Interestingly, this has always 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 

59 

an interesting issue, is that if -- if a hot 


particle on the skin became a dose that was 


non-recon-- could not be reconstructed, that 


would mean skin cancer couldn't be 


reconstructed -- which are non-presumptive 


cancers for SEC purposes -- and that would 


bring in the 22 cancers that are not related to 


skin, so that's another twist that we need to 


(unintelligible) worry about, but... 


 MS. MUNN: We need to get clearer on that one. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think we'd have to have our 


OGC folks help us out there, but... 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I was -- I was a little 


puzzled by the statement that "may solve both 


problems during literature review," and I -- I 


thought our -- who's doing the literature 


review? 


DR. NETON: Well, we're --


 MR. ROLFES: This was John Mauro's comment, so 


I would believe that it was SC&A. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry, are we -- we will -- we 


will touch on this in our 250-day report 


briefly, in -- in the December report -- in the 


report that you'll see this Friday, but -- 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 

60 

probably more at length prior to the Board 


meeting because -- well, frankly, had hoped to 


see something from NIOSH on the hot particle 


question by now but we haven't seen anything 


yet, so we'll have to discuss internally how we 


-- how we handle it since this has been in -- 


in NIOSH's court. I guess we'll have to take 


it up in some way as it concerns the 250-day 


question. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, this is -- for -- for us here, 


Arjun, in this group, it poses kind of a 


problem because it sort of overlaps into the -- 


the Friday group, which is not the same batch 


of individuals. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: We -- we have to -- we have to sort 


of balance that back and forth. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. BEHLING: Arjun, this is Hans, I just have 


a ques--


MS. SMITH: Excuse me, this is Cheryl Smith. 


Steve Merwin* found out on the internet 


yesterday a DOL bulletin, 06-16, and in that 


bulletin it indicates that we are to -- if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

there's evidence that an employee was present 


on site at the NTS for 24 hours in a day for 83 


days, the employee will have the equivalent of 


250 workdays and will meet the 250-workday 


requirement. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, so DOL has accepted that as 


policy. 


MS. SMITH: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right. 


MS. SMITH: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That horse is --


DR. NETON: Yeah, we knew that was coming. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- put back in the barn. 


DR. NETON: I guess I'm still not seeing the 


connection here. I mean if we can do hot 


particles, we can do it in the site profile. 


We talked about identifying areas where hot 


particles may have existed. We talked about if 


there were hot particles we would calculate a 


dose to one square centimeter of skin using 


Varskin. I mean those methods are all there. 


I'm not sure --


 MS. MUNN: Well, we may have captured something 


in this comment that wasn't -- 


DR. NETON: But Arjun has been suggesting, 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 

62 

I agree with him, that may be -- that's an 


issue for Friday that -- that talks about how 


large these doses may have been from an 


instantaneous or short-term exposure, less than 


250 days. That's -- that's -- that appears 


relevant, but I don't know if that needs to be 


brought into this discussion. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: The question I have is why is it 


unique to hot particles? You can have a single 


inhalation exposure that does not involve hot 


particles and have a very large dose associated 


with that incident that is no different from a 


single large dose of a hot particle, so -- 


DR. NETON: Well, but --


 DR. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) the issue's 


not unique to hot particles. 


DR. NETON: But if -- if that is the only 


scenario that could get you to that high 


dose... 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, you can inhale an 


incredible amount of plutonium in a single 


event --


DR. NETON: But did that happen here at NTS. 


That's the question. 

1 

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

 DR. BEHLING: No, no, but I'm --


DR. NETON: That's what I'm saying. 


 DR. BEHLING: There's nothing unique about this 


DR. NETON: Well, I --


 DR. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) hot 


particles. 


DR. NETON: -- understand that, but what we're 


saying here is, relevant to NTS and high 


exposure scenarios that would potentially get a 


class in with less than 250-day exposures, it 


appears that SC&A is suggesting that the hot 


particle issue is one of those high -- high 


potential scenar-- exposure scenarios. I'd be 


interested to hear what -- what's talked about 


on Friday. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: Is that right, Arjun? I mean 


that's sort of the connection I 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you know, I -- we haven't 


-- I had -- I'm -- I'm drafting this with -- 


with a couple of other people, and where I am 


right now is I haven't said anything about it 


because, as I said, I was hoping to see 

1 

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 

something -- something from NIOSH/ORAU team 


about this but -- but we haven't. And so now I 


have to go back to the drawing board a little 


bit and -- and talk with John about -- I don't 


think we'll say very much on Friday, but I hope 


that we'll discuss it some and be able to 


present something to the Board, one way or 


another, so -- so at least they can decide that 


it is relevant or not relevant. And -- and I 


don't have an opinion about this at this stage 


'cause... 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Then we will go on down 


through response 3(c) and get into respon-- 


comment four. And Gene has -- 


DR. NETON: Okay, this is an area where -- this 


is -- this is truly an overarching issue. This 


is -- let me read the comment here (pause). 


This is -- this is truly an overarching issue 


that we've been working on for some time now, 


and our latest projection is that we'll have a 


completed report not -- by January. We have an 


outside contractor working with us on this. 


They've done an exhaustive review of the 


literature on this. There's many more papers 


out there than I was able to find that they'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 

65 

located, and they're putting their heads 


together and coming up with -- well, there's 


some writing that the -- the literature for us, 


and then NIOSH will make an informed opinion at 


that point about how we're going to do this. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That'll be great. 


DR. ROESSLER: So this is coming up in -- 


 MS. MUNN: January. 


DR. ROESSLER: -- January? 


DR. NETON: That's -- that's what -- 


DR. ROESSLER: And who is the outside 


contractor? 


EG&G
 

DR. NETON: EG&G is working on this for us, 


(unintelligible) and others, and they're -- 


they're real go-getters. They've pulled out a 


lot of literature, a couple of feet of 


literature on this topic. But there's some 


interesting work out there. This of course is 


relevant in the context of the Bethlehem Steel 


site profile review and in respiration at steel 


mills, so we've actually located these 


documents of physiological work that's been 


done on these steel mill workers and such. 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 

66 

that doesn't address the fundamental issue of 


oro-nasal breathing, which is -- there's a 


certain percentage of the population that 


breathes through their mouth, so I think it's ­

- it's fairly high, it's somewhere around 25 


percent. So then the question is would NIOSH 


default in every single dose reconstruction to 


inhalation through the mouth as the mode of 


entry, and in many cases that will increase the 


dose -- lung dose for the intake. And should 


that be our default position or should we go 


and try to poll all of these -- all of the 


claimants to find out if they were mouth-


breathers. I think that would be just an 


impossible task. Or should we incorporate this 


into the uncertainty, or is it already 


addressed in the overall uncertainty of the 


dosimetry model itself. There are some papers 


out there that suggest -- and I think I've 


mentioned this before at Board meetings -- that 


the -- the variability -- the uncertainty -- 


distribution of breathing rates among regular 


breathers is equal to the distribution of the 


variability among mouth-breathers versus 


regular breathers such that the uncertainty -- 

1 

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 

by making one correction you don't fix the 


problem because the un-- the overall 


uncertainty is large. And so we have to decide 


whether we're going to either make it a default 


position; try to poll workers and find out what 


they really were breathing, oral or nasal 


breathing; or try to incorporate the oro-nasal 


breathing into the overall uncertainty of the 


dosimetry models and such. Those are -- in my 


mind those are our three options and -- that 


we'll weigh in on in January. Not an -- not an 


easy issue. It's taken a while. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it isn't. But I will certainly 


be pleased to see it put to bed. 


DR. NETON: One also has to consider this in 


the context of this is just one variable of 


many in the dose models. You have variability 


in the size of the individual lungs themselves, 


so should one now all of a sudden account for 


the fact that a woman who's petite has an 800 


gram lung, versus a male who may have a 1,500 


gram lung, and it brings into play all these 


issues. And we're going to try to have some 


sort of a nice scientific discussion of these 


issues and what this really means overall 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 

68 

the dose reconstruction process. 


DR. ROESSLER: So is the contractor then 


working on all of these issues or just the 


percentage of people who are -- 


DR. NETON: No, no, they -- they pulled out all 


the papers on many of the issues that 


(unintelligible) identified, but it of course 


remains NIOSH's responsibility to consolidate 


these into an opinion. They -- they certainly 


summarized blocks of information for us, but 


(unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: That's good. I can see that would 


be a -- an extremely difficult literature 


search. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Somebody's --


 DR. WADE: We have a bad buzz. 


 MS. MUNN: Ah, someone did something nice. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: The world is still out there with 


us. Liz, are you with us? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes, I am. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, just to make sure the world is 


with us. Thank you. 


DR. NETON: Comment four I think needs to be -- 


needs to remain as a complex-wide issue and 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 

69 

will provide an update as to where we are at 


the December Board meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: December? 


 MS. MUNN: Updating. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that just an update, and then 


February --


DR. NETON: We don't plan to be done until 


January. It will be on the list of issues to 


have a status update. 


 MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


 MR. ROLFES: Bob, if it's all right with you, 


I'd propose that we skip past comment five 


until Gene Rollins returns. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that's great. No 


problems whatsoever with that. Anybody else 


have a problem? 


 (No responses) 


We'll go back to comment five when Gene comes 


in -- comes back. 


Okay, six has to do with the average air 


concentration values. 


 MR. ROLFES: I think this will also tie in to 


the resuspension issues, as well. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLFES: I think that Gene would probably 

1 

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 

be best to discuss this issue, so -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think five and six are 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Mr. Presley, Mr. -- the 


issue seven also is --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yep, seven's the same way. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- is the same way. 


EXTERNAL DOSE DATA FOR 1963 AND ‘66


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, get down to eight. Okay, 


claimant issue -- or comment eight is where the 


external dose data for 1963 and '66 is not 


claimant-favorable. The response was accepted 


on the external dose, and work was completed 


pending a sign-off of Chapter 6, Revision 


00PC2. Has that been done yet? 


 MR. ROLFES: The work was updated. I believe 


we received some tables of external dose data 


from Martha DeMarre and have incorporated into 


a draft of our Nevada Test Site profile, 


although I do not believe it has been 


officially approved by NIOSH yet. Is that --


is anyone out there that can comment on that -- 


Cheryl? 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. Yes, it is still ­

- there's some modifications. There was a OCAS 

1 

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 

comment that came back asking for 95th 


percentile, so the information is being 


presented in a different form, with slightly 


different guidance. And hopefully that will be 


the math-- the mathematics of it was done 


fairly recently. It's in the process of being 


checked, and hopefully we'll have the response 


to OCAS by the end of the week. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Cheryl. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are y'all also going to get SC&A 


a copy? 


MS. SMITH: Sure, we can do that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Arjun? 


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


presume that it will be posted in some way or 


circulated in some way when it's done. 


MS. SMITH: Well, ye-- it'll be part of the 


TBD, it'll be a page change to the Rev. 0 TBD. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now you posted the Rev. 0PC-1 


in June. 


MS. SMITH: Correct. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So -- so you'll post a page 


change to 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 

72 

MS. SMITH: Correct, there will be a page 


change, and that'll -- I -- that's -- that's 


part of the document control process. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


MS. SMITH: I mean it's still -- in a sense, 


until OCAS signs off on it, it's, you know, not 


official. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, but Mr. Presley, I -- I 


think that -- that the actions that -- that 


NIOSH is taking on this are -- are fine. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, that's good. Okay, go to 


nine, and this is lack of environmental 


external dose data for '68 through '76, and 


that has been completed. Does anybody have any 


comment to -- before we move on? 


 (No responses) 


 All right. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm wondering about that comment 


from the teleconference, the Board has no 


mechanism to prove this is complete. I don't 


know what we have to have -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- exactly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't, either. 


 MS. MUNN: If it's complete, it's complete. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73

 MR. PRESLEY: Somebody says it's complete, we 


go through and say the Board says it's 


complete. That, to me, is the -- the action. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is to me. I'm not sure why 


we have that -- why I asked that question, that 


-- or why it's on there that way. I guess -- I 


think -- my memory is that this dates back to 


the issue we've already touched on, the fact 


that we don't have any mechanism set up for 


tracking actions that -- that we've initiated, 


that we have on a matrix, that we show on the 


matrix as complete, but then we don't have any 


tracking mech-- I think that's what that was 


about, so --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, may -- may I ask a 


question or make a suggestion? I don't know 


whether Jim Neton or ORAU may agree with this, 


that it would make this easier, is -- is when 


we go through this process and, for instance, 


like that page change is done, if on the page 


change it indicates that it's a response to 


such-and-such item, or such-and-such 


discussion. Then we could all see that it's 


complete and there wouldn't be a question. 


Right now I don't think that when the TBD is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

changed, say in response to matrix issues that 


I -- that I see that it refers to those issues. 


It -- it might make tracking sort of very 


simple. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it would for us. It would 


probably complicate things for others. The 


thing that concerns me about that suggestion, 


Arjun, would be that these are public 


documents. And if we're going to reference 


something like our matrix, then we're going to 


have to do something like put the matrix -- 


matrices out there somewhere. And even though 


they are public documents and can be obtained, 


it -- it really kind of muddies the water to 


have our -- our working documents that -- that 


are -- they're easily misconstrued, I think. 


There are statements on the working documents 


are -- are easily misconstrued. But I -- I 


guess -- I -- I'd prefer to have us think on 


that for a little while and think about how it 


would be best for us to -- I guess I would 


prefer to see a different table entirely as a ­

- as a working document for the working groups. 


That document could identify the matrix item by 


name and by working group, and identify that 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 

75 

was closed. That, I think, would be -- 


certainly for me, as a member of several 


working groups, that would be easier for me to 


follow than trying to do so on the -- when the 


page correction occurs or when the document 


correction occurs. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and this is Lew Wade. We --


we've approached this issue several times, but 


we really haven't finalized it. I think when 


the Board meets in December we really need to ­

-


 MS. MUNN: Address that. 


 DR. WADE: -- put a procedure in place that 


we'll follow on that. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, get it to the ground. 


 DR. WADE: So I'll see that we have that as 


part of our discussion in December. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do we really need this comment 


then from 9/6/06 on here? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we have both of them there. 


It may --


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, it's confusing. It says 


that, you know, the action -- the work is 


completed, and then we say that we have no 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 

76 

or mechanism to provide us -- that this is 


complete. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, maybe we should drop both 


those off there since, as everybody agrees, it 


is a -- it is a project-wide issue that we have 


to address and the whole Board will have to 


address it. We all know it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, comment ten, TBD does not 


provide any guidance for pre-1963 external 


environmental dose. It's been marked as work 


complete pending sign-off of Chapter 6 revision 


00PC2. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's the one they just 


talked about --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and so we're -- it's done. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And so that right there, to me, 


has been taken care of. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That correct? 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


DR. ROESSLER: And the comment should come off 


then about data integrity and reliability. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can we take that off? Can 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 

77 

delete that, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I would suggest that we do, on 


both that one and comment nine, because that... 


CORRECTION FACTORS FOR EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. Comment 11, 


correction factors for external environmental 


dose. There's been a resolution developed with 


-- in response to 2(b). The action on this is 


development of correction factors is in 


progress. Results will be incorporated in 


Chapter 6, Revision so-and-so. Now this is an 


ongoing issue, is it not? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, that's correct. I believe 


Richard Griffith from ORAU -- he's not 


available today -- but he has been working on 


correction factors for -- for various 


geometries. Cheryl, could you please give us 


an update on Richard Griffith's correction 


factor work? 


MS. SMITH: I'd -- I basically cannot. I know 


he has been working on it. I'm kind of 


wondering how does this affect our -- our 


blanket use of AP geometry. 


DR. NETON: Well, I think -- I think AP 


geometry is a default unless one can identify 

1 

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 

other unique exposure scenarios at a specific 


site. 


MS. SMITH: Okay. Okay, so we would be allowed 


to -- to --


DR. NETON: Oh, sure, yes. 


MS. SMITH: -- (unintelligible) use this in our 


dose reconstruction. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, this is not unlike what 


happened at Mallinckrodt where we -- you know, 


we proposed to use AP geometry and then SC&A 


identified, you know, a situation where if you 


have a spill contamination on the -- on the 


ground -- a planar source on the ground -- 


MS. SMITH: Sure. 


DR. NETON: -- you know, the response of a 


badge on your chest pocket is not going to be 


the same as if it was an AP exposure. This was 


identified at the last Board meeting as a -- as 


a complex-- an overarching issue. I'm not 


convinced that it really is. It is -- it 


certainly affects all sites, but it -- it's 


such a site-specific situation. I mean every 


site has the potential for some unique exposure 


scenario, whether it's overhead piping or 


spills or some machine that they were using 

1 

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 

that was unique. I think the -- the answer 


there is we just need to identify -- and be 


very careful for each site that we identify 


those scenarios and account for them in our 


dose reconstructions, with the default being AP 


geometry unless we can show otherwise. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim --


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- it may -- you know, since 


you already did the calculations for -- for 


Mallinckrodt, I think one of the things that 


does come up is -- is that same scenario with 


the planar source below the worker. And it may 


be useful, since you've already done the 


calculation -- I don't know, maybe the dose 


reconstructionists will correct me -- may be 


useful to have, you know, a 2-page TIB that 


says when you have a -- 


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- job situation like this, use 


this correction factor. 


DR. NETON: That's a good point 'cause I think 


the TIB right now is specific for Mallinckrodt. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, right. 


DR. NETON: And I'm not -- I'm not sure 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 

80 

wouldn't use this in comment 11. I don't 


really know what they're doing right now, but 


it's a good point. We could have a generic TIB 


that would say for these somewhat common 


exposure scenarios like a planar source on the 


ground or overhead piping or, you know -- the 


two or three that we've done already, we could 


put it in there and say use this. It's a good 


point. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So we can say that NIOSH will 


develop a separate TIB for this item? 


DR. NETON: Well, I wouldn't hold up resolution 


of this comment --


 MR. PRESLEY: No. 


DR. NETON: -- for that. I think that -- that 


falls maybe into the overarching issues where 


we would make it easier on dose reconstructors 


if we develop a generic TIB for -- 


(unintelligible) call -- alternate geometries. 


I'm not sure I'd want to tie that to this 


comment resolution 'cause this -- this is just 


-- really ground contamination I think is 


what's discussed here, and I don't know why we 


couldn't just adopt -- adapt the Mallinckrodt 


approach. We did a full Attila run on that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81

 MS. MUNN: We had pretty general consensus 


about receiving that direction with 


Mallinckrodt, as I recall. 


DR. NETON: Oh, yeah, I think... 


 MS. MUNN: So... 


DR. NETON: But I think that we could just move 


forward and correct this for this particular 


situation, but then leave the badging geometry 


issue on the overarching issue list. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. NETON: And I think the resolution of that 


comment would be to have a generic TIB to talk 


about a couple of these alternate geometries. 


 MS. MUNN: Obviously existing things. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, things that make sense. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I agree with that. I think 


that will just solve this problem faster since 


there's a very specific issue here to be solved 


and we already have the solution. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, can we say that -- that on 


this particular comment then that no further 


action will be needed other than your revision 


to Chapter 6? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82

 MR. PRESLEY: That an overarching --


DR. NETON: I would just say revise Chapter 6, 


and then maybe just make a parenthetical note 


that NIOSH will address this as a complex-wide 


issue with a -- with a -- development of a TIB. 


So that wouldn't -- that TIB would not need to 


be issued to close this particular comment. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


DR. NETON: But I agree with Arjun, it will -- 


it will save time down the line if we do 


address this with a TIB that gives the dose 


reconstructor some flexibility just to pull off 


the shelf the correction factors. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, that's -- but for this item 


there's no further action by the -- by this 


workgroup. Right? 


DR. NETON: Well, other than to verify the 


closure that we actually did the revision -- 


 MS. MUNN: Chapter 6 is in revision. 


DR. NETON: It's not done, it's in revision. 


 MS. MUNN: But it's in revision. 


 MR. PRESLEY: In revision. 

 MR. CLAWSON: We're back to the thing of 

tracking. 

 DR. WADE: We go there often. 

1 

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 

DR. NETON: I think I wouldn't close it until 


you've at least heard from us that we've got 


Chapter 6 revised. 


 MS. MUNN: We'll just indicate that it's still 


in progress. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, what I did is I've got 


NIOSH will address this with a TIB/no action 


except to accept Chapter 6. Is that correct? 


 MS. MUNN: Sort of. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Sort of? 


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


the specific thing that -- that Jim was 


suggesting there is to incorporate the 


Mallinckrodt calculation into Chapter 6. That 


would be NIOSH's action, and then the separate 


action on the TIB. 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Which is not connected to the 


NTS resolution. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, so you -- do you agree to 


do that? 


DR. NETON: I might want to agree exactly to -- 


I'm sure the Mallinckrodt works, but I -- I'd 


leave it up to the technical people to look at 

1 

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 

it and make sure it's the same fit. I can't 


imagine it wouldn't be, although we may have 


limited the size of the contamination around 


the worker -- we -- we might need to look at it 


to see if Mallinckrodt is a perfect fit. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I agree, Jim, now that 


you mention it, I think it was a restricted 


geometry which you're going to have to look at. 


I think you -- you'll have to redo the 


calculation. 


DR. NETON: Yeah. We may -- we may have to 


look at it --


 MR. PRESLEY: Or come up with a separate 


calculation? 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: What is the assumption -- energy 


-- photon energy assumptions? 


DR. NETON: For Mallinckrodt? I don't 


remember. 


 DR. BEHLING: I don't (unintelligible). 


DR. NETON: Yeah. Good point, too. I think --


 DR. BEHLING: When you look at fission 


products, I remember looking at the energy 


spectrum from fresh fission product, and they 


have three discrete areas. There's the low 

1 

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 

energy and there's one that's near the 800 keV 


and then there's one that is between one and 


two, which -- which -- if you really deal with 


very high-energy photons, an infinite planar 


source would yield a DCF that's basically 


unity, and therefore you could default to unity 


and get this whole thing out of the way. 


DR. NETON: I think we need to do some modeling 


here yet and -- I think the development of 


correction factors is in progress is still a 


more --


 MR. PRESLEY: That's going to come out --


DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) response. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's going to really come out 


in Chapter 6. Correct? And so until -- until 


you all get that out and we accept it, 


everything sets on hold. 


DR. NETON: I think so. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. NETON: I think we've got some ideas of 


starting points, but I don't know really what's 


been done --


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) overall focus. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody else have anything else 

1 

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 

before we go to 11(b)? 


 MS. MUNN: No, but -- you are going to put in 


that little parenthetical calling out that 


possible separate TIB in order for generic 


alterna-- (unintelligible) geometries as a 


complex-wide issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: As a complex-wide, I -- I said -- 


what I've got in here is NIOSH will address 


this with a TIB, no action except to accept 6, 


Chapter 6, and we need to -- when it's revised. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I guess what I thought was 


happening was that they would attempt to 


address the generic issue with a TIB, but this 


particular one will not be waiting for that. 


DR. NETON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: This particular decision on this 


site will -- will look at -- at previous 


decisions that have been made and follow from 


there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. NETON: Did you get that in one sentence? 


That'd be great. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, I don't have it in one sen-- 


 MS. MUNN: Twenty-five words or less. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87

 MR. PRESLEY: Ray's going -- Wanda's going to 


put that down on hers, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- it can be that compact. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, I also have notes 


and I'll share them with you. 


CORRECTION FACTORS


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. Oh, 11(b), on this we 


-- again, we get back to response 2(b), and the 


action on this was develop the correction 


factors and the progress. All ri-- and again 


this has to do with Chapter 6. 


DR. NETON: I'm a little confused as to what 


this is referring to. NIOSH agrees to develop 


external dose correction factors for angle of 


incidence when it is not normal to the badge. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's where we were discussing 


where the badge was at the waist or where the 


badge was at the chest or around the neck 


and... 


DR. NETON: Then this refers back to -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: 2(b). 


DR. NETON: -- response 2(d). 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I mean 2(d), not 2(b). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I do not know why this 


refers to response 2(d). 


DR. NETON: Well, it's -- it specifically -- 


you know, this is gonads, the prostate. I've 


got the original matrix with me that refers to 


the page of the review -- correction factors 


for external -- it says here correction factors 


for external environmental dose due to geometry 


of organ relative to badge and angle 


(unintelligible) dose conversion factor needs 


to be developed. So environmental dose. Is 


this still referring to the planar 


contamination issue again? I mean --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I don't know. I -- I 


actually -- let me see, am I on mute? 


DR. NETON: No, you're okay, Arjun. I can hear 


you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I actually -- I'm a little 


puzzled by this item and why -- why it's a -- 


why it's a separate item, because this is -- it 


seems like the same as 11(a). 


DR. NETON: Yeah, as a matter of fact I'm 


looking at the actual review you guys did. It 


says the organ for which doses are being 


estimated relative to the position 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 

89 

external radiation source -- that is organs 


closer to the ground -- will tend to get a 


larger dose than those far away, so the organ-


specific dose estimation -- this is the same 


kind of thing, really. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I think that when 


you consider 11(a) you can consider 11(b) part 


of it. I do not remember why this refers back. 


I guess -- I guess you'll have to ask Gene why 


it refers back to 2(d) because it's never come 


up. I guess I missed that piece of fine print. 


It says that in 11(a) also, and I also don't 


understand that in relation to 11(a). 


 MS. MUNN: Well, but 2(d) is talking about the 


issue of beta/gamma dose to the gonads and 


possibly prostate being evaluated in light of 


the dose estimating... 


DR. NETON: Yeah, here's -- here's -- I've got 


a little more intelligence on page 71 -- I'm 


sorry, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: No, go ahead. 


DR. NETON: This has to do with this whole AP 


and -- and the --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- the geometry, and it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

acknowledged in the review that the adoption of 


the AP geometry for this exposure is claimant 


favorable for photon energies above 250, 


positive bias around 20 percent will be seen 


with respect to the rotational geometry, but 


then they argue that for best-case dose 


estimates, NIOSH has to correct for the general 


dose conversion factors published in the 


procedures. 


Boy, that's -- we -- we could I guess argue 


that that's as far as we're going and we won't 


be able to do any better than that and that's 


best case. I mean I don't know. I guess 


you'll have to leave this one open, now that I 


understand it better, but I would get the 


reference to 2(d) out of there. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, but it appears to be. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It's still -- I believe it's part 


of (d). 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think this occurs on page 71 


of our review --


DR. NETON: Right, that's what I just read. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and I'll -- we might need to 


go back to the fuller explanation 'cause 


sometimes these short things get so cryptic 

1 

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 

that --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- it's hard to figure out what 


the original point was. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, it says --


DR. NETON: Well, the bottom line says we're 


going to develop correction factors -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


DR. NETON: -- but I'm not --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- sure what we're doing -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think so. That's the main 


point that's made in that finding in 5.7.6 


that's referred to. The 5.-- 5.3.6, the other 


one, is an environmental dose finding, which I 


think is covered elsewhere and we've said that 


omitting environmental dose for badged workers 


is not an issue, shouldn't be taken into 


account --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- so that -- that's been 


resolved separately, I think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And we -- can we leave this that 


NIOSH will develop correction 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 

92 

DR. NETON: I think so, and we'll go back and 


look at pages 43 and 71 of the original review 


report and make sure that whatever we do is 


consistent with the comments that are made 


there. 


25/75 SPLIT


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 11(c) has to do with the 


25/75 split, and NIOSH will provide an 


explanation of the split on a best-estimate 


basis. Have y'all had a chance to do any work 


on that yet? 


 MR. ROLFES: Cheryl, I have this marked as the 


work has been completed here. 


MS. SMITH: Yes, and I -- I can't speak to 


that. Grif and -- and I know that the 25/75 


split is in the TBD and that we do use it, but 


-- what the explanation has been, but I can 


follow up and ask Jack if he's -- I don't know 


that he's in today. He may be actually back in 


Cincinnati. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Cheryl, this is Bob Presley. It 


says that it -- that it's in the Chapter 6 


revision. 


MS. SMITH: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And we should get that when 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 

93 

revision comes out. 


 MR. ROLFES: Correct, when NIOSH approves it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


MS. SMITH: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: So it's just awaiting approval. 


STATISTICAL METHODS


 MR. PRESLEY: Let's go ahead. Okay. All 


right, (e) -- 11(d), NIOSH will develop 


statistical methods to --


DR. ROESSLER: Yes, I'd be interested in 


knowing what that means, that NIOSH will 


develop statistical methods to determine if 


practice was widespread. 


DR. NETON: Something to do with the workers 


not wearing their badges -- 


 MS. MUNN: Hiding their badges (unintelligible) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hiding their badges. 


DR. NETON: We had talked about this before in 


the context I think of Rocky Flats and then 


some of the other sites -- Hanford, I think, 


there's also an issue. Our thought on this was 


if we have particularly robust data and data 


that approached -- many times these workers 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

were asserting that they were told not to wear 


their badge after they reached the detect-- 


reached the exposure limit so they could just 


continue to keep working and report no dose 


over the limit. And our thought on that was if 


we have sufficient data -- this didn't pan out 


for Rocky Flats and I don't know if it would 


for NTS, but with sufficient data you could 


look at the distribution of workers' badges and 


see if they actually continued to rise towards 


the limit or started to tail over and flatten 


off as they got to the limit, which would -- 


which would be evidence, not conclusive 


evidence but some evidence that that occurred. 


If the slope of that cumulative dose over the 


monitoring period -- over the year continued to 


rise, then it would not tend to support the 


theory that the workers were leaving their 


badges in the rack because they continued to 


receive incremental dose. But that -- that 


would work for internal. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, the continu-- the converse 


argument would be that that could also be taken 


as indication that their supervision recognized 


their approaching of the limits and changed 

1 

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 

their work pattern so that they would not 


continue --


DR. NETON: True, it's not (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: -- to be exposed, so it -- there -- 


it's just as indicative in one direction as it 


is another. 


DR. NETON: I'm aware of one case -- as a 


matter of fact, one of the first cases we ever 


did at NTS -- where the worker -- worker's 


badge results stopped increasing, they said he 


was taken out of the workplace, when in fact he 


was monitored for tritium and his tritium 


values were as high as ever over in the next 


six months, so --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- that was pretty conclusive 


evidence in our mind that -- 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. NETON: -- he was still working. 


 MS. MUNN: Then you have a basis for making 


your --


DR. NETON: So you know --


 MS. MUNN: -- decision. 


DR. NETON: -- statistical methods may be a 


little -- a little too loose, 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 

96 

DR. ROESSLER: I understand what it means -- 


DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) concept -- 


DR. ROESSLER: -- now, yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- that we're trying to play with. 


I don't know whether these will come to 


fruition or not. And then if they don't pan 


out, you're -- you're in a situation where, 


you know, how -- how to deal with it. And then 


you get into this sort of weight-of-theevidence approach. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, when you have a bioassay, you 


really don't --


DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) bioassay. 


 MS. MUNN: -- wring your hands about it very 


much. 


DR. NETON: Right. All we could do with this 


analysis was to determine if the practice was 


or was not potentially widespread. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: It still wouldn't preclude the 


situation where a couple of isolated workers 


may have done that. In those cases where 


workers do assert that, though, we would -- you 


could assume them to be unmonitored at that 


point and then go to coworker models. 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 

97 

would be an approach. We've done that, I 


think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can we highlight this as a 


complex-wide issue and that no other action 


would be required by the working group? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's what we've got. 


DR. NETON: Well --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now Jim, am I to understand 


that this statistical analysis is being done 


for NTS? 


DR. NETON: I don't know, Arjun, that's -- I'm 


kind of getting into this a little later, but I 


think it says that's what we're doing, so -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, because I remember you 


were saying this some time back -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- or someone saying that would 


be the approach, and I think it would be very 


useful to see that. 


DR. NETON: Right. And you know, even if we 


develop this complex-wide -- it's a complex-


wide issue, but the approach we take to 


evaluate this issue is site-specific -- again, 


as is usual. And we do have to address this 


for NTS. I mean us coming up with a potential 

1 

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 

approach to solve this issue would not work. 


We'd have to apply it to NTS. 


Does anyone on the ORAU side that's on the 


telephone know if this is being worked on at 


this moment? 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. The coworker doses 


that were developed that are in that page 


change that was referred to earlier -- probably 


this -- this was data that Jack Fix got from 


Martha, and I think other than going through 


lots and lots of individual records, it's as 


good as it's going to get. And I'm not sure 


that this type of analysis that Arjun is 


speaking of here would be possible with that 


data. 


DR. NETON: Well, be careful --


MS. SMITH: Now perhaps -- well, you know, 


Martha could be approached to see if there's 


some other ways to have -- to -- to retrieve 


the data so that you -- we could get it in a 


more specific format. 


DR. NETON: Well, we need to go back and look ­

- I know, for example, that all of the claimant 


data that we've received from DOE, in general, 


has been put into workbooks. So presumab--

1 

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 

MS. SMITH: Correct, and --

DR. NETON: -- presum--

MS. SMITH: -- I actually -- when we were 

trying to figure out how we were going to 


assign doses prior to 1957, I had one of the 


data entry people here go through all the cases 


with -- claimant cases that had data between 


'51 and '57 and put it into a spreadsheet, and 


it's not -- it doesn't have any statistic-- 


statistical validity or it's just not strong 


enough. I can forward that to you if you'd 


like. 


DR. NETON: I'd like to see that. Let's --


let's -- I guess the answer is that we're 


working on it here and -- 


MS. SMITH: Okay. 


DR. NETON: -- we will get back to you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. NETON: This is a -- this is a real problem 


for -- for a number of sites. 


 MS. MUNN: But it would seem your approach that 


you outlined makes good sense. If you have 


bioassay, it's not an issue. If you don't have 


bioassay and do have data from coworkers, then 


obviously it would be a logical thing to 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 

100 

CORRECTION FACTORS WITH JOB MATRIX


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 11(e), correction factors 


have been developed and can be applied in 


conjunction with job matrix. Chapter 2, we're 


still waiting on revision six to come out, but 


I don't see any action on this whatsoever by -- 


this is -- could probably be marked complete, 


pending the revision of the -- of Chapter 6. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, is is -- it is -- 


there -- there isn't any action on the part of 


the working group, I guess, until -- until the 


revision is complete. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, agreed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree. 


 MS. MUNN: Break time. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. 


DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) on till after 


break. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Why don't we have a break for 


about 15 minutes and be back in here at five 


after 11:00. Is that all right with everybody? 


DR. ROESSLER: Sounds good. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:49 a.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 

101 

to 11:09 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: Could I ask those on the line to 


identify themselves? Who's on the line with us 


now -- telephone line? 


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


with Health and Human Services. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Liz. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Arjun. Thank you for coming 


back. Cold and rainy here in Cincinnati. 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. 


 DR. WADE: Hello. 


MS. SMITH: With the ORAU team. 


 DR. WADE: Good. Is Sandy Schubert on the line 


with Senator Reid? 


 MR. MCDONOUGH*: This is Alex McDonough from 


Senator Harry Reid's office. Sandy has been in 


and off the call. 


 DR. WADE: Now we -- we had the matrix sent to 


Sandy. 


 MR. MCDONOUGH: Okay. I'll let her know that 


you said --


 DR. WADE: Yeah, so I --


 MR. MCDONOUGH: -- that you sent it and ask her 


to send it 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 

102

 DR. WADE: Okay, if -- if that's easy for you 


to do. 


 MR. MCDONOUGH: Yeah, that -- that's easy to 


do. We're in the same office. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, good. 


 MR. MCDONOUGH: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you for joining us. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Billy Smith, are you there? 


MR. SMITH: Yes, I am. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right, thank you. 


 MR. ROLFES: Is Gene Rollins back? 


 DR. WADE: Is Gene Rollins back with us? 


 (No responses) 


 MR. PRESLEY: We want to -- to bypass 12 then? 


DR. ROESSLER: Until Gene gets back. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Till Gene gets back? 


DR. ROESSLER: That might be (unintelligible). 


 MR. ROLFES: That might be a good idea, I 


think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think it'd be an excellent 


idea. So need to mark it with bypass 12. We 


bypassed (unintelligible). 


ENVIRONMENTAL VERSUS OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
 

Okay, 13, environmental dose -- let's see, 


guidance in the TBD may not be 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 

103 

(unintelligible) exposure. Oh, action on this 


is revise environmental versus occupational 


exposure, add guidance to Chapter 5 revision as 


needed. Mark and Jim, do y'all want to comment 


on what's been done on that? 


 MR. ROLFES: Let's see, Cheryl, do you know -- 


have you spoken with Vern Cath-- or I'm sorry, 


Ron Catherine* or Vern Shockley* about iodine131 venting? I don't know what the status of 


that is, Cheryl. 


MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. Ron Catherine has 


provided some guidance for iodine and it has 


been incorporated into the revision to the TBD 


that will be, you know, for OCAS review as soon 


as it's released or -- I -- I believe it's 


going to go in -- yeah, it's going to go into 


Chapter 5. 


 MS. MUNN: Chapter 5, good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So we need to be looking for a -- 


a document to be coming out from OCAS. Is that 


correct? 


MS. SMITH: Well, it hasn't gone through 


internal review at this point, so I don't know 


what the time line is on that. Is there a --


is it part of one of the Gantt charts, Mark, 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 

104 

you know? 


 MR. ROLFES: I'm not certain. 


MS. SMITH: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: But that Chapter 5 revision is 


essentially done. It's -- again -- 


 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, it -- it sounds like -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- it's just waiting -- 


 MR. ROLFES: -- the work has been completed, 


we're just awaiting for final review and 


approval. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: Is there concern about other 


radioiodines besides 131? Arjun? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: You know, I -- I cannot 


remember if we've raised that in -- in our site 


profile review. Let me look at it. I don't --


I don't remember. These -- these comments get 


awfully narrow in the matrix and so it's hard 


to keep track of it without going back. I'll ­

- you can go on with the discussion. I'll look 


at it and then --


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, because if it's -- if -- if 


it's around (unintelligible) fresh fission 


product inventory that's being vented, going 


back to my work that I just completed -- as 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 

105 

know, work for the CDC -- on that issue in the 


Marshalls, the people's exposure who were close 


to BRAVO, when you look at the thyroid doses, 


the iodine 131 for those closest to -- to Test 


BRAVO were actually only one-sixth of the total 


thyroid dose from the other iodines -- 132, 3, 


4 and 5. So in essence, you may be overlooking 


a larger dose from shorter-lived radioiodines 


if you focus on iodine-131, depending on the 


age of the -- the release. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I don't see that we 


raised the other iodines, at least in this 


finding. It may be -- are you thinking of 


what, 135 or --


 DR. BEHLING: Well, yeah, they -- they range 


from -- from, you know, a short -- 20 minutes 


to 20 hours. But as I said, the yield for some 


of the other iodines is higher and therefore 


giving you a differential higher dose. As I 


said, I'm going now on the work I'm doing for 


the Marshall Islanders, and some of their 


exposures on Rongelap -- the total thyroid was 


actually six times higher from the others than 


it was for iodine-131 by itself. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. No, I -- we may not 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 

106 

raised this. It may have slipped through a 


crack here. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, how -- how does -- 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. Ron's writeup 


includes most of the short-lived daughters, so 


it's -- it's not like it is just addressing 


iodine-131. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, great. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- tellurium comes into play here 


because you will see iodine decaying -- 


tellurium decaying into iodine. 


 MS. MUNN: Now how -- how is this item 


particularly different than comment one? 


Because in comment one, you know, where we 


started from this site was with a list of 


radionuclides that SC&A felt had not been 


addressed. And I thought we were going back 


and pretty much covering the waterfront on 


everything. The 131 came up as a question of 


venting, I think, but were these -- were the 


iodines and the other short-lived isotopes that 


are of concern in this item not covered in the 


big, broader issue with Table 1? Do -- do we 


know, because I don't have the original table 

1 

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 

in front of me. 


 DR. BEHLING: I don't know. In fact, I'm not 


even familiar with (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, Ms. Munn --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, this is Arjun. I --


I think that this finding was in the context of 


environmental dose and workers who may not have 


been monitored, and how environmental dose from 


ventings was going to assigned. So it was a 


rather specific thing rather than a more 


general discussion of which radionuclides were 


relevant at the test site as a whole. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, so this -- this would be case-


dependent then. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So for unmonitored workers who 


didn't have the internal monitoring for iodine 


in cases of venting. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Unintelligible) 


MR. SMITH: Arjun, this is Billy Smith. I had 


a question regarding what you mean by 


unmonitored workers. Are you talking 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 

108 

workers who did not submit urine samples? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, workers who did not 


submit urine samples or, in the case of iodine, 


presumably the thyroids were not monitored in 


case they were in the path of a plume or 


something like that. 


MR. SMITH: So it's -- it's either a direct 


thyroid counting or were not bioassay sampled ­

-


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


MR. SMITH: -- is your definition of an 


unmonitored worker in this case. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


MR. SMITH: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, what I put down on that was 


working group will review when revision to 


Chapter 5 comes out. Again that's one of these 


ongoing items. Everybody agree? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I beg your pardon, Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Arjun, what I put down was 


working group will review when revision to 


Chapter 5 comes out. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

NO INTERNAL MONITORING DATA UNTIL LATE ’55 OR ‘56


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. Comment 14, there's 


no internal monitoring data until late '55 or 


'56. Some plutonium from then on some -- some 


-- I guess that's "and" -- and some tritium 


from 1958 plutonium, tritium and mixed fusion 


products. This has to do with item 5, which 


Gene is not here. We have not discussed this 


yet. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Bob, I'm back on the line now. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Great. 


 MS. MUNN: Just in time. 


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


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Gene, have you moved in yet? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm now a proud homeowner once 


again. I'm going to be moving on Friday, thank 


you. I never saw so many papers to sign in my 


life. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, thank you for coming back. 


We appreciate you very much. 


Does anybody have any comment on 14, or do we 


need to, since Gene's here, go back and -- and 


try to pick up five and -- and 12 before we go 


on? 


DR. ROESSLER: Seems like we should go back 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 

110 

five, start there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Gene --


 MS. MUNN: The only thing I would ask is that 


we kind of take a quick look at the other items 


that we haven't addressed yet today to see how 


many of those are incorporated in that Chapter 


5 revision so that we don't have to keep going 


back to it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, we know 14 is. 


 MS. MUNN: We know 14 is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And let's see --


 MS. MUNN: We have -- 18 is. So is 17. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: And there -- I thought there was one 


other -- no, there are two others, 23 -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: 23 and 24 -- no, 23(b). 


 MS. MUNN: -- 23(b), yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Chapter 4 -- right? -- or 


Chapter --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Are we talking about things 


that relate to comment number five, the 


resuspension model? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, what -- what we were going 


to do, Arjun, since Gene's back, is go back and 


start on five. 'Cause I think by doing 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 

111 

may ask -- answer some questions for some of 


these later issues. 


RESUSPENSION MODEL
 

Five has to do with the resuspension model and 


resuspension factors, and Gene, are you ready 


to discuss this with us -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yeah, we can start talking about 

this. 

 MR. PRESLEY: -- (unintelligible) your finding, 

sir? 

 MR. ROLLINS: I've done several things. Number 

one, Dr. Anspaugh provided me with his 


perspective on what the problems are associated 


with, number one, my model -- my resuspension 


model. And he also provided some information 


about some of the items we should consider in 


doing dose reconstruction regarding resuspended 


contaminated material. Has the Board had an 


opportunity to read this paper? 


 MS. MUNN: I have not. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Me either. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. Munn, it was sent -- it was 


sent out somewhere in the first part of 


October. It's dated October 8, 2006. 


DR. ROESSLER: I've read it, and I see I 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 

112 

lots of little tabs on it, but I haven't 


revisited it so I think I'd have to do some 


studying. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, I have read that, too. 


DR. ROESSLER: Maybe you can point out 


pertinent things in it. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I've probably got it on 


here. 


 MS. MUNN: How would I have filed that? 


DR. ROESSLER: One of the notes I have is -- it 


says need -- we need to have NIOSH and SC&A, 


along with Lynn Anspaugh's input, do some giveand-take at a workgroup meeting. Maybe this is 


it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Dr. Anspaugh I think is 


in Tahiti, but --


DR. ROESSLER: We could all go there with -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yeah, I wish I was with him. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: He said he was having a good 


time. 


 MS. MUNN: Maybe we should all go over and 


discuss this with him. 


 MR. ROLLINS: I could speak in some general 


terms about some of the items that he has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

brought up. And first of all, I would preface 


all my remarks by saying that I don't disagree 


with -- with any of the technical issues that ­

- that Dr. Anspaugh has -- has brought up. 


These are -- these are things that we have all 


thought about, but we have also tried to -- to 


work towards a workable solution. And my -- my 


original attempt was to try to come up with a 


method that would provide something that we 


could hopefully agree on would be a reasonable 


overestimate or a reasonable underestimate, 


depending on how we intended to use the -- the 


material. 


One thing I did do was go back and develop a 


mass loading model based on full* contamination 


data and mass loading factors that we -- that 


are available for the Nevada Test Site. What ­

- what my simplified -- and I will call it a 


simplified mass loading model -- did not take 


credit currently for any decay of short-lived 


radionuclides, which was one of the major 


concerns that Dr. Anspaugh voiced in his paper. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ROLLINS: That can be done. 


DR. ROESSLER: 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 

114

 MR. ROLLINS: It becomes somewhat more 


difficult when you consider that there were 


multiple episodes that each one would have to 


be handled as far as decay correction 


differently and you can -- you can begin to see 


how complicated it could be. But I think there 


are some things we can do to simplify these 


calculations by doing some bounding 


calculations. 


 He has provided a list of radionuclides which 


he says are important 21 hours after a 


detonation. And one thing that I -- that I 


could do that would not take an unreasonable 


amount of time would be to go through these 


radionuclides, compare them with their relative 


abundance and their importance to dose -- 


taking those two factors together, I could -- I 


could screen these to see where the potential 


dose is coming from. And I think, hopefully, 


we could all agree that if I can demonstrate 


that we're capturing 90 or 95 percent of the 


radionuclides that contribute significantly to 


dose, then maybe a lot of these would drop out 


and the problem would become a little more 


tractable. I think I could do that in a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

reasonable amount of time. Because a lot of 


these radionuclides are short-lived, I don't 


think their contribution to dose is going to be 


of much significance. But we need -- as he 


pointed out in his paper, we need to show that 


to be the case. 


Back to my mass loading model, you may remember 


in a previous discussion that we had I had 


average and maximum intakes based on my 


resuspension model currently in the TBD. The 


average intakes were kind of small and really 


of no dose significance. I think my original 


proposal was well, we can use those in a case 


where an individual is clearly compensable 


'cause it won't make any difference. The 


maximum intakes, on the other hand, that I 


originally provided from my resuspension model 


are a couple of orders of magnitude higher than 


the average, and I felt like that that would 


provide a reasonable overestimate. 


Well, in going back and applying a site-


specific mass loading model, what I've learned 


is that my original maximum intakes in 


becquerels per year would actually increase by 


a factor of ten over what I had previously 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 

116 

as a maximum intake. Now that's with no decay 


correction, but I think what we can do, because 


the relative dose is fairly small -- in fact 


it's very small, because -- and I think -- I 


don't -- I don't remember whether I gave you -- 


it seems to me that I provided these numbers 


for you in a previous -- 


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


Mark Rolfes. I do have -- I believe for the 


August 8th call -- I take that back. Back in 


July you did provide some dose tables 


illustrating the maximum intake in associated 


doses to various organs, and then the factor of 


ten higher as well. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes. In fact the example that I 


used to illustrate this was my assumption was 


that an individual had ten years of the maximum 


intake values provided in the table, and the 


doses that I provided in the table were 


actually 30-year integrated doses. And I also 


provided a table that showed what would happen 


if you increased these doses by a factor of 


ten, which is -- which would, by -- I guess by 


accident, look very much like my current mass 


loading propos-- loading model proposal. 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 

117 

what it shows is that, with the exception of 


the respiratory tract organs and the case of 


the liver for uranium and bone surfaces for 


plutonium, the consequences to other organs in 


the body is very small. We're talking several 


millirem to maybe as much as 300 millirem. 


That's for ten years of exposure. 


So that helps to -- helps you, hopefully, to 


get an idea of the magnitude of the problem and 


what potential effect that it would have on a 


probability of causation, for example. 


Now in the case of lung, for example, if you 


used my current proposed, simplified mass 


loading model -- which would give us ten times 


the intakes that were previously published in 


the TBD as maximum intakes -- ten years of 


exposure at a 30-year dose to the lung would 


work out to nine and a half rem. Now from my 


experience in using IREP and determining 


probability of causation, for an individual 


with a reasonable amount of latency period -- 


which is typically ten to 15 years -- and for a 


previous smoker, which in my experience, 99 


percent of the Energy employees were previous ­

- former smokers, it takes about 60 to 65 rem 

1 

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 

to exceed 50 percent probability of causation. 


So another nine rem from resuspension could be 


important to determining compensability. 


Doses to the ET-2 region and the LNET regions 


are even higher than that. They would run 


about 20 -- 16 and 20 rem, respectively. But 


some of those cancers associated need much more 


dose than that to go compensable. 


So I guess I've kind of, in a way, outlined 


where we are as to the importance or potential 


importance of resuspension. And now I -- now 


I'm really at a loss as to where we should go 


from here, how much resource should be expended 


because, you know, this is a problem that if 


you -- we can't know all the variables. We 


can't know where a person was. We can't know 


what the atmospheric conditions were at the 


time that the individual was there. There's a 


lot of uncertainty in this. But as I pointed 


out, there are a few cancers that could be 


affected if we become too claimant-favorable. 


And so I can open this up to discussions and 


maybe we can get some ideas of what a 


reasonable path forward would be for this 


problem. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

DR. ROESSLER: Well, Gene, I think the comment 


that's shown in the matrix about the working 


group expressing concern about how significant 


the impact was to go through all of this was 


mine, because I remember that table -- I don't 


have it in front of me now, but there were huge 


negative exponents in some of the doses, and 


you've just verified that for most of the 


organs it's on the order or maybe millirem and 


-- at a maximum calculation. So my -- my 


concern at that time was that a great deal of 


resources and money be expended on this, when 


there'd probably be more important things to be 


working on. But you now brought up this dose 


to the lung as a potential one that could be 


important, so I -- right now I'm not sure, 


either, where we should recommend you go on it. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, I can throw out some ideas, 


and maybe we can discuss the acceptability of 


some of these ideas. For example, at Hanford 


we have situations where we had construction 


workers that were not monitored, so we 


developed a coworker study that would allow us 


to assign intakes of various radionuclides, 


based on those people that were monitored -- 

1 

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 

based on that experience. And then we said, 


because of some uncertainty, we can -- we can 


double that, and we're currently doing that at 


Hanford. There were, I suspect -- and maybe 


Billy could comment on this, but there were 


probably a fair number of people who were -- 


had a potential for being exposed, but were not 


on a bioassay monitoring program. And of 


course this whole premise of this environmental 


-- occupational environmental chapter is that 


there were people out there walking around 


being exposed that nobody ever really gave it 


much thought. But maybe Billy did give it a 


lot of thought, I don't know. Maybe Billy has 


some thoughts on this that could help move this 


discussion forward. 


MR. SMITH: Well, Gene, let me make a comment 


here. Of course all of you have been to the 


test site and know the size of the area that 


we're talking about. And of course you know 


everybody was monitored with external 


dosimeters. We only did internal monitoring, 


either bioassay sampling or whole body 


counting, on a select subset of people, 


primarily the radiation safety personnel. 

1 

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 

Hence the RCTs, radiation monitors, health 


physicists, industrial hygienists who worked in 


radiological areas. 


We also chose another subset of people that we 


monitored, which were the WSI guards, those had 


permanently-assigned stations, and also the 


rolling guards because they were all over the 


test site all of the time. And based on the 


kinds of data that we got from doing the 


bioassay sampling and whole body counting of 


these individuals, then you could probably come 


up with some -- some -- use these as a study to 


do a coworker model for those people who were 


not sampled and not whole body counted. 


But I can tell you right now that the number of 


positive doses or exposures that you would get 


from people that -- from the two subsets that 


we sampled were extremely, extremely small. 


And the other thing that we had that nobody's 


seemed to mention today is that we had a 24/7 


environmental surveillance program where we air 


sampled the air over the entire test site. We 


had several hundred environmental air samples 


that were running 24 hours a day, and those 


were analyzed on a quarterly -- monthly 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 

122 

quarterly basis using very large volumes of 


air, and we were able to measure what the 


plutonium concentrations were and the fission 


product concentrations were in the 


environmental air. And these concentrations, 


again, were extremely low. All this is 


documented in the NTS environmental reports 


that are published. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. Billy, 


thank you for that. Also included in the TBD 


Chapter 4 is a summary of the atmospheric 


monitoring data. And as you said, Billy, even 


using maximum values based on actual empirical 


data that these monitors provided, it does not 


support these maximum intake values that I -- 


that I have proposed. In fact I said that in 


the TBD, that we need to be careful because the 


actual empirical data does not support this 


model data, and I gave reasons for that, mostly 


just claimant-favorable assumptions in the 


development of the model. 


Now one of the concerns of Dr. Anspaugh is that 


these averaging values that we get from these 


monitors may not be reflective of what an 


individual could have been exposed to had he 

1 

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 

been in the wrong place at the wrong time, for 


example. But now that's the very example of a 


situation that we -- we could probably never 


know whether this individual was in the wrong 


place at the wrong time. And if we make the 


assumption that everybody was in the wrong 


place at the wrong time, then I think we may be 


going a little bit too far in the claimant 


favorability arena. 


 MS. MUNN: This gets outside of being claimant 


favorable and gets into reputation of known 


data, of good science and certainly of any 


epidemiological study that could support any 


such thing -- which of course we're not allowed 


to utilize. But nevertheless, it's of real 


concern to a few of us on the Board that we not 


get outside the arena of good science or of 


available data. So this appears to be a little 


bit like some of the programs that have been 


put together to try to incorporate all the 


variables to compute global warming. We're 


just -- we have to be really reasonable and be 


cautious, I think. The effort that you folks 


put into it is admirable, because it appears to 


some of us that it's a real effort to be as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

specific as possible. That's genuinely 


appreciated. 


 Conversely, if the effort is going to lead us 


to consequences that are very small, then some 


of us have a real need to question that. So 


thank you for what you're doing, but your -- 


your concerns over claimant favorability 


falling past the point of reason and into overconcern is very well-taken here. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins again. 


Moving -- beginning to talk again about the 


potential for a coworker study, what Billy says 


has certainly been my experience, is that there 


are very few positive bioassays at the Nevada 


Test Site. So if we were to develop a coworker 


study and try to assign dose, then my suspicion 


is it's going to be driven largely by less than 


MDA values. 


Now for the fission products, that does not 


result in any significant dose. However, for 


plutonium and uranium, and for a select few 


radionuclides, assigning missed dose does 


result in some significant organ dose. But 


that's one way we could do that, and we might 


be able to make some justification for reducing 

1 

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 

those numbers. But that's one approach that 


we could use. We've used that at other sites, 


and so there is precedent for it. 


 MS. MUNN: Precedents are always one of the 


things that are of concern, I think, especially 


when the circumstances vary so widely from one 


site to another. So making a decision to, in 


all cases, assume that there are large missed 


doses for the claimants may fall outside the 


realm of reason. It would be difficult to 


justify that, I think. In a truly scientific, 


peer-reviewed program it would be, I believe, 


difficult to justify making that assumption 


with a broad brush. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. Gene, why --


why are you not using the T* to the minus 1.2 


reduction to decay the -- first you correct and 


go back using the X tables, but then -- you 


can use a correction for decay so you don't 


come up with numbers that don't have -- you 


know, that don't -- that don't have sort of 


physical reasonableness. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Could you excuse me for just one 


second? I'll be right back with you. 


DR. ROESSLER: What's he talking about, Hans? 

1 

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 

Is that a --


 DR. BEHLING: No, the -- Arjun the Hicks table 


-- for instance, if you're looking for a time 


20 hours past the detonation, the Hicks tables 


give you exact citation of both activation and 


fission products. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I realize that, Hans, but 


what I'm saying at that point if you can 


calculate a gamma dose, why can't you then use 


a T to the minus 1.2 to correct that as time 


goes on? 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, in fact --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But this is resuspension. I'm 


sorry. Yeah, okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: No, the Hicks tables actually 


give it to you in terms of MR per hour, and 


then you can determine, based on time interval 


-- you can scale -- as you and I talked 


yesterday, I'll show you how to use the Hicks 


table. 


 MR. ROLLINS: As I said -- this is Gene Rollins 


again. As I said, there are methods that we 


can decay-correct, but it becomes very complex 


if you try to decay-correct for the multiple 


events. The reason -- the approach that I took 

1 

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 

was based on the data that was available. As 


Billy said, when the environmental reports 


started in the late '60s and early '70s, there 


was a plethora of air sampling data. I could 


find nothing of any use prior to that. Prior 


to that they were mostly interested in what the 


conditions were actually in the plume, which is 


not the conditions that people were exposed to, 


so it was very difficult to try to move back in 


time. 


I still believe, based on what I believe a 


screening analysis will tell me, is that the 


short-lived isotopes I do not believe are going 


to be large contributors to organ dose compared 


to the other -- cesiums, the strontiums, the 


uraniums and the plutoniums. Plutonium data of 


course, because of security reasons, a lot of 


that data was not available. You won't find 


that sort of thing in the Harry Hicks reports. 


Dr. Anspaugh does provide a recommendation 


about how to get there by using ratios of 


cesium. Again, additional complexity, many 


variables to consider over time. It's just a 


matter of where are we going to expend 


resources. 

1 

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: How many cases are we talking 


about here -- this would -- get into? 


 MR. ROLFES: There's approximately what -- the 


total number of claims that we have for Nevada 


Test Site I believe is around 1,300 claims. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, and we've probably processed 


a number. 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes, so I would have the number 


available right now. Maybe -- is there anyone 


available to check to see the number of claims 


that we have completed in NOCTS? Is there 


anyone on the line that might have access to 


NOCTS? 


 MR. SUNDIN: Mark, this is Dave Sundin. If 


you'll give me a minute I think I can get that 


for you. 


 MR. ROLFES: Great, thank you, Dave. 


DR. ROESSLER: While he's doing that, I'd like 


to address a question to Arjun. In view of the 


discussion, the things that Gene has said about 


the importance of -- or the impact of this on 


the doses and also Billy's comments about the 


whole body counting and the atmospheric 


monitorings, do you think many people would 


have slipped through the cracks? Have 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 

129 

changed maybe your impression on this, that 


this maybe is not deserving of a great effort? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't -- I don't know how to 


answer that because I don't know how the claims 


fall out. I think from -- take from what Gene 


was just saying, I think maybe it might be more 


relevant to the pre-1970 years than the post1970 years. But I'm not sure. I'm not sure. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. It seems like 


there's no really (unintelligible) that the 


working group can come up with as far as 


direction on this, and I -- Gene has proposed a 


couple of alternatives. And I would suggest 


that we, NIOSH, need to go back and deliberate 


this among ourselves and pick a path forward 


and then throw out the reasons why, you know, 


we chose to do that and bring it back. I think 


Gene's bounding analysis without decay 


correction has merit. I think we need to 


discuss how much extra work there would be to 


decay-correct these values to get a more 


reasonable number, and is that effort worth it. 


And if not, then it may be that that's our best 


estimate and we'll have to live with it. But I 


think this -- maybe the ball is in our court 

1 

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 

here now to come up with a recommendation to 


the Board -- the working group. 


 MS. MUNN: I would also like to see this 


investigation limited to the radionuclides that 


one would reasonably expect to be significant 


contributors. There seems to be no legitimate 


reason for including minuscule contributions 


which, added all together and taken in a lump, 


are not going to make significant changes to a 


POC in any case. And if we could just simply 


get past the concept of trying to account for 


every single radionuclide that could have been 


even a minor contributor -- if we could even 


get past that point it would seem to me that 


you would have a better way to proceed. I 


don't know how the other Board members feel 


about that, but it would just seem wise to me 


that the first step would be to eliminate 


apparently insignificant contributors and focus 


on only what you can -- what we all know are 


the real problems. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins again. Dr. 


Anspaugh did provide in his paper, Table 3, a 


list of 38 radionuclides that in his expert 


opinion -- has all the ones of, as he puts 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 

131 

relatively greater prominence at 21 hours after 


the SEDAN event. 


 MS. MUNN: I see that, and those seem to be -- 


that seems to be a pretty thorough listing, to 


me. As a matter of fact, even that seems to be 


extensive. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, I would like to point out 


that of the 38 listed there only 14 are 


currently in our version of IMBA, so we could 


not even generate annual doses for many of 


these using our approved methods. However, 


having said that, many of these are so -- short 


half-life that effectively all of the dose 


administered would be in the first year of the 


intake anyway, so that's not an intractable 


problem. I think doing a screening analysis on 


these 38 would be of interest, and that would 


be simply looking at the relative abundance at 


21 hours and comparing that to the various dose 


conversion factors -- organ dose conversion 


factors, and then we can figure out which of 


these 38 contribute the majority of a dose. 


 MS. MUNN: That seems eminently reasonable to 


me, especially in view of the fact that I see 


that this table even includes a number 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 

132 

other iodine isotopes that we were discussing 


earlier in another context. Even those are 


there. So I'd really like to narrow this down 


to where it becomes a workable thing for NIOSH, 


and have us all agree that this is not going to 


throw people way underneath any reasonable POC 


that they would otherwise have had. 


 MR. ROLLINS: There is one -- this is Gene 


Rollins again. There is one serious problem, 


as I see it, with this list. And that is some 


of the really bad actors are not here, and that 


is for security reasons. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ROLLINS: (Unintelligible) 239, 238, 


uranium-234, 238, those -- those radionuclides 


are not in this list, and that was not by 


accident. That was by design. And so to do 


any comparative analysis to determine which of 


these radionuclides provide most of the dose, 


we have to include those, and somehow we have 


to get a handle around them without violating 


classification issues. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I can see that. And how to 


approach that I see as a larger issue than 


choosing which of the nuclides on the table 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 

133 

the greatest considerations. Is there --


perhaps this is one of those cases where 


atmospheric data might be of value. 


MR. SMITH: This is Billy Smith. I believe so. 


We -- the environmental reports do contain 


concentrations of what the plutonium 


concentrations were at the various sampling 


locations on site, and you may be able to 


correlate that data to the other fission 


products like strontium and cesium that are in 


Dr. Anspaugh's report. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a possibility, that it seems 


much more reasonable to begin to approach it 


from that direction. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins again. That 


was -- Dr. Anspaugh did mention that there -- 


there may be a way, by ratioing -- 


MR. SMITH: Yep. 


 MR. ROLLINS: -- the more recent data ratios of 


cesium to plutonium than -- that way we may be 


able to go back and infer something about what 


the relative abundance of plutonium would be to 


these other radionuclides that he's listed in 


Table 3. However, now -- if we get it right, 


now we have generated a classification problem, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

and that information would not get through 


derivative classifiers. 


 MS. MUNN: So we have a catch-22 here. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Do you think I'm incorrect on 


that one, Billy? 


MR. SMITH: Well, you know, we cleaned up 


Enewetak and we made gamma measurements on 


Enewetak with the IMPs, the planar germanium 


detectors, by looking at primarily cesium and 


americium photons in the soil there, and we 


were able to infer what the plutonium 


concentrations were because chemical analysis 


for plutonium was just too expensive. It seems 


to me that if you looked at the model that was 


used at -- for the Enewetak Atoll cleanup and ­

- I don't know whether any of you have read 


that report, but it's a -- it would take you 


two years to read it, it's so big, but anyway, 


there --


 DR. BEHLING: I read it. 


MR. SMITH: -- there is a good model in there. 


 MS. MUNN: Hans has read it. 


MR. SMITH: Okay. There's a good model in 


there that would allow you to infer what the 


plutonium concentrations could be. And I think 

1 

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 

that's -- to me, that's what you're trying to 


come up with with a model is what is a 


reasonable concentration for the, if you will, 


classified isotopes -- and I don't mean the 


classified plutonium is a classified 


(unintelligible) per se, but you could come up 


with some numbers for plutonium -- if ingested, 


what would the dose consequences from those be. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay, this is Gene Rollins again. 


Dr. Anspaugh took me to task over a statement 


that I made that -- rightly so -- that most of 


the contamination out there was from above-


ground tests. He says that's not the case. He 


said -- he makes the case that most of it was 


from venting --


 MS. MUNN: Your ground vents, yeah. 


 MR. ROLLINS: -- and like the PLOWSHARE, and I 


don't -- I don't disagree with that because 


what I've been told is that -- 


MR. SMITH: Gene --


 MR. ROLLINS: -- for the atmospheric tests -- 


MR. SMITH: Gene, I disagree with it. I don't 


-- I don't believe -- Lynn Anspaugh and I 


worked a lot together. I processed a lot of 


his samples through my laboratory there 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 

136 

Mercury, and I disagree that most of the 


contamination that's on the ground there is due 


to underground testing. No. 


Most of the -- particularly the heavy stuff, 


the plutonium and uranium, would have been laid 


down as a result of atmospheric testing and 


from some of the PLOWSHARE shots, but there 


were not that many of those. SEDAN was one, 


BUGGY was another one -- I can't think of the 


names of some of the other PLOWSHARE shots. 


 But the plutonium areas -- there was an area 


out there we called Plutonium Valley and -- 


which is fenced and the access to those areas 


are controlled. You have to get permission 


from DOE Operations to enter and you have to 


sign an entry log, and you come out and you 


sign an exit log which gives you a stay-time 


for the people that are in there. You're not 


allowed to get off the road while you're in 


those areas. The RCTs are very, very aware of 


the potential that exists in working in those 


areas and they apply, you know, their everyday 


rules to make sure that people are not 


contaminated and don't get exposed or get an 


intake. 

1 

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 

I can tell you also that as of today they do 


not go into those areas without knowing that 


there's a -- there is contamination there. 


They're required to read the postings and wear 


appropriate PPE while they're in those 


particular areas. 


So I don't know what Lynn took you to task over 


about where this contamination comes from, but 


in a venting -- one of the great things about a 


venting is that the -- the fission product 


gases or the gases -- the stuff that's coming 


out of the ground goes through several hundred 


feet of soil and stemming materials before it 


reaches the surface. Most of the stuff that 


gets out is not plutonium or uranium. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yeah. 


MR. SMITH: Because it's scrubbed by all the 


material that's above it before it gets out. 


So you've got the uraniums -- I'm sorry, the 


iodines that comes out and the xenons that come 


out, rhodium, ruthenium, all of those types of 


things and -- and some europiums. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I -- I have Dr. Anspaugh's 


paper right in front of me. I think he said 


something a little bit more precise, 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 

138 

the -- the maximum values of contamination were 


in Area 30, associated with the Test BUGGY. 


And then the next higher values of 


contamination are associated with Area 20, 


which was the scene of cratering experiments. 


So I think he -- he said something rather more 


precise than what we're attributing to his 


paper. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins again. I 


think what I'm hearing is that NIOSH will take 


an action to develop a model that we will bring 


back to the Board, with justification for why 


we believe it is adequate. I think we could -- 


we could debate this the rest of the day. 


DR. NETON: Right. I think this discussion's 


been helpful, though. 


 MR. ROLLINS: It has been, but I think -- it's 


been helpful in identifying how we may move 


forward on developing a model. 


DR. NETON: Exactly. 


 MR. ROLLINS: And I think we've got an action 


now to go out and do that and provide the Board 


with justification as to why we believe it is 


appropriate and adequate for dose 


reconstruction. 

1 

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 

DR. NETON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, this is Bob Presley and 


I've got it down that NIOSH will look at the 


problem and come up with a recommendation to 


the Board. 


 That concludes five, and we -- let's see, what 


else did we bypass, did we bypass 12? Is that 


what it was? 


DR. NETON: And six and seven. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Six and seven? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Six goes with five, Mr. 


Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think the next one is 12. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was thinking. Do 


we want to break? It's five after 12:00. A 


lot of us have been up since 4:00 o'clock this 


morning. Do we want to bypa-- or break right 


now at 12:00 and -- what's a reasonable time 


for lunch, 45 minutes or an hour? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I think aim at -- aim at ten 


of and we'll start at 1:00. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that all right with everybody, 


ten of? Be back in here and we'll try to knock 


this out by 3:00 o'clock. 

1 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Presley, might I be excused 


after because I have to go to the hearing. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Only if you tell us what went on 


at the hearing. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I will make notes if you like 


and -- and I will -- I will tell you what went 


on. I'll send you all an e-mail. How about 


that? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Arjun. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I'll be happy to be your 


rapporteur. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd like to know if those folks ever 


get any information at all about how much 


really has been done. That'd be nice. 


 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, well, I'm not testifying, 


so --


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I know you're not. 


 DR. WADE: I told them that. So we're going to 


break here -- we're going to break the phone 


line and we're going to dial back in at 


ostensibly ten minutes of 1:00. 


 MR. ROLFES: I did want to check with the ORAU 


-- the ORAU team members to make sure that they 


are available for this afternoon following 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 

141 

break. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. I'll be 


back on the line. 


 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Hans, can you give me a buzz, 


please, at home? 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay, what's your number there? 


I don't have my telephone -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: 301-365-6723. Did you get 


that? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we're going to break contact 


now. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:05 p.m. 


to 1:00 p.m.) 


 DR. WADE: Again I would ask, just for the 


record, are there any Board members on the 


line? Any Board members joining us by 


telephone? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, so we don't have a quorum. We can 


proceed. 


 I'm sure those of you out there will identify 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

yourself as the discussion goes on, unless 


someone is very anxious to have themself 


identified as being on the line. 


 (No responses) 


RADON DOSE IN THE G TUNNEL


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, we're getting ready to 


start back again. This is Bob Presley with 


comment 12, has to do with radon dose in the G 


tunnel, and it says that they're not favorable 


to the Gravel Gertie -- not favorable Grav-- 


not -- claimant -- not claimant-favorable, and 


then it talks about Gravel Gertie and radon 


doses. 


Gene, do you want to talk about this? 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes. I can tell you that I will 


accept the 0.16 working level for G tunnel. 


I've already prepared a revision to go into the 


TBD that will reflect that. I have also 


received information on the Gravel Gerties from 


NIOSH and I am evaluating that and, as 


appropriate, I will include instructions to the 


dose reconstructors about how to account for 


radon in Gravel Gerties. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Tell me a question. I thought 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

I'd been everywhere on that test site. Where 


is there any Gravel Gerties? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I think Billy could probably 


answer that question better than I. 


MR. SMITH: Well, they were -- I think it's 


Area 6, just south of (unintelligible) to the 


west of the Mercury highway, over in the area 


where the new DAF is located. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, okay. These were -- were 


used in experiments in early, early days. 


Right? 


MR. SMITH: I'm not sure what they were used 


for other than for weapons storage and weapons 


work. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, yeah. Right. 


 MR. ROLFES: The Nevada Test Site did approve 


the design of the Gravel Gerties. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, right, yeah, okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: They did test it, so --


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what it was there, yeah. 


We actually didn't build any of them, though. 


Okay, I'm -- I thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: So did I understand you correctly, 


Mark, they were designing the Gravel Gerties. 


 MR. ROLFES: They were testing it to make sure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

it would hold up to a blast and confine 


radioactive material, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay. So in effect there was 


not a great deal of work that went on there. 


They designed them, tested them once or twice 


and went away. 


 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: So we're not talking about an issue 


here that would involve either any appreciable 


part of the site or any appreciable number of 


individuals --


 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: -- ever. Okay. 


 MR. ROLFES: That's right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you very much. What about 


12(b)? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm not really sure why that 


one's not shaded, either, Bob, because I have 


agreed to implement the .16 working level -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: -- prior to 1985. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Can we deem these no 


further action by the Board -- by the working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

group, I mean? 


 MS. MUNN: Just a follow-up to see if it goes 


in the revision. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. Okay, let's see, 12(c), 


what about it? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm not really sure how that's 


different from (a), but -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's fine. It's all the same 


thing. 


 MS. MUNN: Just the comment about Pantex, I 


guess. Are we -- is that a -- is that a 


necessary thing, to review the -- well, no, 


(unintelligible) --


DR. ROESSLER: I think that --


 MS. MUNN: -- do it. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think that, because Pantex has 


data, they're going to compare the soil type to 


Pantex to see if that data is appropriate for 


use at NTS. It sounds good to me. 


DR. NETON: Am I to take it that we actually 


have no Gravel Gertie monitoring data at NTS? 


 MR. ROLFES: Not that I've located. I haven't 


looked specifically for it, but I don't know -- 


Gene, do you -- have you seen any specific air 


monitoring data for radon within the Gravel 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

Gerties at Nevada Test Site? 


 MR. ROLLINS: No, I have not. Billy might be 


able to --


MR. SMITH: I don't recall that we took any. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, small program, small number of 


people. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Small claimant base. 


 MR. ROLFES: Based on EPA maps of radon areas 


and such, the soil type at the Nevada Test Site 


would be similar to that in Amarillo, Texas -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLFES: -- and they're within the same 


range. 


DR. NETON: I was going to say 'cause we -- we 


attempted to use those Gravel Gertie data from 


Pantex at Iowa and we were not very successful 


in doing that. 


DR. ROESSLER: They're very different and 


(unintelligible) get a space on the EPA radon 


monitoring soil type thing. 


 MR. ROLFES: Iowa was much higher. 


DR. ROESSLER: This sounds appropriate. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, we finished up with 13 and 


we're down to 14, which again has to do 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 

147 

internal monitoring and again has to do with 


comment five. Mark or Jim, what do we plan on 


-- you know, with resolution five being done, I 


don't think we have an action here. 


DR. NETON: I'd agree with that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Does everybody agree? 


 MS. MUNN: It appears to be covered by our 


discussions in five. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we're talking about using the 


Hicks data and mass loading model. 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: So how are you going to word that? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No action by working group right 


now. 


Now again, that's another thing -- 


 MS. MUNN: Pending. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- (unintelligible) we're talking 


about, pending that --


 MS. MUNN: Revision of Chapter 5. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- revision of Chapter 5. But I 


don't want to come back and revisit this the 


next time we meet if Chapter 5 is not out. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: Good point. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 15, action, none. Has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

anybody got any comments other than that? 


We've -- resuspension of radionuclides 


(unintelligible)? We've talked about that in 


the past. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it's been agreed to. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 16, same thing, it has been 


agreed to. 


 MS. MUNN: We're done with that one. 


INGESTION DOSES


 MR. PRESLEY: Now, 17, ingestion doses. 


 MS. MUNN: More in the revision of 5. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


DR. ROESSLER: And it says there's agreement -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: We also have an action on that 


that when the model is approved and guidance to 


the Chapter 4 revision. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Jim, have you got anything on 


that other than -- than when Chapter 5 comes 


out, look at it? 


DR. NETON: Well, I'm looking at this ingestion 


dose thing here real quickly, though. I'm --


ingestion doses -- talks about the EPA model at 


5 milligrams per cubic meter. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. This 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 

149 

- and you see in the response there where we 


were talking about the relative importance of 


ingestion versus inhalation, and this would be 


related not to large particles but to 


respirable particles. 


DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ROLLINS: I provided some background 


information here using some EPA-accepted 


factors, and I think -- what I tried to 


demonstrate was that the inhalation potential 


dose far exceeds that that you would expect 


from ingestion. 


 MS. MUNN: That makes sense. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Therefore --


DR. NETON: But Gene, does the environmental 


model have any ingestion dose pathway at all? 


 MR. ROLLINS: No. 


DR. NETON: No. This has been one of the 


problems we've had with many sites. Well, it 


started with Bethlehem Steel, but you know, 


it's recognized by most health physicists that 


ingestion is a minor -- a minor route of 


intake. But in some way it needs to be 


addressed, even if it's just to dismiss it and 


say that it's pretty small for what reason. 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 

150 

sounds like you've attempted to do that here in 


your response. 


 MS. MUNN: I think all -- my interpretation is 


that what's really needed is words with that 


type of guidance going into the Chapter 4 


revision. That's my interpretation. Is that 


incorrect? 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. Would that 


be satisfactory, that I could put a 


justification for not considering -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think so. 


 MR. ROLLINS: -- ingestion? 


DR. NETON: I think if you can build that case 


and put it in there and then -- you know, 


'cause it's conspicuous by its absence. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Okay, I can do that. 


DR. NETON: To many people it's intuitive. You 


look at it and you've got ingestion pathway, 


inhalation pathway and you need to address it 


some way. 


DR. ROESSLER: Give some relative numbers to 


support it. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Right. Now this is just for the 


fine particles that the -- the large particle 


ingestion, that's another issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. MUNN: Is that reasonable, Hans? Is that a 

way to go? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I guess you wouldn't expect 


people to be eating their lunch out there or 


having deposition directly on their foods as 


they're being consumed, so I would assume that 


ingestion is a relatively minor pathway in 


comparison to inhalation. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: I was going to suggest as one of 


the overarching issues we are addressing the 


ingestion pathway, but of course our main focus 


is more for the manufacturing facilities, like 


uranium operations. I'm not sure how directly 


this would be applicable to NT-- our analysis 


would be applicable to NTS, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: I'm not sure, either, but I feel 


relatively sure that any time we find ourselves 


faced with even a potential resuspension 


problem that this same issue is going to arise 


again. 


DR. NETON: Yeah. Well, we had had 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 

152 

discussions with SC&A about the relative 


magnitude of the ingestion pathway, and we've 


been at odds. We've always maintained that 


it's much smaller than what the EPA models that 


are out there would predict for like home 


environments and such. And we'd be prepared in 


-- I think January time frame that's also 


wrapping up with -- EG&G is doing that analysis 


for us, as well. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


DR. ROESSLER: In home environments don't they 


talk about children eating dirt 


(unintelligible) --


DR. NETON: Yeah --


 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) --


DR. ROESSLER: I can't imagine adult -- 


 DR. BEHLING: -- home -- home gardener 


(unintelligible). 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: Some of this EPA study is 


interesting, but if you look at some of the EPA 


studies that estimated ingestion per day, they 


were relying on fecal samples. And they 


completely disallowed any amount of the inhaled 


material that was subsequently swallowed as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

part of the fecal bolus that's coming out. And 


so in our opinion they've potentially 


overestimated significantly the amount that's 


just ingested from pure contact of hand to 


mouth type situation, and we're looking at that 


very closely. I hope to find some data -- 


we've just found some more recent data on 


simultaneous measurements of fecal in ura-- in 


urine for uranium workers. That would give us 


some handle on what's coming out with the 


various pathways. If you knew what the 


inhalation was, you could sort of infer the 


ingestion. 


 MS. MUNN: It would really be helpful if by the 


January meeting you could work that out with -- 


DR. NETON: We hope to. 


 MS. MUNN: -- SC&A and get --


DR. NETON: That's why the final resolutions of 


the Bethlehem Steel -- the Bethlehem Steel 


profile has been done. We reissued it, but we 


all agreed that was an overarching issue and we 


would address that on the side, and that's one 


of the issues that (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. NETON: -- comes up. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154

 MR. PRESLEY: It'd be interesting to see. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. NETON: We do a lot of interesting work 


behind the scenes. 


 MS. MUNN: It's really helpful to get that put 


to bed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, 18. 


 MS. MUNN: Now on to more Chapter 5 stuff. 


DR. ROESSLER: It says no further action, and 


SC&A agrees with NIOSH's response. 


 MS. MUNN: Then --


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody have any problems with 


that? No action. 


 MS. MUNN: And then (unintelligible) is done. 


Right? Evaluation is complete. Discussion 


included in the revision. We're done. 


 DR. BEHLING: Did this take into account some 


of the recent work that was published by -- 


well, I guess (unintelligible) for DTRA -- 


what's the names? It was just recent article 


on this (unintelligible). 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: God, I worked with him out in the 


Marshalls. He works for the CIC*. But he came 


up with some relationship between -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- beta and gamma doses, and they 


can be as high as 100 to one, and I'm not sure 


whether or not that was -- 


DR. NETON: I doubt that that was included 


'cause that just came out within the last -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. Yeah, it just was 


published in the last Journal or the one before 


that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, so we can say 19's 


complete? (Unintelligible) about that? 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible). They had somewhat 


of a different circumstance in the Marshalls 


than (unintelligible), but do you think it's 


applicable? 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, I'm not so sure it's all 


that different. The atmospheric tests there 


and -- certainly a higher magnitude, but the 


ratio between beta and gamma probably is not 


too different. 


 MS. MUNN: It says here the resolution included 


development of time-dependent beta/gamma ratios 


and procedures out for estimating the pre-1966 


time period, so --


DR. ROESSLER: Is it Neil -- Neil Barrs*? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156

 DR. BEHLING: Neil Barrs. 


DR. ROESSLER: That was in the --


DR. NETON: Yeah, I was trying to come up with 


that. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I was just 


(unintelligible). 


DR. ROESSLER: -- October issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All the stuff that was pre-'66 


was for above-ground, which I can see what Hans 


says there about the Marshall Islands. You 


know, it -- you -- you -- everything's above-


ground there and everything's above-ground 


prior to '66. 


 MS. MUNN: You think there's a possibility it 


might change the time-dependent ratio that 


(unintelligible) develop here? 


 DR. BEHLING: I think he also has a time-


dependent relationship. In fact, it's also -- 


he probably fine-tuned it in the most recent 


Health Physics article, but he also published 


in The Green Book, which was the DTRA manual. 


I think you'll see the same tables there. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Doesn't it say here that NIOSH 


will issue a procedure for establishing this, 


but there's nothing -- there's nothing left 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 

157 

the working group. But how do we tie that up 


that --


 MS. MUNN: Well, it's done --


 MR. PRESLEY: The evaluation's been completed 


and discussions included in the Chapter 6 


revision. But now are you all going to do 


anything further than that with this new... 


 MS. MUNN: Well, that's the question. Hans is 


raising the question should (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I haven't --


 MS. MUNN: -- report be --


 DR. BEHLING: It should at least be looked at ­

-


 MS. MUNN: -- looked at. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- and see, you know, how -- how 


does that compare to -- to what is being 


proposed here. 


DR. NETON: I think that's reasonable. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can we say then that NIOSH will 


look at --


DR. NETON: Are you following that, Gene? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm not sure that I am. 


DR. NETON: Well, there's an article that just 


came out in the October issue of Health Physics
 

that dealt with these time-dependent beta/gamma 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

ratios by Neil Barrs, and Hans is suggesting we 


at least need to look at it to see if it's 


consistent with what -- what has been developed 


by us. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, was this specific to the 


NTS situation? 


 DR. BEHLING: Not to NTS, but these were done 


in behalf of the DTRA dose reconstruction 


project involving the Pacific Proving Ground, 


but certainly they're comparable. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Yes, I would think so. It seems 


to me -- yes, that report has been reviewed and 


our revision is reflective, but I do remember 


now because I didn't work on that directly. 


That was Jack Fix and Dick Griffith worked on 


that, and I do remember them passing the Barrs 


report back and forth. 


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 MR. ROLLINS: So in fact I think that's what 

they used. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: Oh, that would be good. Well, if 


you could verify that, then there would be no 


further action. 


 MR. ROLLINS: In fact you just gave -- I 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 

159 

learned what that Barrs report was because I 


didn't know what it was, but now you've filled 


me in, so that's good. 


DR. NETON: There's probably a Barrs report 


that ended up becoming the Health Physics
 

publication. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, it's in The Green Book as 


well. 


DR. NETON: If it's The Green Book then we've 


got it. 


 MS. MUNN: So do we have an action or not? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, I put down here NIOSH will 


look at the beta/gamma ratios and I'm going to 


put down they can report back to us that it's 


been -- that it's in the data that they're 


using. 


 MS. MUNN: That the latest report -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, that the latest report 


(unintelligible) --


 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) significant 


differences. 


 MR. ROLFES: We did use the DTRA document, but 


I'm not certain if it's the one published in 


recent --


DR. NETON: You can check 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 

160

 MR. ROLFES: -- but we can just verify that 


very simply. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


MS. SMITH: This is Cheryl. Actually Griffith 


went to the Hicks data and developed his 


beta/gamma ratios from that data. It's -- it's 


very comparable -- it's not identical, of 


course -- with information in the Barrs article 


or the Barrs document. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I would hope we'd only be 


looking for major significant differences. And 


if there are no major significant differences, 


then I can't see an issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, is everybody happy with 


that? 


 MS. MUNN: That won't take a significant 


commitment, will it? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would not think that it would. 


You seem to think that it's just a matter of 


asking a question. 


 MR. ROLFES: I think we could have a couple of 


questions and get it resolved. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty, there appears to have 


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 

161 

DR. NETON: This is the same --


 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) interesting -- 


DR. NETON: This is the same as 11(d). Can we 


consolidate these somehow so that we don't keep 


having these recurring -- 


 MR. ROLFES: I might be able to do that if it's 


all right with the Board. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That'd tickle me to death. I'm 


going to put a note up here that this will be 


consolidated. 


DR. ROESSLER: And we now know what statistical 


methods are being used, so -- end of this 


issue. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-one, TBD does not contain 


information about internal or -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Extremity. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- extremity dosimetry. We 


marked the action complete on this. Anybody 


have anything else? 


 MS. MUNN: Done. Right? 


DR. ROESSLER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Similarly, comment 22. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-two, there are no new 


(unintelligible) data of 1966 and we've got 


that marked action complete. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162

 MS. MUNN: We've agreed on all those ratios, 


and it's been incorporated into the guidance. 


Right? 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene --


 MR. PRESLEY: Still waiting on Chapter 6 


revision to come out. That's got to be done. 


Am I -- am I correct on that? 


 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. Gene, you have 


incorporated this into the latest revision and 


you are just waiting to send it to NIOSH for 


final review. Correct? 


 MR. ROLLINS: That's the response to 22? 


 MR. ROLFES: Yeah. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Is that what we're discussing? 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 

 MR. ROLLINS: Yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-three -- do we have any 

further discussion on 22? 


 (No responses) 


Twenty-three has to do with response five 


again. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Also has to do with Chapter 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

revision, resuspension of doses. 


 MS. MUNN: No further action by us. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is that acceptable? 


 MS. MUNN: Waiting for the train to come in. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Going to be doing a lot of 


reading, I can see, when that does come. 23(b) 


the same thing? Make sure -- nobody has a 


problem with that. 


 MS. MUNN: No, model's approved. We do have 


the model approved. Right? Or do we? Is the 


model approved? 


 MR. ROLFES: The resuspension model? No. 


DR. NETON: No. 


 MR. ROLLINS: This is Gene Rollins. No, we're 


going to develop the model with the 


justification and provide that to the Board. 


That's an action for us. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Is that going to be done 


in December or are you looking at that in 


January? I didn't mean to put you on the spot. 


 MR. ROLLINS: Well, I don't want -- it won't be 


just myself doing this so I -- and I hate to 


commit other people before having even talked 


to them about it. I think it would be 


reasonable to think that we could get something 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

done in December, but I really would be 


hesitant to commit to that time frame. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. That way Lew can hold a 


place on the -- on the table for it. 


 DR. WADE: That's right, I can. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Anybody else have anything 


else? 


 MS. MUNN: Nope. 


HIGH-FIRED OXIDES


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-four, the presence of 


high-fired oxides. We'll be talking here till 


tomorrow. 


DR. NETON: Well, not necessarily. 


 DR. BEHLING: Is there any reason to assume 


that you don't have super S? 


DR. NETON: No. 


 DR. BEHLING: I mean given -- given the high 


temperatures. 


 MS. MUNN: It says Mark was going to verify. 


DR. NETON: I can tell you that I've measured 


plutonium in a lot of samples that came from 


fallout and they're pretty insoluble. You had 


to go to sodium pyrofluorate* fusion -- sodium 


fusions to get those things in solution, so I 


think the case is that there are -- there 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 

165 

super S and our -- this OTIB, whatever it is, 


50 -- I can't remember the number right off -- 


 MS. MUNN: Was it 52? 


DR. NETON: The TIB that's going to deal with 


the super S is going to be applicable complex-


wide, with certain caveats. I guess one could 


arg-- one could speculate as to whether it's 


even more insoluble than the super S that we've 


seen at other locations, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we can take off the words that 


say Mark's going to verify that. We can say 


the OTIB in progress is complex-wide. 


DR. NETON: Yes, it will be. Again, given 


certain caveats. It wouldn't necessarily be 


applicable to the ceramicized plutonium 


particles at Los Alamos, but... I think it 


would be hard -- we'd be hard-pressed not to 


consider these to be super S plutonium. 


That was easy, Mark. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-five -- yeah, it was a 


whole lot easier than I thought it'd be. 


 MS. MUNN: How far -- how are we doing with 


that OTIB with that high-fired super S stuff? 


DR. NETON: I want to say that it's done, but 


it hasn't been signed by -- I haven't signed 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 

166 

yet, but the last I heard it was -- we'd come 


to resolution with SC&A on all of the models 


and such. I think we are waiting -- well, we 


weren't going to wait for the final revision -- 


review by SC&A, which was Joyce Lipsztein and 


others looking to see if they could find cases 


in -- that were more refractory, more insoluble 


than our so-called design case we chose. 


 MS. MUNN: But even if they do, that will be -- 


DR. NETON: It would be a modification and it 


will be incorporated, but the nuts and bolts of 


the proce-- the OTIB are done and -- 


 MS. MUNN: So the heavy lifting's over with and 


DR. NETON: Oh, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- you're just polishing now, good. 


SITE EXPERT REVIEWS


 MR. PRESLEY: Item 25 deals again with the 


documentation of site expert reviews, and it 


brought to our attention that SC&A was not 


getting some of the reviews. And I was 


wondering where -- have we been able to get 


them what they've asked for -- all except the 


classified stuff? 


 MR. ROLFES: Gene, have we provided any 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

additional interview notes to SC&A or have you 


sent me anything recently -- 


 MR. ROLLINS: I'm going to -- we -- what we 


did, we collected all of our interview notes, 


all of our recollections -- it was really a 


quite extensive list, and all of our e-mails 


and everything, and what we have done -- and I 


don't know what the status is, but we were 


sending those out to a derivative classifier at 


the Nevada Test Site to get the okay to 


distribute those. That was our instruction, to 


do that. And I don't know where we are in that 


process right now, but I will find out and get 


back to you. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. ROLFES: There were also -- Gene, there 


were also some interview notes from SC&A I 


believe that we were requesting. Is that not 


true? 


 MR. ROLLINS: If they have some that they would 


like to share with us, I think that would be a 


good thing. 


DR. ROESSLER: I remember that coming up at a 


meeting (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. ROLFES: I think we had requested 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 

168 

we have yet to receive those, as well, from 


SC&A. 


 MS. MUNN: And I thought there were going to be 


some internal phone conversations about -- 


 MR. ROLFES: Yeah, I haven't received them. 


haven't been -- that hasn't been followed up, 


so... 


 DR. WADE: Why don't -- then maybe you could 


call Arjun --


 MR. ROLFES: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: -- I mean there seems to be concerns 


on both sides, so I mean let's just work it out 


and swap stuff. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I'm going to put 


here, interview notes are in the hands of the 


DC at NTS and NIOSH also has not received notes 


from SC&A, and then I'll put a note here that 


Mark will get with Arjun. 


MR. SMITH: Hey, Gene, this is Billy. Did you 


see the interview that I did with SC&A? 


 MR. ROLLINS: I don't believe I have. 


MR. SMITH: Tom Bell took my -- some -- 


interviewed me about two years ago, so that's ­

- that's something that's in their hands that 


you haven't seen. 


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 

169

 DR. BEHLING: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Does anybody else have anything 


about the 25 issues -- Mark? -- that you want 


to bring back up? Jim? Hans? 


 (No responses) 


One of the things that I would like to bring up 


on the table is do we have a list of items that 


are specific to all sites that we're looking 


into right now? 


DR. NETON: Yes, we're compiling that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Okay. 


DR. NETON: Brant Ulsh came back from the 


Nevada Board meeting with a list that you guys 


started, and he's polled the health physicists 


for other issues that should go on that list, 


so we've expanded it some. So we do have that 


list available and that's the list that we'll 


speak from at the next Board meeting as to the 


status on where we are with these things. 


 MS. MUNN: That will be so helpful. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Brant brought a concern up about 


we've -- we've got here no action required, no 


action by the working group, but we have all of 


the data that's not complete on Chapter 2, 4, 5 


and 6, I believe, and when that comes out 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 

170 

want to set down and really go through that 


with you all, and I guess Arjun, and make sure 


that we've covered all those things and we're 


not going to get down -- two or three meetings 


down the road somebody snakebite us. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Everything's pending on that. 


 MS. MUNN: I hope we don't have another two or 


three more meetings. I hope we're getting real 


close to the point where we -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I do, too, but I mean -- what I'm 


talking about going af-- after we do this and 


say yeah, the site profile -- you know, we make 


a recommendation to accept or delete, whatever 


it be, but I'm talking about down the road from 


that somebody come back and say oh, you all 


didn't do this. That -- I want to make sure 


that we cover all the bases on this so that 


doesn't happen. This one's been not as complex 


as some, but it's been quite complex. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, if we cover the bases that 


matter, then that's really and truly the best I 


think anybody can do. There's always going to 


be some minor detail somewhere that can be 


worried out of the matrix. 


 DR. WADE: But I think Robert's point -- 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 

171 

think it's a generic one that -- let's say that 


we come to a very knotty issue, there's good 


discussion, there's agreement intellectually 


that a certain action will happen and then we 


remove it from the list. There needs to be 


some follow-up to see that that action happens. 


And that's something that we -- NIOSH I think 


have to be prepared to offer to the Board. 


This is following on beyond the action of the 


working group to see that those commitments are 


actually followed up upon and in the way that 


was agreed upon. So I mean I think that's 


something that we need to, at this December 


meeting, talk about as well, what's the 


mechanism for that. 


 MS. MUNN: I hope so. I would hope that it 


would become a standard part of our agenda so 


that, just as we see our caseload changing from 


meeting to meeting, we would also see the 


action items -- the outstanding action items 


changing as well. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This may not be the time or the 


place, but something that's been bothering me 


that I've started to see pop up is -- let's 


take like Los Alamos, the lanthium (sic), 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 

172 

believe it was lanthium? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, lanthanum. 


DR. ROESSLER: Lanthanum. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Now they were covered for 


that, but it's interesting because where was 


that processed at, where was that manufactured 


at? Are we looking at what came into this? 


And so I've dug into a little bit of it. It 


was Idaho, and that doesn't even show up in our 


TBD, so one of the things I want to kind of see 


is when we do find these -- these oddball 


things, that we trace it back so that we can't 


get beat on later of -- here you covered it at 


Los Alamos and where it was manufactured and 


produced was -- it doesn't even show into the 


technical database. And somehow I'd like to be 


able to keep track of that the same 'cause 


we've got many sites, and each one of these 


sites are unique in several aspects. But when 


we find these -- I guess the term's wrong, but 


oddball little issues like this, we come to 


find out where they came from and make sure 


that they're addressed, that that's in the 


profile, too. 


 DR. WADE: That's obviously a valid point. 
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 

173 

mean do we want to put that on the agenda for 


the next meeting? I mean this is sort of 


tracking beyond a facility, sort of the birth 


to death realities of certain materials. 
I 


mean do -- I don't know, what's our -- do we do 


that? Do we look at... 


DR. NETON: I think we do it. We haven't 


formalized that process at all, though. I'm 


wondering if this wouldn't be something to put 


on the overarching issues list just to -- as a 


placeholder at this point to -- 


 DR. WADE: Can you put it -- can you see that 


it goes on the list? 


DR. NETON: I'll put it --


 DR. WADE: I mean that list will be brought up 


before the Board in December. 


DR. NETON: Right. It may not be a perfect 


spot for it, but my thinking is -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and I'm trying to figure 


out how to put it, too, because I've seen some 


of these overarch-- these issues appear with 


Savannah River, certain oddball things, and 


they came out of Y-12 I believe it was. All of 


these sites are intertwined uniquely -- 


DR. NETON: Oh, 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 

174

 MR. CLAWSON: -- from certain different little 

processes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Especially your production sites. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Right, and I've -- I've just seen 

that these things come up and we cover it at 


one site, but we never take where it came from. 


And lanthium (sic) was the interesting one to 


me because --


 MS. MUNN: Well, it surprises me that you 


didn't find any indication of it, though. 


 MR. CLAWSON: It's not in -- well, and -- 


that's a pretty big site profile that I've been 


going through on -- just Idaho, and in going 


through it I hadn't seen anything on it. Now 


there may be a little blurb or something that I 


missed. But see, this was part of the process 


and I want to make sure that we're covering -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah --


DR. NETON: That's an excellent -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- that's an excellent point, but 


the other point that goes along with that is 


that it may or may not be significant on one 


site, but might be quite significant on another 


and that there's an obvious connector 


(unintelligible) --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175

 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and the way I found into it 


was this was produced by the NTR reactor, which 


only found four people that even have knowledge 


of it and they pulled this out of the reactor, 


super fast, put it in and shipped it because of 


the very short half-lifes. 


 MS. MUNN: Hot stuff needed to get to where it 


was going. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Right, and -- and it didn't -- it 


didn't show anything like this, and I just want 


to make sure that we're covering our bases on ­

-


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: But I don't know where to bring 


it up and I apologize if this is the wrong 


place. 

 DR. WADE: No, this is it --

 MS. MUNN: This is the right place. 

 DR. WADE: -- you put it in the list, then I 

would ask you, when that list is up there, then 


you need to embellish the point and -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: -- and then the Board could decide 


in various ways to deal with it. It could ask 


NIOSH to do it. It could ask SC&A to do 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 

176 

They could form a working group. I mean there 


are vario-- I mean this is sort of a continuity 


issue --


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is. 

 DR. WADE: -- around the complex. It makes 

sense. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Well, we've seen it with so many 


sites, we're -- we're all intertwined. Idaho 


sits there with Y-12, it's got almost something 


from every one of these sites. And how it got 


there, it's sometimes -- it's an unknown. It 


just all of a sudden appeared, you know. 


 DR. WADE: You think? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure there's 


documentation, though, at -- somewhere. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think that's an excellent 


point. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is a good point. 


 DR. WADE: So not only is this working group 


sort of doing its work on Nevada Test Site, but 


you're also sort of blazing the trail in terms 


of overarching issues and tracking, and I think 


those are things that we really need to focus 


more on -- now that we have stuff to track. 


The other issue, to make it more complex as 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 

177 

relates to SC&A, is that if NIOSH says we're 


going to do -- there's an intellectual 


agreement and NIOSH says we're going to do 


this, then one question is was that done, and 


then does the Board want its contractor to 


review what was done to see that it has met the 


spirit of that agreement. Or does the Board 


want to do that or do you want closure not only 


in terms of checking a box, but in terms of 


looking at content. And you know, that's 


something the Board can take up when we have 


these discussions. 


 MS. MUNN: That would be a second tier issue 


for the Board. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We might be able to go back -- 


the item that Brad's talking about may have 


already been addressed by ORAU in some of their 


data mining, so to speak, about what 


radionuclides and what materials are on each 


one of the sites. It may be, Jim, that -- Mark 


-- one of you all need to ask ORAU by chance 


has that been done, and it may have been. 


'Cause we used to -- one of the things that we 


used to do at Y-12 was every year you had to 


report to a DOE oversight committee 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 

178 

chemicals that you had on site. And that list 


was very, very extensive 'cause I was the 


person at Y-12 that did it the last two years 


before I retired. And I think that this -- it 


may be easier than we think. Now it may be 


harder to check it -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I know that the chemicals ­

- because you've got a chemical database that 


you're tracking, and they did a really good job 


on that. And I just have to take from my 


personal experience, I was told up until 1995 


that we had no plutonium in the raw uranium. 


Okay? So that -- you know, that brings up -- 


that brings up the issue until we had for -- 


that they classified as positive -- false 


positive, and now all of a sudden -- we all 


that have been involved with this know that 


plutonium is a natural byproduct and there 


always is going to be some there. So I just 


want to make sure that we're covered on this 


and maybe track -- as we get into these issues, 


I'd like to look at that and maybe we could 


discuss it more in December and go from there. 


 DR. WADE: I think it's an excellent 


suggestion. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179

 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) something to me 


needs to be done. 


 DR. WADE: It does. I mean it's sort of what 


you would expect, as this program matures, that 


you would start to have the intelligence and 


the time to look at some of these sort of 


broader issues, and look for some continuity 


within the system, where there should be 


continuity. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, as a new person coming on 


to this, what has really surprised me about 


everything is how all these sites are 


intertwined with one another, in many different 


aspects and in many different programs, bits 


and pieces and so forth like there, and I just 


want to make sure we're covering this. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Anybody else have anything else? 


 DR. WADE: I'd like to thank the workgroup 


particularly for making the effort, and I think 


it was a productive day on many levels -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- not only the Nevada Test Site, 


but also these other things. And it's 


wonderful to see Jim back at the table 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 

180

 MS. MUNN: It sure is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What I want to say, it's good to 


see Jim back, and I want to thank Mark for all 


of his work because I know he's pushed to get 


this done. And Jim, than you for being here 


and adding your expertise. 


DR. NETON: Good to be back. 


DR. ROESSLER: I appreciate the Cincinnati 


people for coming to this hotel so those of us 


who travel don't have to go all the way down to 


your offices. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, very much appreciated. It's 


all I can do to get here from the airport, much 


less back across the river and up to NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: While we're passing out thanks to 


Hans for making the trip. Obviously you must 


be a bit under the weather. You seem to be --


 DR. BEHLING: Well, I've got this beautiful 


case of oak poison over the weekend so that's 


why my face is just -- you know, I just feel 


like -- it's torture on my face and I hope 


(unintelligible) is working a little bit here. 


 MS. MUNN: I hope so. 


 DR. WADE: So we doubly appreciate the effort. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

181 

It's always a pleasure when you join us. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I was cutting down trees 


and I know I'm very, very allergic to poison 


ivy and oak. I was wearing gloves, but I got a 


lot of sawdust in my face and I just wiped my 


face with the gloves that must have had some 


poison on it and I know better than that. 


 DR. WADE: What can I tell you, it says it all. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) try to keep you 


from contaminating yourself. There you go. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. Travel safely. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thanks to everybody. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you on the phone for your 


contribution. 


 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Gene, Cheryl and Billy. 


MR. SMITH: Okay, Mark. 


 DR. WADE: The Board will next begin its 


activities at 10:00 tomorrow morning with a 


subcommittee meeting, and you all are welcome 


to join. 


(Whereupon, the meeting concluded, 1:45 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

182 

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 November 15, 


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 


7th day of January, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102