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 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 

OF THE 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Review of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Marriott Airport, Hebron, 

Kentucky, on March 25, 2008. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
2

C O N T E N T S

March 25, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

DR. LEW WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 10 

FOURTH AND FIFTH SET OF CASES CONCLUSION 14 

TENTH SET OF CASES SELECTION 130 

SIXTH SET OF CASES WRAP-UP 170 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 291 

 
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

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 

3 

Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

 
5

ANNOUNCED PARTICIPANTS

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

FARVER, DOUG, SC&A 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

OH, KATHERINE, SEN. REID 

SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU 

SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

(9:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. LEW WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

DR. WADE: This is the Subcommittee Conference 

Room and we’re ready to begin. This is Lew 

Wade, and I’m filling in for Christine Branche 

who’s the Designated Federal Official for the 

Advisory Board. Dr. Branche is, in fact, with 

some others visiting the Nevada Test Site as 

part of her data gathering for her function in 

support of this program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

 This again is the Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction and that subcommittee is ably 

chaired by Mark Griffon with members Gibson, 

Munn and Poston. Alternates are Brad Clawson 

and Robert Presley. In the room is the Chair, 

Mark Griffon, Wanda and Brad Clawson. Let me 

ask if there are any other Board members 

including subcommittee members who might be on 

the phone. 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Poston, Griffon, Presley on the 

phone? Gibson, I’m sorry. 
7

1 (no response) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. WADE: Okay, well, we have a quorum of 

the Subcommittee with the three members 

present, and we can continue our business. 

Let me go around the room and have folks here 

introduce themselves. Then we’ll do the 

introductions of those involved in the phone. 

 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU team. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from OCAS. 

MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, Health and Human 

Services. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Advisory Board, 

not conflicted. 

MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Advisory Board. 

MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A. 

DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

 DR. WADE: And as mentioned, this is Lew 

Wade and... 

MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon with the Advisory 

Board. 

 DR. WADE: And now let’s ask for other 

members on the phone of the NIOSH/ORAU team. 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: NIOSH/ORAU team members on the 
8

1 phone. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: SC&A team members on the phone. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome, Kathy. It’s cold here 

in Cincinnati. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): It’s cold here, 

too. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, any other SC&A team members 

on the phone? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: How about other federal employees 

who are working on this call? 

MR. KOTSCH (by Telephone): Jeff Kotsch with 

the Department of Labor. 

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

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS (by Telephone): Liz 

Homoki-Titus with HHS. 

 DR. WADE: Hi, Liz, how are you? 

 Other federal employees on this call? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Are there members of Congress or 

their representatives on the call? 

MS. OH: I’m Katherine Oh from Senator 
9

1 Reid’s office. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: Welcome, it’s nice to hear your 

voice. 

 Anyone else on the call, workers, 

worker representatives? Anyone who would like 

to be identified for the record as being on 

the call? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Katherine, would you spell your 

last name for the record, please? 

MS. OH: It’s just O-H. 

 DR. WADE: Anyone else on the call who would 

like to be identified? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Briefly, the rules of decorum -- 

we’ve been doing very well I think, but please 

mute your phone if you are not speaking. If 

you are speaking, use a handset if at all 

possible. As Dr. Branche has discovered and 

told you, if you don’t have the ability to 

simply mute your phone, hit star six. That 

will mute your phone. And then star six again 

will unmute it if you feel you need to speak. 

I can’t think of anything else that needs to 

be covered, so Mark? 
10

1 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess I didn’t circulate an 

agenda but got a request the other day for an 

agenda. And I think briefly what I’d planned 

on covering was -- and in this order makes the 

most sense was the fourth and fifth set would 

be a draft letter for the fourth and fifth set 

and then move on to the tenth set case 

selection. 

 Because I think we want to have those 

done, especially before the next meeting in 

April, and then we can move into the sixth 

set, and we’re in the middle of comment 

resolution there. I think it might take us -- 

we haven’t looked back at it in awhile so it 

may be some memories that lapsed on that, too. 

And if we don’t complete that, I figure we 

should do that last because the other two, I 

know we want to get done for sure in the time 

allowing. We’ll, hopefully, get through the 

whole sixth set, but we may not. 

 So I don’t have anything else for the 

agenda for this one. I did mention doing a 

first hundred cases draft report. I haven’t 

done a draft of that yet. About a week ago I 
11

think SC&A circulated some statistics on the 

first hundred cases, and between that time and 

now I just haven’t had a chance to really 

draft it. Plus, I thought it was most 

appropriate to discuss that fourth and fifth 

set letter first, and then do the full draft 

of the first hundred cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So any comments or additions to the 

agenda? I think if that’s okay, we’ll proceed 

on that. 

DR. MAURO: Mark, just the two matrices for 

the fourth and fifth sets, it turns out not 

everyone had them so I brought them over to 

the front desk about 15, 20 minutes ago. They 

said they would make copies up and bring them 

here as soon as possible so that may slow 

things down a bit. 

MR. GRIFFON: All right. Well, it’s up to, 

I can summarize. I mean, the last Board call 

I distributed the matrices, and I believe 

there were from that time and this version 

here there’s two edits. And they were 

basically changing unresolved to N/A, I think, 

in both cases so they’re the same matrix 

basically. I don’t think there’s much further 
12

discussion on the matrix unless we have to go 

back to look at if somebody has questions on 

the Board action or one of those items. We 

certainly can discuss it, but otherwise I was 

going to focus on the letter really if that’s 

okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Thank you for clarifying the 

changes that were made because I didn’t crosscheck them. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was 

just like two unresolves that we had to put a 

ranking in, and I think they were both N/As. 

 DR. WADE: Here are hard copies of the 

fourth and fifth set if somebody really needs 

them. 

MR. GRIFFON: And does everyone have the 

draft letter that I distributed? I should say 

I did, on the last Board call Paul had asked 

to see a draft of that before I circulated it 

to the Subcommittee. So I did send it to 

Paul. He gave me a few minor edits, and 

they’re included in the version that I sent 

around to the Subcommittee. 

MS. MUNN: I assume we’ll be working from 

the edited version that Stu sent us? 
13

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we can use -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: All I did was insert some of 

the numbers in there. 

MR. GRIFFON: Some of the numbers, yeah. 

MS. MUNN: That’s the one I marked up. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. That’s fine. 

Which is cases 61 through 100, Report rev. 

one, underscore SLH, is it or S-H? S-H. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I may have put SL. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I need my glasses, 

that’s all. 

 Yeah, I had actually asked NIOSH to, 

and some of the highlighted things, they 

weren’t necessarily your questions, Stu, as 

you pointed out to me that some of the yellow 

highlighted areas I left, I asked NIOSH to 

shed some light on that. And also Attachment 

One is a table that summarizes the 40 cases 

that basically shows the sites, the POCs, all 

the general information that we can share 

without divulging any privacy issues as sort 

of the first attachment describing the cases. 

So, yeah, we can work from this last letter 

that Stu marked up. 

 So I mean I can walk through it. I 
14

used the, while people are reading, I guess I 

can describe. I used the last letter that we 

sent as a, I used the template of the letter 

that we submitted with the second and third 

set of cases, and I edited from there. The 

conclusions are quite different, but the front 

end is very similar format anyway. I guess 

that’s a starting point. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 FOURTH AND FIFTH SET OF CASES CONCLUSION

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: We’re looking at the letter 

regarding the fourth and fifth set of cases. 

MS. MUNN: Are you ready for some general 

comments? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

MS. MUNN: When I looked at this letter I 

did something I haven’t done in awhile. I 

tried to remove myself from any prior 

knowledge of what we had done and look at this 

with completely fresh eyes to get a feel for 

the tone of what we were sending to the 

Secretary rather than the content. I didn’t 

have any question with a comment. 

 But as I was reading through it, it 

seemed to me that there was an extremely 

negative tone to, I recognize this is an audit 
15

of sorts, and it isn’t so much what’s been 

said, but in several places the way it’s been 

said seems to be, to my eyes when I was 

looking at it in that way, quite negative with 

respect to the work that NIOSH has done. I’m 

not sure that’s our intent or the Board’s 

intent. I would like us to think about that a 

little bit. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 On that first page as we were going 

through -- this has nothing to do with 

negativity -- but in that last full paragraph 

there just before the summary of findings, as 

I was reading the sentence, that first 

sentence in that paragraph was the same 

sentence that I know we’ve used prior to, but 

I didn’t catch the fact that it seemed rough 

toward the end. 

 I had suggested that after the 8,120 

cases which have been adjudicated, and it just 

read better to me if we inserted were 

therefore available for Board review. It 

seemed to me to clarify what we were saying 

there, which have been adjudicated and 

available for Board review. The reason they 

were available is because they had been 
16

adjudicated. That just seemed to be a 

clarification. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So which had been adjudicated 

and were therefore available? 

MS. MUNN: I thought it would read better if 

we -- 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. I agree. That 

section reads a little rough. 

MS. MUNN: And the very last part there I 

think could be smoothed out where we’re 

talking about the group of cases that includes 

six that one of which was. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I would actually prefer 

to put five in there. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That was probably what I -- 

MR. GRIFFON: But the intent was, but 50 is 

compensable, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Exactly 50 percent would be 

compensable. 

MR. GRIFFON: So the one was compensable. 

So I think, I know we could put 49.9 now, and 

it’s -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Just say five and be done 

with it. I put those parenthetical notes in 

there sort of as explanation. I didn’t expect 
17

1 them to be part of the text that we’ll -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: But I agree. The number’s 

fine, and we can leave out the parenthetical. 

I mean, I actually, yeah, I think that’s five 

cases. 

DR. BEHLING: Mark, let me have, make a 

comment here in that same paragraph. What is 

meant here by the word unrepresentative pool 

of 8,000-some cases? What does 

unrepresentative refer to? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I was just, I mean, that 

came from our last, it came from the 

discussions on the second and third set of 

cases, and I was just going to ask at this 

point in the process it may have been more 

representative in the, I mean, the basic 

reason I think for including that in the 

first, in the letter for the second and third 

set of cases was that most of them were either 

overestimates or underestimates. 

DR. BEHLING: Maximize. 

MR. GRIFFON: Now we did have more best 

estimates, but there’s still weren’t a large 

pool of best estimates to pick from. We got 

five or six, I don’t know exactly how many we 
18

got, but we did get some best estimates in 

this round of reviews. But I remember the 

pool being kind of small still. So the 

question of does that you know represent the 

overall sort of distribution of cases. And, 

yeah, there may not be a ton of best 

estimates. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: It seemed to me that this, for 

this letter that particular word probably is 

not as accurate as it was in the preceding 

letter. 

DR. BEHLING: And it may have no meaning to 

somebody. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, it doesn’t mean 

much here. 

MS. MUNN: I think it muddies the water on 

this one. 

DR. MAURO: It could be misleading and 

misunderstood. 

MS. MUNN: And probably questioned. 

DR. MAURO: Would it be true to say that the 

samples that were reviewed were representative 

of worker cases that were, in fact, 

adjudicated to ^ at the time that this was 

said? 
19

MS. MUNN: That’s essentially what it would 

say if you took the word unrepresentative out. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: What is the truth? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it reads easiest 

just not to say anything. 

 DR. WADE: But to be true to the process 

when a list was brought to the Board, was that 

a list of all or was that a list culled in 

some way? 

MR. HINNEFELD: The lists that were brought 

to the Board, these initial selections lists, 

include all of the full internal and external 

designated code cases, and it includes a 

random selection from the others. So that’s 

why you get two lists. And that’s what we’ve 

done so far, and that’s what we’ve done here. 

 DR. WADE: And that’s for the fourth and 

fifth cases as well. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I’m not sure we did 

a, pulled the, I mean, for the fourth case I’m 

not sure we pulled all the full internal and 

externals. I’m pretty sure we did on the 

fifth. So I don’t remember for sure how we 

did that, when we started doing that pulling. 
20

 DR. WADE: On the fourth set it was all. In 

the fifth set it was all plus a pull list of -

- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: No, we’ve always done a 

random selection. And I’m not sure if it 

changed at four or five. I think it changed 

at five, but we’ve always done a random 

selection of everything available. And then 

starting with, I think starting with at least 

the fifth set and maybe the fourth set, we did 

the random selection, but we also selected all 

of the cases that are identified as full 

internal and external. Now I think if you 

talk to several people, you’ll get a different 

opinion on whether full internal and external 

translates into best estimate as well. So 

that’s another thing, because there were 17 or 

37 of these 20 are identified as full internal 

and external in the original selections. 

MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-seven of the 40? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Of the 40, I’m sorry, 37 of 

the 40 are identified as full in the original 

selection list. And if you get several 

reviewers a lot of people would say, well, 

this isn’t really a best estimate. 
21

MR. GRIFFON: Let me try this on for size 

because this is something I was actually 

thinking of in the plane after, as I looked at 

it and was thinking of possible points of 

discussion. And I’m taking the 

unrepresentative part out. But I’m rephrasing 

the sentence to say the Board’s case selection 

criteria are designed to include a 

representative sample of DOE and AWE 

facilities, time periods and cancer sites. 

The 40 cases covered in this report were 

selected from a pool of 8120 cases which had 

been adjudicated and were therefore available 

for Board review. Period. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: And I think what needs to be 

said is that NIOSH adjudicated cases by 

priority meaning that the best estimates were 

basically pushed on the back burner. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that’s how we did dose 

reconstructions right in that order. 

MR. GRIFFON: But I don’t think we need to 

really, I don’t think we really need to touch 

that in this. Does that sentence read okay? 

MS. MUNN: The way you read it actually 

reads better with a period at the end of 
22

sites, and then a second sentence, the 40 

cases covered in this report. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, yeah, I’ll do that 

because I don’t like all these commas either. 

 DR. WADE: Could you read it again now, 

Mark? 

MR. GRIFFON: So now what I have is, “The 

Board’s case selection criteria are designed 

to include a representative sample of DOE and 

AWE facilities, time periods and cancer sites, 

period. The 40 cases covered in this report 

were selected from a pool of 8120 cases which 

had been adjudicated and were therefore 

available for Board review.” So that’s fine. 

 DR. WADE: I think that’s a true statement. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think the reason for the 

unrepresentative was more, we had more basis 

for it in the last letter. I agree. So we 

can take that section out. That’s fine. 

MS. MUNN: And you’re going to reword that 

last sentence. 

MR. GRIFFON: I just put, for the last 

sentence I just have, at the very end of the 

last sentence I just have, “However, it should 

be noted that this group of cases did include 
23

five cases of POCs between 45 and 50 percent.” 

I mean I think we can split hairs and put 

49.99, but, you know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: There’s no point. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the record there was a 

slight bias that the Subcommittee and the 

Board brought to the selection that you don’t 

speak to here, and I think that’s fine because 

you don’t imply that you didn’t. You just say 

selected, and I think that’s fine. As you get 

into subsequent cases I think you might want 

to start to state that bias which was best 

estimate cases. 

MR. GRIFFON: Or maybe show, we might even 

want to show our cases selected to-date, and 

how they’d break down and discuss that a 

little more. 

 DR. WADE: I don’t think it’s critical here, 

and I think what you said is exactly the 

truth. I think as you go beyond -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I think in the 100 case 

letter, I was considering let’s break down the 

statistics a little bit. How many best 

estimates did we look at? How many -- you 

know. Lay that out a little bit along with 
24

maybe a little more mention of the selection 

process. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: Mark, if you’re going to 

provide a breakdown later, are you going to 

explain what you consider a best estimate? 

I’m not sure everybody, not everybody 

understands what you call a best estimate 

versus -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we have to, and 

we’d appreciate maybe your definition, too. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We’d have to give you one. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we need yours 

because you’re the one. That’s where we’re 

getting our definition from is from NIOSH. 

But I think that is good to include. 

 And I would be one of those people 

that doesn’t consider all the full internal 

and externals, all best estimates for sure 

because a lot of them are the site models and 

things like that that you just, every case 

runs through the same model, so it’s not 

really that quote/unquote best estimate. But 

I don’t think we need to really get into that 

in this letter. This letter covers the fourth 

and fifth set of cases, and that’s 40 cases 
25

1 total. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I don’t know, Wanda, your comment on 

the tone was, I mean, I think just editing 

that one paragraph helps. 

MS. MUNN: That helps a little. My next 

concerns didn’t come until we got down to 

conclusions and recommendations. 

MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 

 DR. WADE: It might be worth having just a 

brief general discussion of the issue. I’ve 

worked in other places where we’ve written 

letters like this, and I think it’s important 

to the Subcommittee to think about how it 

wants to proceed. And the best first rule to 

start with is simply state facts, attempt to 

do no spin unless you’re purposefully trying 

to state an opinion, and then you need to 

state that opinion. 

 If you follow those rules, I think 

you’ll come to a reasonable product. 

Reasonable people can still disagree about the 

feel of that product, but it’s good to go 

through those steps I believe. 

MS. MUNN: That’s true. My concern more was 

with the tone rather than with the facts that 
26

were presented. It’s just, as I said, I 

didn’t really encounter it so much until I got 

to 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 

 DR. WADE: Why don’t you point out where it 

is, Wanda. 

MS. MUNN: Under conclusions and 

recommendations, when I read through, if you 

read through number one, just read through it. 

You don’t know anything about this. This is 

new information to you. You read through it 

and it says to me, well, NIOSH sure isn’t 

handling this properly, when I got to the end 

of the paragraph. And I’m not sure that’s 

exactly the inference that you wanted to, I’m 

not sure that’s what we wanted to imply. It 

doesn’t say that. There are no words that say 

that. It’s just the feel of that. 

DR. BEHLING: Well, I think one of the 

important things we already alluded to is to 

clarify the issue of a maximized, minimized 

and best estimate. And I think part of that 

definition, it can be a brief one, is to 

essentially establish the fact that when you 

maximize a dose, you already start out with 

the knowledge that this is not a compensable 
27

case; and therefore, there is a fairly wide 

range of values that you could potentially 

misrepresent in one way or other, a more 

claimant favorable than it needs to be which 

we did on many occasions, said why are you 

giving so much dose to something that doesn’t 

really justify 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 

 And on the basis of understanding what 

a maximized dose is, you could sort of say the 

findings may have limited impacts. The same 

thing for minimized. We know that for a 

minimized dose you’re going to compensate with 

a partial dose reconstruction. I think those 

definitions along with a best estimate 

definition would clarify a lot of this 

misconception. 

MS. MUNN: Sometimes, yeah. 

 DR. WADE: Now, you’re talking about 

paragraphs one and ^. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, you know. I don’t 

know. Maybe it has -- 

MS. MUNN: You see, it’s once again -- 

DR. MAURO: That’s the word, see, that’s 

what it is. 

MS. MUNN: It’s once again. 
28

MR. GRIFFON: Maybe that’s the tone you’re 

talking about. Where’s the once again? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Right in the very first line. 

MS. MUNN: The very first line you start out 

saying okay, they’re doing it again. Whatever 

it is they’re doing, they’re still doing it. 

 DR. WADE: That’s a spin series of words. 

You don’t need that unless you want it there. 

MS. MUNN: Again, it’s just I was trying to 

look at it with fresh eyes. 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess the only, you know, 

this is a letter that’s following the other 

letter where we made almost the same 

recommendation, so that’s sort of why it is 

once again. You know, is that spin? Is that 

-- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Are you interested in NIOSH 

comments at all? 

MR. GRIFFON: Sure, I guess. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s not our product. I 

mean, it’s not our letter. My concern is that 

this paragraph implies to me that the 

description of CATI events, specific 

information CATI events, will not change until 

the revised DR format changes, and I don’t 
29

1 believe that’s the case. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I believe if you had read dose 

reconstruction reports prepared recently, you 

will find that anything that’s mentioned in 

the CATI is specifically rementioned in the 

dose reconstruction with an explanation of 

what was done, either how that either affected 

the dose reconstruction or why it didn’t 

affect the dose reconstruction. And that’s 

done in the existing format. 

 And so that kind of leads to my second 

point is that to the extent that this report 

describes a continuation of issues or a 

continuation of findings that were found 

before, recall that there was no specific 

attempt made to sample, I mean there was an 

attempt to sample newer dose reconstructions, 

but there were very many dose reconstructions 

in these sets that were as old as the dose 

reconstructions in the earlier sets. 

DR. MAURO: ^ that transition. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And so the fact that as you 

write these things serially, as the reviews 

are done serially, I think unless you’re 

reviewing dose reconstructions that were done 
30

serially in time, so you’re only reviewing 

cases that were done since your last report, 

it’s a little disingenuous to say that this is 

still going on when, in fact, it’s not 

necessarily what you’re describing. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. MAURO: That’s a very important point 

then. It’s very difficult -- 

MR. GRIFFON: You know, that’s true, Stu, 

but also that’s a little, I mean, the DR 

report hasn’t been modified. 

MR. HINNEFELD: But the format has not -- 

MR. GRIFFON: So you are gradually making 

some of these changes -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- the format has not been 

changed. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, otherwise in our 

resolution -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- but I think -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- you’d say completed and 

done -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it’s worthwhile -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and you didn’t say that. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- it’s worthwhile to 

comment that that has not been done because 
31

I’m like the proponent at OCAS for the changed 

format because it’s difficult, I think it’s 

difficult -- well, it’s difficult for 

everybody to use, all these audiences. It’s 

difficult for the claimant to understand what 

it means, and it’s difficult for the reviewer 

to understand, to dig the information out that 

he needs for the review. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So I’m a proponent of the change. I 

think it’s fairer to say that we’ve been 

planning to do this, and it’s not done. But I 

think the way some of this stuff is couched 

and some of the reasons to do it don’t 

necessarily line up with where we are. 

DR. BEHLING: I think it needs perhaps a 

statement saying that the selection of the 

fourth and fifth set came from a pool of DRs 

that may have an adjudication date that is 

concurrent with the first three sets; and 

therefore, there’s no reason to assume that 

there was a chance for modifying -- 

MR. GRIFFON: You’re still missing the 

point. That’s a good point, but look in the 

last column of the matrix, Resolution, and a 

lot of these still say under development. So 
32

that tells me that not only did it not affect 

these cases, but it’s still not finished. You 

know what I’m saying? If it was finished and 

being applied -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: It certainly worked -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- you’re right about the CATI 

stuff. I agree that -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it’s certainly 

worthwhile to comment that that’s not done. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, so maybe we -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I am not worried about that. 

My main concern was the CATI. My original 

thing was that we’re not, not yet that we 

won’t address CATI stuff until the reformat’s 

done, and that’s not case. But I think it’s 

certainly worthwhile to mention that. We 

agree to do this -- 

MR. GRIFFON: In other words we’ve made some 

changes already without having to reformat the 

whole report -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and you haven’t finished 

that yet -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- but you had implemented 
33

1 some of the CATI changes. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I’ll accept that. But I 

think the other is -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I have no argument 

with the fundamental point there. 

 MR. SHARFI: In your scope do you capture 

how old these claims or how long ago these 

claims were adjudicated? 

DR. BEHLING: No, the date’s not captured in 

this. 

 MR. SHARFI: I mean like a data range that 

these are claims that were adjudicated two, 

three years ago? 

MR. GRIFFON: No, we can put that 

parenthetically in that sentence that we just 

edited. If we have that number, if you have 

that in your table, Stu. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I could get the, we can get 

the dates when -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think that’s useful. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- the dose reconstruction 

was approved. The adjudication’s outside of 

our hands, but we can get you the dates when 

the dose reconstruction’s approved. The 
34

adjudication date we might be able to find it 

out, but it’s not a date we have databased, 

and so it would be very -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: It might help you put these in 

context by how old they are. 

MR. GRIFFON: It is helpful, yeah. 

DR. MAURO: I don’t think it’s captured. In 

other words does it mention the groupings, and 

I think it’s important. If we are moving in 

the system where we’re looking at more and 

more recent dose reconstructions, and we can 

see the progress in terms of how the changes 

are made and reflecting, let’s say, some of 

the findings, and right now I don’t think that 

dimension is here. Mainly, that we’re looking 

at a grouping, again, that really represents 

the same generation as an earlier one. 

 That whole concept may not, it may be 

important to communicate it to the reader that 

this is the way the process is structured. 

Unfortunately, they probably are not going to 

see the more recent ones that might reflect 

some of the commentaries that have been made 

earlier until maybe the next review. So I 

think that’s an important concept that I 
35

wouldn’t want to leave the reader thinking 

otherwise. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Perhaps we can do a little 

wordsmithing over the lunch hour or at some 

point down the road here yet today and see -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, we can try. I mean, I 

guess I’m okay with taking out the once again 

although it is once again. 

MS. MUNN: Well, yes -- 

MR. GRIFFON: You know, I don’t want to set 

that, it’s not necessarily to set a tone, and 

I, yeah, we can maybe wordsmith that middle 

section because I think Stu makes a valid 

point that the CATI, at least that one part of 

our concern, is being considered even though 

the DR report hasn’t been completely modified. 

NIOSH is taking that into account now in how 

they write their DR reports. 

 MR. SHARFI: I think Stu’s point that these 

dose reconstructions were done even before 

your comments from the first set were 

received, you have to consider that these will 

run with some of the same problems because 

they were done way before we ever looked at 

some of these issues. 
36

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but again for the third 

time, the point I’m making is that in the last 

column the final action is, under development. 

It’s still not completed. So even though, you 

know, I agree with your point, but it’s still 

not done. That’s the point I was trying to 

raise. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So, okay, we can maybe print this out, 

Wanda, and that’s fine if we want to work a 

little wordsmithing at lunch time or whatever 

because it’s hard to do it out loud. 

MS. MUNN: It is. It is. And I don’t think 

it’s necessary to change the information 

that’s here. I was suggesting that we change 

the presentation of the information rather 

than the information itself. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, and I want to clarify 

the one thing about the CATI. I think that’s 

important. 

 DR. WADE: We’re next, Wanda. 

MS. MUNN: The next question that I had, I 

just put a lot of question marks after when I 

read the procedural issues item three. I 

didn’t mark anything specific. It was just... 

MR. HINNEFELD: I have one on paragraph two 
37

if anybody’s interested. There’s a statement 

that workbook errors accounted for a high 

percentage of the findings in this set. And 

I’m interested in what’s considered a workbook 

error here. I would have thought it would be 

a workbook that makes a mistake in the 

translation of the technical document. And I 

didn’t find that many in any of these findings 

that I would call 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 

 It depends on what you mean by 

workbook error. There are many times when a 

workbook has been identified as the workbook 

didn’t do this calculation correctly. For 

instance, it chose the full range of dose 

correction factors at Savannah River instead 

of just AP. But it did, when it was prepared, 

faithfully translated the technical guidance 

that was out there at the time it was 

prepared. 

 There were a number of findings about 

the TIB-0002 internal dose model calculating 

dose to the colon rather than the specific 

target organ. When, in fact, the first tool 

available for TIB-0002 only did the colon 

because that overestimated everything, and so 
38

some cases could be done that way without 

building the rest of the tool that allowed the 

other target organs to be used. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So a lot of the findings in here that 

may be interpreted as workbook errors are 

actually cases where the workbook faithfully 

produced what the technical guidance said to 

produce. But they’re subject to later 

technical guidance, sometimes in response to 

errors; sometimes because additional work 

could be done on target organs that has made a 

change since then. 

 So I was looking through here, and I’m 

hard pressed to find very many that I would 

consider what I would think would be a 

workbook error where a workbook was put 

together incorrectly so that it did not 

faithfully produce the technical guidance that 

was there. Or you may call it workbook error, 

an incorrect entry in a workbook that wasn’t 

caught. There was at least one of those where 

data was entered -- or a couple of those -- 

where data was entered on the wrong line or 

for the wrong date and where residual data was 

entered for too long a time. 
39

 So there was some errors in execution 

of the workbook that could maybe fit in here. 

But I still didn’t see just a high percentage 

that I would call 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 

MS. MUNN: The question came to my mind 

whether that really meant that the workbooks 

had serious errors in them. There’s a mention 

if there were errors in the spreadsheet that’s 

carried in many cases. So did the workbook 

errors then mean that there were lots of these 

and that accounted for a high percentage of 

the findings? Or did it mean that while the 

workbooks were being used some interpretation 

or human entry resulted in the case? It’s not 

clear, and it probably matters. We really 

ought to try to differentiate between whether 

the workbooks were in error or whether some of 

the use of the workbooks resulted in errors. 

DR. BEHLING: Well, I think it can be both. 

For instance, I will give you an example of a 

workbook error. And it’s a trivial issue, but 

it involved, for instance, the use of 

assigning LOD over 2 as a hypothetical value 

when the value came out to be zero. On the 

other hand the workbooks early on, let’s 
40

assume that for a film dosimeter, the LOD was 

40 millirem but the rule was to assign 20 

millirem to any value that was noted as zero. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 On the other hand we noted over and 

over again there were instances where a person 

was reported as having one or two or three 

millirem, and, of course, a workbook doesn’t 

recognize that. So in essence that person was 

shortchanged over a person whose dosimeter 

showed nothing, and he would have gotten 20 

millirem for that zero as opposed to the one 

or two millirem which was a registered value. 

So there was a workbook oversight in the sense 

of that wasn’t recognized. 

MR. HINNEFELD: In that case though the 

instruction to use LOD over two in every case 

came after actually from findings from this 

group, I believe. And so there was not, and 

so the workbook as prepared was prepared in 

accordance with the technical direction that 

was there at the time or absent technical 

direction. But once the technical direction 

was given, yeah, because, I mean, you can make 

an argument, if you’re collecting a bunch of 

dosimetry data that what their dosimeter 
41

reports is the best estimate of what the 

number is, even if what the dosimeter report 

says less than LOD over two. I mean, what 

else, what other indicator you got? All you 

know it’s some place between zero and LOD over 

two depending on how we define LOD 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 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess how to capture the, I 

mean I see your point, Stu. I guess the 

reason I framed it this way was it’s a quality 

control question. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And I think the quality 

control -- 

MR. GRIFFON: And in that context -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- and I think the quality 

control question can certainly remain -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. I mean, I was saying 

in that context that if you just have some of 

the, and that was one because I e-mailed back 

and forth with SC&A with Kathy Behling mainly, 

and that was one of the ones that was a 

repeating error. And the question was if you 

had a manual process, would that likely -- and 

it may be if you added -- I see what you’re 

saying, back to the written guidance. But my 

sense is that if it’s in a computerized form, 
42

nobody’s even looking at that. And I think 

someone might have questioned it along the way 

if they were implementing that. That’s sort 

of what I was getting at was the down side of 

the workbook. It certainly is more efficient 

-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think there’s certainly a 

caution about workbooks -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s all. That was 

mainly what -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- if you make a mistake in 

a workbook, you make that mistake a lot of 

times, and you’re right. So there’s certainly 

a danger in that. I think that’s worthwhile. 

It may be a caution to make sure that before a 

workbook is rolled out, you know, because 

nobody’s really looked at the process of what 

is done with a workbook before it’s rolled out 

and put into use in terms of the validation of 

it. A caution like that I think would 

certainly be appropriate. 

 But I don’t think that we’ve observed 

in the ones that I’ve been looking through I 

don’t count very many where, I don’t count any 

where the workbook didn’t faithfully produce 
43

the technical guidance that was used, that was 

available when the workbook was generated. 

And so, but I think having said that I don’t 

think that I would argue that there should be, 

you know, make some comment about quality 

control because there were a lot of findings, 

there were a lot of findings that had to do 

with, well, the procedure wasn’t followed. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So there are some things like that, 

and there’s a lot, I think you could, I’m not 

arguing with the paragraph being taken out. I 

just don’t think that it’s true that a high 

percentage of these findings were what I would 

call workbook errors, which I would think 

would be the dangerous kind that you were 

talking about which was the workbook does not 

accurately reproduce the technical guidance. 

DR. BEHLING: Well, let me give you another 

one that we might want to think about how it 

falls into this picture of quality control or 

workbook error. But early on we identified 

that the DCFs were likely to be in error and 

that AP geometry was really the only credible 

DCF value that can be used. And then along 

came dose reconstructions that required a 
44

1 triangle distribution for dose. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And the workbook, one of the things 

that I remembered in finding as a deficiency 

in the workbook was the use of a triangular 

distribution of DCFs that now made use of all 

four geometries as opposed to the three values 

that defined the AP geometry as a DCF. And 

you realize that the low end of the triangular 

distribution would suffer severely if you took 

the rotational or PA geometry as one of the 

options for selecting the low end. And so 

that was an error that was again an issue 

where the workbook did not track what we had 

agreed upon, and that is DCF values other than 

AP were not to be used. 

MR. HINNEFELD: But the workbook was 

prepared before the finding. 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And so the workbook was 

prepared in accordance with the guidance which 

really comes out of IG-001 which is now gone 

from IG-001, but about using -- 

 MR. SHARFI: The issue was with the 

procedure, not the tool. The tool still 

followed the procedure correctly. The 
45

1 procedure had an error. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: And then after the finding 

was made, then there were dose reconstructions 

that came up for review where the old version 

of the tool had been used that used the entire 

range. I don’t remember the whole sequence of 

exactly what sequence, you know, did the 

finding first happen and then the tool was 

changed immediately or did the finding first 

happen and then we observed dose 

reconstructions where the tool was not, had 

not been corrected, and so then it was 

corrected. So I don’t remember the, you know, 

I can’t swear to what sequence, what dates 

things occurred in, but when the tool was 

prepared, the instruction or the guidance had 

not yet changed yet to use only AP. 

DR. BEHLING: I don’t remember the exact 

chronology. 

MR. HINNEFELD: But I don’t remember the 

sequence. 

DR. BEHLING: But I remember identifying the 

issue of DCFs as one of the first things 

before we really even got into dose 

reconstructions because that was an audit of 
46

the procedures under Task Three. And when I 

looked at IG, I realized that the DCFs were 

inappropriate. I think we brought that to 

your attention very early. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: And it, and like I said, it 

could be that the tool continued to be used 

beyond the finding, the original mention of 

the finding, which quite likely is a QC or a 

QA issue, you know, extent of corrective 

action when we have a finding, you know, 

extent of condition and correction. So that 

might be a finding, but it still to me doesn’t 

sound like what I would consider, well, it’s 

not what I would call a workbook error which 

is that the workbook did not faithfully 

translate the technical documents. 

DR. MAURO: This is another important issue. 

We’re doing something that’s very difficult. 

We’re trying to take a snapshot -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and try to write 

simply what we’re going to write. 

DR. MAURO: The reality is what we really 

have is a process, a continuous process, where 

we review the actual procedure, and then we 

step in right behind that and start reviewing 
47

workbooks, all of which is in a dynamic state 

and not everything is caught 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: The resolutions take awhile. 

DR. MAURO: And then, bam, we take a quick 

look. Somehow it’s a very difficult thing to 

communicate, but I think it does need, just 

like the previous item we talked about. 

Somehow it has to be captured in setting the 

table. In other words in a way in setting the 

table for this report the overall process and 

where we’re coming into the process and how 

the findings fit into that process. That’s a 

difficult thing to write, but I think we’ve 

got to try to get that. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, this 

is Kathy Behling. The other reason that I 

wanted to add some statement in here about the 

workbooks because it was only in the fourth 

set that we finally encountered the use of 

these workbooks and maybe the term error the 

way you’re interpreting is not correct. 

 But there were some, as Hans pointed 

out, some factors that were entered in and 

some approaches that were being used or 

methodologies being used by these workbooks 
48

that we didn’t feel were appropriate. I do 

feel, like I said, it’s important that we 

discuss something about the fact that we’ve 

now encountered these workbooks. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We’ve reviewed these workbooks in 

light of these dose reconstructions, and we 

have found some issues that we didn’t feel the 

workbooks were appropriately interpreting some 

of the data. As Hans indicated, the LOD over 

two issue and these range of DCF values, and 

so that’s why I made mention of the workbooks. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- well, like I 

said, I don’t have a problem at all with QC 

finding. I don’t have a problem with mentions 

of workbooks and cautionary because, like you 

said, when you have a defective workbook, you 

do the same things wrong a lot. I have no 

problem with things like that. I think that, 

well, I don’t know that I would call a high 

percentage of the errors workbook errors by 

however you define it. But I think there can 

certainly be, you can comment about it being 

incorrectly used. I know there were two, 

there were instances of workbook error, or 

there was something. I just didn’t feel like 
49

1 a high percentage was accurate. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. What if I did, what if 

I tried this because a workbook error is 

probably, it’s not -- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We could soften 

those terms. I’m not trying to insinuate that 

there, that that was a high percentage of the 

errors, but I wanted to point out that there 

were a few things that were caught with the 

workbooks. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think, I was going to 

say findings associated with the use of 

workbooks and associated guidance accounted 

for a high percentage. The only reason, I do 

think it might be a high percentage. And part 

of the reason for saying that is because quite 

frankly we saw several findings that just 

repeated again and again. And it’s only that 

-- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I also believe 

that it was due to the fact that it was a lot 

of Savannah River Site cases in fifth sets, 

and that’s where we first encountered this 

type of error or whatever you want to call it. 

It’s not an error, but it’s a 
50

1 misinterpretation of the data. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I’m not trying to 

overstate that. Maybe just for several of the 

findings. I’m fine with that. 

MR. HINNEFELD: If you say that problems 

with the technical guidance of the workbooks 

represent a high percentage, I would say 

certainly that’s true because between those 

two items, that’s probably almost all. There 

may be a handful of other ones that were just 

boners. 

DR. BEHLING: Early on the biggest problem I 

think -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I put the workbooks and 

associated guidance so to keep those two 

together. And we’re not -- 

DR. BEHLING: And it’s mostly eight to ten -

- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- for a high percentage, you 

know. 

DR. BEHLING: -- that I think because the 

single most repetitive error was the misuse of 

OTIB-0008 and -0010, I mean repeatedly. And 

it’s like here we go again. But it was the 

same thing where people, and as I said it was 
51

a cascade of errors, two of which canceled 

each other out, and the only error left was 

the issue of an uncertainty that was deleted. 

So that was strictly not so much a workbook 

but a guidance document that people somehow or 

other felt uneasy in understanding or 

interpreting. And that has been corrected. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Mark, can you get the word early 

into the sentence that you just used? Because 

clearly what we’re hearing here is the 

problems that were involved in early 

interpretation have been worked out over time, 

and one wants to somehow imply that in what’s 

being said here so that the new reader doesn’t 

assume that there’s something wrong with the 

workbooks and it’s going on continually. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess we can try if 

that’s, and I think that’s a true statement. 

MS. MUNN: I think that’s what we’re trying 

to convey. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, although TIB-0008 and 

-0010 have been revised. 

MS. MUNN: Then we talk about that down in 

procedural errors. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right and that’s covered -- 
52

1 MS. MUNN: That comes in under -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I can even put it after the 

findings associated with the use of workbooks 

and associated guidance in this early phase of 

dose reconstructions or something like that. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah. Actually, the early 

phase of the use of workbooks. That’s what I 

was attempting to convey. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I can put that in. So 

we can still wordsmith this a little bit, but 

I captured the thought. Findings associated 

with the use of workbooks and associated 

guidance in this early phase of the use of 

workbooks accounted for a high -- I don’t like 

workbooks and workbooks, but anyway we can 

fool with that. It gets the -- 

MS. MUNN: Gets to the meat of it. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- the idea, yeah. 

 Okay, on to three. Maybe we shouldn’t 

let Stu participate in the -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I was just going to say you 

may not ask my opinions any more. 

 DR. WADE: You’re going to have to sooner or 

later. 

MS. MUNN: In the next sentence my 
53

preference, personal preference, would be to 

use the word previous rather than last, in the 

previous report to the Secretary. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Where’s that, at the end of 

number two? 

MS. MUNN: No, right after that workbook 

sentence that we were just talking about. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

MS. MUNN: Or proposed corrective actions, 

but don’t we have assurance that that’s 

underway, or not? 

MR. GRIFFON: Tell me what sentence you’re 

reading, Wanda. 

MS. MUNN: Just the sentence following that 

one. The last sentence in the statement. 

See, that’s another one of those that says to 

the -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the Board has not yet 

received this report. That’s kind of maybe 

the tone thing -- 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, that’s for the tone I was 

talking about. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, it is a statement of 

fact, but I think that it is, I think Larry’s 

scheduled to report to us in April on this 
54

very issue, isn’t he? Is that what I heard? 

Somebody said the Board or NIOSH is planning 

to report to the Board. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: We’ve been advised that NIOSH 

will report to the Board on this issue. 

MR. GRIFFON: On this issue at the next 

meeting. Okay, I got that. We can try to 

maybe reprint this up after lunch, too, if 

possible. 

MS. MUNN: Hopefully clean it up a little. 

MR. GRIFFON: If we’re on to number three, I 

was going to suggest a tone change right up 

front, Wanda, to say that SC&A has identified 

several cases which where there were problems 

with the use of procedures, comma, many of 

which were associated with TIB-0008 and TIB0010. So I think that’s the realities that 

focused a lot on those two. 

DR. BEHLING: And then maybe in fairness 

again to say that OTIB-0008 and -0010 are to 

be used only for non-compensable cases. 

MR. GRIFFON: Do we need all that in there 

at this point? Maybe, I mean, that was part 

of the problem with this set of findings is 

that sometimes they weren’t used for only non-
55

1 compensable. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0008 and -10 were. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, TIB-0008 and -0010 were -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-0008 and TIB-0010 have 

always been used for non-compensable. And the 

error was on the high side, correct? 

DR. BEHLING: I think, no. It may have left 

out the uncertainty at the end. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I thought it was on the high 

side, but I could be wrong. 

DR. BEHLING: There was three errors. One 

canceled the other one out. It was the 

weirdest thing the way -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I was thinking it left out 

the uncertainty, but essentially left as the 

maximum dose what should have been a 95th

percentile dose. So you entered the constant 

95th percentile as a constant as opposed to 

entering half that as the mean of the profile. 

I thought that was, but it’s been so long I 

don’t remember. 

DR. BEHLING: Kathy, do you remember what 

the consequences were for that error on eight 

and ten? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe also 
56

it was an uncertainty issue although I have to 

go back to refresh my memory. But I also 

recall it ultimately just boiling down to be 

an uncertainty 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 

MR. GRIFFON: I’ll tell you why I wouldn’t 

want to add that phrase that Hans just 

mentioned into this letter because if you step 

back like Wanda said, and you read this as a 

citizen, you’d say, well, wait a second. Why 

are they doing my reconstruction if they know 

it’s non-compensable? I think that needs more 

explanation than we could do in a letter like 

this. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think you’re probably 

right. 

MR. GRIFFON: Better to leave it out. 

 MR. SHARFI: Maybe just your clarification 

that these procedurals never change 

compensability, never resulted in a change of 

compensability. 

MS. MUNN: And that is really the bottom 

line in what people want to see. 

MR. GRIFFON: But I think we said that in 

our summary up front. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’m afraid if you say it 
57

here, then you’re called upon to say it 

elsewhere and make some sort of judgment about 

what, here you’re judged, you’re called on to 

say, a lot of places. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and we try to shy away 

from speaking to POC anyway because that’s not 

our role. We’re looking at dose, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 

MS. MUNN: Something to know it’s done. 

MR. GRIFFON: All right, so I’m just going 

to leave, put that phrase in that Hans just 

said, and now I’m taking it out because I was 

thinking of others, people other than us 

looking at the letter, and I just don’t like 

that tone necessarily. 

 DR. WADE: But you’re leaving in the eight 

and ten part of it? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did add in so it now 

reads, it starts off SC&A identified several 

cases where there were problems with the use 

of procedures, comma, many of which were 

associated with TIB-0008 and TIB-0010. I 

think that just softens it to say that a lot 

of it was these two procedures. It wasn’t 

like across the board. 
58

MR. HINNEFELD: In the last sentence is the 

intent to say that the cases that were 

reviewed were completed prior to the revision 

of OTIB-0008 and -0010? Is that the intent of 

the last sentence? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes, that is the intent. 

Should I just say prior to -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: To me it softens it a little 

bit if you, it clears it up a little bit if 

you say these were reviewed prior to the 

revision because just before that you mention 

the fact that they’d been revised. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. And now they’re 

revised. The cases reviewed in this were 

completed on procedures, instead of in place 

at the time prior to this revision? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, something like that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t know. I’ve 

captured the thought anyway. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, like I said, just a 

thought. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Because then I’d be concerned, 

which, you know, if there’s another revision, 
59

1 which, you know, prior to the revision. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, go ahead, Kathy. I’m 

sorry. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s okay. 

The only thing I want to make mention of is I 

did look briefly through TIB-0008 and -0010, 

and I don’t see any of the wording or what 

appears to have caused some of the confusion 

in the original TIB-0008 and -0010. However, 

we have not been authorized to formally review 

TIB-0008 and -0010 because those were, as I 

remember, they’re a complete rewrite. 

 And so I thought that we had decided 

when it’s complete rewrite the Board would 

give us the authorization to review those. We 

have not re-reviewed those, and to be honest 

with you, I haven’t seen those new procedures 

show up in any dose reconstructions we’re 

doing now because again we’re trying to pick 

more of the full internal/external of what we 

might consider best estimate cases. So those 

procedures would not be used in those dose 

reconstructions. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think that Wanda is taking a 
60

note on that, and under the procedures review 

that may come 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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, and I 

believe I had mentioned that to Wanda, but it 

may be something we do want to look at. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, I believe we’re okay with 

that, but I’ll make a note to check it. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, thank 

you. 

MR. GRIFFON: Stu, if I say prior to the 

revision, I mean, I’m just a little, should I 

put rev numbers or... 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have a strong 

opinion. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think it’s okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have a strong 

opinion about it. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, we got in the fact 

that it’s revised, and I think it’s implicit 

that, the last sentence I know what you’re 

saying, but I think it’s implied that the 

revision wasn’t in place at the time we 

reviewed. You know what I mean? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I might just leave that 
61

1 alone. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Anything else or are we on to 

number four? 

 (no response) 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, are we on to number 

four, Wanda? Is that okay? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I believe so. 

DR. BEHLING: I guess I do have one comment 

here where the issue implies that the use of 

AP is necessarily a claimant favorable default 

approach. I don’t see it that way. I mean, 

it’s the best we can do, but it doesn’t have 

to be claimant favorable. It would be 

claimant neutral if the exposure was, in fact, 

AP geometry, and it can be very un-claimant 

favorable if the exposure is anything other 

than that, especially APA geometry. 

 So the assumption that the surrogate 

use of AP as a default geometry is always 

claimant favorable is not true. It at best is 

accurate and at worse is very inaccurate. 

Consider the fact that you may have an 

exposure that’s PA, in which case your badge 

will read an exit dose. And so all tissues on 
62

the posterior side of that badge would be 

underestimated. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: What if I said the most likely 

conservative geometry -- 

DR. BEHLING: It’s the most practical 

solution at the moment. And I’m not sure in 

truth, when I looked at the complexity, I 

realized we were not going to change that, and 

it’s just an issue that we shouldn’t even 

attempt to correct. But at this point in time 

an option that may have to default to an AP 

geometry and not necessarily classify as a 

claimant favorable -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I’d agree with that. 

I’d agree with your statement that it’s not 

necessarily claimant favorable. 

MR. GRIFFON: So how do we, can we edit that 

line in any way to -- I agree with everything 

that was said. 

 DR. WADE: Trying to change the word 

conservative? 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I would certainly avoid 

the issue remains unresolved meaning that this 

is an area that -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Most practical? 
63

DR. BEHLING: -- yeah, I think we have to 

realize we can’t solve this problem, and that 

the practical solution is to default to an AP 

geometry assumption. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, the most practical 

geometry factor? 

DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Will be applied? 

DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Take out conservative. 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Because you’re right, it’s not 

-- 

DR. BEHLING: And take out that issue of an 

unresolved because it won’t be resolved. 

MR. GRIFFON: People agree with that? 

MS. MUNN: I’d like to hear the sentence. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I’m just replacing 

conservative with practical. So has indicated 

that the most practical geometry factor will 

be applied. I can put AP. 

MS. MUNN: Are you meaning to say, the issue 

is currently unresolved, semicolon, however? 

DR. BEHLING: I don’t think it will ever be 

resolved. 
64

 DR. WADE: You could take out in the 

interim. In the interim implies something is 

going to happen. Take out in the interim and 

the issue remains unresolved. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Semicolon. 

 DR. WADE: NIOSH has indicated that the most 

practical geometry factor will be applied. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MS. MUNN: Sounds reasonable. 

MR. GRIFFON: All right, I’m okay with that. 

 Number five? 

MS. MUNN: At the end of it I put a bunch of 

dots and said, and so? And therefore? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t know. Someone 

else finish the sentence for me. I mean, I 

didn’t want to really say much more. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I didn’t make any 

comments on this at all. 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s just a statement of fact. 

MR. HINNEFELD: These have been really low 

profile. These are cases where theoretically 

the Department of Labor could go back to these 

claimants and ask for their money back. And 

these have been very low. The Department of 

Labor hasn’t made an issue of it, hasn’t beat 
65

us up. In other words it’s kind of a low 

profile kind of 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 

 My only, I put a question mark by 

these thinking, well, is it so low profile 

that you want to make sure it doesn’t, you 

know, not give the opportunity to raise it in 

a letter. Of course, that would then leave 

out clearly these findings were in the report. 

So I don’t really have an opinion. I just 

wanted to make that comment. 

MR. GRIFFON: They’re in the report. I 

mean, I -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, they are in the report 

-- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- can’t imagine the 

Department of Labor going back and trying to -

- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think that the 

people I talk to and the people I know at 

Labor have no interest at all in doing that. 

I think that just like they’re not their 

bosses, we’re not our bosses ultimately. 

They’re not their bosses ultimately. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know. I understand. 

The thing is we’ve often said that we have to 
66

look at the compensable claims as well as the 

non-compensable ones, and this was, it came up 

in several of the cases. So I thought it was 

significant enough in this group of cases to 

mention in a summary, you know, a summary -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: It was certainly a significant 

finding. It’s mentioned. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- conclusion. I didn’t want 

to go any further than that, Wanda, when you 

ask, so? That’s exactly why I didn’t want to 

say anything more about it. 

 DR. WADE: The only so could be the obvious 

that NIOSH has been made aware of this. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, what’s the current 

practice? Maybe we can just say NIOSH -- 

DR. MAURO: Isn’t that, the whole series of 

AWEs special TBD-6000, -6001, all the 

appendices, doesn’t that put in place the 

vehicle to do more realistic treatment of -- 

MR. GRIFFON: So maybe we can say that. 

Maybe we can say NIOSH has developed TIB-6000, 

-6001 to replace -- is that -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it didn’t, it’s not 

purely replace this but allows a -- 

DR. MAURO: More realistic -- 
67

MR. HINNEFELD: -- more realistic dose 

reconstruction 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 

 DR. WADE: We can say that? 

MR. GRIFFON: We can say that. 

 DR. WADE: And then you’ve got your so. 

MR. GRIFFON: Is it OTIB-6000? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s TBD. 

MS. MUNN: 6000 and 6001. 

MR. GRIFFON: 6000 and 6001 to allow for -- 

help me out with those words. 

DR. MAURO: A more realistic. 

MR. GRIFFON: More realistic. All right, I 

may not have it perfectly, but NIOSH has 

developed TBD-6000 and -6001 to allow for a 

more realistic approach to this type of dose 

reconstruction case. So that completes it 

better. 

MS. MUNN: I think that takes care of my and 

so. 

MR. GRIFFON: Number six? Maybe we can roll 

five and six together. Is that what you guys 

were saying there? 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: It seems, because it’s the 

same one, right? 
68

DR. BEHLING: Well, in principle, not. I 

think when we wrote about the use of TIB-0004, 

we not only said is it inappropriate for 

compensable claims or non-compensable claims 

that should have been treated as noncompensable. But there was also the issue of 

assigning TIB-0004 to places like NUMEC and 

other places. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Actually, this so what that we 

just went through applies more to six than 

five, I think. Doesn’t it or does it apply to 

both? 

DR. BEHLING: TIB-0004 was intended to be 

used for facilities that are essentially a 

uranium processing facility and West Valley 

was another facility. And we said this is 

inappropriate, regardless if a case is 

compensable or non-compensable. 

DR. MAURO: It almost was a filler until 

West Valley came out with its TBD and we were 

in a much better position to do a West Valley 

case. Almost like TIB-0004, it was used as a 

convenience to get through cases when, in 

fact, it was questionable whether TIB-0004 was 

ever intended to be applied to a set like 
69

that, and that has since been remedied. Not 

only with TBD-6000, -6001 for the true AWE 

cases, but also the issuance of a large number 

of other site-point files that covered these 

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 

MS. MUNN: And compensability and site 

application just because we were both used to 

using the same OTIB in both cases. It’s still 

two different things, correct? 

MR. GRIFFON: What if I added on the end of 

this, NIOSH has developed TBD-6000 and -6001 

which include site-specific appendices, or 

which include a listing of -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: You could just call it, say 

site-specific technical documents. 

MR. GRIFFON: Which includes -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: That would include those 

appendices. That would include site profiles 

for West Valley. 

MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH has developed TBD-6000, 

-6001 which includes site-specific technical 

documents. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Rather than be that specific 

I would say site-specific technical documents 

because that would include 6000, 6001’s 
70

appendices, and it would also include the site 

profiles for the sites where TIB-0004 was 

inappropriately applied 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 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but how does it, you 

also made a modification, I thought, to say 

don’t use, only use this for this listed 

sites, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: So that was done in TIB-0004 

that you put a listing of it’s only 

appropriate in four? 

MR. HINNEFELD: The list of appropriate 

sites is in TIB-0004. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH has modified TIB-0004 

to indicate -- or was that a modification or 

was that already there? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it may have been 

there at the start. 

 DR. MAURO: It was in the beginning. That’s 

how we came to. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I mean your statement was 

true but it doesn’t really get at the point of 

what happened, you know -- how did you modify 

the process. 

MR. HINNEFELD: The more we describe it, the 
71

more we highlight this stuff. I think if we 

just said that we have published technical 

documents, site-specific technical documents 

so that we don’t, to remedy this or something 

like that you address everything that 

addresses all these other sites where they 

shouldn’t have been used in the first place. 

It’s a site 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 

MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH has now published sitespecific technical documents to -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Just to remedy this. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- to remedy this issue. 

That’s good enough for now anyway. 

 Can we take a comfort break at this 

point? Is that all right? 

MS. MUNN: I think we should. 

 DR. WADE: For those of you on the phone, 

we’re going to take a brief break. You can 

think five, ten, 15 minutes. I’m going to 

just mute the phone, and we’ll open it back up 

when we’re back in session. Thank you. 

 (Whereupon, a break was taken from 10:40 

a.m. until 10:55 a.m.) 

 DR. WADE: This is the Subcommittee 

Conference Room and we’re about to begin. I 
72

would ask if there are any Board members on 

the call to identify themselves. Are there 

any Board members? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: We’re about to begin. Kathy, are 

you with us? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m with you. 

 DR. WADE: Okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re on to number 

seven in the conclusions. And here, one thing 

I had, Stu, was that X-X-X of the 40 were best 

estimate cases. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Then we go into do we want to 

define best estimates, I guess. 

MR. HINNEFELD: How we want to do that. I 

can, well, I looked at full internal and 

external, and there are actually 33. I said 

37 awhile ago, but there are actually 33 of 

the 40. 

 MR. SHARFI: Maybe they shouldn’t be called 

best estimates and just say full internal/full 

external. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you want to make a 

judgment about best estimates, we can have 
73

somebody do that. We could have Mutty here or 

somebody from the ORAU side look at the 40 

cases and make a judgment of which ones, maybe 

even provide some categorizations of them or 

maybe just look at the 33. They wouldn’t have 

to look at all 40 because the seven of them 

clearly aren’t. Look at the 33 and sort of 

categorize those that there is going to be a 

fairly large chunk will be site model types. 

And there’ll be others where they’re perhaps 

some overestimating or underestimating 

assumptions built in but not over -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to say 

ideally, I’d like to ask SC&A to do the same 

thing, and hopefully, we get the same number, 

but that might be worth -- something fairly 

quick. 

 Kathy, you can look at that, right? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, Mark, I 

can do that. In fact, I was looking at the 

fourth set. I keep, when I make a chart for 

myself, I try to identify maximized, minimized 

and what I would consider best estimate. And 

I know in the fourth set I have two marked as 

best estimates as identified by NIOSH. 
74

 And NIOSH typically up front in your 

summary, you discuss that this case was 

performed using either overestimating 

assumptions or you make the statement up front 

in the summary that usually tells us what to 

anticipate, whether this is a maximized, 

minimized or best estimate. And so I use that 

typically to determine what approach was 

taken. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Now, in the fourth set I do have to 

say there was one Savannah River site case 

that I believe it was indicated that it was an 

overestimate, but I put best estimate with a 

question mark behind it. And I think one of 

the other things that I use to judge it is we 

do have the external workbooks that use Monte 

Carlo. And when those types of workbooks are 

used, I consider those as best estimates. 

MR. GRIFFON: So the fourth set you had two 

or three? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Originally two. 

MR. GRIFFON: And the fifth set? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I didn’t get to 

the fifth set. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. Well, we can do 
75

this by e-mail. I mean, I think we can plug 

the number in, but hopefully we’ll get a 

number that NIOSH and SC&A agree on, and we 

can plug it in here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): And I can 

perhaps do that over lunch. 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess the bigger question is 

the point being made in the conclusion here. 

MS. MUNN: I guess I have a little trouble 

with the word questionable. And this says in 

this case several questionable judgments were 

made. I guess the reason I had a problem with 

that is I’m trying to identify how and who 

comes to the conclusion that these judgments 

are questionable. How do we get to that 

point? 

MR. GRIFFON: What about that several 

judgments were made which may have impacted 

the overall -- well, I guess -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think if you said several 

judgments and then explained in a following 

sentence the importance of that. The fact 

that these outcomes possibly relied on the 

judgments that were made. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s the key is the 
76

1 outcome. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think if you take out 

questionable and put in another sentence, it 

would read -- 

MR. GRIFFON: And I say, impacted the 

overall dose, the reason, that wording’s in 

there for a particular reason because we’ve 

always shied away from saying affected the 

POC. We can’t really -- 

MS. MUNN: We still don’t want to do that. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- this is not DOL. DOL 

determines POC. So we’ve been down that path. 

MS. MUNN: My question at the ^ was this was 

because question mark, question mark. 

DR. MAURO: If I recall -- and, Kathy, 

correct me if I’m wrong -- this might be 

related to really a procedure issue. This has 

to do with OTIB-0033 where the dose 

reconstruction is being done based on 

assumptions on dust load, airborne 

radioactivity -- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No. 

DR. MAURO: No, this isn’t that? Okay. My 

apologies. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m sorry, 
77

John, I’ve not seen the roughs, but let me 

tell you what my thinking was here, and most 

of this is my wording. And the reason I used 

the word questionable is one of the more 

difficult things to determine -- I think most 

dose reconstructors will agree with this -- is 

we get records from the DOE, and it is very 

difficult at times based on these external 

dosimetry records to determine where that 

person worked throughout his employment. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And so we have to make certain 

judgments based on the records that we have. 

Sometimes we do have supporting documents from 

bioassay records, handwritten bioassay cards, 

that will place this person in a certain 

location. But we take the information that we 

have, and we have to make a judgment as to 

where this person worked. 

 And that along with some guidance and 

procedures -- I’m thinking again of the 

Savannah River site cases -- where in my 

judgment I would have said I believe this 

person was in areas where he had the potential 

to be exposed to neutron exposure, and NIOSH 

did not come to that same conclusion. And I 
78

also said to myself based on what I’m seeing 

in the records and based on what I’m reading 

in the procedures, because I don’t know, I’m 

going to give the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant. And I’m going to assume, yes, for 

these years he was possibly in these areas, 

and he should have been given that neutron 

exposure. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And I know there were several cases 

where NIOSH and I went back and forth several 

times. And I finally said we’re going to have 

to agree to disagree on this one because I 

still cannot convince myself that I have to 

give this person the benefit of the doubt and 

I can’t convince myself that he was not 

exposed in these neutron areas. And NIOSH did 

ultimately with those cases say, okay, we’re 

going to go with you, and we’re going to 

recalculate the doses, and they did follow 

through and do that. 

 But that’s why I used the word 

questionable. I guess we also had some cases 

in which some internal dosimetry, internal 

dosimetry is very, there’s a whole lot of 

uncertainties with internal. And sometimes 
79

with the solubility classes we might have 

selected what we would consider a more 

claimant favorable solubility class. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Also -- and Hans can speak to this -- 

the issue of selecting a date of intake. You 

have a urine bioassay. You try to plot this 

information and look at it and make the best 

judgments you can make. In some cases my 

judgment and their judgment, I think, were a 

little bit different, and -- 

 DR. WADE: Okay, Kathy, I think people have 

your point. 

MR. GRIFFON: We got the idea. 

 DR. WADE: Now they’re going to have to work 

on the words. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think my sense, and, 

see, this is what I struggled with in this 

first, in that sentence is I’d rather say it 

this way because I think this is the point 

we’re trying to make. In this set of cases 

several findings related to judgments were 

made which may have impacted the overall 

outcome of the case. And I stayed away from 

may have impacted the overall outcome of the 

case because I thought, I wasn’t sure we 
80

wanted to go down that path of POC, but that’s 

what we’re getting at 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 

 So how do we say that without saying 

it in those terms? I mean, you know, if I say 

which may have impacted on the overall dose, 

then I have Wanda saying, so? I mean, that’s 

the problem with, with how you write this. So 

what? It impacted on the overall dose. The 

point is that it could have impacted on the 

decision. That’s what we’re trying to get at. 

How do we phrase that? I mean, I’m okay 

saying overall outcome of the case may have 

impacted the overall outcome of the case. But 

I don’t know -- 

 MR. SHARFI: So you’re deleting the word 

questionable? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we could just 

say findings related to judgments were made 

which may have impacted on the overall outcome 

of the case. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have any particular 

problem with that. 

DR. BEHLING: Again, Kathy made reference to 

some of the Savannah River cases early on. 

They may not even be in this set, but it’s 
81

very, very difficult to overlook the fact that 

when you have multiple cases for the same site 

in the same set, and you review these cases, 

and you realize not all dose reconstuctors 

think alike. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And I’ve always said I would love to 

see one very difficult case, let’s say, be 

handed to ten different people, lock them in a 

room and says work these out and then let’s 

compare notes and see how close you are and 

what assumptions were made. And there’s 

clearly, without question, a certain amount of 

flexibility in the interpretation of guidance 

as it exists today. 

 Nothing is so absolute that 100 people 

will do the same thing each and every time. 

We know that. And so that the flexibility of 

guidance that involves some subjective 

decisions in the process leads you to question 

is it the luck of the draw in terms of the 

dose reconstructor that may, especially if the 

value approaches the magic marker of 50 

percent? 

 And clearly, it could be decided by 

the subjective interpretation on the part of 
82

some of the dose reconstructors. There’s no 

question about it. The question is how do we 

address 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 

MS. MUNN: Well, we can’t -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we’ve discussed, 

we don’t need to put all that in. 

DR. BEHLING: This is not a perfect world. 

We know that. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, it can’t be done, so we 

just -- 

 MR. SHARFI: You might get ten different 

doses, but I would hope that we’d get all the 

same conclusion for most, in most cases. 

DR. BEHLING: Well, what happens when you 

have all hovering around between 45 and 50? 

MR. HINNEFELD: When you’re -- 

MR. GRIFFON: When you’re that close, yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, 45 is not really as 

close as it sounds. Forty-eight’s pretty 

close. 

 MR. SHARFI: Yeah, 48, 49, sure. 

MS. MUNN: I guess one of my only remaining 

questions here is, were these three cases that 

were called out here, the only three under 

consideration when we’re talking about this 
83

1 particular issue? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s why it, I don’t know if 

Kathy might be able to shed some light on 

that, but I think that is important in the 

context of the X-X-X that we have to put in, 

too, because I think there are only six or 

seven best estimate cases. 

 MR. SHARFI: These three are definitely best 

estimates? 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. I think so. I don’t 

know. I don’t know. 

DR. BEHLING: The issue is really one of 

also realizing that when you approach -- you 

may start out, a dose reconstructor may start 

out being handed a dose reconstruction that 

appears to be a maximized dose. And then he 

realizes that, oh my, this is, you know, we’re 

giving away the kitchen sink here, and we’re 

approaching 50 percent, so we better go back 

off. 

 And the first place we’ll usually back 

off is those areas where we, for instance, 

used TIB-0008 or -0010 or a certain maximized 

that are so easily fixed and then leave in 

place other portions that are still maximized. 
84

And then you go back, and you run another 

calculation and say, oh my god, we’re still 

too close. And so you back off and off and 

off and off. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And you make it to the point where a 

dose reconstruction is 95 percent best 

estimate with perhaps thrown in an 

environmental dose in spite of the fact that 

he was wearing a TLD. So you would say, well, 

that’s trivial stuff, but it’s still one small 

element of maximized dose where you could in 

principle say, well, you were monitored for 

external. You’re not going to get 

environmental dose. 

 And so what you have is really a 

continuum that goes from everything, from 

everything is maximized to nearly everything 

is best estimate with the exception of one or 

two trivial items. And so it’s almost 

subjective to say this was a hundred percent. 

There’s some cases where every last millimeter 

was taken away and you couldn’t justify it, 

but those are few. 

 MR. SHARFI: Yeah, the majority of them are 

the external’s best estimate and the internal 
85

was an overestimate or, because those are easy 

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 

MS. MUNN: To all intents and purposes in 

number seven we have a number of cases that we 

need to fill in there. And this last sentence 

needs to be reworked. 

MR. GRIFFON: I reworked that last sentence 

I think, if that’s, I mean, Stu is okay with 

that wording. I’ll read it again, but also I 

would ask, maybe over lunch, Kathy, if you can 

answer that question that Wanda just posed is 

are these three cases in the last part the 

only ones that we found that fit into this 

group of findings. That’s case 89, 91 and 67, 

and are they best estimate cases? That’s 

another good question. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’ll look at 

that. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we’ve got a busy lunch 

ahead of us. 

 But I rephrased, let me try the 

sentence again, that one sentence leading up 

to the last two items. In this set of cases 

several findings related to judgments were 

made which may have impacted the overall 
86

outcome of the case. And I dropped the 

questionable. That’s okay 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 

 Okay, last two. I don’t know if this 

is a similar CATI thing as you were talking 

about before, Stu. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This is pretty much what I 

was -- well, this kind of relates to the fact 

that the dose reconstructions are not 

temporally, you know, the ones discussed here 

aren’t necessarily later than the ones 

discussed earlier. And I think that, you 

know, I agree with everything that’s said 

here, but I think that it’s unfair to say that 

we’re not doing that based on these reviews 

because from the time this has been identified 

we’ve been telling the contractor that CATI 

has to be addressed, and the dose 

reconstruction report has to describe 

everything that’s described in the CATI. So I 

think for awhile this has been addressed. So 

that’s why it concerns me to have this listed 

as an ongoing concern the way it is there. 

MS. MUNN: Regarding the statement that, 

it’s being -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, it could be couched 
87

1 that -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: -- it’s been addressed and 

continues to be addressed as concerns develop, 

or are eliminated. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, you were going to say 

could be couched -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It could be couched such 

that in these cases, if this was observed, 

that things mentioned in CATIs weren’t 

completely addressed, but since these were 

done some time ago, that the current process 

insists that things mentioned in the CATI be 

addressed, something along those lines. I 

have a little problem with this being under 

ongoing concern. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, ongoing concern, yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it would be 

certainly as a finding result. If you’re 

categorizing finding results, you could 

categorize it as a finding result, and then it 

would be similar to the TIB-0008 and -0010 

finding that there are a lot of these findings 

with a TIB-0008 and -0010, but that has been 

revised and so that shouldn’t be happening any 

more. 
88

MR. GRIFFON: Maybe we could just delete the 

ongoing concern and move it up to number 

eight, and then change the last sentence as 

well saying that instead of this concern was 

raised in the last report, put something to 

the effect that NIOSH has changed the -- help 

me with the words 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: NIOSH currently addresses 

all CATI information in the dose 

reconstruction report. 

MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH has indicated that 

because we haven’t seen that, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I’m not sure if you’ve 

-- 

MR. GRIFFON: It would be something like -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: In some of your newer 

reviews you may have actually, you may have 

actually seen that, but you wouldn’t comment 

on it. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling. In some of the newer reviews I am 

seeing much more time put into discussion of 

any radiological incidents that may have been 

mentioned by the claimant in the CATI portion. 

That’s correct. 
89

DR. WADE: But you can’t make it a statement 

of fact. You can say NIOSH has reported or 

NIOSH has stated that it, 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 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I’ll get that sentence 

and then delete the, this concern was raised 

in the last report. I don’t think that adds 

anything anyway. And I’d just say we’ll move 

it up to number eight instead of having it as 

an ongoing. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That would suit me a lot 

better. 

MR. GRIFFON: This was just because of the, 

it was formatted that way before. I think 

that’s why it just stayed there. I have no 

other explanation for it. 

 And then the last one which might just 

go to number nine. Yeah, I think maybe we’ll 

just treat that as number nine. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 

MS. MUNN: I think that’s reasonable. 

 In these last two sentences begged the 

question of validation. Of course, we’ve run 

this one around the track in more venues than 

this Subcommittee. And how to validate when 

data is acceptable and when it is not is not a 
90

definition I have ever heard proposed by 

anyone anywhere. When is enough enough seems 

to vary widely with not only the individual 

but with the perception of the source of the 

data. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that sentence I think is 

lifted from the last report, and also, I mean, 

you’re correct, Wanda, although our procedures 

do say that the Board -- well, at least one of 

our procedures for SEC reviews says that the 

Board is going to look at this, not 

necessarily for dose reconstructions but for 

SECs. 

MS. MUNN: So I guess the reason that 

bothered me was because if we have a mechanism 

in place for verifying and validating data, 

I’m not aware of it. Is there? I’ve 

certainly not seen anything. It’s been the 

basis for many, many discussions and many, 

many of the Subcommittee -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, you get into the -- 

MS. MUNN: -- so if we’re saying we think 

everything ought to be validated and verified, 

then the question is by what standard? 

DR. MAURO: Could I make a suggestion? In 
91

terms of this particular finding it really 

goes back to the summary data. So in other 

words rather than take on the global issue of 

what constitutes validation verification and 

how far do you go, which is certainly a very 

important issue, but in the context of this 

comment really the problem is I think that 

very often in the records of a dose 

reconstruction -- Kathy, again, please correct 

me if I’m wrong -- there is summary level 

data. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And but also if you care to you can go 

back to the original data, the handwritten 

records for this worker that give you the 

breakdown by month or by film badge turnover 

which will allow you to convince yourself 

that, yes, the summary level data does, is or 

is not faithful to the highly granular data 

that makes up this person’s records. And all 

I think is really being said here is that it’s 

prudent to, when you’re doing a dose 

reconstruction, to not just presume the 

summary level data is sufficient. 

 There is a certain series of steps 

that it would be prudent to take to convince 
92

yourself that you have a full appreciation 

that the data have been summarized properly. 

But now that almost avoids this question of 

the term validation. Because the term 

validation verification has some very 

important meaning in a different venue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So I guess I would say that that term, 

validation, really doesn’t apply here. It’s 

really a matter of checking to confirm that 

the summary level data faithfully represents 

the detail data that stands behind it. Those 

kind of checks are important when you’re doing 

a dose reconstruction. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling. Actually, in some situations the DOE 

records only include summary level data, and 

we don’t get the exchange cycle data whether 

it be monthly or quarterly. And in some cases 

we’ll get portions of these cycle data, but 

that’s to imply that we don’t always have that 

means of verifying all of the summary level 

data. 

DR. BEHLING: I think this statement, Kathy, 

comes out of the fact that on several 

occasions I looked at the summary data and 
93

where we really referring to external 

dosimetry data, and you get a yearly output 

for shallow dose, deep dose, sometimes neutron 

doses if the person was exposed, and in some 

cases they even integrate tritium exposure 

with the external. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So to get this one page that says, 

okay, this is for this year’s employment dada-da-da. And then you get also in many 

instances a detailed analysis of each wear 

period which may start out as weekly to 

monthly to quarterly. And I’ve looked at some 

of those and realized that if you tally up the 

individual dosimeter data against the annual 

data that you don’t always get a match. 

 And so obviously in some instances a 

case where we as auditors looked at the detail 

data, tallied up the numbers and concluded 

that the summary data was in error. And the 

only issue here is that should the dose 

reconstructor take the additional effort to 

verify if he’s going to use the summary data 

to be sure that the summary data does in truth 

reflect the individual exposures as are 

available. 
94

MS. MUNN: And does this automatically 

negate the use of any summary data if the raw 

data is not available. Now, these are --

DR. BEHLING: It’s the best you can do --

MS. MUNN: I know it’s the best you can do.

DR. BEHLING: -- if that’s all there is.

MR. HINNEFELD: There’s usually a way to 

deal with an annual total on an external dose. 

If you know or if you have a decent or even 

make a good approximation of the badge 

exchange, you just assume that all the dose 

was received in one badge exchange, and you 

give them missed dose for the others. And so 

that’s the most conservative thing to do in 

that situation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 There are cases though, there are 

cases where you get the detailed and the 

summary data, and they don’t add up. There 

are a few, and I think in those instances we 

use the higher consistently. 

DR. MAURO: Well, you’ve offered up a 

solution. Is that, in fact, in place? I’m 

not aware of it. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we’ve done, I 

mean, you see it occasionally on a Hanford 
95

case. I don’t remember seeing it very many 

places. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling. That is what you do. In fact, if 

you go into some of the workbooks, I’ll often 

see the dose reconstructors, they will enter 

in red, data that, if they find data on the 

summary sheet, if the summary totals are 

higher than the actual data in the detailed 

records, they’ll actually add a record to, so 

that they can sum everything up to what’s in 

that summary record. 

 But, yes, they do use the highest when 

there’s a -- and they typically do make a 

comparison. I’m thinking in terms of when 

some of the data is not available. But there 

are times where we see differences in the 

summary level and the detailed records, but 

generally, they do use the highest. 

MR. SHARFI: Are you indicating that this is 

a problem or just a F-Y-I? I mean, are you 

finding DRs where we have summary and we’re 

doing them, you feel they’re doing them 

incorrectly or you’re just indicating that 

this is a possible concern but you have not 
96

seen a problem yet? I don’t get that from 

this paragraph which 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 

DR. BEHLING: Well, we’ve seen it in both 

directions, Mutty, and as I said, I personally 

have looked at some where the detailed records 

would suggest a much higher dose which was not 

used because the person didn’t invest the time 

to go through the detailed records, tally them 

up and realize that that dose would be higher 

than the annual dose. 

 MR. SHARFI: So you’ve seen cases where the 

detailed, they used the annual summary -- 

DR. BEHLING: Yes, and in lieu of -- 

 MR. SHARFI: -- and not too often that we 

use the annual summary if we have details. 

Usually we always default to the details and 

add if we, if it doesn’t come up to the annual 

summary, you’d always go to the cycle data 

before you’d use the annual summary. 

MR. GRIFFON: But, I mean, I think since I 

drafted this in the last round of reviews, I 

was also looking in the more global context 

that you keep saying, well, if this doesn’t 

match, if the summary doesn’t match the 

details then we default to the more 
97

conservative. If the summary doesn’t match 

the details in a lot of cases, then I start to 

wonder, what is this mess I’ve got in front of 

me? Is this reality? Or is there a problem 

in the database? I mean, that’s the question.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think we would, too. 

From a site I think we would, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that’s the question that 

I’ve raised to NIOSH from the beginning of the 

project is that you’ve assumed all the 

electronic records were valid unless proven 

otherwise. And I guess I’ve been on the other 

side of that saying we want to, you know, and 

I think for years the public has been on the 

other side of that saying not all, I guess 

some people in the public have raised the 

question of the DOE records, and if you’re 

just using the electronic records so that’s 

the question, you know. There’s different 

ways to treat it. 

 But we’re still, not always but a lot 

of times, still dealing with database numbers 

that NIOSH has, and I mean, we as the Board 

end up going down this path on the SEC process 

sometimes. We don’t necessarily have to say 
98

how to do this. I just want to see my, I 

guess, my sort of reason for wording it this 

way, and it’s a little vague, but part of it 

is that I think NIOSH needs to address this in 

their program, do we need some V and V on all 

of our data before we use it in the dose 

reconstruction process? That’s what I was 

getting 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 

 And the only way we’re seeing it sort 

of show up in the DR reviews is that we’re 

getting some mismatches or only relying on the 

summary data or things like that. But the 

question then underlying that is have you, has 

NIOSH asked the question why. Why are these 

inconsistent with these? Why are these and 

have they -- not just for one case, but have 

they done it systematically -– 

MR. HINNEFELD: We have done it at some 

sites. 

MR. GRIFFON: So you have done it -– 

MR. HINNEFELD: We have done it at some 

sites. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I guess that’s why I was 

phrasing it that way was that we brought this 

up in the next to the last line I think is 
99

fairly similar with our last report. So I 

think it gets a little further than what John 

was saying for data confirmation in my mind. 

That’s why we left it as validation 

verification. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Can I offer up the issue, when 

you get into the realm of validation 

verification we ran into that as a big issue 

on Rocky, going back to the logbooks to see 

how much could we trust the data. We’re in 

the middle of that process right now at the 

Nevada Test Site. 

 And one of my concerns is that I guess 

we don’t really have any formalism. It’s 

almost like we work our way through. We 

interview people. We look at some logbooks. 

Along the way we use some judgment, have maybe 

some statisticians come in in terms of 

sampling the population of numbers. And in 

the end collectively we say, okay, I think 

we’ve looked at enough, and we could draw 

certain conclusions. 

 This is such a fundamental issue. In 

fact, it goes to the heart of everything we 

do. Perhaps we need to spend a bit more time 
100

talking about how do you come at this problem 

and can there be some general rules or 

protocols developed for data validation 

verification or, unfortunately, is the nature 

of the beast such that it’s so different from 

site to site that you have to deal with them 

and work with what you have and then on a 

site-by-site basis collectively use your 

judgment of what constitutes a good way to 

verify and validate. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I think that’s where we are right now. 

We’re doing that right now, for example, where 

we formulated for NTS. So I guess I’m just 

bringing this forward here. This is, when it 

comes down to it, this is where the rubber 

meets the road. 

MS. MUNN: You’re articulating my concern.

MR. GRIFFON: I think it’s something we 

should ask NIOSH for. Do you have a 

standardized way of looking at this or is it 

sort of site specific or is there any, I don’t 

know if there’s anything proceduralized 

related to this. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Well, Mark, I think this is 

why you’re voicing this in this letter. This 
101

involves underlying -- and all of us on any 

work group, the question comes back to all of 

us. It’s everything. Taking the best words 

is fine or whatever, but still it’s an 

underlying 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 

MS. MUNN: Has to be there. Has to be in 

everything we do because it clearly is the 

bedrock of the decisions that have to be made.

MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, I think by bringing 

that up again maybe we can highlight this to 

NIOSH that this will sort of give them the 

impetus to give us a formal response on this. 

I think we should ask how are you doing this.

 John, I know you’re saying this is a 

good discussion to have, but I think NIOSH has 

to initiate it for us and then we may ask SC&A 

to review how they’re looking at this. But I 

think certainly NIOSH would take the first 

crack at it. Stu said at some sites they have 

done some V and V. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We have –- 

MR. GRIFFON: So how has it been done and I 

think it might be –- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’ve gone to some 

sites because we didn’t feel like what they 
102

gave us was what they, what they told us it 

was was what it was. So we’ve gone back with 

some like data capture stuff and things like 

that. But that’s kind of like a site specific 

kind of identification, and it wasn’t based on 

a particular set of criteria that said, okay, 

these guys didn’t meet the criteria that we 

had established, and therefore, we’re going to 

go do this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 It was just kind of because, well, 

this doesn’t seem kosher, doesn’t seem like 

we’re getting what they said they’re sending 

us. So we’ve done some of that, but we 

haven’t, I would be hard pressed to tell you 

today a NIOSH position on this. And so I’m 

making my note here, first note I’ve made for 

myself, to go back to the folks at the office 

and say when this comes out, regardless of 

what the Secretary does with this, certainly 

the Subcommittee and quite likely the Board is 

interested in some discussion along these 

lines. 

 And so it may behoove us to prepare in 

terms of what we mean. I believe the law 

requires the Department of Energy to provide 
103

their records to us. So there’s some sort of 

presumption in the law that those are at least 

useful in some fashion. So I mean, that’s 

kind of a starting point for this. But anyway 

I just have to go back and 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 

 DR. WADE: There are two or three maybe 

issues. Sometimes they’re always the same 

issues; sometimes depending on how you look at 

the beast they’re a different issue that come 

up, and they’re appropriate to be discussed. 

The starting point as to what NIOSH does 

really needs to be the rules that are in place 

that will probably get into the public 

process. 

 They need to be looked at. The 

adequacy of those rules can be considered and 

passed upon. The Board can ask NIOSH to 

comment. And the Board should do that, and 

NIOSH should do that in a public forum. But 

these are not trivial issues. But there are 

rules in place that are now followed. Are 

those rules adequate? Is NIOSH following 

those rules is one question. Are the rules 

adequate is another question. 

 And those are germane for the Board to 
104

comment upon in its oversight responsibility. 

The fix is NIOSH’s when it comes to it, and 

then if that involves more formal process, 

then NIOSH can undertake that process within a 

public forum if that makes any sense. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 This has come up on the issues of 

surrogate data. It’s come up on the issues of 

SEC rules of procedure. They fall around the 

same issue. 

MS. MUNN: Everywhere. 

 DR. WADE: The starting point has to be the 

rules in place. 

MS. MUNN: So it still seems that this 

wording is close but doesn’t quite get to it. 

Does that –- 

DR. MAURO: Can I speak? My thought is -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I was just trying to look at 

possible edits and every time I go around I 

don’t know. The next to last sentence is the 

only one I was trying to maybe work with to 

soften a little instead of saying should be 

documented within the DR reports. I don’t 

know. But every time I try to come up with a 

way to rephrase I don’t think it’s any better.

MS. MUNN: Have we really said that we think 
105

that documentation needs to occur in the DR 

reports, in the individual DR reports? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, and that’s what I’m 

wondering is I’m saying it there so I don’t 

know if we said it in the last letter. That’s 

a good question. 

MS. MUNN: Well, and I don’t know that we 

said it in the Board. We’ve talked a lot 

about V and V, but we have not, I don’t know 

if we have said in each dose reconstruction we 

want a validation proof of some sort. 

MR. GRIFFON: No, but this doesn’t say that. 

That says that a reference to how the data for 

that site, for instance, was validated. I 

think that would be, you know. That’s what I 

kind of understood that as was that data used 

for the Hanford dose reconstruction, you know, 

validation is a methodology for validating the 

data used in the Hanford dose reconstruction 

is included in TBD da-da-da-da-da, something 

like that. I don’t expect that they in each 

DR they say we validated your individual data 

in the following method. I mean, it’s a sort 

of a site thing. 

DR. MAURO: Isn’t it that though you’re 
106

trying to do two things in this and maybe if 

you do that’s fine, but when I read this it 

seems to me the primary emphasis is on the 

summary level data and whether or not 

reviewing and using the summary level data is 

sufficient and the need to go behind the 

summary level data to make better use of it. 

And it sounds like you have a remedy that may 

or may not –- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, ^ do that in every 

case. I believe that’s what we intended to 

do, but I’m not absolutely sure. I think we 

do. 

DR. MAURO: But at the same time and the 

same thing you’re using as a pointer and 

saying, well, listen, they didn’t say, well, 

we’re going to leave that, and we’re going to 

now only talk about, even if you do have the 

detailed data sitting behind the summary level 

data, what you’re saying is even then there’s 

an obligation on the part of NIOSH to say 

something to the effect of the validity -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess the pointer is when 

the summary data didn’t agree with the -- 

DR. MAURO: That would be one pointer -- 
107

MR. GRIFFON: -- that’s a pointer to the 

fact that how do you know the validity of the 

overall dataset. I mean, that’s what I was 

using as the pointer. So I don’t think 

they’re different -– 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Okay, I understand. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- conclusions. That’s why I 

was leaning to that one there. 

 DR. WADE: ^ to the ^ issue you could end 

the sentence by saying that dose estimates is 

verified, validated and should be addressed, 

period. The Board has asked NIOSH to make a 

presentation on this topic, or something. And 

you could point this out to NIOSH and ask 

NIOSH to come forward and address the issue.

MR. GRIFFON: We haven’t asked them yet, but 

I guess we could before we... 

 In the last report, Wanda, that 

sentence was the same. I just copied it.

MS. MUNN: Yeah, but -– 

MR. GRIFFON: So we, I mean, I know you’re 

saying we haven’t discussed it on the Board 

but we sent a letter to the Secretary that 

says that very sentence. 

MS. MUNN: I just wanted to continue a 
108

pattern we had established earlier in this 

letter indicating that there is movement, that 

we’re not still in the same place we were when 

we sent the last report. We’re still moving.

MR. GRIFFON: But that could be construed as 

spin as well. I mean, I don’t know that I see 

movement in this area so, you know, at some 

point you have to say what is, is. Nobody’s 

validating as far as I can, I mean, there 

might be some cases that Stu’s mentioned here, 

but I mean, I see mostly when we go to 

validate or verify it comes to an SEC comes 

before the Board, and then we have to go down 

that path. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So I’m saying it would help a lot if 

some of this was done up front. The SEC 

reviews might go a little smoother as well if 

some of this work was done. That’s my point, 

but I mean, I guess I’m willing to say like 

what Lew said is that the Board has asked 

NIOSH to present on this topic or something 

like that, you know soften it a little, but I 

don’t think much else has changed on that 

front. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I hate to say nothing’s 
109

changed. I mean, in the more recent site 

profile -- Mutty reminded me of this -- in the 

more recent profiles, for instance, there’s 

more effort involved in evaluating quality of 

this data, and are there certain time periods 

when you know for sure they didn’t monitor for 

certain things. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So you know you’re going to have, you 

know, those gaps are going to be there and is 

there a way to account for it. Or if there’s 

a particular, I know some profiles say don’t 

use the reported neutron doses because it was 

NTA film, and based on this work location it’s 

no good. So some of the site profiles say 

that. So there’s some work that’s been done. 

It’s not like nothing has been done. 

MR. GRIFFON: Maybe we can delete that last 

sentence. That would maybe address a little 

bit of Wanda’s concern that we’re not just 

stagnant in this, you know, say this concern 

was, delete that and then say that the Board 

has asked NIOSH to present or to give an 

overview on their approach for validation 

verification. 

MS. MUNN: Have we done that, the Board?
110

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess we’re asking now 

and then we can put it in the letter. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: The Board can address that in 

April and then formally ask -– 

MR. GRIFFON: Or the Board intends on 

requesting NIOSH -– 

 DR. WADE: Well, if you did, the Board’s 

going to approve this letter in April so you 

could have it. It could be done at the same 

time. 

MR. GRIFFON: At the same time kind of. 

It’s a little awkward, but, yeah. 

MS. MUNN: But I see no problem in that. My 

only other request would be that at the very 

first sentence that we might take out the word 

apparent. That’s another one of those 

gotchas. In several cases that ^ summary 

data. In several cases in this set summary 

data such as blah-blah-blah. 

MR. GRIFFON: So how did you want to 

rephrase that? I’m sorry. 

MS. MUNN: Just in several cases of this set 

summary data such as –- 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. That’s fine.

MS. MUNN: -- and in the summary reports 
111

provided. I’m never sure what several means, 

whether it means more than two or less than a 

dozen. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think that’s right. 

And then the last sentence I put in the Board 

has requested that NIOSH give an overview of 

their approach to data validation and 

verification on, I guess a presentation or, 

you know. 

 DR. WADE: I’m sure NIOSH would relish the 

opportunity. 

MR. GRIFFON: That one paragraph, maybe we 

can work on some wording over the break, going 

back to that first one we discussed with the 

CATI, yeah, conclusion number one there. I 

think we were struggling with that, and I’m 

willing to look at that over lunch and try to 

come back and offer some words. And maybe 

I’ll sit with Wanda and others and try to 

wordsmith that a little bit. 

 But are there any other -- that’s the 

end of the letter. I’ve got down most of what 

was said. My hope is to, and I think if I -- 

let me ask a process question from Lew. If I 

get all of our edits from right now and 
112

possible edits over the lunch time just on 

that one item, can I re-circulate this? I 

mean, I guess what I’m looking for is, is the 

Subcommittee prepared to offer this to the 

full Board for a vote? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: It’s up to the three members 

here. 

MR. GRIFFON: And can we do that if we vote 

today on the overall substance, and then by email I can send out the final version and make 

sure there’s no, as long as there’s no 

concerns about it, then we can assume we don’t 

have to re-vote, right? 

 DR. WADE: Correct. I think if you can get 

hard copy to the Subcommittee members this 

afternoon to consider, then they can vote 

their will on that. If there’s a majority 

decision by the Subcommittee, then you can 

bring that to the full Board for 

consideration. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I’d like to do. 

 I was going to say we can look at the 

tenth set, but it might be a good point to 

take lunch now if that’s all right. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Mark, excuse 
113

me. This is Kathy Behling. Before we leave 

this subject I just wanted while we were 

talking here I did go back to the fourth and 

fifth sets, and at least from SC&A’s point of 

view, I have down two cases from the fourth 

set were considered best estimates, and I 

believe NIOSH will hopefully come to that same 

conclusion. Although as I said there was one 

that I questioned, I felt really was a best 

estimate as opposed to a maximizing case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And for the fifth set there were six 

best estimates. And again there was one case 

that SC&A felt, although it was considered by 

NIOSH at least, we felt it was considered by 

NIOSH as being a maximizing case, we thought 

it sort of fit into the best estimate 

category. So I would say there’s eight total 

of these 40 that are best estimates. Now 

obviously, NIOSH has to confirm that. And 

when we talked back on these judgment issues, 

all three of the cases that I identified 

there, they did fall into the best estimate 

category. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And were there any 

other, maybe you can look at over lunch if you 
114

haven’t looked into this one, were there any 

other cases where this assumption or judgment 

question came 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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I looked a 

little bit into that, and there were several 

cases, and again, we’re just talking about a 

handful here of these best estimates. I did 

take notice in one particular case. I 

initially questioned the neutron issue; 

however, after getting a better explanation 

from NIOSH as to why they decided the way they 

did, I looked at the record. Then I agreed 

with them. And with regard to the internal, I 

did not do a lot of research on that. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we’ll leave it as three of 

eight, three cases of these eight. But I’m 

also going to ask NIOSH to maybe look and see 

how many they think are best estimates. It 

would be nice if we came to the same number. 

But we’ll leave that as a tentative eight 

right now for total number of cases. 

 DR. WADE: Just before lunch, Mark, just on 

the record I would ask Stu since he represents 

NIOSH if there are any additional reactions or 

opinions you’d like to put forward at this 
115

point, Stu. I mean, you’ve been participating 

as we 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think anything I’ve had to 

say about this I’ve said. I think maybe this 

may not be a majority opinion at OCAS, but I 

think the review is a valuable tool for us to 

use in our work continuing going forward. So 

I have no, other than that I think it provides 

a valuable service to the program, to us in 

our efforts. 

 DR. WADE: Yeah, by definition audits are 

interesting processes. By nature they really 

have to focus on errors and mistakes, and 

that’s what they’re there to do. And I think 

from my observation the process has been 

extremely professional and positive and is 

towards eventually serving the people we serve 

who are the claimants and petitioners. 

MR. GRIFFON: And I think all the input 

today was good, too. I think there were some 

adjectives that didn’t belong there, and so 

this was worthwhile to -– 

DR. BEHLING: I have one more issue on the 

issue of subjectivity, and I don’t know if 

we’re going to get into that when we talk 
116

about the fourth set and finalizing. But I 

think in that particular set it turned out to 

be one of the best estimate cases was the 

issue of assigning a date of intake for a 

series of high urinary exposures. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And I would like to say this, based on 

guidance documents if you had a dose 

reconstructor who would say, okay, we’re going 

to assume that the intake for an episodic 

event or at least this is their judgment to 

say this was an episodic event was midway 

between the previous bioassay and the one that 

gave that high value. He would be very much 

in agreement with existing documents, or 

guidance documents, that would allow you to do 

that. 

 As it turned out the dose 

reconstructor in this case decided that in 

most instances there was a whole bunch of 

them, five, six different instances, where he 

assigned the intake date as the day before or 

two days before which would certainly minimize 

the potential intake using the bioassay data 

and back-fitting the inhalation quantity. And 

when we raise that as an issue, I think 
117

everybody looked at it and then said, well, 

let’s figure out if this is really something 

that we can live 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 

 And what they end up doing is saying, 

well, if, in fact, the assumption of a type F, 

I mean Type S, for solubility were to have 

been correct and been used at the midway 

point, then the subsequent bioassay would 

yield yet a dose that was not consistent with 

the real dose. And on that basis, they 

justified the assumption that the intake could 

have taken place the day before or two days 

because it fit the data. 

 The alternative would have been to say 

instead of Type-S, we could have used Type-M, 

we could have also used the midway point but 

not both. Now the question comes into play, 

and this is a hypothetical question, I 

understand the logic and the question is was 

that known at the time. And, for instance, 

would another dose reconstructor who would 

have said I’m going to default to two claimant 

favorable assumptions, a midway point and an 

insoluble value for the intake which would 

have raised the intake by a huge order and 
118

raised that POC value way above 50 percent 

mark. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Now as it turns out, NIOSH can justify 

its final decision based on the additional 

calculation that says, well, if we assume, if 

we continue to assume the Type-S but move the 

point of intake midway between the previous 

one and this one, we would end up with a value 

that is inconsistent with yet a third data 

point that would show a value that is much, 

much higher than the one we observed, so 

therefore, we’re correct. 

 The question really is was this done 

and was it just good fortune for NIOSH to be 

able to justify -- and I agree with that 

decision now -- but was it done in time and 

would, for instance, another dose 

reconstructor who would have said, well, you 

know, the dose reconstruction guidance 

documents allow me to take the midpoint when 

you don’t know, and still also assume a 

claimant favorable solubility and end up with 

a different number. That’s the dilemma here.

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean we’ve talked 

about this case at length, but I think if 
119

nothing else, it highlights something that we 

might want to pay attention to in future 

cases. I guess the biggest concern there 

would be maybe consistency of decision making.

DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and this is where I 

always say if you have multiple dose 

reconstructors, you might have somebody that’s 

very claimant favorable -– 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but I also think -– 

DR. BEHLING: -- and defaulted to claimant 

favorable assumptions. 

MR. GRIFFON: But I also think that on these 

closer cases you have a higher level of 

review, right? I think built in. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And I think what normally 

happens on a case where you have, where the 

dose reconstruction actually uses multiple 

intakes and does a fit when you have multiple 

intakes and multiple acute intakes, if I’m not 

mistaken, the regime -- if it comes out close 

-- the regime is going to be the one that 

provides essentially the highest dose to the 

target organ that fits the bioassay data, all 

the bioassay data. 

MR. GRIFFON: That better fits it, yeah. 
120

MR. FARVER: One point I want to bring up is 

once you start deviating from a midpoint 

assumption that’s documented or let’s say 

we’ll assume a chronic over the employment 

period, once you get into this best fit, best 

visual fit area, there doesn’t seem to be an 

objective way to determine what is the best 

fit. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess that’s the question 

we’re raising is that from doing internal dose 

we all know that it’s as much art as science, 

and then if you get, you know, we don’t want 

to be in a position where it depends on who 

you get if you get over 50 or slightly under 

50. So the program has to be able to handle 

that. 

MR. FARVER: And I think that’s something 

they could work on whether it’s minimizing the 

errors, whether it’s defaulting to the 

simplest model or something like that. You 

need some kind of objective method that you 

say, yes, this is how we did it. We 

determined that this is the value that we’re 

basing it on. There needs to be less subject.

 MR. SHARFI: I think the problem with the 
121

specific case we’re talking about was the 

documentation of the thought process in the DR 

-– 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s true, too, and we 

brought that -– 

 MR. SHARFI: -- not the assessment but the, 

how well they explained what their thought 

process was. And we have something that tried 

to address better now is documenting our 

thought process better in DRs. 

 DR. WADE: I think Brad would like to speak.

MR. GRIFFON: Because that came up a lot.

 MR. CLAWSON: I realize everything’s going 

this, and I want to compliment NIOSH and SC&A 

and how they handle a lot of this. I go 

through a lot of peer reviews on me, and one 

of the things that is always mentioned to me 

is this is to make it better. And I 

appreciate the wordsmithing because I didn’t 

see a lot of that stuff in there, but I’m not 

very good at that stuff. 

 But I hope that nobody ever takes this 

as that it’s shortcomings that we hope that we 

can strengthen and go from there. Because we 

also have other people depending on us to be 
122

1 able to do that. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: To sort of end on a high point.

MR. GRIFFON: That’s a good way to wrap it 

up. 

 DR. WADE: Well, to end on a high point. I 

mean your function is to advise the Secretary 

HHS on the scientific validity and quality of 

dose reconstruction efforts performed under 

this program. That’s certainly what you’re 

doing. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, on that note why don’t 

we take our lunch break and reconvene at one 

o’clock. Is that all right? 

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

line now, and we’ll dial back in just before 

one or when we assemble in sufficient numbers 

to warrant your participation. 

 (Whereupon, a break for lunch was taken at 

12:00 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 1:00 

p.m.) 

MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon back with 

the, I’d like to go back to the letter for the 

fourth and fifth set cases just for a few 

minutes, and hopefully we can wrap this up and 

then move on to the tenth set case selection. 
123

 Looking at the language over lunch a 

little bit, I’d like to go through the letter 

from the top and kind of just review the 

suggested changes that we made during this 

meeting. Looking at the first page, the 

paragraph right before the summary of 

findings, and we deleted, we took out a few 

words. We deleted, at the end of the first 

sentence we deleted “much like the first sixty 

cases”. And we deleted “some representative”, 

I think was the big one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 There’s another line in here that I 

have that I don’t think I quite finished. It 

was after the second full sentence. It says, 

“the forty cases covered in this report were 

selected from a pool of 8120 cases which have 

been adjudicated and were therefore available 

for Board review.” And I was going to add a 

sentence in here to say the cases reviewed had 

a DR completion date ranging from blank to 

blank and then let NIOSH give us those dates. 

MS. MUNN: That would probably be a good 

idea to put it in context. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that was suggested, and 

I just didn’t get all the words down during 
124

the meeting, but I got the thoughts captured. 

So I’ll leave a placeholder for the dates then 

I’ll add that sentence 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 

 Moving down to the end of that 

paragraph we edited it to say that, “However, 

it should be noted that this group of cases 

did include five cases of POCs between 45 and 

50 percent.” Going on to page three, the 

first conclusion. 

 And this is one we wordsmithed a 

little over the lunch break. So now the front 

part of the paragraph has been changed quite a 

bit. I’ll read the first, the first sentence 

is the only thing that’s been changed, and now 

it reads like this. 

 “After reviewing cases 61 through 100, 

it is apparent that the DR reports that NIOSH 

provides to the claimants and the auditor need 

to be reformatted and expanded to include more 

specific information about the claim and an 

auditable trail which identifies the origin of 

each line of the dose input tables used for 

IREP,” parentheses, and the rest continues as 

it was. So we modified that first sentence 

fairly significantly. 
125

 We took out the specific reference to 

the not including information provided in the 

CATI. At the end of the paragraph added a 

sentence to say, “NIOSH has indicated that 

some of these changes have already been made 

to the template that was used at the time of 

this review.” I think that’s worded clearly 

enough. Even though the DR report hasn’t been 

completely reformatted some changes have 

already been put in place since our review. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Conclusion two, we changed the 

sentence about two-thirds of the way down the 

paragraph. We deleted, “The Board has not yet 

received this report.” Oh, no, that’s later. 

Anyway, we have a sentence in the middle 

there. I think people will remember it. It’s 

really the workbook stuff. “Findings 

associated with the use of workbooks and 

associated guidance in this early phase in the 

use of the workbooks accounted for a high 

percentage of findings.” So I think we 

discussed that one quite a bit. 

 At the end of that paragraph I added 

on a sentence to say that -- oh, this is where 

we deleted, “The Board has not yet received 
126

this report.” We changed that to say, “NIOSH 

is planning on reporting to the Board on this 

issue in the April 2008 Board meeting.” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Number three, I think the only edit 

was the first sentence. “SC&A identified 

several cases where there were problems with 

the use of procedures, comma, many of which 

were associated with TIB-0008 and TIB-0010.” 

 Going on to number four, the second 

sentence, “This issue remains unresolved. 

NIOSH has indicated that the most practical 

geometry factor will be applied.” And we took 

out conservative. 

 Looking at number five, I added on a 

sentence at the end to say, “NIOSH has 

developed TBD-6000 and -6001 to allow for a 

more realistic approach to this type of dose 

reconstruction case.” 

 Number six, similarly we added on a 

sentence at the end to say, “NIOSH has now 

published site-specific technical documents to 

remedy this issue.” 

 Then number seven, we have this 

question of the number of cases of best 

estimates. Kathy provided eight. We’re going 
127

to have NIOSH just go through that same 

process and hopefully will come up with the 

same number. The sentence after the number of 

cases there has been modified to say, “in this 

set of cases several findings related to 

judgments were made which may have impacted 

the overall outcome of the case including,” 

and we have the examples. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Number eight, we added on at the end 

of that a sentence to say, “NIOSH has stated 

that the current dose reconstructions address 

all information provided in the CATI.” And 

again, I phrased that as NIOSH has stated that 

because we haven’t really reviewed that. 

 And the last one, number nine, has 

been edited, the first part. Instead of “it 

was apparent,” we have, “in several cases of 

this set summary data,” and then parentheses. 

Then it continues, and then at the end of that 

we have, “The Board has requested that NIOSH 

provide an overview of their approach to data 

validation and verification.” 

 That’s all of our edits. Now what I 

was going to ask is if we can, as a 

Subcommittee if we agree, if we can come to 
128

agreement on this letter. I don’t know that 

we have to make a motion, do 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 

 DR. WADE: No. 

MR. GRIFFON: It would just be the sense of 

the Subcommittee, right? So if we are in 

agreement, we can bring this to the full Board 

meeting in April. I’ll try to get those 

numbers added in, and I’ll accept these 

changes, circulate it to you guys. But 

basically, it will stay this way. If there’s 

any major change, obviously, we, you know. 

MS. MUNN: This looks like an appropriate 

thing for us to do I think. If we’ll consider 

any problems after we see the revised letter 

and everyone on the Subcommittee has had an 

opportunity to look at it, if there’s a real 

problem, we could always have another, a 

teleconference. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and it would have to 

come before the full Board anyway. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Everybody will get an 

opportunity there. 

 MR. CLAWSON: I have no problems with it. I 

think it’d be good, but you’re going to fill 
129

in the numbers and you’ll get all that stuff 

together. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I’ll work with Stu and 

with Kathy Behling. 

 DR. WADE: Now, for the record you have a 

majority opinion of the Subcommittee as its 

configured today, and I think that needs to go 

forward. I don’t know that you’ll have the 

opportunity for Subcommittee members who are 

not here to vote on this because we will not 

have a noticed meeting of the Subcommittee 

before the Board meeting. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. WADE: I think you can bring it as the 

sense of the Subcommittee as it was configured 

here. Other members of the Subcommittee will 

have an opportunity to comment as they vote as 

Board members. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think that’s fine. We can 

bring it as the sense of the Subcommittee, and 

we’ll note who was here. 

 DR. WADE: And just for Ray’s record, it’s 

Griffon, Munn and Clawson, present. No one 

else is present. 

MR. GRIFFON: No one’s on the phone? 
130

 DR. WADE: Any other Subcommittee members 

present on the phone? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

 (no response) 

MR. GRIFFON: I think some people might be 

in Nevada, too. I think Mike Gibson, maybe 

he’s in Nevada. 

 Okay, so we’ll close on that item if 

that’s okay. 

 DR. WADE: Well done. 

10 TENTH SET OF CASES SELECTION

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: And then moving on to the 

tenth set of cases. Now, did everyone get the 

matrices? We had them at the last meeting, 

and I think Stu said they’re the same set of 

cases. 

 DR. WADE: I’ve given hard copies to the two 

Subcommittee members who are here. 

MR. GRIFFON: Good, good. Now, remember we 

have this two-step process that we’re going to 

go through so our intent is, I think, to get 

20 or 20-some cases out of this. But I think 

we want to shoot for more like 40 or more, and 

then Stu’s going to give us a more in-depth 

breakout on those 40 to be ready for the 

Advisory Board. 
131

 Now we won’t have a Subcommittee 

meeting at this Advisory Board, right? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: You could do your business as a 

full Board. 

MR. HINNEFELD: There will probably be a 

Subcommittee report period, a working group 

and Subcommittee report. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we can just, and I think I 

relayed that to Christine that we could do 

this during the report basically. So we’ll 

have narrowed it down, and then we can have 

discussion on this at the report or at another 

appropriate time with the full Board. 

 The only thing I would say for our 

business today is that when I went through 

these, I tried to select, if I look at the 

full internal and external, I’d ask, or at 

least my opinion would be to start from the 

back because if you notice the date approved, 

it goes from the earliest date, 5/1/03, to the 

latest date is on the last page, page 18. 

 So I went through the matrix kind of 

in reverse order when I looked at selecting 

these cases. 

MS. MUNN: And your specific criteria, other 
132

1 than date was what? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: No specific criteria, all the 

ones we’ve considered before, POC, sites we 

haven’t seen before, years of work, I mean, no 

specific criteria other than what we’ve 

discussed before. 

MS. MUNN: So we’ll start with 672. 

MR. GRIFFON: Page 18. 

MS. MUNN: And work forward. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. On that page I can 

start. I had 667 and 666 as possibilities. 

Again, these are all possibilities. I expect 

we’ll have more than 20, and then we can, you 

know. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Which ones are you suggesting 

again? 

MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-six and sixty-seven, 666 

and 667. I don’t think we’ve done this Hooker 

Electrochemical before, have we? 

MS. MUNN: I haven’t seen one. 

 DR. MAURO: Hooker is part of one of the 

cases we’re doing in the set of 40. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it is? 

 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I remember allocating 

someone to take Hooker Chemical. Yeah, we 
133

1 have. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, you have that one? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, that’s 

correct. We do have a Hooker in the ninth set 

of cases. The other thing that I did during 

the lunch break is I’m not sure if any of you 

can receive your e-mails, but I sent to Doug 

as well as you, Mark, Wanda and Brad, a 

summary list of the 218 cases that you’ve 

selected so far for the first nine sets. I 

don’t know if you’re able to get that or not, 

but I sorted it by, alphabetically by the 

facility name. If you could pull that up, 

that might help. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, thanks for sending that, 

Kathy. 

 DR. WADE: Kathy, would you send that to me 

as well? This is Lew Wade. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I will. 

I’m sorry Lew that I didn’t do that. 

 DR. WADE: Not a problem. 

MS. MUNN: I have it. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we can cross-check that. I 

would offer then to take off Hooker, because I 

think it’s one site, one model fits all, 
134

1 right? On that site? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t recall. Some of 

these AWEs we actually have bioassay and film 

badge data on, and I don’t recall which one 

there is. 

DR. MAURO: Don’t know. Haven’t looked at 

it yet. Just know it’s there. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe that 

the Hooker is an appendix to a Technical Basis 

Document-6000 or -6001. 

MR. HINNEFELD: They could still have data 

in the case files. I don’t know if they do or 

not. 

MR. GRIFFON: This is a tentative round 

anyway so we can -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: You can always leave it in 

at this round and put it in later, take it out 

later. 

MR. GRIFFON: Maybe we can get a check on 

that. 

DR. MAURO: Say, Mark, during the course of 

going through these cases, especially the AWE 

cases, in the past you had identified certain 

AWE cases where you felt it would be prudent 

for us to do what you would call a more 
135

advanced review such as Blockson and 

Huntington, one other -- I forget the other. 

For those cases that are AWE, such as Hooker, 

if you would like us to do that special 

treatment, let’s call it that, when you make 

your final decision, it would be good for you 

to identify at that time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: We should discuss that, okay. 

Good point. 

 All right, so 66 and 67, any thought? 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, did you consider 655? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I also had 662 as a 

possibility. Same kind of question on General 

Steel. I don’t think we have done -- 

DR. MAURO: Yes, I -- 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, we’ve done someone. 

MR. GRIFFON: We have done General Steel. 

DR. MAURO: No, General Steel we talked 

about that in the hall. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

DR. MAURO: You understand, so if there’s 

another one that maybe could replace it that 

would be helpful. 

MS. MUNN: We, I thought we’ve done that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I would offer 662, yeah, 
136

1 that case may not be available, so we’re -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Well, we’ve done at least one. 

MR. GRIFFON: Just tentatively if we could 

keep that on the list, Wanda, 662. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, my advice at this 

point is to be inclusive because you’ll get 

another selection later on when you see more 

detail about these cases. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 655, I agree with you, 

Wanda, on 655. So on that page I have four of 

them: 67, 66, 62 and 55. 

 Page 17, I have 38, 37, 35 and 34, 

again, as possibilities. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, yes, yes and yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Any others on that page? 

MS. MUNN: Everything we’ve looked at so far 

has long employment periods. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did pick some that 

have short periods. Yeah, we do want to look 

out for the, I think that’s a good point, 

Wanda. The work decade we tend to get a lot 

of those in the ‘50s and ‘60s, and we haven’t, 

I don’t think we’ve targeted the ‘80s, you 

know, the later periods very much, and that 

may be a bias at what I’m looking for. But 
137

certainly we have a lot of claimants that are 

interested in that later time period. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: How many like 621 have we got? 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you’re on the next page. 

Okay, I was waiting for -- 

MS. MUNN: Oh, I’m sorry. I just turned it 

over. 

MR. GRIFFON: Six twenty-one is okay. I 

didn’t have that one, but that one’s okay. 

 On that page I also have 623 and 630. 

And when I look at 630, Stu, I don’t know if a 

lot of these Rocky Flats’ cases may be under 

review? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It may, in fact, have come 

back. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we may lose some of -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Some of these may drop out 

for that reason. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, for that reason, but we 

can tentatively identify it. So 21, 23, 30 on 

that page? 

MS. MUNN: Right. Are we doing noncompensated or compensated also? 

MR. GRIFFON: I think to sort of balance I 

picked a few that were over 50. I didn’t pick 
138

1 a lot. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Still on page 16? 

MS. MUNN: I’m going on to 15. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, page 15. I have 605. 

MS. MUNN: I was looking at 604. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 604, actually, both of 

those. And the years worked really interested 

me with both of those. 

MS. MUNN: Right, me too. 

MR. GRIFFON: And I’m also curious to see if 

they really are full internal-external or if 

there’s a big overestimate portion of it or 

something, you know? So that’s something we 

may, it may look interesting now, but when we 

see the details, it may not look as 

interesting. But those are the two on that 

page I identified. 

MS. MUNN: What’s that 601? 

MR. GRIFFON: Six-oh-one? 

MS. MUNN: Is that correct? Good grief. 

MR. GRIFFON: I didn’t hear you. 

MS. MUNN: I’m just muttering to myself. 

Six-oh-one was the one I kept looking at. 

 DR. WADE: Nineteen-thirties? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that would be, that’s 
139

when the person hired in. It’s well before 

the coverage period. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Are you really interested in 

601, Wanda? 

MS. MUNN: No, I was just expressing -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m glad. 

 I don’t have any on page 14, but it is 

interesting to note some of these Bethlehem 

Steel POCs for the lung cancers and the 

lymphoma multiple myeloma. But having said 

that, they’re all the same generic model, I 

believe. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I didn’t pick any on there 

mainly because they’re all Bethlehem Steels 

almost. 

DR. MAURO: Mark, just to point out 

something, those cases from Bethlehem Steel 

that have been done subsequent to the major 

revision in the Bethlehem Steel site profile, 

as you recall, all the Bethlehem Steel cases 

that we have done in the past were all done 

against the old, original version, I guess, 

Rev. one that goes back several years. I’m 

just offering this up for the consideration by 
140

1 the Board. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 If there are some Bethlehem Steel 

cases now that are moving through the system 

that have been done using the latest version, 

the one that’s up on the web now which 

reflects major revisions to the methodology, 

that would be one way of sort of having a 

review, the degree to which the new Bethlehem 

Steel has reflected all the discussions we 

had. 

 If you recall, we came to the 

conclusion that, yes, the six major issues 

that were of concern on Bethlehem Steel have 

all been resolved, and this was based on 

verbal discussions during meetings. An 

opportunity would be here if we were to 

actually look at a real case that was now done 

under the new protocol, there may be some 

value to that. 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess my feeling is that 

it’s an SEC also, so -- 

DR. MAURO: Is it an SEC -- 

MS. MUNN: No. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it’s not? 

 DR. WADE: No, it’s not. 
141

1 MR. GRIFFON: I thought -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: ^ petition, but there’s not 

a decision. There’s not a recommendation to 

add a class for -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, there’s a petition -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: There is a petition. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. That’s been, that’s 

been -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It is in front of the Board 

and -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, that’s what I meant. I 

didn’t mean an SEC. I meant -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s awaiting -- 

 DR. WADE: It’s awaiting the deliberation on 

surrogate data. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- surrogate data 

deliberation, right. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m sorry. I misspoke. It’s 

an SEC petition out there, and assuming the 

Board’s going to evaluate that, I think we’re 

going to get all those issues so I don’t know 

if a case review would be worth our resources. 

That was my point anyway. 

 MR. CLAWSON: What about 569? 

MR. GRIFFON: Five sixty-nine? 
142

1 DR. WADE: Page 13. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I had that one 

identified on page 13, 569. So the only nonBethlehem Steel one on that page. 

MS. MUNN: So we’re going to ignore 

Bethlehem completely? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I mean, we can certainly 

pick one if John, you know, I don’t disagree 

with John’s point. I just thought where 

there’s a petition waiting that I thought we 

have plenty of time to review those issues in 

place with regard to Bethlehem Steel, but a 

case review is a little different than that. 

MS. MUNN: Before we get away from page 14, 

596 might be... 

MR. GRIFFON: Five ninety-six? 

 I’m on to page 12 now. I’ve got 554, 

551, and I have a question that might relate 

to Kathy’s e-mail. Did we do the Medina 

facility at all? 

MS. MUNN: Medina. Hold on. Get down to 

the M’s. Did one. 

MR. GRIFFON: We did do one of those? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, Pacific Proving Grounds. It 

was a non-melanoma skin. 
143

1 MR. GRIFFON: The same as this. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. CLAWSON: It’s exactly. 

MR. GRIFFON: It might be the same case. I 

don’t know. Is that possible that the cases 

will pop up again, Stu, that we’ve already 

done the way you sorted this? I can’t 

remember. 

MR. HINNEFELD: As I recall the ninth set 

may not have been omitted from this. All the 

previously selected ones that were selected 

for review would be omitted, would not be 

included. But the ninth set could be all in 

here. 

MR. GRIFFON: This may be the very same 

case. 

 MR. CLAWSON: The same probability -- 

MR. GRIFFON: It shows that same POC. 

 MR. CLAWSON: It’s got the same year. 

MS. MUNN: I think that’s the case. How 

about the one right above it, 544? 

 MR. CLAWSON: Sure. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay with me. Any others on 

12? 

 (no response) 

MR. GRIFFON: If not, I’m on to 11. 
144

 DR. WADE: The fact that these were not 

expunged raises an issue that you might have 

to check before the Board meeting. It could 

be the vast majority are the 40 that were 

selected the last time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: It could be, yeah, it could 

be they’ve been previously selected. 

 DR. WADE: The same minds using the same 

criteria might have picked the same cases. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s why we should get more 

than this. Yeah, make sure that we get a good 

high number on this, yeah. 

MS. MUNN: As a matter of fact I think 

that’s likely given the fact I was just 

checking 548 against Kathy’s list. That also 

appears to be -- 

MR. GRIFFON: The same, yeah. 

 DR. WADE: Now, did you select 548? 

MR. GRIFFON: No. 

MS. MUNN: No, I was expecting -- it was 

right on the verge of my tongue to suggest it. 

MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, did we do, I’m looking 

on page 11. Did we do Linde? I don’t have 

that list open. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, we did several Lindes. 
145

1 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: We had two, one all male 

genitalia and one nervous system. 

 MR. CLAWSON: I was looking at 521 for 

Linde. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was looking at one of 

the Lindes. One of those I was actually, but 

if they’re all the same model, you know, the 

lungs, all those 90s are the same like 

Bethlehem Steel. It’s just the same model 

being re-used. So if we’ve already done a 

couple of Lindes, I don’t see a point in 

picking another one. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, we’ve done two but not -- 

 MR. CLAWSON: But neither of the Linde were 

the lung. 

MS. MUNN: Correct. 

 MR. CLAWSON: It’s all male genitalia and 

nervous system. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but it is the same 

model. But, I mean, we can certainly look at 

the details on one -- 

 DR. WADE: Five twenty-one? 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and decide later. 

 Five twenty-one, Brad? 
146

1 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Five thirty-four I have, and 

do we have Blockson? This may be the same 

question. 

MS. MUNN: I believe we have one with a POC 

of 7.82. 

MR. GRIFFON: So this 534 is a different 

one. 

MS. MUNN: It is. 

MR. GRIFFON: But is, I guess the -- 

MS. MUNN: Let’s do it. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess I would pick 

that for the question of, because there was a 

modified site profile, right? So I don’t know 

-- 

MS. MUNN: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- when that was modified 

either. 

MS. MUNN: Well, I don’t think anything was 

done. I think the first one that went out 

was, everything was put on hold almost 

instantaneously. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think you’re right. 

MS. MUNN: I don’t believe anything was done 

under that first TBD at all. 
147

MR. GRIFFON: All right. But we’ll leave 

534 in, at least tentatively. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 On page ten I had 501 and 499 as 

possibilities. Four ninety-nine intrigued me 

because of the 0.4 years worked again. 

 MR. CLAWSON: POC of 26. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, a high POC, could be 

multiple skin cancers, and it’s got stomach 

and skin. 

MS. MUNN: What’s the number here? 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s 499 and 501 is the 

other one. Five-oh-one is a Hanford and 

Nevada Test Site combined. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, that’s interesting. 

MR. GRIFFON: So 499 and 501, any others on 

page ten? 

 MR. CLAWSON: No. 

MS. MUNN: Are you sure? 

 MR. CLAWSON: At this point. 

MS. MUNN: Let’s take a look first at -- 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s tough after-lunch 

activity, isn’t it? 

MS. MUNN: It really is. 

 There’s 492, we have only one gaseous 

diffusion plant, and it’s combined with 
148

1 another site. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 492. 

MS. MUNN: Kathy, your list is being very 

helpful. Thank you so much. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): You’re welcome. 

One of the things I also wanted to point out, 

if there is nothing under the tab column, that 

means it did come from the ninth set because I 

haven’t assigned tab numbers yet. That might 

help you -- 

MS. MUNN: Good, thank you. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): -- make a 

comparison. 

MR. GRIFFON: Thanks, Kathy. 

 We’re on to page nine. I have 486, 

487, 488, a couple really close to the 50th 

percentile and a Y-12 one with a real few 

number, one-and-a-half years. 

 MR. CLAWSON: One-and-a-half years, yeah. 

MS. MUNN: We have a lot of Y-12. 

MR. GRIFFON: We do? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, we do. We have 13 plus and 

another half dozen combined Y-12 and K-25. 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s a big site, but I’m 

willing to drop that one. 
149

1 DR. WADE: Okay, you’re dropping which one? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Four eighty-eight. It was 

more of a curiosity than anything. I was 

curious whether that could be a best estimate. 

So 47 and 46 I still have on the table. And 

actually 45 is kind of intriguing. I know we 

have a lot of Savannah Rivers, but I think we 

also have a lot of Savannah Rivers that were 

from an early time period. Is that accurate? 

MS. MUNN: Hold on, and I’ll tell you. 

MR. GRIFFON: This one’s approved a little 

late, 7/17/06. 

MS. MUNN: I’m sorry. We don’t include the 

time period on the list that I have here, but 

we do have well over a dozen. 

MR. GRIFFON: I know that several of our 

findings, we noted that procedures had 

changed, right, Stu? Am I accurate on that? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I’m trying to remember 

dates when these changed, but I don’t remember 

when the dates changed. 

MS. MUNN: There’s something on the order of 

25. 

MR. GRIFFON: I would argue to at least 

include it on the list for now, and if we see 
150

that we had others in that timeframe, then I 

would be willing to drop 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 

 DR. WADE: Which one? 

MR. GRIFFON: Four eighty-five. 

MS. MUNN: I think we’ve done a number in 

that timeframe. 

MR. GRIFFON: But a lot of the ones I 

remember reviewing, they were from the very 

old, some of the original TB, you know, the 

original workbook, the original TBD. 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: And their response was that’s 

been updated and so I think if this addresses 

that question, I think it’s worthwhile doing. 

MS. MUNN: Well, we had one, two, three, 

four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 

that are full internal and external on that 

site. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but that’s a good 

question. I wonder how many best estimates. 

MS. MUNN: Best estimates are a little, are 

right at 20, actually, a little more than 20. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m confused, but anyway -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: If you think in terms of 

two-and-a-half percent of the total which has 
151

been talked about, that’s pretty trivial. I’m 

sure we’ve got probably 3,000 dose 

reconstructions from Savannah River. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: You’ve got over a dozen that are 

full internal and external, and you’ve got 

over 20 that are best estimates. So we are -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I don’t understand what that 

means. How could it be, I thought it was the 

reverse. 

MS. MUNN: What that means is we have close 

to 40 full cases of Savannah River. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m trying to pull up our 

table now, but, yes, that could be, okay. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, 

Mark. This is Kathy. I put this table 

together quickly, and I just cut and paste 

from some information that Stu had sent us. 

And so in some cases, as I indicated, this is 

a draft table. 

 In some cases I went in and changed 

the full internal and external to best 

estimate, but I didn’t have the chance to do 

that for all of these yet. So I didn’t really 

make a determination as to whether the best 

estimates are maximizing. I just cut and 
152

paste from some of the things that Stu had 

sent. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The other thing that you might notice 

just to point out, I also have not refined 

this table to the point where in some cases 

you’ll see Savannah River site spelled out, 

and other times I have it SRS, so you have to 

scan a little bit. It’s just a draft table at 

this point. 

MS. MUNN: It’s three different pages 

actually so you’ve got a -- 

DR. MAURO: Kathy, this is John. When these 

tables are being prepared of what has been 

reviewed or is undergoing review, especially 

the ones that have been reviewed, it seems to 

me that it might be important to know that 

that particular -- let’s say it’s a Savannah 

River case that we have already reviewed a 

case, but it was reviewed against a given 

revision of the site profile which might be 

somewhat dated. 

 That seems to be an important 

parameter to know whether or not the new one 

that we’re looking at has been more recent. 

It’s similar to the discussion we had before 
153

regarding Bethlehem Steel. Because it may 

turn out there’s some, useful to look at a 

case that has recently been done using the 

latest version of the site profile. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I was getting at 

with that one is to try to maybe keep it on 

the list and when we come to the full meeting 

if it turns out that date is before the update 

in the procedure, I’d say drop it. But if 

it’s after, then I would say it’s worthwhile. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): And I believe 

what we started doing at SC&A with I believe 

it was the seventh set is in our summary 

write-up review, we indicate in there when the 

dose reconstruction was completed so that you 

have an idea of what site profiles and 

procedures were used for that. 

 But speaking of that, this is one area 

where, in fact, we do have Don Loomis working 

on a matrix for the dose reconstruction work. 

And this may be one field that we want to 

capture, and that is when was the dose 

reconstruction completed so we have an idea of 

what procedures and site profiles were used at 

the time. 
154

MS. MUNN: That will be helpful, Kathy, 

thanks. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 What about 474? 

MR. GRIFFON: Four seventy-four? Well, it’s 

got Iowa and Pantex. Yeah, I think that’s 

interesting. 

 Any others on page nine? 

MS. MUNN: Don’t see any. 

MR. GRIFFON: Go on to page eight. I don’t 

have any on page eight. 

MS. MUNN: These are all almost all AWE. 

They’re early, early people, all of them just 

about. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re on to page 

seven. I have a few on page seven. 

MS. MUNN: We’re not doing any at all on 

eight? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t have any. 

 MR. CLAWSON: There’s a Kansas City Plant. 

MR. GRIFFON: Which page is that? 

 MR. CLAWSON: That’s on seven. 

MR. GRIFFON: Now, the one with zero. I’m 

assuming that’s non-rad areas, right? Or 

worker. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I’m just wondering what 
155

1 Kansas City Plant -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Kansas City Plant did very 

little radiological work. 

MR. GRIFFON: They did a little -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Just very little, very 

little because it’s in Kansas City. 

MR. GRIFFON: With a POC of zero. I’m 

assuming -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it’s still there. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- there was probably not -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: They did very little 

radiological work. They were mainly an 

instrument place I believe, electronics place. 

 DR. WADE: Page seven? 

MR. GRIFFON: On that page I have 431, 439, 

440 and 441, again, as potentials. 

 DR. WADE: Four thirty-nine, 440 and 441? 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, and you know what? 

Actually the Savannah River one I can drop 

that one. It’s the same issue I have in my 

notes here, is this after the procedure was 

updated. 

 DR. WADE: So you’re dropping 439? 

MR. GRIFFON: I can drop 439 because we 

include the other one. 
156

1 DR. WADE: Then you’re including 440, 441? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh, 431, 440 and 441, 

that’s what I have. 

MS. MUNN: What about 443? 

 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, I looked at that one. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine, 443, yep. 

 Page six, I have 422 and 418. 

MS. MUNN: And another Y-12 one. 

MR. GRIFFON: Is one of those Y-12? 

MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I’m willing 

to drop that. We have a lot of Y-12s. 

MS. MUNN: We sure do. 

 DR. WADE: So we’re dropping 422. 

MR. GRIFFON: Y-12 is like Savannah River 

though, isn’t it, in that there’s a lot of 

claims -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- for that site? I mean no 

particular interest in that one. 

 DR. WADE: So 422 is dropped. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so 418 is the only one I 

have. I don’t think we’ve done a ton of X-10 

cases have we, Wanda? 

MS. MUNN: Not a ton, but there are, there’s 
157

a big chunk, one, two, three, four. There are 

only four specifically at X-10 and another one 

combination X-10 with other places. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So we can leave that on there, 

418. I’m also selecting these with the notion 

that several of them may be dropped because 

we’ve done them already or because of other 

reasons. So I wanted to be broader than more 

restrictive at least for now. 

MS. MUNN: Well, 423 somehow leaves the 

cause of the cancer model rather than -- we 

have a batch of that site though. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we do, and we’re not 

going to really -- 

MS. MUNN: No, that won’t give us anything. 

 MR. CLAWSON: What about 412? 

MR. GRIFFON: Four twelve? I don’t know how 

many Fernald cases we have either, probably 

not that much. 

MS. MUNN: A bunch, over a dozen. 

MR. GRIFFON: A lot of those Fernalds were 

minimized. I don’t know if this one is. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, they were, minimized or 

maximized. 

MR. GRIFFON: We can at least check and see 
158

1 if this is really a best estimate. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: So we’ll add 412. 

MR. GRIFFON: Four twelve, add 412, yeah. 

 Page five I have 406, 405, 404. 

MS. MUNN: Hold on, wait, wait, wait. I 

haven’t even turned the page, 406 -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Four-oh-five, 404 as 

possibilities. Again, two of those are 

Hanford and PNL. 

MS. MUNN: Look at 402. 

MR. GRIFFON: Four-oh-two? 

MS. MUNN: We have one from that site. 

MR. GRIFFON: This one I was assuming 

doesn’t have its own data, but I guess we 

could check it, right, Stu? I don’t know. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. I don’t remember. 

MS. MUNN: The only other one that we had 

was a maximized external-internal. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we can check it 

anyway, include it for now, 402. 

MS. MUNN: Check 391. 

 Actually, I’m sorry. We have two of 

them. 

MR. GRIFFON: And then I arbitrarily -- this 

is arbitrary -- but I arbitrarily cut off my 
159

search for cases on page four at 1/4/05, 

because I basically didn’t want to go back to 

those very old approval date cases unless 

there’s one, I guess, that really jumps out. 

My concern on some of those is that we’re 

going to get the same batch of findings that 

we had as, you know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: Did you pick up any on the bottom 

of page four? 

MR. GRIFFON: No, no. 

 DR. WADE: So by my calculations -- 

MR. GRIFFON: But you can go through still 

if people see any that jump out at them in the 

first four pages. 

 DR. WADE: You have 37 signaled at this 

point. 

MS. MUNN: Well, you stopped at 402, huh? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but not necessarily. I 

stopped at actually 381. 

 DR. WADE: Stopped at the date, 1/4/2005. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 But, Wanda, like I said, if some 

before that jumped out at you, I mean, these 

are supposed to be best estimates so -- 

 MR. CLAWSON: What about 383? We’ve only 
160

1 got one from that. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Three eighty-three? 

 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: Aliquippa. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think that’s a site-wide 

model, but -- 

MS. MUNN: I think it is. I don’t remember 

specifically, but -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I don’t mind adding it 

for now if we want to make sure of that. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, let’s do that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we can add it for now. 

MS. MUNN: You said we had, that makes 38? 

 DR. WADE: Makes 38 by my count. 

MR. GRIFFON: How many do we want? Because 

I looked through the random list, too, and I 

had just on my review, and finding, again, as 

I think John said, we’ve been focusing on best 

estimates, looking for best estimates anyway? 

But some of the maximizing and minimizing 

procedures have been modified since we’ve done 

all those reviews. So it may not hurt to do 

some of those with later approval dates in the 

hopes that we could review the new procedure 

and how it was used. 
161

 DR. WADE: Given the fact that the ninth 

batch hasn’t been removed, and given the fact 

that you’re likely to find some that for other 

reasons need to be dismissed, I think it would 

be prudent 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 

MR. GRIFFON: I found 20 more cases in the 

random section. It doesn’t hurt to have it 

available, right? 

 DR. WADE: That’s store for next time. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I did the same thing 

starting with the random cases, starting from 

the back end on page 11 I had none, actually. 

Page ten, I had a bunch. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, go ahead. 

MR. GRIFFON: One, I’m looking at it right 

now, one I think is duplicate to what we just 

selected. It’s 172, but I see there was four 

facilities listed together, and it looks very 

familiar to the one you just selected, Wanda, 

doesn’t it? 

MS. MUNN: It looks very similar. I can’t 

remember what the POC was. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, no, it’s a different POC. 

I see it now, yeah, a different cancer but the 

same facility. So I don’t know. Well, I’ll 
162

just tell you. I have 172, 173, 175, 177, 178 

and 179. A couple of those are Rocky Flats 

and may be removed anyway. The other ones are 

Oak Ridge, various combinations of Oak Ridge 

facilities. So again, these are just 

potentials not, we can always take these off 

later. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: How about 182? That’s kind of 

interesting. 

MR. GRIFFON: One eighty-two? 

MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it says full primarily 

external. Okay, add it on. I didn’t have any 

on page nine. 

MS. MUNN: What about 183 before you leave 

page ten? 

MR. GRIFFON: One eighty-three? Brush 

Beryllium, huh? 

MS. MUNN: That’s a new one to me. 

MR. GRIFFON: And they had a radiological 

operation, Stu? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think they were an AWE 

that probably did some metal machining. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It wouldn’t be here unless 
163

1 they had radiological operations. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it just surprised me. I 

guess that’s right, yeah. Okay, 183. It’s a 

big page. 

 So I am on to page nine, and I still 

have none on that page. 

MS. MUNN: Do you have any preferences in 

your mind with respect to dose estimation 

types on this batch? 

MR. GRIFFON: No. I was focused probably 

more on the overestimates, but I picked a 

couple that were underestimates, too, that 

were over 50. On page eight I have, I mean, 

this page eight I have actually four of them, 

139. One forty-one was interesting to me 

because it’s Fernald. It’s got a POC of 86 

and 0.7 years worked, and that’s an 

underestimate. So that was intriguing. 

MS. MUNN: It must have been... 

MR. GRIFFON: Then 144 on that page and 152. 

One fifty-two I don’t think we’ve done Metals 

and Controls group or Corp., sorry. 

MS. MUNN: I don’t believe so. I don’t 

think we did it or the other one, 144. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s a good question. That 
164

one doesn’t jump out at me. We can delete 

that one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: (Indiscernible). 

MR. GRIFFON: So 139 and 141 and 152 on that 

page. Any others? 

MS. MUNN: What about 146? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay, add that one on, 

146. 

 On page seven, I had none on page 

seven. I had one originally, but I took it 

off, the Medina facility. I think we’ve got 

one from there so -- 

MS. MUNN: What about 134? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it’s got the three sites 

and an underestimate. Yeah, I guess that’s 

worth adding on. 

 Then on page six I’m deleting a few 

because I had some Y-12 ones, and I think 

we’ve got probably -- 

MS. MUNN: A jillion. 

MR. GRIFFON: The only one I have left is 

104. It’s Los Alamos, but it also it’s a 

later period of Los Alamos, 1980s start date 

so I don’t think we’ve looked at that very 

much, or 1980 decade started, whatever. So 
165

1 104 on that page. Any others on that page? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: No, we have only one Weldon 

Springs, 120? We have one other from that 

site. 

MR. GRIFFON: We only have one other from 

Weldon Spring? 

MS. MUNN: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I mean, yeah, it’s an 

overestimate for internal and external but add 

it on for now, 120. 

 And I used the same sort of cut-off so 

I only had two more left. One on page five 

was 93, 0-9-3, Pinellas Plant. And the one on 

page four was 82, Pantex. And that’s all I 

had left. 

MS. MUNN: Well, we might consider 0-8-9. 

That’s another one of those very recent -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, 1980s? Okay, 089. 

MS. MUNN: And your last one was what 

before? 

MR. GRIFFON: I had 082 on page four, and 

then I sort of stopped looking after the 

12/30/04 date of approval. 

MS. MUNN: So how many are -- 

 DR. WADE: Fifty-six. 
166

MR. GRIFFON: How many from the random was 

that? That 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 

 DR. WADE: Eighteen. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- 18 and -- 

 DR. WADE: Thirty-eight. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and 38. I think that’s a 

good set to -- 

MS. MUNN: Are we covered? 

MR. GRIFFON: I think it’s good to go quite 

a bit over because I think we overlapped with 

the ninth set a little bit. 

MS. MUNN: So we’ll lose one or two at 

least. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay, anything more on 

the tenth set? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: So our plan will be to have Stu 

provide information that will be then 

considered during the Board meeting, the 

Subcommittee report leading to a Subcommittee 

sense and a Board vote on another 20 or so. 

And then, John, we’ll have you. 

DR. MAURO: I have one suggestion in the 

process of going through this list. I notice 

from tracking what’s going on on TBD-6000, 
167

they keep adding new AWE appendices similar to 

Hooker and General Steel. And I noticed 

recently there’s always another one coming in, 

and these are all relatively recent work 

products put out on the web if there are cases 

that go along with 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 

 The reason I bring it up is that these 

are TBDs and very often when we do a case 

review, we give quite a thorough review of the 

TBD so we may kill two birds with one stone. 

We get a site profile review, and we get a 

case review at the same time. So when you do 

it, you may want to cross-check the list you 

have against the new list of TBD-6000 

appendices. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I’d just mention that 

there’s often a presentient lag between those 

publications and the actual adjudication of 

the case. 

DR. MAURO: In many cases? Oh, many cases. 

Sure. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Because we have to prepare 

them. That takes awhile with the claimant has 

a certain amount of time for OCAS One. And 

then from the time we send it to Labor, the 
168

actual adjudication of the case to make it 

available for review, is out of our hands. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: It could be six months, yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t really know the 

time, but it’s out of our hands. 

 DR. WADE: Stu, at this point do you have a 

number for the number of adjudicated cases? I 

know in the memo this morning we were at 8,000 

or so. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I did not generate that 

number for today, no. Something else about 

that number, as cases are reopened, for 

instance, a lot of cases have been reopened 

for a PER, for instance, the Super-S plutonium 

PER. That actually reduces the number of 

adjudicated cases. So that number kind of 

counter-intuitively does not continually rise. 

 DR. WADE: But again, if you think of the 

end point of 20,000 cases, two-and-a-half 

percent is 500. So you’re approaching the 

halfway point in terms of your stated goal 

which is a good place to be. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’ve got a request for a short 

break, five or ten minutes, and then we’ll 

come back, find your papers for the sixth set 
169

of cases. And I think what we’re going to end 

up doing with the sixth set of cases is 

refreshing our memories a lot. I think we did 

have some things that NIOSH was going to 

follow up on. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Stu was talking to me at the lunch 

break, and I think this is mostly an update of 

where are we at. Maybe we can check some of 

them off as we go through that we’ve resolved 

them but some of it may be who owes what on 

this item and go through it that way and sort 

of get an update. 

MR. HINNEFELD: To me if we can come to an 

agreement, if certain items have been 

resolved, for instance, the printed matrix 

still remains as it was with our initial 

responses that were originally sent. And so I 

think a number of things were resolved by 

initial responses. I could be mistaken. But 

if we could just make sure we -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, try to check some off if 

we can. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- get those off and make 

sure that the ones we know where additional 

information is owed that we can line those up 
170

so we’re clear on what additional information. 

Because I know there are several that we owe 

additional, more information on. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so we’ll take five or 

ten and reconvene. You going to keep them on 

the line? 

 DR. WADE: Yeah, we’re going to keep you on 

the line. Back in five or ten. Thank you. 

 (Whereupon, a break was taken from 2:10 p.m. 

until 2:20 p.m.) 

 DR. WADE: Okay, we’re back in session. 

12 SIXTH SET OF CASES WRAP-UP

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re ready to start a 

discussion on the sixth set of case reviews. 

And we went through this matrix awhile back. 

I don’t have the date offhand. But I think 

what we’re going to do is step through the 

findings one at a time and sort of get an 

update on where we are, whether there’s an 

action for NIOSH or for SC&A. 

 I don’t have -- oh, yeah, I have NIOSH 

responses. We just don’t have any resolution 

written in the current matrix. The date of 

the matrix I have is May 2nd, ’07, and that’s 

the latest one. And I have that document 
171

marked up from the meeting we had, the one, 

initial meeting, but nothing, I didn’t put 

those comments in an electronic version at 

this point. So I’ll try to get through my 

handwritten comments, and others can do the 

same. And we’ll go through these one at a 

time and kind of get an update of where we’re 

at. The first one’s, I guess, pretty easy. 

It’s Bridgeport Brass. It’s Finding 101, 

yeah, case 101, and there’s no findings. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Then we go on, the next one’s a 

Harshaw case, and it’s 102.1. So I am asking 

SC&A and NIOSH already where we stand on this 

one. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, on 102.2, I’m just now 

I’m looking at the matrix. It appears that we 

essentially agreed with the finding that 

there’s an internal dose here that didn’t 

include progeny. We essentially agreed with 

the finding, but the case was compensable 

anyway. So essentially an underestimating the 

approach, we’d have to include the progeny 

dose in the outcome. So that’s number 102.2. 

MS. MUNN: It’s already closed. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
172

MR. HINNEFELD: 102.1, as far as I know we 

haven’t both jointly done the same fitting and 

arrived at the same intake from fitting. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Doug, do you have anything on that? 

MR. FARVER: No, I believe the problem here 

was just that we didn’t really understand what 

you did. And then you explained it, and this 

is what I was getting at earlier, you went 

from an equal weighting fit to a square root 

fit. And there’s no real objective way to 

determine which is better other than a visual. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MR. FARVER: I think you run into problems 

down the road with that when you try to defend 

it because what looks good to you may not look 

good to someone else. I don’t think it’d be 

off by very much in most cases, but, and this 

is just an example of that. 

MR. GRIFFON: And this was a compensable run 

nonetheless, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, this 

is Kathy Behling. I think during our last 

conversation on this issue I also wrote down 

DR records retention. And we had some 
173

discussion as to the types of records that 

NIOSH may want to in the future include in the 

case file that may help to resolve some of 

these types of issues for us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s the note I had, 

too, talking about DR files, records 

retention. And it says NIOSH agrees that it 

should have saved the old files. I guess the 

original runs weren’t saved. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Apparently, they weren’t in 

the DR submitted which they should have been. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I think to sum up those -- 

well, I don’t know. Are we at a position 

where we can close this one out or I think we 

have agreement on the records retention. How 

about on the other part? I mean, there’s, I 

guess, a question of the subjective nature of 

the fitting approach. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’d have to go back 

and see if there’s something we can put 

together on that. I don’t know if we can or 

not. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I’m going to at least 

capture the question about the records 

retention issue as having agreement between 
174

the two of you. And then I’ll say, at least 

for now, NIOSH is going to follow up on 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 

MR. FARVER: Right, and really that’s just a 

more generic concern because we’re seeing it 

more and more in these best estimate cases 

where sometimes they’ll go to a visual fit, 

and it’s not always clear in the report how 

they arrived at their best fit. 

DR. BEHLING: I talked to Kathy on a couple 

of these issues, and I guess I’m not sure if 

she was able to answer me. Does IMBA make 

allowance for determining an input for 

bioassay whether it was at the end of a shift 

or a Monday morning bioassay? Because 

clearly, the two are not the same. And 

obviously, an end of the shift bioassay will 

possibly give you a false high urine excretion 

value that would on the next Monday morning be 

very different based on the two-day hiatus. 

 Is there any attempt to segregate the 

bioassay data based on whether or not there 

was a time interval that would allow, 

especially when you talk about the six intakes 

that would purge that up front and then give 

you a better estimate as to what the long-term 
175

body burdens of uraniums are that are at this 

point more or less representative of long-term 

storage compartments, the liver and bone. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: You’re talking IMBA 

specifically? 

DR. BEHLING: Yes, yes. 

 MR. SHARFI: IMBA is going to allow you to 

enter the data as you see fit, and that would 

be, I guess, up to the DR to choose whether or 

not that data’s valid to be used. So you can 

either exclude data or include it. You can 

obviously put different weights to different 

values, but the IMBA itself, if you choose to 

accept the value of the bioassay, it’s going 

to apply it as a non-biased result. 

DR. BEHLING: And you wouldn’t know, 

however, if it was a Monday morning or -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you could see on a 

calendar. 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, you could look at a 

calendar. 

 But IMBA, when you put in the input, 

let’s say it’s in Becquerels per day. You did 

determine that’s the Becquerels you’re going 

to use. You put that in. It assumes that 
176

Becquerels per day is every day, every day, 

every day, every day, right through Saturday 

and Sunday. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: You’re talking about the intake 

rate. 

DR. MAURO: The intake rate. And then you 

take a sample on Monday, whatever day they 

take it doesn’t really matter because it’s 

assumed it’s continuous, but if the reality is 

-- 

 MR. SHARFI: On a chronic, yes. 

DR. MAURO: -- yeah, on a chronic. But if 

you assume that in reality what really 

happened is, yeah, you’ve got a Becquerel per 

day Monday through Friday, and then you get a 

two-day break and you pull your sample on 

Monday, then what’s going to happen is you’re 

going to get a different result. 

 MR. SHARFI: Assuming someone’s working a 

five-day workweek, yes. 

DR. BEHLING: The back thing doesn’t have 

much to do with that. 

DR. MAURO: Would it affect that? 

DR. BEHLING: No. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Not too much, not for a long 
177

1 exposure period. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: Not for long-term exposures. 

DR. BEHLING: But what will have a strong 

effect is the issue of when you take the 

bioassay, that is, end of the shift, at midshift, or I mean, what you would love to see 

is a seven-day hiatus between the last 

exposure and your bioassay. This would 

clearly give you especially for a very soluble 

material like UF-6, would give you a much 

better clue as to what is truly your body 

burden that reflects bone and liver. That’s 

what it comes down to. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, to answer your 

question, IMBA doesn’t allow you to say this 

was a mid-shift sample or an end-of-shift 

sample and choose appropriately. It doesn’t 

allow you to do that. Like Mutty said, the 

dose reconstructor can make some judgments 

about that. I mean, for instance, if you had, 

for instance, a contamination event. 

Everybody got sampled right after the 

contamination event or at the end of the shift 

after the contamination event. 

DR. BEHLING: I’m always (multiple speakers 
178

interrupt) series of bioassays that are spaced 

weekly, monthly and the bioassay should 

actually creep up. When I see this up and 

down you sort of say what am I looking at 

here. In principle, if you’re talking about a 

legitimate bioassay that avoids this pitfall 

of yesterday’s intake in your urine, what you 

should see is a steady increase in an upward 

direction. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in a truly chronic 

exposure situation, but if you have an 

episodic exposure situation where you’re not 

exposed every day, but many days during the 

course of the year you are exposed, then at 

that point you would still see an upward and 

downward movement in the bioassay in some 

likelihood you would. 

DR. BEHLING: Well, you would see a spike 

upward, but again, if you avoid this surge 

that involves a highly soluble material 

entering the bloodstream which is then subject 

to either partitioning in the kidney or in the 

bone, if you allow that hiatus to occur, you 

should never see this down. You should see a 

spike and then maybe on that spike riding the 
179

next spike, but you shouldn’t really see this 

constant fluctuation up and down, in 

principle. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don’t necessarily 

agree with that. I think with a series of 

episodic exposures that actually we mimic with 

a chronic. 

 MR. SHARFI: Exactly. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That you could see some 

upward and downward movement, but I don’t 

think that that’s really particularly 

relevant. The key discussion is does the 

chronic exposure essentially model that we 

choose to depict this exposure situation which 

more than likely is not chronic because more 

than likely giving you exactly the same 

exposure every day, is that a suitable 

approach? And based on our calculations it 

is. That is a favorable to the claimant 

approach to treating these bioassay results. 

DR. MAURO: So let’s say it turns out that 

out of a dozen bioassays you might collect 

over the course of a year, say once a month, 

and some of them are relatively high and some 

are low. Is it possible that the ones that 
180

are relatively high just happened to be taken 

on a day in which he received this exposure or 

the day after he received this exposure and it 

would give you a false, in other words, it 

will give you a false overestimate. That’s 

what would happen if, in fact -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: It could bias a chronic high. 

DR. MAURO: It’d bias a high. So that 

inherent makeup of IMBA and how it functions 

when used in that capacity will tend to 

overstate the intake. 

MR. HINNEFELD: In that situation it would. 

MR. GRIFFON: We’re just going to, I think 

we’ll leave that remaining on the table, the 

102.1, the question of about the best fit 

selected and the consistency of the approach 

selected. I mean that’s sort of the question 

is how can, you know, there’s a question about 

the subjective nature of that and how NIOSH is 

dealing with it across the program. 

 Then I went on to say no effect on 

this case since it was a compensable claim. I 

think that’s probably accurate. And then I 

said, additionally, SC&A noted that the IMBA 

runs were not included in the DR file. NIOSH 
181

agrees that the IMBA runs should have been 

retained in the DR file. So there’s agreement 

on that part of it. And the other part, I’ve 

left that other part open for a NIOSH response 

I guess. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’ll put down here we are 

going to put something out. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m on to 103.1 then. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling. In 103.1 and I’m probably going to 

ask Hans to assist me with this one, and John, 

too. I believe you worked on this case. 

 This goes back to our procedures and 

to OTIB-0018 and OTIB-0033. Now I guess 

there’s been some confusion as to how these 

procedures are being used, but at the time 

that we reviewed this dose reconstruction, we 

were under the impression that the OTIB-0018 

procedure was used for overestimating doses. 

 And when it was combined with the 

OTIB-0033 procedure, these all have to do with 

air sampling programs at the various 

facilities. Once it’s combined with an OTIB0033, which actually tries to bound the OTIB0018 doses using the MPC values, then we were 
182

under the impression that that combination 

could be used to compensate cases if in fact 

this was one such case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Our first finding here, this 103.1, 

it’s going to sound strange, but our first 

finding indicates does OTIB-0018 really in all 

cases overestimate a facility’s dose using air 

sampling programs. And, Hans, I’m going to 

let you explain that a little bit further if 

you recall. I’m sure you do because you had 

looked at the NUMEC study. Do you recall 

that? 

DR. BEHLING: Are we talking about general 

air sampling tests? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes. 

DR. BEHLING: If you look at, for instance -

- and we’ll probably briefly touch on that 

again possibly tomorrow when we’re talking 

about Fernald -- in one classic study that was 

conducted at a time when general air sampling 

was, in fact, and BZA sampling was, in fact, 

done routinely as a surrogate for bioassays. 

 And they compared, and I think it was 

NUMEC that was the target facility for this 

study, and you looked at the actual, and it’s 
183

not a static relationship between the ratio 

between BZA air sampling and general air 

sampling. But the critical point occurs at 

the maximum permissible air concentration, and 

at that point the difference on average was a 

70-fold difference that would potentially 

underestimate the real air concentration a 

person would be subjected to and inhale when 

the air monitoring data relied on general air 

sampling. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And that’s reasonable, and it does, in 

fact, reflect obviously site-specific 

facilities where the general air sample may be 

a good distance removed from a very small 

source term that a person’s standing next to. 

And, of course, monitoring the air at 25 feet 

from a point source like a glovebox with a 

pinhole as opposed to something that is more 

generically distributed in the air. 

 In some instances obviously when you 

compare air sampling done by general air 

versus BZA, that difference can be a very, 

very vast difference, up to 70-fold on 

average. And I think that’s what Kathy’s 

point is in her raising that up. Because it’s 
184

quite obvious that you need to understand what 

type of air sampling were used when you use 

that as a surrogate for bioassay data. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Let me add a little more. When 

I was looking at this the philosophy that’s 

embraced by OTIB-0018 said, okay, there’s 

probably a time beginning in the ‘60s where 

DOE instituted a fairly comprehensive Health 

Physics control programs where access to 

radioactive areas was controlled, airborne 

radioactive areas was controlled. 

 And it was controlled in a manner that 

a person’s not going to be allowed to go in 

without respiratory protection to an area that 

was above some, an MPC. The idea being, okay, 

let’s say we have a person that worked at a 

facility. We don’t have any bioassay data, 

but we do know that he worked at the facility 

at a time when there was a comprehensive 

Health Physics program to control access to 

areas with high airborne activity. 

 So the way I understand OTIB-0018 is 

that, okay, if we know that to be true that 

there was this monitoring program and 

controls, a monitoring program of the type 
185

Hans just described where there was a 

continuous air sampler. And we could say with 

a degree of certainty that no one working 

there was exposed continuously, 2,000 hours 

per year, to an MPC of the limiting 

radionuclides. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And that’s sort of like you establish 

a base. You say, okay, everyone could 

reasonably say it’s unlikely that anyone who 

worked there at that time was exposed to more 

than one MPC continuously the whole time he 

was there. Now, that’s sort of like your 

first level of premise. 

 And I think Hans just describes, well, 

that may not be true because of the big 

difference there could be between general air 

samples and breathing zone samples. And so 

that was our first level of concern about 

whether or not this strategy, which on first 

principle sounds reasonable, but when you 

realize the disparity between breathing zone 

and general air samples, all of a sudden that 

erodes. 

 Then superimposed on that is this 

OTIB-0033 that says, you know something? I 
186

think this OTIB-0018 might be a little too 

conservative. It’s kind of strange. It’s 

just not going to be where you’re always right 

at an MPC for the limiting radionuclide. It 

usually helps Strontium-90 by the way. You 

know what we’re going to do is we’re going to 

write OTIB-0033 that says, well, we’re going 

to leave it up to the judgment of the dose 

reconstructor to say, well, at this facility 

for this time period, let’s say in 1970s, the 

practice was to control exposures at one-half 

or one-fifth. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 In other words people aren’t going to 

go into an area without respiratory 

protection, and so that you actually add an 

adjustment factor to bring down the exposure 

to make it more realistic. So what we had 

here is sort of like a layered set of concerns 

which address both. 

 Not only are we talking OTIB-0018, but 

it is very much related to OTIB-0033 whereby 

one is the point that Hans made is that can 

you really say with some confidence that just 

because you have an air sampling program with 

controls of access controls, that you could 
187

say with a high degree of confidence that no 

one’s ever going to be exposed chronically to 

levels above one MPC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And the second thing is what fraction 

of that, in other words given the time period, 

it’s probably unlikely that it was even at a 

tenth of an MPC. And we saw that as being a 

lot of judgment. I could see one person 

coming in and saying, well, for this time 

period this facility, we think it’s reasonable 

to use one-tenth of an MPC as being the max he 

could have possibly been exposed to. And I’m 

trying to recollect this. 

 And, Kathy, please, you come in also. 

I remember when I reviewed these two 

documents, I walked away with this sense. 

That is, it seems to me that the person doing 

the dose reconstruction, he’s going to have to 

use some degree of judgment as to what 

fraction of an MPC seems to be a bounding 

assumption or at least a reasonably bounding 

assumption. So I think this throws an 

umbrella over where our concerns are coming 

from. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’d just comment 
188

briefly on this, and I don’t, this may be 

something where additional discussion is going 

to need to happen in additional exchanges. 

But the original position of TIB-0018 and 

people probably wouldn’t be exposed above the 

MPC is not just strictly that the general area 

air sampling program would prevent that, but 

rather that a program that took the steps of 

having a general area air sampling program, a 

pretty comprehensive one, so they were really 

interested in what the conditions were in 

their workplace and interested in monitoring 

the exposures to the workers would take other 

steps in addition. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And whether we have the specific 

bioassay data and a coworker bioassay dataset 

built or not, it doesn’t matter. We can say 

we believe with some confidence that once they 

have imposed that kind of a somewhat rigorous 

radiation control program, that the radiation 

workers will not be chronically exposed every 

day above the MPC. 

 Which is not to say there might not be 

episodes above the MPC, but their chronic 

exposure for the year won’t be higher than the 
189

MPC because the site is designing its 

radiation safety program to do that. And a 

reason that we feel confident that they do 

have a designed fairly rigorous radiation 

protection program is that we know that they 

had a comprehensive air sampling program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So that is the basis, and the actual 

results of the air sampling program don’t 

enter into this. So it’s not like we look at 

what were the air sampling results from 

Savannah River in 1956, and based on that, 

that’s what we’re going to give them. That’s 

not it. We’re just going to say if they were 

-- I just made those dates up -- we’re just 

saying that they had a comprehensive, rigorous 

radiation protection program which would have, 

in combination with all the things they were 

doing, which would have prevented them from 

being overexposed routinely. 

 And then I believe the fractional 

people, the people who at some point are 

judged to, would only be exposed to a 

fraction, I believe that is a job assignment 

selection, isn’t it, Mutty? 

 MR. SHARFI: Yeah, like an admin. 
190

MR. HINNEFELD: So this is for secretaries. 

This is for people who are intermittently in a 

radiological area as opposed to someone who 

works in, you know, part-time in the 

administrator and part-time in a process area 

as opposed to a chemical operator who spends 

his day in the production area. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So the fractional part is not based on 

the specific controls that a site adopted 

while they were controlling at 50 percent or 

ten percent, but rather upon this person 

didn’t spend much time in the process area so 

the people there all the time were maybe being 

exposed at the MPC, these people may be there 

50 percent of the time. Or if they almost 

have no, as far as you can tell they have no 

reason to go in the process area, maybe only 

ten percent of the time. So that was the 

fractionation. 

MR. GRIFFON: Is the fractionation an 

individual DR judgment or is it in the site 

specific guidance? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it starts with an 

individual DR and then it’s peer reviewed, and 

it’s reviewed by us. So there are at least 
191

three health physicists’ judgments that would 

have to concur that this is an acceptable 

choice in that case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Hey, Stu, this 

is Scott Siebert. I just wanted to do a 

clarification here. For OTIB-0033 there are 

specified levels. We don’t just, even using 

professional judgment, pick what levels are to 

be used. Just like you say it’s based on job 

title and the type of work, but then we use 

the Table 1 in OTIB-0033 which states for 

intermittent use 50 percent of OTIB-0018, for 

routine you use full. You don’t just pick an 

arbitrary percentage. I just wanted to 

clarify that. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I was getting at. 

So that at least addresses the consistency 

question. 

 MR. SHARFI: And how OTIB-0018 assigns dose 

isn’t just the most conservative radionuclide 

for the intake. It’s every year’s intake is 

looked at independently as the year goes. So 

you might be assigning Type-M in the first 

couple years, Type-S, then change nuclides. 

And this is all just for the first year, then 
192

you go back every year and do these. So it’s 

not just applying, every year is looked -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Oh, no, I’m familiar with the 

workbook. I looked at the workbook, and I got 

the sense that you really made it the worst it 

could possibly ever be. 

 But what I find very important though 

is something you said. So you’re saying it’s 

not just a matter of that they had an air 

sampling program that had to meet the DOE 

order, X-Y-Z, 5280, whatever number it was, 

you’re saying that there’s another layer of 

protection here is that because they had such 

a program, they also had some degree, in other 

words, if there was the possibility that 

anyone could have gotten more than an MPC 

chronic exposure, they would have picked it up 

on some bioassay program? 

MR. HINNEFELD: They would have had other 

things. 

DR. MAURO: Other things would wash out. 

MR. HINNEFELD: They would have had a 

radiation protection program, and they would 

not solely have relied on a general area air 

sampling program. They would have had a 
193

radiation protection program that was 

sufficiently rigorous to put in a general area 

air sampling program, which is not a minor 

undertaking, and therefore, they would have 

done other things as well. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And they would have had bioassay 

programs. They would have had survey, 

contamination survey programs, probably 

standards for when they had to clean the 

plant. So these things would have been in 

place in addition. So we just use the air 

sampling program as an indicator of a mature 

radiation protection program. 

DR. MAURO: So let’s say the situation that 

Hans just described did exist. That is, that 

there was an air sampling program, but 

reality, and let’s say there was no, and they 

were managing in accordance with the DOE 

orders in terms of MPCs for accessible areas. 

But let’s say the situation existed that Hans 

just described where, yeah, there might be 

some real workers at real locations where they 

could have been 70 times higher and what they 

were experience -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Than what the GA said, which 
194

probably didn’t say that. It probably didn’t 

say MPC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: But it was 70 times higher than 

what the GA was seeing. Now under those 

circumstances you’re saying that -- and I 

don’t recall this being in the write up, but 

you’re saying that there are other provisions 

in the DOE orders which would capture that, 

almost like a defense in death. That is, if 

that situation did arise, it wouldn’t go 

unnoticed. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I wouldn’t necessarily rely 

on the DOE orders, but I would comment that 

based on, yeah, there were other things that 

would have been associated with that. 

DR. BEHLING: Kathy, let me speak first, and 

then you go. 

 I’m always using Fernald as a 

reference point, and obviously, we do know 

that -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’m familiar with Fernald. 

DR. BEHLING: -- up to 1968 people were 

exposed to thorium, and there was no bioassay 

backup data. So we have to, at this moment in 

time, rely pretty much for that period up to 
195

’68 on the air monitoring data. And we know 

that for all the data that is available a 

large part is general air sampling. And, of 

course, there are spot sampling for breathing 

zones, but we also know it fluctuates. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We have instances where we have 1,800 

MAC levels. We don’t know what the duration 

is, and on the sideline the person was now 

wearing a respirator. So it leaves the door 

wide open in trying to understand what an 

exposure might have been when you have such 

limited air data. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don’t think we’d 

ever use Fernald in TIB-0018. 

DR. MAURO: So you’re saying that that would 

-- 

DR. BEHLING: No, but I’m using that as an 

example. You may not have the defense in 

death that John was mentioning. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I would never hold up 

Fernald as an example of a regulatory 

protection program, certainly not after 1970. 

DR. BEHLING: Kathy, did you want to say 

something? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, this is 
196

Kathy Behling. Let me talk a little bit about 

this particular case. First of all, I do 

think that the resolution to a lot of these 

issues we’re discussing will have to come in 

the procedures review of these two, TIB-0018 

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 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and we said that before. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): The only thing 

I want to make mention of is, this is a Santa 

Susana case, and, in fact, this is the sixth 

set. And I see that in our summary we did put 

in information as to when the dose 

reconstruction report was completed, and I 

have December 2005 for this particular case. 

At that time there was no site profile for the 

Santa Susana facility. 

 And so I guess my question was how did 

a dose reconstructor know that this particular 

facility had an appropriate air monitoring 

program in place? I would think, now there is 

an attachment in OTIB-0018 that does give some 

guidance to the dose reconstructor, but for 

this particular case I would have expected 

that a dose reconstructor would look at a site 

profile document to come to the conclusion 
197

that perhaps he could use this particular 

procedure for this particular case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So that is just a comment I wanted to 

make on this particular case. Now the case 

was compensated, and again, to go further, in 

our next finding, in fact, addresses the fact 

that the OTIB-0018 workbook as was just 

described, can be very, very conservative 

because what they do is to let the highest 

radionuclides for each year based on the 

highest solubility, and that is what is 

assigned for each individual year throughout 

the employment. 

 However, again, in this particular 

case, I know OTIB-0033 does give guidance to 

the dose reconstructor, but I specifically 

indicated in here that this case, how they 

applied OTIB-0033 is they used 63 percent of 

the employment period. They used 14 out of 

the 22 years of employment that he actually 

received the MPC level. 

 I don’t think that that’s described in 

OTIB-0033 in that fashion. So I agree that 

all of these things are in place right now, 

but for this particular case, they weren’t 
198

1 applied. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: The percents are locked in in 

33. Now if they chose to give them for a 

shorter period of time, OTIB-0033 doesn’t say 

whether you have to give it for the full 

employment or partial part of the employment 

or, that’s not what’s covered in OTIB-0033, 

it’s what percent of OTIB-0018 you give. What 

percent of the air concentration are you 

assuming, not how long are you assuming it. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): All I’m saying 

is that for this case the dose reconstructor, 

that’s how he ratchets down the OTIB-0018 

dose. He decided that he was going to assume 

that the individual was exposed at the MPC 

level for 14 years rather than the full 22 

years. That’s how he assumed to try and bound 

this OTIB-0018 dose, use 63 percent of the 

employment period. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that if it’s a 

compensable case, he wasn’t trying to bound 

it. He was just saying that, well, with that 

much it’s in so -- 

 MR. SHARFI: The full employment, I mean, I 

can do a partial part of the employment -- 
199

MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don’t know why he chose 

to do 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 

MR. GRIFFON: But why would they, yeah, that 

seems a little -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Don’t know why they chose to 

do that. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- wouldn’t it be just as easy 

to do a hundred percent or would it be more 

work? Is that what you’re saying? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Don’t know. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t know. 

 MR. SHARFI: Maybe the numbers just seemed 

so big they looked ridiculous big. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that could be. 

 MR. SHARFI: I mean, some of these you can 

get some, you can end up assigning 3,000 rem 

and at what point is enough enough? 

 DR. WADE: Brad? 

 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I was just wondering, we 

covered this a little bit in this morning in 

the letter we were writing and so forth, but 

one of the things is, is the dose 

reconstructor, what you’re telling me is that 

if they’re hitting to this point you’re saying 

that there’s no use of going on any further, 
200

1 that that’s compensable and -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: Yeah, you know, once a claim’s 

compensable, there’s no point in doing more to 

the claim. At that point it’s a partial so 

why they chose partial years versus -- I mean, 

I don’t know if the person’s job title changed 

and halfway through their employment -- I 

don’t know enough about the details of the 

claim to say -- 

DR. MAURO: Let me go -- I thought OTIB-0018 

was really, in my mind except for the reasons 

Hans brought up, off the charts upper bound. 

I mean, you’re operating at the MPCs all the 

time under the worst possible conditions, and 

you’re compensated, right? I mean, this guy 

was compensated. But you brought it down a 

little bit because of this percentage. 

 In other words you brought a little 

bit of reality into it by saying we’re going 

to make it 63 percent rather than 100 percent 

of the time that he’s at this level. And I 

could see this for denial. In other words I’m 

giving a guy an off the chart exposure, and so 

now I’m picturing another circumstance where 

you have another person, maybe even working at 
201

a same facility, but you have some bioassay 

data, and you’re going to reconstruct his 

doses based on bioassay data, and in his case 

you’ve denied. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So you have two guys, you see where 

I’m going? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it’s a fairness 

question. 

DR. MAURO: So I mean, and the way I would 

say OTIB-0018 seems to be reasonable. 

 And, Kathy, I think that’s how it’s 

represented. OTIB-0018 is for the purpose of 

denial, and then you bring in 33 to try to 

bring some reality to the situation. I don’t 

know if that was done here. 

 MR. SHARFI: In this particular case I don’t 

know this is -- what site? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s Santa Susana. 

 According to our initial response -- 

are we on 103.2? That’s the case we’re on? 

MR. GRIFFON: One and two, I think we’re 

looking at both of them kind of them, kind of. 

MS. MUNN: We started off with one -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Our response to 103.2 wraps 

up into the same situation they had us in 
202

doing OTIB-0004 cases and doing compensable 

OTIB-0004 cases. Because if you read our 

initial response on 103.2, it speaks to the 

letter from the contracting officer to ORAU 

telling them for any case in house two years 

or more, use, consider research done, go do 

the cases using whatever you have and 

scientific assumptions that are favorable. 

And so it’s the same instruction -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: At that time that is the best 

estimate you could do at the time. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- at the time. So it’s the 

same instruction that led to the OTIB-0004 

being used for compensable cases. This case 

was used in that fashion. Suffice it to say 

that remember that happened for just a 

relatively brief period of time. I forget 

what it was, a couple months or something like 

that. And so then we changed direction and 

said don’t do that any more. But this falls 

into that same kind of bin as the TIB-0004 

compensables. 

 MR. SHARFI: That makes sense. 

MR. GRIFFON: Can I try to summarize? I 

think where we’re at with 103.1 and 103.2, I 
203

think the TIB-0018 and TIB-0033 obviously are 

going to go to procedures review, the general 

question. But I think there’s still a 

question of follow up, at least for NIOSH, to 

explain in the first part -- I’m a bit 

confused about Finding 1 and Finding 2. 

Finding 1 seems to say not conservative 

enough. Finding 2 seems to say too 

conservative. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s true. 

We were trying to point out those -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, having said that, I 

think we, you know, for NIOSH to follow up on 

103.1, I had just to justify the rationale as 

it applies to this case. And I think you’re 

going to say one thing is it’s compensable, 

but I mean, you know, because the question on 

103.1 is, is it consistently overestimating. 

 So for this site for this case, I 

guess I was trying to separate it as a general 

procedures question of 18 and 33. But I want 

to know, at least see in the response, does 

NIOSH believe TIB-0018 to be overestimating 

for this site for this particular case. I 

think we should answer that in this matrix and 
204

then say generally we have those concerns for 

TIB-0018 and -0033 that can go to the 

procedures review. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: All be worked in Procedures. 

MR. GRIFFON: And then on the second, 103.2 

-- 

MS. MUNN: -- this specific site, however. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, 103.2 as a follow up 

for NIOSH that I think at least deserves an 

explanation is that why did they stop at 63 

percent of, you know, and there might be a 

simple explanation like, you know, the dose 

was high enough, the job title changed, and it 

was already a compensable claim. 

 I mean, I think we just need something 

to sort of understand that. But then other 

than that I think the rest is, goes to 

procedures review and we don’t have to go 

through the rest of those details again. 

 So I’m on to 104-point -- I lost my 

page here on the, 104.1, 104.1. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is a 

Superior Steel case I believe you did, and it 

has to do with using what we thought was an 

incorrect DCF, the isotropic exposure geometry 
205

for submersion and contamination dose values. 

MR. GRIFFON: I have for this that SC&A 

agrees and no further action. 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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s what I 

have written down, too. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so that one’s done. 

 104.2, I have NIOSH agrees that no 

further action required. 

DR. BEHLING: Does anybody know was an 

ambient dose equivalent really used? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Tim Talbe might. 

MS. MUNN: Does anybody know what? 

DR. BEHLING: Whether an ambient dose -- 

I’ve been in this business for 30-some-odd 

years, and I have to look it up, and I still 

don’t understand. 

 MR. SHARFI: The derivation of the DCF for 

the ambient dose? 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah. 

 MR. SHARFI: The ambient dose equivalent? 

DR. MAURO: What is it? 

 MR. SHARFI: I’d hate to speculate. 

MS. MUNN: So our action on 104.2? 

MR. GRIFFON: Is this a generic question 

that has to go elsewhere? I mean, I don’t 
206

1 think it has an impact on this case. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: No, it doesn’t. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t think, okay. I 

figured you were, but I mean it was a finding, 

Hans. 

MS. MUNN: But it does not go to Procedures. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Not yet anyway. 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s not going to Procedures. 

MS. MUNN: Global Issues? 

MR. HINNEFELD: But is there at least an 

issue here? Is there even an issue here? 

MR. GRIFFON: I know. I guess there’s not 

an issue. I have NIOSH agrees but no action 

required, right? 

DR. MAURO: We’ll remember to bring it up. 

MR. HINNEFELD: The issue is that IG-001 has 

a set of DCFs for ambient dose equivalent and 

has a different set of DCFs, very slightly 

different, for HP-10, which is dose of ten 

millimeters. So that’s the question and what 

is ambient dose as opposed to HP-10. So we’d 

have to get somebody to explain that. I don’t 

know that it’s worth a lot. 

MR. GRIFFON: No. 

DR. MAURO: It’s just academic. 
207

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So we’re not, there’s no need 

to follow up anywhere, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know where we’d go. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m on to 104.3. Now we have, 

is NIOSH developing -- oh, no, that’s for 104, 

five and six. This is the white paper 

questions I think, right? NIOSH has developed 

-- this is a generic issue on resuspension on, 

I don’t have anything on 104.3 though. 

DR. MAURO: We got different numbers than 

you did for the slab and the plates. We ran 

MCNP, and we came up with different numbers, 

and we weren’t sure why. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Let’s see, well, you 

commented apparently on routine 106. 

DR. MAURO: But that was also -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: 104.3? In our initial 

response we talked about that. 

MR. GRIFFON: I don’t see a NIOSH response 

for this. There is no NIOSH response. 

MS. MUNN: I don’t see a response for 104, 

five and six. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Really? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it’s not on the matrix. 
208

1 MS. MUNN: No, it’s not on my matrix -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Not on the one we’re looking 

at. 

MS. MUNN: -- unless I missed something. 

MR. GRIFFON: Nope, you didn’t miss 

anything, Wanda. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, let’s send the 

response then. 

MR. GRIFFON: Do you have one in the matrix 

though, Stu? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I have one in mine. 

 MR. CLAWSON: 104.3? 

MR. GRIFFON: We must not have -- you must 

not have sent us that updated. 

 MR. SHARFI: It was updated as of September 

25th, ’07. 

MS. MUNN: I don’t have any responses at all 

on page five. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I thought it was sent, 

I had sent it. I will go back and check my 

out mail, and if I did send it, I will let you 

know, but either way I will re-send it. I’ll 

send you an updated matrix -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I have OCAS response to 

Subcommittee, September 7th, ’07, is the one 
209

1 I’ve been working from. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: This was updated later. And 

apparently could be I didn’t submit it. I 

don’t know, but either way I’ll send it 

because it contains initial responses, until 

the initial response is shared. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’ve been editing on this one, 

but I can cross the two -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’ll just clip that 

one out, you know, the finding all the way 

across and send it to you so you can see where 

it fits. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine, but if there’s 

more of these -- 

DR. MAURO: So you folks did revisit that 

number and you come away with different 

numbers or -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: No, I think where our point 

is has to do with the overall dose assigned is 

because of the assumptions about proximity to 

the source and time spent near the source 

because those are so generous that the 

variations in dose rate is probably minimized 

or is accommodated for by those generous 

assumptions. I believe that’s where we’re 
210

1 coming from. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Just as a general point in many 

circumstances we find ourselves, you know, we 

will parse out the analysis, run our 

calculations, come up with numbers different. 

But in the end the point you’re making is, 

well, when you roll them all up, all the 

assumptions that come together, you’re really 

okay. It’s important that the working group 

understand. And we’re not going to disagree 

with that. 

 The question becomes does that mean 

that, well, but there might be something about 

the way you’re running, I’m not sure whether 

you use MCNP or you use Attila, whether or not 

there’s some fundamental analysis where you’re 

looking at the slabs or the plates where maybe 

there’s a problem. Now the problem doesn’t 

surface as a real problem because of all the 

other conservatisms built into proximity and 

time, but there might be some scientific 

issues that under other circumstances could be 

a problem. 

 So I would recommend or suggest that 

if we are coming up with differences, I think 
211

it might be a factor of two, between when we 

do a slab, and you do a slab, I’d sure like to 

know what the reasons 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH and SC&A to, or NIOSH 

to share calculations with SC&A? Is that 

fair? Is that what we’re going to do here? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I can get them out I think. 

MS. MUNN: Your current responses don’t 

include that information. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it won’t include the 

MCNP run. 

MR. GRIFFON: The details, yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We can get them out. 

MR. GRIFFON: For the next three, 104.4, .5 

and .6, I have this is the white paper on the 

generic issues question. And this comes up 

several times I think. It’s under 

resuspension, ingestion. I think they all 

fall into the category. Am I right on that? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, two of them are 

resuspension and one is ingestion. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. MAURO: My recollection is when it comes 

to ingestion, the new method that you guys, 
212

and presented by Jim Neton at one of our last 

meetings, put that issue to bed demonstrating 

that it works. However, the resuspension 

factor 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 

MR. GRIFFON: Did SC&A review that method or 

I don’t know because I wasn’t at the last 

meeting. 

DR. MAURO: Well, yeah, we actually ended up 

reviewing that method as part in the work 

venue, had to do with a site profile review. 

It might have been Linde. So my recollection 

is that that particular issue on ingestion has 

recently been dealt with on a global basis, 

presentation given by Jim and also contained 

as part of the Linde, latest version. And we 

looked at it, and I recall found favorably. 

Now, I think that that’s, so I think it’s 

worthwhile us confirming that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think you should 

confirm that. 

DR. MAURO: Please, because I’m saying this 

from memory. But the issue on the 

resuspension factor still is very much on the 

table as a global issue. So I think we might 

be okay on ingestion, but we have to do our 
213

homework. And the resuspension factor, I 

think that it’s still something that NIOSH is 

still looking at generically and globally. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: 104.7, I don’t have anything 

in my notes on this one. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is a recycled 

uranium OTIB. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, this is an RRU, 

yeah. And where does that stand, Stu, just to 

-- 

MR. HINNEFELD: We expect to see it this 

week from the contractor. 

MR. GRIFFON: So there’s a white paper or a 

TBD or what’s -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s OTIB. 

MR. GRIFFON: OTIB, all right. It’s a TIB. 

Do we have a number? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’m sure it has one. I 

don’t know what it is. 

MR. GRIFFON: You don’t know what it is. 

Just so we can track it easier it would be 

nice to put that in. 

 Going on to the next one, 105.1. 

MR. FARVER: 105.1, two and four have to do 

with dose conversion factors and the 
214

triangular distributions and that was from an 

earlier finding. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so this is a question of 

NIOSH agrees and the case is being reevaluated and a PER is going to be provided, 

right? This is a similar finding as we’ve had 

before? 

MR. FARVER: Right, and they’ve updated the 

EDCW tool. It was the max/min. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this used max/min and 

the entire range of all the DCFs? 

DR. BEHLING: And it’s most important when 

you have the low energy photons for that 

extreme difference exists between AP geometry 

as a min versus ISO or location. 

MR. FARVER: And it concerns the recorded 

photon dose, the missed photon dose and the 

neutron dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH agrees the case is 

being re-evaluated as part of the PER review. 

Is that fair to say it that way? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and, well, the EDCW 

tool has been revised to reflect the external 

dose something. 

MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH agrees workbook has been 
215

1 revised, right? Is that what you -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so that’s for 105.1.3 -- 

what did you say? 

MR. FARVER: One-point-one, 1.2 and 1.4. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. Or 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4. 

What about 5.3? 

MR. FARVER: Five-point-three is the LOD 

over two in the workbook. We revised the 

workbook. 

MR. GRIFFON: Again, I have case being reevaluated. Are you re-assessing all those LOD 

over two ones as well? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, well, these cases 

would be done together. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, that’s right. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, it looks like the whole 

case is being reworked. 

 MR. SHARFI: This is probably being redone 

for Super-S, too. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Probably being done for 

Super-S plutonium as well. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 105.5. 

MR. FARVER: 105.5, that was medical dose 

where they chose the lung dose instead of the 
216

esophagus dose, and I imagine since they’re 

going to rework the whole case, it’s just a 

matter of going back and verifying that the 

correct occupational medical dose 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’ve never submitted 

an initial response on that. 

MR. GRIFFON: I was going to say, all right, 

I was going to ask. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This one you have not seen 

so when I have one I like, I’ll send it over. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, but it’s like the case 

is going to be re-evaluated. I’ll note that, 

that you’re going to provide a response. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): This is Scott 

Siebert. The case was returned to us for 

Super-S just about a month ago so we are 

reworking it. 

MR. GRIFFON: 105.6, this is a fission 

product question. Do we have -- 

MR. FARVER: Yes, this was one that was in 

the documents that Kathy sent out last week, 

one of the responses in the first response. 

And NIOSH gave their response, that they went 

back and reworked it and included the 

Ruthinium-106, and that’s fine. We’re okay 
217

1 with that. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So the case was reworked to 

include, right? 

MR. FARVER: Yes, they recalculated the 

dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: So the initial finding stands, 

right? 

MR. FARVER: Right, it didn’t change the 

POC. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so this is a NIOSH 

agrees, recalculated the dose, no affect on 

POC, right? 

MR. FARVER: Yep. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Mark, the residual OTIB is 

70, number 70. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, the recycled U? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Recycled U. Is that 

recycled U? 

 MR. SHARFI: That’s the residual. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I’m sorry. They’re 

looking for recycled U. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Recycled is 

OTIB-0053. 

MR. GRIFFON: Bear with me for a second. If 

I do this now then I’ll be able to turn it 
218

around to you guys quicker. Where was that 

RU? What finding was that? Here it is, okay. 

And it’s OTIB-0053? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Why don’t we, let’s take five. 

We’ve got some climate issues in the room 

here. Wanda has to go get a parka, so we’re 

going to take a five minute break, five minute 

stretch break -- 

 DR. WADE: We’ll be back in five. 

 (Whereupon, a break was taken from 3:15 p.m. 

until 3:25 p.m.) 

 DR. WADE: We’re back in session. This is 

the home stretch now so stay with us. Keep 

your eyes open. Caffeine is recommended. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m on 106.1 actually. 

MR. FARVER: This is going to be very 

similar. 106.1 and 106.2 are the DCFs again 

which we’ve done twice now. 

MR. GRIFFON: I have NIOSH agrees, no effect 

on the case since it’s compensable. Is that 

accurate, Stu? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: 106.3 is the LOD over two just 
219

1 like before. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: And that’s sort of the same 

thing. You agree but no effect on the case, 

right? 

MR. FARVER: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: 106.4, a fission product 

question. 

MR. HINNEFELD: 106.4, I guess there were a 

couple whole body counts that were over the 

fallout level for cesium and a few other 

things. I contend with their response. They 

went back and basically they say the dose 

reconstruction was stopped because it exceeded 

POC of 50 percent. I think this was a 

compensable case so maybe you get to a point 

then you stop. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that’s what 

happened. 

MR. GRIFFON: The only question I would have 

on this is, well, I mean, it’s a compensable 

case and everything, but if it’s a matter of a 

workbook, it seems to me, it’s that question 

of are you saving any work by not including 

them all or is it just as easy to just include 

it and make a run or no? 
220

 MR. SHARFI: The cesium would have required 

its own independent -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: It would have required more, 

okay. In this case it would have required, 

okay. I’m just catching up on the notes, 

106.5. 

 107.1. 

MR. FARVER: 107.1 and two are the same as 

DCFs, from photons and missed dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: So this one’s going to be 

reworked, right? Okay, that’s 107.1 and two, 

right for that? 

MR. FARVER: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: Moving on. 

MR. FARVER: 107.3 is LOD over two. 

MR. GRIFFON: Same response? 

MR. FARVER: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH agrees. The case is 

being re-evaluated? Jump in any time, Stu, if 

you don’t agree with these. 

MR. HINNEFELD: No, I agree with them. 

MR. GRIFFON: 107.4. 

MR. FARVER: This is where we had a little 

disagreement in the assumptions regarding the 

internal dose from uranium exposure. I went 
221

back and looked at the data, the whole case 

basically, and although I don’t necessarily 

agree with what they did, they used a chronic 

intake, and yeah, there’s some discrepancies; 

is it chronic? is it acute? This is one of 

those cases where it really doesn’t matter 

dose-wise, and chronic is going to give you 

the higher dose. So it may not, it’s claimant 

favorable in this case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A agrees that the 

chronic model selected was claimant favorable. 

MR. FARVER: This is one of those cases 

where there’s only two bioassay points, so 

it’s a little difficult. 

MR. GRIFFON: But are you saying that you 

agree with -- 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, I agree. 

MS. MUNN: For our purposes now it’s closed, 

right? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. SHARFI: That’s 107.4? 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s 107.4, right? 

MR. GRIFFON: Is that right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s where I am. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 107.5. 
222

MR. FARVER: NIOSH has no response, and 

basically when they went back it looks like it 

was a data entry error that resulted in a, 

there should have been electrons greater than 

15 keV, and I believe it was either entered as 

photons or -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was less than, it 

was entered as less than 15. It was supposed 

to be entered as greater than. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH agrees, but no effect 

on the case. Is that fair to conclude? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the effect is there’s 

a minimal effect. 

MR. GRIFFON: Or minimal effect, no effect 

on the outcome of the case. 

MS. MUNN: Just reduce the POC. 

 MR. SHARFI: It’ll reduce the POC if you 

change it. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. BEHLING: Was this a tritium exposure? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s probably a skin dose, 

isn’t it? 

 MR. SHARFI: Probably a fission product. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Or a fission product intake 

internal? 
223

 MR. SHARFI: I would imagine. I’m trying to 

find it in 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 

MR. FARVER: Fission products, plutonium and 

tritium, bunch. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if it was incorrectly, 

if we incorrectly put it in as less than 15 

keV, then it was probably a fission product 

intake. 

MR. GRIFFON: 107.6. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Based on their 11/19 

information to us, I believe we have 

additional information to provide. 

MR. FARVER: Yes, okay, I’ll explain this. 

This has to do with the PU-238 environmental 

internal dose. It was not included. NIOSH’s 

initial response was it wasn’t included, but 

it was less than one millirem and didn’t need 

to be included. And we came back with it’s 

fine that it’s less than one millirem, but you 

don’t know that unless you calculate it. So 

in other words our belief is it should have 

been included first in the calculation 

workbook and then you can delete in the final 

IREP. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’ll provide a 
224

response. I suspect the calculation has been 

done. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: If it was done, then it wasn’t 

included in the record. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It may have been done. It 

was less than one millirem, then it could have 

been removed from the workbook just to remove 

the calculational steps. 

MR. GRIFFON: So then it’s a question of the 

DR file including all the records maybe. It 

might be one of those. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Could be. It’s always, when 

you have a technical kind of a document that 

describes PU-238 as environmental exposure, 

and your tool doesn’t have it, it certainly 

prompts the question why didn’t the tool have 

it. So for completeness of explanation I 

don’t know what impact it would have on the 

speed that the tool would run at, but that 

would be really, I guess, the only downside if 

it slowed down the tool for some reason and he 

didn’t necessarily do it every time. But for 

a completeness of explanation it would be 

better, I guess, if they were there. We’ll 

come up with something. 
225

1 MR. GRIFFON: A response, okay. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we haven’t responded 

to the most recent information provided. 

MR. GRIFFON: 108.1. 

MR. FARVER: 108.1, the DR did not include a 

1945 recorded photon dose. It was 20 

millirem. It looks like it was just an oops 

and didn’t get included. The question always 

becomes why it didn’t get included. But it 

was not included in the dose reconstruction. 

MR. GRIFFON: Stu. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’ll have to go back and 

refresh my memory. If I’ve got to say more 

than once in the initial response, I’ve got to 

go back and refresh my memory. 

DR. BEHLING: Was this a film dosimeter 

dose? I mean, it’s strange that 20 millirem 

is half of LOD for that period of time so -- 

MR. FARVER: That’s one in the dosimetry 

records, but it was not in the workbook or the 

final calculations. 

DR. BEHLING: Did they use as a missed dose 

which would have been the same value? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, our last statement 

says, actually you guys noted that if we had 
226

used it using today’s practices it would have 

resulted in the same result, the 20. It would 

have been considered a zero, so it would have 

gotten one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: It’s not so much that it’s a 

dose concern, it’s more of a data 

verification. It’s in the records, but it 

doesn’t affect the dose reconstruction. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So I’ll have to go back and 

-- 

MS. MUNN: So we’re going to expect still 

another response from NISOH? 

MR. GRIFFON: I don’t know that we even need 

a further response. 

MS. MUNN: I don’t know that we do either. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I don’t either. 

MR. FARVER: I would put this back under 

your data verification question. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, our response talks 

about some range, it’s outside the range of 

the Monte Carlo tool. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Yeah, that’s 

it. It actually was there, and it was 

correctly entered in the tool. It’s just the 
227

tool will automatically give you an error that 

you have to deal with if the dosimeter error 

was outside the pre-run Monte Carlo 

distribution in which case then we’d run it 

separately and include 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 

 However, in this case it did not make 

a difference in compensability. It was very 

small, so it was determined not to correct the 

error. It was claimant favorable to use the 

slightly larger error that was involved. So 

from a data point of view it was actually in 

there, considered. It just didn’t need to be 

corrected. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Let me see if I understand 

this, Scott. So it was entered in the tool. 

That caused an error in the tool, and so the 

correct thing to do would have been to do some 

other manual entry of this dose number for 

1945 which apparently was left out through 

oversight. Is that right or that -- 

 MR. SHARFI: It was left out by choice. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Well, it didn’t 

need to be done because the error -- my 

understanding of this one if I remember 

correctly is the error, the tool tells you, 
228

the dosimeter error was too small to fit into 

the range of pre-run Monte Carlo 

distributions. And to just ignore the error 

that the tool is telling us would let us use a 

slightly larger error value in a Monte Carlo 

calculation which would have been claimant 

favorable so we didn’t have to correct that 

and run it separately. I can’t imagine why 

this is confusing. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: This Hanford tool is based on 

pre-ran crystal ball runs. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Correct, thank 

you, Mutty. 

MR. FARVER: So it did not show up in the 

IREP as a, under the recorded doses. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Right, because 

it was a small enough number that didn’t -- 

 MR. SHARFI: The tool considered it in its 

iteration it became outside the error. It 

doesn’t show up in the measured numbers for 

that year. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Is there a missed number, 

missed dose number for that year in the dose 

reconstruction? 

 MR. SHARFI: I would have to actually look 
229

1 at the particular details of the claim. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Because that’s sort of what I 

would question is if -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, one action here is 

that Scott’s got to explain this to me. 

MR. GRIFFON: But if, I mean the other side 

of this is that in the DR report, assuming 

someone’s looking at this report close enough, 

they may say I’ve got my husband’s records 

here, whatever, and I know he had a dose in 

’45, and there’s nothing on the sheet. And 

then the whole credibility issue comes up. 

 MR. SHARFI: There is a missed dose assigned 

in ’45. According to the IREP -- 

MR. GRIFFON: So there is that side of it, 

you know. 

 MR. SHARFI: -- there is a missed dose 

assigned in ’45. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so there’s a missed 

dose assigned. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, the missed dose is 

assigned? Okay. 

 MR. SHARFI: There is a missed dose assigned 

in ’45. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s reassuring. 
230

 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, something I -- and this 

is a little off the record so bear with me 

here, but 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 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s on the record. 

 MR. CLAWSON: -- well, it is on the record. 

Ray, can you hear me? One of my questions is, 

I see them go through these and, okay, they’re 

all of a sudden compensable, so we no longer 

do anything any more. We stop. It’s okay. 

But we’ve heard from several people that have 

come in that one day they get a letter and all 

of a sudden were compensable. And then all of 

a sudden they change something, and now 

they’re not compensable. 

 What is in the process for them to go 

back and say, okay, now we need to run this 

whole thing out or is it all of a sudden just 

lost? Or do they look at the thing and say, 

well, it’s finished, but really it wasn’t 

finished because they never continued to work 

the process out? They hit to where it was 50 

percent compensable or more. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know what you’re 

getting at because of the confusion on the 

public’s end with this, you know, cases where 
231

1 they’ve been -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I don’t know the 

circumstances when someone would -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- the POC changes on them, 

and it goes down when they a second cancer and 

things like that. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can explain that. I 

can explain that. 

MR. GRIFFON: We can explain it, but it’s -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know the -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- but from a PR standpoint 

I’m saying it’s difficult to explain. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I don’t know the 

circumstances when someone would get an 

initial letter that said they were going to 

compensated and a second letter that says 

they’re not. And we never send those letters. 

We never send a letter to a claimant saying 

anything about their compensation. So if 

they’re getting a letter from the Department 

of Labor that essentially changes their mind, 

the reason would be specific to the case, and 

I don’t know what it would be. 

 The things I could envision would not 

be, this kind of issue would not cause that to 
232

be incorrect. If, in fact, the Department of 

Labor decides, which they will do on review 

after we’ve sent a dose reconstruction to 

them, when their final adjudication branch 

looks at the case and determines it was 

developed incorrectly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 For instance, says the cancer 

diagnosis was wrong, they’ll return that case 

to us and say the cancer diagnosis was wrong, 

that was originally developed incorrectly, was 

wrong. Please rework this dose reconstruction 

in order to correct, to use the correct 

diagnosis. To which case we would use the 

dose reconstruction that, we would do the dose 

reconstruction with the procedures that are up 

to date today when we get it back to be 

reworked. 

 If in this case, if we have a case 

where originally we had a POC of above 50 

percent, and it met with a different 

diagnosis, it is no longer above 50 percent, 

we’ll make sure that there is no shortcut 

taken in that dose reconstruction, and all the 

dose we can put in there is in there. 

 So from the situation you’re 
233

describing where a person is told first it’s 

compensable and later on it’s not compensable, 

while I can’t speak about the specifics, the 

specifics of the case, what I can say with 

some confidence I don’t think there would ever 

be a case where a dose reconstruction that was 

a partial dose reconstruction because it 

resulted in a POC above 50 percent, would 

actually remain in effect in that situation. 

If something changed such that it was no 

longer going to be that way, I’m pretty 

confident any mechanism by which that might 

occur, that case will come back to us for DOL 

rework. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. CLAWSON: And then you’d just -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: And then we would do it. We 

would do it with the procedures in place today 

and just like everything else, if it’s going 

to be, if we can’t get it to 50 percent, it’s 

not going to be a partial. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I just wanted to make 

sure of that. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I can’t imagine any case 

when that would be a factor. 

MS. MUNN: There are a lot of people who 
234

1 have had their POC reduced -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: That happens a lot. 

MS. MUNN: -- and that arises often. And 

one can understand that, but -- 

 MR. CLAWSON: I just want to make -- 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s legitimate, but it’s hard 

to explain sometimes to the public. 

 I mean, I think that quite frankly, 

Stu, I think 108.1, I have NIOSH agrees; 

however, no effect on compensability. I don’t 

think this gets at the data question because I 

think from what I’m hearing, the 40 millirem 

actually was in the tool. So it wasn’t a 

matter of not looking for the dose record. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It was 20. 

 MR. SHARFI: Twenty. 

MR. GRIFFON: Or 20, I’m sorry, 20. 

 MR. SHARFI: It was identified by the DR. 

MR. GRIFFON: And the other concern I had 

was alleviated because you said there was a 

missed dose put in that year. So I think, 

yeah, you could argue that there was a 

possible, you know, you could have done it out 

a different way and added that in, but it 

didn’t affect compensability. So I’m just 
235

going to say NIOSH agrees no effect on 

compensability. I don’t think we need any 

more follow up on this. I don’t think we need 

to spend our resources that 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 

 DR. WADE: Could I just ask a clarifying 

question? It goes to the presentation that 

Larry’s supposed to make on QA/QC. We’ve had 

a whole bunch of things this afternoon, and we 

say a mistake was made. It didn’t affect 

compensability. What do we do to see that 

mistakes aren’t made? How does that work into 

the future? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, do you want me to give 

Larry’s presentation now? 

 DR. WADE: No, I think that’s something that 

this group needs to consider. So, okay, so if 

Larry’s going to speak to that, that’s fine. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know. There’s a 

meeting tomorrow, I think, for Larry to get 

together what he’s going to speak about. I 

don’t know that I can come here and give you a 

description. 

 DR. WADE: But see, I’m just uncomfortable 

as a citizen with a mistake was made. It 

didn’t affect compensability. We move on. 
236

There needs to be some process in place to see 

that we minimize the number of mistakes that 

are made. There needs to be some learning 

that’s going on. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: I think we addressed that 

early on when we talked about some of these 

errors. Now you have to separate root cause. 

If it was a guidance document that was 

perfectly correct but misinterpreted by a 

single dose reconstructor, there’s not much 

you can do. 

 If, on the other hand, the guidance 

document is ambiguous as was the case with 

TIB-0008 and -0010 because consistently the 

people were misinterpreting, then the 

corrective action is to rewrite the guidance 

document. So it’s really a question of what 

is -- 

MR. GRIFFON: But in your first example 

there is something you can do to -- 

 DR. WADE: Because you did it -- 

DR. BEHLING: Fire the guy who did the dose 

reconstruction. 

MR. GRIFFON: No, but also you can try to 

minimize those by a certain peer review, I 
237

1 mean certain processes. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah, internal QA. 

 DR. WADE: That’s the issue. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s the question. How much 

of that is there. Describe that to us. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think we should be careful 

about our expectation of no mistake, because I 

don’t know that that has ever been our 

expectation in review of a dose 

reconstruction. If we had a 20 millirem, even 

if it were a mistake, in a case that was 

nowhere near compensability because we want to 

have a dose reconstruction done and out to 

that person, we may not even comment on that. 

 And I think it’s important to have, 

when you look at, well, a mistake was made but 

it didn’t matter. Or, for instance, there 

have been a number of findings where cases 

were overestimated more than the procedure 

would have implied that they should have been. 

And we pass those on because it was not our 

expectation that we would do it in a, you 

know, that that was something that was wrong. 

It was an answer that got the compensability 

decision correct. 
238

 DR. WADE: Right, see, there was a situation 

we just discussed where a mistake was made. 

Your internal system caught the mistake and 

made the judgment that there was going to be 

no corrective action. That’s much more 

comforting to me than some of them where it 

was a mistake was made. It was found by this 

auditor. There’s a difference there in terms 

of -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: What I’m telling you is, our 

internal system won’t necessarily try to fix 

those mistakes. 

 DR. WADE: But how do we know the mistakes 

were made, and how do we eliminate mistakes? 

MR. GRIFFON: Or minimize. 

 DR. WADE: Or minimize mistakes, that’s -- 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): This is Scott. 

I just want to point one thing out. We’re 

still talking about 108.1, right? 

 DR. WADE: Well, we’re talking generally. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we’re talking -- 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): I know you’re 

talking generally, but didn’t 108.1 -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It precipitated the 

discussion. 
239

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): I maintain that 

there was no mistake made in this case. The 

dose was put into the tool. The tool 

indicated that you have to do something else 

with that dose. To be 100 percent accurate 

with it, the dose reconstructor made a clear 

and conscience decision because this ended up 

being a compensable case, not to do the 

additional work on that because there was no 

point. It would have only increased the dose 

slightly. So I don’t maintain an error was 

made. I maintain a professional judgment that 

it was going to make no difference in the 

compensability decision was made. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: Right, I go back to the earlier 

one that I was going to comment on and didn’t, 

but now that I have where it was supposed to 

be greater than, and we put in less than. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Okay, I agree 

wholeheartedly. 

 DR. WADE: A mistake was made. You know, do 

we say mistakes are going to be made, that’s 

life? Or are we learning to see that fewer 

mistakes are made? And that’s what Larry 

needs to -- 
240

 MR. SHARFI: We’re always updating our 

procedures trying to do clarifications. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: Or are you tracking the 

mistakes so that you find out are there 

recurring mistakes? Is a certain dose 

reconstructor making the same mistake? How 

many times has this mistake occurred so that 

you can correct recurring mistakes? 

 MR. SHARFI: I think that’s always our goal 

to provide a better product. 

 DR. WADE: I hope that that’s what Larry’s 

going to talk about, an active QA/QC program 

that learns from its mistakes to do better. 

 I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to get into 

that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 110.1. One-oh-nine had 

no findings, 110.1. 

MR. FARVER: Does not account for all the 

missed photon dose. This has to do with the 

exchange period that was assumed. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and there’s also, I 

believe, a question here of whether a blank is 

a read zero or a blank means not monitored. 

Isn’t that part of this as well? 

MR. FARVER: Well, let’s go to the case 
241

here. I know that’s come up before if not 

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 

MR. GRIFFON: You know, for 110 I had NIOSH 

to provide a response on -- 

MR. FARVER: That wasn’t the case in this 

one, but I know that’s come up before, blanks 

and zeros. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: One of the things that we 

have indicated we needed to provide -- well, 

the note I made -- was that there seems to be 

inconsistent treatment of exposure records 

that don’t have a value, you know, they’re 

blank. In other words is it a read badge that 

was zero or was it a not monitored cycle. 

MR. FARVER: I know that’s come up. I’m not 

sure if that’s this case or not. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I know that’s my note on 

this one. And that we owe a statement about 

in what situation or what information base do 

we use. When do we decide a blank is 

unmonitored? When do we decide a blank is a 

zero? So that’s something that we are 

expected to provide based on our earlier 

discussion. 
242

MR. GRIFFON: That’s consistent with my 

notes, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s the note I made. 

MR. GRIFFON: I had something to the effect 

of why, yeah, basically what you said. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, I’m not thinking that has 

anything to do with -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Why LOD over two? Why not 

consider coworker model or other approach to 

fill in the gaps? Yes, that’s the same kind 

of. So the net result here is NIOSH is going 

to provide us with more follow up on this. 

DR. MAURO: You have procedures for dealing 

with when it’s zero, and when it’s blank. And 

if it’s blank, what process you go through to 

determine whether that blank is something that 

needs a coworker -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: There’s probably, it’s 

probably a site profile issue. 

DR. MAURO: And you do have that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think it’s a site 

specific issue, John, right, because different 

sites print out things differently or record 

things. 

DR. MAURO: So, yeah, it exists. And then 
243

when you encounter it in a real case, it’s not 

always apparent whether or not that was just 

an oversight and wasn’t dealt with explicitly 

and consciously or, you know, because it might 

have been. In other words it might have been 

done correctly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 But one of the problems I think we run 

into very often is that we’re not always quite 

sure of the rationale behind what was done. 

And after the fact you could come back and 

say, oh, no, we had a good rationale. It just 

wasn’t written down. Or as it was pointed out 

by Lew, well, yeah, we did make a mistake; 

however, the mistake had no bearing on the 

outcome. 

 So, I mean, I think that’s where we 

are. We need to be able to parse these two 

kinds of things. And regarding to the latter, 

I guess it is important to say what controls 

are in place to corrective actions that these 

mistakes are made even though in this 

particular instance it wasn’t important. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, apparently for a certain 

time period the doses and zero were entered 

into the worksheet. But after 1966, 
244

1 apparently, it was doses or blanks. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

MR. FARVER: And the program didn’t count 

the blanks. It counted zeros. So no missed 

dose was assessed because there were no zeros 

to count. 

MR. GRIFFON: Let’s leave it at, you know, 

you’re going to provide follow up on this, 

right? It might turn out that it’s more of a 

site profile issue. I don’t know, but I think 

at this point I’d like to keep it on this 

action here. 

 110.2, is that, this is now neutron, 

missed dose for neutrons, right? But this 

might be a work location issue more than a -- 

MR. FARVER: I believe, yeah, this is -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I have SC&A-slash-NIOSH to 

further investigate. I guess this is getting 

down to the work, where the individual worked, 

work history versus -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and SC&A provided 

additional information in November in response 

to our initial response, a fairly extensive 

list of information and the reasons why they 

believe this person could very well have been 
245

1 ^. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: At least partially. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So we owe a response. 

Either say, yeah, I guess you’re right or our 

reasoning why -- 

MR. GRIFFON: So it’s back in your court? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, back in our court. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 110.3? 

MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve never provided an 

initial response on that one yet. We still 

owe an initial response on that one. 

DR. BEHLING: Stu, is this associated with a 

whole body count? 

MR. GRIFFON: 110.3, I’m not sure what that, 

it’s talking about fission products. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe 

that’s the issue of the missed fission 

products and only assuming the most, the 

radionuclide that gives the highest dose for 

missed fission but ignoring all of the other 

radionuclides that could have been considered 

missed also. And I believe, if I’m not 

mistaken, NIOSH was going to develop a 

workbook to take care of this. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, is this, now that you’ve 
246

1 developed a fission product tool to -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: There is now, OTIB-0054 covers 

fission products. We’re in the process of 

resolving whether or not this is, it’s a 

general feeling that this still overestimates 

what we’d get if we used OTIB-0054. I think 

we’re in the process of providing 

documentation to show that. This is the 

process. It’s in the TBD. It’s the same 

thing that’s done at Savannah River. You 

choose the highest. You choose the 

radionuclide for missed dose. I would give 

the most dose to the organ and assume it’s all 

packed. When you start applying these ratios 

we tend to find that really, it really starts 

bringing down your dose, not increasing your 

dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, but you’ll provide more 

of a response for this particular case. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We’ll do a response on this. 

MR. GRIFFON: 111.1, photon dose 

uncertainty. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think I know what, I think 

this is that the dose was entered as a 

constant. 
247

MR. GRIFFON: I have SC&A agrees with your 

response. So I think we’re okay with that one 

unless SC&A has rethought their position? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: No, that’s fine. 

MR. GRIFFON: 111.2, and I have NIOSH agrees 

approach has been modified. 

 MR. SHARFI: That’s the use of colon. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That was the colon, not the 

internal dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, this is an old one. 

 MR. SHARFI: Colon, OTIB-0002. 

MR. GRIFFON: This is OTIB-0002? 

 MR. SHARFI: It’s using the colon for the 

OTIB-0002 even though the organ of interest 

isn’t the colon. But the colon gives the 

largest dose not using the organ specific. 

This is back when the tools were just fitted 

for what I call a dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: Approach has been modified and 

it’s fair to say this claim was assessed 

prior. It’s fair to say this is 

overestimating, right? 

MS. MUNN: Closed? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. Approach has been 

modified, no further action. 
248

1 112.1, OTIB-0018. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, is this the same as we 

ran into earlier where they used OTIB-0018 in 

a case where because we had told them get it 

done. 

 MR. SHARFI: This is a comp case with OTIB0018. 

MR. GRIFFON: So this was, does anyone 

remember the first case we had on that? Was 

it number -- I just want to reference back so 

I can copy the finding. 103.1, right? 103.1? 

MR. FARVER: 103.1. 

MR. GRIFFON: Is the next one, the next 

one’s the same, right? See 103.2 or whatever? 

I think that’s the same, right? 

 113.1? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It looks like an OTIB-0008, 

right? 113.1 and 113.2 are OTIB-0008 that 

show that procedure’s been revised? 

MR. GRIFFON: 113.1, oh, yeah, revised OTIB0008, right. I have NIOSH agrees. OTIB-0008 

has been revised. And is there, has OTIB-0008 

been reviewed by SC&A or is that -- 

DR. BEHLING: I looked at it informally. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We looked at 
249

it, but we haven’t been asked to look formally 

at OTIB-0008 and OTIB-0010. We talked about 

this earlier. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: So procedures review might 

consider that. I thought you said you thought 

you did consider it. 

MS. MUNN: We’ve gone through eight, ten. 

MR. GRIFFON: You haven’t gone through eight 

and ten. She said they haven’t been tasked 

with that. 

MS. MUNN: No, I know they haven’t been 

tasked with it, but we have discussed it in 

the contents of other related OTIBs. No, they 

haven’t been tasked with it. 

DR. BEHLING: But I have looked at it, and 

at this point I think the problem has been 

resolved. And there would be very little to 

do in light of that other than, unless you 

wanted to make it a PER something where you go 

back and assess subsequent cases that you 

would determine whether or not the new version 

has been basically properly interpreted. 

There’s no other real way to do this. I 

looked at it, and I’m satisfied with it. 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, I mean I’m just 
250

looking for formality as opposed to 

informality. I’m not trying to, I’m not 

accusing anybody of not looking at it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: No, the formality would 

probably require somebody like myself to look 

at it and say how did the old 

misinterpretation, how did that happen. And 

then would it be likely that the revised 

version would again be misinterpreted in the 

same fashion. And I think on an informal 

basis I did that. And it would be a 

subjective assessment on my part to do so, to 

say it’s okay, and I think it is okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I mean, I’ll dial back 

to this morning when we were talking about 

conclusions from matrix four and five, and we 

said in one of the conclusions that TIB-0008 

and -0010 resulted in several of the findings 

and were revised but not reviewed so now it’s 

kind of hanging out there. Now you’re saying 

I looked at it. 

DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I looked -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I don’t want to give a mission 

to -- 

DR. MAURO: We’ve never been mandated to go 
251

back. I think we have to be formal and say, 

you may say just take a look -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, to say it to the 

Procedures group that it’s done. Because I 

mean that’s one of our concerns in all this is 

that if we refer it here to the Procedures 

review group, then it’s, we just want to make 

sure it’s closed out officially or whatever. 

DR. BEHLING: But this process would 

probably require to validate that subjective 

interpretation would mean going backwards in 

time and saying, okay, when was this revised 

TIB-0008 and -0010 issued, and then how many 

maximized doses thereafter were done using 

this one and did anyone, in fact, make a 

similar mistake as they did the first go 

round. That’s the only way I would validate -

- 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t know if it would 

involve that. I mean, it may just be you 

coming forward with best judgment is this, and 

then having a discussion in the Procedures 

work group. 

DR. MAURO: Process wise what I’m hearing 

is, I mean it’s interesting, the linkages. A 
252

case is reviewed. It goes back to, well, 

there was a problem with one of the 

procedures. You go to the Procedures group, 

and let’s say it makes it in as an issue that 

needs to be looked at. We’re authorized to 

look at it. We come back and, yeah, it looks 

like it’s fixed. But now your next step is, 

okay, the procedure is fixed and now it reads 

clearly, unambiguously. If, in fact, this 

procedure is followed everything will be fine. 

But what I hear you saying, but wait a minute, 

you’re not done yet. That means that there 

are a bunch of cases now that may have been 

done incorrectly will now have to be redone. 

But that becomes a PER. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BEHLING: No, no, no. 

DR. MAURO: Now that’s what I heard you say. 

DR. BEHLING: That’s not what I’m saying, 

John. The way to validate my subjective 

statement that says I read the first TIB-0008 

and -0010, and I fully understood why it was 

consistently misinterpreted. There was no 

question in my mind, but when I looked back, I 

said, god, these things are, here we go again 

one after the other. And when I looked at the 
253

writing and the guidance, it was obvious to me 

why people couldn’t understand what they were 

supposed to do. So now it was a question of 

ambiguity that was now apparently addressed in 

the rewrite of TIB-0008 and -0010. But the 

question may still come up and say, well, 

maybe there’s still a fraction of people out 

there who, in spite of that rewrite, will 

still misinterpret the intent of this guidance 

document. And the only way you could 

validate, I mean, I could think for myself, 

now, if I was a dose reconstructor and for the 

first time I saw this would I misinterpret it? 

Well, again, that’s a subjective statement I 

can’t support unless I go back to dose 

reconstructions that were done post-dated 

after the revision to determine whether or not 

they, in fact, had done -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think you might have 

just addressed it, Hans, by saying I would 

accept that if the Procedures work group came 

back and said SC&A reviewed it, and we believe 

that the way it was reworded; however, we 

recommend to the Board that you might want to 

select some cases -- 
254

DR. BEHLING: Yeah, a maximized case that 

post-dates -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: -- beyond this point that used 

TIB-0008 and -0010 to verify this. 

MR. SIEBERT (by Telephone): Correct me if 

I’m wrong, but the interpretation that was 

being done incorrectly would have 

overestimated further, correct? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Scott, we had that 

discussion awhile ago, and we can’t decide. 

DR. BEHLING: I think it didn’t because -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Let’s not get into it. 

MR. GRIFFON: But my only concern here was 

not to lose things. So I think so far I 

thought what was happening this morning was 

that it was kind of being turned over to the 

Procedures work group. And that doesn’t mean 

like turning it over there may mean a 

discussion in the Procedures work group and 

SC&A may come forward with the same, you know, 

we’ve looked at this, and, yes, this is where 

we stand, you know? I don’t know that it 

means another 200-hour task to look at that. 

But I think we’ve had some before that 

deferred it to the Procedures work group. So 
255

I don’t want to just like dismiss it here and 

lose it. Does that make any sense? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (no response) 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m just going to leave it 

that way for now is that it’s been referred to 

your group, and you can handle it. 

DR. MAURO: Well, where do you want to bring 

it after that. I mean, that’s up to the 

Procedures group, how far you want to go with 

that. 

MS. MUNN: And what do you want -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Because what Kathy was telling 

me in conversations leading up to the letter 

was that, no, we haven’t reviewed this. And I 

think what she was saying is that we haven’t 

been officially tasked to. And now I think I 

want at least an official SC&A response. I 

think that’s just out, maybe it’s just a 

formality, but I think we need to do that, and 

that should happen in the Procedures work 

group I think. 

MS. MUNN: So you’re going to make this 

happen by putting that statement in your 

program action. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, by just referring it to 
256

the Procedures work group, yeah. Does that 

make sense? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: It doesn’t mean the Procedures 

work group is going act upon it. If you’re 

referring it to them, now it’s within their 

judgment as to whether or not that warrants a 

look, given the other things on their plate. 

MR. GRIFFON: That was a tough one. 

MS. MUNN: I already have notes to check 

from what we were discussing earlier, TIB-0008 

and TIB-0010 revisions, to make sure that the 

concerns that we talked about were addressed 

in the new procedure. Do you want more than 

that? 

MR. GRIFFON: No, I think that’s it. That’s 

it. And if we discussed it, you know, we 

could have the same discussion basically, and 

I think if it was the opinion of the 

Procedures work group then it’s, you know, 

then we’re done with it. 

DR. MAURO: I’ve got a question of Kathy. 

 Kathy, are you on the line? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m still here. 

DR. MAURO: The conversation we’re having 
257

right now has to do with linkages between the 

Dose Reconstruction work group and the 

Procedures work group. I know that right now 

you’re in the process of putting together a 

matrix, the ACCESS matrix, and loading it for 

the Dose Reconstruction. And one of the 

conversations we had is that there would be a 

link. I guess my question is that are we 

moving in a direction where the kind of 

interaction we just heard would be picked up 

in this new matrix that would be at play in 

some time in the future for the Dose 

Reconstruction work group? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, most 

definitely. That is a key component that I 

have Don working on to ensure that all of 

these databases are linked and, in fact, we 

talked to the Procedures work group that 

anything that’s going to end up coming to the 

Procedures work group from a different venue 

will be marked as, in the status initially as 

imported, and imported from the Task Four Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, so, yes. 

 And not to belabor this TIB-0008 and 

TIB-0010 issue, but it is a formality issue, 
258

and that’s the only thing I was addressing. 

What we had discussed in the past is if there 

was a procedure change made based on a finding 

from SC&A and the only thing that was changed 

in that procedure is to address our finding, 

then we didn’t have to go through a formal 

review process again. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We would simply, the Board would have 

SC&A look at that again and say do you feel 

that this does address this particular issue. 

But if NIOSH published a procedure stating 

this is a complete rewrite of eight and ten, 

then the formality that we had discussed on 

new procedures was that NIOSH, or that the 

Board would assign that procedure back to us. 

 But Hans is correct, both Hans and I 

looked at both of these procedures, and we 

feel that the ambiguity that was built into 

this that caused the problem has been 

corrected. But it’s just that those two 

procedures were issued as complete rewrites, 

and that’s just the formal approach that we 

had discussed using in Task Three. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I think we should be 

consistent for complete rewrites and go 
259

through to the procedures review. It doesn’t 

have to be an extended thing I don’t think, 

but just 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 

DR. MAURO: We’re in a transition period 

that’s very important then. The matrix that 

we’re working from right now, and let’s say 

once it’s completed, it’s going to be an 

important document because it’s going to 

represent the transition from the current 

matrix with all of the information we’re 

talking about. I’m assuming that it’s this 

one that’s going to be the document from which 

we will move into the new matrix. So this 

one’s going to be expressly important to 

capture all this stuff. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, which I’m hesitating 

to, I hope we don’t make it more complicated 

than it is now. I hope the database 

streamlines it, but so far I’m not sure of 

that. 

 Okay, 113.2 is the same. Point three 

I put NIOSH agrees but the procedure’s been 

modified and no effect on this case or is that 

appropriate for that one? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if I’m not mistaken, 
260

this was a medical dose like of the skin or 

something for internal -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: Looks like some testing for the 

prostate which now we’d use the bladder. So 

it would only end up reducing the dose if we 

chose the correct organ. But back then we 

used the testes. I think OTIB-0005 has been 

updated to remove the testes and use the 

bladder now. 

MR. GRIFFON: Just catching up. 113.4? I 

have overestimate and non-compensable claim. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the way I read our 

initial response this was, in fact, a mistake. 

The wrong suite of, this is what, TIB-0002? 

The wrong suite of TIB-0002 radionuclides was 

used for the site. It used reactor nonuranium which it should have been uranium nonreactor. 

MR. FARVER: In the dose calculation 

workbook you can select boxes, whether it’s 

reactor non-uranium or non-reactor uranium, 

and it looks like the incorrect box was 

checked which calls up the improper 

radionuclides. 

MR. HINNEFELD: But the error resulted in a 
261

higher dose than the correct selection would 

have made. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: And I guess the concern here is 

what if it didn’t. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I agree. It’s kind of what 

Lew was talking about awhile ago. 

MS. MUNN: So what can we say about that? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, just NIOSH agrees. No 

effect on this case since it was an 

overestimating. 

MR. FARVER: But is there some way that you 

would check that in, if it happened today, if 

someone used that workbook, is there something 

in your QA process that would say, oh, they 

checked the right facility? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can’t explain how 

this got here because it should have been 

caught. I think it’s hard to address those 

kinds of things in a DR review, individual DR 

review. I think they’re better addressed 

outside the individual DR review in the kind 

of thing that’s going to be talked about and 

maybe follow-on discussions for that as well. 

 DR. WADE: That’s right. All of this goes 

to Larry’s presentation which should, when you 
262

write the letters, for example, one of the 

things that comes through the letter is that 

there are lots of little mistakes and that 

needs to be addressed in sort of a holistic 

way. And that’s what Larry’s been tasked to 

do, but you guys will listen carefully to what 

he says. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Of course. 

 All right, 114.1. 

MR. FARVER: Uncertainty was omitted for a 

year. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH agrees but the 

approach used ended up in an overestimated 

dose, right? Is that right? 

MS. MUNN: It looks like one offset the 

other. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean, I put higher 

dose would have been assigned than the current 

OTIB-0017, right? I think that’s, but still 

the mistake was made. I think you’re 

acknowledging that the mistake was made. 

MS. MUNN: There’s no further action we can 

take. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 NIOSH failed to account for all missed 
263

1 photon dose, 114.2? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: We haven’t received a response. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there’s no initial 

response. 

MR. HINNEFELD: No initial response. 

MR. FARVER: But basically this comes down 

to counting zeros for missed dose. I think we 

come up with 19, and they came up with nine, 

so it’s counting zeros. 

MR. GRIFFON: But there’s a blank there so 

NIOSH will respond on that one. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we owe an initial 

response on that one. 

MR. GRIFFON: 114.3. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well this I believe SC&A 

provided a fairly extensive amount of written 

material on this in November, and so we have 

not provided any kind of response. 

MR. FARVER: Part of the concern is, number 

one, NIOSH has in the original Report 33, 

talking about neutron doses at Y-12. And one 

of the statements in there basically says that 

we need to receive a neutron dose report 1962. 

It’s unlikely they received any neutron 

exposure. And I believe that was primarily 
264

the basis for this why they did not assign 

neutron exposure. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 What has come out, and it’s in our 

response, is depending on which document you 

look at you get several locations where a 

person could be exposed to neutrons. The site 

profile I think was three, and then there were 

other documents even like Report 33 that lists 

six facilities. 

 So it would be nice to have a 

combined, everything in one spot. Maybe have 

an update to the site profile where all the 

information about neutron exposure is 

contained in general. Now for this specific 

case it appeared to hinge on the Report 33 

statement about prior to 1962, then they were 

correct in not assigning dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: I put you’re going to follow 

up on this, NIOSH is going to follow up on 

this, but also that this has come up before, 

the site profile question. And I think we 

already deferred it to the site profile 

review, which I think I chair that work group 

which hasn’t met in probably two years. 

 But we have some outstanding site 
265

profile issues on that so that question of the 

locations and where neutron exposures could be 

at Y-12 came up on other findings. I know we 

deferred it to site profile. But for the case 

specific I think NIOSH is still going to give 

us a further response so we’ll leave it at 

that for 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 

 114.4. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe I had 

provided some additional information in the 

November report that I wrote on this one. And 

I think the bottom line was that SC&A 

concurred with NIOSH’s response. 

MR. FARVER: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we closed it. 

 114.5. 

MR. FARVER: NIOSH did not properly address 

all CATI information concerning medical x-rays 

and rad incidents. They did address the rad 

x-rays. The incidents is a different story. 

They replied that there were a number of 

bioassay results throughout the employment and 

uranium’s long lived and would be detected in 

the bioassay. They also go on about the 

external dose for incidents will be supplied 
266

1 later. We haven’t received that. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I had SC&A to review internal. 

NIOSH to submit external. 

MR. FARVER: Right, I have some concerns 

about their internal because they didn’t use 

the person’s bioassay data even though they 

state that there were many bioassay results 

they didn’t use that data. They used coworker 

data, and that’s part of also of the response 

that Kathy e-mailed. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we have a fairly long 

set of information from November that requires 

response in addition to the external. 

MR. FARVER: The gist of it is there was a 

lot of bioassay data that wasn’t used. 

Coworker data was used instead. Now, is that 

representative of that person’s data? Is that 

a proper thing to do? And I guess our 

position was, well, it conflicts with the 

purpose of the coworker data, it’s a misuse, 

and also it’s not appropriate because the 

worker’s data was not, we do not believe was 

consistent with the coworker data. 

DR. MAURO: When you’re in a situation like 

this where you have real data, some real data, 
267

and you have a coworker model, if I recall, 

one of your procedures had you do both and the 

one that’s limiting is the one you use. Or do 

you not do 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe our preference is 

to use the individual’s record. 

DR. BEHLING: It’s part of the regulations, 

the higher -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s the higher queued data. 

It’s the most relevant -- 

DR. BEHLING: -- you’re almost forced into 

using the real data if it’s available. 

MR. HINNEFELD: There may be sites where you 

have a fairly limited amount of bioassay data. 

You build a model based on that where you 

essentially, for instance, if you build a dose 

model based on a, for a one-size-fits-all dose 

model for a site, and the claimant happens to 

be one of the people you have bioassay data 

for, and if you use his bioassay data and you 

end up lower than the one-size-fits-all, just 

for that case we may very well do the onesize-fits-all anyway. 

 I think we would do that in some of 

those cases because there’s always this 
268

question about do you have this person’s 

entire bioassay records. So but normally from 

a DOE site, where you get a bioassay record 

from a DOE site and the site has a history of 

providing what seems to be a reliable record, 

then what we expect is to use the individual’s 

record. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we’re at, I don’t know 

if anyone’s -- go ahead, Wanda. 

MS. MUNN: Well, I was -- So where are we 

exactly with this? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, we owe additional 

information. 

MS. MUNN: More data. 

MR. GRIFFON: Follow up from NIOSH. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Follow up from the November 

write up as well as the original thing we 

promised about the external. 

MR. GRIFFON: External, right. 

 I’m on 115.1. I’m looking at the 

clock. Do people have flights tonight? I 

know I’m staying tonight for a change. 

 DR. WADE: And Stu’s here for tonight. 

MR. GRIFFON: I think we can get through, 

I’d still like to get through in a half hour 
269

or so if we can, at least our initial cut 

through, so it looks like we might be able to 

do that. So instead of taking a break, if 

that’s okay, I’ll just -- is that okay with 

everybody? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (no response) 

MR. GRIFFON: The air is coming back on so 

we should be refreshed. All right, 115.1. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This looks like a NIOSH 

agrees but the effect doesn’t change the 

outcome of the case. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, but this is another 

error made question, you know, the QC 

question, right? 

 116.1. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Sixteen-one and 16.2 are 

OTIB-0008s. 

MR. GRIFFON: OTIB-0008s, so we just had our 

discussion on that. 

MS. MUNN: I think it’s part of -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let’s not do that one 

again. 

 116.3. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This looks like OTIB-0002 

colon, is that what this is? 
270

1 DR. MAURO: It’s medical. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: No, is it medical? This is 

probably just like selecting a scanner or 

something for a case where it didn’t really, 

shouldn’t have been scanned. It’ll take me a 

minute. I can find it. 

 MR. SHARFI: What number is it? 

MR. HINNEFELD: 116, 116.3. 

MR. GRIFFON: And it’s no effect on the 

case, is that -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it’s overestimates and 

there’s no need to -- 

MR. GRIFFON: The procedure’s been revised, 

right? The procedure’s been revised, correct? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’ve instructed -- 

this is that issue. We’ve instructed ORAU 

that, listen, it’s okay to overestimate if 

there’s a clear efficiency, but don’t just go 

be choosing the highest organ -- 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s not really the procedure. 

It’s a policy that’s been revised, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: 116.4. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is the internal. 

This uses the colon and OTIB-0002. 
271

MR. GRIFFON: And that would have resulted 

in a higher dose, right? You selected the 

most conservative, 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: The colon is the highest so 

had we chosen the actual target organ it would 

have reduced it. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, next -- I’m trying to 

type as fast as I can. 117.1, TIB-0033. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This looks like similar to 

TIB-0018 for compensable. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, basically I have that you 

received a letter to process some as quickly 

as possible, so you did so, something to that 

effect. 

MR. GRIFFON: So this is a, this approach 

being used for a compensable claim? Is that 

the issue? Or what’s the -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: And it’s TIB-0033 is 

apparently not included in the references. It 

is a compensated case. 

MR. GRIFFON: Wait a second. So the 

justification here is that the dose 

reconstruction was completed in May of 2005, 

and the TIB was published in April. Wouldn’t 

that be, it should have been referenced, 
272

1 shouldn’t it? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, I have in our response 

that OCAS issued a letter to O-R-A-U-T to 

complete dose reconstructions that were 

referred to NIOSH by DOL for dose 

reconstruction two years or more from the date 

of letter. The letter specified O-R-A-U would 

use all currently available information and 

techniques making science-based dose estimates 

and where necessary and appropriate use of 

claimant favorable assumptions to fill in the 

gaps. So there’s a letter issued basically 

saying get these moving and use your best 

judgment. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I mean this was a 

procedures mistake though. They should have 

used TIB-0033, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: They went and referenced 

fractions that weren’t consistent with TIB0033 even though it was published. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sounds like they used 

fractions that weren’t consistent with TIB0033. 
273

 MR. SHARFI: Given a person’s job title 

you’d have ended up using OTIB-0018. So 

there’s no grading of this person. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: But what did we assign 

though? 

 MR. SHARFI: He fits in the high category 

though, so you can’t, he’s someone who should 

have been monitored. So if he falls into that 

high category, there’s no reduction of dose. 

Based on OTIB-0033 it’s going to tell you to 

use the form in TIB-0018. So there’s no 

grading of this particular claim. Even though 

it compensated the person, which was used 

because of that direction -- 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s different than this 

tortured response here. I mean this sort of 

looks like explaining why, even though it was 

published, we didn’t reference it, and you 

know, it doesn’t say what you said. 

 MR. SHARFI: If there’s no grading, then 

there’s no use of, there’s no reason to 

reference a document that’s really not being 

implemented. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this I guess it looks 

like it was only applied for 25 percent of the 
274

employment period so there was essentially a 

truncation of it to avoid this unusually, 

startlingly high dose but still was 

compensable at a time when the instruction was 

get these cases done by making these 

assumptions. If it’s compensable, so be it. 

So it’s essentially the same issue that we 

addressed earlier, that they truncated this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, 63 percent in this case. 

MR. HINNEFELD: This was 25 percent. So it 

didn’t actually utilize the fractions from 

TIB-0033 which are 50 percent and ten percent, 

but he just stopped it. So he used the full 

TIB-0018 dose rate but only for a portion of 

the employment period which was -- 

MR. GRIFFON: And that’s a savings that’s 

efficient? I mean and that saves work? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what it did at the 

time was allow this case to move forward. 

There was no way to do this case with the 

technical documents at hand. If TIB-0018 had 

been restricted to non-compensable cases, 

there was no way to do this case. 

MR. GRIFFON: That was the 25 percent 

employment thing. 
275

1 MR. HINNEFELD: That was enough to -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: It was just enough to get-- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- get him compensated so 

the dose reconstructor stopped it -- 

 MR. SHARFI: -- that’s where he stopped. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- like earlier but -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess it’s the same version 

I had before. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- didn’t give 63 percent. 

MR. GRIFFON: That saved work how? How does 

that -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: It didn’t save work so much. 

It allowed the case to be done in response to 

the letter. 

MR. GRIFFON: And it made the dose look 

more, not out of bounds high. 

 MR. SHARFI: We just gave it enough just to 

get over the 50-something percent and that’s 

when we called it done. But I mean, in this 

case even OTIB-0033 says for people with 

routine exposure potential you use OTIB-0018. 

You could, I guess, reference OTIB-0033 to 

argue why you default to TIB-0018, but really 

-- 

DR. MAURO: It does do that? 
276

1 MR. SHARFI: Yeah. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: I mean there are circumstances 

when 18 could go as a realistic case for the 

purpose of compensation. 

 MR. SHARFI: Back then for this two month 

period where we took that, trying to 

deposition all these old cases -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess I’m not necessarily 

arguing with what you’re saying, Mutty, but 

this response here in the matrix is different 

than what you’re saying. And I think maybe it 

would be better to replace what you said into 

this because this seems like a very convoluted 

explanation of why it wasn’t referenced. To 

me anyway you said it succinctly, and if 

that’s the case, I think you should say that 

in your response. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I made a note that 

we’ll provide a revised initial response. 

MR. GRIFFON: Modify your response? All 

right, I think that would be much clearer. 

 Is that agreeable, John, SC&A? 

DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: 118.1. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We haven’t provided initial 
277

1 responses on any of the 118s. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we’re still missing 

those responses. I didn’t know if you put 

something in your matrix that I didn’t have. 

So it’s all through 118.7 we’re still holding 

up on those. 

 119.1, this is a Mound case. I have 

agreement, no effect on case is the note I 

have. It’s a compensable underestimate, I 

believe. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A agrees with NIOSH’s 

response? I’ll give them a second to look 

this over. I mean, if you want time to, you 

don’t have to respond on the fly either. I 

mean, NIOSH is re-evaluating several, if you 

want to look at this closer or whatever. 

MR. FARVER: Well, I’ll agree with -- we’ve 

looked at this. I know we have. 

MR. GRIFFON: I had agreement before in my 

notes. 

MR. FARVER: And I know we’ve discussed 

this. 

MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, do you have any 

recollection on this one? 
278

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): It’s getting 

late in the day here, and I don’t recall this 

one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I have my note -- why 

don’t I just put a hold on it because we do 

this at the end of our meetings sometimes. We 

rush through things, and we regret it. So 

let’s just say SC&A will take a re-look at 

this. We think we have agreement but come 

back to us at the next meeting. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: 119.2. 

MR. FARVER: Looks like a typographical 

error. And this is where instead of 1.8 rem, 

it’s 183 millirem that gets entered. It’s a 

lower dose. 

MR. GRIFFON: So this is again a QA 

question. It didn’t affect this particular 

case, right? 

MR. FARVER: Because this would have been 

compensable. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it’s compensable, yeah. 

 And 119.3. Almost there. 

 MR. SHARFI: It refers you back to 19.1. 

MR. HINNEFELD: What our response says is 
279

that the origin of the comment for neutrons is 

the same as the origin for comment for photons 

that our discussion addresses. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FARVER: And what that has to do is just 

placing a person in a building for a certain 

time period. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and how does that 

influence the -- 

MR. FARVER: I think the original DR said 

something to the effect of if you can’t really 

place them in any place so we’re going to 

assume such-and-such a building. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m going to let you reevaluate that with point one, right? 

DR. MAURO: As part of point one. 

MR. FARVER: But that’s the gist of it, a 

person’s location. 

MR. GRIFFON: 120.1, the last case. Is that 

right? We didn’t do 121, did we? No, but 

this has six findings on it. So 120.1 is a 

best estimate Mound case. The first one I 

have NIOSH agrees, will review boilerplate 

language. 

MR. FARVER: Oh, this has to do with the DCF 

effective; it has to do with their wording. 
280

They say they use an effective DCF, and they 

didn’t. And you go back and look at the 

original finding, and this covers 120.1 or 

120.2. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe this 

is a table that’s included in the NIOSH dose 

reconstruction report in which they, as Doug 

has indicated, they identify an effective DCF 

value, but that’s not the actual value that 

they used, correct? 

MR. FARVER: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, for 120.1 I have NIOSH 

agrees and will review the boilerplate 

language, which I guess would be that 

language. 

 MR. SHARFI: We report mode DCF but this 

claim was crystal ball so it uses the 

compilation of the distribution not just the 

mode. But for reporting per sectum (sic) you 

can’t report everything so we’ll report the 

mode DCF even though it’s applied as a 

distribution. 

MR. FARVER: It’s a wording. 

MR. GRIFFON: It’s a wording thing, yeah. 

So I think we have agreement, and it’s just a 
281

1 modification in the -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: We’ll revisit the wording. 

I think most times nowadays the dose 

reconstruction is a little easier to 

understand. And some of those tables with 

effective DCFs. I remember seeing them, but I 

don’t think we use them that much any more. 

MR. GRIFFON: And it’s the language in the 

DR report part. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: 120.2 I don’t think is a 

language question. It’s the other, is it? I 

think that’s a different... 

MR. FARVER: No, it’s the same thing. 

120.2, is that the one we’re after? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. FARVER: It falls under the same 

description, the same justification. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I have NIOSH assumes all 

dose in one badge and applies it. And I also 

have review adequacy of annual data in site 

profile review. Dosimeter uncertainty applied 

to annual summation, right? Is that what’s 

being discussed here? 

MR. HINNEFELD: There’s a hint of that in 
282

the response, but I’m really having trouble 

sitting here getting my head around this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: I know. I’d like a little 

clearer explanation on this one. Maybe we can 

revisit this one. 

MR. FARVER: We can revisit that. It won’t 

take -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I don’t know. Do you 

have to, you might have it all here, Stu, but 

maybe we just can’t discuss it at 4:45. I’ve 

got to look back at the, you know. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Our response seems, shall I 

say, turgid. I think it could be explained a 

little better. 

MR. FARVER: My guess is it has to do with 

the crystal ball where you calculate -- 

MR. GRIFFON: I think that’s right. I have 

these little notes, but I can’t make heads or, 

you know. 

 MR. SHARFI: I’m not sure totally how much 

clearer you can make this without 

understanding how you crystal ball and 

propagate errors to Monte Carlo because that’s 

really what this is discussing. 

MR. GRIFFON: Fine, it just might 
283

necessitate us going back to the case and 

looking and being comfortable with 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 

 MR. SHARFI: Are you looking for us to 

provide additional response or -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’ll let you know what I’m 

looking for. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t necessarily -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: When I read it, and I’m 

struggling with the response, what it means, 

I’ll let you know. 

MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH is going to just, 

I’ll put reviewing, you know, just to review, 

not to provide further response but NIOSH is 

reviewing. 

MS. MUNN: Tell us what this one means. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, 120.3. 

MR. FARVER: That’s going to be the -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, this is a review of 

language -- 

MR. FARVER: -- forerunner to the photons. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- this is the 120.1 same 

response I have. NIOSH will review the 

language in the DR report. And the other 

one’s going to be the same as 120.2, right? 

Yeah. 
284

1 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: These go fast this way, which 

is NIOSH is just going to review 120.2 and 

four together. They kind of go together. 

 MR. SHARFI: One’s photon and one’s neutron. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 120.5, inappropriate 

internal dose models. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I have a note 

on 120.5 that NIOSH will provide IMBA runs. 

Does that make sense? 

MR. FARVER: I believe they already did. We 

reviewed them. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay. 

MR. FARVER: I believe we did. 

 Do you know if we did or not, Stu? 

MR. GRIFFON: I haven’t seen a note, Kathy. 

MS. MUNN: So the upshot of that is? 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, to make sure we have the 

IMBA runs. I don’t know that you’ve ever got 

them. 

MR. FARVER: I think the gist of the finding 

was that the dose reconstructor normalized the 

data when he shouldn’t have, the bioassay 

data. In other words if it’s already 24 hours 

samples, you don’t need to convert it to 
285

activity per day because it’s already in 

activity per day. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, have we seen that? Have 

the IMBA runs been -- first things first, the 

IMBA runs were supposed to be provided. Are 

we sure that they’ve been provided? 

MR. FARVER: No. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I am not sure. 

MR. GRIFFON: So maybe we can just check on 

this a little further. And then at the bottom 

of the case I think you indicate basically 

that it would have resulted in a higher dose 

but not affect compensability, right, is sort 

of the bottom line? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SHARFI: Yeah, reading the paragraph 

above it, I think that’s what they’re saying. 

MR. GRIFFON: Why don’t we just say NIOSH is 

going to provide IMBA run, and we’ll go from 

there. 

 The last one I have NIOSH agrees but 

no further action required. So is this a 

question that the incidents were brought up in 

the CATI? Is this a question of and they were 

not put in the DR report? Is this one of 
286

1 those? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s the way it reads, but 

let me see. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it kind of reads like 

that, but I’m not sure. 

MR. FARVER: That’s part of it. One is they 

assumed a certain intake date for, let’s see -

- 

MS. MUNN: It wasn’t polonium; it was 

plutonium. 

MR. FARVER: It was for plutonium, right. I 

just want to make sure I’ve got the plutonium 

right. But they assumed it was for one, but 

the incident for the nuclide actually happened 

for a different, on a different day. 

 There was just an abundance of records 

that just didn’t seem to be -- not a good 

indication that they were reviewed. In other 

words it was a DOE-type D investigation and 

150 pages of documentation about everything 

that happened in this incident, and yet it was 

just kind of fell by the wayside. 

MR. GRIFFON: This was a best estimate case. 

I have a note that it was a best estimate. 

Was it non-compensable? I don’t know. 
287

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. SHARFI: I believe so. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, did you consider the 

polonium/plutonium incident and whether the 

dose assigned was bounding of those? I guess 

I don’t remember this case so I don’t know. 

MR. HINNEFELD: In the earlier response it 

talked about, or in one of our initial 

responses it looks like we’ve done, we’ve run 

the IMBA models based on the correction of the 

incident intakes, and it does increase the 

dose but doesn’t change the outcome. 

MR. FARVER: Yeah, that’s all part of that 

one finding, 120.5. Not only did they 

normalize data when they shouldn’t have, they 

used the wrong dates. It’s a few things. 

MR. GRIFFON: Let’s, I mean, 120.5, we’re 

going to get the IMBA runs. In 120.6 what I 

had is NIOSH agrees, but I guess I don’t know 

if we should yet say that it doesn’t affect 

the outcome of the case. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, this is a 

best estimate case, and the POC was over 48 

percent. It was 48.2 percent. 

MR. FARVER: I think I’ll probably just 
288

1 refer it back to finding 120.5. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I agree, yeah. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And then this is sort of -- 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s the best way to do. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- plus the dose 

reconstruction. You said there was two fairly 

lengthy incident reports, one very lengthy and 

one fairly lengthy incident reports in the 

file. And the dose reconstruction makes no 

mention of those incident exposures. 

MR. GRIFFON: And it is a 48. I don’t know 

if any portions of it were overestimating. 

MR. HINNEFELD: According to one of our 

initial responses there are some things. It 

look like there was a max zeros done on missed 

doses and -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Some built-in overestimates. 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- some stuff built in there 

that would -- 

MR. GRIFFON: But if it’s a 48 I think we’d 

better not just -- let’s take a closer look 

and make sure. 

 I think that’s it. We got through it 

and ten minutes to spare. Any further 

comments, questions? 
289

 DR. WADE: You’re all to be commended. It 

was a long but productive day. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: You’re going to reissue -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes, I’ll reissue. I think I 

got most of, I probably want to fine tune, you 

know, make my resolutions consistent. When it 

just says TIB-0008, sometimes I just jot it 

down TIB-0008, you know. So I’ll cut and 

paste across the board and reissue this. And 

it shouldn’t take long because I was modifying 

real-time here. 

 And I don’t know, Kathy, can you tell 

us where TIB-0007 is? I think you submitted a 

matrix, right? Or no? I mean, not TIB-0007, 

the seventh set of cases. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I have 

submitted them, yes. Yeah, I have submitted a 

matrix I believe to you. I’m not sure if it’s 

been distributed to NIOSH yet on set seven. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I’ll make sure I get 

that in the process. If I haven’t got it to 

NIOSH, I’ll start moving that along. 

MR. HINNEFELD: You’re talking about the 

seventh set? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
290

MR. HINNEFELD: We got the seventh set. 

We’re working on the seventh set. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GRIFFON: You have the seventh set? 

Okay, so NIOSH is working on the seventh set. 

MR. HINNEFELD: In fact, we should be able 

to have an initial responses back before too 

long. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we’re moving along well. 

 And the other thing is, are you 

setting up interviews for the eighth set? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We’re still 

working on completing the eighth set. I’m 

very close. Yes, the interviews will be 

scheduled in a few weeks. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, sounds good. 

 All right, I think we’ve gotten 

through it, all our business today. 

 DR. WADE: We will adjourn. Thank you all 

on the telephone. 

MR. GRIFFON: Thanks a lot everyone. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you all in the room. 

 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 

4:50 p.m.) 
291

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 March 25, 

2008; 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 

18th day of April, 2009. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102