NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MARCH 22, 2010

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:30 a.m., Mark Griffon, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU*

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A*

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

STUART HINNEFELD, DCAS

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

MUTTY SHARFI, DCAS*

SCOTT SIEBERT, DCAS*

BRANT ULSH, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Discussion on the first

100 case report .................... 10

Discussion on the sixth set of cases..... 48

Discussion on the seventh set of cases.... 75

Discussion on eighth matrix.............. 228
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 (9:32 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everybody 

4 in the room and on the line. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

6 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee. This is Ted 

7 Katz. I'm the Designated Federal Official, 

8 and we're about to get started. We'll begin, 

9 as always, with roll call, with board members 

10 in the room. Mark? 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Mark

12 Griffon, Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Work 

13 Group, or Subcommittee.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, 

15 Subcommittee Member. 

16 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

17 Subcommittee Member. 

18 MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

19 Board members on the line? Okay, no Dr. 

20 Poston? No Bob Presley? No Brad Clawson? 

21 Okay, then the NIOSH ORAU team in the room? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Interim Director of Division of Compensation 

2 Analysis Support.

3 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh. 

4 MR. KATZ: And on the line, NIOSH 

5 ORAU Team? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU.

7 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then SC&A in 

9 the room?

10 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

11 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A.

12 MR. KATZ: And on the line for 

13 SC&A?

14 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A.

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome. 

16 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A.

17 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Hans. Okay, 

18 and then HHS or other federal officials or 

19 contractors to the feds in the room?

20 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

21 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

22 MR. KATZ: And on the line, HHS or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 other federal officials or contractors to the 

2 feds? Thanks. And then any members of the 

3 public on the line? Okay, quiet morning. 

4 Mark, all yours.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. This is a 

6 -- probably we don't have a big crowd because 

7 we handle the details here of the down and 

8 dirty review details, important nonetheless. 

9 I think a simple agenda to start the day, for 

10 those on the phone, we're just going to do --

11 look at our follow-up report for the first 100 

12 cases again.

13 Just to remind you, we were asked 

14 by the Board to give a follow-up from the 

15 letter that we have submitted to the Secretary 

16 regarding the first 100 case review. I would 

17 -- well, I'd like to close that out today and 

18 maybe we will. Hopefully we will.

19 Then on the agenda after that I 

20 think the sixth set and seventh set of cases, 

21 and I believe -- actually, for the last couple 

22 meetings, we've been very close to closing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 those out. So I'm hoping that today we can be 

2 done with those final matrix items on those 

3 two sets of cases and then continue on these 

4 from wherever we left off. I think we were 

5 still doing our first pass through some of the 

6 findings.

7 We have those mini site profile 

8 reviews we started on as well. So -- and I 

9 don't know if that helps anyone on the phone. 

10 I don't know if Kathy and Hans are primarily 

11 on the phone for those mini site profile 

12 issues. I mean, they might come up later in 

13 the day.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, they're on the 

15 schedule. I know Hans, he wrote a special 

16 counter report on Harshaw.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

18 DR. MAURO: And I know that's one 

19 area where I know he'd be interested in 

20 discussing. If it comes up early, great. If 

21 not --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 don't want to tie him up unnecessarily if we 

2 don't have to.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So with that in 

5 mind, I did send out an -- and I know it was a 

6 little late, but I didn't get any other 

7 comments and I did have Wanda's comments to 

8 the previous follow-up report, the draft, that 

9 I -- we had talked about on the phone call 

meeting, which I believe was on January 14th 10

11 of this year. We had a phone-call 

12 Subcommittee meeting where we only discussed 

13 this report.

14 At that time, Wanda submitted a 

15 number of edits. I looked at her comments. I 

16 took most of them, Wanda, I think almost all 

17 of them.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Most of them.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I may have -- I 

20 may have taken out -- at least one thing that 

21 you had deleted I took out and reinserted. So 

22 we can talk about that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Most of it was 

2 minor.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but I -- I 

4 took most of the comments. So we can go 

5 through that. And then also I forwarded some 

6 other documents that Doug and the SC&A staff 

7 had looked into for us, which is the question 

8 on the quality control/quality assurance 

9 investigation, I guess for lack of a better 

10 word, and what our options are, and Stu put 

11 together three documents. If I characterize 

12 this wrong, Doug, let me know. One summarizes 

13 all the findings that they characterized as 

14 quality assurance/quality control type of 

15 findings, and the other two are options to 

16 either look at cases related to -- selected 

17 cases from the first through the fifth set of 

18 cases, or the first through the eighth set of 

19 cases. I'll discuss that more as we -- as we 

20 go into -- after we look at the main 

21 documents, but those are the four pieces you 

22 should've received. If anybody didn't get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 those, please maybe let us know now, and 

2 either I can forward them or possibly Doug can 

3 forward them. Does everybody have those? 

4 Okay. 

5 All right, so, on the basic 

6 report, and I was thinking of this as sort of 

7 a path forward here, I was thinking of lending 

8 this document out as a preliminary report to 

9 the Board on the first 100 cases, and the 

10 reason I'm saying preliminary is because I 

11 would like to get -- submit this report to the 

12 Board for discussion at the Board level, and I 

13 didn't want to wait for the SC&A investigation 

14 of those key tasks.

15 So at least we have something to 

16 discuss at the Board level and we can describe 

17 to the Board that we also have tasked SC&A 

18 with looking at -- at the QC-related findings 

19 further, doing further investigation on the QC 

20 findings. But at least to come back with them 

21 and say, here's generally what we have as a 

22 follow-up. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 We may at that point get some 

2 comments from other Board members where we may 

3 have to come back. So then the idea would be 

4 to come back and do a final report, which 

5 would include the results of our investigation 

6 into the QC findings.

7 I don't know if that makes sense 

8 as a process. I -- well, I'm offering that as 

9 a process forward, anyway.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So, Mark, are you 

11 suggesting that we present this at the next 

12 full Board meeting, or is it your expectation 

13 that you can get this to the Board members in 

14 an exposition from that manner that it might 

15 be a topic for our teleconference that's 

16 coming up? So if there were at least -- at 

17 least if anyone had any major concerns and 

18 wanted to ask that we postpone it while we 

19 give it more thought, we could do so and then 

20 fully address it in New York?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes to one of 

22 those. I'm not sure. I can talk to Ted and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Jim Melius about whether we can fit it on the 

agenda for the March 30th 2 full Board 

3 conference call. I don't know if it can fall 

4 under miscellaneous?

5 MR. KATZ: It can fall under the 

6 Work Group reports. So you most certainly can 

7 address it.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: We probably have to 

10 keep it pretty brief for that meeting just 

11 because that meeting agenda is -- I don't know 

12 if you've looked at it, but --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I haven't.

14 MR. KATZ: -- there's a lot on 

15 there compared to a typical teleconference 

16 agenda. So it's a question of how much 

17 endurance the Board has for the 

18 teleconference.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It may be more 

20 a matter of delivering a preliminary report 

21 and saying here it is. Here's what's in it. 

22 For the full Board meeting, maybe people can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 consider this and come back with comments for 

2 the Subcommittee.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that was my 

4 thought. If we could get it before them --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: -- then we could 

7 anticipate a final word.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes. 

9 That's what I'd like to do. Does that make 

10 sense?

11 MR. KATZ: Good.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then why don't 

13 we go through the report? Wanda, you probably 

14 noticed that one paragraph at the end of the 

15 QC in section one. I'm going to add it back. 

16 That was mainly because I wanted to show that 

17 we were tasking SC&A with doing this follow-up 

18 investigation on QC findings.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Other than 

21 that, I believe in the body of the text, I 

22 don't -- I don't think I changed any of your -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 - there is one other spot I can think of where 

2 I changed your edit. It's section two, under 

3 the recommendations at the bottom of section 

4 two: A, B, and C. 

5 And for B, and maybe it was just 

6 my choice of words, but I was trying to say in 

7 this, NIOSH should consider developing a 

8 standardized approach for interviewing. You 

9 said -- you crossed out what I had had before 

10 and put, available. And I put back in, all 

11 available. 

12 And I guess the -- what I was 

13 trying to convey in that bullet was that there 

14 -- there seems to be a sense that comments 

15 from health physics managers or certain 

16 scientific experts are being weighted much 

17 more heavily than those from shop-floor 

18 experts who, while they may know very 

19 different things, I think they -- they do lend 

20 expertise that could be important.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the hardest 

22 job we have, in my view, is always the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 semantics. And I -- we can -- there's no real 

2 point in our arguing semantics one way or the 

3 other.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It just doesn't get 

6 us anywhere. At least it doesn't get me 

7 anywhere. So that's fine. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Other 

9 than that -- and you may -- you may find -- I 

10 was going to leave this in the track-changes 

11 version, but it was getting very cumbersome 

12 with all the -- all the notes

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I just 

15 thought we needed a clean version to look at.

16 MEMBER MUNN: After about 105 

17 questions --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: -- and changes, it 

20 gets to be too much. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the only 

22 other -- at the end of this document, and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 and -- I'm not sure. Obviously, this is a 

2 preliminary going to our own, other members. 

3 So I'm not sure it has the best of conclusions 

4 here. But the -- after number three, there's 

5 a closing part which is sort of -- it says 

6 that it should be noted several changes I was 

7 thinking of -- I mean these are mostly what I 

8 would view as positive outcomes from the 

9 process. So maybe we can think about 

10 rephrasing that. But, Wanda, I think you had 

11 added C and D and I just inserted B, the PER, 

12 which we had discussed at the last --

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- phone call 

15 meeting. And with the caveat that Stu and I 

16 had talked about the language. Stu, I think 

17 you were okay with this, several changes to 

18 the Dose Reconstruction Program in part due to 

19 findings identified.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was what 

22 we -- so some of these PERs it was sort of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 unclear whether it was already internally 

2 happening with NIOSH or it was a result of the 

3 audit.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we agreed to 

6 that kind of phrasing.

7 MEMBER MUNN: You could probably 

8 do what you wanted to do, but inserting the 

9 word positive between several and changes, or 

10 --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

12 was thinking of, actually.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Or you could --

14 instead of saying, several changes, you could 

15 use the word improvement. In either case, I 

16 think it's what you're trying to convey.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Have made 

18 improvements instead of several changes. All 

19 right, I'll make that change. And I'll open 

20 it up to others. Any comments on the letter 

21 itself? It's the third or fourth time we 

22 looked at this. So it should be, hopefully, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 pretty close.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I think we should 

3 keep those.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

5 the -- then the question comes to the QC 

6 follow-up, and I think I'll turn this over to 

7 Doug just to describe what you did and the 

8 three documents that we have in front of us. 

9 MR. FARVER: Basically the 

10 question comes down to do you want to take it 

11 from the first 100 cases, sets one through 

12 five, or do you want to take the findings from 

13 the first eight cases? So the first eight 

14 sets, 178 cases? 

15 So I went through the eight sets, 

16 pulled out all the findings that appear to be 

17 quality-related or were marked as quality18 related, and we counted the word quality. Now 

19 for the first five sets, there is a category 

20 column that is usually marked, procedural, 

21 quality, something like that.

22 So the first five sets, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 quality ones were pulled out and any that 

2 looked to be in obvious error, like the dose 

3 model was missing or something. So that was 

4 the five sets. And then the sixth, seventh 

5 and eighth set, I pretty much went through and 

6 eyeballed it and picked out ones that I 

7 thought were quality-related, the dose for 

8 1947 was missing or something like that.

9 The one document has, I think, 208 

10 findings over the eight sets. Then I broke it 

11 down into the -- I pulled out ten cases with 

12 the first five sets, and pulled out findings, 

13 once again, that I thought were more obvious. 

14 You know, the dosage missing, the photon dose 

15 was calculated incorrectly, things like that; 

16 something that was more tangible to look at.

17 Then I also picked out 11 cases 

18 for the one through eight sets. The reason 

19 for 11 cases is it gives a little better 

20 distribution of the technical elements. If 

21 you look at our table two of our audit report, 

22 there's technical elements like whether it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 photon or deep dose or shallow dose and so 

2 forth. 

3 So I went and sorted it by those 

4 elements to see if we get a better 

5 distribution. This gave a little better 

6 distribution with 11 cases for the first eight 

7 sets than ten. 

8 Also on the first five sets, there 

9 were several maximizing overestimate10 underestimate cases. We didn't look at that 

11 many dose-estimate cases, as opposed to the 

12 later sets where it was more best estimate and 

13 that's why you'll see for the ones I pulled 

14 out for sets one through eight, it's more 

15 weighted towards the sixth, seventh and eighth 

16 sets because those were more best estimate 

17 cases.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I guess the 

19 reason I asked Doug to send us both options, 

20 and we could kind of discuss it here is -- I 

21 mean the -- I guess I can kind of argue either 

22 side of this. If we wanted to strictly stick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 to the first 100 cases, then we should 

2 probably stick to cases from those first 100 

3 cases.

4 On the other hand, if the -- the -

5 - going through the eighth set kind of brings 

6 us up to where we've gone through with our 

7 resolution process. We haven't completed the 

8 eighth set, but it brings us sort of current 

9 as to where we are right now. And if we're 

10 looking to give information -- useful 

11 information to NIOSH, I think we would 

12 probably get better cases to look at by going 

13 through to the eighth set.

14 So that's -- as far as having 

15 useful recommendations to actually make a 

16 difference or improve the program, I think 

17 chances are better that if we went through the 

18 eighth set because, as Doug pointed out, we 

19 have many more best estimate cases come up in 

20 the seventh and eighth set.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, then there's 

22 also -- there's also the fact that -- that it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 behooves us, I think, to maintain the 

2 information that we distribute on the most 

3 current level possible. When we -- when we 

4 report on the first 100 cases, and we're 

5 actually well beyond that, then we keep 

6 encountering comments, like, yes, but since 

7 then we've done.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've already 

9 done that. Right, right.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So it seems only 

11 logical to me that we would work from the 

12 electronic data, even if it does overrun the 

13 boundary of the original 100 cases.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was my 

15 feeling as well. I brought that up because I 

16 know it came up. I was looking at the 

17 transcripts from the last call, and there was 

18 some discussion about that, and I didn't know 

19 that we necessarily came to any conclusion. 

20 So I just thought we'd consider both options.

21 But my opinion was to go with the 

22 -- first through the eighth set, and I'm not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 sure of the path forward. I think the 

2 Subcommittee can task SC&A to do this at this 

3 point, right? I mean, the full Board doesn't 

4 have to take an action to pass this. This is 

5 all under the auspices of DR review, right?

6 So if we're comfortable with the 

7 approach and the -- and the cases that are 

8 selected -- I looked at these, and I was 

9 looking at -- and the other thing that I liked 

10 about the one through eight, I think we had a 

11 better representation of the technical 

12 findings, although the scope sort of covered 

13 all the categories on the first through fifth, 

14 but I think we better cover the categories on 

15 the first through eighth set and I thought 

16 that was important that we sort of look at the 

17 variety of QC findings that we've seen, not 

18 all biased towards one or two types of 

19 findings.

20 So that would be my -- my notion 

21 right now is to have SC&A move forward with 

22 investigating these selected cases and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 document the first through eighth sets.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, if Mike agrees 

3 to that, the people who are here today get to 

4 make that decision.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that was 

6 a shorter discussion than I anticipated. All 

7 right, so we'll do that, John, if you're 

8 making task notes.

9 DR. MAURO: I'm doing that right 

10 now.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's an 

12 action item.

13 MR. KATZ: So what does the 

14 investigation involve?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's going to 

16 be -- Doug where do you see the -- this is the 

17 pulling the thread on each one of these 

18 findings, I believe. And actually we talked 

19 about going back to the dose reconstructor if 

20 possible via phone, I believe, if at all 

21 possible. 

22 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I don't know what's available to look at, and 

2 I don't think you really know until you start 

3 digging.

4 MEMBER MUNN: We may have given 

5 you your last task for 2010.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm thinking 

7 there -- I would see some participation on our 

8 side.

9 MR. FARVER: Actually when this 

10 came out, I thought you would be doing this.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I kind of 

12 thought so, but I'm glad to have you do it. 

13 The -- it would seem to me there would be some 

14 participation on our side of trying to look to 

15 say, okay, how did this happen. How did this 

16 go out and what are the possible -- what were 

17 the failure points here and there something 

18 that need to be done to fix that failure 

19 point, or has there been something done in the 

20 interim that has fixed that failure point?

21 MR. FARVER: Right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Things like that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I mean to me, a lot of this is knowledge that 

2 it seems to me that SC&A would have to 

3 discover, I think. And it should be -- we 

4 would have to go back and remember it. We 

5 would have to go back and reconstruct it and 

6 remember it, but it should be on our side, 

7 assuming these people are still -- still work 

8 for us.

9 So it almost sounds like it's sort 

10 of ours in terms of doing the bulk of the 

11 work. I don't -- and in fact, it could be 

12 that Doug takes a look, sees what he thinks 

13 the appropriate kinds of actions are and we 

14 have a discussion about what we need to look 

15 at here because of what we need to check out, 

16 and we can either assist with getting him that 

17 because at one point or another, we're going 

18 to gather it and present it to somebody for 

19 evaluation; did we do a decent job?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We want to come 

21 to some consensus on what the root cause was. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So to me, I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 happy to start, as Doug kind of laid it out, 

2 getting a vision of what he would think would 

3 be done next, maybe looking at what's in the 

4 DR records because in the records there is 

5 usually quite a lot of files that don't 

6 actually show up, that they don't include in 

7 the dose reconstruction, but they're 

8 supporting files, some of them more than 

9 others. And so he may be able to see what's 

10 there, and then he undoubtedly will not find 

11 everything he thinks should be found, or he'll 

12 see, well, here's where a mistake was done, 

13 but I don't see any reason why this mistake 

14 was done. I need to get over to that side and 

15 hand this off to DCAS, and DCAS needs to then 

16 figure out why or how could this mistake have 

17 been made.

18 So I'm perfectly happy with kind 

19 of letting Doug structure it. And so, that 

20 way, at least we have a structure that sort of 

21 matches the expectation for delivery because I 

22 don't really know what the expectation for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 delivery is.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And then a fairly 

4 healthy participation on our side in terms of 

5 sorting it out. You know, how did it happen, 

6 sort of thing. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

8 MR. FARVER: And we had talked 

9 about it in the past, about the QA checklists.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 MR. FARVER: Now we might come to 

12 find that procedure wasn't even in place until 

13 the fourth set or something.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and who knows 

15 what -- who knows what happened? 

16 MEMBER MUNN: We did that --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: That was one of our 

19 first discussions.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think in part of 

21 -- see, another part of this where I think 

22 some of the discussion has to be -- has to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 our investigation to a certain extent is 

2 sometimes you just have to have a candid 

3 discussion with the person who made a mistake, 

4 and say, hey, there's no ramification here. 

5 And it's far easier for them to tell their 

6 colleague they made a mistake than to tell the 

7 Advisory Board's contractor.

8 So sometimes people -- sometimes 

9 people just make mistakes. And so -- so like 

10 I said, that's just an easier conversation, as 

11 much as we try to include you on here, it 

12 sometimes does extend too far beyond these 

13 rooms in terms of really having a collegial --

14 MR. FARVER: Not only why they 

15 made a mistake, but why wasn't it caught.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. So you have 

17 another conversation. How come this wasn't 

18 caught? So there's three people, essentially, 

19 you have a conversation with. Who made it? 

20 Who peer reviewed it? Who approved it?

21 MEMBER MUNN: You have to check 

22 with these people.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it may get 

2 down to you have to -- you have to have a 

3 candid conversation about the utilization of 

4 the check. How faithful are you to the 

5 checklist on these reviews?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and I 

7 think we're much more interested in if we 

8 identify a systems problem more so than a --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: If somebody just 

10 made a mistake, I mean -- yes. But 

11 figuratively there are supposed to be control 

12 points on that.

13 MEMBER MUNN: But if it's 

14 systemic, we need to identify it.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Emily Howell 

17 has a question.

18 MS. HOWELL: I have a question. 

19 Do you have a proposed time line for when the 

20 review is going to be completed? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Not by June 1st 21 .

22 MS. HOWELL: No, I know that. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 was thinking more in terms of the ten-year 

2 review that NIOSH is undertaking because it in 

3 some ways dovetails with what you're looking 

4 at. I didn't know if this would -- if you 

5 anticipated the completion of it in a year's 

6 time or shorter. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I was hoping 

8 shorter than that.

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MEMBER MUNN: It depends on what 

11 you find. It really does depend on what you 

12 find and how much individual time can be 

13 devoted to it. This is the kind of thing, 

14 which, until we at least get into it, I don't 

15 see how one can even begin to estimate a time 

16 line. That's why I jokingly said to Doug that 

17 we had just given him his 2010 job assignment.

18 DR. MAURO: Wait a minute. I just 

19 went through a very similar process, 

20 structurally a very similar process. We were 

21 asked to look at all the Site Profiles, all 

22 the proceedings that we ever reviewed for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 surrogate data. A lot of respect, searching 

2 through the minutiae of these procedures, et 

3 cetera, for particular places, one was 

4 surrogate data, is not unlike searching 

5 through all the dose reconstructions, where 

6 were there what we would consider to be 

7 quality data.

8 And now, I hate to put Doug on the 

9 spot like this. It doesn't take that long. 

10 In other words, we were able to go through 

11 fairly quickly and it jumps out. We have our 

12 checklist. We have our reviews. And from our 

13 side, being able -- and as a judgment call of 

14 course, pulling out the places where we 

15 consider this to be quality-wide is a process 

16 that takes some time.

17 But I could tell you right now, 

18 we're going to have this thing done in a 

19 month. The surrogate data can be done in a 

20 month.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I might argue -- I 

22 might argue with you on one point, and that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 when we're talking about surrogate data, 

2 there's no question about what we're talking 

3 about. The words surrogate data.

4 DR. MAURO: They just jump off the 

5 page. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: They appear there, 

7 and you can do a computer search for surrogate 

8 data. You can't do a computer search for 

9 quality.

10 DR. MAURO: I stand corrected.

11 MEMBER MUNN: You really can't, 

12 and it's one of the things that whoever sets 

13 up the framework for it needs to understand 

14 you're going to burn a lot of midnight oil and 

15 go through a lot of meetings to be pulling out 

16 and making actually intelligent decisions 

17 about is this or is this not a quality issue? 

18 Is this simply an oversight or is this 

19 something else?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Now we're dealing 

21 with the selective ones, the selective 

22 findings?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Because it's a 

3 manageable number.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's 

5 why we --

6 MR. FARVER: And I mean some of 

7 those might not have a resolution. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Okay, so --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you did try 

10 to pick ones that were --

11 MR. FARVER: I did try to pick 

12 ones that were very tangible, dose was not 

13 there, the wrong year was entered, or 

14 something like that.

15 DR. MAURO: How about errors in 

16 calculation? What about a number that's five 

17 times the other number? Is that a quality 

18 issue? We had one before.

19 MEMBER MUNN: It may or may not 

20 be. That's where the judgment call is.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. That 

22 may be an outcome, too, of the -- after you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 look into it, you may say that we found -- we 

2 investigated this finding, and found that it 

3 wasn't a quality finding, really. It was 

4 this. 

5 DR. MAURO: You know what? We run 

6 into the same situation on surrogate because 

7 our definition of surrogate is very narrowly 

8 defined.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: And depending on how 

11 you define surrogate depends on what comes in 

12 or doesn't go in.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

14 DR. MAURO: You're doing the same 

15 thing here. What are you defining as a 

16 quality issue? What are the boundaries? 

17 Because I guess we all see that through a 

18 different lens, and someone may define a 

19 quality issue very narrowly, and that's going 

20 to be the hard part.

21 MR. FARVER: It was special when 

22 you had to select them out and you're kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 looking at just a matrix. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: So that's why I kind 

4 of looked at where they missed a 1987 shallow 

5 dose. It wasn't entered in the IREP data. I 

6 mean that's something tangible we can go back 

7 and look at and it's probably something that 

8 should've been caught with the QA checklist 

9 because I believe you're supposed to sum up 

10 the different years.

11 MR. KATZ: The only question I 

12 have about the process, as sort of Stu was 

13 discussing, not knowing where this was going 

14 to start, whether it was going to start with 

15 DCAS or with SC&A, and if SC&A is identifying 

16 the cases that you have, then we'll -- but if 

17 SC&A is then to take the next step of going 

18 through the files and trying to turn over all 

19 the bones to try and figure out how it 

20 happened, it seems like that's inefficient. 

21 It seems like DCAS is better doing that part. 

22 DR. MAURO: You know, I mean by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 way of process, this is the Board's goal, and 

2 the contractor's, to say, listen, we went 

3 through the process on your behalf and in our 

4 judgment, these are the places where we have 

5 some quality problems. That's the rock we're 

6 going to stand on.

7 Now, certainly, there could be 

8 debate on what could be considered -- and 

9 that'll be judgment made by the Work Groups, 

10 but once we've identified this is where we 

11 think the quality problems are, then I think 

12 at that point, we're out of it. Then it goes 

13 over, and then -- then the dialogue starts, 

14 where Stu would say, I really don't think 

15 there's a quality issue. Here's why. And 

16 somehow, whether this is a one on one between 

17 SC&A and NIOSH or this is something that is a 

18 dialogue that is engaged by either work group, 

19 that's your decision.

20 MR. KATZ: So my point is I think 

21 I misunderstood what Stu said because I think 

22 I thought I understood Stu to say, it's great 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 if Doug actually goes through the case and 

2 tries to figure out how it happened. And it 

3 seems to me, that's much more efficiently done 

4 by --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That's more 

6 efficiently done by --

7 MR. KATZ: -- you folks. And by 

8 Doug just spending the time to try to figure 

9 out how that occurred at the first step seems 

10 --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well maybe it 

12 does start there, then. I mean, you've got 

13 the selected cases. So at this point, if we 

14 return to NIOSH and say, at least you take a 

15 preliminary shot at that, my feeling is that a 

16 lot of this -- I want that dialogue between 

17 Doug or whoever and NIOSH, not on the 

18 subcommittee level, but then every 

19 Subcommittee meeting I plan on putting this on 

20 the agenda and it's getting a report back of 

21 where you're at or whatever. 

22 And if you come back and if your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 matrix maybe dropped off five of them because 

2 it turned out they weren't -- you know, there 

3 was no resolution possible or it wasn't a 

4 quality finding or whatever, and that is

5 agreed on and you report back on that kind of 

6 stuff, then we'll proceed that way.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: You're thinking of 

8 a root-cause kind of thing.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'm 

10 thinking of a root-cause kind of thing. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a number

12 of root-cause tools out there.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I said there are a 

15 number of root cause tools out there --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that you could 

18 use for root cause analysis.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: My feeling is 

20 if NIOSH looks into that end of it and comes 

21 up with an opinion on that, and then we might 

22 want SC&A to look at that and say, yes, we buy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 this, too, or, wait a second. I'm not sure. 

2 That way, SC&A would come back in.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. How much of that 

4 is off-line? What I mean by that is I could 

5 envision --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, when they 

7 come up with their final sort of, here's what 

8 we think happened, I think that's on-line. 

9 But in between that is off-line.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right? Does 

12 that make sense?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. You guys are 

14 going to have to --

15 DR. MAURO: And if you'd like an 

16 assembly for it, Doug can be doing this on a 

17 one-on-one basis or whatever.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Come back and say, 

20 this is the process we went through.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: Like we always do on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 any technical call. Make a report about a 

2 technical call and the degree to which any 

3 member wants to sit in on a technical call, 

4 that nature is your call and we have a 

5 recorder. Hopefully the ideal situation would 

6 be to bring back to the Work Group issues or 

7 whatever, and we're in agreement that this was 

8 a quality issue, and then NIOSH of course 

9 would explain what action was taken or not, 

10 and it becomes really clean.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I don't 

12 expect you to use a recorder. Or take minutes 

13 do you mean?

14 DR. MAURO: That's what I mean 

15 when I say recorder.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: I think there's a 

18 point that we keep minutes --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Keep minutes so 

20 we know the process, right? But we don't need 

21 to be -- it wouldn't work at the subcommittee 

22 level. I think it's much better to do it the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 other way. That makes sense for a path 

2 forward now that I'm listening to more -- I 

3 think the ball is in NIOSH's court to start, 

4 but then extending that any time they need to 

5 talk to SC&A for clarification, for -- you 

6 know, just to move the process, then that can 

7 happen.

8 All right? And not a year, Emily. 

9 We're shooting for less than one year. I 

10 mean I really don't think -- I had in mind 

11 more like three or four months. But maybe 

12 that's a little ambitious, too.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a little 

ambitious given where we are on our June 1st 14

15 objective and other stuff. But I would hope 

16 to proceed somewhat apace. Whenever we start 

17 into this, we're going to disrupt people who 

18 are doing reconstructions. So we'll have to -

19 - I'll have to work carefully with our 

20 contractor to -- to make progress on this and 

21 not disrupt what's kind of a delicate progress 

toward that June 1st 22 objective. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 So -- so it'll be a little 

2 cautious, and we'll need really close 

3 coordination on their side. I'll need to 

4 clearance through their -- I'll have to get 

5 their project management on board, and down to 

6 the people; get it down to the people who are 

7 going to be helpful on that. I've got a 

8 couple people in mind, and see what that does.

9 So it -- if this person really 

10 spent some time on this, what would that do to 

11 this other broader objective for Dr. Howard --

12 I really can't go to John and say, I didn't 

13 make it because we diverted things. I really 

14 can't do that. Brant has questions in his 

15 eyes. So I'm --

16 DR. ULSH: Well, are we proposing 

17 an alternative to Mark's three or four months? 

18 Maybe six months, until we get more 

19 information.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think six is 

21 more realistic. I would like to beat that 

22 just for program-review purposes. I just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 don't know that I can. But I'll know more 

2 after some conversations with the contractors.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it may be 

4 that it overlaps with your other --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be. It is 

6 relevant. You could even say, well, if you've 

7 got systemic quality problems, it's really 

8 worth your while to be rushing out of dose 

9 reconstructions given those systemic quality 

10 problems. So you can make the argument either 

11 way. 

12 I mean I know what I talk to John 

13 about every Friday is are we going to make 

June 1st 14 ? 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, one argument 

16 you can't deny, though, is the fact that to 

17 make estimates in any project without having 

18 discussed it with the folks who do the nitty 

19 gritty is a serious matter.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. All I would 

21 ask is that maybe at the next Subcommittee 

22 meeting, you come back and we discuss the time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 line a little more, and we'll have a little 

2 more input by that time.

3 MR. KATZ: And six months is still 

4 within the time frame of the program review 

5 anyway.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: You're not blowing the 

8 time frame for that with this.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

10 MS. HOWELL: And I just wanted to 

11 clarify because we're up to like set 12 or 

12 something now, aren't we?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MS. HOWELL: So that eight, do we 

15 have like a -- what date or claim number does 

16 that actually go up through? Do we know?

17 MR. FARVER: Seventy-eight.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we can --

19 what are you interested in?

20 MS. HOWELL: I'm trying to --

21 because I want to be really clear that this 

22 process of reviewing the QA/QC is actually --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 it's a snapshot in time that is in our past 

2 because it doesn't go up --

3 CHAIRMANAN GRIFFON: It's still in 

4 the past, yes.

5 MS. HOWELL: Right. So what -- do 

6 we have any idea what date? Is that like two 

7 years ago maybe?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I could find 

9 out. What I -- what I would propose to do 

10 would be to say what was the date -- would be 

11 the latest completion date for dose 

12 reconstruction of any of them in the first 

13 eight cases. 

14 DR. MAURO: The eighth set I have 

15 -- I have some eighth sets here, and they're 

16 May 2008.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was 

18 your review.

19 DR. MAURO: Our review?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That was your 

21 review. So if that's the -- see, my point is 

22 that the technical work that is being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 evaluated was done at the completion date of 

2 the draft dose reconstruction. Okay, that is 

3 how -- that is the latest date of the 

4 technical work that was evaluated in that 

5 eighth set review. So we can find that. I 

6 don't have it available now, but we can find 

7 that, and that would then be -- this would 

8 reflect the quality of work up through that 

9 date. 

10 Now unless we can say in response 

11 to some of these, these things have been done 

12 in the mean time so that we feel like that 

13 mistake won't happen any more, unless we can 

14 make that statement, there's no reason to 

15 believe that it's any different today than it 

16 was then. Isn't that right QA thinking?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: But it's a mistake 

19 that we made repeatedly. The work books 

20 themselves will do --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think the 

22 work books would change a lot of these things. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I would think they would --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The nature of 

3 our review though is I don't think -- because 

4 I did think of that, Emily, that we're up to 

5 the full set, and maybe we should -- we really 

6 can't bring up any -- include any cases in 

7 here that we haven't at least discussed at the 

8 subcommittee level. So I thought we'd go 

9 through the eighth set. Stop me if you want 

10 to -- anyway. All right, so, that'll be our 

11 path forward. NIOSH will start the ball 

12 rolling, and at the next subcommittee maybe 

13 give us a little bit of sense of the time 

14 line, if possible.

15 Anything else from that? All 

16 right, so we're good. We're good on the first 

17 100 case report. We can move to the sixth set 

18 of cases. I'm going to pull the document up, 

19 but I believe it was only one finding left. 

20 Does anyone know -- I'm scanning through to --

21 104.7?

22 MR. FARVER: Oh, 104.7.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that right?

2 MS. BEHLING: 107.4.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 104.7 has 

4 been resolved. I still have some yellow 

5 highlighting, which I should get rid of. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: It is done, right?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I believe 

8 it is done because the 11/5 indicates that one 

9 was transferred to a TBD-6000 group. Okay, 

10 let's see, 107.4, okay, is there any update 

11 from NIOSH on this?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Brant stepped out 

13 for a minute.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Mark, Stu had sent 

it to the Subcommittee on January 7th 15 to close 

16 out for this.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, January 

7th 18 ?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you get 

21 that? We might have to find that one. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: For the court 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 reporter, this is Scott Siebert by the way. 

2 Sorry.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We got you 

4 covered. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, do you 

7 know the -- I got it here. SC&A sixth set 

107-4 ORAU response, April 15th 8 ? No. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: No, it's actually 

10 extension -- same thing, except January 2010.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh. Yes, I'm 

12 not sure I have it on my drive, but it doesn't 

13 mean that you didn't send it. It just means 

14 that I have to find it in my email. SC&A, do 

15 you guys have it? Looking.

16 MR. FARVER: I don't have it. You 

17 say you sent a response?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

19 MR. FARVER: I don't believe I --

20 I can't find it, and I don't remember seeing 

21 it.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, Doug, you were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

on distribution on the 7th 1 of January.

2 MR. FARVER: I don't see it.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This was right 

4 before the phone call that we had to discuss 

5 the first 100 thing.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: I can try to find it 

8 on break.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, can you 

10 forward that one again, and maybe we'll --

11 MR. SIEBERT: I'm going to send it 

12 again right now.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, forward it 

14 to everyone if you could.

15 MEMBER MUNN: What date did you 

16 say you sent it?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The file has a 

18 January -- I sent it on Sunday -- what did you 

say, January 7th 19 ?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventh, yes.

MR. SIEBERT: January 7th 21 is when I 

22 sent it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

MR. HINNEFELD: January 7th 1 . I 

thought it was January 2nd 2 . 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, I've got it.

4 MS. BEHLING: Perhaps we can just 

5 talk about this a little bit, and maybe we can 

6 come to some resolution that way. If we can 

7 go back and just discuss what the initial 

8 finding was, and what discussion we've had 

9 since then, would that be of some help?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I can start that, 

11 I think. I've got that up here now.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay, because I can 

14 start that also. But go ahead, Stu.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the finding, 

16 I believe, is -- let me get that one up. 

17 MS. BEHLING: I believe what we 

18 were questioning, not to interrupt you, Stu --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was 

20 under what circumstances would you choose an 

21 acute intake versus a chronic one. Is that 

22 this one?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: That's correct.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MS. BEHLING: In this particular 

4 case, the individual had urinalysis results, 

5 and the first one in 1955 was a positive, and 

6 then a year later, it was a positive. I 

7 believe that NIOSH initially treated this as a 

8 chronic exposure, and we were questioning 

9 whether it should have been treated as an 

10 acute, either a single acute or multiple acute 

11 exposures. 

12 And although it doesn't have a 

13 large impact on this particular case, the 

14 question came to is there something -- and I 

15 believe your latest procedure on your bioassay 

16 procedure, internal bioassay procedure, does 

17 give more direction to the dose reconstructors 

18 regarding how to treat a situation like this.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

20 MS. BEHLING: Whether it's acute 

21 or chronic, or --

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 interrupt, but before we go all the way down 

2 that road yet again, the response that I wrote 

3 that was sent out in January, and I just sent 

4 out again, the actual thing NIOSH was 

5 requested to do was to look over the last few 

6 transcripts and determine what we had done on 

7 this and what the path forward was.

8 And with what I sent, the -- we 

9 had actually closed it out numerous times, 

10 except for the fact that we wanted to make 

11 sure it was transferred over to the Procedures 

12 Subcommittee for clarification in OTIB-60 on 

13 dealing with the issue. So I just want to 

14 throw that out before we got down to the nitty 

15 gritty of the issue yet again.

16 MS. BEHLING: I agree. I agree 

17 that that's probably the appropriate approach.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And I have sent 

19 that. Has everybody slash anybody received 

20 that yet?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we got it. 

22 We just got it. And Kathy or Scott, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 believe -- Kathy, you said you think the most 

2 recent version of which of the internal dose 

3 guidelines? Is that what you're saying?

4 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Is it --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sixty, is that 

6 correct?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Sixty, correct.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so you 

9 think the revision of 60 might account for --

10 or might have better guidance on this issue?

11 MS. BEHLING: I believe it does, 

12 yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so maybe 

14 it does make sense to take it up in -- under 

15 Procedures if that is the case.

16 DR. MAURO: I've got to say I'm 

17 curious. What is the essence of the 

18 resolution?

19 MEMBER MUNN: I'm sorry, I was 

20 still trying to find it.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: The essence of 

22 this resolution for the dose reconstruction is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 to transfer to Procedures --

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, but I mean 

3 when it goes to the procedure, obviously 

4 there's some language in the procedure that 

5 deals with these --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so the 

7 essence of the language.

8 DR. MAURO: The essence of the 

9 language. What was the philosophy?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Don't 

11 keep a secret.

12 DR. MAURO: I want to hear.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Scott, do you have 

14 that handy?

15 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. I was 

16 typing. What was that?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you have handy 

18 what is -- what there -- your response says 

19 there is some language in TBD or OTIB-60 that 

20 addresses this. It says it, "Addresses 

21 unmonitored and missed dose, but it's 

22 applicable to all exposure potentials." Would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 be this situation. Can you kind of summarize 

2 that or kind of decide what that says?

3 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. Give me a 

4 second here to pull it up.

5 MEMBER MUNN: You got my attention 

6 when you said Procedures.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Procedures, yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Now just a minute. 

9 I was looking at something else. So we are 

10 talking about OTIB-60. I guess I better make 

11 a note of that. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I'm looking 

13 at the section. 

14 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

15 Brackett. I'm the author of OTIB-60, so.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Liz, have 

17 you been in on this entire discussion?

18 MS. BRACKETT: I came in during 

19 it, but I did hear the last little bit about 

20 resolving the issue, although I didn't hear 

21 the beginning of the particular issue we're 

22 closing out, but if -- this OTIB has not been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 revised yet. 

2 There is -- right now, as far as 

3 addressing chronic or positive results over 

4 time, it does say, "If the majority of results 

5 are positive and scattered throughout the 

6 intake period, use all results to do the 

7 intake assessment." And I thought that it 

8 said that -- to assume a chronic intake 

9 throughout the period, although I'm not seeing 

10 that specifically.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, that 

12 doesn't -- that gets pretty broad.

13 MS. BRACKETT: It is pretty 

14 generic because it's always going to be on a 

15 case-by-case basis. But I'm trying to think. 

16 I'm pretty sure that it said if you have a 

17 lot of positive results scattered throughout 

18 time, then just assume one long chronic intake 

19 throughout.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there it is. 

21 It's the third paragraph in section 5.4.1, 

22 missed dose determination. So to calculate a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 missed dose, a chronic intake through the 

2 possible exposure period is assumed. And then 

3 in section -- back up to 5.4.3 again.

4 MS. BRACKETT: I've been working 

5 on modifying this so my section numbers are 

6 changed.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we've had quite 

8 a bit of conversation about that somewhere, 

9 where I was -- and I don't remember when.

10 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, we have 

11 discussed extensively, and I have been 

12 modifying this. But a number of different 

13 numbers have come up related to this OTIB, and 

14 I've been working on integrating all of them, 

15 and this one in particular giving more 

16 specific guidance on fitting positive data.

17 DR. MAURO: Could I just ask a 

18 simple question? On this particular case, 

19 what I just heard is that you got a 

20 measurement and -- I mean one measure made in 

21 one year; a year passes, and then you got 

22 another measurement.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BRACKETT: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: Now of course it could 

3 be S or F. You got these two numbers. I 

4 could say, you know, chronic may not work when 

5 you're in -- I agree if you got one every two 

6 months, maybe chronic will work. You got one 

7 in a year, and depending on the chemical form, 

8 I do not have an intuitive feeling on which 

9 strategy would be the most appropriate in the 

10 circumstance.

11 It's almost as if you don't have 

12 enough data to do it, and you have to use your 

13 coworker model. I mean in a funny sort of 

14 way. Does my coworker model -- I would almost 

15 say, "Well, listen. Just do measurements, 

16 especially if it's M or S or M or F. You 

17 really don't have enough data to reconstruct 

18 this guy's dose if you don't know when -- what 

19 happened in between. What are you left with? 

20 You're left with a couple of numbers and a 

21 coworker model. That's how you do this.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And this is almost 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the exact discussion we had at the November 

2 Procedures meeting.

3 MS. BRACKETT: Right, but I would 

4 say almost 90 percent of the cases minimum you 

5 don't have enough data. You don't know 

6 anything.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right.

8 MS. BRACKETT: You very rarely 

9 have an intake large enough that gives you 

10 enough data to do a decent fit. And so the 

11 dose reconstructor has to try all possible 

12 material types, and I did find a section -- I 

13 don't know what the magnitude of these results 

14 are. 

15 So maybe this doesn't apply, but 

16 there is one set that says, "A single chronic 

17 intake can also be fit when there are only 

18 intermittent positive results that are 

19 relatively small. For example, within a 

20 factor of two of the MDA. This could be 

21 representative of a low level chronic intake 

22 to slow the MDA." And so -- so the guidance 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 is these results are not much above the MDA to 

2 fit one single chronic intake throughout the 

3 possible exposure because you don't know 

4 anything else. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

6 MS. BRACKETT: And you would try 

7 all the material types to come up with 

8 whichever gave you the largest.

9 MR. SIEBERT: That's the third 

10 bullet in the present guidance 5.3.2, which I 

11 also mention at the end of that additionally 

12 there is a section on handling positive 

13 results 5.3. It's in there as well word-for14 word, which Liz just said. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: But our 

16 recommended response is that we could be --

17 this finding could be closed.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, maybe this is a 

19 Procedure discussion. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And it could be a 

21 Procedures discussion when we're prepared to 

22 talk in general about it, OTIB-60.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: I think it is. I 

2 thought maybe it would be real nice to get a 

3 straightforward, "Okay, yes, that makes 

4 sense." And then tomorrow, we can move pretty 

5 quickly. But what I'm hearing is there's more 

6 to the story, and the fact is transferred over 

7 to Procedures, is where it should be. 

8 Because this particular case, for 

9 example, when you have one sample one year and 

10 then another one a year later -- I don't know 

11 what you'd do.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The other thing 

13 that interests me here is the -- the -- and I 

14 haven't looked back at the original findings. 

15 I'm looking at the matrix. Sometimes you 

16 miss some details. 

17 But it says that, "The method is 

18 not scientifically sound nor claimant 

19 favorable," and I guess the question I would 

20 ask based on what Liz just said is if the --

21 did the dose reconstructor in this case, and 

22 107.4 would be our case, is try all the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 possible -- possibilities. Or did they just 

2 look at chronic and try the various 

3 solubilities for chronic and stop there? They 

4 didn't look at the possibility of multiple 

5 acutes. And if multiple acutes, would it 

6 result in a higher dose?

7 And in that case, I'm wondering if 

8 you have a -- sort of the findings --

9 DR. MAURO: This is a very 

10 forensic --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have the 

12 regular generic finding, which is that what's 

13 our -- is there any way that the OTIB-60 can 

14 be revised to give the DR more guidance in 

15 these kinds of situations? But this is a 

16 specific question of whether they gave them 

17 the most claimant favorable dose. Given that 

18 you were lacking information, did you -- did 

19 they make the most claimant favorable 

20 assumption?

21 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I mean they 

22 are not told to try every possible scenario to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 come up with a single largest dose possible. 

2 That -- we would be spending six months on 

3 every case if that were the --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 

5 wanted clarification on that. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well, besides, it's 

7 unreasonable.

8 MS. BRACKETT: Right, and that's 

9 why -- I mean the OTIB pretty much tells them 

10 assume a chronic intake for such. That bullet 

11 that I read, that's what it says to do if you 

12 have intermittent positive results spread over 

13 time. Because it's the same as doing missed 

14 dose. We don't try to fit individual acute 

15 intakes between every -- you know, if a person 

16 had annual samples, and they were all below 

17 MDA, we would assume a single chronic intake 

18 unless there's evidence in their file that 

19 tells you otherwise that that something else 

20 should be assumed, and that would be the case 

21 for the positives also.

22 But if you just have low level 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 positive results, then the assumption of a low 

2 level chronic intake is -- is what you would 

3 do. Again, just because you don't know what 

4 else might've happened. If you had multiple 

5 acute intakes, it would look pretty much the 

6 same as one long chronic intake. And so 

7 that's the rationale behind assuming this one 

8 long chronic intake.

9 DR. MAURO: And Liz, I would argue 

10 on your -- in support of your position if you 

11 -- if you get a rating from a person where you 

12 got a strong positive result. Not MDA, not 

13 plus MDA, but ten times the MDA.

14 MS. BRACKETT: Sure.

15 DR. MAURO: And you got a 

16 measurement. And there should be some 

17 argument to be made that if that happens, and 

18 they don't follow up each month after, that 

19 doesn't make sense. And I would really be 

20 nervous about that. I'd say, "Why didn't they 

21 follow up?" 

22 So there's a collection of common 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 sense arguments you would make. But I would 

2 agree with you if I take a measurement of a 

3 person and it's below or real close to the 

4 MDA, and then the next time I see a 

5 measurement it's below or close to the MDA a 

6 year later, that seems to make sense. 

7 Why would you have an intensive 

8 program following someone that you're really 

9 not seeing anything and you have no reason to 

10 believe there's necessarily a problem? But if 

11 I see a positive hit, a strong positive hit, 

12 and I don't see any follow up measurements 

13 after that, I would get a little nervous. 

14 I'd say, "Why didn't they follow 

15 up with this guy? This guy obviously is doing 

16 a job where he's taking something in. And we 

17 don't see another measurement for a year 

18 later?" This is kind of --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or are we 

20 missing data?

21 DR. MAURO: Are we missing data, 

22 or what's going on?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BRACKETT: Is that the case 

2 here? Like I said, I don't -- I didn't know 

3 what the magnitude of these results were. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: No. This case is 

5 way back early on in Savannah River where 

6 they're not marked as less than values, but 

7 they're actually less than the default MDA we 

8 have for the time frame.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's correct.

10 MR. SIEBERT: So since they're not 

11 marked as less than, we've kind of -- we've 

12 had to go back to the assumption that they're 

13 positive, even though I don't personally think 

14 that these are probably positive results or 

15 below the MDA of the time.

16 DR. MAURO: Take them at face 

17 value. Everything makes sense.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That answers my 

19 question. I thought I heard positive results, 

20 but they're positive but they're not -- yes.

21 DR. ULSH: Okay, so given that 

22 situation for this case, what I heard earlier 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 was we're going to transfer this to the 

2 Procedures Working Group.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

4 DR. ULSH: Am I still hearing 

5 that, or are we going to attempt to resolve it 

6 now?

7 DR. MAURO: What I would recommend 

8 now is I would say set up the procedure and 

9 close this because that answer solves my 

10 problem.

11 DR. ULSH: Okay, so when we send 

12 it to Procedures, what are we asking that 

13 Procedures group to do?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably -- well, 

15 during discussion of OTIB-60, what we want to 

16 do is see if there's enough clarity. Liz said 

17 she is working on this and other things. 

18 Presumably, TIB-60 is in abeyance in the 

19 Procedures vernacular until such time as we 

20 have a product.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

22 TIB-60 is already -- I think we're already 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 somewhere in there with looking at the chronic 

2 versus acute. I'm sure we are.

3 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know whether 

4 --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've discussed 

6 it many times.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know whether 

8 it's TIB-60 or not, but this specific case and 

9 this specific scenario has been discussed 

10 literally for hours in Procedures.

11 DR. MAURO: But it sounds like 

12 there is a revision going on.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. FARVER: We could make it 

15 stronger than OTIB-60, because right now it 

16 says, "a single chronic intake can also be 

17 fit." It just tells about things that can be 

18 done. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. FARVER: Now, if you wanted to 

21 make it a, "should," you know, like in the 

22 next bullet when you talk about the various 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 errors, if you don't have other errors, then 

2 you should use this number. Well, go ahead. 

3 If that's what your policy is going to be, if 

4 it's within a factor of two of the MDA, then 

5 you should use a chronic intake. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: Then say that.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

9 DR. ULSH: I'm trying to think of 

10 -- I mean you don't want to over proceduralize 

11 things.

12 MR. FARVER: I understand. 

13 DR. ULSH: But you can't 

14 anticipate every few weeks.

15 DR. MAURO: I agree with that, but 

16 there's a philosophy. See, we just talked 

17 about the philosophy, and we were -- we were 

18 not that quantitative. It was really a -- and 

19 there's a place where you say, "Listen, when 

20 you get numbers that are this large." How 

21 large that is: more than a factor and two 

22 above -- I don't know. But they're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 demand a certain explanation. Why wasn't 

2 there another measurement?

3 But in this case, taking on face 

4 value what I just heard, mainly that numbers 

5 that were reported in one year, each year, for 

6 all intents and purposes have the MDA in that 

7 area.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was 

9 throwing me off was positives --

10 DR. MAURO: Exactly. I reacted 

11 the same way you are. With that not being the 

12 case, this issue is closed.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They were 

14 pseudo positive results.

15 MEMBER MUNN: They were pseudo 

16 positive.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

18 we're done with it here, and we'll transfer it 

19 to Procedures.

20 MR. KATZ: And for Procedures, it 

21 doesn't really hit the agenda until you come 

22 out with the revised TIB-60. Is that what I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 heard?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have to go 

3 refresh my memory, but if we're working on a 

4 revision to OTIB-60, and it's including -- if 

5 it's in response to the review, then it sounds 

6 to me like it would be --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

8 was already an issue TIB-60. So --

9 DR. MAURO: We could talk about 

10 it, and based on the discussion we have 

11 tomorrow regarding this matter, and if there's 

12 agreement in principal, even though it's not 

13 actually formally in the procedure, it's in 

14 abeyance.

15 MR. KATZ: No, I'm just trying to 

16 keep track of the agenda. That's good. Thank 

17 you.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are there any 

19 others in the sixth set? That closes out the 

20 sixth set, I believe. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Scott, did you --

22 was it you who said you sent that -- just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 resent that message?

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, ma'am.

3 MEMBER MUNN: You must've sent 

4 that to my CVC address, and I don't have my 

5 toggle with me, which is going to be fun 

6 tomorrow. So, would you please send it to my 

7 AOL address?

8 MR. SIEBERT: My fingers are 

9 poised. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much.

11 MR. SIEBERT: What's the address?

12 MEMBER MUNN: WIMUNN -- that's all 

13 right. The whole world knows it anyway.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. If 

15 that's okay, let's take a quick ten-minute 

16 break, just a comfort break, and we'll start 

17 with the seventh set when we come back.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 10:38 a.m., and 

20 resumed at 10:51 a.m.)

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, we are 

22 reconvening after a short break. It's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, we 

3 are on the seventh set of cases. The first 

4 one I have open is the first one, 121.1. I 

5 indicate that remains the NIOSH action item 

6 from my last note. And Stu and Brant, I'm not 

7 sure, but we got at least two responses from 

8 this set for you. It's the 130 and 133 I 

9 think, or something like that. Not 121 I 

10 know.

11 DR. ULSH: Yes, I see where you 

12 have, "Remains a NIOSH action item." I don't 

13 think that we have a resolution yet. Scott, 

14 am I -- are you there?

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Aliquippa 

16 Forge, and I believe it has to do with 

17 comparisons of OTIB-70 and 6,000.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's correct, 

19 yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: No, I'm not aware of 

21 anything that you guys have yet.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 going to remain open, all right? And 120, 

2 that carries through for the next one, Stu, 

3 I'm sure. How about 122.1? The validity for 

4 the approach for the job in question. I think 

5 this was that particular worker, John. This 

6 must be one of your cases --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. This was 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- where you 

had a question whether he'd fit in the 95th 9 . 

10 He was probably the job that was the extreme, 

11 or potentially extreme --

12 DR. MAURO: Furnace operator, yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: This is Simonds Saw 

15 furnace operator. Whenever I hear furnace 

16 operator, I say to myself, "You can't use the" 

17 -- we've got a special problem here.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: And expanded cookbook 

20 for using the geometric means. Yes, again, I 

21 thought about it conceptually. At Simonds 

22 Saw, for external exposure, for example, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 got all these film badges that were hiding; 20 

2 film badges hiding. You got some readings 

3 coming from them. Take the geometric mean of 

4 those film badges, and say, "Okay, this is 

5 what we're going to find as the external 

6 exposure to workers based on film badge 

7 readings."

8 And the only concern I have is, 

9 well, that's fine for probably most workers, 

10 but this guy was a furnace operator. And the 

11 kind of environment he's in is a lot different 

12 than the rest of the workers, and as a result 

13 perhaps a higher end of the distribution from 

14 the film badge readings would make more sense. 

15 I believe that's where we are.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: And there was also 

18 some question that as a furnace operator, he 

19 worked all the time with billets as opposed to 

20 rocks. The cookbook -- I shouldn't call it a 

21 cookbook. The exposure matrix has a very 

22 standard approach, where it says, "Everyone is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 going to be outside external exposure, at 

2 least one foot away for three-and-a-half hours 

3 a day to a reference billet, and to a 

4 reference rod."

5 Now, it turns out for him being 

6 the furnace operator, he's working only with 

7 billets. In other words, he's just cooking 

8 the billets to warm them up so they can be 

9 rolled. Those have an external dose that are 

10 higher. You know, MR per hour and a foot. 

11 They're higher than rods, and 

12 maybe about a factor of, I don't know, maybe 

13 30, 40 or 50 percent higher. So, in other 

14 words, what I'm getting at is in this 

15 particular case, we felt that the basic 

16 approach used in Simonds Saw was largely 

17 pretty good in terms of reviewing the Site 

18 Profile, but when you apply it to a guy who is 

19 a furnace operator, you got to start saying, 

20 "Well, wait a minute. We got to tweak this 

21 guy a little bit because we know these are the 

22 kinds of things we did; that one size does not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 fit all, at least not for him."

2 And I think that's the essence of 

3 what our concern was here.

4 MR. FARVER: It is covered in 

5 122.1 and 122.3.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Scott, 

7 did you -- well, I should say Brant, did you -

8 -

9 DR. ULSH: I'm going to defer to 

10 Scott anyway.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

12 DR. ULSH: Scott, I don't think we 

13 have an objection on this one.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: This may be ours. 

15 I mean this was -- yes. It was an AWE dose 

16 reconstruction. It's not clear to me that 

17 ORAU even prepared it. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Simonds Saw I 

19 believe we actually did. Let me check. Yes, 

20 we did. However, I don't believe we have --

21 there's any responses on this. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 -- as a general sense, I think we get to this 

2 part at the end of the matrix. There's some 

3 sort of generic mini site profile findings at 

4 the end of 8 -- or 7.

5 MR. SIEBERT: That's in the 

6 eighth.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, but it's 

8 very similar. I mean the findings are 

9 essentially against the site profile and the 

10 exposure rate.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The coworker 

12 model.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is, for this 

15 particular individual.

16 DR. MAURO: But this individual, 

17 to bring us to closure, is one more aspect to 

18 this particular case that we are left with. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: And we talked about 

21 this before when I came in. There was thorium 

22 exposure also at Simonds Saw, and the approach 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 used in the exposure matrix was, "Listen, we 

2 have -- HASL came in, and did a DWE, daily 

3 wear exposure analysis, of thorium exposures, 

4 the operation of thorium activities going on."

5 They did it for one day. Okay, 

6 so, they went in there and did a nice job for 

7 one day, and they came up with the daily 

8 weighted exposure. Here's the exposure we 

9 expect people to experience, at least on that 

10 day.

11 Now, there were 36 days where 

12 thorium was processed at Simonds Saw. So, the 

13 question I raised was what do you do when you 

14 have a real nice DWE that represents typical 

15 exposures, people with you know -- you would 

16 expect to experience, so, in other words, 

17 pretty representative of all workers. 

18 I call this a claimant neutral 

19 treatment of the problem, where you're

20 assigning this worker the full distribution 

21 that was generated based on one set of 

22 measurements taken on one day. In my opinion, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 when you only have one day's worth of 

2 measurements, and want to apply it to one 

3 particular worker, and you don't know whether

4 this guy is at the high end or the low end of 

5 the distribution, I can't see -- I understand 

6 why DWE's are done. You want to understand 

7 what's going on at the site. But then to just 

8 use the DWE number for that one day, and use a 

9 geometric mean, so there is a real worker, 

10 there's a 50 percent chance you've 

11 underestimated his dose because he may not be 

12 the worker that's right at the geometric mean. 

13 He may be the worker that's at a higher end.

14 And that day, that one day, there 

15 was only -- we don't know where that date fits 

16 in on the 36 days. So, in my opinion, if I 

17 were doing it, I would say, "You know what? 

18 I'm going to push it up a little bit. I'm 

going to use maybe the 84th 19 percentile for 

20 this guy." And assume every one of those 36 

21 days that he worked there on thorium, rather 

22 than use geometric mean, I push it harder as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 being a way to give a little bit more of the -

2 - well, maybe the 95th percentile. 

3 I don't know whether he got the 

4 95th percentile every day, 36 days, that's a 

5 little -- that's pushing it. But going with 

6 the --

7 MEMBER MUNN: It's not likely.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I agree with 

9 that. But at the same time, using the 

10 geometric mean, that tells me you got a 50 

11 percent chance that this guy has been 

12 underestimated. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: You've also got a 50 

14 percent chance he's been overestimated.

15 DR. MAURO: That's the truth. 

16 Now, what I bring to the Work Group is this is 

17 -- this is a philosophy. If we're going to be 

18 claimant favorable, I consider the approach 

19 you used to be claimant neutral. Now, then 

20 the Work Group has to be comfortable in that 

21 philosophy. 

22 I believe, based on precedent, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 have been moving in a direction where you're 

2 trying to be more claimant favorable. That's 

3 why we see situations where when you're in a 

4 situation like this and not quite sure of 

5 whether this guy is a high-end guy or low-end 

6 guy, what you will do is you'll assign to him 

7 something closer to the higher end of the 

8 distribution, rather than the median.

9 I think that philosophy has been 

10 embraced.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there a 

12 Simonds Saw site --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: There is. There's 

14 a Site Profiler. There is not a Site Profile 

15 Review. The Site Profile essentially 

16 specifies use --

17 DR. MAURO: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So, that's why, in 

19 my view, these finding are essentially against 

20 the site.

21 DR. MAURO: Against the site, 

22 right. They are.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't give 

2 leeway the way John describes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I'm asking 

4 if we have a Work Group set up for that.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: There is not. 

6 DR. MAURO: It's very important. 

7 We've never reviewed -- the only review 

8 Simonds Saw got was the result --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the result 

10 --

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, the result of two 

12 cases we reviewed. And this issue --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I seem to 

14 remember it was probably on one of the slides 

15 of the ones we haven't done yet.

16 DR. MAURO: We haven't done yet.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I think 

18 arguably, these dose reconstruction reviews 

19 are pretty good reviews.

20 DR. MAURO: And we took a real 

21 close look at it -- so, I mean of all of the 

22 AWE's that we did of review on the Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Profile, I would say the one that got the most 

2 attention was Simonds Saw because we did do 

3 two cases, and we did the Bethlehem Steel.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess what 

5 I'm getting at is these are obviously broad 

6 issues. Is the coworker model representative 

7 for all workers? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is 

9 something I think we can make some progress on 

10 getting a decent response back. Again, 

11 there's just so many conflicting activities. 

12 That's the point. That's why it hasn't been 

13 done.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And maybe --

15 and I will -- I'm keeping a task list now, 

16 too. Because for the next meeting, I really 

17 would emphasize to NIOSH and SC&A, if it comes 

18 up, that we weren't --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: On the same step.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. We 

21 could keep track of these. Okay, so, with 

22 that, it goes for 122.3 as well. That remains 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 an open item for NIOSH, same site. The next 

2 one I have is 122.7. Would that be the same? 

3 That's the thorium, right?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the 

5 thorium, yes.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay.

7 MR. FARVER: Was that still open?

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, for the same 

9 reason. Oh, yes. One of the things that came 

10 out of the last meeting was NIOSH was going to 

11 provide SC&A with the HASL data, which gave 

12 the DWE data, and I have to say we try to 

13 track it down. Sometimes it's hard for us. 

14 You may have provided it to us, but we 

15 couldn't find it.

16 Now, I would also argue that when 

17 we do get it, we certainly could look at it, 

18 but I don't know if it's going to change 

19 anything. It's really a philosophical -- we 

20 could take a look at it though.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll put that 

22 on the action to NIOSH to provide. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: So, we do have the 

2 ball --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It may be a 

4 matter of just giving us the site -- the 

5 reference notes. If it's in the site research 

6 data already, yes.

7 DR. ULSH: So, that one was --

8 this particular case was finding 122.1, 122.3 

9 and 122.7?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Correct.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. There are a 

12 couple of them on here that are -- there are a 

13 couple of findings that are resuspension 

14 findings. There are a couple that are 

15 ingestion findings. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, and those are 

17 separate.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: They're generic. 

19 That's a generic thing.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then I'm 

21 going down a ways here to, what, 125.9?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Looks like it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: Let me clarify what's 

2 going on here. The employee's file contained 

3 incident slips where bioassay was in question, 

4 but those dates did not match the bioassays in 

5 the bioassay data. It raised the question why 

6 don't they match, or close? 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any progress on 

8 that one?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so. 

10 Do you know of anything?

11 DR. ULSH: I don't know of 

12 anything.

13 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. 

14 There hasn't been anything on our side yet.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have any 

16 questions today, Scott, or any -- is it clear 

17 what the question is from SC&A?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, yes. I think 

19 we know. There just hasn't been any motion 

20 forward.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's 

22 fine. Just making sure we have laid out the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 problem adequately. All right, moving on. 

2 I'm editing the matrix, because I know if I 

3 don't do it now, it won't get done. 127.8 

4 remains a NIOSH action item -- fission product 

5 dose from whole body counting data, when data 

6 is all or less than MDA. That's what I have.

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is still the 

8 usual discussion of OTIB-54 as it can pertain 

9 to whole body counts.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is this more of 

11 an OTIB-54 generic issue at this point?

12 MR. SIEBERT: I believe so.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. I 

14 mean does it -- does -- I should ask like we 

15 always ask. Would the outcome affect this 

16 case? I mean is this -- I think we're talking 

17 --

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, you mean the PoC?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, as far as 

20 contributing to the overall outcome of the 

21 case, I think it's probably marginal error. I 

22 don't know, I should ask. Does anybody know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 that before I close it out completely?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

3 DR. MAURO: Do we know the PoC? 

4 Do we have the case? Give us a second. As a 

5 rule, we're talking about the change in the 

6 mix of radionuclides, you're assuming that 

7 representative of the whole body count.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, 46.9 is up 

11 there. The internal dose is not a big 

12 contributor though. So, in a funny sort of 

13 place.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: We have a high PoC, 

16 but the internal dose is not the big player.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What was the 

18 cancer? What was the --

19 MR. FARVER: Breast.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Breast cancer. You 

21 won't get much to the breast from internal 

22 dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Given the 

2 evidence that we shipped it to TIB-54 for 

3 discussion --

4 DR. MAURO: My intuition -- yes. 

5 I don't think this change in mix because of 

6 this discussion of OTIB-54 is going to really 

7 move the PoC too much because the contribution 

8 of internal is so small compared to 

9 externally.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Brant, did you 

12 have something?

13 DR. ULSH: Well, are we saying now 

14 that we're going to shift that over to the 

15 Procedures group?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 DR. ULSH: Or close it here?

18 MEMBER MUNN: It's already 

19 happened.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the 

21 Procedures already have that anyway. So, it's 

22 closed on this matrix. Okay, 127.10, this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the same case, and it's again internal dose --

2 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

3 Behling. I'm sorry, I just joined you. I 

4 didn't get back on the line in time. And 

5 you're on 127.10?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, Kathy.

7 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. I did 

8 look at this. In fact, I think this was an 

9 SC&A response that was needed. And in this 

10 particular case, I went back into the -- the 

11 EE's records, and the technical basis 

12 document, and NIOSH's calculations and 

13 response, and I do believe that they are 

14 indicating here that they used ruthenium-106 

15 for their calculation, and that founds this 

16 particular case. 

17 I do agree with them, after going 

18 back and really scrutinizing over all of these 

19 records again.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I'll 

21 close that out then.

22 MR. SIEBERT: So, that was closing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 out .10 as well?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And .11, rust 

5 sample monitoring.

6 MS. BEHLING: I believe NIOSH was 

7 going to follow up on --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MS. BEHLING: -- potential radon 

10 exposure -- or radium exposure.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Radium.

12 MS. BEHLING: Radium.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

14 we've got anything more.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think I 

16 recollect this case when we were -- possibly 

17 the individual could've been confused. It 

18 could've been a spirometery test or something. 

19 You know, something else other than a --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, something 

21 breath monitored.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: A breath monitor 

2 for radium exposure is pretty uncommon.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I just 

4 wanted to verify that this site couldn't have 

5 had that kind of exposure, and then we could 

6 close it out.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: If I recall 

10 correctly, this is employment in basically 

11 like the `80s and `90s. So, that would be 

12 more surprising.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Other than the 

14 later years too, yes. That would be 

15 surprising. What was the site again?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Hanford.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hanford. I 

18 mean if you could just pull the thread on that 

19 a little bit, there was no radon breath 

20 monitoring done at Hanford in those -- that 

21 time frame, then I think we can put this 

22 aside. Right, Doug?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, 

3 we'll hold off for now. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: It's probably more 

5 important with the --

6 MS. BEHLING: I think actually 

7 this case goes back to 1955 through `89. 

8 Hanford and PNNL.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: `55? That's back 

10 in the early --

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, you're right. 

12 I'm sorry. It goes through later on, but it 

13 does start early.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I guess 

15 the follow up is the same. Is there a source 

16 of exposure for this individual?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the key really 

18 is how much of it --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, yes. But 

20 if there was none, then that sort of negates 

21 any further follow up, right? All right, so 

22 it remains a NIOSH action item. I'll move to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 129.5.

2 MS. BEHLING: 129.5 is again this 

3 again this fission product issue. And what we 

4 were questioning is this individual receives a 

5 whole body count, and NIOSH uses a 

6 radionuclide chooser spreadsheet, and selects 

7 the highest radionuclide -- the radionuclide 

8 that gives the highest dose, and we were just 

9 -- have been questioning for quite some time 

10 now if they're going to look into also 

11 assessing doses for other fission products 

12 that the individual might've been exposed to.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there -- I 

14 think this is again referring back to TIB-54 

15 Procedures Subcommittee, and thus the reason 

16 to keep it open here. Again, my question of 

17 how -- what's the PoC and the other --

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay, but I thought 

19 OTIB-54 mainly addresses urinalysis. Am I 

20 wrong on that?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I thought 

22 Scott just said --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. That's the 

2 outstanding thing we have discussing is 

3 whether it can be applied to whole body 

4 counting, and whether it should be.

5 MS. BEHLING: Well, it can be. 

6 It's just not written that way. I mean it 

7 gives ratios. And so, the ratios stand 

8 regardless of whether you're starting with: 

9 urinalysis or whole body count. But we just 

10 haven't taken the step yet of writing it. The 

11 primary concern was cesium-137 would be the 

12 nuclide. You'd probably want to key off of 

13 but that is often positive because of fallout 

14 levels.

15 And so, that would artificially 

16 elevate the other nuclides. And so, that's 

17 the issue that we need to deal with in 

18 applying it to whole body count. Okay, and 

19 I'm sorry if you had this discussion before 

20 and I didn't hear it.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's all 

22 right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: But we didn't on 

2 this call.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think as the 

4 generic issue, it can be brought up. It can 

5 be further disused in Procedures, I believe.

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, PoC is 37 

7 percent.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thirty-seven 

9 percent. What kind of a cancer?

10 MR. FARVER: Prostate-pancreatic. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, 

12 we'll defer this one to Wanda. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Now, if we can get 

14 TIB-54 closed in Procedures, are you going to 

15 pick up on that while you are sitting there 

16 Mark? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought we're 

18 closing it.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Once we defer -

20 -

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the rules 

22 for doing this reconstruction are far more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 important than any specific individual dose 

2 reconstruction, except to the one person. 

3 Shift everything over there. 

4 DR. MAURO: Well, let me ask you 

5 something. Let's say it turns out our review 

6 of OTIB-54 reveals some limitations. I'm not 

7 saying there are. In fact, if I recall, our 

8 review was fairly favorable. We didn't go 

9 into this business of the chest count or the 

10 urine count. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, let's say --

13 let's say something comes out of that, and 

14 everyone agrees, "Yes, we got to fix it." 

15 That's going to trigger a review of all these. 

16 So, I mean the PER is going to -- so, I mean 

17 in a funny sort of way, it could -- I mean if 

18 you close it here, it's going to open again 

19 when --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: If there's 

21 something that comes out of 54 review, then 

22 it'll be reopened again.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: There's another layer 

2 of protection.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

4 All right, 130.6 is the next one I have. 

5 MR. FARVER: Brant, this is the 

6 file you sent and I tried opening it three or 

7 four times, and it kept telling me it's a zip 

8 file.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and I got a lot 

10 of ASCII.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay, so it's a zip 

12 file for you, too.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. FARVER: Can you tell me 

15 what's in it?

16 MR. SIEBERT: I can walk you 

17 through this one.

18 MR. FARVER: Scott, I'll tell you 

19 my basic concern here is --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I know.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: You're thinking that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 originally it was 46 rem, and then when we do 

2 all our reworks and responses and discussions,

3 we were around 23 rem after adding the extra 3 

4 rem for the fission product.

5 MR. FARVER: Right. I agree with 

6 the 3 rem. That's good.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

8 MR. FARVER: I just don't know how 

9 you got from 46 to 23.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. The bottom 

11 line is the original assessment you guys were 

12 doing findings on was approximately 46 rem. 

13 Once we started looking at responses, we had 

14 already reworked the case by that point for I 

15 believe it was Super S plutonium, if I 

16 remember right.

17 But when it was reworked, it was 

18 determined that plutonium was not needed to be 

19 assessed and assigned in the claim. Now, the 

20 original assessment had it assigned, however 

21 it was all based on a single termination urine 

22 sample, and a single termination chest count. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 And in normal processes, if we were doing a 

2 better estimate, as opposed to a huge 

3 overestimate, we would not be assigning 

4 plutonium based solely on a termination 

5 sample, especially this individual who worked 

6 in the D area and reactors. 

7 So, tritium and fission products 

8 makes perfectly good sense. Plutonium does 

9 not. So, when we rework the claim, we assumed 

10 that that was more of a procedural termination 

11 sample, rather than exposure potential, which 

12 you guys are well aware that is not uncommon 

13 for us to deal with that. 

14 DR. MAURO: And a negative result?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And once 

16 you pull -- that was about 25 rem of plutonium 

17 dose. It was in an original assessment that 

18 was not in further assessments because of 

19 that. When you throw that out, you're down

20 around the 23 rem. That's where that 23 rem 

21 is coming from.

22 I did actually throw that back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 into the assessment where we included the 

2 additional fission product, and put that 

3 additional plutonium in, just to see what our 

4 difference in PoC was, and the PoC stayed 

5 almost virtually the same. It went to 42.74 

6 percent.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it's still 

8 well below, yes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: No change in 

10 compensation decision. 

11 MR. FARVER: So, you put the 25 

12 back in, the plutonium back in?

13 MR. SIEBERT: Right. Just for 

14 seeing what the difference is for our 

15 purposes.

16 DR. ULSH: Just so we can discuss 

17 it.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: And it didn't change 

20 the PoC?

21 DR. ULSH: Well, it didn't change 

22 the compensation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: Okay, it didn't 

2 change the PoC.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's still well 

4 below 2. It wasn't like it's 49.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It was -- the 25 

6 was in originally, and we added three 

7 additional. Is that right? By having the 

8 fission --

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. It didn't 

10 change the original PoC, which was based on 

11 the 46 rem.

12 DR. MAURO: So, even then it 

13 didn't change.

14 MR. FARVER: The original 3 rem 

15 would not change that, correct?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

17 MR. FARVER: I agree.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: As long as 

19 you're okay with the additional three, I think 

20 we're okay on that. The rationale for not 

21 including the plutonium sounds reasonable to 

22 me. And you couldn't open the document. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. SIEBERT: Are you using 

2 anything before Office 2007?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, because I 

4 could open it. So, it wasn't a problem on my 

5 end.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's a .docx 

7 file. So, I may have to save those things in 

8 Office 97 through 2003 so everyone can use it. 

9 That's my fault.

10 MR. FARVER: I don't know. I went 

11 into my CVC account and tried to open it from 

12 there, and it just won't let me do it. It 

13 just told me it was a zip file. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and .docx 

15 sometimes works and sometimes doesn't on my 

16 system. I don't know why.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Call Bill Gates.

18 MR. FARVER: Sending him an email 

19 now.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this one is 

21 completely closed. No referring to Wanda's 

22 group or anything?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: No.

2 MR. KATZ: Sometimes with these 

3 kind of files, you have to save them first, 

4 and then open them.

5 MR. FARVER: I couldn't even save 

6 it.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I could save it, but 

8 I came up all ASCII.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 131.4. 

10 Is this the one you have a response for, or 

11 no? No, that's 136. So, 131.4 remains a 

12 NIOSH action item: electron dose calculation. 

13 MS. BEHLING: I believe in this 

14 case, we just didn't -- we couldn't reproduce 

15 their number, and we just -- we weren't sure. 

16 I think this is prior to OTIB-17, and we 

17 really weren't sure how they went about 

18 calculating the electron dose.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll have to 

20 provide it then.

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's why it's 

22 still open. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 131.6.

2 MS. BEHLING: This is again the 

3 same fission product question.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Is there 

5 any difference on this one, Kathy? Or, is it 

6 the exact same kind of thing?

7 MS. BEHLING: Exact same thing.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so we 

9 should defer again, I believe.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes, right, the 

11 OTIB-54.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. This is 

13 not a borderline PoC or anything like that?

14 MS. BEHLING: Let me look. This 

15 is Savannah River, 46.4.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What kind of 

17 cancer?

18 MS. BEHLING: Breast and kidney.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Kidney could 

20 probably. Thorium, well, I won't swear there 

21 are any fission products --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we have any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 others? I'm just finding those right now. 

2 Well, I mean we have our --

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Once again 

4 regardless sum up in a PER.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

6 what I was just saying. We have our backdrop, 

7 which is the PER. I think we can still close 

8 it and refer to Procedures. I might put a 

9 note that -- well, I don't know if I want to 

10 put that note. Well, if it's modified -- yes, 

11 if anything comes of the review on procedures, 

12 then it's an action for the PER, right?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Should be.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this won't 

15 be missed.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Can't see how.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't see a 

18 problem with closing it. Does anyone else? 

19 Okay, then, it's closed. All right, 135.1. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: I believe both 135.1 

21 and .4 are in our house, and no action has 

22 been taken on them so far.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. And 

2 136.3, I think you sent something for that, 

3 right, Scott?

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are you able to 

6 open that?

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that one I 

9 saved as a `97-2003 file.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you very much.

11 MR. FARVER: The question I had 

12 was we had already determined that the bills 

13 matched the paper. That was down in the 41609 

14 response, I believe. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. After looking 

16 at the responses, I thought we had actually 

17 closed this out. But I redid the analysis to 

18 be sure.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

20 MS. BEHLING: Is this a situation 

21 where you received more films or X-rays from 

22 the site?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: That's what it looks 

2 like, according to the September response.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is the 

4 issue that Rocky Flats -- we found that in the 

5 film folders, there were actually more X-rays 

6 for some claims than the paper record that 

7 they had sent us. And now, they are giving us 

8 all film -- they're going through all the film 

9 records instead of just the paper records.

10 In this specific case, the film 

11 records that they sent us was identical to the 

12 paper records that it was originally assessed 

13 against.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 MR. SIEBERT: So, this one was 

16 pretty much -- well, it should be closed out.

17 MR. FARVER: Should be closed.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you're in 

19 agreement with that, right?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

22 right, give me a second. 136.4?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: 136.4, this is one 

2 where we initially felt that NIOSH should've 

3 used a Type S absorption for their calculation 

4 for uranium. However, I did go back through 

5 all of Scott's files, and when you -- when you 

6 look at Type S versus Type M, and you plot it, 

7 and then compare it also to the lung count 

8 data, I do understand why the Type M was used, 

9 and that's more reasonable. So, I agree with 

10 their assessments.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And .05.

12 MR. KATZ: Is four closed?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, four is 

14 closed. I'm sorry. 

15 MS. BEHLING: Again, 136.5 is sort 

16 of a follow up on this Type S. But after 

17 reviewing things again, as I said, we do agree 

18 with NIOSH on this.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. What was 

20 the difference with the CATI? This talks 

21 about follow up on the CATI. Was there 

22 something specifically noted in the CATI that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 --

2 MS. BEHLING: The individual in 

3 the CATI indicated that he was in a building 

4 that caught fire, and --

5 MR. FARVER: Between that and the 

6 TBD list, that same building has had depleted 

7 uranium and beryllium. You would suspect that 

8 the uranium would be Type S from the fire, but 

9 not a Type M.

10 MS. BEHLING: But as we said when 

11 we went back and looked at the bioassay data, 

12 and looked at the plots in the set, I do agree 

13 that the M is more appropriate.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 137.6 

15 MS. BEHLING: Okay, 137.6.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe all the 

17 137's still stay in our house, and we just 

18 have not given responses on them yet. I 

19 believe that's correct. Stu?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. I 

21 don't know what the latest -- I'm not sure I'm 

22 looking at the latest matrix. Is SC&A on our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

April 15th 1 , 2009 response?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, they said in 

3 November they agreed with your determination 

4 on probability -- you were going to add the 

5 MDA. I was going to ask for the case file. 

6 It probably should've been included.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the first one 

8 is that we didn't -- I believe we didn't 

9 include the other IMBA runs to demonstrate 

10 that we ran everything.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 MR. SIEBERT: And selected the one 

13 that was claimant favorable.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

15 know that there's necessarily follow up on 

16 that, is there? It's just to show the worker 

17 -- or save all the runs or whatever.

18 DR. MAURO: This is the one that 

19 Kathy ran on her own --

20 MS. BEHLING: No.

21 DR. MAURO: I misunderstood then, 

22 Kathy.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: Yes, this is the 

2 Paducah case. This is different. Again, this 

3 is what Mark was saying. It's a show your 

4 work type of thing. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For the first 

6 one, for 137.6. The other ones might be 

7 different.

8 DR. MAURO: Correct.

9 MS. BEHLING: The other one is 

10 different.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, let's 

12 -- for that one, I think we can close .6 out, 

13 right? If NIOSH is in agreement with that.

14 MR. SIEBERT: That's .4?

15 MEMBER MUNN: No, .6.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, .6. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean it 

18 sounds to me like NIOSH can see that, yes, we 

19 should've showed a different run from --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

21 MR. FARVER: And then they talk 

22 about --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: -- procedure and 

3 things of that nature.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I'll 

5 just leave it there for now because the whole 

6 case is still open. But when we come back to 

7 it, I think the idea was that you're going to 

8 add these other draft runs into the case file. 

9 Right?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 DR. ULSH: So, it means an action 

12 item for --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then like 

15 Scott said, the whole case 137 is still an 

16 open NIOSH action.

17 MS. BEHLING: I think 137.8, and I 

18 realize NIOSH -- it sounds like is not in a 

19 position maybe to address this today, but 

20 again, this might become one of those 

21 overarching issues with the skin 

22 contamination, and how to deal with potential 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 skin contamination, even though there weren't 

2 any records that indicated that this 

3 individual has skin contamination -- skin 

4 contamination. 

5 There was a lot of other evidence 

6 that would suggest that, and again for 

consistency, we did have a case in the 8th 7 set 

8 where just based on information that was 

9 provided in the CATI report, NIOSH did 

10 calculate a skin dose, assuming skin 

11 contamination. And in this particular case, 

12 they didn't.

13 The other thing I noticed about 

14 this was as I went back and looked at these 

15 records very closely, as there were a lot of 

16 bioassays that were marked as special. So, 

17 they indicate that there was some concern 

18 there, some problems that he had a lot of 

19 special -- just something to consider when we 

20 look at this case.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it does refer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 back to .4, but .4 itself is closed, saying 

2 it's an overarching issue. So, I'm not sure 

3 what you want to do with it.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

5 we'll just see what you come back with with 

6 the overall case next time, and if we can 

7 close parts of it out, we'll do that. Does 

8 that make sense, Scott?

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's fine 

10 with me.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

12 think that brings us through the end of this 

13 matrix, actually. Even though we didn't -- we 

14 made some headway.

15 DR. MAURO: Six is off the table 

16 now, right? Sixth set is done?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: So, that's a 

19 milestone. We have some residue on 7, but --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

21 MEMBER MUNN: And so, even though 

22 you still have 137.8 highlighted, you consider 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 that closed because it's an overarching issue, 

2 right?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think I 

4 indicated that at least part of it is an 

5 overarching issue, but I wanted to see their 

6 runs first before we decided whether it was 

7 solely an overarching issue.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we came in 

9 thinking we owed something.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I 

11 think we wanted to see the data first on the 

12 case, and then decide whether it was just an 

13 overarching issue, or if we need the results 

14 from this case, too. That's why I wrote it 

15 that way. All right. 

16 DR. ULSH: So, we've reached the 

17 end of the seventh set. I mean there's a 

18 number of different criteria you could use to 

19 prioritize these things, but it sounds to me 

20 like the remaining open items from the seventh 

21 set are the highest priority.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 so because we've been on the seventh set for a 

2 while. Yes, yes.

3 DR. ULSH: Okay, we'll work 

4 towards that.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. If we 

6 want to take a minute just to get our bearings 

7 for the eighth set, if you wouldn't mind going 

8 to the eight set, let's open it up and see 

9 where we're at. Also, maybe we can lay out 

10 how we want to approach it because like for 

11 instance, I think Hans is on the line mainly 

12 for those three. 

13 DR. MAURO: So, let's move those 

14 out.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's figure 

16 out where we want to schedule those. So, the 

17 most recent matrix first.

18 DR. MAURO: Mark, I got a 

19 question. I know there are three of them. 

20 There's Bridgeport Brass, Harshaw --

21 MS. BEHLING: Huntington.

22 DR. MAURO: -- and Huntington. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Now, I know we went pretty far down the road 

2 on Harshaw because we provided an estimate to 

3 the responses, and then we, Hans, provided a 

4 response to those responses. So, I know 

5 Harshaw special Site Profile is very mature. 

6 I'm not quite sure where we are with regard to 

7 Bridgeport Brass or Huntington, whether or not 

8 there's been a response for those or not. I 

9 have to say I don't recall whether you've 

10 written a response to those the way you did 

11 for Harshaw.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let me 

13 ask this. For Harshaw, you said you provided 

14 a response to NIOSH's response.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is NIOSH in a 

17 position to discuss that today, or --

18 DR. MAURO: Have you seen it?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- did you 

20 recently get it?

21 DR. MAURO: This goes back a ways. 

22 April. Well, I got it here. Hold on. Let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 me see. 

2 DR. ULSH: Scott, does this ring 

3 any bells while John is looking?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Harshaw stuff? 

5 Honestly, I don't know if that's in your guy's 

6 -- not off the top of my head. Sorry.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: John, I have a 

8 direct response to SC&A comments. That's the 

9 NIOSH --

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and we 

11 responded to that.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's dated 

13 11/5/09. Or no, maybe that's when I saved it. 

14 I shouldn't say that. When did you send it 

15 because I'm not sure I have that.

16 DR. MAURO: Let's see.

17 MEMBER MUNN: We got Harshaw.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay, April 2009. I 

19 have a report here called, "SC&A follow up, 

20 NIOSH's responses to Harshaw Site Profile 

21 review findings." That is my understanding of 

22 the last place we left it, where we -- you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 folks provided us with formal responses to all 

2 of the issues we raised on our Harshaw mini 

3 Site Profile review, and then we reviewed 

4 that, and submitted a White Paper dated April 

5 2009.

6 And Hans, I believe wrote that. I 

7 reviewed it again. Several issues have been 

8 resolved, as far as our report goes, but there 

9 are several still on the table. That might be 

10 a good place to start. If you folks don't 

11 have it -- Kathy, do you have the --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It may not be 

13 worth starting if nobody has looked at it.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. But this 

15 isn't one we put to bed because there's some 

16 that have been resolved.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we may 

18 want to all look at it, though.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe I can ask 

21 for one set. Can you bring it around again 

22 because I can't seem to find it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: I've got it.

2 DR. MAURO: You've got it? Great.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I've got it. 

4 And if I've got it, I know everybody else has 

5 it.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Somewhere.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Let me show you 

8 where I got it from. It was sent on the date 

9 of 11/5.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is a Word or 

11 --

12 MEMBER MUNN: It is a zip file. 

13 It has three files in it. The first 100 

14 cases, Bridgeport review follow up, and a 

15 while paper.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: White Paper 

17 Harshaw?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Harshaw TBD review.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I do have 

20 that one.

21 DR. ULSH: Did you say 11/5?

22 MEMBER MUNN: 11/5/2009.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: April 2009 is 

2 dated on the paper.

3 MEMBER MUNN: The paper is dated 

4 April. It was sent to us in November.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It may have been 

6 sent earlier too.

7 MEMBER MUNN: It probably was.

8 DR. ULSH: We might've gone 

9 through this exercise before.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I do have 

11 it. It is a PDF document.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have it, but 

14 it's -- maybe we can start this.

15 DR. MAURO: We could tell our 

16 story.

17 MEMBER MUNN: It's only 28 pages 

18 long.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's do that 

20 briefly, and then we'll break for lunch. 

21 Let's do that.

22 DR. MAURO: Understand the issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 where we are.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

3 DR. MAURO: In fact, if Hans is on 

4 the phone, I mean he's -- don't want to take 

5 it from Hans. He did all the hard work. Is 

6 Hans there?

7 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I'm here.

8 DR. MAURO: You want to tell your 

9 story? Or, do you want me to do it?

10 DR. BEHLING: Can you tell me 

11 exactly? I just picked up where we are here.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, yes. Hans, I 

13 have in front of me a report that you drafted. 

14 I seem to recall you drafted. It's dated 

15 April 2009, where there -- there were a number 

16 -- it turns out that -- we had originally, 

17 when we reviewed the mini review of the 

18 Harshaw Site Profile, which was attached to 

Appendix 2 to the 8th 19 set, we had a total of 

20 six findings in that original review.

21 Then -- and NIOSH then submitted -

- on January 22nd 22 , 2009, NIOSH submitted a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 White Paper responding to our six comments, 

2 okay? And the bottom line is when they came 

3 back to us, we review that, and then we 

4 submitted this report dated April 9, 2009. In 

5 the 30-second sound bite, where we are is we 

6 consider findings 2 and 3 out of the 6 

7 conditionally resolved. In other words, we 

8 feel the response is satisfactory.

9 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: Finding 6, we found a 

11 five-fold mathematical error. NIOSH looked at 

12 it and agrees, and they have to fix that. 

13 However, the issues that still remain where I 

14 guess we agree to disagree is findings numbers 

15 1, 4 and 5.

16 DR. BEHLING: That's what I have 

17 too, John.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. So, that's where 

19 I -- that's where I am right now. Do you want 

20 to talk about 1, 4, 5?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a good 

22 summary, I think, at this point. Because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Brant, you guys aren't ready to discuss the 

2 response to the response. So, let's just take 

3 good notes on this on what we have to -- the 

4 main things I think you should focus on is 

5 where there's disagreement obviously. DR. 

6 MAURO: And that's 1, 4 and 5.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean work 

8 group members may also look at those and think 

9 you closed, and not agree. But for now, we'll 

10 focus on this disagreement. So, 1, 4, and 5.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It really starts at 

12 section 3.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Page 3.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and I see 

16 Brant making notes. So, for Harshaw, focus on 

17 1, 4 and 5 for the next meeting. I'm not sure 

18 there's much reason to go into it, because 

19 we'll do the same thing next meeting, right?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, we'll regroup 

21 again.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 start either the Bridgeport Brass or the 

2 Huntington?

3 DR. ULSH: Mark, before we do 

4 that, if I could just ask a quick question?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 DR. ULSH: It sounds from John's 

7 summary like there's at least agreement 

8 between NIOSH and SC&A on 2, 3 and 6.

9 DR. MAURO: Right.

10 DR. ULSH: But is there agreement 

11 from the subcommittee on 2, 3 and 6?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's 

13 what I'm saying. I don't think we've had a 

14 chance to do all of that. But I said at least 

15 for now, focus on where there's disagreement 

16 between SC&A and NIOSH.

17 DR. ULSH: Now I'm with you.

18 DR. MAURO: That doesn't mean --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That doesn't 

20 mean that -- yes, you'll necessarily agree.

21 DR. ULSH: I understand.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 to try to sit here and read now. I think it's 

2 fair to say we -- let's just hold on for now 

3 because it's likely they'll be closed.

4 DR. ULSH: Okay, thanks.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. Do 

6 you want to go to Bridgeport or Huntington?

7 DR. MAURO: I'm ready. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or, do you want 

9 to --

10 DR. MAURO: I understanding is we 

11 have never engaged those.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

13 so. 

14 DR. MAURO: I'm not sure. And it 

15 turns out there are a number of findings, and 

16 I could -- we can buzz through them. There 

17 are only five on Bridgeport Brass, and I can 

18 give you the essence of each of them, if that 

19 helps.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would be 

21 great.

22 DR. MAURO: All right, finding 1. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Okay --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on. Let's 

3 just get that.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay, you want to find 

5 it?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me find the 

7 document that you're talking about. Is this 

8 Bridgeport review follow up doc? 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

12 DR. MAURO: It should be 

attachment 1 to the 8th 13 set.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the White 

15 Paper, but it's not in a PDF form. Okay. 

16 Right, okay. Go ahead, John.

17 DR. MAURO: Okay, if you recall, 

18 the Bridgeport Brass is really two. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One second. 

20 I'm sorry. Brant, do you guys have this 

21 document?

22 DR. ULSH: No, I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I want to make 

2 sure NIOSH has these pieces before we --

3 DR. ULSH: This is SC&A's report 

4 on Bridgeport Brass dated April 2009?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Well, our Bridgeport 

7 Brass is in our -- delivered to the Board has 

8 a date of May 2008.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I see a 

10 document prepared by SC&A, April 2009.

11 DR. BEHLING: John, the White 

12 Paper was April 2009.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. BEHLING: We're talking 

15 Bridgeport Brass now.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, looking at 

19 -- I'm looking at the attachment. I actually 

20 have the hard copy in front of me that I took 

21 out of my three-ring binder. And the front 

22 page, on the bottom of the front page, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 cover page, says, "May 2008." Let's see if 

2 the footnote says something different. No. I 

3 mean --

4 DR. BEHLING: John, I think we're 

5 really talking about the White Paper that I 

6 prepared that supplements the 2008 --

7 DR. MAURO: Oh, well, then you're 

8 ahead of me. I'm off base then, because I was 

9 working from the actual original mini Site 

10 Profile review that was attachment --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just get 

12 our bearings here. In the White Paper that 

13 Hans was talking about, on page 2, right 

14 before finding number 1, it says, "Under task 

15 4, the Board directed SC&A to conduct a more 

16 comprehensive review of ORAUT-TKBS-30, SC&A 

17 issued its report entitled, `Review of 

18 Bridgeport Brass Technical Basis Document, 

19 Havens Lab and Adrian Plant,' to the Board's 

20 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction and NIOSH 

21 in May of 2008, as attachment 1 to the eighth 

22 set of the dose reconstruction audit reports."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 "In our review, SC&A identified 

2 five findings, which are briefly summarized 

3 below." So, I think you went further into 

4 this.

5 DR. MAURO: I'm dated then. Hans, 

6 you got it. I'm -- I'm behind the time on 

7 this one. So, thanks for correcting that.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so, Hans, 

9 if you could, give us an overview, maybe at 

10 least five findings.

11 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Contrary to 

12 what was stated earlier, we did review those. 

13 And I think we resolved a good number of the 

14 five. I think it's really finding number 2 

15 that remains unresolved. And I think a couple 

16 of those were really Harry Chmelynski's 

17 issues.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, the correlation 

19 issue?

20 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. I know it well. 

22 We could use Harry on the line to help.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe we could 

2 get him for after lunch. 

3 MR. KATZ: He's here. He's here.

4 DR. ULSH: Okay, hold on. 

5 Findings 1 through 5, all of them except 

6 number 2 are resolved. Is that what you said?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, you can see 

8 that under paragraph 2.1. Finding 1, NIOSH 

9 agrees with the finding and will conduct --

10 DR. ULSH: Okay.

11 DR. BEHLING: I have -- just in my 

12 notes, I think we have conditionally resolved 

13 findings 1, 4 and 5. And I guess number 2 is 

14 the one that's an issue that Harry needs to 

15 discuss.

16 MEMBER MUNN: That was the only 

17 one that NIOSH rejected and --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the only 

19 problem is that when you say -- I mean we 

20 have -- we have agreement. Here's the problem 

21 when you're -- this is kind of a mini-Site 

22 Profile question, but I'm looking at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 bottom of the matrix, and actually we did it. 

2 Hans is right. We did discuss this at one 

3 point, actually on 11/5/09. There's some 

4 highlighted things in the matrix.

5 And on finding 5, just for 

6 example, it says, "NIOSH agrees, and will 

7 modify the site matrix table 5.1." But we 

8 haven't heard how -- I'm not sure we've heard 

9 how NIOSH will modify the table.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't 

11 believe we have.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, if this is 

13 like a mini site, I think we have to see that 

14 through, and understand what -- what are you 

15 going to do to it. So, there's several items 

16 down there. Maybe that's the place we start 

17 when we -- I think we might want to break for 

18 lunch, and come back and start at the bottom 

19 of the matrix, finding numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

20 for Bridgeport Brass, supplement it with the 

21 White Paper that Hans is talking from, and 

22 discuss this a little further. Is that okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Hans?

2 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you join us 

4 at 1:00?

5 DR. BEHLING: Okay. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

7 let's -- if it's okay with everyone, let's 

8 take our recess now, and reconvene at 1:00. 

9 We'll start with Bridgeport Brass, and then 

10 we'll do Huntington, and then we'll go back 

11 into the regular findings.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 11:52 a.m., and 

14 resumed at 1:13 p.m.)

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, so Dose 

16 Reconstruction Subcommittee, and we're 

17 reconvening after lunch. We're on the eighth 

18 set. Sorry for being a few minute late coming 

19 back. I think we'd like to pick up on the --

20 at the bottom of the matrix, or the end of the 

21 matrix, there's Bridgeport Brass findings, 1 

22 through 5.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Maybe we can take our discussion 

2 from there, and as the White Paper pertains to 

3 that, I think we can discuss that. John?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. So, you want to 

5 go through the Bridgeport Brass White Paper, 

6 and close out those five -- where we are? 

7 Then we can go through the cases. Or, do you 

8 want to go through the cases first? I 

9 misunderstood.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Bridgeport 

11 Brass first.

12 DR. MAURO: Right. The attachment 

13 as opposed to any cases that are -- I don't 

14 know, there may be some Bridgeport Brass 

15 cases. Yes, in fact the first one is -- the 

first case in the 8th 16 set is a Bridgeport 

17 Brass.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I was 

19 looking at the attachments. So, let's start 

20 with that.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, either you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 or Hans.

2 DR. MAURO: Hans sounds like he's 

3 out in front of me on this because he has that 

4 update. Hans, are you there?

5 DR. BEHLING: I think for those 

6 who have either the White Paper on their 

7 computer, or in hard copy, I think we can just 

8 look at page 3. I think Mark had referenced 

9 before we had -- we broke for lunch. 

10 I think on page 3, or section 2, 

11 that is entitled, "Draft Responses," I think 

12 we've come to closure on a number of these, 

13 and I think the first one that I believe still 

14 remain an open issue is the response to 

15 finding 2, that NIOSH has rejected. I think 

16 that really belongs to Harry Chmelynski. If 

17 he is on the line, I think Harry should 

18 comment on that. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hans, if you 

20 wouldn't mind, could you just start from 

21 number 1? Because I don't have any resolution 

22 in the matrix at this point for number 1.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. BEHLING: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, maybe we 

3 discussed it, but I didn't have it down.

4 DR. BEHLING: For number 1, the 

5 summary finding was that the Site Profile 

6 would benefit from additional analysis that 

7 demonstrate that the fault intake rates 

8 adopted in the exposure matrix are claim 

9 favorable for early operational time period in 

10 different job categories, and the NIOSH 

11 response to that was additional analysis of 

12 this finding is necessary, and will be 

13 provided upon completion.

14 So, I take that NIOSH is going to 

15 obviously provide some additional data for 

16 that.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it's 

18 not really closed. And you say down further 

19 on page 4, "Findings 1, 4 and 5 are 

20 conditionally resolved, pending data analysis 

21 by NIOSH that address those findings and meet 

22 the approval of the DR Subcommittee." So, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 think that -- from that standpoint, we need to 

2 see that analysis.

3 DR. MAURO: The key was the data 

4 seemed to be pretty rich internal, post-1960. 

5 Pre-1960, it's a lot more limited. And the 

6 question becomes can you use the richer data 

7 set for internal post-1960 for both Havens and 

8 Adrian, to reconstruct the earlier dates.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: I think that's where 

11 we go with that.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm 

13 assuming that NIOSH is just looking at -- I 

14 mean you don't have necessarily a response.

15 Okay. So, I'm just -- Hans, I'm 

16 not in disagreement with you. I'm just 

17 putting it --

18 DR. BEHLING: No, I'm sorry when I 

19 spoke to the effect that it might already be 

20 closed. I wasn't really aware if NIOSH had 

21 actually provided with the additional data 

22 that they had promised, and also the closure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 But as you just mentioned that's not the 

2 case.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

4 fine. Okay, so we can move onto finding 

5 number 2 if you want now. 

6 DR. BEHLING: Is Harry on the 

7 line?

8 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm here, 

9 Hans.

10 DR. BEHLING: Okay, I guess this 

11 is yours, Harry.

12 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Okay, this 

13 started many years ago. I don't remember. 

14 But I was reading the technical basis document 

15 on page 48, for Bridgeport Brass. And it has 

16 two sentences, one referring to Adrian, and 

17 one referring to Havens.

18 And these sentences say that when 

19 the dose was simulated for the workers that 

20 the 26 two-week period doses were simulated 

21 using crystal ball and assuming correlation. 

22 And the same sentence is repeated again for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Havens on page 48.

2 And I was interested in that 

3 because when you do a crystal ball simulation, 

4 first you want -- you can specify the 

5 correlation, but right here it never tells you 

6 what the correlation is that they used. So, 

7 that raised my curiosity. And what I did was 

8 I reconstructed the simulation, and what I 

9 found was they didn't use any correlation. 

10 What they did was they took 26 

11 measurements, and they summed them up using 

12 the assumption that they were all independent. 

13 And that's -- and I could reproduce the 

14 numbers in the table, and the technical basis 

15 document using that assumption, that assuming 

16 correlation.

17 So, that's where this all started. 

18 The -- the answers differ by a factor of 2 

19 when you do the simulations. The factor of 2 

20 assuming 100 percent correlation, which I know 

21 is unreasonable, but it's the highest you can 

22 get, so it's an upper bound, and the answer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 that was presented in the technical basis 

2 document was half of that. It's the one you 

3 get with you have no correlation.

4 And the response that NIOSH gave 

5 was essentially to repeat what I just said, 

6 although they never mentioned the word 

7 correlation. They said that we used 26 two8 week measurements, and we added them up in the 

9 simulation, and this is the answer you get. 

10 And that's where, as far as I remember, it was 

11 left. I don't know if anyone has any more 

12 that has been said since then, but I'm not 

13 aware of it.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I think we 

15 were next in line to owe something on this. I 

16 don't believe we added anything since we had 

17 it, since we got this -- this review. So, I 

18 don't know if anything additional was 

19 prepared. But think about this just a minute. 

20 Remind me here again on the 

21 correlation, the correlation being that a 

22 particular individual is likely to be higher 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 in the population in general, as opposed to 

2 randomly distributed in the population of 

3 doses for a given read out period. Is that 

4 the correlation?

5 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, from one 

6 read out period to another, if that worker is 

7 remaining in the same job, it's likely that he 

8 will remain relatively high or relatively low 

9 during the next reading period also.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and the 

11 treatment of the data influences the 

12 distribution of the -- or the total 

13 distribution is later on then.

14 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right. 

16 I am a babe in the woods in statistics. I'm 

17 just trying to make sure I got an idea of the 

18 issue. MR. CHMELYNSKI: And all 

19 I'm pointing out here is it was stated that 

20 the correlation was used, but we couldn't 

21 verify that it was. And indeed, it looks like 

22 none was used.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. CHMELYNSKI: So, that's where 

3 it's been since then, I think.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

5 DR. ULSH: Is that pretty much the 

6 basis of the finding is the treatment of 

7 correlation? Is that the issue?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

9 Reluctantly, I'm pursuing this question, but 

10 do you have an opinion on whether a 

11 correlation should've been applied, or not?

12 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes. Personally, 

13 I believe that -- I have had some years 

14 working in a factory back when I was a young 

15 man, and generally, you worked at the same 

16 place day after day, week after week, maybe 

17 year after year.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Luckily, I didn't 

20 have to stay there very long, but that's been 

21 my experience.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the data set too, you believe that it probably 

2 should have.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd say that's 

4 probably not an unreasonable position, yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

6 right, I think we have enough for now. NIOSH 

7 has to look at that, and give us further 

8 assessment on that. Go ahead onto finding 3, 

9 Hans.

10 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Finding 3, 

11 just for those who may not have the document 

12 in hand. Finding 3 dealt with exposures to 

13 localized parts of the body, such as the hands 

14 and forearm from non-penetrating radiation for 

15 some workers, which would possibly not be 

16 properly assessed by film badges worn on the 

17 chest. That was our finding.

18 And NIOSH's response to Finding 3 

19 was, "In principle, NIOSH agrees with the 

20 basic concerns, but believes that the dose 

21 reconstructor will recognize the need for 

22 making necessary dose adjustments."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I guess that is perhaps not as 

2 obvious to SC&A as it is to NIOSH. And I 

3 think in our write up, we talked about the 

4 fact that these people may have handled 

5 uranium metal, and of course contact doses for 

6 doing so to -- to the hands might be as high 

7 as 230 milligrams per hour, and so forth, and 

8 would potentially not be necessarily 

9 documented by a film badge worn on the chest.

10 So, at this point, I'm not sure 

11 what NIOSH intends to do, if anything in 

12 raising that to a higher level of awareness. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you notice, 

14 in the matrix, there is a resolution. At 

15 least indicated something on 11/5/09, that 

16 NIOSH will check to see where/if the approach 

17 is outlined within NIOSH procedures. And I 

18 think someone said that possibly TIB-13 may 

19 address this issue.

20 So, I think you were going to 

21 check back to see if there was actually enough 

22 guidance out there for the dose reconstructor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 to -- at least that seems -- based on what 

2 Hans said, that seems like what that's saying 

3 there. So, I think it would remain a NIOSH 

4 action item check.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it is.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, if 

7 there's adequate procedures to give the dose 

8 reconstructor direction on how to proceed.

9 DR. MAURO: I'd like to add a 

10 little to that. Two things I want to report. 

11 NIOSH -- the strategy NIOSH has opted is to 

12 take two data of non-penetrating film badge 

readings, and pick off the upper 95th 13

14 percentile, and came up with something: the 

15 fault value as the surrogate, which I believe 

16 is 1.8 milligrams per hour.

17 There are two aspects to that we 

18 want to keep in mind. One is of course that 

19 value represents we believe uncorrelated data, 

20 because the comment Harry made about 

21 penetrating, but also non-penetrating. And 

22 second, we found that 1.8 milligrams per hour, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 when you compare that to a contact skin dose 

2 of over 200 milligrams per hour, is a big 

3 difference.

4 So, by not taking into 

5 consideration the possibility of, you know, 

6 only use the added distance reading on a film 

7 badge, the person may very well handle 

8 material, even for a relatively short period 

9 of time.

10 So, it's not a small difference. 

11 It's a big difference. There was another 

12 point I wanted to bring up. It's during our 

13 one-on-one session when we had these meetings, 

14 one of the things that came up, which was 

15 unusual but we included, had to do with a 

16 particle settling -- when you're working in an 

17 environment where there's lot different 

18 particles, material settling on the skin, on 

19 the neck, around the ears, and whether or not 

20 you'd want to try to factor that into your 

21 dose.

22 Because the 1.8, you know, you got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 particles of uranium. It may only be there 

2 for the day, because then you shower. But 

3 this is one of those places near Paducah where 

4 they had these kind of -- where there's 

5 evidence that airborne particles of uranium. 

6 A lot of these AWE facilities have that at 

7 issue, and I don't think we've ever really 

8 engaged that. You know, the direct deposition 

9 of particles on bear skin.

10 And I think in some cases, you may 

11 have looked at that. You see things like bar 

12 skin. In other cases, you haven't. I think 

13 that may be a generic issue that needs to be 

14 cut across the board, and how that can be 

15 dealt with. It's a big deal when it comes to 

16 skin dose. 

17 DR. ULSH: Okay, is that a part of 

18 Finding 3?

19 DR. MAURO: It is part of Finding 

20 3. Finding 3, if you -- I have the report in 

21 front of me. That's why I brought it up. 

22 It's mentioned in Finding 3.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. ULSH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I know we 

3 at least raised this last meeting, because I 

4 can remember the discussion about it can be 

5 difficult to -- yes, especially if you don't 

6 know, it can be difficult to quantify. 

7 DR. MAURO: We did some generic --

8 in another venue, we ran some calculations if 

9 you had different size particles, relatively 

10 small particles, of uranium deposit on skin. 

11 So, I mean this is -- you can -- in theory, 

12 one could argue if the situation exists, the 

13 only thing I'm not sure of -- let's say a 

14 person has skin cancer on the back of his 

15 hand, all right?

16 I'm not sure how you deal with 

17 this. Do you assume that, "All right, I'm 

18 going to reconstruct the dose through skin?" 

19 Okay, and the way you normally do it is using 

20 OTIB-17, which is based on a full over here. 

21 So, you come up with your number, and you got 

22 your dose, and you do your calculation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 But now you say, "Wait a minute. 

2 Wait a minute. At this site, it's not unusual 

3 that he's doing grinding, and he doesn't have 

4 gloves or whatever, that you can get some 

5 maybe on your face. And if the cancer is 

6 there now, what do you do?" 

7 I assume that particle of uranium 

8 is what did it. That particle landed here, 

9 sat there for a day, delivered whatever dose 

10 that might be, and you reconstructed those --

11 that little spot. I'm not sure, and I owe it 

12 -- it's sort of like one of these problems 

13 that turn your brain into a knot. How do you 

14 deal with that? Do you assume that that 

15 cancer was due to that dust particle that went 

16 right there?

17 And I'm not -- and we really never 

18 engaged this conversation. How do you deal 

19 with that kind of problem. I'm not even sure 

20 how the risk coefficient for skin works.

21 DR. ULSH: Well, actually, that's 

22 an interesting point. When you said that, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 thing that I was thinking of was hands and 

2 face. I mean the skin background rate doesn't 

3 break it down to different areas of the body.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, for good reason. 

5 For good reason. How does the risk 

6 coefficient work for skin cancer? And 

7 apparently, there's -- it's treated a very 

8 special way in Iraq, and quite frankly, I 

9 don't fully understand it. And it goes toward 

10 this issue. So, anyway, this has been 

11 troubling me for some time.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, now, what 

13 you just said, John, also reminds me that 

14 sometimes in the matrix we can lose sight of 

15 some of the details in the full report. You 

16 know?

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We often got to 

19 remind ourselves to go back to the full body 

20 of the report. Because I would've missed that 

21 one completely, yes. 

22 DR. MAURO: That might be one of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the generic issues, because we discussed this 

2 before, and I think you may -- it may be in 

3 the box of generic issues.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least that 

5 part may be.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, that part. Oh, 

7 yes, that part.

8 MEMBER MUNN: It really ought to 

9 be because we're not going to find any sites 

10 where you don't have exposed hands and skin.

11 DR. MAURO: Well, you don't always 

12 have particles settling. I mean no doubt a 

13 lot of these AWE's this -- these parts apply.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Anywhere there's any 

15 kind of machining, grinding or any kind of 

16 fuel activity going on.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: But then the big 

19 question then becomes but is it any different 

20 than if that person were my uncle, who had 

21 significant amounts of skin cancer all the 

22 time, and didn't have anything to do with --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: It's like smoking.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

4 let's look at number 7 -- or is it 4. Did I 

5 skip over 4? Sorry. 

6 DR. BEHLING: Are we on number 4?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 DR. BEHLING: That is probably on 

9 par with Finding number 2. The -- the finding 

10 was that the Site Profile would benefit from a 

11 "leave one out," analysis of the data, and 

12 that again goes back to Harry. And there 

13 response, NIOSH's response, was that NIOSH 

14 agrees with the finding, will conduct 

15 additional analysis.

16 So, Harry and NIOSH I guess need 

17 to -- to weigh in on that issue.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we don't have 

19 anymore to provide.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

21 DR. MAURO: This is --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I remember 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 this discussion.

2 DR. MAURO: This is an important 

3 and interesting idea because it goes to the 

4 coworker models. One of the biggest problems 

5 we always encounter is you got a group of work 

6 groups that have data. Let's say it's 

7 internal data. And then you're going to use 

8 that data set to build a coworker model, which 

9 is going to apply to other workers that may 

10 have had different jobs, or to other time 

11 periods. 

12 And always the question is what 

13 makes you think that that group of workers 

14 uses surrogate in its narrow sense, for that 

15 site, those workers, to another group of 

16 workers? And Harry basically came up with an 

17 answer. 

18 It says there are ways of dealing 

19 with that kind of problem, and it's called the 

20 leave one out approach. And Harry certainly 

21 could explain it, but I found it very valuable 

22 because what it does is it strengthens the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 ability to build a coworker model that is 

2 compelling; that you considered, explicitly 

3 considered, yes, we're going to apply that 

4 data to perhaps a group of workers that might 

5 be a little different, and perhaps a little 

6 different time period at the same facility.

7 And the leave one out approach 

8 that Harry describes in some detail in the 

9 report is a way to get at that, and try for a 

10 more -- give you a stronger case that you can 

11 do what you're doing.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, do you 

14 need any further description of Harry's --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He went over it 

17 last time.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: He went over it 

19 last time, and you go back to the original 

20 write up. Just like everything else, it's 

21 written pretty clear.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 we'll look at number 5.

2 DR. BEHLING: Okay, number 5, I 

3 think we have a partial resolution and a 

4 partial outstanding issue. Number 5 deals 

5 with residual contamination levels and 

6 inhalation exposures. And in Table 5.1 in the 

7 write up TBD, there was a 100-fold error, 

8 which I believe NIOSH has fully acknowledged.

9 But in addition to that particular 

10 error, which I assume was perhaps a type 

11 error, I also have identified a couple issues 

12 that are discussed in section 3 of my White 

13 Paper, called, "A New Issue Concerning Finding 

14 Number 5." And one of the things that I 

15 identified was the original or the corrected 

16 value of approximately 7 picocuries per day as 

17 an inhalation was based on a resuspension 

18 factor of 1E minus 6.

19 And I raised that as an issue 

20 because in another document, I questioned that 

21 generic resuspension factor 1E minus 6, and 

22 concluded that for many facilities such as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 this, perhaps an E minus 4 might be 

2 appropriate, and I support that in -- in -- on 

3 page 5, by talking about the reason number 2, 

4 for those of you who have it.

5 And if you look at the actual 

6 data, you find that the estimates that were 

7 derived in -- or the measurements that were 

8 taken in -- let me quickly read here. In 1976 

9 were -- 15 years later were actually three 

10 times higher than the predicted dose, the 

11 predicted air concentration, in 1961, meaning 

12 that among other things, the decay factor of 1 

13 percent per day was totally ignored in the 

14 value because it applies for all times around 

15 a time dependent air concentration.

16 And I believe NIOSH did 

17 acknowledge this, and promised to look into 

18 that.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is 

20 actually kind of part and partial of the 

21 general resuspension question that's out 

22 there. The generic resuspension.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: Regarding the -- this 

2 goes to our TBD-6000. We've really made some 

3 very important progress in one regard. When 

4 all is said and done for the residual period, 

5 there were two big questions that we were 

6 struggling with, and it cuts across the board 

7 for every residual theory that is worked on at 

8 any site.

9 One is calculating how much 

10 material has deposited on the surface, and 

11 then once it's deposited on the surface, which 

12 of course will contribute to your direct 

13 radiation exposure, but also to resuspension, 

14 we originally took a position that, and this 

15 has an across the board affect, the way in 

16 which you calculate the amount of activity 

17 that is deposited on the surface, so you get 

18 your Becquerels per meter squared, was based 

19 on a model where you had a certain dust 

20 loading, and you had this .0075 meters per 

21 second.

22 I was always critical of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 because I felt that the stuff that's on 

2 surfaces is not from that. It's from these 

3 lost particles that are always flowing out. 

4 But you -- in our last TBD-6000 meeting, the -

5 - the -- we found that that works. That works 

6 when you allow a year's worth of that stuff 

7 falling to the surface, you get Becquerels per 

8 meters squared that is borne out by actual 

9 material measurements at many places we were 

10 in.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the 

12 Adley report?

13 DR. MAURO: The Adley report, 

14 right, exactly. They had the plates laid out, 

15 and son of a gun. I have to say, I was 

16 surprised that it worked. But we still have -

17 - so, that issue at so many places has been 

18 resolved. But the resuspension factor that 

19 you folks continue to use: 10 to the minus 6 

20 per meter, and that's not good enough. Five 

21 or 10 to minus 5, or maybe even higher 10 to 

22 minus 4 is much more appropriate, unless you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 know for sure that the site is clean.

2 In other words, you know there's 

3 not contamination. But that's not the case. 

4 Most of the AWE sites we're dealing with some 

5 -- you know, there's activity on the sites. 

6 And people are moving around, kicking it up, 

7 and 10 to minus 6 doesn't work there.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. It's just 

9 part of the broader response that we owe. 

10 DR. BEHLING: And then as I said, 

11 I'm not sure to what extent the other issue 

12 that I addressed on page 5 and 6 is really 

13 remedied by revising the resuspension factor. 

14 It could be, but the resuspension factor and 

15 the value that was cited there has to be a 

16 dynamic value because obviously we have to 

17 take into consideration the vacation factor, 

18 whatever that may be. And there, we also had 

19 previously mentioned our concern about a 1 

20 percent removal rate as a generic value.

21 But in the particular cases we're 

22 talking about here, on page 5, I quote 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 directly from the document. And we ended up 

2 with a 1961 air concentration that is three3 fold lower than the one in empirical value 

4 that we estimated in 1976.

5 So, obviously, we have a problem 

6 here with regard to the absence of a dictation 

7 value.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I mean 

9 I'm not sure on this one whether it just falls 

10 on the generic issue yet, or if it's still a 

11 question as it pertains to this particular 

12 site. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We already 

14 owe several --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean if we -

17 -

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll just keep 

19 it on here for you now. 

20 DR. MAURO: In general, a lot of 

21 the work that we're doing now was done before 

22 OTIB-70. OTIB-70 is -- whereby you know the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 story.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: There is a lot of 

4 granularity to OTIB-70. There's one 

5 particular strategy that you've adopted in 

6 there that I think is -- solves an awful lot 

7 of hills regarding residual period. And if --

8 and if that approach is used, which we talked 

9 about on the phone, the details, it's the 

10 perfect solution to just so many of these 

11 residual questions.

12 Rather than going to the flush 

13 route measurements that were taken in 1978, 

14 1980, and assuming that represents the 

15 airborne and dust -- for the entire residual 

16 period, go -- go to the end of the operations 

17 period. Take a look early in the residual 

18 period. See what you got there, and let that 

19 start it, and then let it drop down to the 

20 period, and there's a solution. It's a 

21 universal fix. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 we're going to Finding number 6, and that 

2 speaks directly to the resuspension of -- is 

3 that different than number 5 that we're 

4 talking about?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Are we back on the 

6 matrix?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, I'm not there.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe if it's 

10 just broken out.

11 MEMBER MUNN: The original --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

13 second part of 5 or something. I don't know. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: The original 

15 attachment matrix, or our matrix? The matrix 

16 you're working on --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the 

18 summary -- it's the matrix with the attachment 

19 that says at the tail end of it --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't see a 

21 Finding 6.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Attachment 1.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: I have attachment 1, 

2 but I only have five findings.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know if 

4 you're working from -- what I might've done is 

5 taken that second part of 5 and made it a 

6 separate finding. It's a new 5, because I 

7 think Hans was calling it, "New finding 

8 related to 5." And I might've put it in the 

9 matrix as number 6, because it's a separate 

10 finding.

11 DR. MAURO: So, on to 5. My 

12 understanding of the original 5 was this is a 

13 100-fold -- I lost track here.

14 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that's correct, 

15 John. I think NIOSH acknowledged that 100-

16 fold error. 

17 DR. MAURO: On the second half of 

18 that now, let's call it 5A or whatever.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I called it 6. 

20 That's where the confusion --

21 DR. MAURO: And -- and --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 be the resuspension factor.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, and Hans, could 

3 you give it to us again, the essence of this?

4 DR. BEHLING: Yes. The essence is 

5 that if you apply the 1E minus 62 suspension 

6 factor, which was used to derive the air 

7 concentration for 1961, you end up with one 

8 picocuries per cubic meter, but then there was 

9 an empirical measurement 15 years later, that 

10 has it 3 picocuries per cubic meter, and of 

11 course you have not only a three-fold 

12 difference between what was assumed for 1961 

13 based on the resuspension value that is 

14 basically an assumption, and an empirical 

15 measurement taken 15 years later, which is 

16 three times higher, but you also -- that 

17 discrepancy between one versus three, and 

18 being separated by 15 years doesn't even 

19 account for the depletion values.

20 So, you realize that you have to 

21 come to the conclusion that the resuspension 

22 factor 1E minus 6 may be off by several orders 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 of magnitude to make those two values match. 

2 Am I --

3 DR. MAURO: I got it. In fact, 

4 what we really have is the marriage of two --

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: One generic, and one 

7 applicable to this particular problem.

8 DR. BEHLING: Right. The use of 

9 1E minus 6 is -- I think here you have 

10 empirical data that suggests that the 1E minus 

11 6 resuspension factor cannot be correct 

12 because you have an air measurement 15 years 

13 later that suggests the value that is three 

14 times higher, without even considering the 

15 depletion rate.

16 But NIOSH's use of 1 percent per 

17 day, if you were to apply that, you would 

18 probably end up with a resuspension factor 

19 that instead of 1E minus 6 would be 1,000-

20 fold or even greater.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is 

22 exactly where, in the resolution I have now, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 it's kind of come together. I think that 

2 factor of 100 thing is resolved. I think 

3 NIOSH agreed with that, and then this is like 

4 the 5A. In the resolution, we say, "Global 

5 issue regarding the use of the resuspension 

6 factor, and NIOSH will follow up on the use of 

7 the site specific information to derive a site 

8 specific resuspension factor."

9 So, I think that's the two parts 

10 you were talking about. One is the generic, 

11 and one is site specific. So, that is in this 

12 current matrix. It's the one that I emailed. 

13 People aren't working from the same one.

14 DR. MAURO: You could almost think 

15 of the example as it applies to this problem 

16 as a demonstration that that basic strategy 

17 was adopted really doesn't hold up. And it's 

18 one of those places where we actually have 

19 data that shows the 10 to the minus 6 doesn't 

20 work, the 1 percent per day doesn't work. It 

21 seems like real world, didn't work here.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 purposes of our matrix here, going back to the 

2 matrix for the attachment, I'm showing that 

3 the one -- for Finding 5, I'm showing that 

4 NIOSH agrees and will modify site matrix table 

5 5.1. That's the factor --

6 DR. MAURO: That's the 100 --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then I'm 

8 calling the next one 5A, because I think 

9 that's easier to correlate back to the White 

10 Paper, instead of calling it 6. And that's 

11 the resuspension factor, and the site specific 

12 and generic. And especially for this -- for 

13 our purposes here, I think you need to look 

14 into the site specific one. We had all these 

15 generic issues that we are going to have to 

16 send down the line, but at least address that 

17 site specific question that Hans is outlining. 

18 Does that make sense?

19 All right, then we are onto --

20 well, I'd like to go to the final set, the 

21 main Site Profile. 

22 DR. MAURO: Huntington?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is 

2 Huntington, right? Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: That's the last one. 

4 I don't think we've ever engaged that one at 

5 all. I'm assuming this is unlike the last 

6 two, where we did have a chance to discuss. 

7 Did we ever discuss Huntington? I don't have 

8 it. I guess that's a question for everyone. 

9 Do you recall? Is that in your matrix? Were 

10 there some responses? I don't have -- I don't 

11 have it if there are.

12 It turns out in our report, we had 

13 11 comments. No, 12 comments. I don't know 

14 if we've ever talked about those before.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

16 we've had any conversations. I'm trying to 

17 recall. I know that that document has been 

18 revised. I think it was sent for review. 

19 Maybe not. I know there was an early on dose 

20 reconstruction.

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. We've 

22 discussed this --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And there has been 

2 -- and there has been some stuff on that. To 

3 me, it hasn't been done -- let me see what I 

4 can find.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, where do we 

6 stand with Huntington? Are you going to --

7 DR. MAURO: I could give you the 

8 30 seconds --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: -- of where the issues 

11 are, and you guys could -- there's 12 of them, 

12 but we could buzz through them very quickly.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

14 let's go through Huntington, and then I'm 

15 going to ask to go back through Harshaw 

16 because I found Harshaw on the matrix.

17 DR. MAURO: Do you want to --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I just want 

19 to review that because I looked --

20 DR. MAURO: Do you want us to go 

21 back?

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Before we just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 said Harshaw 1, 4 and 5, I told Brant the 

2 focus should be there. But then when I'm 

3 looking back, Finding 2 in Harshaw, my 

4 resolution says NIOSH should further assess 

5 the data. So, I want to go back through 

6 those, but do Huntington first.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. I'm looking at 

8 our Huntington report, and I have the summary 

9 in front of me. I don't know if everyone has 

10 it, but I'll -- I'll boil it down.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Do you have a clue 

12 as to what page --

13 DR. MAURO: Well, it's part of the 

8th set, and it's attachment 3 to the 8th 14 set 

15 of dose reconstructions, if that helps any.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it's on the 

17 tail end of the matrix?

18 DR. MAURO: The end of the -- yes.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Like page 60 

20 I'm showing, but that could vary. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Go ahead.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'm going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 group them a little bit to make things go 

2 quicker. The first two comments have to do 

3 with when -- when this was done, this work was 

4 developed. The data that was used I believe 

5 all came from Oak Ridge Gas Distribution 

6 Plant. In other words -- let me back up a 

7 little bit.

8 What the Huntington Pilot Plant 

9 did was it received nickel barriers, diffusion 

10 barriers, from Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion 

11 Plant, shifted to Huntington, where they 

12 processed those barriers to separate out the 

13 enriched uranium because there was plenty of 

14 uranium sort of embedded in this permeable 

15 barrier that was used as part of the 

16 enrichment process.

17 And they would separate out the 

18 enriched uranium, and return it back in again 

19 for use because there was a lot of valuable 

20 material. Now, the -- so, therefore, the 

21 whole process was, "Okay, let's reconstruct 

22 the doses to workers who were involved in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 receiving these barriers, and processing them 

2 to separate out the enriched uranium." 

3 Now, the first comment -- the 

4 first two comments we have really go toward 

5 the only -- the information that was used and 

6 the amount of material that was processed was 

7 based on looking at the records of Oak Ridge 

8 Gaseous Diffusion Plant. So, I'm looking at 

9 the records of the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion 

10 Plant, and what was shipped from there, 

11 barriers from there, to Huntington Pilot 

12 Plant.

13 The first question we have is we 

14 believe that both Portsmouth and Paducah also 

15 sent barriers there for processing, which 

16 changes the throughput. To the degree which 

17 that might or might not affect the Dose 

18 Reconstruction Matrix? Perhaps not, and 

19 perhaps it does.

20 So, I guess 1 and 2 go toward the 

21 document. I guess 1 really goes to -- gives 

22 us a little bit more of the story of what they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 did, and where they received their material 

2 from, and how much and why do you know that. 

3 And second, what about Paducah and Portsmouth, 

4 in addition to Oak Ridge.

5 So, 1 and 2 are sort of like 

6 coupled. I want to hear more about the story, 

7 and is a richer story, and whether or not it 

8 may have some bearing on the exposure matrix. 

9 It may not. It may turn out the way in which 

10 you've done it doesn't really change, the 

11 throughput doesn't change anything. It's hard 

12 to say, but that's the first -- those two 

13 coupled issues, 1 and 2. Simple as that. I'd 

14 like to hear a little bit more about that, and 

15 whether you think it might change anything if 

16 you factor in the others.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: John, do you 

18 have evidence that the material went from 

19 Paducah and Portsmouth, or are you just saying 

20 --

21 DR. MAURO: We have -- no. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: In the write up, we 

2 have information that shows that we believe, 

3 but it may not change anything.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, I 

5 understand. I just wondered if that was 

6 hypothetical, or if you have --

7 DR. MAURO: Well, I'd have to go 

8 look at the wording.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: You have some reason 

12 to believe that this happened.

13 DR. MAURO: We have some reason to 

14 believe that they were because --

15 MEMBER MUNN: Whether it's hard 

16 data or not.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: And even if they did, 

20 the -- and if it didn't, it didn't. If it 

21 did, whether or not it could have an affect on 

22 your exposure matrix.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got you. Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: Number 3, Number 3 is 

3 one that could have a pretty significant 

4 affect on your exposure matrix for internal 

5 exposure. The way in which the internal dose 

6 is calculated is knowledge of the dust loading 

7 of nickel in the air.

8 Think of it like this. The reason 

9 there's airborne radioactivity at this 

10 facility is nickel, with it's associated 

11 enriched uranium, becomes airborne. And 

12 there's lot of measurements made at this 

13 facility, where they measured the number of 

14 milligrams per cubic meter of nickel with 

15 airborne dust loading of nickel in the air. 

16 They know the specific activity of 

17 how much uranium is associated with the 

18 nickel. So, now you know how many milligrams 

19 of uranium there is in the air, and what 

20 happens is that the -- when you look at the 

21 data of the measurements made, you have it as 

22 a function of time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Okay, now, it turns out that they 

2 used all the data from early in operations to 

3 later in operations to come up with the

4 average dust level of nickel in milligrams per 

5 cubic meter. Now, it turns out the time 

6 period that this applies to is really the 

7 earlier years, and you look at the data and 

8 find out the dust loading was much higher in 

9 the early years.

10 Our recommendation was that rather 

11 than use the overall average dust loading that 

12 was experienced over the entire life of the 

13 facility, which turns out to be 0.05 

14 milligrams per cubic meter, nickel, you 

15 probably want to use the dust loading that is 

16 applicable to the time period of interest of 

17 this site profile, where it's 0.2 milligrams 

18 per cubic meter, which is four times higher.

19 So, our finding is that you 

20 probably want to increase potential internal 

21 exposure from uranium by a factor of 4 because 

22 -- for that reason. That's what number 3 is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 So, in other words, the universe of numbers 

2 that you use to derive the dust loading 

3 included recent data, and old data.

4 The recent data really doesn't 

5 apply to this. It's the old data that applies 

6 to this dose reconstruction because it's Site 

7 Profiled, and if you do that, the dust 

8 loadings were higher in the earlier years. 

9 So, there you go. That's the nature of the 

10 finding. Now, you go and take a look at that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: And we know it was 

12 higher in the earlier years because we have 

13 readings?

14 DR. MAURO: we have readings. We 

15 actually have it by date, and it's in the 

16 report. The measurements made by date, and we 

17 point out where the break point is, and this 

18 break point is the time period you should be 

19 using. Not the later ones. Okay, and it 

20 makes a four-fold difference. And you can 

21 take a look. It's all laid out. Take a look 

22 at it and see if you agree.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 The next one, item number 4: The 

2 dust loading that is -- once you come to your 

3 dust load, milligrams or whatever number you 

4 decide you're going to use, that's the general 

5 air sample. And we all know that general air 

6 samples are different than breathing zone 

7 samples, and I don't think you have breathing 

8 zone samples here.

9 So, there may be a need for an 

10 adjustment factor to go from general air --

11 underestimate by several fold. This is 

12 certainly something that should be aired out.

13 Now, it may turn out the nature of 

14 the operations here is -- you see, this is the 

15 difference between breathing zone and general 

16 air samples. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Which do you prefer.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's right. 

19 Now, you see, this whole business in IRCP 

20 Publication 3575 where they make a distinction 

21 between breathing zone and air samples: that 

22 experience occurs mainly because very often 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the dust that's being generate is the workers 

2 working with these machines something, and the 

3 dust that is over here is a lot different than 

4 what the air sampler over there is reading. 

5 And you see some big differences.

6 The nature of the work here may 

7 not be like that, and it may turn out the 

8 general air sample is a pretty good measure of 

9 the breathing zone sample. I don't know the 

10 answer to that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Or higher.

12 DR. MAURO: I would say I don't 

13 know. I don't know. But I think it needs to 

14 be looked at is all I'm saying, and that could 

15 have an affect. The case needs to be made 

16 wide so it's okay to use general air samples, 

17 as opposed to maybe -- we have in the past, by 

18 the way, when we ran into this problem; there 

19 is a lot of literature on the difference 

20 between general air and breathing zone. And 

21 so, there are adjustments that could be made 

22 that might counter that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 But all of a sudden, we're talking 

2 some big changes, though. Because if you do 

3 apply the factor of 4, the difference because 

4 of the nickel dust loading for the older 

5 years, and then you also apply another factor 

6 of whatever for -- now we're talking maybe a 

7 factor of 10 there. Could be as much as a 

8 factor of 10. We're talking some pretty big 

9 changes in the internal dose.

10 Let me keep going. We're not done 

11 yet. We're on number 5 now. No, 5 confounds 

12 it further. You worked with the median 

13 numbers, the dust levels. I always argue that 

14 -- let's say you had good numbers for nickel 

15 loading, and you accounted for breathing zone. 

16 Okay, let's say you thought it was all taken 

17 care of.

18 Next question is once you have 

19 that information, do you use -- do you use the 

20 median of all that data, or do you use some 

21 high end value? All I could say is that the 

22 difference between -- the number -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 difference between using a median and the, 

let's say, 95th 2 percentile is another factor. 

3 If you want to be claiming favorable, you 

4 really want to use the median of your airborne 

5 dust level.

6 I will add though that -- so, I 

7 mean I just laid out three layers, and that 

8 was number 5 I just mentioned. You know, 

whether you use the median or the 95th 9 . Three 

10 days of places where, in theory, you could 

11 substantially increase the doses, internal 

12 doses.

13 On the other hand, NIOSH elected 

14 to use -- assumed the uranium that's in that 

15 nickel was 39 percent enriched uranium, when 

16 in fact the evidence shows that it really was 

17 only 4 percent enriched uranium.

18 Now, the reason that's important 

19 is because everything is on a milligram basis. 

20 So, I mean if it was a DPM basis, then it 

21 would make no difference. So, in that regard, 

22 you're extremely conservative by a factor of 4 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 at the bottom of 39, ten-fold. So, there are 

2 some more setting effects here. So, if you 

3 were to go with the 4 percent, you got the 

4 idea. I wanted to make sure that's laid out. 

5 Let me keep going.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why did NIOSH 

7 think 39 percent as opposed to --

8 DR. MAURO: I think that was the 

9 highest number that was ever handed, but the 

10 overall average over the long period turned 

11 out to be closer to 4. And they will be claim 

12 favorable --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The 39 number 

14 came from --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, 39 came from --

16 that was the highest. Now, this has some play 

17 -- I forgot to mention --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At case 25, is 

19 that right?

20 DR. MAURO: I think it was the Oak 

21 Ridge Gas Diffusion plant was --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case 125?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: Okay, there you go. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But not at 

3 Paducah or Portsmouth, by the way.

4 DR. MAURO: Is that right?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Portsmouth 

6 could run higher.

7 DR. MAURO: Is that right?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Portsmouth could 

9 run.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, not 

11 Paducah.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

13 Paducah.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay, well, then --

15 so, therefore there's commingling of issues 

16 here.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

18 Okay, but on average, I don't think any of 

19 them would approach the 39.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I hear more 

21 and more as we have done revisions. So, it 

22 would be a matter for us to go through those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 revisions. Hopefully, we've addressed these 

2 findings.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're right. 

4 At the end of the day, these pluses and 

5 minuses may balance out, but they should be 

6 sorted out.

7 DR. MAURO: Oh, number 6. Six is 

8 a separate one. I don't think you explicitly 

9 addressed ingestion. I'll be the first to 

10 agree that ingestion there isn't important. 

11 It should be the dose, but most of the other 

12 Site Profiles talk about ingestion pathway. I 

13 don't think this one did at 6. Can we go onto 

14 7? Number 7 goes to surface --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I just back 

16 you up on 6 again?

17 DR. MAURO: Sure.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm catching 

19 up. What was 6?

20 DR. MAURO: I'll read it. "The 

21 TBD does not mention possible exposure through 

22 ingestion pathways, nor justify why they may 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 not be significant compared to the inhalation 

2 pathway."

3 The second half of that phrase I 

4 know that the ingestion pathway is never 

5 significant compared to the inhalation 

6 pathway. But you always do include the 

7 ingestion pathway in all your exposure 

8 matrices. Apparently, you didn't do that. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

10 DR. MAURO: Seven: This goes 

11 toward residual exposures. Basically use --

12 the TBD uses 1980 post decontamination 

13 radiation survey data to estimate exposures 

14 from surface contamination during plant 

15 operations, which was 18 years earlier. 

16 So, I'm sort of like troubled by 

17 why would you -- there's no reason to believe 

18 that host decontamination measurements would 

19 be meaningful to -- to reconstruct doses 18 

20 years earlier during operations. So, there's 

21 a disconnect here that you may want to take a 

22 look at.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I would make a suggestion, by the 

2 way. I don't think you had -- I don't think 

3 there was any data on surface contamination 

4 levels during operations at this facility, or 

5 maybe even immediately thereafter, of nickel, 

6 milligrams per square meter of nickel on 

7 surfaces. 

8 Our suggestion would be to either 

9 run your deposition model, using the dust 

10 loading that's appropriate to determine what 

11 the build up might've been on surfaces, or go 

12 to other -- other nickel melt refining 

13 operations where you may have data, rather 

14 than using the 1981 post DND data to try to 

15 come up with it. There's probably better 

16 places to go to get good numbers, or at least 

17 claim favorable.

18 Bird cages, number 8. One of the 

19 things they did there was they -- once they 

20 separated out the enriched uranium, they put 

21 them into these little containers that -- I 

22 forget what size they were, and put them into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 bird cages. These were little devices to keep 

2 the critical mass under control, and there 

3 were these arrays. I think five -- five by 

4 five, two deep.

5 So, one, two, three, four, five. 

6 You know, five by five, and then there were 

7 maybe 25 of them altogether. And you came up 

8 with, "Okay, that has a potential to cause 

9 external exposure." And I think you made some 

10 calculations to determine, okay, if a person 

11 were to stand one foot away or one meter away 

12 from these bird cages what his internal 

13 exposure might be from this enriched uranium 

14 that's sitting in there.

15 We ran the numbers, and we got 

16 different values that you do. A big higher. 

17 Not that much higher. Maybe a factor of five18 fold higher, but we got higher numbers than 

19 you did. And it's all laid out. All our 

20 calculations are in our report. 

21 So, for some reason, we're getting 

22 numbers different. It may be because our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 experience has been that often we use 

2 microshield or MCNP. Microshield and MCNP get 

3 the same numbers when you're dealing with 

4 strong gammas. Well, when you're dealing with 

5 weak gammas weak photons, MCNP gives you much 

6 better results than microshield.

7 So, if you ran microshield, maybe 

8 that's what happened here. Something goes 

9 wrong with microshield when the energy is 

10 alone.

11 MEMBER MUNN: What do you mean?

12 DR. MAURO: The microshield 

13 underestimates the doses from low energy 

14 photons. It does not model it well, yes. But 

15 it does -- but MCNP does, and we've seen it 

16 time and again.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that 

18 acknowledged in the literature in any way?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes? Okay. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 just your impression?

2 DR. MAURO: No, no. This is our 

3 acknowledgment in the literature. Not only 

4 that, we've run it so many times, and we see 

5 it all the time. It's a flow out with 

6 microshield low Ns and photons, X-rays. It 

7 falls apart.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

9 DR. MAURO: Nine: let me take a 

10 look at that and see where we are. Well, I 

11 don't know if this really applies here. We --

12 we reviewed a case in number 9. We talk about 

13 an actual couple of cases that we reviewed as 

14 part of the DR process. You know, we're on 

15 the DR Subcommittee, and we noticed that 

16 there's a three-fold difference between the 

17 dose reconstructions for medical exposures 

18 that are -- were performed in those cases, and 

19 those that are in OTIB-6. You know, 

20 Katherine's OTIB on X-rays.

21 I think that you might be higher. 

22 Let me see. Three times greater. So, there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 -- you're coming in -- now, there may be good 

2 reason for it. It may turn out that the --

3 for the type of X-rays that were being 

4 delivered at that time, the workers at 

5 Huntington were different than what's the 

6 default values in OTIB-6, and there's good 

7 reason why you're coming in with three times 

8 higher X-ray doses for specific cases than 

9 what OTIB-6 would give you.

10 But anyway, I was just bringing 

11 that to your attention. This case was maybe 

12 overestimated. 

13 Move onto number 10. Oh, number 

14 10 is related to that, and this is a recurring 

15 thing that when it comes to AWE facilities, 

16 you usually don't assume photofluorography 

17 examinations. If it's pre-1970, the OTIB-6 

18 records recommends that you assume 

19 photofluorographic examinations did occur once 

20 a year to DOE facilities, specifically.

21 When it comes to AWE facilities, 

22 we're not -- we noticed that you typically 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 don't do that. You typically assume there's a 

2 chest X-ray, and not a -- and that turns out 

3 of be a big difference. We're talking about 

4 anywhere from tens of milligrams per 

5 examination versus rems for examination.

6 There may be good reason. I don't 

7 know if we talked about this before, but there 

8 may be good reason why you don't automatically 

9 assume the AWE's using photofluorography, 

10 where in DOE, we did. But right now, you'll 

11 see a recurring theme in every one of our dose 

12 reconstruction audits for AWE facilities when 

13 you use just chest X-rays for reconstructing 

14 medical exposure.

15 We always say, "Why didn't you 

16 also assume photofluorographic?" And usually, 

17 they're silent on that. Now, there may be 

18 good reason for it.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The thought 

20 process is that at DOE facilities where 

21 there's -- there was this need to go through a 

22 large number of people with some regularity, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 and they would have these high volume 

2 photofluorography machines, which were done --

3 they were done to generate high volume things, 

4 and if an AWE even had a chest screening 

5 program, they were likely done at a local 

6 clinic, which would be like they shoot a chest 

7 X-ray. That's the reason why the defaults are 

8 different for the two. I can't really defend 

9 it anymore than having said that.

10 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean there's -

11 - at least -- because we haven't heard that 

12 before. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. I 

14 talked to Elise about this, and we are 

15 planning on updating some of our documentation 

16 to clearly state that. There actually is a 

17 back door discussion of it in OTIB-52, 

18 construction workers, that gives that general 

19 direction, but we are updating some 

20 documentation to get that a little more 

21 clearly defined.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay. We're almost 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 done. Number 11: The TBD estimates residual 

2 contamination exposure in the standby period. 

3 The standby period is post operations but 

4 before decontamination. But you use the 1980 

5 host decontamination measurement data for dose 

6 reconstruction.

7 It goes -- it's sort of similar to 

8 what you talked about earlier. It doesn't 

9 seem like you should be using post 

10 decontamination measurements to reconstruct 

11 doses pre-decontamination, even though they're 

12 both during the post operation period. Okay?

13 Last, number 12: Same thing. I 

14 don't know what the distinction is, quite 

15 frankly. We're talking about the same subject 

16 here. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Make that 3 that are 

18 really talking about the same thing.

19 DR. MAURO: It looks that way, 

20 doesn't it?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. The bottom 

22 line question is why use the post 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 decontamination data --

2 DR. MAURO: I got to say off the 

3 top of my head, I can't tell the distinction 

4 why. I recall 111 and 112. They're both 

5 external, and they both deal with residual 

6 decontamination. There might be some 

7 distinction here, but I have to go read the 

8 main body to see why we made these two 

9 separate ones. But we may want to take a look 

10 at that when we're working through that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, Finding 12 is 

12 certainly more detailed than the others.

13 DR. MAURO: Sure is.

14 MEMBER MUNN: It looks like it's 

15 the same issue three times.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I was going 

18 to ask if Hans or Kathy would know that.

19 DR. MAURO: Don't know.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you work 

21 with -- I mean this is more yours, right?

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. I mean if I -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 got to tell you, if I went back and read the -

2 - read -- I did read all this before, but it 

3 also gets to be a blur after a while. The 

4 difference between 11 and 12, there is --

5 there is some -- I'm looking at the summary on 

6 12, and there's a lot more granularity to it: 

7 comparing tables and inconsistencies.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: So, I think maybe 11 

10 could be looked at more as a general 

11 overarching concern regarding the use of post 

12 decontamination data for pre decontamination 

13 time periods. And then 12 actually gets into 

14 some specifics regarding tables that are in 

15 the report that don't seem to make sense, and 

16 it's related to that issue. And that's it for 

17 Huntington Pilot Plant. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: You might as well 

19 throw Finding 7 in there when you're looking 

20 at that, if that really is the same. The same 

21 issues, but --

22 DR. MAURO: You know what happened 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 when we reviewed this document?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: I remember I just 

4 would go chapter by chapter, and say, "Oh, 

5 here's this chapter. What do I have to say 

6 about this?" Sometimes, later chapters are 

7 related to the previous, and you'll have the 

8 same thing come out again.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

10 MEMBER MUNN: They could be 

11 combined.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, at this 

13 point, I wanted to go back to Harshaw and the 

14 matrix. Let's just run down these. I don't 

15 want to discuss them in any depth, but before 

16 we had said that based on Hans' discussion and 

17 the -- the SC&A White Paper that the main 

18 areas of difference between SC&A and NIOSH 

19 were findings 1, 4 and 5. I believe I wrote 

20 that down correctly.

21 When I looked back at the matrix, 

22 I wasn't quite -- wasn't quite in agreement, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 and I just wanted to step through this one at 

2 a time, just to make sure we have some 

3 consistency. So, this might be a little 

4 redundant from what we just talked about, but 

5 I just want to make sure I have the most 

6 current version of the matrix. 

7 So, Attachment 2 is in the matrix, 

8 Attachment 2, Finding 1 for Harshaw. And 

9 this says NIOSH will further consider SC&A 

10 concerns. I have that updated from -- as of 

11 today. 

12 Then for Attachment 2, Finding 

13 number 2, apparently based on what Hans said, 

14 SC&A is sort of in agreement now, but this 

15 matrix says as of 11/5/09, we were asking 

16 NIOSH to further consider the data set. Is it 

17 reasonable and representative? Now, is that -

18 -

19 DR. BEHLING: Mark are you talking 

20 to me, or --

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'm asking 

22 in general.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. BEHLING: This goes back to 

2 what we had -- I had erroneously misstated in 

3 -- in the previous case. We came to some 

4 conclusion, but not the remedy itself. I 

5 think on behalf of Finding 1, it was not 

6 resolved, but for Finding 2, we had at least 

7 verbally come to some agreement as -- or on my 

8 hand written scribbles on the margin, I put 

9 down, "Conditionally resolved."

10 But I think again it depends on 

11 the response that NIOSH will provide the 

12 Board, or the Board -- that will determine 

13 whether or not we can close it out.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so, I 

15 think it still stands as a -- I don't think 

16 the priorities will change for -- Brant, just 

17 to clarify for you. I mean I think the main 

18 sort of I guess points of contention are still 

19 going to be 1, 4, and 5, but number 2, I think 

20 w still did want to see this assessment at 

21 least the subcommittee did, as to whether 

22 coworker model is representative, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Covers all the workers of concern.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So, 

4 I'll leave it on the matrix as an open item. 

5 But as far as prioritizing, I would focus more 

6 on the -- the 1, 4 and 5 still. Does that 

7 make sense to everyone?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that goes 

10 for 3 as well. I can see that. Now some of 

11 this comes back to me. SC&A agrees Mark 

12 Griffon wants more time. I know I put a place

13 holder in there somewhere. And this is a 

14 radon surrogate model. So, obviously, we've 

15 been batting a few of these around over the 

16 last several years. Months, years.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Years.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, years. 

19 Time flies when we're having fun. You know?

20 MEMBER MUNN: I know. You're just 

21 enjoying yourself too much.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, exactly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 So, again -- and -- and this -- let me refresh 

2 my memory. This is a surrogate -- complete 

3 surrogate set, right, that you're using for 

4 the radon model? Does anyone know?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me think a 

6 minute.

7 DR. BEHLING: It's from the 

8 Mallinckrodt data. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: We used the 

10 Mallinckrodt data.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mallinckrodt?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be a 

13 surrogate.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which I wonder 

15 if that even meets the criteria. I don't 

16 know. So, I think I want to look at that.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what 

18 they had at Harshaw. I don't know what their 

19 feed material was.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Both of them.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's going 

22 to get worse.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

2 what I was just going to say.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I forget what 

4 their material was. Harshaw was a mess, but 

5 you know that.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean Jim 

7 Neton constantly uses Mallinckrodt.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, I mean 

9 if you go back to surrogate, the things that 

10 determine that kind of thing into play is the 

11 generation rate. So, how much radium was in 

12 the stuff you were handling -- and so those 

13 are things that come into play, and whether 

14 Mallinckrodt is sufficiently similar, or --

15 yes, that's a good question.

16 DR. BEHLING: I don't know if 

17 anybody has the document, but the issue really 

18 centers around something that was resolved at 

19 least in our minds. By using Mallinckrodt 

20 data, they excluded certain data that were 

21 considered inappropriate, namely the scale 

22 house data that had some very high radon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 levels.

2 And so, the justification on the 

3 part of NIOSH was that because they were 

4 facing processing, those high values could be 

5 excluded because that -- that issue was not 

6 appropriate here for Harshaw, and we did not 

7 process.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So, in other 

9 words, it's essentially surrogate use. Not 

10 really the model use.

11 DR. BEHLING: Yes, surrogate use.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, I remember. We 

13 originally were concerned that you left --

14 there was certain data left out when you --

15 Mallinckrodt, but later on you justified --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there was 

17 good rationale. We didn't have -- they didn't 

18 use Congo at Harshaw, but they did at 

19 Mallinckrodt.

20 DR. BEHLING: And all we actually 

21 asked was to remedy the TBD itself by 

22 rewriting it, and I think in my -- my White 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Paper, I had quoted the original statement, 

2 and suggested a revised statement that 

3 addresses that particular issue.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

5 DR. BEHLING: But otherwise, I 

6 think we're in agreement.

7 DR. ULSH: So, Mark, does this one 

8 -- number 3, does this stand that SC&A and 

9 NIOSH are in tentative agreement, but you 

10 would like --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

12 it stands that --

13 DR. ULSH: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I think it's very 

15 clear the way it's written.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

17 then. 

18 DR. ULSH: And that relates 

19 specifically to the appropriateness of using 

20 Mallinckrodt surrogate data at Harshaw. Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then Finding 4, 

22 I just have a very brief NIOSH follow up on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 this. And this is one, Hans, that you still -

2 - 4 and 5 you still have outstanding concerns.

3 DR. BEHLING: Yes. I think really 

4 what it comes down to is the complexity by 

5 which Tables B-5 through B-8 are to be used 

6 for doing dose assessments.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you repeat 

8 that, Hans? I'm sorry.

9 DR. BEHLING: Well, the 

10 recommendation for the dose reconstruction is 

11 to make use of Tables B-5 through B-8, and 

12 they're quite complex and very difficult to 

13 work with. And I personally believe that some 

14 clarification needs to be made in making them 

15 more functionally usable.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

17 DR. ULSH: So, what were those 

18 tables again, please?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 3-5 and 3-8.

20 DR. BEHLING: B, B as in Boy-5.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, B-5.

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes, through B-8. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 And there's a lot of subjective interpretation 

2 in the use of those tables, and again, I have 

3 certain sympathy for the dose reconstructors 

4 if they are being asked to actually make use 

5 of those tables. I think they could stand 

6 some clarification or simplification to make 

7 it less subjective.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thank 

9 you, Hans. Now, let's see. I have Finding 5, 

10 but then I also have 6 and 7 on this matrix. 

11 You only go up to 5 apparently. Anyway, let's 

12 do 5 first here. This I deriving beta photon 

13 doses from the film badges. I guess this 

14 still remains a NIOSH action, right?

15 DR. MAURO: Is this the betas, the 

16 packaging and the tenuation?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

18 Ask Hans.

19 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I'm trying to 

20 catch up here myself to refresh my memory 

21 here. 

22 DR. MAURO: I think it had to do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 with calibrating the film badges, and the fact 

2 that the --

3 DR. BEHLING: That's correct. 

4 Yes, John, go ahead.

5 DR. MAURO: I'm recollecting the 

6 packaging was such that you might have 

7 shielded out more of the betas than you 

8 thought, and I'm not sure about soft X-rays.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it does 

10 say, "Follow up on the adequacy of the beta 

11 dosimetry calibration at the site."

12 DR. MAURO: And that has to do 

13 with the -- we currently looked at the kinds 

14 of film badges that were used, and the -- I 

15 guess we really got into the details of this 

16 thing, and it looked like they were unusual in 

17 that they shielded out more beta than we 

18 thought. 

19 In other words, it was not -- the 

20 adjustment factors for a tenuation of the 

21 betas were not taken into consideration for 

22 this particular type of film badge. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: How significant are 

2 the --

3 DR. MAURO: I don't know. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then here's 

5 where, John, we have a couple more in the 

6 matrix that are not -- I think you -- I don't 

7 know if you only went through five in the 

8 White Paper, but there is a sixth here, and 

9 actually, this says, "NIOSH agrees and will 

10 modify the said matrix. NIOSH needs to review 

11 it's calculations of inhalation intakes of 

12 Type S range throughout the bioassay data. We 

13 believe the important numbers are low by about 

14 a factor of 5."

15 This is a question of the intakes

16 derived from the urinalysis.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think. My 

18 notes say they agree, and they were going to 

19 fix that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it says, 

21 "NIOSH agrees, and will modify the site 

22 matrix." So, I think that was closed, but we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 need -- I guess we need to see the numbers if 

2 we're going to see the modification. But at 

3 least in abeyance, I guess to use the 

4 Procedures Work Group terminology.

5 DR. ULSH: Okay, I got behind. 

6 Sorry. Tell me that again real quick, Mark.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was a 

8 question of -- there was a question of the 

9 intakes derived from urinalysis data?

10 DR. ULSH: Okay, and this is 

11 number --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's table --

13 Finding number 6.

14 DR. ULSH: Okay, got you.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And NIOSH had 

16 agreed at the previous meeting, the 11/5/09 

17 meeting. 

18 DR. ULSH: Got it. Thanks.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 

20 last one I have is the -- Finding 7 is the 

21 Monday morning sampling, which --

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 actually identified as a new finding in 

2 section 3.2 of the White Paper, and again, we 

3 talked about this one on many other instances 

4 where the Monday morning versus Friday 

5 afternoon prove to be obviously some very 

6 different values. And in viewing several Site 

7 Profiles, the values in the case here, I quote 

8 a ten-fold, and other documents were similar 

9 assessments made between Friday and Monday 

10 morning. 

11 The difference is less drastic, 

12 but still it leaves a factor of 2 to 3. So, 

13 that's an issue that was brought up as a new 

14 finding in the White Paper.

15 MEMBER MUNN: For all of those 

16 discussions we've had about this issue and 

17 procedure, do you have site specific about --

18 DR. MAURO: It does sound like 

19 something we talked about in the procedures. 

20 And it really comes home to a roost here 

21 because they deal with Type F, S and F at 

22 Harshaw.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: I thought --

2 DR. MAURO: And if you were doing 

3 the Monday-Friday problem, you got a real 

4 problem with F.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I thought -- well, 

6 that's why I asked the question. Was all that 

7 discussion that we had only site specific? 

8 Because we were --

9 DR. MAURO: We did. It just came 

10 back to me.

11 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: What happened was 

13 this: there was a generic issue.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's not so 

15 much the Monday/Friday thing either. It's the 

16 two days off.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We got hung up 

19 on the Monday analysis.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. And where we 

21 left it is NIOSH's argument was, "No, no, no, 

22 no." We have lots of evidence, and this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 might've been from another site. This

2 actually might've been like a Y-12 thing or 

3 something.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: I don't know, but --

6 MEMBER MUNN: That's why I was 

7 asking the question. I think it was --

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did talk about 

9 it, and the place where I remember is, "Well, 

10 no, we have lots of records that show people 

11 have their bioassay taken on Tuesday, 

12 Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and it wasn't 

13 just the Monday/Friday thing."

14 MEMBER MUNN: No.

15 DR. MAURO: And then we look into 

16 that, and I remember Bob Barton saying, 

17 "Well," and here's where things get a little 

18 fuzzy. There was still the two day hiatus. 

19 Person may have taken Monday and Tuesday off, 

20 and went back to work on Wednesday. So, you 

21 still had the hiatus. And I think we left it 

22 that we agreed to disagree. They -- there was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 a time period where everyone agreed the 

2 Monday/Friday was real. 

3 But then later on as time went on, 

4 they may have gotten away from that. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: What I 

6 acknowledged was, when I started working with 

7 the uranium plant in the early `80s or the mid 

8 `80s, a sample that was taken with less than 

9 two days off was considered suspect because of 

10 the interpretation that was used at the time 

11 kind of figured more sampling that quickly 

12 after exposure.

13 DR. MAURO: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: But where I 

15 worked, the capacity was such that you 

16 couldn't collect all your samples after people 

17 had two days off. So, you collected everyday, 

18 and you would have reinvestigation levels. 

19 And so, if you got an early sample and you 

20 reinvestigate, you would get a later sample, 

21 or you would get a two-day off sample. 

22 Something like that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 So, that's what we did where I 

2 worked. Now, I don't know about all uranium 

3 plants, what they did.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it is kind 

5 of a generic issue, but I think we have 

6 discussed it on -- because we have to sort of 

7 look at --

8 DR. MAURO: Well, you could almost 

9 -- as far as a site that's mostly S --

10 DR. BEHLING: John and Mark, I 

11 think the real question that NIOSH needs to 

12 answer is how does IREP deal with that 

13 particular data input when you have urine data 

14 that you don't identify as either -- excuse 

15 me, as either being a Monday or a Friday 

16 sample, and -- and if it turns out that you're 

17 -- you're --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or upper end. 

19 Yes, okay, I was going to say.

20 DR. BEHLING: If it turns out that 

21 IMBA interprets all samples as end of day, or 

22 end of a work day sample, when in fact it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 a two-day hiatus, then it's obviously going to 

2 misinterpret the actual body burden. I think 

3 that's the real crux of the question.

4 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

5 Brackett. IMBA assumes a constant chronic 

6 intake when you -- when you run a chronic 

7 exposure. So, it doesn't have the ability, 

8 unless you put in five days a week. You know, 

9 unless you keep putting in multiple intake 

10 periods, it assumes constant chronic over 24 

11 hours a day, seven days a week.

12 We did do some calculation on what 

13 it would be if it were five days a week, and 

14 two day's break. And in fact, Type S, as in 

15 the longest, retained. If gives you the least 

16 problem. There's only a factor of 1.2 that --

17 that you'd be off for a constant chronic 

18 intake.

19 DR. MAURO: F as in Frank?

20 MS. BRACKETT: S as in Sam.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay.

22 MS. BRACKETT: F as in Frank that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the adjusting factor is 2.9. That's the 

2 largest one.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have 

4 that analysis? That might be useful for -- to 

5 put into this discussion. 

6 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We may have it.

8 DR. MAURO: We did it also, but I 

9 remember F had a factor of 10, or 3. M was 3, 

10 F was 10.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: When we discussed 

12 this, and this was in our Y-12 discussion --

13 I'm sure this was in the Y-12 discussion. I 

14 don't think it was Fernald. It was Y-12. I 

15 think it was a Y-12 discussion. We talked 

16 about it, and at that time, we identified that 

17 we had different numbers than you guys.

18 We've never gone back to resolve 

19 that. "How come we got one number and you got 

20 another?" That would be something we could do, 

21 and we could pull out those files that we ran. 

22 "Here's what we did. This is how come we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 think the number is this." I mean we can do 

2 that.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

4 might be useful, if you can talk to Liz and --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean the 

6 magnitude question: does it fix the original 

7 question, which was --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

9 DR. MAURO: And another on the --

10 that started to come back is the reality is 

11 the intakes are not chronic. The intakes are 

12 episodic that occur. So, though it's modeled 

13 as it was uniform, the reality in the real 

14 world is that --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're 

16 smoothing.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. And then the 

18 question becomes, "Okay, so, if the intake was 

19 on a Monday, or maybe another one on 

20 Wednesday, and then you took a sample on 

21 Friday, or you took your sample on Monday," in 

22 other words, I think that the argument was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 being made that the concerns that we raised 

2 are buffered by the fact that the reality of 

3 the current situation is that it is not a 

4 chronic situation. It's really erratic. And 

5 it's really not trackable, so you have to make 

6 simplifying assumption.

7 The question is are the 

8 simplifying assumptions claim favorable?

9 DR. BEHLING: John, I think they 

10 would be because throughout the -- the various 

11 time periods when this was done, sometimes at 

12 the end of the shift, sometimes with two day 

13 hiatus, that was recognized by the AEC, and 

14 they came across with strong recommendations 

15 as to implement a two-day hiatus in order to 

16 put -- to standardize this whole protocol.

17 Now, if -- if IMBA does not take 

18 that into consideration, then perhaps at least 

19 a Type F; you may be off by at least a factor 

20 of 3, as Liz Brackett has just mentioned.

21 MS. BRACKETT: Well, one thing to 

22 remember is that if you're doing missed dose, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 for example, this wouldn't apply for positive 

2 results. But missed dose, the dose 

3 reconstructor only used the last sample 

4 result. So, it would only make a difference 

5 as to whether that one result that is used to 

6 do the calculation was collected after a few 

7 days period of time off.

8 So, that's something that would 

9 have to be looked at. It's very specific to 

10 the case. But we do have calculations, and I 

11 agree we do need to figure out why the 

12 difference. I think it might be because you 

13 come to some equilibrium after a while, and I 

14 think if you looked at just one week, if you 

15 looked at five days versus seven days, I think 

16 in that one week, the factors probably would 

17 be larger. 

18 Then, as you went out in time a 

19 year or two years, it's going to come down to 

20 a smaller difference, and I believe that's 

21 where our values come in is assuming it's been 

22 a relatively lengthy chronic intake, as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 opposed to a one-week one. I'm not certain, 

2 but that would be my guess.

3 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And I agree, 

4 Liz, because obviously if you have a very 

5 large sizeable body burden that contributes to 

6 the urine excretion after a certain number of 

7 years of employment, the difference between an 

8 end of shift or two day hiatus would be 

9 mitigated by that larger body burden.

10 MS. BRACKETT: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I mean 

12 the best I can capture that is that NIOSH will 

13 be -- provide their analysis files for us, and 

14 we'll move the description along that way. 

15 There might still be a site specific question 

16 of whether there's any indication that this 

17 type of sampling was prevalent at the site.

18 But I mean the other option may be 

19 in the absence of knowledge is there a way to 

20 correct for it? Or, I've done a favorable 

21 correction factor or whatever.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I just comment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 with respect to -- Hans made a point, and I 

2 think this -- I don't remember this 

3 specifically, but it sounds like it could've 

4 very well been ADC said, "Hey, you guys maybe 

5 should use two day off samples." I think 

6 that's what Hans said.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: If your lab can't 

9 do that, if you don't have the capacity in 

10 your lab to do that, you still wouldn't do it. 

11 You would collect samples when you could take 

12 them. You'd consider them screening. And if 

13 you have a reinvestigation level --

14 reinvestigation level, you would make sure you 

15 collected a two-day off sample stat.

16 DR. ULSH: Okay, I have down that 

17 we're going to provide the analyses that Liz 

18 referred to, and that might speak to why SC&A 

19 and NIOSH have different numbers. But my 

20 understanding that that analyses wouldn't 

21 address the larger issue of this time off --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 came in here owing a response.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: So, we still owe 

4 that response.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And because this 

6 keeps coming up again and again in different 

7 venues, it's the same issue, the same problem, 

8 and we have the same people who are going to 

9 have to address it one way or another. It is 

10 feasible to ask that we put together not an 

11 extensive but a brief White Paper that 

12 addresses these primary issues that do seem to 

13 come up again and again? First at one place 

14 and then another.

15 If we -- is it feasible? I'm not 

16 asking for an action item. I just am asking 

17 the question.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know, but 

19 I think the proper vehicle to do that would be 

20 in our response that we already owe on Finding 

21 number 6 or 7, or whatever it is. Seven. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: I agree.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And if --

2 MEMBER MUNN: I'm just asking.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And rather that 

4 just write a few lines here, we could write a 

5 White Paper and provide it in that response. 

6 I think that could take place, if we can do 

7 that. I'll have to go back and --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes. And it 

9 would -- I know it would certainly be simpler 

10 if we had a single focal point for addressing 

11 the question.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Not to stretch it out, 

14 but it seems to me this is really a play, and 

15 it's F - we're dealing with UF6. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: You're not dealing 

18 with UF6. Even if you're dealing with M, and 

19 there's a protracted exposure to M, you're 

20 going to build up a body burden, and the 

21 difference between Monday and Friday because 

22 of the protractor build up is not going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 really change things that much. 

2 So, the antennae should go up when 

3 we have a site where people have been working 

4 with F, and there are sites like that, Harshaw 

5 being one of them. I know that they -- there 

6 are a couple of them that their whole job was 

7 to convert from UF4 to UF6.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: And there are people 

10 whose job was to work with the UF6 when I 

11 guess it evaporates off.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I think 

14 we're at a good break point. Take ten 

15 minutes. We're through the three mini Site 

16 Profiles, for lack of a better word. I think 

17 we'll step back into the matrix and sort of 

18 plug away for a little while.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 2:43 p.m., and 

21 resumed at 2:56 p.m.)

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, this is the Dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Reconstruction Subcommittee. We're getting 

2 started back up again. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, I'm 

4 impressed that five people are still on the 

5 line hanging. Anyway, we're going to go for 

6 about one more hour here, and we're not going 

7 to get through the eighth matrix, but I figure 

we could continue our progress on the 8th 8

9 matrix.

10 I just asked NIOSH this, but 

11 Scott, are you on the line?

12 MR. SIEBERT: I am.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm assuming 

14 that -- and Steve said he doesn't think that 

15 you had any responses to some of the early --

16 we went up to 155 in the matrix, and I don't 

17 know if you had forwarded any response from 

18 NIOSH to us. I don't think I've seen any, but 

19 I just wanted to check.

20 MR. SIEBERT: That would be the 

beginning of the 8th 21 set, right?

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. SIEBERT: Let me check. I'm 

2 pretty sure there have not been.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: I'd have to check to 

5 be sure, but I'm -- off the top of my head, 

6 I'd say probably you are correct.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's 

8 fine. That's fine. So, what we'll assume is 

9 that everything highlighted in my matrix is 

10 still an open action up until 156. And then I 

11 just wanted to take -- instead of starting 

12 over again and rehashing those ones we've been 

13 through already, let's take the first cut 

14 through from 156 on.

15 And so, that would start with 

16 Finding 156.1. Maybe we can do the same 

17 approach. Have Doug sort of give an overview 

18 of the finding, and then just so NIOSH has an 

19 idea.

20 DR. MAURO: While Doug is looking 

21 for that, could I make three requests?

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Three?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

DR. MAURO: One-on-one for the 13th 1

set we are -- I'm sorry the 12th set. The 12th 2

3 set of dose reconstruction audits reviews are 

4 in the pipeline, and ready -- we're not far 

5 away from being ready to do our one-on-ones. 

6 I just want to alert. Maybe you could alert 

the Board at the 31st 7 meeting. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Did we 

9 get team assignments? That would be up to the 

10 Chair.

11 DR. MAURO: No. I wanted to 

12 remind.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll take that 

14 as an --

15 DR. MAURO: Number two: for the 

May meeting, we're ready for the 13th 16 set of 

17 30. In other words, the next set of 30; by 

18 May we should be pretty well cleared of our 47 

19 we're moving out right now, and we're ready 

20 for a new set of 30.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, we should 

22 start our selection?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: And finally, a 

2 troublesome problem: PERs. We delivered a 

3 procedure -- and the reason I'm bringing this 

4 up here is because there's a crossover between 

5 the procedure and the DR Subcommittee. We 

6 have submitted to the board a while back our 

7 procedure for reviewing PERs. It never was 

8 formally reviewed by the Procedure 

9 Subcommittee, and approved and recommended or 

10 whatever to the Board.

11 As a result, we sort of have been 

12 in limbo in terms of getting new PER reviews. 

13 We really can't move forward with new PER 

14 reviews without our PER procedure being 

15 approved. Does that seem to make sense?

16 Now, the way to do that is we did 

17 deliver, though, a PER review on PER-12. But 

18 -- and the report went out. It's in the hands 

19 of everyone. But the problem is the last part 

20 of that review is to review some selected 

21 cases. 

22 We recommend that -- I believe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Hans recommended at least seven, maybe 11 

2 cases, to represent the complete cross section 

3 of all the different kinds of things that need 

4 to be looked at from PER 12, and the question 

5 becomes is that -- the selection of those 

6 cases, is that a Procedure selection, or is 

7 that a DR Subcommittee --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought we 

9 said the DR Subcommittee.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, then we --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I -- I'm 

12 not sure.

13 DR. MAURO: That's another thing 

14 we need to know, but right now that's sitting 

15 in limbo, and we'd sure like to get to work on 

16 that.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you recall, 

18 Wanda, what --

19 MEMBER MUNN: We did not reach 

20 that decision actually.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

22 MEMBER MUNN: But the purpose of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the time that we have set aside for PERs 

2 tomorrow is specifically to identify what we 

3 have to do, who is going to do it, and how 

4 we're going to do it.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

6 We'll discuss it tomorrow.

7 MR. KATZ: The overall procedure, 

8 including that issue.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask one 

10 thing though? Didn't you -- when you were 

11 describing the PERs, you first said that you 

12 couldn't do any reviews until you got the 

13 approval on the procedure. And then you said 

14 you did one.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. What happened is 

16 we started our reviews. In fact, the first 

17 thing we did was we wrote the procedure, and 

18 then implemented it. So, we reviewed PER-12, 

19 and simultaneously delivered to you what we 

20 believe to be a good procedure to the review 

21 PERs. So, we actually did one using our draft 

22 procedures.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: But the reality is, 

3 and it was unintentional, to see what really 

4 works.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

6 DR. MAURO: Like we always do.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine.

8 DR. MAURO: But now we're at the 

9 point where we hold off until you guys are 

10 happy with the procedure.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, the short 

12 answer is we'll discuss it tomorrow at length?

13 DR. MAURO: Okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: The short answer is 

15 I hope we resolve it tomorrow. That was my 

16 intention.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Resolve, not 

18 discuss.

19 MR. KATZ: To recommend to the 

20 Board?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: And you could be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 recommending at the end of the month.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Hopefully.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

4 DR. MAURO: Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now, back to 

6 156.1. Can you tell us the site when you 

7 start, too?

8 MR. FARVER: Savannah River Site.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

10 MR. FARVER: Worker was a laborer. 

11 Worker worked at several facilities including 

12 773A, 200F, 221 FB line, and the finding has 

13 to do with work location. Failed to properly 

14 address all work locations, documented 

15 records. Really this talks more about neutron 

16 exposure.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Was it a 

19 neutron area? Is that the kind of question --

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. They do a good 

21 summary in their response. Basically, the 

22 concern was they used 200 F area which uses a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 representative facility in 1998 and `99. 

2 The employee was monitored for 

3 neutrons in 1998 and `99, and all zeros. 

4 Really, this comes back to 156.5, where it 

5 talks about failure to explain/account for 

6 missed neutron dose.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so they 

8 overlap. MR. FARVER: Really, 

9 if you close one you close the other. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, the 

11 question is -- I don't know if you had time to 

12 review their response enough to make a --

13 MR. FARVER: Yes. First, I 

14 disagree with revision 1 TLD, revision 2 TLDs; 

15 beta gamma and also separate neutron 

16 dosimetry. Because if you look back at the 

17 records, it's a separate dosimeter number --

18 and it's issued for 1998, cycle 11 and 12. 

19 It's November-December. Whereas the other 

20 dosimeters were -- it looks like 1, 4, 7, 10 

21 and then approximately a monthly one in 11 and 

22 12. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 And for those years, according to 

2 the TBD, the beta gamma was issued quarterly, 

3 and the neutron issued monthly, and it was two 

4 separate dosimeters, beginning in 1995. This 

5 goes back to the original finding down there 

6 on -- on this neutron dose, missed neutron 

7 exposure, when he obviously was monitored for 

8 neutrons --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I wonder if 

10 this -- I'm looking at 156.2, and it looks 

11 like this is a compensable case. I wonder if 

12 that's why they sort of didn't dig any 

13 further. I don't know.

14 MR. FARVER: Well, they didn't 

15 know it was compensable at the time. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure.

17 MR. FARVER: Are we going to talk 

18 about the PoC later on?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: NIOSH determined a 

21 PoC of 40 -- high 40's. I don't remember 

22 exactly what it was.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so, it 

2 was a closed site.

3 MR. FARVER: But then DOL came up 

4 with a different number, pushed it over 50. 

5 That finding has -- and that has to do with 

6 apparently two different versions of the IREP 

7 software. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: So, they didn't know 

10 it was compensable at the time.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, they were 

12 assuming --

13 MR. FARVER: They came up with 

14 46.144, and then DOL's final decision was 

15 50.95. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: I'm still not sure 

17 exactly what you're saying here. You're -- is 

18 SC&A's position that in 1998 and 1999, there 

19 should be some neutron dose incorporated in --

20 MR. FARVER: Well, number one, he 

21 was monitored for neutrons.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: So, there should at 

2 the very least be a missed dose, or 

3 unmonitored dose for over here.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

5 the essence of it, right?

6 MR. FARVER: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Even though he may 

8 not have been in a neutron area at that time? 

9 Your position is if he was badged for neutron 

10 than he should be receiving that, whether he 

11 was -- he should be receiving that dose --

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Whether he was 

14 actually in that area --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes. He was badged, 

16 so, we're going to assume that he was in those 

17 areas. He was badged for neutrons.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The response says 

19 that although there's -- essentially, it says 

20 even though there was a neutron number there, 

21 it was all one badge, and a neutron badge. 

22 And what you're saying is that's not the case.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: That's not the case. 

2 There were two dosimeters.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: There were two 

4 separate badges, and since he wore a neutron 

5 badge, he was specifically badged for 

6 neutrons.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so that's 

9 your point. 

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Have you submitted 

12 your write up of what you just --

13 MR. FARVER: No. It's the first 

14 time we've talked about it.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right. 

16 So, then, you will send that to us so we can 

17 kind of clip it in there.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean Mark can 

20 capture it, but -- I mean Mark can capture it, 

21 but if you've got something written.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I missed some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 details in my little summary here, yes.

2 MR. FARVER: I probably have a 

3 better version on my computer.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Whenever, but it's 

5 just -- we'll have to go back. I mean that's 

6 information where there currently wasn't -- we 

7 didn't see it was available to us when we 

8 wrote the original response.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, especially 

10 for something like this where we're trying to 

11 track the details. I think a response would 

12 be good.

13 MR. FARVER: I can send you 

14 responses.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll do the 

16 resolution stuff here, but I'll count on you 

17 to provide the details.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes. And in our case 

19 write up, we even show a copy of the dose 

20 report that has the different dosimeter 

21 numbers, cycle numbers. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go on to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 next one.

2 MR. FARVER: That will take care 

3 of 1 and 5. Now I'll go on to number 2. 

4 Properly covert a photon dose to organ dose. 

5 Okay, 2 and 3 are essentially the same thing, 

6 56.2 and 56.3. And this was the spreadsheet 

7 issue that we've discussed before, and they 

8 fixed that. So, those two findings are 

9 closed.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Say that 

11 again?

12 MR. FARVER: It was a workbook --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

14 NIOSH corrected the workbook?

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: NIOSH corrected 

17 workbook error, and --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Geometry?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- no further 

20 modification on the case because there was --

21 it was eventually approved. 

22 MR. FARVER: Right. This was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 compensable.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Compensable, 

3 sorry.

4 MR. FARVER: But these are old 

5 actions because this was a -- one of the 

6 earlier problems with the Savannah River with 

7 the workbooks.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Point 2 and point 3.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right and 

10 that applies for 156.2 and 156.3?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 156.4?

13 MR. FARVER: NIOSH may not have 

14 used appropriate data for determining PoC has 

15 to do with -- there's different reports when 

16 you start looking at the Savannah River 

17 dosimetry data. They don't all have the same 

18 numbers on the reports. Basically, that was 

19 one of the concerns, and --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH, 

21 you're saying that you selected a one because 

22 it was supported by the individual cycle 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 reports and it was claimant favorable, right?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. After looking 

3 back at that, we agreed.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I guess my 

5 -- the bigger question I would have is this a 

6 broader Savannah River problem? I mean it's a 

7 minor issue here for this case. It doesn't

8 even affect it because it's compensable, but 

9 it is an ongoing concern on the use of this 

10 data, especially where we're using this data 

11 for coworker models. I mean that may come up 

12 in the Savannah River Work Group, too. So, 

13 that may be more of a Site Profile issue.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it wouldn't 

15 affect this.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, it 

17 wouldn't. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't 

18 affect this case. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: And SC&A agrees, so 

20 --

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Agrees with 

22 what?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MEMBER MUNN: With the NIOSH 

2 point.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Agree with what 

4 I just said?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, they just said 

6 they agreed with the NIOSH --

7 MR. FARVER: We have questioned 

8 this before about the different types of 

9 records.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean has this 

11 come up before with Savannah, though?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm trying to 

14 remember. Yes. That's my point.

15 MR. FARVER: Those are consistent 

16 with what they use. Some of it is because 

17 some of the external data includes tritium 

18 doses.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right.

20 MR. FARVER: And when we brought 

21 up about the tritium doses. But as long as 

22 you're using a - I forget which record it is -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 you're okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess I just 

3 don't want to lose track of this when we look 

4 at the broader like -- you know, how it's used 

5 in coworkers models and stuff.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it might be 

7 something to make sure gets specifically on 

8 the plate of the Savannah River --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Site Profile?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

12 MR. FARVER: Just want to 

13 recognize that the different records contain 

14 the different values.

15 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, this is 

16 Kathy. I've seen this many times, and every 

17 time I've seen it, usually the dose 

18 reconstructor goes in and compares the two 

19 records, and even in the workbooks under the 

20 individual year, if one disagrees with the 

21 other, they will highlight it or put it in 

22 red, and they've always used the most claimant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 favorable values.

2 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct, 

3 Kathy.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, usually that's 

5 done. Correct. Okay, so we can close that. 

6 156.6: improperly converting the assigned 

7 neutron dose to organ dose. This is the 

8 workbook problem, similar to the photons, 

9 converting the organ dose. And that was 

10 corrected in the workbook update. That one we 

11 can close also.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're saying 

13 NIOSH made the correction in the workbook?

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, the workbook is 

15 correct.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is the 

17 same geometry for neutrons.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and 

20 that's closed. Okay, 156.7?

21 MR. FARVER: Fission products: 

22 calculation of method underestimates fission 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 product dose. This is the -- expect the 

2 ongoing full body count fission product 

3 question.

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. 

5 It's the same issue.

6 DR. ULSH: Is the resolution the 

7 same? I think it was OTIB-0054, right?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this 

9 predates the 54, right? They used the 

10 radionuclide chooser.

11 MR. FARVER: Right. This was the 

12 chooser, radionuclide chooser.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that doesn't 

14 necessarily mean it pre-dates OTIB-0054. Once 

15 again, OTIB-0054 does not presently apply to 

16 whole body counts. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. I 

18 apologize. Okay. 

19 MR. FARVER: It's the same one 

20 from the seventh set.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it's 

22 being deferred to TIB-0054, and its 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 application 2, whole body count results; is 

2 that correct? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: I believe so.

4 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, is this 

6 being moved to the -- like we did before, 

7 moved to the Procedures Committee for OTIB8 0054? It's the same findings so it won't add 

9 work load, Wanda.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Got it.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

12 transfer to Procedures. 

13 MR. FARVER: And then for 156.8, 

14 this is where we questioned the -- did NIOSH 

15 derive and the DOL derive PoC? They're 

16 different. NIOSH gives a good explanation, or 

17 gives an explanation. I wouldn't say it's 

18 good one. It's an explanation.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Dang, Doug.

20 MR. FARVER: I'll give you an 

21 inch. I have to be tough on you, Scott. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, where are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 we at with that?

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, it's okay. 

3 They explain why there's a difference. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Acceptable response.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes. It's almost 

6 good. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because NIOSH 

8 isn't even supposed to be calculating PoCs, 

9 right?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Anything we do 

11 doesn't count. Yes, a lot of that change in 

12 lung model was where we adopted the NIH change 

13 when it was more favorable to the claimant, 

14 and when it wasn't, and the NIH change wasn't 

15 more favorable then we stuck with the old 

16 version.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and then 

18 we have an observation. Doug, would you like 

19 to make an observation?

20 MR. FARVER: I'll make an 

21 observation. This should be reevaluated for 

22 insoluble plutonium.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. ULSH: Wait. Is this still on 

2 156.8?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's 156 

4 observation.

5 DR. ULSH: All right.

6 MR. FARVER: Since NIOSH was 

7 overruled, and the case was compensated, 

8 there's no need to rework it. So, closed.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I guess 

10 that's closed. It's an observation anyway.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'm just 

13 wondering. It might be relevant in terms of 

14 our PER reviews. I mean are you basically 

15 making a claim that in their PER review they 

16 kind of missed one, right?

17 MR. FARVER: No.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No?

19 MR. FARVER: No.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I think one could 

21 easily make the case that -- that the issue 

22 should've been stated that the case should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 have included evaluation for exposure to Super 

2 S rather than reevaluate it.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, when the 

4 case was done, Super S wasn't developed.

5 MR. FARVER: I believe that's 

6 correct.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's already 

8 over 50 --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: There was already 

10 over 50, and so we wouldn't --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I just 

12 wanted to be clear on that.

13 MR. FARVER: That is typically one 

14 of the standard observations we'll put in the 

15 Savannah River.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and pretty 

17 much all of them have it.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 157.1? 

19 Now, there's no NIOSH response.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

21 provided anything on that yet.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Do we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 want to move ahead? Are there other ones that 

2 have - yes, there are. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 157.1, 157.2, I 

5 think you owe initial response on those. I 

6 mean do you want to restate the finding, Doug, 

7 so we're at least all on the same page? Might 

8 be helpful to Brandt, especially.

9 MR. FARVER: On 157?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Point 1 and 2.

11 MR. FARVER: Oh, 1 and 2? We'll 

12 do that.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seems like one 

14 where you're going to have to have the data in 

15 front of you --

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. I want to get 

17 the right case number. Hang on a second. 

18 Sorry, I lost my spot.

19 DR. ULSH: Page 20 if that helps. 

20 Twenty out of 66.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay, well, what I'll 

22 do is I'll pull up our case report.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. SIEBERT: On the PDF, it's 

2 page 39 of 245, Doug.

3 MR. FARVER: Thank you. After a 

4 while, they all start looking alike.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I know.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Only after 3:00.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay, found it, 

8 157.1, failure to properly account for 

9 external photon dose for all years of 

10 employment. I couldn't tell you offhand. I 

11 mean I'd have to go back and then look at 

12 this.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

14 MR. FARVER: But it has to do with 

15 those years they did account for, and then 

16 there's years they didn't account for. We 

17 believe there's years they should've accounted 

18 for. And that's what it comes down to.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Right. It's the 

20 counting of missed badges, and badges that are 

21 in the record, and badges that are blank in 

22 the record and things like that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: Also, I believe, 

2 Doug, that there were some medical records 

3 that we found for years when we -- he was 

4 either a part-time employee at that point, 

5 like in 1952, and we were curious as to that 

6 he should've probably been monitored during 

7 that period also. 

8 So, there's several years of his 

9 employment here that we're questioning. 

10 Should he have been monitored during those 

11 years?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. Actually, 

13 that's down at the 157.4, medical dose. But 

14 yes. So, for 157.1, 157.2, those are still 

15 open. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: 157.3, failure to 

18 provide or define the system assignment of 

19 neutron dose, and -- oh, this goes to -- after 

20 1970 neutron doses are assigned based on 

21 neutron dosimetry. So, yes, we agree with 

22 NIOSH's response. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Well, what the findings was saying 

2 is that just because -- after 1970, they 

3 should've been assigned neutrons based on an 

4 N/P ratio. But no, there is a document that 

5 says, after 1970 for Savannah River, it's 

6 based on neutron dosimetry.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it's 

8 consistent with all the other --

9 MR. FARVER: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so SC&A 

11 agrees with NIOSH?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

13 MR. KATZ: So, 157.4 is closed?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, closed.

15 MR. FARVER: 157.4 is where Kathy 

16 mentioned about the medical exposure, and I 

17 believe NIOSH agrees, but it doesn't affect 

18 the compensability. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: This was the year, 

20 the changeover year, of 1970. And the 

21 original assessment used the later version, 

22 which would've been the later -- the post `70 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 value, which would've been six millirem versus 

2 the pre and `70 value, which would've been 100 

3 millirem. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it 

5 doesn't affect the --

6 MR. FARVER: It doesn't, but this 

7 is --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

9 MR. FARVER: Well, it's -- it kind 

10 of relates back to, should this have been 

11 caught or not?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but NIOSH 

13 agrees with the finding, and it's closed for 

14 our purposes.

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, it is.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

17 157.5?

18 MR. FARVER: Very similar, extract 

19 the uncertainty value in the X-ray dose, and 

20 it's also -- that's closed. We agree with 

21 that and their response. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And moving on?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: 157.6: this is 

2 failure to account for internal dose from all 

3 fission products. This is the ongoing fission 

4 product issue, OTIB-0054.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: I think it's closed.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got it. Let's 

8 transfer to --

9 MR. FARVER: And then the one 

10 observation talks about the highly insoluble 

11 plutonium, standard observation. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH's 

13 response on this observation this time says, 

14 since it wasn't over 50, you expect the case 

15 will be returned." Right?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I can look it 

17 up real quick and determine if --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Has it 

19 been? I mean I'd like to -- it'd be nice to 

20 know.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Let's see. 

22 Considering we just turned in a version of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 this case 20 days ago, I'm going say it 

2 includes Super S plutonium. So, yes, it has 

3 been reworked.

4 DR. ULSH: Scott, are you saying 

5 that you verified in fact that it did include 

6 Super S plutonium, or are you just --

7 MR. SIEBERT: Well, based on the 

8 fact that we did it 20 days ago, I'm sure it 

9 did.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: What we'll do is 

11 since we've asked for SC&A to submit a written 

12 input, we'll provide written input on this. 

13 We'll actually go verify it, see what's been 

14 done.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we don't 

16 know the PoC status after Super S was 

17 incorporated. I mean I'm just wondering 

18 because the -- we usually say it's not going 

19 to contribute a lot, but did this bring it 

20 real close? Or, what's the case? Do we know?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean we 

22 need to figure it out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. SIEBERT: That's kind of hard 

2 to say if that's not the only thing that 

3 changed.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: What is it now, 

6 though? Is it 43.4? I mean 46.4.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: At the time it was 

8 done, it was 46.4.

9 DR. MAURO: So, you didn't knock 

10 it out of the park.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Was the internal dose 

13 a dominant --

14 MR. FARVER: Yes. That was 41-42.

15 DR. MAURO: Out of the 42?

16 MR. FARVER: Out of 45.

17 DR. ULSH: Do you know what the 

18 target was? I mean what kind of cancer.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes, pulmonary.

20 DR. ULSH: Lung cancer.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so, 

22 we'll leave it at that for now. Okay, 159.1?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: 159 was your question 

2 on DOE dose record, and this is another 

3 Savannah River case, and it has to do with the 

4 different dose records, previous ones. And in 

5 NIOSH's response, they say they used the 3HP 

6 EAH because it's claimant favorable.

7 And all we do is we point out the 

8 different dose records in here in our report; 

9 as long as they choose the one that's most 

10 claimant favorable, that's okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it's 

12 the same regulation as before.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, we closed that 

14 one.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Closed, and 

16 then --

17 MR. FARVER: The only comment I 

18 have is have the records been compared for 

19 accuracy? We've got different records with 

20 different values. Have you looked at them?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There was no 

22 further action for this --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. FARVER: No further action. 

2 Same way with --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We discuss that 

4 in the Site Profile follow up. 

5 MR. FARVER: 159.2 is the same, 

6 same thing. That's the different dose 

7 records. Sometimes there's different values, 

8 different cycles. I'm okay with this. Just 

9 make sure all of you understand the dose 

10 records and which one C is.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see that as 

12 slightly different than the other one, though. 

13 But some of them are kind of --

14 interpretation of this --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, this one has 

16 counting up of cycles.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: Zeros. Cycles I 

19 guess it is.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it's 

21 closed.

22 DR. ULSH: So 159.1 and .2 are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 both closed for the same -- okay. 

2 MR. FARVER: And if we go to 

3 159.3, and 159.4, this has to do with the 

4 Savannah River workbook error that we've 

5 talked about in previous cases. That's been 

6 corrected. So, 159.3 and 159.4 can be closed. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 159.3 and 

8 159.4 are both closed.

9 MR. FARVER: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Who says 

11 we don't make progress?

12 DR. ULSH: It's after 3:00. We're 

13 making a lot of progress.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 159.5?

15 MR. FARVER: 159.5: we thought 

16 there was a missing 1989 neutron dose. 

17 Apparently, it depends on which file you look 

18 in. A lot of times these dosimetry files or 

19 the DR files will have many different files, 

20 and some of those are working files that were 

21 used, or used to calculate certain portions. 

22 And although it was not in the one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 file, it was used in the EDCW tool to 

2 calculate the final dose. So, it was just --

3 it was there. It was just kind of hidden, and 

4 then we didn't catch it. So, we agree with 

5 their response.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 159.6?

7 MR. FARVER: 159.6 showed a --

8 properly account for all missed neutron doses. 

9 Really, this comes down to counting cycles in 

10 the end, and NIOSH agrees whether it has a 

11 relatively low impact. 

12 DR. MAURO: Would this be a 

13 quality issue going across these kinds of 

14 things?

15 MR. FARVER: Normally, I would say 

16 that, except there was discrepancy up above

17 about counting zeros, and for Savannah River, 

18 I guess it's a little tougher because you've 

19 got these different reports. So, it is a 

20 matter of what report you're counting. But 

21 yes, if it was some other site, I would 

22 probably write this us as a qualify concern.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Was this a large 

2 number of cycles and a fairly small 

3 difference?

4 MR. SIEBERT: The difference 

5 between eight and --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Ten and eight.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, two cycles. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Nothing spectacular.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: No, but it's 

10 puzzling. If it were the difference between 

11 298 and 296, I'd say that -- who cares?

12 DR. MAURO: Is that a quality 

13 issue? That's not a quality issue.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: But eight and ten 

15 is a countable number.

16 DR. MAURO: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: The only reason I let 

18 this one go is because there's many different 

19 records of Savannah River.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: And unless you're 

22 counting the same records, you might not get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 the same numbers.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And granted, two 

3 cycles of missed doses --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

5 right. And it doesn't have any -- I mean we 

6 closed the finding. It doesn't necessarily 

7 mean it goes as far a qualify finding.

8 DR. MAURO: I raised this question 

9 because I know that --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: When we look at 

11 these in aggregate, we might say, "Yes, this 

12 is worth following up on." 

13 DR. MAURO: I've seen a lot of 

14 these DR audits, and they'll print out 300 

15 pages, which who knows how many zeros on it. 

16 Someone has to sit there and count zeros. 

17 Now, is it a quality issue because one person 

18 counts 200 zeros or 203 zeros? How many times 

19 do you have to count the zeros to decide if 

20 it's the right number? I have a hard time 

21 calling that a quality issue.

22 MR. FARVER: No, I understand 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 that. But we can -- we can close that one. 

2 There's no further action.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: And 159.7 goes back 

5 to the fixing the work book for neutrons, just 

6 like they did for photons. So, that's closed.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So, 

8 this is the same TIB-54?

9 MR. FARVER: Well, 159.8 we will 

10 get into --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I was 

12 reading -- I'm sorry. That's what I was 

13 reading.

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, 159.8 is the 

15 underestimating fission product dose.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. All 

17 right, 159.9?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Just to make sure I 

19 didn't miss this, .8 was closed?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 

21 transferred.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Transferred to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Procedures.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Right, the OTIB-54. 

3 Okay, thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MR. FARVER: 159.9: plutonium was 

6 not included in any of the environmental dose 

7 calculations. And the response says it was 

8 included in the chronic missed dose. It was 

9 not included in the environmental. Correct. 

10 Well, they assessed it once. They didn't 

11 assess it twice. Closed.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Let me ask, just for 

14 my edification. The environmental doses is a 

15 contributor, you're saying that by calculating 

16 --

17 MR. FARVER: They calculated a 

18 missed dose for plutonium. So, they don't 

19 calculated an environment dose for --

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, you capture it 

21 because of the missed dose.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: The missed dose is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 based no the bioassay. And so, if they had 

2 any environmental --

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, got it. Got it. 

4 Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 

6 Super S question, right? And this is being 

7 reassessed apparently. 

8 DR. ULSH: Observation 159 then?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. This one was 

11 reassessed just about six months ago. So, 

12 we'll also respond there. 

13 DR. ULSH: So, it's the same thing 

14 that we're going to supply written 

15 documentation --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay, got you.

18 MR. FARVER: Move onto 160.1: DR 

19 reports do not properly account for all 

20 reported proton dose. They said they first 

21 received a couple hundred millirem from 1952, 

22 and it was not included in the IREP data. Saw 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 those missing years. And so, this one really 

2 -- this would be a QA concern.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: How could that hear 

5 not be accounted for. I don't know how we're 

6 going to fix it. It's just something that 

7 would just fall under your category of 

8 quality.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: But we could close 

11 the findings.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's 

13 closed. That one is a more clear quality 

14 assurance, I think.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Probably a simple 

16 matter of waiting for something. Going away 

17 for 15 minutes, and coming back and taking --

18 MR. FARVER: Well, the QA check 

19 should have caught that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

21 MR. FARVER: 160.2 is similar for 

22 neutron dose, 1952. Because the 1952 is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 missing the neutron dose, based on an N/P 

2 ratio was missing. Makes sense. 

3 DR. ULSH: So same thing as 160.1 

4 and we substitute neutron?

5 MR. FARVER: Yes. Closed. 160.3 

6 has the fission product issue that keeps 

7 coming up. So, we will refer that to Wanda. 

8 DR. MAURO: I got a question. I 

9 don't want to slow -- it's getting late. But 

10 okay, let's say we find out that we missed a 

11 year, and the year includes both the photon 

12 and because of neutron/photon ratio, we missed 

13 the neutron. So, therefore the dose has been 

14 underestimated. These are numeric issues. 

15 It's not a procedural issue. 

16 It's an issue unique to this case, 

17 and would not be picked up on a PER. Do we 

18 know that -- so what do you do? Do you redo 

19 this guy's case because you missed some doses? 

20 Is that what happens?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean we 

22 won't send a new dose reconstruction.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: Well, what do you do 

2 when -- now you know this guy might have been 

3 underestimated.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: What we would do 

5 is we would -- if it's close -- I mean this is 

6 200 millirem of photon and probably something 

7 less than that for neutron. Most of our N/P 

8 ratios are less than one. So, I mean that 

9 almost doesn't --

10 DR. MAURO: Okay, in other words, 

11 the tracking of closure. What I'm getting at 

12 is that -- maybe we haven't had this 

13 conversation before. If there's no way to 

14 document that, "Yes, we did find there was 

15 some quality issues that did result in some 

16 degree of underestimate of the dose, and the 

17 documented that we looked at it and confirmed 

18 that it does not change the conclusion in 

19 terms of compensation."

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we've had 

21 this discussion before. 

22 DR. MAURO: We did? Then I forgot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 about it.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That oversight 

3 is in case -- set five was it? Remember when 

4 you reworked several --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we reworked 

6 several. They were close.

7 DR. MAURO: What is the venue --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's kind of a 

9 judgment in the group.

10 DR. MAURO: But where does it --

11 does a record show that we put this one --

12 that this issue has been addressed, put to 

13 bed, and the claimant in fact was given 

14 appropriate consideration? Where is that? It 

15 seems to be something important. We've got --

16 there's a record that -- that this person, 

17 "Yes, you're right. We did underestimate. We 

18 looked at the degrees on the estimate. 

19 Certainly not anywhere near enough to change 

20 the convert." And then you put a period at 

21 the end of the sentence. It seems to me that 

22 we'd sit around a table and agree to that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: Because it's 

3 intuitively obviously to us. But is this 

4 something that needs to be put on a record?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's --

6 if following that school of thought, John, 

7 there's something to be said for publishing a 

8 final matrix. You know, after all the 

9 discussions are done, we've come to agreement 

10 and closure.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh, that's the trick.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And having a final 

13 matrix as, "The record."

14 DR. MAURO: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, before that 

16 goes to -- we have to think about going 

17 public. It would certainly have to be 

18 reviewed for Privacy Act because we're not as 

19 careful on these as we are in some others, and 

20 especially as we include more and more 

21 information about the case, we can get into 

22 Privacy Act considerations.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Haven't we 

2 already published a lot of matrices?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd be hard 

4 pressed to find the five things we call the 

5 final matrices for the first five plants. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, they went 

7 to the Secretary. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there were 

9 reports to the Secretary.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: With those as 

11 attachments.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are 

13 attachments. Okay, so, then those would be --

14 those were the -- the matrices were 

15 attachments to the report to the Secretary, 

16 then I would say that would be the published -

17 -

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

19 public record.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the public 

21 record. And so, the public record of this 

22 matrix --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: So, the matrix and the 

2 transcript represents the documentation?

3 MS. HOWELL: Not really.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

5 MS. HOWELL: Not unless the new 

6 one is posted on the website. But the 

7 Secretary can do whatever. So, you would send 

8 something unredacted to the Secretary.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, right.

10 MS. HOWELL: It would only have 

11 been reviewed for privacy matters if it has 

12 been posted on the website.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So, what we have 

14 now is a record that's not public. The 

15 official, to me -- we have an official, final 

16 matrix, and this is missing a -- and there's 

17 an argument to be made, and maybe we haven't 

18 even really talked about this, but from DCAS 

19 standpoint, there's an argument to be made to 

20 put these out there in public because the 

21 reviews are public. The initial reviews are 

22 on our --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 DR. MAURO: The transcripts.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, and your 

3 reports. Those are public, and those are on 

4 the website, and they all say drafts, and 

5 there are disclaimers on there. But they're 

6 all drafts. And so, if anybody asks, "Well, 

7 what's the final outcome of this?" The final 

8 outcome of this is the final matrix, which 

9 summarizes these discussions we've had.

10 DR. MAURO: We have had this 

11 conversation before. You're right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, when they 

13 are published, and whether it's a letter to 

14 the Secretary or something, that's an argument 

15 for us, saying that we should do a privacy 

16 redaction on these things, and put them up 

17 there as -- really as part of your report to 

18 them. We don't have to write anything else. 

19 Your report then to the Secretary 

20 then can become public on the website. And 

21 so, when someone asks, "What's the outcome of 

22 these -- from these drafts?"
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was under the 

2 impression that they were released to the 

3 public. Emily, I thought that you reviewed at 

4 least the first five through your office. I'm 

5 not sure.

6 MS. HOWELL: I reviewed matrices, 

7 but I have no idea if they're for this 

8 Subcommittee.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

10 MS. HOWELL: I mean most of the 

11 ones that I can remember are actually from SEC 

12 things. CHAIRMAN 

13 GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MS. HOWELL: So, unless --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, but I know 

16 --

17 MS. HOWELL: -- it's either OCAS, 

18 or you as the Subcommittee directing, I mean 

19 they are Board documents. You're correct. 

20 They probably should be up there. But I'm not 

21 sure that they currently are.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll go check on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 that. Yes, I think that certainly they should 

2 be there.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's a 

4 good question. Just doing a final report to 

5 the Secretary doesn't necessarily mean it's 

6 been dispersed to the public. 

7 DR. MAURO: We did have this 

8 conversation already in the context of Site 

9 Profile reviews.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: And the question was 

12 SC&A, after you go through it and have your 

13 Site Profile review, you go through the issues 

14 resolution. Do you reissue a final version of 

15 your Site Profile manage? The answer is no, 

16 and the reason is because the record of the 

17 Work Group meeting, and how the issues were 

18 resolved, whether that's Procedures or Site 

19 Profile, constitutes the -- the process and 

20 the record of how issues are resolved.

21 Because that -- otherwise, the 

22 costs would be astronomical to redo a Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Profile. So, I just had to be reminded.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, but the 

3 other part of your question I think was 

4 important, which is how do we -- I mean in the 

5 matrices, assuming we clear those first five 

6 or whatever, or we -- we release multiple, in 

7 the final resolution column, we often say, 

8 "Does not affect the case." You know, no 

9 effect on the case. And we do often -- but I 

10 think we make a pretty -- I know sometimes we 

11 review it quicker, but I'm assuming when we do 

12 this here, that SC&A has looked pretty closely 

13 at it, and NIOSH has.

14 Any time I think Stu has been 

15 involved in this, like we've had somewhere 

16 where pretty close to more like --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly if 

18 they're close. I mean there are some --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This has the 

20 potential to overturn, and we ask you to look 

21 --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, like a 100 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 millirem increase in a dose -- I mean it's 

2 intuitive, that won't change the outcome.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's intuitive. 

5 So, we may not do --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean I 

7 think it's a waste of research to require 

8 NIOSH to, just for the record, reconstruct a 

9 dose.

10 DR. MAURO: No, that's a good 

11 point. I just wanted to make sure --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We haven't done 

13 that in the past is all I'm saying.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is good.

15 DR. ULSH: Okay, but since I 

16 haven't been around for those three previous 

17 discussions, here's my concern with a 

18 combination of what John said and what Stu 

19 said: We look at these things right now and 

20 they are minor because -- I think you said 30 

21 percent and that is not a big deal. 

22 There's -- that doesn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 necessarily ensure that some issue doesn't 

2 come up down the road, where we're going to 

3 pick this case up again. And unless we have 

4 some notation in that case file that, "Yes, 

5 there's an issue here that if you ever open 

6 this again and redo it, you should take this 

7 into account."

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm 

9 assuming that you've flagged -- any cases that 

10 are being reviewed, you flag. And if they 

11 come up again --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That's for us to 

13 figure out.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a good 

15 point, but that's an internal thing. Yes, I 

16 agree, because you've got to keep track of 

17 these. I agree. You're right.

18 MS. BEHLING: Mark, I guess 

19 another question I could have that just came 

20 to mind as we were going through these is I 

21 assume if we go back to Finding 160.1, and we 

22 look at just that specific issue in this 200 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 millirem we're talking about, and NIOSH's 

2 response is that, "Okay, this will not affect 

3 the compensability decision," I assume they've 

4 looked at all of the findings associated with 

5 160 --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 MS. BEHLING: -- for just this 

8 particular issue.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think 

10 that's where we're making the judgment too 

11 here on the subcommittee level. Like if --

12 and well, we just said that before when we had 

13 the fission product one come up, and then 

14 finding later we had another internal dose 

15 issue.

16 MS. BEHLING: Exactly. And so --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's sort of 

18 these things in aggregate, obviously.

19 MS. BEHLING: Right, and that's 

20 what I wanted to ensure is happening.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, whenever we 

22 have doubt I think we want to stop, pause and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 if need be, ask NIOSH to show us some numbers.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay, because we're 

3 on the first finding, and if they've just 

4 reassessed it based on that one finding, 

5 obviously we're going to go onto 2 and 3 and 

6 have additional findings that may impact this 

7 case, and that is looked at in aggregate. 

8 Yes, that was my only question.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

10 right. So, was that a general question, Kathy, 

11 or specific to case 160? 

12 MS. BEHLING: Well --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean do you 

14 know something that I don't know about? This 

15 case, is it close, or?

16 MS. BEHLING: It's very close.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I got you.

18 MS. BEHLING: This case is almost 

19 49 percent. It's 48.7 percent. Now, it's --

20 I believe it's a prostate cancer, but it's 

21 close.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 MS. BEHLING: The only thing that, 

2 in this particular case, I am questioning 

3 under finding 160.2 is it looks as if this has 

4 been returned to be reworked.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes. In 

6 the bottom of your NIOSH response, it says, 

7 "Claim has been returned for rework using 

8 current methods."

9 MR. SIEBERT: This claim is 

10 presently in our pool to be worked.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, for this 

12 particular one, I'm going to put, instead of 

13 no effect on the case, I'm going to say it's 

14 currently being reworked. I think that's 

15 better. I'm glad we had this discussion.

16 DR. MAURO: And as Brant correctly 

17 points out, when it's being reworked, for the 

18 reasons its being reworked is neutron, it's 

19 probably important that we don't forget about 

20 the year that may have been missed on protons 

21 ever.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, and the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 policy is when you rework your case, you work 

2 it across the board, right?

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I don't know 

4 if that necessarily means that --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know.

6 DR. MAURO: -- everyone goes back 

7 to this matrix and takes a look at sort of the 

8 findings. So, yes.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I'm saying 

10 that's something they -- that's something that 

11 NIOSH has to keep an eye on. Right?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it might not 

14 have gone back to the matrix, but surely it 

15 would include your original findings sheet.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, if you go back to 

17 that. I guess that's what I'm getting at. I 

18 can see when you're in the PER process, for 

19 example, and you turn in the machinery to deal 

20 with it, and you go back to all the issues 

21 that are at play. Some of the issues that are 

22 at play are built into the record of our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 matrix for this Work Group, for this 

2 Subcommittee. The degree to which you folks 

3 incorporate that into your process is a 

4 question, I guess.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Your findings sheet 

6 would have everything --

7 DR. MAURO: The findings would be 

8 there if they were looked at.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: I got to say, I'll be 

11 first to acknowledge that I noticed that when 

12 Site Profiles are being revisited every couple 

13 of years. The folks that do the Site Profiles 

14 don't always look at our Site Profile Reviews 

15 when they're in the process of reviewing. So, 

16 one of the things I guess I have a concern 

17 about is that there's a process going on with 

18 the Board here, where there's a lot of 

19 interaction with SC&A, the Board and the Work 

20 Groups, to the degree to which that actually 

21 makes it into the machinery.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I got you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 I see your point. We've all -- Stu is taking 

2 notes. Okay, I think we're going to call it a 

3 day.

4 MR. FARVER: Oh, you should do one 

5 more.

6 DR. MAURO: We're closing 160 out. 

7 Great.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm close to 

9 catching a flight here. You really wanted to 

10 do one more? You were on a roll?

11 MR. FARVER: No, there is one more 

12 in 160.

13 MEMBER MUNN: 160.4.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead. Do 

15 160.4.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay, the dose report 

17 does not account for internal doses from the 

18 uranium. The employee submitted ten uranium 

19 bioassays. The DR report says, "Uranium as 

20 discussed below," but it doesn't discuss it, 

21 and there are no calculations for it. 

22 So, they don't calculate a dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 They don't include a dose. And so, this also 

2 has an affect on the PoC, and it's also the 

3 key reg concern. And they say it does not 

4 affect compensability. But if we go back and 

5 consider all these findings in total, do they? 

6 I don't know. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well, at the 

8 very least --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: We need to check 

11 this out.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

13 that's a wrap. Thank you all. Thank you all 

14 on the phone for sticking it out today. And 

15 we made some good headway. 

16 I will send the final preliminary 

17 follow up report, that First 100 Case Report, 

18 out to all of us, and actually, I think I can 

19 forward it to all of the Board for discussion. 

20 At least I'll raise it in the Work Group 

21 updates on the phone call meeting, and then 

22 we'll have a further discussion at the full 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

 

 

1 Board meeting, and focus on set seven for the 

2 next set of priorities.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Mark, this is 

4 Scott.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Could you also send 

7 out the updates you just made to the eighth 

8 matrix?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I will. I will.

10 MR. SIEBERT: That would be very 

11 helpful. And the seventh, I guess, would be 

12 good, too.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: So set seven and 

15 continue with eight right?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks a 

18 lot, everybody. 

19 MR. KATZ: We're adjourned. Thank 

20 you everyone on the line.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 3:57 p.m.)