STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS

404/733-6070

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

convenes

THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 

OF THE 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

The verbatim transcript of the 

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Review of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Marriott Airport, Hebron, 

Kentucky, on August 20, 2008.
2

C O N T E N T S

August 20, 2008

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 9

SIXTH SET OF CASES WRAP-UP 14

SEVENTH SET OF CASES MATRIX 155

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE FIRST 100 CASES 254

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 325
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken.

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material.

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported.

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available.

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response.

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

without reference available.

-- ^/(inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone.
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order)

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Washington, DC

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

1 CLAWSON, Bradley

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory

GIBSON, Michael H.

President

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200

Miamisburg, Ohio

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D.

Professor, Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas
5

ANNOUNCED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

FARVER, DOUG, SC&A

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS

SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

(9:54 a.m.)

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

1 DR. WADE: Okay, good morning. This is Lew Wade and 

2 I'm serving as the Designated Federal Official 

3 today for a meeting of the Subcommittee on Dose 

4 Reconstruction. That subcommittee is most ably 

5 chaired by Mark Griffon; members Gibson, 

6 Poston, Munn; alternates Clawson and Presley.

7 Here in the room we have Griffon, Gibson, Munn 

8 and Clawson. I know Dr. Poston is on the 

9 phone. Is that correct, Dr. Poston?

10 DR. POSTON: Yes.

11 DR. WADE: Is Robert Presley on the phone with 

12 us?

13 (No responses)

14 Are there any other Board members who are 

15 participating in the call? Any other Board 

16 members other than those named participating in 

17 the call?

18 (No responses)

19 Fine. We really don't have to be concerned 

20 about a quorum because this is a meeting of the 
7

1 subcommittee and we can have a quorum of the 

2 Board present. So we have present and 

3 participating Griffon, Gibson, Poston, Munn and 

4 Clawson.

5 What we'll do is go around the table here and 

6 identify who's present. Then we'll go out into 

7 telephone land and identify, and then we'll 

8 have a -- a brief discussion about phone 

9 etiquette, and then we'll begin the 

10 deliberations of the subcommittee.

11 Again, this is Lew Wade and I'm serving as 

12 Designated Federal Official, and I work for 

13 NIOSH.

14 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board member.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the ORAU team.

17 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor to the 

18 Office of the Director, NIOSH.

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

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

21 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS, OGC.

22 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Board member.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, Board member.

24 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board member.

25 DR. WADE: And that's us, and Ray Green is 
8

1 here, and you're up and functioning, Ray, 

2 correct?

3 Okay, so let's go out into telephone land and 

4 start with members of the extended NIOSH/OCAS 

5 family who might be on the call.

6 (No responses)

7 How about other SC&A team members?

8 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling with SC&A.

9 DR. WADE: Pleasure to have you with us, Kathy, 

10 as always.

11 MS. BEHLING: Thank you.

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

13 (No responses)

14 Do we have any other federal employees who are 

15 working on this call?

16 (No responses)

17 Other federal employees?

18 (No responses)

19 How about members of Congress or their 

20 representatives who want to be identified as 

21 being on this call?

22 (No responses)

23 Anyone else who would like, for the record, to 

24 be identified as participating in this meeting 

25 of the subcommittee?
9

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

2 with HHS.

3 DR. WADE: Hi, Liz. How are you?

4 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Good, thank you.

5 DR. WADE: Anyone else wants to be identified 

6 for the record?

7 (No responses)

8 Well, let's remember telephone etiquette as we 

9 go. You know, mute the phone if you're not on 

10 it; speak into a handset as opposed to a 

11 speaker phone if you can. I think star-6 will 

12 mute a phone if you don't have the ability to 

13 do that with a readily-available button, and 

14 star-6 will get you back connected. And if we 

15 exercise some phone etiquette it will make it 

16 easier for all of us participating, so -- Mark, 

17 it's all yours.

18 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, sorry for my late arrival. 

20 I think we have plenty of work to keep us busy 

21 here through the day. Just a -- a -- I'll 

22 touch on the agenda and then we can get right 

23 into it. The -- I -- I thought they -- I 

24 didn't send out an agenda, but it's sort of 

25 obvious what we're going to cover.
10

1 The sixth set of cases, we have some items to 

2 close out there so I'd like to start with that, 

3 and hopefully we can -- I'm hopeful that we can 

4 wrap up the sixth set of cases.

5 The seventh set of cases we had started at the 

6 last meeting. We didn't quite get through the 

7 entire matrix, so I'd like to -- to complete 

8 that, and I think we also have some initial 

9 responses from SC&A on some of the items that 

10 we discussed at the last meeting so we can see 

11 how to -- I'd like to get one full run through 

12 it first, and then maybe go back and look at 

13 some of those responses that -- that SC&A sent.

14 And then what I would like to do is at that 

15 point try to cover the -- I -- I sent a draft 

16 letter of this first 100 cases report, which I 

17 -- I sort of put off for the last couple of 

18 meetings. I would like to get it on the table 

19 at this meeting and at least have a preliminary 

20 discussion. And if people need time to take it 

21 home, redline it -- you know, comment on it, 

22 whatever, that's fine. But at least to have an 

23 initial run-through of that letter and discuss 

24 it a little bit.

25 And then if we still have time we can maybe get 
11

1 into the eighth set. That might be ambitious, 

2 but I know Stu did send out preliminary NIOSH 

3 comments for the eighth set, so we have that 

4 work available if we -- we still have time.

5 So I guess if we could start with the sixth set 

6 of cases --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Mark, there's one thing John 

8 and I were discussing earlier on and it has to 

9 do with the tenth set of dose reconstructions.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Of course that's --

12 MR. GRIFFON: Not quite there yet, yeah.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but we've started some pre14 selection work on it, if you'll recall, and for 

15 -- I think for -- maybe for SC&A's benefit, to 

16 make sure that they have things to do, and you 

17 may want to have this conversation now or may--

18 maybe talk to Mark at lunchtime or something --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we may put it off till then, 

21 but there's some pre-selection work that I can 

22 electronically distribute, you know, I'll say 

23 see where we are. And we may want to think 

24 about that in order to have SC&A -- for SC&A to 

25 have some work to do as they go forward.
12

1 MR. GRIFFON: That makes sense. Refresh my 

2 memory, Stu. Where were we? We did a first --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: From --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- we did a first iteration of 

5 it?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: From my response, we've done 

7 the first pass --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and from what I've -- well, 

10 this is where I think we are, or I think we're 

11 -- I'll confirm this later. We've done the 

12 first pass and there's been some pre-selection, 

13 and I believe we've added, from ORAU, the 

14 additional information that we always ask for.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe we've also 

17 screened -- had the DOL screen done on those 

18 cases, I think. I'm not 100 percent --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Did you -- you added that 

20 information. Did you return it to -- to me or 

21 --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not 100 percent sure.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not 100 percent sure, so 

25 I'll have to confirm where I am at lunchtime, 
13

1 but it seems like there'd be some value to try 

2 to move forward in some way on that. I don't 

3 know we -- we probably can't choose anything 

4 today, but --

5 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- perhaps we can be 

7 approaching -- you know, people can look at it 

8 between now and September -- you know, the 

9 first week of September --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and have some decisions 

12 there on at least some selections.

13 MR. GRIFFON: That would make sense to keep --

14 to put some work --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: To keep SC&A --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- have -- so SC&A has work to 

18 do in this.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right, we'll check on 

20 that on a break or at lunch today -- check our 

21 records and see what we have 'cause I don't --

22 I don't remember if I got a file back from you 

23 on that.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what happened.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that -- that sounds good. 
14

1 SIXTH SET OF CASES WRAP-UP

2 So to start -- I'm working from -- Stu, you put 

3 some -- some of the comments into a sixth-set 

4 matrix --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Which it says updated by OCAS 

7 August 20, 2008. Do people have that -- that 

8 matrix, that version of the matrix?

9 MS. MUNN: Is this the one?

10 MR. GRIFFON: At the very top it says prepared 

11 by the workgroup May 2nd, 2007, parentheses, 

12 updated by OCAS August 20, 2008. That's --

13 that's at the -- on the header.

14 MS. MUNN: And what -- do we have a date that 

15 was transmitted? Was it transmitted, do you 

16 know, on the 8th?

17 MR. CLAWSON: It was last -- it was last week?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Last Thursday, I think.

19 MR. GRIFFON: The 18th? Does that sound 

20 familiar?

21 MS. MUNN: Okay.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe it was --

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that sounds right.

24 MR. GRIFFON: The 18th -- the 18th was over a 

25 weekend.
15

1 MR. HINNEFELD: The 18th was Monday.

2 MR. GRIFFON: No, it might have been --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was -- I think it 

4 was the 14th.

5 MR. GRIFFON: 14th?

6 MR. CLAWSON: Well, because I --

7 MS. BEHLING: I believe it's the 13th. This is 

8 Kathy Behling.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the 13th?

10 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Take a second to find that and 

12 when -- and if -- if Doug and Stu, if you guys 

13 can find the starting poi-- I'm a-- I'm 

14 assuming, looking at this, that the only ones 

15 we have to really discuss any further are the 

16 redlined comments that are in this version. 

17 But if I'm incorrect, Doug, if you can, you 

18 know, look through your notes as we're going.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: It's actually a subset of that. 

20 It's --

21 MR. GRIFFON: It might even be -- it might even 

22 be a subset of that, yeah.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a number of comments 

24 -- it starts on 105.5 --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right.
16

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and there's a August 20th, 

2 2008 underlined date with some below it. So 

3 each new thing that was sent -- each new piece 

4 of information that was added to the matrix for 

5 this update has that heading, that August 20, 

6 2008 date heading on it.

7 MR. GRIFFON: So you're saying these ones on 

8 104.3 were previously in there?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Those were sent previously.

10 MR. FARVER: And even some of the information 

11 from the August 20 notes are -- is 

12 clarification information.

13 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause they -- they -- hmm. The 

14 -- the one -- the -- the matrix I was working 

15 from the last meeting -- I think it was the 

16 original May 2nd matrix, and that didn't have 

17 those -- like the --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Any of the redline in it?

19 MR. GRIFFON: 104.3, it didn't have those 

20 comments in, and in fact, I had -- I had a 

21 couple of questions on those. Can we -- it --

22 it might be quick, Stu, but can we step through 

23 any of the redlined comments --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sure.

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- real quickly and go that way? 
17

1 Yeah, sixth set.

2 MR. CLAWSON: We'd be starting at the 104 --

3 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm starting at 104.3. And --

4 and for 104.3, for instance, Doug, do you -- is 

5 there any further comment on this or what's --

6 what's SC&A's reaction to NIOSH's comment?

7 MR. FARVER: Bear with me for a minute. I have 

8 to catch up.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it always takes us a little 

10 time to start.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, this is an external 

12 exposure to the slabs issue, and we went ahead 

13 and re-derived the doses using our own models 

14 and to see if we came up with the same numbers, 

15 and I believe there was some disparity between 

16 our calculations on the simple external 

17 exposure model and the -- the dose rates that 

18 you folks came up with. And I guess that's as 

19 far as I can take it. As far as your response 

20 goes, I -- I haven't looked at --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: My rec-- my recollection of the 

22 finding is that it was -- you guys modeled the 

23 actual dimensions of the uranium slab that was 

24 rolled and -- sorry about that. Okay. Modeled 

25 the actual -- you guys modeled the actual 
18

1 dimensions of the uranium slab and said the 

2 dose rate at these distances would be this, 

3 which is somewhat different -- not a lot, 

4 somewhat different than the model we used. We 

5 had used numbers that had been previously 

6 modeled from a different -- somewhat different 

7 geometry, just for expedience and because if 

8 you're in proximity to uranium metal, you know, 

9 you're going to be in the ball park and we felt 

10 like we had a really generous model in terms of 

11 how close we put the person for how long, and 

12 so we felt like our numbers were sufficiently 

13 bounding because of that.

14 And the other -- the other comment that we made 

15 was that it's -- a person wouldn't be position 

16 at the center of a uran-- you know, a four by 

17 eight uranium slab 'cause it's going to lie 

18 flat.

19 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: It won't be stored on end and 

21 you can't stack them very high 'cause it'll 

22 just be too much to move. So -- so we -- it 

23 sounds like -- while you did in fact -- you 

24 know, we aren't arguing with what you modeled 

25 because of the dimension. We didn't feel like 
19

1 it was a particularly relevant value or any 

2 more relevant than ours, and we thought that 

3 the -- the -- the generosity of the model was 

4 such that if -- if -- we thought ours was 

5 bounding anyway.

6 DR. MAURO: I would ag-- you know, in principle 

7 I agree with that. In other wor-- when you 

8 step back from the analysis, say okay, but 

9 really what are we talking about in terms of a 

10 -- a significance, bear in mind that we just go 

11 through the process that says here's the 

12 geometry, here's the duration of exposure, 

13 here's the distance.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 DR. MAURO: We run our calculations, we come up 

16 with a number and it's somewhat different than 

17 yours.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

19 DR. MAURO: But I fully agr-- one of -- one of 

20 the philosophies that we -- we're well aware 

21 that when you look at -- in a given analysis in 

22 a macro scale, you know, collecti-- take into 

23 consideration all the assumptions and -- that 

24 are built in, when we come at the problem we 

25 say well, listen, given that this scenario is 
20

1 defined in these terms put away, you know, 

2 2,000 hours a year, what's the dose? So -- so 

3 we say given that, what dose would we get? And 

4 when we do see a difference, we point it out, 

5 even though I acknowledge that in the bigger 

6 picture the difference doesn't really make a --

7 much of a difference. Nevertheless, we feel 

8 it's incumbent upon us to point out places 

9 where we are coming out -- where we're getting 

10 a factor of two out, I believe, we're not --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we weren't very far off, 

12 I forget exactly --

13 DR. MAURO: But when you take it -- now a 

14 factor of two could be considered important 

15 enough, but when you step back and say but wait 

16 a minute, we're making like -- as you pointed 

17 out, well, the slabs really aren't going to be 

18 laying, you know, perpendicular to the person. 

19 The person's really not going to be there 2,000 

20 a year, but that's the assumption that's built 

21 into the -- as characterized.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

23 DR. MAURO: And the -- and so how we clo-- I 

24 mean how we deal with something like that I 

25 guess is a --
21

1 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I have my -- I -- I 

2 pulled up my matrix from June of 2008, which is 

3 what I did real time during the meeting, which 

4 I should have sent to you before you put 

5 comments into the old one. Now I've got to 

6 merge the two so --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sorry.

8 MR. GRIFFON: No, that's all right. It's my 

9 fault. But in this -- the one thing it does 

10 say is NIOSH and SC&A to share calculations and 

11 results, just in -- the difference is in doses 

12 assessed. Now I -- I -- you know, I see 

13 agreement here, but I don't know that --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I don't think we have any 

15 particular --

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- I don't know that you shared 

17 the specifics or -- or...

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I thought we had. That's 

19 what I was thinking about --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe no, I don't know.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't think we have any 

22 particular -- you know, we don't find any issue 

23 with their calculations -- with their model 

24 calculations.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.
22

1 DR. MAURO: And -- and --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We thought that it didn't 

3 exactly fit the geometry that the person would 

4 -- would have and so it wasn't particularly 

5 more relevant --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that the other geometry we 

8 already modeled. That's --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so that's why we -- that's -

11 - was our --

12 DR. MAURO: And it wasn't enough I guess -- I'd 

13 have to look back, but the difference in dose 

14 was -- I guess there's two levels. One, what 

15 if the difference in dose was important --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

17 DR. MAURO: -- from the point of view of 

18 compensation. And second, though, if it was, 

19 then things become a little bit more 

20 fundamental. That is, then I think it's 

21 important that in your scenario you -- and if 

22 you do do it with a different geometry and it 

23 is -- where you are actually coming in let's 

24 say with a factor of two lower, and it's 

25 justifiable --
23

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

2 DR. MAURO: -- I mean I'm not saying it's not 

3 justifia-- and it's justifiable, then I think 

4 that's important that that be made, you know, 

5 explicit in the analysis --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: In the -- in the model?

7 DR. MAURO: In the model, if it --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: No problem.

9 DR. MAURO: -- if it's self-- you know -- see, 

10 right now the differences we're talking about 

11 are one where yeah, we could see you -- you 

12 could model it that way, but that's not the way 

13 it was described.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 DR. MAURO: When we modeled it the way 

16 described, we come up with something different. 

17 Now the difference in this case was -- is a 

18 difference that doesn't really change anything 

19 in terms of compensation, but it could have.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 DR. MAURO: And -- and I guess that's where we 

22 are right now.

23 MR. GRIFFON: So I gue-- it -- it -- what --

24 what I heard from Stu is that you don't 

25 disagree with what the calculation that SC&A 
24

1 did --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: No, right.

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- and --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- John, you're comfortable with 

6 the scenario that they've laid out --

7 DR. MAURO: Right, that --

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- as far as -- right, right.

9 DR. MAURO: Quite frankly, perhaps the idea

10 circumstance and how you want to deal with that 

11 is that it be explained that way. That is, 

12 when -- in other words, in -- in the actual 

13 documentation of what was done, in effect you -

14 - you have an approximation that, you know, 

15 that's based on -- takes into consideration 

16 that -- the fact that the person may not have 

17 been that close that long. But it puts us in a 

18 tough spot. We're trying to match numbers.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I know.

20 DR. MAURO: And if in fact the methods used 

21 differed than -- than what's described in the 

22 dose reconstruction, it puts us in a tough spot 

23 to say well, are we going to be critical here 

24 and -- and -- and we are. You know, we made a 

25 -- a comment saying that well, we weren't able 
25

1 to really get your numbers. What's -- what's 

2 done about that, I -- I guess I'm not quite 

3 sure.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it'd be a fairly simple 

6 matter to write a sentence in the site profile 

7 -- I don't remember, which site is this?

8 DR. MAURO: Which one is this?

9 MR. GRIFFON: Superior Steel.

10 DR. MAURO: Superior Steel.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah.

12 DR. MAURO: The size of -- yeah, I remember the 

13 -- I remember this one, yeah.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean it'd be a simple matter 

15 to write it in there. It would affect this --

16 this DR -- I don't know if there are any 

17 Superior Steels waiting to be done or -- of 

18 course that's not to say we couldn't get more.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: It's sort of --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Although it's probably not going 

22 to affect any others -- only --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think it would.

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- affects is 'cause they were 

25 all done with this technique.
26

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It's all done with this 

2 technique and we just say -- just describe the 

3 technique more fully in the document.

4 MR. GRIFFON: You're really just changing the 

5 (unintelligible) was really being done.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 DR. MAURO: Now that I'm -- I'm looking at it 

9 and -- and Doug pointed it out, I think it was 

10 silent regarding the size of the plates.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay.

12 DR. MAURO: It was silent and we -- and we did 

13 a little research into what we thought the 

14 plates were --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

16 DR. MAURO: -- and so -- so we -- there is --

17 if you get to try -- other -- we brought it to 

18 a level of resolution that was perhaps greater 

19 than the resolu--

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: -- you -- you really specified.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We just felt like they were 

23 close to uranium metal --

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we've got this model, we can 
27

1 get a dose rate off uranium metal and, although 

2 it wasn't exact geometry may-- we knew -- then 

3 we didn't really -- in that case we wouldn't 

4 really care what the exact geometry was. We'd 

5 say well, this is our dose rate for close --

6 this -- this dose rate, in combination with 

7 these --

8 DR. MAURO: Right.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- parameters about how close 

10 they were for how long, is sufficient to bound 

11 the dose. And I think really the doses 

12 assigned by the site profile are really hi--

13 are really high compared to what you would see 

14 if you looked at the dose rates say from 

15 Fernald in the mid-'80s when they were running 

16 really high production levels. They almost --

17 you know, I don't know that we ever had -- we -

18 - or that they ever had anybody get to a rem a 

19 year in -- in photon exposure, even when they 

20 were -- the place was packed with uranium. 

21 So...

22 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I mean I -- I hear 

23 agreement, and I -- I would just ask that if 

24 NIOSH can modify the site profile to add in the 

25 scenario used for external dose calculations, 
28

1 then it's -- then it's put to bed. Right?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: Well, you know --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Just to add that in, just to...

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we can say in there that 

6 -- we can make some clarifying information that

7 this is considered -- you know, we consider 

8 this technique appropriately bounding for a 

9 uranium metal exposure situation --

10 DR. MAURO: This class of problem.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- yeah, this class of problem, 

12 regardless --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the geometry -- the 

15 specific geometry --

16 DR. MAURO: And we -- and we --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- uranium.

18 DR. MAURO: -- would agree with that.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. All right, so that one's 

20 done. I'm -- I'm moving on to 104.4.

21 MS. MUNN: Say you're going to 

22 (unintelligible).

23 MR. GRIFFON: Now 104.4, this is what -- this 

24 is one thing that sort of -- when I saw your 

25 redlined comments, Stu, this is one thing that 
29

1 -- my memory was different than what was 

2 written there and -- only in the sense that I 

3 thought this was a generic issue and I was 

4 awaiting this sort of white paper to come back 

5 on this generic resuspension question, and you 

6 seem to -- to answer it more specifically for 

7 this instance, but don't allude to any -- any 

8 white paper or anything like that, so...

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think maybe this 

10 redline may have predated our -- our final 

11 determination --

12 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it still remains in 

14 global, so --

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we -- yeah, we --

16 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so the resolution I have is 

17 that NIOSH -- or that NIOSH is developing a 

18 white paper to address several of these generic 

19 iss-- you know, including resuspension, and 

20 ingestion I think is the other one.

21 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that -- that white paper and 

22 how you finally decide what to -- how to deal 

23 with ten to the minus six resuspension factor -

24 -

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.
30

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

2 DR. MAURO: -- it's going to have a ripple 

3 effect upon --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a lot of stuff.

6 DR. MAURO: -- across the board.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: A lot of stuff, yeah.

8 DR. MAURO: The fortunate thing about it --

9 MR. GRIFFON: I mean where does that stand, 

10 Stu? What --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd have to get --

12 MR. GRIFFON: We've been talking about that for 

13 a long time. Is that the -- is that in Jim 

14 Neton's or --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe it's in Jim's -

16 - it's on his -- Jim's list, along with 

17 ingestion, so I think it's in that.

18 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause these are pretty global --

19 you know, --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, actually -- it's in TIB21 70.

22 DR. MAURO: I was just about to say that, we --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in TIB-70 and --

24 DR. MAURO: -- you're going to be seeing --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's in procedures.
31

1 MS. MUNN: Well, we're going to be talking --

2 DR. MAURO: -- you're going to see --

3 MS. MUNN: -- about it tomorrow.

4 DR. MAURO: -- next -- Hans is just about done 

5 reviewing --

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah.

7 DR. MAURO: -- and we just talked about it 

8 yesterday, and the biggest criticism of TIB-70, 

9 which you ha-- is the ten to -- one of the --

10 is this ten to the minus six --

11 MS. MUNN: The resuspension factor --

12 DR. MAURO: -- resuspension factor --

13 MS. MUNN: -- right.

14 DR. MAURO: -- which is --

15 MR. GRIFFON: So it's in TIB-70, is that --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) procedures 

17 review.

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, but it's --

19 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-70 addresses what?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Resuspension.

21 MS. MUNN: Resuspension.

22 DR. MAURO: Well, post -- post-AWE --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, residual.

24 DR. MAURO: -- residual radioactivity --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Residual radioactivity.
32

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, for the residual 

2 radioactivity period --

3 DR. MAURO: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- part of which is 

5 resuspension.

6 DR. MAURO: And the fundamental part is how to 

7 get the airborne activity --

8 MS. MUNN: Right.

9 DR. MAURO: -- and if you know what the 

10 activity on the surface, how do you figure how 

11 much is in the breathing zone --

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's --

13 DR. MAURO: -- and that's where the 

14 resuspension factor comes in.

15 MS. MUNN: It's on the docket for tomorrow.

16 MR. GRIFFON: So --

17 MS. MUNN: It's an update.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So then in terms of --

19 MR. GRIFFON: So is 104.4 a residual ra-- I 

20 mean would this be a TIB-70 issue or -- or is 

21 this resuspension not during a -- I mean, you 

22 tell me, is this a TIB-70? Am I saying this is 

23 being covered in TIB-70?

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this must be a residual 

25 question. Let me see -- let me pull that up --
33

1 DR. MAURO: It's -- ten to the minus six is 

2 always residual.

3 MR. GRIFFON: It's always resid-- I -- I think 

4 you're right, yeah, yeah, I just wanted to 

5 verify that before we -- before we send it over 

6 to Wanda's group.

7 DR. MAURO: See, it could be -- it --

8 MS. MUNN: It's already being worked there.

9 DR. MAURO: In theory there are a lot of places 

10 where it could be sent.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

12 DR. MAURO: But 70's probably the best place 

13 because it's -- it is a universal --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If this find-- I believe this 

15 is a residual finding because you wouldn't be 

16 talking I think about resuspension unless it 

17 was a residual period, but I'm checking that 

18 for sure -- I'm pulling up the fin-- the actual 

19 report.

20 MR. GRIFFON: And procedures workgroup, TIB-70, 

21 would be a...

22 (Pause)

23 MR. CLAWSON: Would that make that like a 

24 overarching issue or...

25 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess that's where 
34

1 they're -- yeah, it is -- it does have, like 

2 John said --

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, it -- we --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- wide-ranging effects.

5 DR. MAURO: The -- I -- I'm going to take 

6 something back. There might be certain sites 

7 where ten to the minus six was used also --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: -- during operations. Other words, 

10 if there was an interest in what might be the 

11 dust loading from resuspension during operation 

12 -- I'm not -- I -- I really don't want to rule 

13 that out.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know. Tell me -- I mean 

15 -- for instance, tell me the difference between 

16 104.4 and 104.5, 'cause one says post-operation 

17 inhalation and the other one does not say post18 operation inhalation. The sec-- the 104.5 

19 definitely looks like residual to me. The 

20 other one, I'm not sure.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 104.5 relates to what 

22 contamination level you start -- I think.

23 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- I'll have to -- let me 

25 take a minute here, I've got to find my 
35

1 reports.

2 (Pause)

3 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) And it's 

4 referring to (unintelligible).

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Four does?

6 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Yeah, it's an 

7 exception (unintelligible).

8 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, rather than the resusp--

9 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Subsequent 

10 determination.

11 (Whereupon, a number of participants spoke 

12 simultaneously.)

13 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) subsequent --

14 subsequent determination, so this is -- this is 

15 post (unintelligible).

16 MR. GRIFFON: The microphones are still 

17 working, we've just got a few side --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like you're right, Mark, 

19 it might be during rolling for 3.-- or 104.4.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We got our sampling data.

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that -- yeah, but there --

23 well, we br-- in the -- the discussion we're 

24 having there are two places where resuspension 

25 comes up. The first one is an issue that 
36

1 resuspension comes up as relates to during 

2 rolling operations, what the resuspension 

3 exposures might be 'cause there's -- there's 

4 residual activity produced during rolling 

5 operations.

6 And then the next one is after termination of 

7 rolling, so I --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So are we talking about between 

9 rolling days?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. You know what it was?

11 MR. GRIFFON: Just like a --

12 DR. MAURO: And the -- and remember --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: During the operational period -

14 -

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- right --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- between rollings.

17 DR. MAURO: Between rollings.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: There it is.

20 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I thought.

21 DR. MAURO: There it is.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I think, though --

23 MR. GRIFFON: So it's still sort of a --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: It's still --

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- residual --
37

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's still a residual 

2 situation.

3 MR. GRIFFON: They probably both fall under 

4 TIB-70 is what I'm getting at. I mean --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's still a residual 

6 situation, even though they rolled more later.

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah, thi-- this is sort of an 

8 unusual circumstance where you have a weekend -

9 - you're doing rolling, during the week you're 

10 not doing rolling, and then you roll again --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Which happened at quite a few of 

12 these places, too, yeah. Okay. So 104.4 and 

13 .5 are going to the procedures workgroup. I 

14 closed them out, Wanda.

15 MS. MUNN: Thank you. I'll see if I can get 

16 them back.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 104.6 -- this is ingestion. 

18 Now is there a new TIB for this one?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there was a technical 

20 report that's supposed to be written.

21 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so it's a white paper 

22 technical report?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's a global issue.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

25 DR. MAURO: Now there's OTIB-9 where you talk 
38

1 about that --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: -- where -- but it's my 

4 understanding that still -- that was 2004.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. Well, that would 

6 predate this whole discussion, so --

7 DR. MAURO: Okay, so -- so this new material --

8 so there is a re-- a global issue here.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, Jim, you know, presented 

10 this and I submitted this at one -- one of 

11 these meetings, Jim presented at a workgroup --

12 at a Board meeting, you know, some information 

13 relevant to this, he said. So this is kind of 

14 his and (unintelligible) said well, we ought --

15 we need to put this in a technical paper and --

16 of some sort, whether it's a TIB or whatever, 

17 and yeah, that's not been (unintelligible).

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yet to be formalized or whatever.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's -- right now it's 

20 just a PowerPoint presentation and there's 

21 probably additional detail that needs to go 

22 into it.

23 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- and the -- since it's 

24 a technical paper, I'm just wondering just --

25 just --
39

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- just disposition --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's a general technical 

4 -- technical document is a general term we use 

5 --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to describe a TIB or a 

8 procedure or a site profile or --

9 MR. GRIFFON: So I mean I wonder if it should 

10 fall under procedures workgroup or if it would 

11 stay here or --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: In terms of the -- the generic 

13 --

14 MR. GRIFFON: In terms of us looking at it, 

15 yeah.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I suppose it's probably -

17 - it'd be more -- it would be I guess better 

18 procedures workgroup --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but all we say here is a 

21 generic issue and we -- there's no suggestion 

22 on our part where it gets resolved.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: That's kind of up to you guys 

25 to --
40

1 MR. GRIFFON: I mean my sense would be that it 

2 is -- it is a --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Would be more procedure-like 

4 than dose reconstruction.

5 DR. WADE: And fortunately we have the chair of 

6 the procedures group right here.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry.

8 MS. MUNN: I don't know whether that's 

9 fortunate or not.

10 DR. WADE: Fortunate for us.

11 MS. MUNN: Hmm.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, you want this future 

13 document? Well, you know, the other thing is 

14 that we -- I -- I think we -- you know, getting 

15 back to SC&A's role in this, we -- you know, 

16 before we pull a TIB into the procedures 

17 workgroup, we usually task SC&A to look at it, 

18 and we haven't ta-- you know, this isn't even 

19 developed so we're getting maybe ahead of 

20 ourselves, but I would anticipate this would 

21 sort of belong there, so we'll --

22 MS. MUNN: Reluctantly, probably.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- we'll put kind of a place24 holder for that and I think that's where it's 

25 going to go. Okay.
41

1 104.7, and this is the --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB.

3 UNIDENTIFIED: 53.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- get it right.

5 MR. GRIFFON: This is TIB-53?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

7 MR. GRIFFON: And it's not -- it's not -- it's 

8 still not out?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, when it is, it is another 

11 TIB.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I got the same note on 

14 that, for procedures workgroup.

15 Now we're on to 105, and I think we're getting 

16 on to the one Stu was talking about.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Again, I'm going through this to 

19 look mainly for the redlines, comments --

20 comments that were added. If there's any other 

21 com-- you know, anything I'm missing going 

22 along that wasn't resolved, please let me know. 

23 I'm up to 105.5, and maybe I'll just turn that 

24 over to either Stu or -- or Doug. Well, I 

25 guess, Stu, since you put this comment in --
42

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- it would make sense for you to 

3 introduce it.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: This finding related to the 

5 fact that surrogate organ use -- this is 

6 esophageal --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- esophageal cancer --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think it's multip--

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- surrogate -- surrogate organ 

11 for the medical X-ray was lung, but it was 

12 supposed to be -- it was supposed to be like 

13 the male or female, and it was the other one. 

14 You know, the dose reconstructor used the wrong 

15 one. I'm a little confused on which it was 

16 supposed to be, but the one it was supposed to 

17 use would have been somewhat higher. And so --

18 and that is correct, the -- the dose it should 

19 have used -- you know, the finding is correct 

20 for that. There have been subsequent, though, 

21 refinements of the SRS site profile that 

22 adjusts both values downward, so that the -- if 

23 you were to do it today, using the correct 

24 gender's lung dose, it would still be somewhat 

25 lower than what was done in the dose 
43

1 reconstruction.

2 MR. GRIFFON: The thing that I -- the note I 

3 have for this entire case was that the entire 

4 case was under -- under re-evaluation as part 

5 of a PER review.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably is --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- considering --

9 MR. GRIFFON: It's a Savannah River.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the site it came from, 

11 probably is. So it would be reworked, with all 

12 the new site profile information in it.

13 DR. MAURO: Mark, by way of just your protocol, 

14 when that occurs, where a particular case is 

15 being re-evaluated as part of a PER, is it 

16 still something that is -- is -- does it move 

17 out of here as closed or something that we 

18 would call in abeyance if we were doing 

19 procedures? Other words, how -- how -- in 

20 terms of tracking, I'm not sure if there's been 

21 agreement on what -- what we're going to label 

22 that and would -- and if there's any future 

23 action the work-- the subcommittee might have 

24 relating to that matter once -- say the -- the 

25 PER is issued, the work is done, the re-- would 
44

1 that become a PER -- that would have to be 

2 triggered if that was something you'd want 

3 reviewed -- you see what I'm --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

5 DR. MAURO: -- it's the boundary between --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a -- kind of an 

7 interesting question because it would be --

8 well, the time it would be reviewed -- when it 

9 is reworked, re-adjudicated, a new answer was 

10 back, that would be the time when it would be 

11 available for the Advisory Board to review 

12 because then it's no longer an active case. 

13 And there will be a lot of these. I mean if 

14 you want to think about making it a point of 

15 going back and finding all the ones that were 

16 reworked during by P-- that you reviewed --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then were reworked by 

19 PER, and pulling those back again and saying 

20 okay, based on the PER, how much -- you know, 

21 did -- is it done correctly now --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that kind of thing. So I'll 

24 just leave it to you. I mean there will be a 

25 lot --
45

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause there have been a lot 

3 of PER returns and we've seen a lot on these 

4 reviews where these are being reworked under 

5 PERs, and so that's a huge population to try to 

6 deal with. Is there more value in that than 

7 say in a random selection of that case, or a 

8 selection of that case just as part of the 

9 normal selection process. Those are things I 

10 think for you guys to think about --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and maybe before we try to 

13 come to close on -- you know, a decision here -

14 -

15 DR. MAURO: PERs are in the procedures group 

16 right now.

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah, they're sort of --

18 DR. MAURO: We've been -- we've been --

19 MS. MUNN: -- they're sort of broken out as a 

20 separate --

21 DR. MAURO: Separate --

22 MS. MUNN: -- entity, and it's --

23 MR. GRIFFON: The PERs themselves, you're 

24 saying --

25 DR. MAURO: The PER --
46

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

2 DR. MAURO: -- the whole pro-- because we did 

3 one, we did the --

4 MS. MUNN: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: -- thoracic lymphoma --

6 MS. MUNN: Correct.

7 DR. MAURO: -- and delivered a report --

8 MS. MUNN: Correct.

9 DR. MAURO: -- and that's -- I think it was 

10 under your purview.

11 MS. MUNN: Yes, I think so, too.

12 MR. GRIFFON: But when you say you've done 

13 that, John, you did -- you reviewed the -- what 

14 did you review? You didn't review --

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'll tell you exac-- we 

16 reviewed --

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- specific cases from --

18 DR. MAURO: -- and we picked three cases.

19 MR. GRIFFON: You picked three, right.

20 DR. MAURO: Right, so it wasn't that we did all 

21 -- I mean ob-- obviously --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Not going to do them all.

23 DR. MAURO: -- there's 5,000 --

24 MR. GRIFFON: No, right, right --

25 DR. MAURO: -- in other wor-- I mean 500, so --
47

1 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) about those, 

2 but there's well over a thousand --

3 MR. GRIFFON: For the super S, yeah.

4 DR. MAURO: -- I -- we -- we've got an 

5 interesting bridge that we're trying to build 

6 that, you know -- you know, you have a 

7 particular case whose resolution will be part 

8 of a bigger umbrella, under PER, in theory it 

9 could go into a part of a PER process, but we 

10 may not actually look at that case. We may 

11 look at some other sample from the big 

12 umbrella. So it's -- the -- the boundaries 

13 here are a little vague.

14 DR. WADE: I think the important thing, though, 

15 is to not lose the information. Let's say that 

16 the subcommittee punts a number of issues to 

17 procedures and they're looked at as -- and the 

18 case is looked at as part of a PER. I think 

19 it's important to keep that information 

20 resident in the matrix somewhere so that at 

21 some point you go back and do a roll-up and see 

22 just how much of that there is, and then the 

23 subcommittee or the Board could decide it wants 

24 to investigate and see how that -- that has 

25 played out. So as long as you keep that, and I 
48

1 think it will be kept in the matrix, as I 

2 understand it.

3 MR. GRIFFON: See, I -- I think there -- yeah, 

4 I think we might have to look at this -- in the 

5 subcommittee's role, anyway -- almost case-by6 case because, you know, the ones that I -- I 

7 can remember, and these were not necessarily 

8 re-evaluations done for PER reasons, but these 

9 were re-evaluations I think kind of as a result 

10 of our review --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- yeah, we've done 

12 some of those.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- right? And -- but in those 

14 cases, as you've said, Stu, many times when you 

15 go to re-evaluate these cases, you look at it 

16 all across the board, you don't just look at 

17 the one from the finding.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

19 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so all -- a lot of things 

20 are going to change. And I would say the ones 

21 that the subcommittee's probably most 

22 interested in is the ones between 45 and 50 

23 where it went -- underwent a PER review and you 

24 reassessed the entire case and, you know, I 

25 think tho-- you know, so we might be able to 
49

1 narrow our field that way, you know, and say 

2 let's -- let's not re-look at all these cases 

3 but let's re-look at some that were, you know, 

4 borderline, that had some findings before and, 

5 you know, we go back at them that way. That 

6 may be a possible way to --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: You want to think about that 

8 for anoth-- a new selection round maybe? Is

9 that what you're thinking, or --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, not -- but to go back to 

11 that case, that specific case, not to just 

12 randomly get it.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, but ones that were on 

14 here already --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that were between 45 and 50 

17 and then were reworked.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 MR. GRIFFON: So some that -- what I'm saying 

21 is some -- if they were on here -- this is just 

22 -- just a -- a possibility is what I'm 

23 offering, is that -- I don't think we want to 

24 re-look at every case that underwent PER review 

25 because, like you're saying, there's going to 
50

1 be a lot of them.

2 MS. MUNN: We can't.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 MS. MUNN: That will be physically impossible.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Plus there's that -- there's 

6 going to be a long -- a significant time delay, 

7 too.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

9 MR. GRIFFON: You know, I mean, we're 

10 (unintelligible) look at this case a year later 

11 or something. But for those -- to keep an eye 

12 on, like, as Lew said, to track these and --

13 and the ones that -- I think it might be 

14 worthwhile to go back to some smaller subset of 

15 those that we've -- you know, we've had some 

16 findings with in the initial round, they were 

17 between 45 and 50 percent POC, therefore 

18 they're -- they're of a particular interest to 

19 this group and we want to see how the -- you 

20 know, mod-- when the modifications were made, 

21 how -- how it affected the case. So I think to 

22 go back to those cases might be worthwhile.

23 DR. WADE: It'd be reasonable for the 

24 subcommittee periodically at a meeting --

25 MR. GRIFFON: There's not a big set that way, 
51

1 either, you know.

2 DR. WADE: -- just look at, you know, how many 

3 of those have been redone and decide if you 

4 want to go back and look at them. I mean as 

5 long as the information's in front of you --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 DR. WADE: -- you can make rational decisions.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MS. MUNN: Do we have an electric sort -- an 

10 electronic sort that we can --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah, we're -- we're --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We --

13 MS. MUNN: -- do on this matrix that would give 

14 us that --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we're putting this all in 

16 the -- in the -- and we're not discussing it 

17 today, but we're putting all this in a 

18 database, same as you're -- very similar to 

19 what Steve has set up --

20 DR. MAURO: So in effect you're -- you want to 

21 assign some label to some -- this is -- later 

22 on, at any time, you could sort on that label 

23 and say okay, how many cases do we have right 

24 now that --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Like if we say a case --
52

1 DR. MAURO: -- we could place into this box.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- being re-evaluated under PER 

3 review --

4 DR. MAURO: Right, and then -- then you bring 

5 them up --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you find all of those --

7 DR. MAURO: -- so -- and then it becomes 

8 something that's --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: -- readily tractable once we 

11 automate it.

12 DR. WADE: But the key piece of information 

13 would be -- let's say you have that field 

14 assigned to PER review. Will you go back in 

15 and enter into the field when that case has 

16 been redone?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We can run this query ourselves 

18 out of our NOCTS database. We can find the ca19 - the cases you described to me, 45 percent POC 

20 -- 45 to 50 percent POC that have -- that have 

21 been reviewed by the -- the subcommittee that 

22 have subsequently been worked by --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you have all that already, 

24 right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- reworked and is now once 
53

1 again available for review, we can do that.

2 MS. MUNN: Great.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we can find those. 

4 So --

5 MR. GRIFFON: And then can we --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so rather than build --

7 there's tracking database to keep track of this 

8 --

9 MR. GRIFFON: But we should be able to match 

10 them to our case numbers, too.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right? And we have that --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- so...

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

16 DR. WADE: But that would take a request from 

17 the subcommittee to you to do that.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, well --

20 MR. GRIFFON: But it's not difficult. Right? 

21 You can --

22 DR. WADE: That's right, that's right.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It's easy for me, I don't have 

24 to do it. I tell the people to do it and they 

25 write the query and they find it, and so --
54

1 DR. WADE: So the subcommittee needs to 

2 consider asking this question periodically, 

3 that's --

4 MR. GRIFFON: But what I'm hearing also is that 

5 Stu's saying that the -- the -- the database 

6 exists to do this, we don't have to --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- recreate the wheel to do it.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right? So...

11 MS. MUNN: So then our question becomes how 

12 often do we look at this and what do we do with 

13 it when we do look at it, because I think the 

14 question that John was asking --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

16 MS. MUNN: -- and it's one that bothers me, is 

17 where are the parameters that we set with 

18 respect to how long do we go on with this 

19 review and re-review business --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 MS. MUNN: -- especially once the PER has been 

22 completed. And that's --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Well, and that's why I -- that's 

24 what I was proposing was one -- one proposal, 

25 anyway, of looking at the ones that fell 
55

1 between a certain POC and were PER reviewed. 

2 That's one option. And I think you'll find 

3 right now, if you went back to the first 100 

4 cases, you'd find what, two? You know, three 

5 maybe.

6 MS. MUNN: Maybe.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe. I mean I don't even think 

8 that many.

9 MS. MUNN: All right, I don't (unintelligible).

10 MR. GRIFFON: So you know, it's not a large 

11 number. It's going to keep our population down 

12 I think if we do it that way.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if you restrict that 

14 initial POC --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if you restrict the initial 

17 POC, that -- that will keep the population 

18 down. Now realistically, if we went back now 

19 and looked at the first 100 cases, there be --

20 there may be quite a lot of those that have 

21 subsequently been determined PER --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but maybe that never came up 

24 during discussion.

25 MR. GRIFFON: How many were -- were returned 
56

1 and are in -- in between 45 to 50? I mean we 

2 know --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- there should not be --

4 there will not be a --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- I just did that report. We 

6 know --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- huge population.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- only five percent were in --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- 45 to 50, so --

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right, and then the number of 

12 those that we've reviewed was smaller still, so 

13 if we're going to be tracking the information -

14 - the data from this particular set, or any 

15 particular set, then we are not going to review 

16 any mass of PER data that comes back to us that 

17 might be associated with it in some way. We 

18 would only be focusing on the cases that were 

19 in the sets we have reviewed.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right.

21 DR. WADE: Could -- could the subcommittee say 

22 to you now, of those first 100 cases, how many 

23 have been reworked, and then how many fall 

24 within some boundary?

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the first 100?
57

1 DR. WADE: Yeah.

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I mean it'll take me a 

4 whi-- I mean I --

5 DR. WADE: I'm not saying now.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- can't -- I can't do this. I 

7 have to get our TST to write the query and find 

8 that stuff, but yeah. I mean if you want to do 

9 that, we can do that.

10 DR. WADE: Yeah, then the subcommittee can ask 

11 that question when it wants to.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- and -- and when you --

13 when you ask me, if you ask me to do this, I 

14 want to make sure we're clear on whether you 

15 want ones that were only reworked for PER 

16 reasons, or ones that were reworked, you know, 

17 for any reason -- because there have been times 

18 when a case has been reopened by the Department 

19 of Labor for the changes in the demographic or 

20 -- or cancer information. You know, either --

21 it's usually changes in the employment or 

22 cancer information, and -- and they'll be sent 

23 back, reopened, and those will be reworked as 

24 well, so -- and we do the same thing with 

25 those. We get one of those back, it's done in 
58

1 accordance with the current -- all the current 

2 guidance, so it's another population of these 

3 things we can go through. But you know -- and 

4 we can find those separate from the PER 

5 returns, I believe.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So just something for you guys 

8 to decide.

9 MR. GRIFFON: We can find this out -- maybe in 

10 between meetings at some point we can do some 

11 queries and bring them back to the subcommittee 

12 and look at it and -- and see what we want to 

13 do, you know.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

15 MR. GRIFFON: We don't have to firmly set our 

16 criteria now --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right.

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- if we realize our window's too 

19 large --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- and we're getting too many 

22 cases to redo later --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think we're going to --

25 we'll want to rethink it, so --
59

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know.

3 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry -- see, we have a very 

4 limited number of cases, really. In the grand 

5 scheme of things, the number of cases we're 

6 reviewing --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

8 DR. MAURO: -- is relatively small, about 200.

9 MS. MUNN: By design.

10 DR. MAURO: By design, two and a half percent 

11 if we reached our (unintelligible) nowhere near 

12 that, anyway. We're closer to one percent.

13 MS. MUNN: Correct.

14 DR. MAURO: But let's say we -- now what we're 

15 really saying here is along the way of closing 

16 out issues on each case, some of them we can't 

17 close out right now. But in principle, at some 

18 time in the future, there's a process taking 

19 place -- whatever that process is, including 

20 PER, including whatever -- there is a 

21 commitment that has been made on the part of 

22 the program to revisit this particular issue, 

23 so it's not possible to close it out at this 

24 time. So in my mind, from the point of view of 

25 this database, that's all you really need. You 
60

1 need some kind of pointer or -- or -- or 

2 indicator that there's a -- here is a case that 

3 was reviewed, an issue that's been raised, and 

4 as of -- as of this date, there are steps being 

5 taken to fix this problem -- and it may be one 

6 of many different ways in which that could 

7 occur. But I think it's important that it be 

8 in the database that we know that that's the 

9 status of that issue and --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and that's fine, we're --

11 I'm --

12 DR. MAURO: -- and that could be just like --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- we've got -- we're capturing 

14 that. We're capturing it.

15 DR. MAURO: Right now we call that in abeyance 

16 --

17 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, correct.

18 DR. MAURO: -- you know, and -- and -- and now 

19 -- you want -- whatever term you want to call -

20 - this way you never lose it, and you could 

21 always sort later, say okay, how many -- how 

22 many cases or issues do we have in our database 

23 that are still sort of in this limbo state --

24 MS. MUNN: In abeyance.

25 DR. MAURO: -- and -- and --
61

1 MR. GRIFFON: We're cap-- we're cap--

2 DR. MAURO: -- and you bring it right up and --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we're --

4 DR. MAURO: -- you decide at that time what do 

5 you want to do about it.

6 DR. WADE: And then periodically you can then 

7 ask the next question, which is what happened 

8 to those cases.

9 MR. GRIFFON: We got it, we got it. The one 

10 thing I -- I want to caution, and some-- 'cause 

11 sometimes I think on some of our case reviews 

12 when a case is being re-evaluated for PER 

13 review, I want to make sure that -- that the --

14 there's a list of findings. I want to make 

15 sure all the findings are addressed except for 

16 the one related to the PER review, if that 

17 makes any sense -- to the extent we can, Stu, 

18 because I think sometimes we say well, this 

19 case is being reworked anyway. I'm not sure 

20 that -- you know, I think we want to answer --

21 technically answer the finding in front of us 

22 as best we can. Like if there's a finding 

23 related to dose conversion factor, obviously 

24 that -- there's a PER question directly related 

25 to the finding, that's fine. If there's a --
62

1 you know, for super S, it's directly related to 

2 the finding, that's fine. But if there's --

3 you know, other findings, I think we should 

4 answer them the best we can. We can still note 

5 that the entire case is going into PER review, 

6 but we should make sure we try to answer the --

7 the finding -- you know, close out the -- the 

8 other findings. You could -- does that make 

9 sense?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I -- I mean I just have 

12 to envision -- I'll have to look at some 

13 specific examples to get my head around how 

14 we're -- how we can do that.

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, how --

16 DR. MAURO: Well, you could almost envision --

17 let's say you have a Savannah River case that's 

18 being -- that -- say that we have a PER going 

19 that's going to affect a large number of 

20 Savannah River cases. When you get -- and 

21 let's say we have a case here where in that 

22 case we have a number of comments, there may be 

23 seven or eight comments. Of course on one tier 

24 we're saying but wait a minute, this is under 

25 our PER, great. So that's important to know.
63

1 But then when you get inside the tier you say 

2 but wait a minute, a couple of these comments 

3 deal with some global issues that -- that --

4 that are identified, maybe it's ingestion, 

5 whatever it is. So I don't know if you want to 

6 lo-- you don't want to lose that. So I agree 

7 without -- I guess what I -- I think I 

8 understand what -- what Mark was saying is 

9 within the overall idea that, listen, even 

10 though we're going to be reviewing this case 

11 under the broader umbrella of a PER for 

12 Savannah River, there are issues that are 

13 imbedded in it that get into a higher 

14 granularity that you don't want to lose track 

15 of. That is, you know, it -- it -- you're 

16 going to review it, but that particular issue 

17 is -- is -- is being dealt with as a global 

18 issue under the ingestion piece. Under a 

19 higher scale, yeah, we're looking at the whole 

20 case under a PER, for -- for broader reasons, 

21 so I -- I think that -- so the case itself, in 

22 a way, might be something that's being 

23 revisited under a PER, the overall, but there 

24 are issues within that case that are being also 

25 reviewed, maybe on a generic basis, on this --
64

1 there's some -- some global reasons.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Or it's -- there could be a 

3 specific finding on the case about -- there 

4 could be some comment about years --

5 DR. MAURO: Years -- years of --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- internal exposure that were 

7 assumed based on the bioassay data.

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, that -- that finding 

10 comes up on occasion.

11 DR. MAURO: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: The dose reconstruction will 

13 choose a particular duration of exposure, and 

14 there may be a finding about that duration of 

15 exposure.

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah, you don't want to lose that 

17 granularity.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and so --

19 DR. MAURO: You want to keep that granularity.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I'm just trying to --

21 I'm just trying to figure out -- I have to talk 

22 to Scott at some point and figure out how we're 

23 going to capture these because --

24 MS. MUNN: This is getting really complex.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this'll be complicated. 
65

1 It's almost a -- it would almost serve to have 

2 a -- a sort of a supplemental comment via our 

3 comment form. Same form -- same form, 

4 different use.

5 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my point -- that's a good 

6 example, Stu, is that if -- if you -- you know, 

7 if you have a question about duration of 

8 internal exposure and you say well, this case 

9 is being reworked for super S anyway, and then 

10 later we decide only to take some of these PER 

11 cases, we may never look at that one again.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

13 MR. GRIFFON: And we -- we never answered that 

14 question of was that -- was that --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm not --

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- broad --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- worried about losing the 

18 generic --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean that's the question.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to be honest with you. You 

21 know, even if the case comes back out and the 

22 generic thing's not resolved, then there's a 

23 change to technique based on that resolved --

24 that -- that generic issue, we'll go back and 

25 find all those and we'll -- we'll apply that. 
66

1 I'm not worried about losing the generics. The 

2 ones that'll get lost are the specific -- or 

3 the task-specific, the claim-specific comments 

4 --

5 DR. MAURO: I agree.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that will get lost.

8 DR. MAURO: And how we label it here in the 

9 database is the -- is the vehicle we're going 

10 to have available to us to make sure that 

11 doesn't happen.

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

13 DR. MAURO: So somehow we have to label each 

14 one of these issues in a manner that will make 

15 sure that doesn't happen.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's --

17 DR. MAURO: And I'm not sure of that.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that's an issue -- I'm still 

19 working on my issue --

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of how we're going to do 

22 this.

23 UNIDENTIFIED: I think (unintelligible) comment 

24 form would work.

25 DR. WADE: From the matrix point of view, 
67

1 right, you have the information --

2 (Whereupon, Mr. Griffon, Dr. Mauro and several

3 participants spoke simultaneously.)

4 MR. HINNEFELD: He said -- he things use of a 

5 comment form. We have a comment form -- we 

6 review all the dose reconstructions --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we have a comment form 

9 we send -- if we have comments on dose 

10 reconstructions, right, fill out a comment form 

11 and send it back, and it's -- it's your classic 

12 comment resolution -- everybody's seen those 

13 kind of forms. So the question then becomes --

14 you know, we could put these findings on those 

15 comment forms, and the question becomes when do 

16 we prepare that form? You see -- see where I'm 

17 coming from here?

18 MR. SIEBERT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

19 globals closed out (unintelligible) review 

20 (unintelligible) might work.

21 MS. MUNN: That would be the logical time.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, but there's -- I mean 

23 these things occur --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- are all over the phase. 
68

1 These reviews occur all over the life cycle of 

2 a dose reconstruction. I mean -- well, 

3 actually these reviews all occur post-closure, 

4 and so -- but -- so you're talking about all 

5 through the life cycle of the PER. Like there 

6 will be some that we'll -- we'll -- we'll see 

7 that well, we reviewed and we requested that 

8 this be sent back for PER that hasn't made it 

9 back yet. So in those cases it would be 

10 relatively simple to clip out, you know, the 

11 findings from here, put it on a comment -- a 

12 finding form, send it over as a sort of a 

13 supplemental form for when you -- when you 

14 rework this case, these comments have to be 

15 addressed. Okay? That would be something that 

16 could happen.

17 The second -- but there's another type that, by 

18 the time we review it, has already been 

19 reworked by PER, so that's where we're in 

20 danger of really losing (unintelligible). 

21 We'll have to work on it. We'll have to work 

22 on it.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's all think about that 

24 one more --

25 DR. WADE: You also need to work it in the --
69

1 in your tracking matrix.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 DR. WADE: It can -- it has to appear twice in 

4 that --

5 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) the action has to 

6 (unintelligible).

7 DR. WADE: It has to appear twice that it's to 

8 be dealt with as part of a PER, but there are 

9 other aspects of the finding that need to be 

10 dealt with outside of the PER.

11 DR. MAURO: In a funny sort of way, as long as 

12 you don't close it out in this tracking matrix, 

13 you know, when it's finally automated --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

15 DR. MAURO: -- as long as it's not closed, then 

16 you could always query the tracking sys-- says 

17 listen, please list everything that's not 

18 closed, and then -- I mean a -- I mean that --

19 that's a -- in the simplest sense, then we say 

20 there's a reason why it's not closed. And we 

21 may find ourselves in a position of well, let's 

22 take a look, this is not closed, how come? I 

23 mean the problem really becomes, in this 

24 tracking system for this, we close it, then we 

25 ha-- when it really shouldn't be closed -- we 
70

1 could always go back and say well, why wouldn't 

2 we close it, and then we -- it may take a 

3 little work to unravel, but it wasn't closed 

4 because of all these things we're talking 

5 about. But as long as we don't close it in 

6 here, we're never going to lose it. You know, 

7 can't slip through -- slip through the crack, 

8 but it'll be -- it'll be there --

9 DR. WADE: Might take some work to find --

10 DR. MAURO: -- haunting us.

11 DR. WADE: -- but that's --

12 DR. MAURO: Might take some work to -- now 

13 there may be things we can do in here --

14 DR. WADE: To make it easier.

15 DR. MAURO: -- to make it easier. But I think 

16 at a minimum, just don't close it.

17 DR. WADE: First thing, you don't want to lose 

18 the data, but secondly, you want to be able to 

19 retrieve it easily.

20 DR. MAURO: Qui-- quickly, exactly.

21 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me for just one second. 

22 Would it be beneficial for SC&A, when we are 

23 doing our case reviews, to go into the NOCTS 

24 database and determine if there has been a PER 

25 completed during our review process? Would 
71

1 that help to ensure that nothing gets lost? Or 

2 are we going beyond what we should be doing 

3 here?

4 DR. WADE: From my perspective, I think that at 

5 some point the subcommittee's going to have to 

6 ask for a complete search, so you'll catch it 

7 then.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. But usually -- I mean 

9 you've always provided that to us, Stu, that --

10 that, you know, this one's under PER review or 

11 this one -- you know.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we can pull that. We've 

13 got that in the database --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so that --

16 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- can be pulled out.

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- who needs to do it, but -- but 

19 you know, usually we get it by the time we 

20 develop the matrix.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: As a gen-- you know, when the 

22 cases are selected for review, we make sure 

23 that there aren't any in there that are back 

24 with us for PER. We do that.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right.
72

1 MR. HINNEFELD: But the issue then arises is by 

2 the time --

3 MR. GRIFFON: It comes up later.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we get a resolution, others 

5 may have come back.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Or there may be other 

8 evaluations and -- that have determined that it 

9 should come back, so...

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- we'll have to puzzle on 

12 this one.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we can work on this a 

14 little more. That --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: But yeah, I'll let you guys 

16 worry about --

17 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the one thing I -- I -- I 

18 don't want to -- the one thing I'm concerned 

19 about with the just not being closed out in the 

20 database isn't necessarily enough if we're --

21 if we're saying that we're not going to go back 

22 and re-review all -- all these cases. You know 

23 what I'm saying? 'Cause if some -- a lot of 

24 them are going to PER review, we've said well, 

25 we don't want to, you know, go back to these 
73

1 specific cases a year from now and re-review 

2 every one of them necessarily. But if -- if --

3 you know, so then what about these other 

4 findings that were, you know, linked with that 

5 case?

6 DR. MAURO: Well, as -- as long as the findings 

7 are not closed --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 DR. MAURO: -- then we're always in a position 

10 to go back and sort -- say please list all the 

11 findings that were not closed in this sixth 

12 set, whatever it is, and we -- and then -- and 

13 -- so we can't lose it then. Other words --

14 now granted, that may not be very satisfying 

15 because you -- there are probably reasons why 

16 it isn't closed and we -- I mean it's prob--

17 maybe it should be closed now because certain 

18 things have happened, but I mean at least, you 

19 know, until we -- I guess the -- the 

20 subcommittee is convinced that the actions have 

21 been taken, whatever venue, to close that 

22 issue, we really shouldn't close it in this 

23 box. I guess --

24 MS. MUNN: As long as we keep it in abeyance 

25 and there's something in the notes that tells 
74

1 us why it's in abeyance --

2 DR. MAURO: Right.

3 MS. MUNN: -- then we don't have a problem.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MS. MUNN: We're good to go. But --

6 MR. GRIFFON: All right.

7 MS. MUNN: -- the -- not having --

8 MR. GRIFFON: I think we're all saying the same 

9 thing.

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we are.

11 MS. MUNN: -- not having a note --

12 MR. SIEBERT: Presupposing that you'll always 

13 go back and review the case later on, which I 

14 thought is what you said later --

15 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was --

16 MR. SIEBERT: -- earlier that you weren't --

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's what I was just talking 

18 --

19 MR. SIEBERT: -- doing.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's what I was just 

21 talking about.

22 MR. SIEBERT: That's what I thought you were 

23 getting at.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MR. SIEBERT: 'Cause if you leave it open, you 
75

1 always have --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that's why I -- I started 

3 this discussion --

4 MR. SIEBERT: -- to add something --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- about ten minutes ago saying 

6 that, you know, that's why I'd like to close 

7 out all the findings not directly associated 

8 with a PER, you know. Like if it's not a super 

9 S issue, we should try to -- to the extent 

10 possible, to close it out --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Close them in this form.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, close them in this form, 

13 yeah.

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Not just -- 'cause I feel like 

16 sometimes we're punting on it, we're saying 

17 well, it's under re-review anyway, let's just -

18 -

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, push it down the 

21 road --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- but we may not come back to it 

24 --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right.
76

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I don't think we can push 

3 it down the road.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right. Yeah.

5 MR. GRIFFON: So that -- that's all I'm saying 

6 is let's keep our eye on that kind of thing.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

8 MR. GRIFFON: A lot of times -- and especially 

9 in our first cut-through and at the end of the 

10 day we -- we get well, it's PER review -- PER -

11 - you know, case is --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- being re-evaluated -- we get a 

14 little hasty and we --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we often -- yeah, we often 

16 say that in our responses when we admit the 

17 finding is valid, you know, something should 

18 have been done a particular way and we say oh, 

19 you're right, we should have done it that way -

20 -

21 DR. MAURO: And we'll catch it during --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but --

23 DR. MAURO: -- 'cause we're going to look at --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- well, we're catching it, 

25 we're going to redo it again with the PER, so -
77

1 -

2 MR. GRIFFON: But even -- but even to say that 

3 in the matrix, that NIOSH agrees --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- it should have been done this 

6 other way, and when we do the re-evaluation 

7 under this PER review, we will do this --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's a commitment to do it -

10 - you know --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- so that's -- that's -- you 

13 know, that part of it is -- is closed out, in 

14 my opinion.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's what -- that's 

16 what I was thinking, yeah.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I mean if you put it in 

18 the matrix and put it in writing that you're 

19 doing it that way --

20 DR. MAURO: And you would close that?

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- I -- I think I would close it, 

22 yeah. I mean we're going to go back to a 

23 fraction of the ones that were PER reviewed 

24 anyway, you know, but if they outline exactly 

25 what they're planning on doing --
78

1 DR. MAURO: Im-- im-- important to ref--

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, in writing, I mean I 

3 think that -- you know, it's down in writing 

4 and, you know.

5 DR. MAURO: No, no, don't get -- I'm just -- I 

6 just want to --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 DR. MAURO: -- that philosophy is not what 

9 we're doing in Task III. Other words, until 

10 the procedure has been rewritten and been 

11 corrected, it stays in abeyance.

12 MS. MUNN: We're holding it.

13 DR. MAURO: And that's fine.

14 MR. GRIFFON: A little different than --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: But looking at all of them, 

16 too.

17 MS. MUNN: It is different.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Once it's revised, though, you 

19 guys look at --

20 DR. MAURO: And then we look at it, right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so that's not proposed 

22 here.

23 DR. MAURO: Right.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: See, that -- that works if 

25 you're --
79

1 DR. MAURO: If you're going to go back.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- every one of them -- you're 

3 going to go back to every one of them.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it's one thing to go back 

5 to each procedure; it's another to go back to 

6 every --

7 MS. MUNN: Every case.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- individual case, you know, so 

9 --

10 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the individual 

11 cases are too much of a load.

12 DR. MAURO: 132 procedures, there are 240 dose 

13 reconstructions.

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

15 DR. MAURO: I mean --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, ultimately -- ultimately.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but -- but how many of 

18 those procedures are you revisiting in depth? 

19 I mean -- it may be a lot, I don't know.

20 DR. MAURO: No, not -- not many.

21 MR. GRIFFON: Not many?

22 DR. MAURO: Not many.

23 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine.

24 DR. MAURO: We're wait-- we're waiting for the 

25 in abeyance to be sent back --
80

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

2 DR. MAURO: -- you know, we did it; take a 

3 look.

4 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, right.

5 DR. MAURO: So I -- but I may not -- you know, 

6 that's where we are right now. That's what 

7 we're doing now.

8 MS. MUNN: Not that bad, so far.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that's my -- that's my 

10 point. If we're not comfortable closing one 

11 out, we'll -- we'll note it, and as long as --

12 as everyone's said -- that we can track it, 

13 we're fine, we can decide later. I don't think 

14 we're going to want to redo all of them, 

15 though. That's the only thing, you know, so...

16 Okay, with that little side discussion --

17 DR. MAURO: That always happens. Right? Can't 

18 get away --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- we're getting dangerously 

20 close --

21 DR. MAURO: -- from this.

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- to the database discussion --

23 MS. MUNN: Well, there's no --

24 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

25 MS. MUNN: No, not -- it won't -- the -- the 
81

1 whole difficulty is that we do not have a rigid 

2 process that we can follow that's gone before 

3 us. We're always plowing new ground.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's -- that's -- yeah.

5 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and each one of these are a 

6 little bit different than the other ones, so 

7 it's hard to put a clear road out there.

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is.

9 MR. GRIFFON: So on -- on -- going on to 105.6 

10 then, if we can get back to the meat and 

11 potatoes -- Ray's asking what time the meat and 

12 potatoes are, I figured I'd get that on the 

13 record. We've got a little while.

14 All right. So I have that SC&A concurs with 

15 this, I -- in my previous notes I had -- had 

16 NIOSH agrees, dose was recalculated, no effect 

17 on the case -- was kind of where it was left. 

18 And then SC&A agrees with this. Is that 

19 accurate?

20 MR. FARVER: Correct.

21 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So we got -- so -- so now 

22 this is 105.6, which the case is being 

23 reworked. You know, here's your example, but 

24 this particular finding is -- has been 

25 addressed --
82

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- and you specifically -- I mean 

3 you know, your -- your response is very 

4 specific.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I think we should try to 

8 do this --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- like you said.

11 MR. GRIFFON: So we're closing this one out.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We want to try to close the 

13 finding --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the technical finding that's 

16 not affected by (unintelligible).

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay. Moving on. 

18 Flipping through, looking for the page -- the 

19 next page. I think it's 107.4, is that --

20 MS. MUNN: Looks like it.

21 MR. GRIFFON: So this is regarding the 

22 assumptions for the internal dose calculation, 

23 I think. I don't know, you guys'll have to 

24 tell me if -- there were some cases where you 

25 exchanged some IMBA runs and stuff. I don't 
83

1 think this was one of them, but maybe it was.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We talked about this one at 

3 some point.

4 UNIDENTIFIED: March 25th (unintelligible) 

5 subcommittee meeting.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: March 25th DR subcommittee 

7 meeting, we have a note that SC&A agreed with 

8 our discussion and now that's all that I have, 

9 that note --

10 MS. MUNN: And I --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so we have to go back to 

12 that -- (unintelligible) Wanda?

13 MS. MUNN: I have another note, 6/9/08, 

14 incorrect assumption here. SC&A does not 

15 agree, although this does not change the 

16 compensability of the claim. OCAS will look at 

17 this again to verify the appropriateness of the 

18 method used.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's kind of where my 

20 comment --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well, we'll have to do 

22 that --

23 MR. GRIFFON: That was the June meeting, yeah.

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

25 MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH is going to look at this 
84

1 again?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

3 MR. FARVER: If you want I could sum this up 

4 real quick.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

6 MR. FARVER: Employee basically had two 

7 bioassay results a year apart, and they 

8 assessed it as a chronic intake beginning six 

9 months before the first sample, whereas we took 

10 it to be a midpoint between the beginning 

11 employment date and the bioassay sample date 

12 and assessed it as an acute. So it's different 

13 methodologies.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it -- it's -- it's either -

15 - if I read your thing right, Doug, it's either 

16 acute versus chronic or, at the bottom of your 

17 response, or the time frame for the exposure I 

18 think is --

19 MR. FARVER: Or both.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, or both, right.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 MR. GRIFFON: So that's the things we want to 

23 look at. These are not new things, but --

24 MR. FARVER: You know, typically we go a 

25 midpoint between --
85

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: -- dates, and in this case it was 

3 six months before, and there may be a basis but 

4 I don't know -- I did not find it.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so we'll leave that with 

6 NIOSH is going to look back at that again.

7 107.5 -- I, at the last meeting -- I think this 

8 is resolved. NIOSH agrees, change results in a 

9 reduction of the POC, no further action's 

10 necessary -- is what I had from the last 

11 meeting, so I think we're okay there.

12 107.6, this is the -- the Pu-238 issue. Doug, 

13 maybe you can --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we did provide --

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- summarize this --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- new information for 

17 (unintelligible).

18 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: I think what this finding touches 

20 upon is how do you know that all the files are 

21 included in the employee's record files. Other 

22 words, it looks like the dose reconstructor 

23 actually did the calculation, but the file was 

24 not included with the record files.

25 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is -- this gets back 
86

1 to (unintelligible) files.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

3 MR. SIEBERT: I don't think (unintelligible).

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We're trying to get with 

5 our contractor about what can be done along 

6 this line of unused attempts. You know, we've 

7 had that conversation in here --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we've had some 

10 preliminary discussions back and forth, a 

11 couple -- we've had a couple of different 

12 starts that never really came to fruition 

13 (unintelligible) discussion of (unintelligible) 

14 --

15 MR. GRIFFON: It's this show your work 

16 question.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, show your work, 

18 essentially show your work on the exam. And so 

19 I suspect there'll be threshold questions. For 

20 instance, every spreadsheet, did I fill out all 

21 these -- you know, anything I do as a 

22 convenience --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- things like that. I think 

25 it's -- I think that it's pretty clear to me 
87

1 that if it's a -- say a -- an IMBA run that 

2 results in a dose of less than one millirem, 

3 it'd be worthwhile to have it in there and show 

4 that it was in fact considered and it was --

5 the reason's not the dose reconstruction --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but less than a millirem.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a fairly clear threshold 

10 group of things to put in.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect there'll be some 

13 other categories of things that could be done, 

14 but there -- I sus-- the hardest part I think 

15 is going to be meeting -- you know, meeting 

16 common expectation, or we may think we're doing 

17 it and the reviewer may not. You know, that 

18 kind -- that -- that may still be occurring. I 

19 mean that may -- even after we say we're doing 

20 it, it's -- that statement still may 

21 (unintelligible) happen. But I'm also working 

22 with the contractor on what's -- what's the 

23 logistics here, because I don't really know 

24 contractor logistics for preparing a dose 

25 reconstruction and assembling the files. I 
88

1 don't really know what kind of impact I'm ma--

2 I'm asking them to take on when I say this.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's what the -- that's 

5 where we're at.

6 MR. FARVER: It's not practical to include all 

7 the work files --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: -- so you just need to -- how you 

10 triage it down to a certain set.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's just -- see, that's 

12 going to -- that's going to be a question, and 

13 the other question is how much impact does this 

14 have on productivity to do this. You know, I 

15 don't know if it would have much, but it -- it 

16 -- I don't know, it might. I just don't know 

17 enough about the process, so those -- that's 

18 the -- the nature of the discussion. I 

19 apologize, I haven't forced this to completion 

20 sooner, but we've -- you know, we'd have --

21 we'd have initial conversation, it wouldn't go 

22 anywhere and I'd -- I'd be overcome by events 

23 and wouldn't keep pushing on it.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Well, let -- let me ask the --

25 the follow-- I mean that's the -- the record's 
89

1 question. Let me ask the -- the -- just a 

2 little follow-up question from the internal 

3 dose side. I understand it's a fairly trivial 

4 dose. This was assuming a certain exposure 

5 duration. Was that consistent with the finding 

6 we just discussed for the uranium side of the -

7 - 'cause I think you were talking --

8 MR. SIEBERT: Different issue.

9 MR. GRIFFON: It's a different -- different 

10 issue?

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, it's environmental for 

12 plutonium-238 after we stopped assigning 

13 plutonium-238 --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, after --

15 MR. SIEBERT: -- on bioassay.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. All right. That's 

17 fine. That's fine. 

18 MR. FARVER: And I guess it could be something 

19 as -- in other words, if they would have just 

20 included it in the -- the environmental 

21 workbook at that time and showed that it was in 

22 there --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

25 MR. FARVER: -- even though it would have came 
90

1 (sic) up to be less than a millirem, it still 

2 would have been documented that it was looked 

3 at.

4 MS. MUNN: That it was there.

5 MR. GRIFFON: So the -- the -- from an action 

6 standpoint on this one, Stu, you -- you're 

7 saying that NIOSH is working with the 

8 contractor to resolve, you know, what --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: To decide what can -- what we 

10 can do --

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- to what extent 

12 (unintelligible) --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- about beginning to put files 

14 in there that are not utilized in the --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the dose reconstruction. 

17 I don't -- see, and like I say, I just don't 

18 know enough about the contractor preparation 

19 process and the --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and you know, Scott does 

22 dose reconstructions. I don't actually do dose 

23 reconstructions in my current job and so guys 

24 like Scott would be in a better position to 

25 come up with some ideas about how this might 
91

1 work, so -- but that's where we're at, we're in 

2 those conversations with our contractor.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Let's take a -- want to 

4 take a five-minute just comfort break --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then we'll plan on lunch 

7 at a little -- around -- a little after 

8 noontime or whatever. Let's take five, for 

9 those on the phone.

10 DR. WADE: We're just going to mute the phone. 

11 We'll be back in five.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you.

13 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:05 a.m. 

14 to 11:18 a.m.)

15 MR. GRIFFON: We're ready, we'll start up again 

16 --

17 DR. WADE: Okay, we're -- this is the 

18 subcommittee conference room and we're back in 

19 session.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think I -- I'm up to 

21 110.2, is that where you guys have it? Yeah.

22 MS. MUNN: Looks like it.

23 MR. GRIFFON: So this is a question of I think 

24 -- well, again, employment question, and I 

25 think the locations and -- and whether there 
92

1 was neutron exposure 'cause I think --

2 UNIDENTIFIED: Yep.

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- the crux of this. And Doug, I 

4 might turn it over to you to...

5 MS. MUNN: Bef-- hold on just a sec. Before we 

6 go to 110.2 --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Did I miss --

8 MS. MUNN: Well, there isn't -- I still -- I 

9 have notes on my matrix from June, I think, 

10 with respect to 110.1-C22 -- is that on here? 

11 Yeah, it's --

12 MR. GRIFFON: 110.1?

13 MS. MUNN: Yeah, C22, and over in the 

14 resolution column I have two statements: 

15 Inconsistent treatment of blank data fields in 

16 dose records when it's unmonitored versus when 

17 it's zero.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 MS. MUNN: NIOSH will provide additional 

20 follow-up to this finding.

21 And then I have: ORAU -- a different date, 

22 ORAU has agreed, unmonitored doses redone and 

23 incorporated; no change in comp--

24 compensability. Still on the table is a site 

25 profile issue because of the coworker model.
93

1 I don't know why I have that, but...

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm not sure about the 

3 coworker model question at the end there. I do 

4 have -- I have that NIOSH agrees inconsistent 

5 treatment of blank data fields in dose records, 

6 parentheses, when is unmonitored versus when is 

7 zero.

8 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

9 MR. GRIFFON: And it sa-- my notes say NIOSH 

10 recalculated the dose, and I think the response 

11 includes that. Yeah, and then -- then I have 

12 that this case is under PER review, as well. 

13 But the question is, again for me, can this 

14 finding be closed without, you know -- it's 

15 under PER review, but for what -- under what 

16 context? Super S? Yeah. So super S is not 

17 really this issue. Can this issue be closed, 

18 you know, regardless of the PER review. And I 

19 think if there's enough specificity in the 

20 response, then we'd try to close it out.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I think in this case we agreed 

22 there should have been 15 additional zeroes in 

23 missed dose.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: And without a PER, it would not 
94

1 change the outcome PER anyway, so I was 

2 thinking we were done.

3 MS. MUNN: Okay, so this is closed -- closed 

4 for our purposes.

5 MR. GRIFFON: My thought was that the response 

6 was pretty specific and it said, you know, we 

7 missed 15. If we added them in it would add 

8 three percent or so to the dose and --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, even just to the missed 

10 dose component --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it would be a small 

13 percentage --

14 MR. FARVER: Has this been corrected into the 

15 Hanford workbook? I mean how to count blanks 

16 or zeroes or --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that.

18 MR. FARVER: 'Cause I -- I think that was the 

19 original question.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. FARVER: Sometimes they were zeroes, but 

22 they were entered as blanks.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.
95

1 MR. FARVER: And I guess 'cause -- is he 

2 unmonitored or is it a zero.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

4 MR. GRIFFON: So that's the broader question, 

5 you're right, Doug.

6 DR. MAURO: With the coworker model.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so if it were 

8 unmonitored, then it should be a coworker as 

9 opposed to a missed.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's your -- that's 

11 probably your note, Wanda.

12 MS. MUNN: Which is probably what my note's 

13 about, so I can say it's closed for our 

14 purposes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought -- I thought we were 

16 done.

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay.

18 MR. FARVER: It's just a matter of if it af--

19 if it affects other cases.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. GRIFFON: You know.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And I'd have to get somebody 

23 (unintelligible). We'd have to -- I'd have to 

24 get somebody who was really -- you know, 

25 certain -- certain people specialize in certain 
96

1 sites --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Certain sites, right.

3 MR. FARVER: I believe I read somewhere in the 

4 documentation where certain years, even if the 

5 person was monitored, it was entered if a blank 

6 if it was a zero. They weren't always put in 

7 as zeroes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 MS. MUNN: Well, I'm a Hanford person but if I 

10 say anything about it, I have to be killed, 

11 so...

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And there are -- there are 

13 multiple records from (unintelligible), I know 

14 that.

15 MS. MUNN: There certainly are.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: There are -- there are multiple 

17 -- and in a response from DOE for exposure 

18 history, you'll see several versions that 

19 contain the same data, so there could be 

20 they're zeroes in some places and blank in 

21 others. I don't -- I don't know, I'm just --

22 I'm just talking.

23 MR. FARVER: I just remember reading that and I 

24 believe it might be somewhere in the 

25 documentation like the technical basis or --
97

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Somewhere in the site profile?

2 MR. FARVER: Yeah, somewhere in there.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Why don't you drop me a line on 

4 that if you could --

5 MR. FARVER: Sure.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- just an e-mail, and pointing 

7 out where in it -- where it was and -- and then 

8 I'll get -- that'll prompt me to get over to 

9 ORAU with -- get one of their Hanford folks to 

10 weigh in on it.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think we should -- we 

12 should formally follow up on that part of it. 

13 I think it's closed out for the case --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- but does -- does the -- is the 

16 broader issue resolved --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Just to make sure. You know, I 

18 think the -- you know, we -- we -- we've got 

19 some people -- they're not dose 

20 reconstructionists, but they could give advice 

21 on the interpretation of the records. We've 

22 got a number of people on the project with 

23 Hanford experience, so I would think that if 

24 we're doing it -- we're doing it right, but 

25 we'll find out.
98

1 MS. MUNN: So it is or is not closed for our 

2 purposes? Are you going to carry this 

3 somewhere else or --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Closed for the case, and I'm 

5 asking that -- that we -- NIOSH confirm that 

6 it's -- you know, something is in place to --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- ensure that it doesn't happen 

9 in other cases. Now that -- that -- that 

10 something, that gets me back to -- which we'll 

11 discuss after the lunch, but -- I mean I don't 

12 know if this is something that sort of is 

13 addressed in those DR notes or -- or DR 

14 guidelines that you have for certain sites --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm not real sure.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- that kind of thing?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not real sure, it may be --

18 it might be, or it might be in the training 

19 that's provided for -- for Hanford dose 

20 reconstructors, and it may be in the direction 

21 that's given to the data entry people in how --

22 in entering -- you know, because all this -- we 

23 get all this stuff hard copy and it gets put on 

24 -- electronically entered into a sheet. Some 

25 of it (unintelligible) dose reconstructors 
99

1 (unintelligible) stuff like (unintelligible) so 

2 it may be in the instructions or the training 

3 to those people. So whatever the situation is 

4 --

5 MR. GRIFFON: All right.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- like I said, I would think 

7 that we've got to be doing this correctly 

8 'cause there's just so many, you know, people 

9 on the project that have experience at Hanford 

10 and can -- and understand the Hanford records. 

11 But I'll find out.

12 MR. GRIFFON: All right. We'll just confirm 

13 that. Thanks, Wanda.

14 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me -- excuse me, Mark. 

15 Can I ask a question? I apologize here because 

16 I guess maybe I'm -- I'm -- I'm not clear on 

17 something, and maybe NIOSH can just verify this 

18 for me. This particular finding is a good 

19 example. Since this case will be going through 

20 the PER process, or the PER process has 

21 started, will the dose reconstructor that's 

22 doing -- that's recalculating this particular 

23 case see this finding and incorporate it into 

24 that PER?

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Kathy, that's kind of 
100

1 what we were talking about earlier. That --

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay, that -- that -- okay, I --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The capturing of these findings 

4 and getting them to the right people is what we 

5 have to cogitate on between us and the 

6 contractor about how -- how best to accomplish 

7 that, because that's -- to me, right -- sitting 

8 here right here today, it's not something -- I 

9 don't see an easy place to do it, so with -- we 

10 may -- but there are more creative and more 

11 knowledgeable people than I am on this project. 

12 There may be a relatively easy way to do it 

13 that just takes a -- one additional step on our 

14 part and everything's taken care of at the 

15 appropriate time. So we'll just -- we'll just 

16 have to see.

17 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, because I know that in 

18 certain cases, especially like in our eighth 

19 and ninth set, there were a lot of cases that I 

20 realized may have already been through the PER 

21 process for super S, and I had checked the 

22 NOCTS system and in some cases a PER was 

23 already completed. That's why I guess I made 

24 the comment earlier, it might be beneficial for 

25 us, while we're doing the review, to say it 
101

1 appears, based on information in NOCTS, that a 

2 PER has already been completed. So if there is 

3 a finding that would impact that case, it's not 

4 going to get caught during that PER process. 

5 Or have I missed something?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I don't think we'd write 

7 that response because we would know from 

8 looking at the dose reconstruction whether they 

9 had used the new technique that led to the PER. 

10 I mean you can certainly say that. I mean you 

11 can look at those, 'cause I think it is -- that 

12 information is in NOCTS. But we would only 

13 make -- we only make that response when we look 

14 and see that this was done with an old version 

15 that has since been changed by PER, so that's 

16 the only time we'd write that response.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Okay, that -- as you said,

18 this is an area that you're looking into. I 

19 just wanted to be sure I understood what's 

20 going on. I apologize.

21 MR. GRIFFON: That's all right. I think we're 

22 okay on it, though. Okay.

23 So back to 110.2 -- and I have in my notes 

24 NIOSH to provide a follow-up response.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and it's August 20th down 
102

1 there -- August --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay?

4 MR. GRIFFON: So these are here --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- and also SC&A has a response, 

7 I see, so --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- maybe you can start, Stu, and 

10 --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, yeah. Our response is 

12 that the finding's correct and that the 

13 unmonitored neutron doses should have been 

14 added for the years specified. That's '46, 

15 '49, '51, '52 and '57. The worker had 

16 dosimetry records, being a rover, and worked in 

17 the 100 area, reactor area, so the neutron --

18 unmonitored neutron should have been there. So 

19 we put that in and then took out some 

20 overestimating factors in the original dose 

21 reconstruction -- for instance, external 

22 ambient. When a person wears a -- wears a 

23 badge, we normally don't include ambient, so 

24 you take out ambient for those days, and also 

25 assign medical X-rays only on the actual number 
103

1 of -- of exams, which are -- we have a -- not 

2 from all sites, but on this site we have a 

3 record of the actual full number of exams. And 

4 so when those -- when you add those, there's 

5 almost no change -- make all those changes, 

6 there's almost no change in the POC.

7 MR. GRIFFON: So in the -- in the first --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So in the first one there were 

9 some over--

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- in the first they -- they did 

11 some overestimating on the medical X-rays 

12 especially. Is that what you're saying?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Medical and ambient.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and (unintelligible).

15 MR. HINNEFELD: There was some --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- overestimating, and so when 

18 you take those overestimates out it's -- it 

19 offsets the increased dose.

20 MR. GRIFFON: And Doug, do you have a -- an 

21 agreement on this or --

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I think that one is 

24 closed -- yes. 110.3.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe this is our initial 
104

1 response.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that right?

4 MR. FARVER: I believe it is.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you're right

6 MS. MUNN: 10.3?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 110.3, I believe this is 

8 our initial response.

9 MR. GRIFFON: I do have a note, though, that --

10 that NIOSH will compare this case to OTIB-54?

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

12 UNIDENTIFIED: Fission products.

13 MR. FARVER: Fission products.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's the fission 

16 products TIB.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And it is actually at the bottom 

19 of that response that it's included.

20 MS. MUNN: 110.3?

21 (Pause)

22 MR. GRIFFON: I assume this is the first SC&A 

23 has seen this -- right? (Unintelligible) saw 

24 it when it was sent out, yeah.

25 MR. FARVER: Yeah, I re--
105

1 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) or whenever we 

2 sent it out. They (unintelligible) haven't had 

3 the opportunity (unintelligible).

4 MR. GRIFFON: I mean let me ask a question 

5 while Doug's pondering over this. Midway down 

6 on page 30 on the response there's a -- a 

7 sentence here, or a section, that says 

8 (reading) This is unreasonable since the TBD 

9 gives specific guidance for assigning intakes 

10 based on air and monitoring results as opposed 

11 to the whole body counting determination.

12 And I'm trying to remember -- I mean I don't 

13 know if that's a little bit of a -- probably 

14 gets into the site profile -- I don't know if 

15 we've reviewed the site profile for this.

16 UNIDENTIFIED: It was -- that remark --

17 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) little circular 

18 logic to -- you know.

19 MR. SIEBERT: A -- an older version of the site 

20 profile had the -- I think it was -- it had 

21 specific intakes based on air monitoring 

22 results for days prior to whole body counts --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

24 MR. SIEBERT: -- being done. Then once we had 

25 the coworker OTIB for Hanford, that part was 
106

1 yanked out and the coworker OTIB was used --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: -- from that point forward. This 

4 is referring to the older process which was 

5 replaced --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. SIEBERT: -- at the time we did this claim.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: Which is fine. We've seen that in 

10 many cases where, for that time period, that 

11 was the table you would use and that 

12 information. What kind of raised the red flag 

13 here was it -- I think it was the nuclides, it 

14 -- according to the site profile, you would 

15 choose ruthenium-106 as claimant favorable, but 

16 according to the Hanford radionuclide chooser 

17 it would be cerium-144.

18 MR. SIEBERT: That's because they were based on 

19 --

20 MR. FARVER: Two different things.

21 MR. SIEBERT: -- two different things, right, 

22 right.

23 MR. FARVER: And that was not clear. I don't 

24 know, since it was pulled out, it probably 

25 doesn't need to be made clear.
107

1 MR. SIEBERT: Right, since -- yeah, since it's 

2 a totally new process with the coworker.

3 MR. FARVER: Right. But at that time, the 

4 technical basis stated that it was ruthenium5 106 and then you had cerium-134 as being also 

6 claimant favorable. I mean I don't have a 

7 problem with the -- their -- the present-day 

8 scenario, how it would be done now. That's --

9 that's perfectly fine. You have the 

10 unmonitored period, the monitored period, then 

11 the unmonitored period again. It was just a --

12 a little discrepancy between the nuclides that 

13 were chosen. If that has been remedied with 

14 the new technical basis provisions --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

16 (Pause)

17 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I guess, getting back --

18 getting specific on the first sentence, NIOSH 

19 followed the TBD (unintelligible) the time. Do 

20 you agree with that, Doug? I mean is there --

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, they followed the technical 

22 basis --

23 MR. GRIFFON: It seems like the right changes 

24 were made, but --

25 MR. FARVER: The conflict was between the 
108

1 technical basis and the -- and the radionuclide 

2 chooser --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, the --

4 MR. FARVER: -- the workbook.

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- in -- in the workbook.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Workbook.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. Okay.

8 MR. FARVER: Two separate things. There was a 

9 little bit of a discrepancy, but no, they did 

10 follow the technical basis.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So there's no further 

12 action on this --

13 MR. FARVER: Nope.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, and I think -- coming up on 

15 111.1. That was it for 110. Right?

16 MS. MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. GRIFFON: And 114.3 is the next one I'm 

18 finding. Let me know if there's anything that 

19 we missed in between.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: .2.

21 MR. GRIFFON: 142.3?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: .2.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, .2, I'm sorry -- .2, yes.

24 (Pause)

25 Yes, so 114.2 and is this -- Stu, I think this 
109

1 is NIOSH's first response on this one. I don't 

2 have anything --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, it is. Yes, it is. 

4 Yes, it is. It's our initial.

5 MR. FARVER: And the response makes sense, and 

6 I'll have to go back and -- and check the data 

7 for this year that's mentioned against OTIB-17, 

8 'cause I know it gets confusing with OTIB-17 on 

9 when you assign shallow dose missed dose and 

10 when you assign deep dose missed dose, and you 

11 really just have to write it all out.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: It's probably okay, and what I can 

14 do is I can check the data and I can fire off 

15 an e-mail saying it's okay.

16 MR. GRIFFON: All right, that's fine. So SC&A 

17 will check out the (unintelligible).

18 Response 114.3. This is the question of the 

19 locations for neutron exposures at Y-12.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is a -- a Y-12 one, 

21 and we agree that there is a -- there is a 

22 discrepancy in the site profile and it's report 

23 33, or whatever the document is, report 

24 something, about locations of neutron exposures 

25 at Y-12. And we've -- will address that either 
110

1 in site -- during the site profile revision, 

2 which as you know, is an open (unintelligible). 

3 We've made sure we've put it on our project 

4 planning list, essentially a to-do list -- but 

5 really it's a to-do list of the things that we 

6 intend -- that we know we need to accomplish, 

7 and it's listed as a specific activity to 

8 resolve this difference in the ac-- in the 

9 broader activity to revise the Y-12 site 

10 profile. The Y-12 site profile revisions came 

11 from the SEC discussion of Y-12. There were a 

12 number of issues identified as non-SEC issues 

13 that are still to be resolved.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's an activity that's 

16 out there, and we've -- we've captured --

17 whether this is -- this particular item is not 

18 on the findings matrix from that, but we've 

19 added it to our project plan so that it doesn't 

20 get lost, so it will get fixed in the revision 

21 process.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Are there any -- you talked about 

23 developing a listing of buildings where neutron 

24 exposures could have taken place?

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.
111

1 MR. GRIFFON: I guess there's potentially some 

2 classification issues related to that?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: There might be. There might 

4 be.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. That might be.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not real conversant about 

7 those.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right, but I'm sure 

9 (unintelligible).

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Might be. We may run into that 

11 in that Y-12 stuff. The issue right now is 

12 there are two different lists.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: There's one in the site profile 

15 and one in this other document.

16 MR. GRIFFON: I take it you're going toward --

17 I mean it looks like a commitment to make a 

18 comprehensive list. I just throw that caution 

19 out there 'cause I think that can come up.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm not real conversant 

21 about those kinds of issues, but if we run into 

22 those sorts of things we try to -- what, you 

23 know, a remedy is to encompass more area than

24 truly -- you know, rather than be exactly 

25 specific, if that's going to be a problem --
112

1 MR. GRIFFON: With the area or with -- with 

2 mentioning the source, you know, sort of, you 

3 know --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- and saying neutrons versus 

6 saying what's generating the neutrons --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: What's generating the neutrons.

8 MR. GRIFFON: That's where you might get --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so --

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- issues, yeah.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's a -- it -- I -- I don't 

12 really know --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but --

15 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I think there's a way to 

17 work around it.

18 MR. GRIFFON: So I have -- this is one of these 

19 ones, as far as tracking is concerned, not --

20 I'm saying that, you know, we'll -- we'll 

21 revise the -- NIOSH will consider this --

22 modifying the listing in the site profile.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and whether the site 

24 profile gets changed or whether report 33 gets 

25 changed, whatever the reso-- whatever the right 
113

1 answer is, you've got to have one list.

2 MR. GRIFFON: And then -- and then it -- you 

3 know, depending on the result of that rework 

4 and mod-- you know, re-evaluation --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: This may or may not have to be.

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- re-evaluate this case if 

7 necessary --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if necessary.

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- is what I said.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Now that's got to stay on our 

12 tracking radar, that's all.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: But just to make a note of that, 

15 yeah. Okay.

16 114.4, I think I have SC&A agreeing on that.

17 MR. FARVER: Yes.

18 MR. GRIFFON: 114.5, SC&A agrees again, with 

19 this?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know, there's -- there 

22 might be a little bit more to this one. Is 

23 this --

24 MR. FARVER: It's a two-part, and the first 

25 part we agreed, then the -- NIOSH provided more 
114

1 information and -- somewhere down here --

2 MR. GRIFFON: There's this question of whether 

3 you were looking at excretion data or intakes 

4 and --

5 MR. FARVER: And they are correct, it was 

6 comparing apples and oranges.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

8 MR. FARVER: But I believe they also say that, 

9 you know, you probably should have used the 

10 actual data.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Should use actual data.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: I think that was one of the 

14 concerns. It wasn't appropriate to use 

15 coworker data when you actually had 50 urine 

16 samples.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so NIOSH agrees on that 

18 part. Right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

20 MR. GRIFFON: You were looking at these as 

21 intakes, not as excretions. Is that -- is that 

22 --

23 MR. FARVER: Yes, when I was -- when I was 

24 making --

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- part of the disconnect on the 
115

1 doses?

2 MR. FARVER: When I was making a comparison 

3 between the employee's data and the coworker 

4 data and said -- and it was not the same, I was 

5 incorrect. I was comparing apples and oranges.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. So overall, 

7 this is closed. Is that accurate?

8 MR. FARVER: Yes.

9 (Pause)

10 MR. GRIFFON: Sorry I took -- I just wanted to 

11 capture all that 'cause it's like a two-part --

12 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- two-part resolution.

14 Okay, moving on.

15 MS. MUNN: 115.1 --

16 MR. GRIFFON: You have something on 115.1?

17 MS. MUNN: Well, it puzzled me because I have, 

18 in my NIOSH resolution box, NIOSH agrees, no 

19 effect on case, QC presentation to be provided 

20 by NIOSH.

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's what I have.

22 MS. MUNN: And what QC presentation where?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Larry presented it to the 

24 Board.

25 MS. MUNN: It's the one --
116

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Larry --

2 MS. MUNN: -- that's the one we've seen.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 MS. MUNN: So we're done.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Presentation was provided 

6 by NIOSH on -- I don't remember --

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- which meeting, but --

9 MS. MUNN: I -- well, that's -- that was my 

10 question, was that what we've seen?

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, that was what we saw, 

12 yeah. This was before --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that was before that 

14 presentation.

15 MR. CLAWSON: That was in St. Louis, wasn't it?

16 MS. MUNN: I think so.

17 MR. GRIFFON: I think you're right, yeah.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't keep any of this 

19 straight.

20 MS. MUNN: No, I'm never sure where I was --

21 MR. GRIFFON: St. Louis what year -- what year?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, what year?

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so then I think 117.1, 

24 right? I have this -- my note has it closed 

25 out, but --
117

1 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. But the previous 

3 matrix I didn't have this response in from 

4 SC&A, and I've got to tell you, I'm a little 

5 confused about this -- this letter. Can you 

6 describe what -- refresh my memory here. What 

7 is this letter?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This was our letter that led to 

9 those OTIB-4 cases.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That was the LET. Now -- so 

12 that's the letter we're talking about.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So I take it it's clos--

14 it's closed out. I just wasn't --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- clear on what the letter was, 

17 trying to remember what that letter was.

18 All right, 118.1 --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, these are our initial

20 responses --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- these are all 118, these are 

23 all initial responses.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So Stu, maybe you can 

25 start us off with all these.
118

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll try. The first one has to 

2 do with what we believe was a code on the 

3 dosimetry report rather than a part of the 

4 dosimetry number, and there's a code -- a 

5 reason code, either 13 or 15, for the reported 

6 beta dose of zero, which makes it look like 

7 13,000 or 15,000, so that's what we believe is 

8 the basis for the first ones.

9 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't know -- Doug, some of 

10 these are pretty detailed responses. I don't 

11 know if you've had a chance to look at these 

12 and --

13 MR. FARVER: Well, some of them --

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- prepared to really discuss 

15 them or --

16 MR. FARVER: -- and in -- can I just give you a 

17 little background on this employee. From '55 

18 to '87 he worked at Idaho National Lab. Now 

19 during that time period, from '62 to '75, he 

20 worked at ANL West. The only records I could 

21 find were from Idaho and were not from ANL 

22 West. Specifically, in some of his records it 

23 was deleted and said ANL West not reported. So 

24 the basis from probably almost all these 

25 findings is dosimetry data from ANL West was 
119

1 not requested, so we can't tell if it's really 

2 claimant favorable or not claimant favorable 

3 with either internal or external, and that's 

4 the gist of this case. So I guess the question 

5 comes up is what's the guideline for requesting 

6 data? If the employee puts down that this is 

7 where he worked, do you request it? And is ANL 

8 West really Idaho?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It is.

10 MR. FARVER: And if so, should that data be 

11 reported when you request the Idaho data?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And Idaho does report ANL West 

13 data. They don't report the NRF data. They 

14 were (unintelligible) facility when they -- to 

15 us.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: But they do report ANL West. 

18 And ANL -- and there are records in there. You 

19 know, you have to look several places in the 

20 responses, but there are records that give a 

21 dose record for these -- for his employment 

22 that's different from that sheet.

23 MR. FARVER: Well, I understand it does give 

24 summaries, it gives totals.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.
120

1 MR. FARVER: But -- I mean it also clearly says 

2 ANL West not reported.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's on that record.

4 MR. FARVER: On this record.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: This was a particular record. 

6 We received --

7 MR. FARVER: It was a year by year record for 

8 the dosimetry data.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: But there are -- there's --

10 yeah, but there are other records in that file 

11 from which you can deduce and we have 

12 apportioned that dose to that time period.

13 MR. FARVER: I understand, by subtracting out 

14 what you know from -- from what you don't know 

15 --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

17 MR. FARVER: -- you can --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You can deduce the ANL West.

19 MR. FARVER: Correct. I guess my question was 

20 how -- why can't you just get the ANL West data 

21 altogether reported?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Because Idaho always provides 

23 it anyway. We -- you know, we don't -- ANL 

24 West does not provide a response to us on their 

25 dosimetry. Idaho provides it, and this is what 
121

1 Idaho has.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. Why didn't -- why didn't 

3 they --

4 MR. GRIFFON: That's all they have, they don't 

5 --

6 MR. FARVER: -- report it when they reported 

7 the other -- the -- the yearly data, the yearly 

8 dosimetry data?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: In all likelihood, they don't -

10 - they didn't have it.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: They had the annual -- they had 

13 the summary, and they gave us what they have. 

14 The DOE is -- is really good about getting us 

15 what they have. Idaho provides us response for 

16 ANL West, so that's what we have --

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we've then apportioned 

19 it, we believe in a favorable fashion, to the -

20 - to that period of time and -- and taking--

21 and done -- I would think we've done a suitable 

22 dose assignment. Now I'd have to go back and 

23 look at it again to say yeah, I really feel 

24 good about this or not, but I believe we 

25 probably have. But that's -- that's the 
122

1 difference, because ANL West does not -- we 

2 don't have a contact. ANL West does not 

3 respond to our requests. We go to Idaho and 

4 they respond and they include ANL West.

5 MS. MUNN: But it's all an umbrella.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, right, I mean -- I -- I 

7 don't -- I'm not familiar with -- I -- I looked 

8 at these cases, these specific ones, these 

9 specific sheets. And in this case you're 

10 right, there's not a year by year total for ANL 

11 West. We had to deduce what their total was at 

12 ANL West.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. And the other thing was, if 

14 you look at the -- the request for data 

15 records, there's a request for Idaho but there 

16 is not a separate one for ANL West.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That's because they don't 

18 provide it.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, I understand that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. FARVER: But I would say put that in the 

22 documentation somewhere, the technical basis. 

23 I didn't find it in either the Argonne 

24 documentation or the INL documentation saying 

25 that --
123

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, --

2 MR. FARVER: -- ANL dosimetry data is included

3 with the Idaho.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll be like a site profile 

5 thing.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MS. MUNN: I would think so.

8 MR. FARVER: And that should clear it up then, 

9 because what it appears is that you didn't 

10 request the data.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah.

13 MR. CLAWSON: So Stu, is there -- are there 

14 blanks in it that INL West -- I -- I know how 

15 the system works out there, I --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: The annual -- in this case --

17 I'm not familiar -- I'm not an expert on the 

18 Idaho records that we get, but in this case, 

19 the year by year -- we got one list that gave 

20 the year by year totals, and that did not have 

21 the ANL West years in there, and it said ANL 

22 West not reported. Presumably that was 

23 something that was in the -- in the person's 

24 file from his employment by the contractor at 

25 the other -- you know, when he was over at the 
124

1 other part of the plant, and it was for them 

2 and so they weren't so -- you know, so they 

3 didn't necessarily have the ANL West included 

4 in there.

5 MR. FARVER: But they have handwritten totals 

6 at the bottom.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh.

8 MR. FARVER: With the missing data subtracted 

9 out.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

11 MR. FARVER: It appears.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and then so --

13 MR. FARVER: And then there's another page that 

14 had cumulative data over --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

16 MR. FARVER: -- the worker's history.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: So by taking the handwritten 

19 numbers, subtract them from the cumulative, you 

20 can assume what's missed.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. So -- but I -- we 

22 don't think there's an insurmountable problem 

23 with ANL West, and I only know -- and it's just 

24 this case, but I know it's -- it may be okay in 

25 other cases, I don't know.
125

1 MR. CLAWSON: Because I -- because I know 

2 there's an issue because they were under DOE 

3 Chicago, we were under DOE Idaho, and I worked 

4 there for a while and I know that my dose 

5 didn't show up on Idaho's because it was 

6 through DOE Chicago and I don't know why they -

7 - they did these things this way.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Our unders-- our belief is that 

9 it's taken care of in what we did. We did 

10 everything from Idaho, including ANL West --

11 not everything, but Idaho, excluding 

12 (unintelligible), so we did everything, all the 

13 other sites that we get from Idaho and we have 

14 nobody else badged.

15 MR. FARVER: Of course the same holds true on 

16 the bioassay --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

18 MR. FARVER: -- it's -- it's not clear in the 

19 records that it was even requested, nor that 

20 it's separate or totaled.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. We can make comment in 

22 the site profile that would provide, you know, 

23 instruction to everybody.

24 MR. CLAWSON: Well, their bioassay was done at 

25 Idaho and their dosimetry reading was done at 
126

1 Idaho, but the information went to --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so the record-keeping for 

3 both would likely be the same, but it's our 

4 bel-- you know, our belief is that we are 

5 getting it all, everything.

6 MR. GRIFFON: I mean have you checked with the 

7 Chicago and -- DOE Chicago office to see if 

8 records are there --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I don't know 

10 that we've done that.

11 MR. CLAWSON: That -- that's the point I'm 

12 getting at.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we can go to -- that 

14 would be a simple request for us 'cause we'll 

15 just go to DOE headquarters and we'll say hey, 

16 let us know -- here's what we see -- we can 

17 give them this specific example. Here's what 

18 we see in these records from this guy from 

19 Idaho. We see ANL West is different, it's 

20 excluded in this one area and we had to deduce 

21 it here --

22 MR. GRIFFON: I believe that'd be worth --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- have you got anything in 

24 Chi-- you know, at Chicago do they have 

25 anything that would fill this out some. We can 
127

1 try that.

2 MR. GRIFFON: At least -- at least for a simple 

3 --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a simple question -- at 

5 this point it's a simple question to 

6 headquarters.

7 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and al-- also because it's 

8 -- in the site profile like this we need -- we 

9 haven't addressed this in R-2 because for many 

10 years it was -- they were completely separate 

11 entities. Things were done here, but all the 

12 information went back east.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

14 MR. CLAWSON: And -- and I know that a lot of 

15 the claimants and petitioners and stuff like 

16 that have -- have those questions because they 

17 were juggled around somewhat and all of a 

18 sudden to have big gaps in their -- in their 

19 history, that's usually going from one side to 

20 the other.

21 MR. GRIFFON: Getting -- getting back to the 

22 more specifics on this 118.1 especially, I --

23 the second paragraph of your response, Stu, the 

24 -- it says the reported photon dose for this 

25 date does not appear to be based on a dosimeter 
128

1 result. What -- what -- what does that mean, 

2 does not appear to be based on a dosimeter 

3 result? How -- how does -- how -- how did you 

4 come to that conclusion, I guess is my -- I'm 

5 not familiar with the details, either, but I'm 

6 just asking.

7 So some-- somehow there was a positive result, 

8 and there were zeroes reported. Right?

9 MS. MUNN: However, at the end of that week, 

10 the same record indicates a dose of 7,200 

11 millirem was reported for the period of March 

12 16 through 25, and the beta dose is left blank.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Anybody know the date of the 

14 SL-1 accident off the top of your head? It was 

15 1958.

16 MR. GRIFFON: It was '58, yeah, I don't know.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I think when you keep 

18 reading it's possible that the -- that these 

19 handwritten records are corrections --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. FARVER: -- because the 7,200 millirem is -

22 - is committed effective dose equivalent.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay.

24 MR. FARVER: So we're not really sure what that 

25 7,200 is, but it probably is not the dose --
129

1 external dose.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, our dose reconstructor 

3 speculates that it was a -- a fully-executed 

4 correction to the record based on that 

5 committed effective --

6 MR. FARVER: That could be.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or it could be an 

8 investigation report. I don't know the date of 

9 SL-1, it might be an investigation report 

10 result from SL-1. It could be that. I mean 

11 wouldn't -- you wouldn't necessarily have an 

12 investigation report, but a number of people 

13 responded to SL-1 and there may have been some 

14 assigned doses based on their response --

15 MR. GRIFFON: I mean don't we -- don't we need 

16 to know? This is kind of a significant little 

17 dose.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can -- I can find out. 

19 Just give me some time. I can find out the 

20 date of SL--

21 MS. MUNN: Wikipedia says January 3rd, 1961 --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: '61? Oh --

23 MS. MUNN: -- we started --

24 MR. GRIFFON: 1961.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- '58 was the Y-12 
130

1 criticality.

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: '58 was Y-12 criticality.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah. After shut down.

6 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 

7 MS. MUNN: Well, you know, it's the easiest 

8 thing to get to --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably easiest to fin--

10 easier to find in the site profile.

11 MS. MUNN: -- absolutely, yeah.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, if we can't get -- oh, 

13 forget it, I won't go there.

14 MR. FARVER: Now this one clearly was involved 

15 in an incident in '58.

16 MR. GRIFFON: So there was an incident in '58?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes.

18 MR. GRIFFON: I mean my question is if this is 

19 some sort of corrected dose or -- you know, I 

20 think we -- we want to know the details, don't 

21 we?

22 MR. FARVER: Actually that week of '58, 

23 incident on March 20th, so the period that 

24 we're talking about is March 16th through March 

25 25th of 1958.
131

1 MR. GRIFFON: I mean if this -- if this 

2 measurement and then they corrected -- I don't 

3 know. I don't know what the scenario is, so...

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, all this stuff that are 

5 throw in there -- our -- what we put in our 

6 response, all the stuff we throw in there, is 

7 sort of -- kind of things to say hey, look, 

8 there are all these reasons to believe that we 

9 put this dose in twice, 'cause we put it on the 

10 internal side -- right?

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we also put it on the 

13 external side because we think they screwed up. 

14 We think they botched the correction. But we 

15 put it in both times. You know, we didn't rely 

16 on all this -- all this long discussion that we 

17 lay out here about the (unintelligible), we 

18 didn't rely on that to exclude it -- half of it 

19 and say it's in the record twice. We're 

20 putting it in twice, even though we think it's 

21 half of -- might be wrong. So I mean that's --

22 that's the nature of this whole discussion. I 

23 -- you know --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but if there -- if there's 

25 an incident report, you know, and --
132

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know --

2 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know, I --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- why would you expect it to 

4 be any better than this -- than what we got 

5 from their exposure history? I mean, to me --

6 MS. MUNN: Shouldn't be.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to me, it's -- it's -- I'm 

8 hard-pressed to find -- you know, with -- this 

9 is -- this is a really full explanation. I 

10 think it's kind of speculative, but it's 

11 speculative that well, we included it. Maybe 

12 it's not as -- you know, maybe it's true and we 

13 should have included it anyway, and maybe it --

14 maybe someone did decide the incident report 

15 that they had 7,200 or 7,000 from that incident 

16 that's described, even though from our reading 

17 of it -- a report of that incident, we would 

18 say you couldn't have -- hadn't spent that much 

19 time, 46 hours in that high dose rate, in order 

20 to get this -- the highest measurable dose rate 

21 in order to -- to get this dose, so --

22 MR. GRIFFON: So you have looked into the 

23 incident --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. Where was the incident? 
133

1 Where --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- I don't think the 

3 response says --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- was it ANL or was it on the 

5 Idaho side?

6 MR. FARVER: It would be on the Idaho side in 

7 '58. Probably, I believe that's where he 

8 worked -- yes, ICPP.

9 MR. GRIFFON: CPP, yeah, sounds like a CPP 

10 technical.

11 MR. FARVER: Uh-huh.

12 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'd be -- I'd be curious 

13 to see -- you have dose rates and stuff from 

14 this apparently. I'd be curious to know if --

15 if he was wearing a dosimeter and if they said 

16 they -- did they throw that result out or did 

17 they -- you know.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there -- there could be a 

19 limit on how much we'll learn -- I mean we can 

20 try to find out. You know, my view is -- you 

21 know, in terms of this finding, how you want to 

22 treat this finding, you know, we'll go to 

23 headquarters and we will ask, you know, about 

24 the Argonne question --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, --
134

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- could there still be some 

2 stuff in Chicago. We can -- we have clarify 

3 the site profile that the -- that the responses 

4 from Idaho include, you know, all parts of 

5 Idaho that are included, so we can do that kind 

6 -- we can do those things.

7 MR. GRIFFON: I guess -- I mean my -- I -- I 

8 don't know --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: You know --

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- my feeling is that, you know, 

11 you say the dose doesn't appear to be based on 

12 a dosimeter result, but it's a high number and 

13 we put it in there twice so it should be good 

14 enough. I don't know if I'm -- I'm very 

15 comfortable with, you know, just saying --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I understand, I guess. 

17 You understand, though, when -- when we do 

18 these things, and for that matter when we 

19 prepare responses in these discussions, we're 

20 spending resources that are not doing dose 

21 reconstructions for claimants, not evaluating 

22 SEC petitions --

23 MR. GRIFFON: I understand.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so we're competing with some 

25 other tasks to do this. And so now if we -- if 
135

1 we look -- if we try to find more information 

2 on this -- on this, which we might, and I -- I 

3 have almost no knowledge of how effective in 

4 our searches in Idaho, we try to find some 

5 additional information. What's the likelihood 

6 that we're going to learn anything that's going 

7 to be useful broadly or what's -- learn 

8 anything that's going to make it -- this case, 

9 even --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, be unfavorable, 

12 you know, what we've done on this -- this 

13 (unintelligible).

14 MR. GRIFFON: What type of case was it? What -

15 - what --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the type of --

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- cancer type and POC?

18 MR. FARVER: Appendix.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Appendix?

20 MR. FARVER: POC --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I would not think the POC was 

22 very high.

23 MR. FARVER: -- 46 percent.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: 46? Really?
136

1 MR. GRIFFON: Wow.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: On an appendix?

3 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) overestimate.

4 MR. GRIFFON: That was a pretty 

5 over(unintelligible) --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: He must have got a lot -- I 

7 mean we must have put a lot of (unintelligible) 

8 dose reconstruction.

9 MR. FARVER: Yeah, it was a combination of 

10 claimant favorable and maximizing, so it's...

11 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- that's -- that's --

12 the question is, you know, it would appear to 

13 be claimant favorable because you got a high 

14 POC on the appendix, you know.

15 MR. FARVER: How about if we --

16 MR. GRIFFON: That's like a circular argument 

17 to me, too. I mean you -- you just assume --

18 MR. FARVER: If we look at that --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- that these doses couldn't have 

20 happened.

21 MR. FARVER: If you let us look at that --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

23 MR. FARVER: -- 118.1, and like I say, most of 

24 the others will probably go away with --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right, the others I think are the 
137

1 ANL issues that --

2 MR. FARVER: Yeah, resolving the ANL issue --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

4 MR. FARVER: -- how do you find it, when do you 

5 look for it, who do you ask.

6 MR. GRIFFON: But the 118.1 is a little 

7 different than --

8 MR. FARVER: Right, let us -- let us look at 

9 that and we'll compare it with responses is 

10 because I'm looking at our initial finding goes 

11 into the type of film that was used in 

12 dosimeter, and it is surrounding an incident, 

13 so let's --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask is -- 'cause Scott 

15 seems to have some of the -- I mean is this 

16 incident report on the -- in the individual's 

17 file?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so SC&A is --

20 MR. SIEBERT: It's one of the responses from 

21 the DOE.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so SC&A has this -- maybe 

23 look at that further. I'm not asking Stu to 

24 commit more resources to looking for more data, 

25 maybe just let -- let --
138

1 MR. FARVER: Not on this one. I believe it is 

2 in the file. I thought I remembered seeing it.

3 MS. MUNN: The incident report --

4 MR. GRIFFON: For now let's just keep it with 

5 SC&A, look further at it compared to the 

6 incident and, you know, I'm happy with that. 

7 And the other -- the other ones are ANL issues 

8 I believe we can step down on, but I think just 

9 to follow up with headquarters would be a good 

10 -- good approach to that and they -- they might 

11 go away otherwise.

12 MR. CLAWSON: That -- that may help you in your 

13 site profile, too, because you're going to see 

14 a lot of petitioners that that question's 

15 always come up, but going back and forth like 

16 that, all of a sudden now there's big blanks.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask one question on -- and 

18 it may be a silly question -- on 118.2, that is 

19 -- it might just be the font and it might mean 

20 -- it might necessitate me getting glasses out, 

21 but is that -- that's 1,818 millirem or 1.8 

22 millirem?

23 MR. CLAWSON: 1,818 millirem.

24 MR. SIEBERT: (Unintelligible) 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it is 18, okay. I was going 
139

1 to say that's awful precise for -- so it's 18.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Since it's underlined 

3 (unintelligible) comma there.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. That's sad that I 

5 can't see that. Okay, anyway.

6 MS. MUNN: You have our sympathies.

7 MR. GRIFFON: So going on -- on to the other 

8 ones, Doug, it -- you know, I know we're coming 

9 up on the lunch hour, too, but I don't want to 

10 rush through these if we -- are these mostly 

11 ANL West issues, the 118.2 and 118.3?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, 18.2, 18 -- 118.3 --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Now 118.4, the neutron dose --

14 MR. FARVER: -- 118.4 --

15 MR. GRIFFON: You're saying at a reactor 

16 facility they wouldn't have added in neutron 

17 do-- they wouldn't have any reason for neutron 

18 exposures? Stu, is that what I'm understanding 

19 from the response?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That is what the response is, 

21 and that's what the site profile -- I looked 

22 this up in the site profile --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and (unintelligible) is not 

25 listed as one of the locations for neutron dose 
140

1 -- 'cause I looked it up. I said 

2 (unintelligible) --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean why? I could see 

4 maybe low, but --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I can -- I can get some 

6 folks who know about such things probably to 

7 chime in on why that would be.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: But I just -- you know, I got 

10 it and I didn't take it out -- you know, it was 

11 either not send it over or send it over like 

12 this, and the site profile does read as it 

13 says. I mean in the site profile 

14 (unintelligible) is not one of the neutron 

15 exposure areas.

16 MR. FARVER: Right, we don't dispute that. I 

17 think --

18 MS. MUNN: I wouldn't expect.

19 MR. FARVER: -- what it came down to was since 

20 we didn't receive the dosimetry data for ANLW, 

21 we can't say that the missed doses --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

23 MR. FARVER: -- were properly assessed.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: So what -- your question really 

25 hits to the site profile.
141

1 MR. GRIFFON: Really the site profile, yeah.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I think the person 

4 followed -- you're saying the person followed 

5 the right protocol --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: They followed the site profile. 

7 We've never -- we've never been satisfied with 

8 that response, you know. When -- when we get a 

9 DR finding and say well, we did it in 

10 accordance with the procedure, I say well, that 

11 doesn't answer the mail, you know --

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so we -- we're never really 

14 satisfied with that response. In this case I 

15 sent it over because I had no basis not to be 

16 satisfied with the response. The Technical 

17 Basis Document really does say that --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and there must be some 

20 reason why it says that, so I'll have to --

21 we'll -- I'll have to maybe -- I can ask. 

22 Maybe I can just send you what I find out.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Or we can -- or -- but it is a 

24 site profile question.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: It is a site profile question.
142

1 MR. CLAWSON: John, isn't Idaho of them that 

2 we've got sitting back?

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we have -- that's been 

4 sitting on the shelf for two years now.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know anything about it.

6 MS. MUNN: Well --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda's talking about what EBR 

8 was so --

9 DR. MAURO: Experimental Reactor, I mean you 

10 would say no neutrons?

11 MS. MUNN: Well -- well, yeah, but you know, 

12 it's --

13 MR. CLAWSON: Experimental Breeder Reactor 1.

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I know it's -- the core is 

15 smaller than a Coke can and it's --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm not saying --

17 MS. MUNN: -- unshielded and it's --

18 DR. MAURO: It makes you have to look at it --

19 MS. MUNN: Well, I -- you know, it's a -- it is 

20 a fast reactor and --

21 DR. MAURO: Well, you know, during the break I 

22 could --

23 (Whereupon, Ms. Munn, Dr. Mauro and Mr. Griffon 

24 spoke simultaneously.)

25 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I'm -- I'm completely 
143

1 unfamiliar with EBR-1.

2 MR. CLAWSON: You got to -- you've got to look 

3 at the structure of how EBR-1 was designed in 

4 there and I -- to tell you the truth, I -- I'm 

5 questioning and I know there probably wasn't 

6 that much, but the way that was designed I bet 

7 you there were -- were some 'cause if you look 

8 at the configuration of it and where everything 

9 was at, it --

10 MS. MUNN: Well, 1 and 2 both were -- were so 

11 easy to walk into, you know, it just -- you 

12 could stand next to them and --

13 MR. CLAWSON: Well, 1 especially --

14 MS. MUNN: -- things in and out.

15 MR. CLAWSON: -- 1 especially.

16 MS. MUNN: But it was still --

17 MR. CLAWSON: Well, if you were the guy with 

18 the axe to cut the rope...

19 MS. MUNN: Not on 1, not on EBR-1, no, I'm 

20 sorry, I -- Chicago is a little bit further 

21 from there than EBR-1.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Well, at least follow -- you 

23 know, that -- that's the only question.

24 MS. MUNN: Might be a good idea to check it 

25 out.
144

1 MR. GRIFFON: If it's -- if it's -- really can 

2 be shown that it's de minimis, then I think, 

3 you know, we close it. Right?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll find out what we 

5 know about it. It may get down to 

6 (unintelligible).

7 MR. GRIFFON: 118.5?

8 MR. FARVER: That goes back again to we don't -

9 - we can't tell if they assessed the chronic 

10 doses properly because we don't have -- we may 

11 not have all the data from ANLW. I -- I don't 

12 think we're disagreeing that if this is all the 

13 data you have, then what you did is incorrect. 

14 I mean we're not -- we're not arguing that, 

15 we're just saying there might be more data out 

16 there and we can't tell unless you look.

17 MR. GRIFFON: I'm a little confused.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Wait a minute, there's a --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Your response seems to be --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a .5 --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- talking about something else, 

22 doesn't it?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there's a -- you were 

24 talking about .6, or -- there's a .5 that we 

25 included in --
145

1 MR. FARVER: Oh --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Was this the one?

3 MR. FARVER: -- this is -- this is where --

4 yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this -- the matrix I was 

6 working from -- I don't know if this was the 

7 final matrix or not, the .5 that I sent was in 

8 the draft -- apparently was in a draft report, 

9 it was in an early version of the matrix, and 

10 so it's been removed actually, and so Doug was 

11 talking about what's -- what's numbered as .6 -

12 -

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on this report 'cause .5 was 

15 removed -- withdrawn by SC&A.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, but -- so the response is 

17 to a removed finding. Right?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

19 MR. GRIFFON: That's the -- the -- that's the 

20 AP versus exotropic geometry in question?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, for an environmental 

22 exposure situation.

23 MR. GRIFFON: And you agree with that?

24 MR. FARVER: Yeah, that's --

25 MR. GRIFFON: But that -- but what I'm looking 
146

1 at, this 118.5 on my matrix, the summary of the 

2 finding talks about internal dose, so I'm a 

3 little confused. Is that -- is that the 

4 finding for 118.6?

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So did things get shifted 

7 here or what?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I -- I screwed that up 

9 somehow.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. FARVER: Stu's findings aren't the same as 

12 your findings. How's that?

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- so this goes away, 

14 118.5 is dropped by SC&A, and then -- so let --

15 let's move on to 118.6 then, I guess.

16 MR. FARVER: 118.6 where the finding is 

17 assigned internal dose appears low. Is that 

18 what you have?

19 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I have -- now if --

20 MR. FARVER: I'm just wondering which matrix 

21 you're going by, Stu's matrix or --

22 MR. GRIFFON: I have one that says assigned 

23 1958 internal dose appears low.

24 MR. FARVER: The doses appear low, okay. You 

25 want to go -- we'll do that one.
147

1 MR. GRIFFON: All right. But what -- what is 

2 this other one, unclear whether all chronic 

3 intakes were properly accounted for in the 

4 internal dose?

5 MR. FARVER: This is where, since we didn't 

6 receive the data, we don't know if there's 

7 outstanding bioassay data, we can't tell --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Well, what finding number is that 

9 one? Is that also in 118.6 or what -- what is 

10 -- I'm getting a little confused on the matrix.

11 MR. FARVER: On the report it's 118.5-F.2.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now that's the correct 

14 finding number, but in a draft report 118.5 had 

15 to do with the dose conversion factors.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so -- so NIOSH's response 

17 doesn't --

18 MR. FARVER: During our conference --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- respond to that one obviously.

20 MR. FARVER: During our conference calls we 

21 probably said all this is taken care of, and we 

22 deleted it from the draft report.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

24 MR. FARVER: So in the final report, it's not 

25 there about the -- the isotropic --
148

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: -- dose conversion factors.

3 MR. GRIFFON: But this 118.5.F-2 still is 

4 there.

5 MR. FARVER: It's still there.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think you -- if you read 

7 in -- what -- the matrix I sent, if you drop 

8 down one --

9 MR. FARVER: Right, he's off by one.

10 MR. GRIFFON: You're responding to the --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- my responses are off by one.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Just testing us, huh?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: When I -- I got to the end -- I 

14 got to the end --

15 MR. GRIFFON: All right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the last finding was --

17 was that the summary finding? Is that where we 

18 are here -- 18.7?

19 MS. BEHLING: Yes, there is a summary finding.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 MS. BEHLING: 118.7.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and when the res-- so I 

23 got that, and I think what happened was the 

24 summary finding, we would just say well, this 

25 is a summary of our findings and so we're not 
149

1 going to -- so we don't really need to respond 

2 anymore --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so I think I got that 

5 from the contractor, but I said what the heck, 

6 there's no finding to go with this, what are 

7 they talking about? I guess the summary 

8 finding kind of thing was removed. But -- so I 

9 assumed that that one was removed rather than 

10 the one earlier.

11 MR. GRIFFON: I see, okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I was tired.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we -- we -- all right, we 

14 know where we're at then. So -- so going back 

15 to the one you were just talking about then --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible)

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- well -- well, is there a 

18 discussion on --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the ones --

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- so the response listed under 

21 118.6-G.3, NIOSH's response is really to 118 --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: .5.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- .5.F-2, right?

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.
150

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So their finding is about not 

2 getting the ANL West data.

3 MR. FARVER: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's their finding. So our 

5 response, incorrectly located, is that we did 

6 get the ANL West data and it was in the -- what 

7 DOE reported.

8 MR. FARVER: Which -- which may be true. I 

9 mean this goes back to the initial --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And our response refers to 

11 specific places in the office and so it's going 

12 to be a pain to go check and see what we sent, 

13 but...

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: No, I just want to say we don't

16 have a problem with what they wrote or how they 

17 did it, if that's all the data that's 

18 available.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and it goes back to our 

21 question to headquarters about are we getting -

22 - does Chicago have anything that we're not 

23 getting.

24 MR. FARVER: Right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Now you're --
151

1 MR. GRIFFON: Then the next one -- your next 

2 response, Stu, should be shifted up one. 

3 Right?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the -- verifying 118.6, 

5 you have to look down to 118.7 --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for our response.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: There really are sever-- our 

10 finding surrounds the 1958 incident that the 

11 employee was involved in.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So you're saying you 

13 averaged the data and you think that SC&A 

14 looked at the highest, is that --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not real sure. I think --

16 I think we -- we need to see the IMBA file or -

17 - or whatever --

18 MR. GRIFFON: So can we get --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was done to --

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- both -- can we get you guys to 

21 share IMBA files?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

23 MR. FARVER: I think we'll look at this one, 

24 too, and our response, what our initial finding 

25 was.
152

1 MR. GRIFFON: I think that needs a follow-up 

2 with a sharing of the analytical files, the 

3 IMBA files, 'cause I -- otherwise we're going 

4 to talk past each other, I think. Right? 

5 So...

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I just think we need to 

9 share IMBA files.

10 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Now there's about 

11 four pages of this, I'm -- I'm skimming through 

12 it. Is there anything else to this or just...

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it had to do with --

14 MR. GRIFFON: There's some good specifics in 

15 here, yeah.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sample data and some stuff 

17 about comparing a --

18 MR. GRIFFON: And whether samples were decay19 corrected, and those various --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's a lot of --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- looks like there's a 

23 typographical error in the secondary record 

24 that we got from DOE --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right.
153

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so -- so there's --

2 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so can consider all this 

3 looking at, yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there's a lot of stuff to 

5 look at.

6 MR. FARVER: Yeah, it'll take time to look at 

7 all this and --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And we'll ship our IMBA files 

9 then over --

10 MR. GRIFFON: That'll be good, okay. Great. 

11 Now, I -- I really would like to get through 

12 this matrix, I think we're almost done now, 

13 looking ahead here. I think we are done, 

14 unless anybody else finds other -- this little 

15 table at the very end, also -- I'll point that 

16 out to -- I'm sure Doug saw it, but on the last 

17 page, it goes back to finding 118.7 of that 

18 same case, so -- but were there any others 

19 after 118 that -- that we had?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think there's any.

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think so. Wanda I'm 

22 asking 'cause she's looking at her old notes. 

23 I just want to make sure.

24 MS. MUNN: I don't think so.

25 MR. GRIFFON: 119 or 120, if you have anything. 
154

1 I don't in my notes, so --

2 MS. MUNN: I have agreed --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MS. MUNN: -- on 119 --

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we had agreement on 

6 those.

7 MS. MUNN: -- yeah, and NIOSH will review 

8 language in the DR report template 

9 (unintelligible) nothing.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I think it's time for a 

11 lunch break, and if we could re-- reconvene 

12 1:20, is that -- gives us an hour.

13 DR. WADE: Okay, for those on the phone, we're 

14 going to take a lunch break, reconvene at 1:20. 

15 We're going to break the line now and then call 

16 back in at 1:15. Okay?

17 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:20 p.m. 

18 to 1:24 p.m.)

19 DR. WADE: This is the subcommittee conference 

20 room and we're ready to begin. Let me just 

21 verify -- Dr. Poston, are you still with us?

22 (No responses)

23 Dr. Poston?

24 (No responses)

25 MR. GRIFFON: I think he might have had a --
155

1 MR. HINNEFELD: He had that (unintelligible).

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 DR. WADE: Okay. And Kathy, are you with us?

4 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm still here.

5 DR. WADE: Good. Is there anyone else on the 

6 line who'd like to be identified for the record 

7 as being on the line after lunch?

8 (No responses)

9 Okay, we're ready to begin.

10 SEVENTH SET OF CASES MATRIX

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we're going to pick up with 

12 the seventh set of cases now, and -- and my --

13 based on Kathy's e-mail and my notes, I think 

14 we left off on case -- or finding number 137.8. 

15 We'd just finished that one so we're moving on 

16 to case number 138 -- finding 138.1, and 

17 this'll be our first pass through on these. I 

18 guess it's what -- what I'd say is I'd like to 

19 get through the first pass on all these, we're 

20 almost to the end of this matrix, and then 

21 maybe look at that report of the first 100 

22 cases. So let's start here at 138.1 is a 

23 Pinellas case, and I guess, Doug, if you can 

24 give us an overview on the finding and then let

25 Stu explain the response a little bit and go 
156

1 like that.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm still trying to get there. 

3 You got to wait to navigate when you get to the 

4 stuff this way.

5 MS. MUNN: Too -- too many files.

6 (Pause)

7 MR. GRIFFON: I feel like I've got dead air on 

8 my radio show here.

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Where -- where -- we got -- I 

11 think, Kathy, you're probably one of the only 

12 people on the line, but we're trying to get 

13 everyone on the computer and get to the right 

14 place on their matrix, so we're working here.

15 DR. WADE: We're working hard, it just doesn't 

16 appear that way.

17 MR. GIBSON: That's 138, you say?

18 MR. GRIFFON: 138.1, yeah.

19 MS. MUNN: I thought I had it --

20 MR. FARVER: Mark, I could sum up the finding 

21 for you.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

23 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the tritium dose 

24 that they used or that they assigned, and they 

25 should have assigned a maximum tritium dose, 
157

1 and the dose they used was not consistent with 

2 the technical ba-- with the numbers in Table 5-

3 7 of the technical basis, so there's a little 

4 difference in values used. So that was the 

5 gist of the finding.

6 And then NIOSH provided a response. I have one 

7 dated from May 30th --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's just going to take 

9 me a while. I'm trying to look at Scott's real 

10 quick so I can speak but I'll be on -- I'll 

11 have my own here pretty soon -- well, not 

12 pretty soon, the way it (unintelligible).

13 MR. FARVER: And I'm ok-- we're okay with their 

14 finding -- with their response.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, that may save you a 

16 lot -- a lot of description, Stu.

17 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

18 (Unintelligible) the answer.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess our response --

21 part of our response was the Pinellas TBD 

22 wasn't yet --

23 MR. FARVER: Correct.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- available at the time --

25 when the dose reconstruction was done --
158

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so they used another 

3 technique which is, I think, suitable, I guess. 

4 I'm -- I'm still -- I'm paraphrasing it from 

5 looking at this. I don't have everything up 

6 yet.

7 MS. MUNN: Finding number again is 138?

8 MR. GRIFFON: 138.1, yes. It's on page 60 on 

9 my printout of your -- sometimes that doesn't 

10 work, but...

11 MS. MUNN: It doesn't.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So -- this is a 

13 compensable claim, too, right?

14 MR. FARVER: Right.

15 MR. GRIFFON: So -- yeah.

16 MR. FARVER: And it looks like NIOSH went back 

17 and recalculated the doses, and they did change 

18 it, but it was still over 50 percent.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right, still be compensable. So 

20 I think there's agreement on this, Stu. I 

21 don't want to get ahead of you if you -- if 

22 you're --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

24 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't think there's any 

25 action, really, because they -- this was prior 
159

1 to the TBD and the TBD is appropriate. Right, 

2 Doug? Is that --

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 MR. GRIFFON: No further action. 139.1 is also 

5 a Pinellas case, according to my notes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: He asked me to take a little 

7 (unintelligible) may take a little more 

8 (unintelligible) maybe (unintelligible) 

9 complicated (unintelligible) don't agree with 

10 it.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

12 MR. FARVER: Well, if you agree it'd be easier.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Well, I try to agree 

14 wherever I can. Trust me on that. There was -

15 - thi-- this relates to an issue of early 

16 dosimetry from Pinellas. Is that correct?

17 MR. FARVER: Well, as I read the original 

18 finding, it has to do with records being 

19 received after --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh --

21 MR. FARVER: -- the DR was completed.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- records received after it 

23 was completed, okay.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And that did in fact 
160

1 happen. With Pinellas we had some data that we 

2 found -- I think it was in the Atlanta Records 

3 Center -- that we did not get. It was personal 

4 exposure information we didn't get when we made 

5 the request for Pinellas exposure records. 

6 We've since captured those now and linked them 

7 to the file, so I mean it's not a lingering 

8 issue, but that's why this dose -- this dose 

9 reconstruction didn't have that additional 

10 information. We just -- you know, and so the -

11 - the site -- if DOE doesn't reply with it, you 

12 (unintelligible) DOE doesn't have 

13 (unintelligible).

14 MR. FARVER: There seems to be some questions 

15 about the actual data that was received, the 

16 units weren't there, what -- one had a -- one 

17 entry was listed as a one without a unit, so 

18 how do you interpret that. And I guess what it 

19 comes down to is we -- we had felt that you 

20 should find out what these records mean.

21 MS. BEHLING: I believe there were also several 

22 entries that had just an asterisk, and I'm not 

23 sure there was any explanation for what that 

24 asterisk meant, either.

25 MR. FARVER: Correct, that's another undefined 
161

1 term. Of the 61 entries, 21 had an asterisk 

2 and 40 had 0.000 -- entries for whole body 

3 count -- whole body readings.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess this -- you know, 

5 the issue here would, I think, speak to the 

6 Pinellas site. You know, it's not this 

7 specific claim issue, it's a Pinellas site 

8 issue.

9 MR. FARVER: Correct.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be appropriate to 

11 transfer this to Pinellas site profile, which I 

12 -- if I'm not mistaken, is getting underway 

13 now. Right?

14 DR. MAURO: Yeah, there's a --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Have you finished your review?

16 DR. MAURO: -- yeah, there's -- there is a 

17 review, there's a -- there's a workgroup now.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe there's a workgroup, 

19 but we have a person assigned, I know.

20 DR. MAURO: Yeah, Phil's -- I think Phil --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Phil might be the chairman.

22 DR. MAURO: I have to check.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: And so it may be something to

24 hand there, and this whole issue of do we --

25 are we getting from DOE a complete set of 
162

1 Pinellas records.

2 DR. MAURO: If I recall, one of the comments on 

3 the site profile was we believe that there are 

4 other records centers where Pinellas --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, good. Good.

6 DR. MAURO: -- exist, and we left it at that.

7 MR. GRIFFON: So for this particular case, 

8 since I'm not -- well, I'm just looking at the 

9 matrix, did you use a coworker to fill in gaps 

10 or what -- how would -- how are --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd have to -- we'll have to do 

12 some more research on that. Do you remember, 

13 Doug?

14 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe Doug had that up, I don't 

15 know.

16 MR. FARVER: No, I don't remember.

17 MR. GRIFFON: It seems to me at least part of 

18 our action will be defer it to the site profile 

19 group, but I don't want to lose the whole thing 

20 if -- if there's something --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Of course to the extent -- I 

22 mean changes -- you know, universal changes to 

23 Pinellas go back to all the sites and all the 

24 cases, including this one, so it won't be lost 

25 to the benefit of this claim.
163

1 MR. FARVER: Looks like it was assumed that the 

2 employee was not monitored.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That's usually what's 

4 happened, and I don't know if we used coworker 

5 or some other model.

6 MR. FARVER: And only assigned external dose 

7 for occupational medical and on-site ambient.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And there were a lot of people 

9 at Pinellas that were not monitored. There is 

10 a lot of -- it was a --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it was a, quote, low dose 

13 site, but --

14 MR. FARVER: Correct.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- always in quotes, low dose 

16 site in quotes.

17 MR. FARVER: But then the monitoring data 

18 showed up later --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

20 MR. FARVER: -- and apparently no changes were 

21 made.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it strikes me that 

23 we've even recently heard that perhaps other 

24 data that was stored someplace that might be 

25 Pinellas -- actually, I think it was a -- I 
164

1 think it's somewhere in the southwest. I want 

2 to say it's in Albuquerque or Los Alamos. I 

3 think it might be Albuquerque. So I think -- I 

4 don't know how much farther we can go on the 

5 specific --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on this specific issue in 

8 this discussion. It's certainly an issue for 

9 site profile, and it's good to hear that it's 

10 already on the findings list so we don't have 

11 to make any heroic effort to make sure it gets 

12 there. And I just don't know that I have a 

13 good -- a good story to tell today, you know. 

14 I think our response is a, you know, hey, we --

15 we did the dose reconstruction with what we 

16 had, you know, and our experience with DOE 

17 almost everyplace is DOE sends you what they 

18 have. I'm sure Pin-- although Pinellas isn't 

19 there anymore, I'm not -- do you know who we 

20 get our records from? They went to -- I think 

21 they actually went to Al-- I think the Pinellas 

22 records actually went to Albuquerque. I think 

23 that's -- I think we would go to Albuquer-- the 

24 -- the DOE point of contact for Albuquerque --

25 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I --
165

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for Pinellas.

2 MR. CLAWSON: -- I'm on the working group with 

3 Phil and them and that was part of our problem 

4 was trying to get information and --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there's not a Pinellas 

6 office, like you can go to Oak Ridge and you 

7 can go to Hanford and talk to the DOE people, 

8 but there -- you can't do that at Pinellas. 

9 And if I'm not mistaken, Pinellas records and 

10 our requests go to Albuquerque, if I'm not 

11 mistaken -- but I could be mistaken. So -- and 

12 we may have -- like I said, we may have just 

13 encountered some more that we're not getting, 

14 some data we're not getting in the exposure 

15 histories that -- some more Pinellas data, 

16 seems like it might be personal monitoring data 

17 that we're not getting in the exposure -- as 

18 far as we know, we're not getting in the 

19 exposure histories. Could be we are, but we --

20 it's something -- you know, looks like it's 

21 Pinellas data. So it'll be -- now you -- you 

22 said Kansas City?

23 DR. MAURO: I remember a part of our work on 

24 Pinellas was -- there was some feedback about 

25 our interviews with workers that, you know, 
166

1 there might be, in addition to the record 

2 centers that were searched, you know, other 

3 than -- I remember -- I remember they mentioned 

4 the -- Kansas City was mentioned.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's a Kansas City 

6 records center.

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and there were others. There 

8 were about three other record centers that were 

9 -- this -- that were indicated should be 

10 explored. Whether there was any truth to that 

11 or not --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

13 DR. MAURO: -- that was a comment, one of the 

14 comments.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Was that in the site profile 

16 review?

17 DR. MAURO: That would be in our review, yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, that'll be -- I 

19 mean that'll be an effort then for us to 

20 determine. I know we've been to Kansas City 

21 Records Center, but you don't just go to Kansas 

22 City Records Center and look at all the 

23 records.

24 DR. MAURO: No.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: You go there for a reason, and 
167

1 you usually -- they've got a finding aid or 

2 something, or you tell them these are -- this 

3 is what we're looking for. Now if go for 

4 Pinellas, just 'cause we've been there doesn't 

5 mean anything.

6 MR. SIEBERT: (Unintelligible) we get from DOE 

7 (unintelligible).

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Scott has found out that 

9 I'm -- odd -- odd thing just happened, I wasn't 

10 mistaken. We do go to Albuquerque Operations 

11 to get -- to get our exposure histories for 

12 Pinellas. So I think it -- it'll be fruitful 

13 and it'll be a good discussion in the site 

14 profile review. I don't -- I don't know where 

15 we can go with it here.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I guess the question 

17 lingering for me on this one is -- and because 

18 I'm not looking at the case --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, how did we do that?

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- well, how did you -- you 

21 didn't assign any dose, is that what I'm 

22 understanding, no external dose, no --

23 MR. FARVER: They assigned a medical dose and 

24 ambient dose.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Ambient.
168

1 MR. GRIFFON: Medical and ambient? But no -- I 

2 mean there was no --

3 MR. FARVER: No recorded or missed --

4 MR. GRIFFON: So somehow you determined that 

5 this person -- I mean I agree, it's a low dose 

6 site. We do have a coworker model for some --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, we don't have 

8 a Pinellas coworker --

9 MR. GRIFFON: No --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- model --

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- no.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as far as I know, but again, 

13 always with the caveat: I can be mistaken.

14 MR. GRIFFON: So if you don't find records, 

15 even if an individual was thought to be in the 

16 areas where there could have been exposures, 

17 there's no -- you don't assign dose?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd -- I -- I hate to say I 

19 think that there are -- you judge -- if you 

20 judge a person to be unexposed, then you do not 

21 do a coworker dose or (unintelligible) --

22 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's what I'm asking is 

23 that judgment is --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there -- there is a co--

25 for a dose reconstruction, in order to use a 
169

1 coworker dose, you either have to determine 

2 that the person -- as near as you can tell, to 

3 the best of your ability -- was either steadily 

4 exposed, in which case they get a high 

5 percentile of the coworker, or intermittently 

6 exposed, in which case they get a lower 

7 percentile of the coworker. Or you can judge 

8 that --

9 MR. GRIFFON: But they --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they were not exposed, in 

11 which case they get ambient.

12 MR. GRIFFON: But there's -- so somehow that 

13 judgment was made to give --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That judgment --

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- ambient.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was made somehow.

17 MR. GRIFFON: But is there a criteria in the 

18 prof-- in the site profile? Is there --

19 sometimes you'll lay out, you know --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Sometimes will be --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- certain jobs, certain --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the site profile --

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- buildings, whatever.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sometimes -- I won't say it 

25 necessarily is in every case, I'm not familiar 
170

1 with Pinellas site profile.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess I'm asking about 

3 this one, but we -- I guess we don't have the 

4 details in front of us.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Realistically, we could -- we 

6 could go -- we could look at the Pinellas site 

7 profile on line. It's out there on our web 

8 site.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But that would be kind of a 

11 laborious thing for us to do today.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we're going to do site 

13 profile review anyway.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

15 MR. GRIFFON: I'm just -- I'm just wondering 

16 whether anything like -- like you said --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not aware --

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- pertaining to this case --

19 DR. MAURO: You could -- you could pull up the 

20 -- this could be done quickly, if you'd like --

21 pull up the SC&A Pinellas review and just look 

22 at the findings, the --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it -- I should be able to 

24 do it, but my --

25 (Whereupon, Mr. Hinnefeld and Dr. Mauro spoke 
171

1 simultaneously.)

2 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and I recall that particular 

3 --

4 MR. GRIFFON: I mean what -- what is the --

5 does anyone have the job title for this 

6 individual?

7 MR. SIEBERT: It was maintenance.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Maintenance.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Maintenance.

10 MR. GRIFFON: So that doesn't -- that doesn't 

11 strike me right off the bat as not exposed, you 

12 know.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. Correct. Of course 

14 there are --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- exposed -- there are 

17 unexposed maintenance --

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- it doesn't -- it doesn't 

19 necessarily mean exposed, either.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: At Pinellas, you know, it's --

21 it was essentially an assembly plant.

22 MR. SIEBERT: So maintenance may not 

23 necessarily --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: And maintenance -- there can be 

25 a lot of different kinds of maintenance.
172

1 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. I agree. I'm just 

2 saying it's not administrative or it's not --

3 you know.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not like, you know, a site 

5 manager's secretary --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which give you a pretty good 

8 --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, pretty good clue.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, the -- the site profile 

12 dose say based on the review of the available 

13 dosimetry data, employees with any significant 

14 potential external dose exposure appear to have 

15 been routinely monitored. So the bottom line 

16 in the -- in the site profile does say that --

17 MR. GRIFFON: They're concluding that if --

18 MR. SIEBERT: -- they would have been monitored 

19 --

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- exposed.

21 MR. SIEBERT: -- if they had an exposure 

22 potential.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah, I think at some point 

25 -- at some point we even say that the large 
173

1 number of zero results from Pinellas supports 

2 that.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe that -- that part goes back 

4 to a site profile question, were the right 

5 people monitored, et cetera, et cetera.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, so that's -- that's one 

7 issue. But the broader issue, though, is not 

8 getting everything from DOE.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that was the --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a much -- that's a very 

11 -- that's a big issue to me.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Especially when you're talking 

13 about assumptions.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. Okay, so the main -

16 - so I agree, it's probably not case-specific. 

17 The bulk of this is going to the site profile 

18 review workgroup.

19 Can we move on to 139.2, dare I? This looks 

20 like a more familiar one, so... Doug, this is 

21 just the organ selection -- right? -- for --

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's correct.

23 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) agreed 

24 (unintelligible).

25 MR. FARVER: And --
174

1 MS. MUNN: Non-corresponding values.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. It has to do with the dose 

3 to the lungs and to the esophagus. I guess our 

4 position was that the table contains two 

5 separate values for the lungs and the esophagus 

6 for the male, and what was used was the lungs 

7 for the female and the esophagus value, which 

8 happens to be the same as the dose to the lungs 

9 for a female, which is different than the dose 

10 to the lungs for a male. So that's -- that was 

11 the basis of the finding saying it was -- being 

12 the wrong organ choice -- improper organ 

13 selection.

14 MS. MUNN: Do you recall how significant the 

15 difference was?

16 MR. FARVER: Not much, and actually it -- you 

17 know, it was an overestimate. You're looking 

18 at a difference of 1.26 rem compared to 1.35 

19 rem.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 MS. MUNN: You're right, not much.

22 MR. FARVER: Right. But I mean our point was 

23 the value was there and it's --

24 MS. MUNN: Chose -- chose the wrong one, yeah.

25 MR. FARVER: -- chose the wrong one.
175

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Our response says we chose the 

2 right one. I'm still trying to get my brain 

3 around this response.

4 MS. MUNN: The response does? You have a 

5 response for 139.2?

6 DR. MAURO: It's esophageal cancer --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

8 DR. MAURO: -- and it -- and used the lung 

9 dose.

10 MS. MUNN: Two? I don't see any response other 

11 than -- oh, yeah, there's one.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think the comment was 

13 the person was a male but we used the female 

14 lung dose.

15 MR. FARVER: Right.

16 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe our re-- our 

18 response says that female lung dose is the 

19 correct esophageal dose given for a male. 

20 That's what our response says.

21 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And I would have to look at 

23 OTIB-6 (unintelligible) that says. The only 

24 chest X-ray value (unintelligible) OTIB-6 for 

25 the esophagus were based on doses to the female 
176

1 lung. Okay.

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Wait a minute -- and be-- no, 

4 this -- this doesn't make any sense, and 

5 because the EE was a male, the male lung doses 

6 were used for the esophagus. Sorry, I'm having 

7 trouble following.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know, without --

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- seeing the tables, I'm a 

11 little --

12 MR. FARVER: Well, the tables can list the male 

13 lung dose, a female lung dose, and then an 

14 esophagus dose, which is the same as the female 

15 lung dose.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

17 MR. SIEBERT: (Unintelligible) difference?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And so did the dose 

19 reconstruction use the lung -- the female lung 

20 dose or did it -- 'cause I can't tell -- I read 

21 our response and in one part we say we used the 

22 --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- female lung dose, but then 

25 because it's a male, we used the male lung 
177

1 dose.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Used the male.

4 MR. GRIFFON: I think you used the male lung 

5 dose.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Just used the -- yeah, male lung 

7 dose 'cause it's a lung and esophagus 

8 (unintelligible) use the same dose 

9 (unintelligible).

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So the table here only lists 

11 one value, and that's based on the female. 

12 Even our response says that.

13 MR. FARVER: Yeah, our finding has to do with 

14 the dose associated with the dose for both the 

15 lung cancer and the esophagus cancer were the 

16 same, were recorded, as it were, and assigned 

17 as the same dose when there are separate ones 

18 listed in the table.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: When you say "the table," which 

21 table are you (unintelligible)?

22 MR. FARVER: I believe it's 3.2 -- it's out of 

23 Rev. 2 of OTIB-6 and I don't have Rev. 2; I 

24 have Rev. 3.

25 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, three -- three two is the 
178

1 analogous organs (unintelligible) --

2 MR. FARVER: Oh, I'm sorry, it's six five then.

3 MR. SIEBERT: It's six five.

4 MR. FARVER: And in our finding when we refer 

5 to a Table 4-1 of Rev. 2, and I don't have Rev. 

6 2 of OTIB-6, so I don't know what that table 

7 was.

8 DR. MAURO: I recall comparing those tables 

9 (unintelligible) 4.0.1 and (unintelligible) 

10 revised, but I remember comparing those 

11 numbers, and they all say the same.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

13 DR. MAURO: So my guess is whatever one you --

14 whatever Rev. you have in front of you probably 

15 is the (unintelligible).

16 MR. HINNEFELD: This is the (unintelligible). 

17 Says the list of the (unintelligible) --

18 analog-- analogous organs, is that 

19 (unintelligible) one (unintelligible) for the 

20 esophagus that says female lung?

21 MR. SIEBERT: No, it just says lung.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It says lung?

23 (Whereupon, Mr. Siebert, Mr. Hinnefeld and 

24 others spoke simultaneously.)

25 MR. FARVER: On that table, yes.
179

1 MR. HINNEFELD: On that table they're 

2 identical, but on -- this only gives one lung 

3 dose, so what -- where did we get the male and 

4 female lung?

5 MR. FARVER: Page 22 of Rev. 3.

6 MS. BEHLING: I thought we were actually saying 

7 that selecting the lung in behalf of --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Can't hear you, Kathy.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Kathy, can --

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I'm -- I'm sorry. I 

11 thought we were actually saying that by 

12 selecting the lung, and I -- I don't -- not 

13 sure I see in here any difference that we 

14 initially identified between male and female. 

15 We just said selecting the lung in behalf of 

16 the esophagus resulted in a slight 

17 underestimate of the dose, unless I'm looking 

18 at the wrong thing here. But -- and the 

19 difference between the dose that was entered 

20 was .796 rem as opposed to .84 -- .874 rem, so 

21 it was a little bit of an underestimation of 

22 the dose, at least based on what I'm looking at 

23 here in our original --

24 MS. MUNN: But in any case we're talking about 

25 100 millirem. Right?
180

1 MS. BEHLING: Correct.

2 (Pause)

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we can come -- we'll have 

4 to modify our response here, I think.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah, it's probably not 

6 the magnitude of the dose, it -- but we do want 

7 to -- if it's a TIB-6 issue, you know --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there needs to be some 

9 clarity here on what number --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what number are we supposed 

12 to use for esophagus 'cause there's a table in 

13 here that gives an esophagus dose.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And it gi-- it's -- and that 

16 same table just has one lung number, and 

17 they're the same.

18 MR. GRIFFON: I believe that's -- I believe 

19 that's the issue, yeah.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Which is that female lung number.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And that -- but that number is 

22 the female lung number in a different table. 

23 It gives both the male and the lung (sic) --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and that's the female lung, 
181

1 so are you supposed to use the lung dose, the 

2 sex-appropriate or the gender-appropriate lung 

3 dose --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or are you supposed to use 

6 that specific number for esophagus; that seems 

7 to be the question.

8 MR. GRIFFON: And I believe that's the question 

9 that they're raising, yeah.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So NIOSH will look into 

12 this further. 139.3?

13 MR. FARVER: The finding has to do with 

14 inappropriate procedure or method used for 

15 determining ambient dose, saying that the dose 

16 -- ambient dose that was issued was based on 

17 data from 1983 to 1992, summary data, and is 

18 not necessarily representative of the time that 

19 the person worked, from 1960 through 1981.

20 MS. MUNN: Essentially the dosage assigned was 

21 too high.

22 MR. FARVER: I believe that's their response.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think you said even 

24 though we didn't have the data, we -- our 

25 number was higher than -- now that we have the 
182

1 data.

2 MR. FARVER: Right, and --

3 MS. MUNN: But --

4 MR. FARVER: -- and all we said was since we 

5 don't have the data that represents that time 

6 period, we can't tell if it's maximizing or 

7 not.

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it looks like effective--

9 MR. FARVER: And it looks like after this was 

10 done, that's when the site profile's available, 

11 which has more recent data and that data shows 

12 that it was an overestimate. So I'm okay with 

13 that finding -- or with that response.

14 MR. GRIFFON: And is this the -- I guess the 

15 only question I would have there is this --

16 this 100 millirem per year, which I think we 

17 all agree is a pretty low number, is -- is that 

18 including the later Pinellas data that came in? 

19 I guess -- didn't you say you got some Pinellas 

20 data later on?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. To be honest, I 

22 don't know.

23 MR. GRIFFON: But that would be a site profile 

24 question anyway, so --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I don't know -- I'm not 
183

1 sure how that -- yeah, it -- it would be -- I 

2 mean it would be -- that -- it would be a site 

3 profile question, I think, but I don't know 

4 about these -- these exposure results that 

5 we're finding. I don't know if they're very 

6 high or not, you know.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So --

9 MS. MUNN: Do you know if this was a 

10 compensable case?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't right now.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Esophageal cancer, is that... 

13 probably low POC.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I would not think it 

15 would be very high.

16 MS. MUNN: I wouldn't think so but --

17 MS. BEHLING: The POC is 44 percent.

18 MR. SIEBERT: 44 percent.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, 44, really?

20 MR. SIEBERT: But it has these -- all these 

21 overestimates --

22 MS. MUNN: Overestimates, yeah, if we knew --

23 overestimate by a factor of four on this 

24 particular -- the one dose (unintelligible) 

25 it's --
184

1 MR. GRIFFON: Was it a -- what kind of cancer?

2 MS. MUNN: Esophageal.

3 MR. GRIFFON: I mean -- was it multiple or 

4 (unintelligible)?

5 MR. SIEBERT: It's a lung and esophageal.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Lung and esopha-- that's why, 

7 okay. That makes more sense then.

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess my question there 

10 would be -- back to site profile issue -- is 

11 the ambient -- the ambient model representative 

12 of all the, you know, monitoring data that you 

13 have. It's not a -- it's not an issue for this 

14 case, though, based on what we see here. It is 

15 an overestimate, so...

16 MS. MUNN: So we're done with this one for 

17 right -- for our purposes. Right?

18 MR. GRIFFON: For the case, yeah --

19 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- I would say. The site 

21 profile's being reviewed anyway, so...

22 Okay, 139.4?

23 MR. FARVER: Okay, questions whether 

24 inappropriate assumptions were used for 

25 assigning internal doses. Part of this goes 
185

1 back to are we sure we have all the data, first 

2 part, and then -- it looks like there's about 

3 three parts to the finding. One part has to do 

4 with, you know, the records -- do we have all 

5 the records. The question why there's no 

6 unmonitored exposures plutonium, which was also 

7 present at the site during these employment 

8 period, and I believe NIOSH has a response to 

9 all this.

10 MS. MUNN: They said no, there was no internal 

11 plutonium dose.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you say there were no 

13 plutonium intakes, so there was plutonium 

14 present at the site.

15 MS. MUNN: But no intakes.

16 MR. GRIFFON: But no intakes. They were 

17 completely --

18 DR. MAURO: If I recall --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- sounds like Nevada Test --

20 DR. MAURO: -- there -- there was -- the site.

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- Site, yeah.

22 DR. MAURO: I'm thinking back to the site 

23 profile again and the plutonium issue. We 

24 raised that, but -- and during our discussions 

25 it became apparent that we were talking about 
186

1 extremely small quantities of plutonium, barely 

2 detectable, on the surface of pits, and it 

3 wasn't as if we were dealing with plutonium the 

4 way we're dealing with it at Rocky, so I 

5 remember there being some discussion on that 

6 during the site profile meeting 'cause we did 

7 raise that as a question. And the outco--

8 MR. GRIFFON: For Pinellas?

9 DR. MAURO: For Pinellas.

10 MS. MUNN: Pinellas.

11 DR. MAURO: And the outcome of that was you --

12 you're right, the -- the potential for any 

13 exposures of plutonium are --

14 MS. MUNN: Zilch.

15 DR. MAURO: -- nil. Nevertheless, it became an 

16 issue because plutonium wasn't mentioned --

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

18 DR. MAURO: -- as -- there were some traces 

19 there, I don't know if you -- part of that --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Well, not (unintelligible).

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. But nevertheless, I -- I'm 

22 doing this from my memory from the list when we 

23 had that meeting, so I -- I don't know what 

24 type of -- the response here regarding this to 

25 the effect...
187

1 MS. MUNN: Reliably de minimis, I would think.

2 MR. FARVER: Indicates that no plutonium 

3 intakes on the site, therefore no internal 

4 plutonium doses need to be assigned for 

5 Pinellas.

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

7 DR. MAURO: I -- that's very compatible with my 

8 memory of the comment we had on the site 

9 profile. Other words, that -- we're dealing 

10 with something that just could not have been an 

11 important contributor. But you know, I'd hate 

12 to do that from memory. It's something we 

13 should look at in, you know, our site profile 

14 review discussions.

15 My only recollection was the big item 

16 that came up of course was tritium exposure and 

17 tritides, and these other radionuclides were 

18 almost, you know, second order issues that 

19 could have been a problem there but were not of 

20 any significance.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's certainly my 

22 recollection, but I'm not -- I haven't been 

23 involved in those discussions --

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I mean I --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) 
188

1 discussions. My recollection of Pinellas is 

2 that it's a tritium site --

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and I think it had maybe 

5 generators, I'm not sure about that. But -- so 

6 I don't --

7 DR. MAURO: 239 we're talking about now. The 

8 238, there was -- I'm -- I'm reaching now --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Let's call it a site profile 

11 issue, I think --

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, let's see how --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- from this standpoint, and if 

14 it's determined that it's de minimis at the 

15 site profile, then it's resolved, yeah.

16 MS. MUNN: And site profile and no -- no --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MS. MUNN: -- context for this case.

19 MR. GRIFFON: 139.5 I'm moving on to.

20 MR. FARVER: Once again, this comes down to did 

21 they get all the data, is the data adequate to 

22 make a determination of POC.

23 MR. GRIFFON: This seems like a summary type of 

24 finding. Right?

25 MR. FARVER: It is, it -- it's -- it falls 
189

1 under the summary section.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think other than the 

3 question of missing monitoring records that 

4 we've already captured elsewhere, I think this 

5 is largely the same.

6 MR. FARVER: It is.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: There were some -- early on, 

8 before the Pinellas site profile, there were 

9 some cases done with, you know, these whopping 

10 big, you know, ambient doses, and -- and some 

11 big overestimates just to get some cases out. 

12 And -- and did the -- did we have data to 

13 support it? Well, no, not prior to the site 

14 profile. The site profile would provide lower 

15 doses. So it's kind of the same thing we've 

16 been talking -- talking about, I think.

17 MR. GRIFFON: So why -- I'm reading your 

18 response -- I mean you said that NIOSH 

19 instructed ORAU to rework nearly all the 

20 Pinellas cases, but not this one.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know why this one 

22 -- I didn't know why this one didn't. What we 

23 decided was -- you know, we were getting these 

24 doses and -- however, these dose 

25 reconstructions I guess would have to -- some 
190

1 of them went, we -- you know, we get comments 

2 from our reviewer, said you know, hey -- hey, 

3 how are we -- can even support this, you know, 

4 we've got these -- these really big doses in 

5 here; what's -- what's the basis for this and 

6 don't they seem awful high, you know, given 

7 what we know. And so we didn't approve -- I 

8 mean ORAU worked them. We held them, so they 

9 didn't go out -- get to DOL or anything, we 

10 didn't approve them. And then we -- you know, 

11 took us a while to -- we have to cogitate. So 

12 once we decided okay, if we're going to get a 

13 site profile, let's just wait until the site 

14 profile is done and then we -- we sent them 

15 back at that point with comments, you know, do 

16 these in accordance with the site profile when 

17 it comes out. And so that's when we sent them 

18 back. Now some of them -- we may not have 

19 caught all of them at that point, or we may 

20 have -- may have already approved -- you know, 

21 have some reviewers approve them before people 

22 started objecting to what they were seeing, and 

23 so that may be why this one didn't get sent 

24 back and they're -- went all through the 

25 process with this big overestimate. You know, 
191

1 I suspect one of those two situations. Either 

2 we didn't catch it when we intended to or some3 - we had already had a reviewer say okay and 

4 sent it on.

5 MS. MUNN: Why would we want to do more if we 

6 know the dose is going to (unintelligible)?

7 MR. GRIFFON: What?

8 MS. MUNN: Why would we want to do more?

9 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I'll -- I'll give you a --

10 I'll give you a --

11 MS. MUNN: Just to respond to --

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'll give you a easy reason 

13 why. 'Cause the person's at 44 percent, gets 

14 another cancer --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- and they're thinking they're 

17 going to get compensated, then you come back 

18 and say they're at --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Twenty percent, yeah.

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- 15 percent, you know. I mean 

21 that's -- it's just a quality question more 

22 than --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: And there was -- I mean --

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- than a science question.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: We all know that there were 
192

1 times when we put out some big overestimates 

2 just -- just to get things done and --

3 MR. GRIFFON: I know, I know.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- exactly what you're telling 

5 them comes back to haunt us.

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

7 MR. GRIFFON: But I mean it seems odd that the 

8 --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It seemed like a good idea at 

10 the time.

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- it kind of slipped through the 

12 cracks somehow, but you don't really know how, 

13 yeah.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark, can I just make 

16 one other comment -- and I know -- I don't mean 

17 to beat this to death, but if we go back to 

18 finding 139.4, the previous finding, as Doug 

19 indicated there were three aspects to that and 

20 I know it may not have -- we're going to push 

21 this off to the site profile, but the second 

22 aspect of this is, again, this issue of NIOSH 

23 calculated apparently some environmental 

24 internal dose based on what they identified as 

25 hypothetical intakes, and there was no file to 
193

1 support that data. And just to point out this, 

2 in my mind, would be primary data -- primary 

3 data meaning either a workbook or an IMBA file 

4 or something that would support that dose, and 

5 that -- that wasn't included there. I just 

6 wanted to make that point about --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MS. BEHLING: -- 'cause we talked at length 

9 about a lot of the data that sometimes is not 

10 included in the case files.

11 MR. GRIFFON: And Stu, you already have that as 

12 sort of an overarching action --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- right? You're going to talk 

15 to ORAU about --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

17 MS. MUNN: So is the item closed or open? It's 

18 unclear to me.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that was -- that was going 

20 back to 139.4, so --

21 MS. MUNN: Right.

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Which we decided was a site 

24 profile issue.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Decided it was a site profile 
194

1 issue and this is a separate thing which, I 

2 agree, Kathy, that -- and Stu's making a note 

3 that the -- I mean some sort of file should 

4 probably have been in the case file. Right?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Seems like it.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So there's no disagreement 

7 from NIOSH on that. That -- that aspect I 

8 think is closed in that NIOSH is going to go 

9 back and, you know, try to work this out with 

10 ORAU on what level -- what files get included 

11 and don't get included. Then 139.5 -- I mean I 

12 don't know -- I don't know whether there's any13 - anything there or not to close.

14 MS. MUNN: I don't know what else one can --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I don't know what else we 

16 can do on that.

17 MS. MUNN: It's been addressed and what was 

18 done at that time is not what will be done in 

19 the future.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I mean it's unclear why 

21 that case made it through, but it did. That's 

22 the fact and -- it also seems pretty clear it 

23 was an overestimate, from everything we can 

24 see.

25 MR. FARVER: I guess the only way the case 
195

1 would change is if you go back and look at the 

2 Pinellas data and you figure out what the 

3 asterisks mean, and if the employee has some 

4 data that was not considered and you wind up 

5 calculating a photon dose, either recorded or 

6 missed, then -- I guess that was the point, 

7 can't tell if it's adequate because we have 

8 this data lurking out there that we're not 

9 really sure what it means, were not 

10 interpreted.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Which we caught earlier in one of 

13 our earlier findings, so --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so these things do overlap 

15 with the site profile, but other things -- you 

16 know, this idea of a maintenance worker, you 

17 know, I'm not necessarily persuaded that that 

18 would have been an unexposed person, you know.

19 MS. MUNN: So if we --

20 MR. GRIFFON: It could have been, but you 

21 know...

22 MS. MUNN: So if we rework this case, does that 

23 resolve the outstanding concerns that SC&A had?

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- the -- the case, 

25 though -- one of the issues that's relevant 
196

1 here is the exposure data, is there other 

2 exposure data out there, and how do you 

3 interpret --

4 MR. FARVER: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the pieces that we got.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So until we can do some-- get 

8 some sort of resolution on those, I don't know 

9 that there's much point in going back and doing 

10 anything.

11 MR. FARVER: No, no, that would probably clear 

12 out a lot of these findings.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

14 MS. MUNN: So it still boils down to a site 

15 profile issue. Right?

16 MR. GRIFFON: I think so, yeah. Yeah. Okay, I 

17 think we're ready to move on, 140 is pretty 

18 easy to address I think.

19 MR. FARVER: We agree on that one.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

21 MS. MUNN: So we're closing that item on 139?

22 MR. GRIFFON: It's a site profile, I think.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) findings.

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it was a site profile.

25 MR. GRIFFON: 141.1? Is this the X-10 site, is 
197

1 that --

2 MR. FARVER: Portsmouth.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it's Portsmouth.

4 MR. FARVER: Do not properly account for 

5 unmonitored neutron dose. I guess this is an 

6 issue of Portsmouth where they didn't routinely 

7 monitor for neutrons till about 1997. We go 

8 back to the response and claim has been re9 evaluated to determine impact, and unmonitored 

10 neutron doses were calculated using both 

11 measured and missed photon doses. And I assume 

12 they're doing a neutron -- photon to neutron 

13 ratio? Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: Is -- is that done with a coworker 

15 model developed independent of this or is it 

16 part of -- part of this profile? I mean --

17 we've been through that?

18 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it had to be a -- it's an 

19 N/P ratio --

20 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- approach. Right? So...

22 DR. MAURO: Is that -- is that part of the site 

23 profile or is that something else?

24 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know if you've --

25 DR. MAURO: I know that there was some separate 
198

1 OTIB (unintelligible) might have been 

2 (unintelligible) through this.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: There are several OTIBs and I 

4 don't remember which one this falls into.

5 DR. MAURO: And whether we reviewed that or 

6 not, could ultimately --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it was a glovebox OTIB. 

8 Right? Is that what you're telling me?

9 DR. MAURO: There is a -- yeah, but I'm not 

10 sure if it's specific for --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Coworker issue, there's -- I 

12 mean the neutron's a pretty -- neutron and 

13 neutron to photon ratio's kind of a broad issue 

14 --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- kind of pops up everywhere.

18 DR. MAURO: Sure.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So this may get wrapped up in 

20 that, to a certain extent. There are a lot of 

21 things that may --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, ancillarily or --

24 you know, may affect this.

25 DR. MAURO: The way I see this is that 
199

1 apparently you agree as to neutron exposures is 

2 something that -- it's a valid comment, need to 

3 look at neutrons; you did look at neutrons 

4 using a certain protocol.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

6 DR. MAURO: However, I -- I presume that we 

7 haven't looked at that --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Looked at that protocol --

9 DR. MAURO: -- protocol.

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, right.

11 MR. FARVER: Right, because they don't really 

12 go into detail on exactly how they did it, they 

13 just --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. FARVER: -- did it.

16 MS. MUNN: So you're going to look at it.

17 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) action item?

18 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it will be a site profile 

19 action, but I don't even know if you've looked 

20 at -- if we've tasked that site profile.

21 DR. MAURO: We've -- I have to say that I 

22 recall --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Portsmouth?

24 DR. MAURO: -- Portsmouth and its OTIBs. Now 

25 whether one of those OTIBs was the neutron to 
200

1 phot-- neutron to photon, I don't know. We 

2 could find out, but right now -- we may already 

3 have something on the record.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, you did a Portsmouth, 

5 didn't you?

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we did -- oh, we did 

7 Portsmouth, yeah, but I just don't remember if 

8 part of that was the neutron to photon ratio --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

10 DR. MAURO: -- and whether or not -- 'cause 

11 that's always a big deal, you know.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

13 MS. MUNN: And -- that...

14 DR. MAURO: What might be helpful is if there 

15 was some clarification on particular protocol 

16 that was followed to get to the neutron dose 

17 here.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: Let us know what that is. If it 

20 turns out it's oh, yes, we used the protocol 

21 outlined this -- at this -- then -- then the --

22 then the ball's in our court --

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 DR. MAURO: -- to check that.

25 MR. FARVER: And if they did it like the other 
201

1 cases and probably took the -- their photon 

2 doses they calculated and multiplied them by a 

3 number.

4 DR. MAURO: Yeah, right, and -- some 

5 (unintelligible) --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but they key is what number 

7 --

8 DR. MAURO: What -- what number.

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- and was it -- was it 

10 consistent across the whole --

11 MR. FARVER: Oh, that's correct, what ratio to 

12 use.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

14 DR. MAURO: But that's the whole -- that's the 

15 whole show.

16 MR. FARVER: And where's that document?

17 MR. GRIFFON: And how reliable is that ratio, 

18 yeah.

19 MR. FARVER: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: And it's important 'cause these 

21 neutron doses often contribute significantly.

22 MR. FARVER: In this case it probably didn't 

23 matter, POC was about 37 percent.

24 DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So we're going to --
202

1 we're going to --

2 DR. MAURO: Two-step process.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, NI-- NIOSH will give us 

4 further information on --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll write additional --

6 additional detail on (unintelligible).

7 MR. GRIFFON: And then it may still end up with 

8 site profile, but maybe we can try to avoid --

9 you know, avoid that.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, moving on, 141.2?

11 MR. FARVER: Questionable assumptions in the 

12 selection of intake regimes. It looks like for 

13 their acute intakes they selected a date before 

14 the bioassay as the intake date, whereas 

15 protocol has been established you use a 

16 midpoint. And the response was claim has been 

17 re-evaluated to consider the impact of the 

18 assumptions.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay, so your -- you could -- you 

20 want to talk chronic intake regime, okay.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) usually 

22 (unintelligible) employment -- employment 

23 period and this apparently is based on the 

24 highest bioassay result, so if that -- the 

25 intake regime overestimates all the other 
203

1 bioassay --

2 MR. FARVER: We're okay with their response.

3 MR. GRIFFON: And what was the -- my question, 

4 and this probably is a site profile question, 

5 but it says the recycled uranium contaminates 

6 were calculated using ratios for X-700. I 

7 assume that is indeed the highest, or most 

8 conservative, values. Is that correct, or --

9 and why would 700 be the --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I would -- I would guess that. 

11 We said it's a claimant-favorable assumption so 

12 I would guess that's what it means, but I don't 

13 -- I'm not familiar enough with the site 

14 profile to tell you.

15 MR. GRIFFON: But the 700 building, to me, I 

16 wouldn't know if that's spec-- oh, I 

17 (unintelligible), that's more of a site profile 

18 question, I think, but I don't know if you have 

19 any more details at this point on that or...

20 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I'd be hard pressed to come 

21 up with any more details about --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Does that come up in the site 

23 profile review at all, the questions on 

24 recycled --

25 DR. MAURO: Yes, we al-- we alwa-- whenever --
204

1 MR. GRIFFON: So it's already being considered 

2 in the --

3 DR. MAURO: Of the -- let me -- a recurring 

4 theme.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

6 DR. MAURO: Whenever -- whenever recycled is an 

7 issue, we -- we usually research the degree to 

8 which the assumptions regarding parts per 

9 billion, you know, how much it was used and --

10 it's always a question raised, seeing how many 

11 times --

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: Can't say for sure it's here, but I 

14 wouldn't be surprised.

15 MR. GRIFFON: But other than -- other than the 

16 question of the ratios, I think we're 

17 comfortable with this approach as outlined.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah, chronic -- going with 

19 chronic?

20 MR. GRIFFON: I agree with that -- yeah, I 

21 agree with that.

22 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

23 MR. FARVER: For some reason -- I think the 

24 recycled issue's in your site profile review?

25 DR. MAURO: Yeah.
205

1 MR. FARVER: I think that was one of the issues 

2 that was brought up in that, but I can't find 

3 it right now. Okay.

4 DR. MAURO: Am I correct that all matters 

5 related to recycled is a global issue that's 

6 being addressed that will have bearing on any 

7 site that had recycled material and whether or 

8 not the assumptions --

9 MR. GRIFFON: I wouldn't think so, but --

10 DR. MAURO: -- now -- in the --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. It's possible 

12 that we have a -- feel like we've done the 

13 research of the site, like we got some site14 specific data during --

15 DR. MAURO: We go with that.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the site profile that --

17 DR. MAURO: We're going to go with that.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we're going to go with that.

19 MR. SIEBERT: That's how the OTIB is written.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So if there's site-specific 

22 information, the OTIB says use that.

23 MR. GRIFFON: I think for Paducah and 

24 Portsmouth you have site-specific -- right? --

25 that -- yeah.
206

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Should have some, certainly --

2 MR. GRIFFON: And then you're going to --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- certainly should --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- come up with a generic 

5 approach for the other uranium sites, I think, 

6 is...

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I would think so.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think so. You -- you 

10 would think that a lot of these sites would 

11 have had site-specific information that could 

12 be utilized that would be certainly a lot 

13 easier to utilize than -- might -- in that 

14 site-specific information than to try to put it 

15 in general OTIB.

16 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I would certainly think that 

18 would be easier.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I -- I put that the --

20 that SC&A agrees with response, consideration 

21 of recycled U would be a site profile issue.

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that's fair enough. And may 

23 -- it may be, may not. I mean, you know, it --

24 we -- we'll check to see if, you know, it is an 

25 issue --
207

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: -- or something that's been 

3 resolved. (Unintelligible) our comments you 

4 say no, this looks like the -- a bounding 

5 assumptions regarding recycled material. I --

6 I don't know, but it's certainly something we 

7 should look at.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Yeah, I'll put may be a 

9 site profile issue, okay.

10 142 has no findings. 143.1?

11 (Pause)

12 MR. FARVER: 143.1 re--

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

14 MR. FARVER: -- reviewer questions whether 

15 NIOSH received all the available dosimetry 

16 data. And just -- my computer's locked up and 

17 I can't call up the report. Speculating from 

18 my notes here, I believe that the claimant had 

19 records in his --

20 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, Doug --

21 MR. FARVER: Is that --

22 MS. BEHLING: -- in the CATI report the 

23 survivor that filled out that CATI report 

24 indicated that the employee wore radiation 

25 dosimetry badges throughout -- I think --
208

1 throughout some period of his employment and 

2 that she had records. And I'm not sure if 

3 NIOSH ever looked into that issue or ever 

4 determined if she actually had dosimetry 

5 records.

6 MR. FARVER: Right, that was the question, did 

7 you look at the records and compare her records 

8 with the DOE records to see if they were 

9 compatible.

10 MS. MUNN: The same thing.

11 MR. FARVER: Yeah.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our response, I 

13 guess that hasn't been. I don't know if 

14 anything's been done on it since we wrote our 

15 response or not. LANL has been --

16 MS. MUNN: Since --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there is some -- there -- I 

18 mean there've been some sort of inconsistencies 

19 at LANL in terms of (unintelligible). I mean 

20 people would have records that indicate 

21 something different than what we got from DOE -

22 -

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and I think that's come up 

25 before.
209

1 MR. GRIFFON: That has.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And I don't know that there's 

3 been an ultimate resolution of that or not. I 

4 know there's been a lot more work on LANL since 

5 this time, so --

6 MR. FARVER: Well, when a claimant says on 

7 their -- in their interview that they have 

8 records and they're willing to provide it, do 

9 you request a copy --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think --

11 MR. FARVER: -- or ask for a copy?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I don't know. I 

13 would think that in many cases we would. I 

14 don't know that in every case -- it may have to 

15 do with the completeness of the dosimetry 

16 records we had. Like if we had a dosimetry 

17 record and it looks like this is a complete 

18 record, then we might conclude that they're 

19 going to give -- send us additional copies of 

20 what we have. I'd be -- don't know that that 

21 decision was made on LANL, though, because we 

22 generally don't -- you know, I don't know that 

23 we ever were that crazy about the LANL 

24 response.

25 MR. FARVER: To be -- I -- I would think that 
210

1 if someone's willing --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Seems like the --

3 MR. FARVER: -- to provide you information --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

5 MR. FARVER: -- you would take it and compare 

6 it to what you --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as a general rule, we do. 

8 I mean if someone's got a box of records and 

9 they wa-- you know, they, as a general rule, 

10 are not willing to ship us their -- their 

11 single box, and copying a box of records would 

12 be -- would be kind of a burden on the claimant

13 to do that. And so I would guess for us to go 

14 do that, we would want to do it in conjunction 

15 with another data capture in the area. If we 

16 were going to fly across the country in order 

17 to scan this person's documents, if they let us 

18 do that, we'd want to do it when we were going 

19 to go there anyway.

20 MR. FARVER: I mean I guess our concern is 

21 there -- is that if someone indicates they have 

22 records, is there a mechanism to evaluate 

23 whether you want them or not.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not 100 percent sure. 

25 Scott?
211

1 MR. SIEBERT: Well, in this case, looking at 

2 the DOE sub-- DOL submittal, and it's 400 and 

3 some pages, which indicates to me, and I looked 

4 through it real quick, the claimant gave to the 

5 DOL a whole lot of records that came to us in 

6 the DOL submittal to us.

7 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

8 MR. SIEBERT: And that may be what they're 

9 referring to.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

11 MR. SIEBERT: And if that's the case, then 

12 they'll be with it.

13 MR. FARVER: Well, no, and if that's the case, 

14 but I didn't see in the correspondence anywhere 

15 where you requested them from nor asked the 

16 employee or there's any indication that the 

17 employee's records were considered.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it see-- it seems to me 

19 that the decision about whether we -- I mean if 

20 we in fact concluded that what -- I mean did we 

21 even ask them, when they said we have all these 

22 records, if they said we have all these records 

23 and we -- we submitted them with our claim --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if that's what they said --
212

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- that would be different, yeah.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- then we would say then we 

3 got them.

4 MR. FARVER: I agree.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: But if they said I've got all 

7 these records if you want them, we don't do any 

8 more about that, then that's a little -- that's 

9 worrisome.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That is worrisome.

12 MS. MUNN: But in the -- in the NIOSH response 

13 here it says the records mentioned by the 

14 claimant were obtained when the claim was 

15 submitted.

16 MR. SIEBERT: That's -- yeah, what -- what --

17 what the CATI says is the individual has copies 

18 of his medical and lab reports which she 

19 obtained from Los Alamos human resources when 

20 she filed the claim. They have a box full of 

21 paper. And when I look at the DOL information 

22 that we got from DOL, like I said, it's 400 and 

23 something pages, what I've just looked through 

24 real quick, are medical reports and lab 

25 reports, which would indicate to me that that's 
213

1 --

2 MS. MUNN: That's what they sent her.

3 MR. SIEBERT: -- the same thing they're 

4 referring to.

5 MR. FARVER: But there is no letter or memo to 

6 file saying this is what they are, these are 

7 the employee's records.

8 MS. MUNN: Are you saying this is just an 

9 assumption, there's no evidence that it was in 

10 fact verified --

11 MR. FARVER: Correct.

12 MS. MUNN: -- with the claimant that it was the 

13 same material.

14 MR. FARVER: And I guess part of my question 

15 was just how do you know that you get those 

16 records from the employee if they're willing to 

17 provide it? Do you want copies and --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Does -- now does -- Scott, one 

19 more time, does the claimant describe them as 

20 medical and -- what do they describe them as?

21 MR. SIEBERT: In the CATI it's medical and lab 

22 reports.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then in the CATI it's 

24 described as medical and lab reports.

25 MR. FARVER: Uh-huh.
214

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We see 400 pages of --

2 MR. SIEBERT: Medical and --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in -- in a DOL file, not all 

4 of which would be medical and lab reports, but 

5 there are a number of medical and lab reports 

6 in there, and we would say that's what they're 

7 talking about. So that's -- I just think 

8 that's probably what the dose reconstructionist 

9 concluded, too. That's what the claimant's 

10 talking about and we have that.

11 MR. GRIFFON: I think the CATI also said, if I 

12 heard Kathy right, that they were monitored as 

13 well.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Did they say they were 

15 monitored?

16 MR. GRIFFON: That they said they were 

17 monitored.

18 MS. MUNN: As many pages of medical --

19 MR. GRIFFON: And did -- did you have --

20 MS. MUNN: -- and monitoring records are 

21 evident.

22 MR. GRIFFON: And did you have dosimetry 

23 records? I'm not, again, looking at the case.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

25 MS. MUNN: Medical and monitoring records --
215

1 medical monitoring records are almost --

2 MR. GRIFFON: No, monitored -- TLD. Kathy, did 

3 I hear you right that she -- somewhere else in 

4 the CATI, not the same response, she indicated 

5 she wore TLDs or film badges, something --

6 MR. FARVER: Routinely wore radiation dosimeter 

7 badges and the claimant has copies of the 

8 employee's dosimeter records.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so.

10 MR. FARVER: Since NIOSH did not acknowledge 

11 this issue in the DR report, SC&A is 

12 questioning whether the additional dosimetry 

13 records were requested from the claimant and 

14 requested from DOE.

15 MS. MUNN: If they are in fact additional 

16 records or if --

17 MR. FARVER: If they are, and then how do you 

18 distinguish --

19 MS. MUNN: That's the only real question, is 

20 were they additional --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Or just a call to verify that 

22 they're the same --

23 MS. MUNN: -- or duplicates.

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, let me figure out a 
216

1 little more on this one, and just on LANL --

2 Los Alamos in general --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- rather than try to sort 

5 through and -- and do some more here. I think 

6 it is important that we have the record, and if 

7 there is -- and it has -- and it will occur on 

8 occasion that a claimant will have a record 

9 that they got from the site, like when they 

10 left or something, a termination exposure 

11 report, and it may be different than what the 

12 DOE gives us and they have detail we would 

13 want. Different in that it would have 

14 additional information or -- or otherwise it 

15 might be a summary when we're getting, you 

16 know, read-by-reads or something that -- so I 

17 think that's -- that's fairly important that we 

18 do that. I'll have to see what the practice 

19 is.

20 MR. FARVER: And I'd say sometimes employees 

21 would be given kind of like an incident write22 up, if they were involved in an incident, which 

23 may not come out in your request for records.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: It depends on the filing -- the 

25 filing practices of the --
217

1 MR. FARVER: Correct.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- DOE site as to whether that 

3 would be in their personal exposure record, 

4 yeah.

5 MR. FARVER: So it might be good to 

6 distinguish, you know, employee records from 

7 DOE records.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think we can move on to 

10 143.2.

11 (Pause)

12 MR. FARVER: 143.2.

13 (Pause)

14 MR. GRIFFON: Well, this goes back to that 

15 simple phrase, all LANL personnel who have the 

16 potential to be exposed, and that's -- you 

17 know, basically depends on which side of that 

18 you come down on, you can either say yeah, 

19 we're sure LANL did it right, or we question 

20 whether LANL did it right, you know.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. And in fact, get this 

22 claim up 'cause I'm having a lot of trouble 

23 manipulating my report. I wonder what the 

24 cancer is 'cause Los Alamos is an SEC.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.
218

1 MR. HINNEFELD: The first -- starting in '49.

2 MR. GRIFFON: That's right, yeah.

3 MR. FARVER: Brain, yeah.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Brain?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Is brain listed? It's listed, 

6 isn't it? Yeah, I know it's listed.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I know it's listed because I --

9 I took some umbrage at that, that brain cancer 

10 should be in -- supposedly when you learn 

11 radiation biology that tissue isn't radiation 

12 sensitive.

13 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's about all the 

16 radiation biology I (unintelligible). They may 

17 have reached different conclusions by now.

18 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) sites.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: But yeah, I'm almost -- almost 

20 positive brain is --

21 MR. GRIFFON: So this could be an SE-- an --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It's probably an SEC claim, so 

23 the question here relates to the decision of --

24 that not being issued a dosimeter is equal to 

25 unexposed.
219

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the question.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

5 DR. MAURO: Your -- in your response you 

6 mention that when he was issued a dosimeter.

7 MR. GRIFFON: John, you've got to speak up 

8 there.

9 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I had -- I notice in the 

10 ra-- the response --

11 THE COURT REPORTER: Everybody down there needs 

12 to speak up.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

14 DR. MAURO: I was --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Liven up. We need to do some 

16 calisthenics or something, yeah.

17 DR. MAURO: All I was pointing out -- all I was 

18 pointing out, Ray, was that I noticed in the 

19 response, though, you also added that when they 

20 did have records they were predominantly 

21 zeroes. What I recall you saying earlier, when 

22 you see that, that's one of the triggers that -

23 - when you would say that well, we're not going 

24 to assign a dose to this person, just mis--

25 just ambient dose.
220

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it's -- I think 

2 we consider it a reassuring -- if you're -- if 

3 you're deciding that people not getting a 

4 dosimeter equals no dose, it's reassuring to 

5 see a lot of zeroes --

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause badges will -- you 

8 know, that means the site is badging people 

9 with some potential who don't end up getting 

10 it, or at least not enough to be recorded on 

11 the badge --

12 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so it's somewhat reassuring 

14 and so we'll say that, but I don't know that we 

15 ever use that as a criterion --

16 DR. MAURO: Okay.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for deciding that they 

18 didn't. I think we try to get some other 

19 evidence from the site records to decide that.

20 MR. FARVER: So he -- he was a machinist who 

21 began employment in 1945. I don't know, is 

22 that an unmonitored person or should they

23 (unintelligible) an unmonitored dose?

24 MR. HINNEFELD: You say he started in '45?

25 MR. FARVER: Yeah.
221

1 MR. SIEBERT: He didn't get his Q clearance 

2 until '90 -- '49, but there doesn't seem to be 

3 (unintelligible).

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So would we conclude from that, 

5 Scott, that since he didn't have a clearance he 

6 would not be exposed?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Prior to that point, definitely.

8 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So without clearance, we 

10 would not expect him to be exposed. And that 

11 would be based on --

12 MR. GRIFFON: But then -- yeah, people are 

13 fading and Ray's having trouble --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: You've got to really speak up, 

15 don't just speak to me.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that would be based 

18 on LANL-specific information. You know, a 

19 decision that a badge -- or no badge equals 

20 unexposed or a decision that no security 

21 clearance equals unexposed, that's based on 

22 LANL-specific information, so we can -- and I 

23 believe there is a LANL site profile --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there is --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- out there and the discussion 
222

1 -- I think there's maybe a workgroup and stuff?

2 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: So --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm chairing it, so --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, well, we've got a good way 

6 to make sure this gets to site profile, then.

7 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So it seems to me that this --

9 we could put -- say to these -- or to this one, 

10 it would -- if anything, it's a site profile 

11 issue if -- if our argument is not convincing, 

12 and I certainly can't make it convincing in 

13 this room, that these are good decisions, then 

14 it's a site profile because that has to be 

15 based on site research. 

16 MS. MUNN: We're not sweeping it under the 

17 table, we're giving it to Mark's group.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You guys enjoy giving these 

19 back and forth, don't you?

20 MR. GRIFFON: I know.

21 MR. FARVER: I mean if that's the basis for 

22 your decision, you know, no security clearance, 

23 and as long as that is documented somewhere --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if it's in the site 

25 profile and there's a basis for it, you know, 
223

1 that should be okay if there's a -- if suit--

2 suitable basis for, you know, unbadged people's 

3 unexposed if -- you know, these things are all 

4 questions that are going to relate to the site 

5 and the site decision.

6 MS. BEHLING: I think -- excuse me. I think 

7 that the basis for our finding was the fact 

8 that the LANL site profile indicated that in 

9 '43 they generally only issued PICs to a whole 

10 group of people, and that in '45 only film 

11 badges were issued to the highest individuals. 

12 So that was part of the justification for this 

13 finding, along with the information that was 

14 provided in the CATI report.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: But now -- but you say a film 

16 badge to the highest exposed people. Is there 

17 any indication, though, that anyone who didn't 

18 have a security clearance would have been 

19 working around any of the radiological 

20 material? Because you can say well, they only 

21 issued film badges to the most highly exposed 

22 people, and what you mean is the most highly 

23 exposed people with a security clearance.

24 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that I don't know.

25 MR. FARVER: I think that's probably something 
224

1 that should get clarified in the --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that -- that could --

3 MR. FARVER: -- site profile.

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- be, yeah. Yeah.

5 MS. MUNN: Were the PICs not recorded?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, the PICs were 

7 recorded but I don't know. I'm not familiar 

8 with the Los Alamos records and I couldn't tell 

9 you if we didn't -- you know, 'cause that's 

10 usually a handwritten logsheet --

11 MS. MUNN: Well, it's --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- although oftentimes they're 

13 --

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- translated into a, you know, 

16 electronic record once -- once electronic 

17 records --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Recorded and assigned to a group? 

19 Is that the way they did?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, is that what it means, 

21 Kathy, was it a PIC per group?

22 MS. BEHLING: They indicate here we moni-- I'll 

23 read the -- in fact, we cite this from the LANL 

24 -- when monitoring for external radiation 

25 exposures started in -- in 1943, PICs were 
225

1 assigned to, quote, a few persons thought to 

2 have the highest potential for receiving 

3 exposure at or above the tolerance limits. And 

4 then it just goes on to say by 1945, when film 

5 badges were in use by a number of the LANL 

6 groups, only workers with the higher exposure 

7 potentials were issued dosimetry badges.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

10 MS. BEHLING: And that -- let -- let me just 

11 finish one more sentence here 'cause it says at 

12 the time of the earliest criticality 

13 experiments and accidents at LANL, workers who 

14 received the highest exposures had not yet been 

15 issued film badges.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, until then they hadn't 

17 been highly exposed.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

19 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- it's definitely a 

20 site profile issue, though. I mean I think 

21 we've got to...

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

23 MS. MUNN: At least not anything that came 

24 close to a criticality level.

25 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and some of this, as far 
226

1 as the site profile issue goes, may have been 

2 already resolved 'cause we awarded an SEC for 

3 the early years. Right? So -- you know, yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah, a big chunk of years, as I 

6 recall.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Through '74 -- 4 or 5 -- as I 

8 recall.

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah, a big chunk.

10 DR. MAURO: I got a question when I -- I heard 

11 the statement regarding the PICs. Are any of 

12 your dose re-- external dose reconstructions 

13 based on solely PIC information?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

15 MR. GRIFFON: All right, let's try 143.3.

16 MR. FARVER: Failed to account for potential 

17 unmonitored neutron dose. Employee was 

18 monitored at least in 1964 for neutrons and 

19 assigned a missed neutron dose. We believe 

20 that probably should have been an unmonitored 

21 neutron dose for the other years. Let's see --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's a site profile 

23 issue also 'cause it's the same issue. We --

24 we rely on the non-monitored equals non-exposed 

25 argument and so it's the same issue as earlier, 
227

1 a good argument or not, it's just applied to 

2 neutrons.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 143.4, on-site ambient?

4 (Pause)

5 So Doug, I -- in this case are you saying the 

6 on-site ambient was -- was overly maxi-- you 

7 know, was too generous or...

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably just support --

9 MR. FARVER: I think we were just trying to 

10 support it.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Why they used one instead of the 

13 value from Table 4-30.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Was this done before the site 

15 profile, I suppose?

16 MR. FARVER: I don't know.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, maybe not.

18 MR. FARVER: My guess is it was just a 

19 maximizing assumption.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 MR. FARVER: Now I haven't -- I haven't looked 

22 at Table 4-30, but I'm assuming it's less than 

23 a rem per year.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

25 MR. FARVER: So this will be a maximizing 
228

1 assumption. And I think that the big 

2 disagreement was that it was unsupported. In 

3 other words, if they would have said this is a 

4 maximizing assumption, it probably would have 

5 been okay.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think the -- it would 

7 be done now. I think the site profile would 

8 provide -- I think it has the ambient doses for 

9 the years.

10 MR. GRIFFON: So is -- we have agreement in 

11 that you're saying that even though it didn't -

12 - was this done before the site profile, or 

13 we're not sure on that?

14 MR. FARVER: We're not sure.

15 MR. SIEBERT: No, it was done after.

16 MR. GRIFFON: It was done after?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) anyway.

18 MR. SIEBERT: It was just rather than look it 

19 up in the table --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

21 MR. SIEBERT: -- use a rem.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

23 MR. SIEBERT: But that's --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right.

25 MS. BEHLING: I -- I guess I almost got the 
229

1 impression, in looking at what the dose 

2 reconstructor did here, is maybe they assumed 

3 that this individual was supposed to be 

4 monitored and made up for it on this on-site 

5 ambient dose. I -- I think that was part of 

6 this comment also.

7 MR. FARVER: It is, and --

8 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) was using the 

9 on-site ambient dose to maybe make up for 

10 unmonitored dose.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I doubt that was the thought 

12 process involved. I would say the am-- the 

13 ambient was probably just using a rem per year 

14 as a simplistic assum-- overestimating 

15 assumption.

16 MR. FARVER: Well, the DR states: Even though 

17 the employee was monitored for ionizing 

18 radiation doses during the employment period,

19 on-site ambient doses were assessed as part of 

20 this dose reconstruction in order to maximize 

21 the dose estimate.

22 So from that you would assume that the employee 

23 was monitored.

24 MR. SIEBERT: Which they were during some 

25 years, but not entirely. You're right. But 
230

1 I'm guessing what they were saying is they were 

2 assigned that rem of ambient every year, 

3 including the years that they were monitored.

4 MR. GRIFFON: That's the -- that's the --

5 MR. SIEBERT: It's not an elegant way to say 

6 it, however.

7 MR. GRIFFON: That's the over-maximizing, yeah, 

8 yeah, yeah.

9 MR. FARVER: Yeah.

10 MR. GRIFFON: But why not the values --

11 MS. BEHLING: He was only monitored for three 

12 years.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- from the TBD, just to simplif14 -

15 MR. SIEBERT: It was probably a time savings.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Just dropping in one rem is 

18 quicker than going to the TBD and entering each 

19 one where you may have transcription errors.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 MS. MUNN: What did you say about three years, 

22 Kathy?

23 MR. GRIFFON: But you would agree it wouldn't 

24 be done that way now. Right?

25 MS. BEHLING: I -- the -- the individual was 
231

1 only monitored for three years.

2 MS. MUNN: Oh, only had three years of 

3 monitoring data.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right.

5 MR. FARVER: And he worked there from what, '46 

6 through '90.

7 MR. GRIFFON: So I think -- what I -- what I 

8 think I -- I'm trying to read through the 

9 discussion here, but I would say, Stu, NIOSH 

10 agrees with this. However, the approach used 

11 was an over-- you know, you -- you probably 

12 should have used the values, but the approach 

13 used was overly conservative.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Does that satisfy you, 

16 Doug?

17 MR. FARVER: That satisfy you, Kathy?

18 MS. BEHLING: No, but that's okay. No, I'm 

19 kidding. I'm okay.

20 MR. GRIFFON: No, tell me if it doesn't satis--

21 MS. BEHLING: No, I'm -- I'm really joking. 

22 You all are so --

23 MR. GRIFFON: We want you satisfied.

24 MS. BEHLING: -- no, I'm -- I'm okay with that.

25 MS. MUNN: You just want to wake us all up.
232

1 MS. BEHLING: That's it.

2 MR. GRIFFON: We're going to take a break after 

3 this case is over, so get ready, guys.

4 MR. FARVER: I'm not that concerned about this 

5 finding, about the ambient dose. It more 

6 affects the unmonitored photon and neutron 

7 doses.

8 MS. BEHLING: That's exactly right, and I think 

9 that the point I was trying to make is, again, 

10 this points to should there have been some 

11 unmonitored photon and neutron dose being 

12 calculated. And just what they did here with 

13 the ambient made me question -- maybe they 

14 thought also there was some unmonitored periods 

15 here, so that's the only point I was going to 

16 make. But no, I agree with the -- the 

17 resolution of this particular finding.

18 DR. MAURO: I just wanted to go -- go back to a 

19 statement that I -- I think was mentioned 

20 before. By assigning the high ambient -- in 

21 fa-- am I -- is that supposed to cover the fact 

22 that there are lots of years where the worker 

23 was not monitored -- other words, was -- looks 

24 like he -- there are a lot of years where he 

25 was not monitored, but he could have 
233

1 experiences some exposures. Now, during the 

2 time period when he was not monitored, some --

3 some value was assigned, or not? I believe the 

4 answer was no, just ambient.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. And now -- I guess the 

7 question then becomes almost a common sense 

8 question. Was it reasonable to assume that he 

9 received no exposures during the unmonitored 

10 period, and if that's so, why? And second, the 

11 -- the -- if -- if that -- if -- there's an 

12 answer to that and -- you -- you're covered. 

13 But if the answer is a no, he might have 

14 received some exposures but we accounted for it 

15 because we gave him so much dose ambient, 

16 that's a little less convincing.

17 MR. GRIFFON: But I think Scott already 

18 answered that, he says --

19 DR. MAURO: That wasn't --

20 MR. SIEBERT: I don't believe that --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's unlikely --

22 MR. SIEBERT: -- was the thought process.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's unlikely they went 

24 through that, yeah.

25 DR. MAURO: Okay.
234

1 MR. GRIFFON: I would a-- I would agree, it was 

2 probably just kind of a quick shortcut and they 

3 -- you know, and it works out because it's 

4 higher than all your values in the TBD. But 

5 from a quality standpoint, it's probably not 

6 the best practice, you know, so I think that 

7 one we can --

8 DR. MAURO: But -- but -- but I mean --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

10 DR. MAURO: -- go back -- the -- the question 

11 we asked Ka-- Kathy, I guess what I'm hearing 

12 is that there's still some question whether or 

13 not it was appropriate to assign zero dose for 

14 the years he was not monitored.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's a -- that's a 

16 separate finding.

17 DR. MAURO: That's a dif-- that's still here?

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's still --

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, oh, I'm sorry, I --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We had that on two or three of 

22 the other findings.

23 DR. MAURO: Okay, so -- okay, I misunderstood. 

24 I apologize.

25 MR. GRIFFON: That's those other findings. We 
235

1 haven't let those go, yeah.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 MR. GRIFFON: 143.5 -- two more before our 

4 break.

5 MR. FARVER: Reviewer questions whether NIOSH 

6 received all available bioassay data. 

7 Apparently the employee indicated in the CATI 

8 report that he had copies of the submitted 

9 urine samples and had copies of the -- the 

10 records. So this is another records -- did you

11 get copies of the records, did you compare 

12 them, was any of this looked at?

13 MS. MUNN: No follow-up request was made.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll have to go see where 

15 we are on this. I know Los Alamos is --

16 MR. GRIFFON: It's that same thing, did you 

17 check with the individual, yeah.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah -- yeah, it's kind of the 

19 same -- did we try to get the records.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: Which goes back to when someone 

23 indicates they have records, what's the process 

24 and how do you document the process.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.
236

1 MR. GRIFFON: And the last one, 143.6, similar 

2 thing, isn't it?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Seems to be the same thing --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Same thing, yeah.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's just that it's in the 

6 CATI portion of the DR review.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH is going to follow up on 

9 that.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Why don't we -- we don't have 

12 much left of the seventh set but I think we all 

13 need a little break here, so -- I was hoping to 

14 finish it off, but let's take a little break 

15 now, we'll come back --

16 DR. WADE: Take five or ten minutes and we'll 

17 be back on --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

19 DR. WADE: -- we're not going to break the line 

20 then, so I'll just put it on mute.

21 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:47 p.m. 

22 to 3:00 p.m.)

23 DR. WADE: Okay, we're back in session.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we're -- we're -- I want to 

25 finish up the seventh set of cases, get -- get 
237

1 entirely through this. We only have one case 

2 to go -- one case to go, so finding 144.1 --

3 this is also a LANL case, I think.

4 The first one looks very similar to -- well, 

5 no, maybe not.

6 (Pause)

7 MR. FARVER: I guess what we're saying is since 

8 the employee received only zero readings for 

9 his shallow dose, missed shallow dose should 

10 have been applied. And my guess is this goes 

11 back to the workings of OTIB-17 --

12 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

14 MS. MUNN: -- yes, which (unintelligible) only 

15 photons.

16 MR. FARVER: And just because there's a zero in 

17 the shallow dose doesn't necessarily mean you 

18 get a missed dose for shallow dose. It depends 

19 on the combination of shallow to deep, and I'll 

20 go back and I will look at this one, 'cause you 

21 really have to go back and look at each 

22 individual dosimeter result. This is another 

23 one that I can accomplish by e-mail. I mean I 

24 can say yea, it's okay or...

25 MR. GRIFFON: All right, 144.2?
238

1 MR. FARVER: On-site ambient dose, did not use 

2 appropriate procedure for assigning on-site 

3 ambient dose. And you know, I think what we're 

4 saying is we're not able to verify the doses 

5 'cause the doses in Attachment B to PROC-60 do 

6 not match the ones that are listed -- or 

7 something similar, couldn't verify it.

8 And in NIOSH's response, what they do is state 

9 basically what they did about dividing it by 

10 the -- to correct it for the number of work 

11 hours or number of hours in the year, and then 

12 they multiply it by an uncertainty factor of 

13 1.3.

14 I'm okay with how they did it. And on our 

15 part, we probably should have included a sample 

16 calculation in there saying how we thought it 

17 should have been done, and that would have made 

18 it much easier for us to see how we differ.

19 MS. BEHLING: Can I ask a question regarding 

20 the NIOSH response? When you say the highest 

21 value from Table 4-25, I assume that's Table 4-

22 25 of the Technical Basis Document?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think that's what it 

24 is.

25 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 'Cause I think in -- I 
239

1 don't know why we have in our comment Table 4-

2 30 from the Los Alamos Technical Basis 

3 Document. I have to look at that.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe that's the site-wide one, I 

5 don't know. I just -- (unintelligible).

6 (Pause)

7 So -- so you're okay with this one or are we 

8 looking at that table or -- I'm not sure --

9 MR. FARVER: We're trying to look up the table 

10 --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, yeah --

12 MR. FARVER: -- if we can do it quickly.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah.

14 MR. FARVER: There is a Table 4-30 on page 51 

15 of the environmental technical basis section. 

16 It does list the maximum ambient doses per 

17 year.

18 (Pause)

19 And our point was that if you sum up those 

20 doses, you come up with a higher value than 

21 what was calculated.

22 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, Table 4-25 is area badge 

23 data -- data.

24 MR. FARVER: Right, and then Table 4-30, Kathy, 

25 on page 51 of that document --
240

1 MS. BEHLING: Right. In fact that's what we 

2 used, yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Correct.

4 MR. GRIFFON: So they might -- Stu, you might 

5 have referenced the wrong one here, 4-25, you 

6 might have meant 4-30. Right?

7 MR. FARVER: Well, they've got the area badge 

8 data.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I -- (unintelligible) --

11 144.2 -- right?

12 MR. GRIFFON: 144.2, yeah --

13 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- and in the middle there you 

15 reference Table 4-25.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, you -- you're talking about 

17 4-30, those are intake rates. That's internal.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that -- what's that ambient 

19 dose rate on there?

20 MR. FARVER: No, at the -- at the -- the far 

21 right-hand column.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Are you talking --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the ambient dose number 

24 in that far right-hand column?

25 (Pause)
241

1 MR. SIEBERT: They seem to be the same as the 

2 site-wide maximums in 4-25.

3 MS. MUNN: So that's the badge data 

4 (unintelligible) which area.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, they're identical results 

6 as the --

7 MR. GRIFFON: Are they?

8 MR. SIEBERT: -- site-wide --

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 MR. SIEBERT: -- in 4-25.

11 MR. FARVER: So if we sum up the maximum 

12 values, it comes up with a different value than 

13 was in the report --

14 MR. SIEBERT: Right, because --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Because of the TA, you took the 

16 highest TA --

17 MR. SIEBERT: -- technical areas, not the site18 wide map.

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- right.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So they used the 

22 (unintelligible)?

23 MR. GRIFFON: And I think that's why you 

24 highlighted that in your comment, that you used

25 the highest TA value, not -- not site--
242

1 MS. MUNN: Not site-wide.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, how is the highest -- how 

4 is the site maximum higher than the highest TA 

5 value?

6 MR. SIEBERT: That's a good question.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's the question.

8 MS. MUNN: It is? (Unintelligible) combination 

9 of those areas?

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that site-wide -- site-wide 

11 is something different, isn't it? I don't know 

12 what it is 'cause in --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 1997, just 

14 reading across 4-25, the site-wide maximum 

15 number is higher than those TA numbers.

16 MR. SIEBERT: (Unintelligible) 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I'm sorry, 

18 (unintelligible).

19 MR. FARVER: Why don't we do this, why don't --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Something -- something weird is 

21 in the -- yeah, 'cause if you look at 1973 on 

22 that same table, Stu, that one the site-wide 

23 maximum is 345 and that is equal to one of the 

24 TAs --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: One of the TAs --
243

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- TA-18.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- TA-18, yeah.

3 MR. GRIFFON: That sort of makes sense to me.

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

5 MR. GRIFFON: But then if you go down to 1971, 

6 the site-wide maximum is 106 and that's lower 

7 than any of the TAs.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, lower than -- yeah.

9 MR. GRIFFON: So I don't understand. 

10 Something's funny. Maybe you need to check 

11 into this -- follow up on the values.

12 MR. FARVER: Well, I'd say for -- for this 

13 finding, I mean other than the values in this 

14 table, which appears to be now something 

15 unusual --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

17 MR. FARVER: -- why don't we just have them 

18 just -- just a very, very simple sample 

19 calculation on how it's done, just for a year. 

20 You could e-mail it, we could -- 'cause really 

21 your ambient dose is pretty straightforward. I 

22 mean you go through what they said about 

23 dividing it by the 8760 and multiplying it by 

24 2600 times 1.3, pretty straightforward. It's a 

25 matter of what value you started with.
244

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right.

2 MR. FARVER: So if they would just go do that, 

3 that would probably help clear up things.

4 Now the separate issue of what these numbers in 

5 the Table 4-25 mean, I don't know.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MS. MUNN: Table 4-25 and 4-30. There must 

8 have been something else there.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so NIOSH will check into 

10 those -- those values in Table 4-25 and 4-30. 

11 Right?

12 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I -- as Doug 

15 requested, (unintelligible) out a simple 

16 calculation how -- I don't know why it --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Different than what's described 

18 in our --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, do you really need a 

20 calculation? I mean you just said the 

21 calculation.

22 MR. FARVER: If it's different. I mean if 

23 that's --

24 MR. GRIFFON: It -- it is what it is. Right?

25 MR. HINNEFELD: That should be it.
245

1 MR. GRIFFON: It's a matter of where the 

2 initial number comes from.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's what we need to 

5 (unintelligible).

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so the tables are wh--

7 yeah, so I don't think you need a calculation. 

8 There it is, right there.

9 Okay.

10 MS. MUNN: We shouldn't pass up an opportunity 

11 to use this week's most hackneyed phrase, it is 

12 what it is.

13 MR. GRIFFON: All right, 144.3.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, OTIB-18, hypothetical intake 

15 model, was used to assign a internal dose. 

16 Questions whether that's appropriate to use. 

17 The em-- the employee had chest counts and 

18 bioassay data in '92. Even though this was 

19 after the cancer was diagnosed, one of the 

20 chest counts was a baseline and one was marked 

21 recount.

22 I guess what it comes down to is there's some 

23 question whether maybe they did -- did they 

24 receive all the bioassay data, and is it 

25 appropriate for -- to request more, I believe. 
246

1 I'm not real sure about this.

2 Kathy, do you have any input on this one? 

3 Help?

4 MS. BEHLING: I'm looking. I think what we 

5 were questioning -- based on bioassay data that 

6 was included in the file, I'm not sure there 

7 was enough information -- there was nothing 

8 listed under activity results, so we don't even 

9 know what those values were. I don't know --

10 and I think what we were questioning is if they 

11 should have looked a little bit closer at these 

12 bioassay results.

13 MS. MUNN: Over and above the urinalysis and 

14 baseline chest count? Both non--

15 MS. BEHLING: No, I -- I think --

16 MS. MUNN: -- both non-detectable.

17 MS. BEHLING: -- the chest count was marked as 

18 a -- as a baseline, and then there was a second 

19 -- I guess there was a second chest count done 

20 a few months later that was marked as a 

21 recount, and I think that's really what we were 

22 questioning. And -- and both of the records 

23 identified plutonium and americium, but then 

24 there's no value cited under the activity.

25 MS. MUNN: Well, the res-- response says 
247

1 special bioassay and the baseline chest count 

2 were non-detects.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Well, and -- and more --

4 MS. MUNN: And the recount --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- importantly, they were after 

6 the diagnosis of the cancer.

7 MR. FARVER: Right.

8 MR. GRIFFON: That's another critical point.

9 MS. MUNN: And the recount...

10 MR. GRIFFON: I mean if -- if a special was 

11 taken, you might say well, yeah, there was a 

12 reason for it, but if it was after the 

13 diagnosis of the cancer, I'm not sure it's 

14 relevant, you know.

15 MR. SIEBERT: There was no real indication to 

16 us that --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. SIEBERT: -- those bioassays had anything 

19 to do with anything prior to the --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Prior to, yeah, yeah.

21 MR. SIEBERT: -- date of diagnosis.

22 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I -- I agree. I agree.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Seems to be...

24 MS. MUNN: And no indicators, no --

25 MR. GRIFFON: That seems logical, yeah.
248

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah. So acceptable?

2 MS. BEHLING: I -- I think that, yeah, we're 

3 accepting NIOSH's response here, now that I 

4 look at this a little closer.

5 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Moving on -- I was 

6 wrong, I thought that was the last case. I 

7 spoke too soon.

8 MR. FARVER: There's always one more.

9 MR. GRIFFON: 145's an easy one. Scott, you 

10 want to take this one?

11 MR. SIEBERT: (Unintelligible) 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 146.1?

13 MS. MUNN: Resolved by OTIB-10, resolved by 

14 OTIB-10 --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: You've got those in your notes, 

16 right?

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: 146.--

19 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: 'Cause those -- we didn't say 

21 that in here, but those sound like OTIB-10 

22 findings.

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah, this is -- I have red-lined 

24 under here, resolution --

25 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's an OTIB-10 finding for 
249

1 a -- has to do with OTIB-10 -- OTIB-10.

2 MS. MUNN: But that's just 1 and 2.

3 MR. FARVER: One and 2, correct.

4 MR. GRIFFON: And I had -- I had a question, it 

5 says which resolved this finding -- is TIB-10 

6 closed out in the procedures workgroup? I 

7 can't remember.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it is. It's been 

9 revised.

10 MR. GRIFFON: It's been revised and we've --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And --

12 MS. BEHLING: And we looked at it, yes, and 

13 it's closed out. We agree with NIOSH's 

14 changes.

15 MR. GRIFFON: So it is resolved, good. All 

16 right.

17 Then I think we're on to 146.3.

18 MS. MUNN: Nancy says yes?

19 MS. ADAMS: Yep.

20 MS. MUNN: Nancy says yes, OTIB-10's closed in 

21 procedures.

22 (Pause)

23 MR. GRIFFON: So this -- this was done before 

24 the (unintelligible)NL site profile obviously, 

25 but (unintelligible) -- the site profile seems 
250

1 to support what you did. Right?

2 MS. MUNN: Both (unintelligible) done 

3 correctly.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, the response would 

5 indicate the case was done before the 

6 (unintelligible)NL site profile.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And (unintelligible) the site 

9 profile would (unintelligible) lower doses 

10 (unintelligible).

11 MS. MUNN: So acceptable?

12 MR. FARVER: Acceptable.

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 147.1?

14 MR. FARVER: 147.1.

15 MR. GRIFFON: So I think S-- NIOSH is agreeing 

16 with this, but saying that it wouldn't affect 

17 the outcome of the claim, is that...

18 MR. FARVER: I believe so. POC was about 32 

19 percent, so it probably would not have affected 

20 the outcome of the claim.

21 MS. MUNN: It says raises it only slightly, 

22 claim remains non-compensable.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Is that right, Stu?

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. We did in fact have a 

25 data entry.
251

1 MR. GRIFFON: Data entry error, yeah.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I guess it's based on the 

3 ORNL -- confusing reporting format for ORNL. 

4 We (unintelligible).

5 MR. GRIFFON: 147.2, unless (unintelligible).

6 MS. MUNN: Resolved.

7 MR. GRIFFON: 147.2?

8 (Pause)

9 So this is the question of including incidents 

10 in the --

11 MR. FARVER: Ah, okay --

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- dose assessment?

13 MR. FARVER: -- yes. In the CATI interview the 

14 employee indicated there were quite a few times 

15 that he was hot, (unintelligible) a spill. 

16 This is kind of a judgment call. I mean did 

17 they -- we're not sure that they adequately 

18 justified their reasons for not looking harder 

19 at these re-- at the EE's reported incidents.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Well, what -- I mean I guess 

21 there's a question of -- I think you're saying 

22 in your response, NIOSH agrees with SC&A that 

23 doses resulting from such incidents should have 

24 been? It says would have been included in the 

25 DR.
252

1 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I think what -- what our --

2 what we would say is that the dose assigned was 

3 -- was --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Would have been covered by --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- conservative enough that it 

6 would have covered the dose --

7 (Whereupon, Mr. Griffon and Mr. Hinnefeld spoke 

8 simultaneously.)

9 MR. HINNEFELD: And so that's what we -- that's 

10 what our --

11 MR. GRIFFON: And SC&A came to that conclusion, 

12 too? I guess that's what I'm --

13 MR. FARVER: Yeah, I guess our -- our concern 

14 is more in the discussion in the DR report.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so it should have been 

16 brought up there.

17 MR. FARVER: Should have been more complete.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. At least acknowledge that 

19 -- yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And we agree with that.

21 MR. GRIFFON: And we've had that comment --

22 MR. FARVER: Right.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And you -- and NIOSH has 

24 modified their -- your template for that, too. 

25 Right? To some --
253

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We now make a point of saying 

2 you have to address everything in the CATI --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- has to be discussed in the 

5 dose reconstruction.

6 (Pause)

7 MR. GRIFFON: All right, and last is 148.1.

8 MR. FARVER: This looks like another OTIB-10 --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and that's --

10 MR. FARVER: -- correction factor, an 

11 uncertainty issue.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Which is resolved in the 

13 procedures workgroup. Okay. That's that. 

14 That was easy enough.

15 I don't -- I think -- I think for the next time 

16 we'll probably consider -- SC&A did provide 

17 some follow-up responses to some of the earlier 

18 -- seventh set, but what I would ask for the 

19 next subcommittee meeting is that you go -- you 

20 know, go through the rest of what came up today 

21 and maybe --

22 MR. FARVER: Sure.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- add -- add onto this -- and 

24 we'll work from this for the next meeting, and 

25 we still have some stuff from the sixth set as 
254

1 well, yeah.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sixth set, and then --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- some stuff from us on the --

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- seventh set, both today and 

7 the ones that we had already covered before 

8 today.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And I'll try to generate 

10 -- I will generate the sixth set and seventh 

11 set matrix 'cause I --

12 MS. MUNN: Good.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think for the sixth set I 

14 had a bunch of the resolution columns 

15 completed, but now I have to merge it with 

16 Stu's revised -- 'cause you were working from a 

17 previous matrix --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I -- I'll work that out 

20 and I'll get a new copy out sooner than later 

21 so we don't run into this again.

22 MS. MUNN: That would be great.

23 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE FIRST 100 CASES

24 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Now I think what is 

25 most likely the last item of the agenda today -
255

1 - I don't think it's likely we're going to get 

2 into the eighth set. I mean people are -- it's 

3 difficult enough to get through these two.

4 DR. WADE: We could have that little discussion 

5 item of the tenth set, too.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but we're -- we -- that 

7 might be something that Stu said he wanted to 

8 look into someti--

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got to -- I've got to --

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- sometime before --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) where we 

12 are.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- we leave today -- yeah, we're 

14 going to try to figure out where we are on 

15 that.

16 But I'd like to shift gears a little bit and go 

17 to this -- I sent out a draft report -- I'm --

18 I -- sorry, but I finally got it out. I've 

19 promised this for several subcommittee 

20 meetings.

21 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Noon yesterday, I waited till 

23 Wanda got on board and then I sent it. I 

24 checked her itinerary -- no.

25 MS. MUNN: I always like to have something to 
256

1 greet me when I reach the hotel. Thank you.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But you know, as I said, 

3 this is just a first cut. I -- I think when I 

4 sent the e-mail I put "draft" in capitals. A 

5 lot of this -- you'll -- let me just walk 

6 through the thing and then we can discuss it a 

7 little bit.

8 UNIDENTIFIED: Give the title of it.

9 MR. GRIFFON: The title is Summary Report of 

10 the First 100 Cases. I mean this is not 

11 necessarily the final form it'll be in, but I -

12 - I actually worked -- we have issued three 

13 letter reports to the Secretary from the case 

14 reviews we've done. We did the first 20, we 

15 did the second and third set as one report, and 

16 then the fourth and fifth set as one report, so 

17 three total letter reports. And some of the up 

18 front part of this summary report is lifted 

19 from there, stating, you know, the citations to 

20 the Act and everything and why we're doing 

21 this. And -- and then what I tried to do is, 

22 in this front end, give a little bit of an 

23 overview of here -- of some of the statistics 

24 and -- and -- and in order to -- to sort of 

25 have this flow a little more like a letter 
257

1 report, I -- I put in here at the time of the 

2 case selection for the fifth set of cases, 

3 cases 80 through 100, 8,000 cases had been 

4 adjudicated and therefore available for the 

5 Board review. I was sort of going around in my 

6 mind as to whether to break that out 'cause 

7 when we did the first set of cases there were 

8 not nearly that many cases available, but I 

9 didn't really want to put a table in here of 

10 cases available and set and all that. I think 

11 this was good enough to get, you know, for a 

12 summary report. The cases reviewed had 

13 completion dates ranging from -- and I asked 

14 Stu to help me out there, this -- those 

15 completion dates were just for the last set of 

16 -- the last report we did. I didn't know -- it 

17 probably is -- is fairly similar to that, but -

18 -

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, you want some -- okay.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

22 MR. GRIFFON: I mean and we -- we might even be 

23 able to broaden it and say, you know, 

24 completion dates ranging from 2003 to 2005, you 

25 know. I don't know that we need to be that 
258

1 specific in this letter.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: You want to just hear some? Or 

3 I can, you know --

4 MR. GRIFFON: If it's easy enough to look up 

5 the other, then we can decide which one we're 

6 going to, you know, leave in the letter.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yeah, or something.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay.

9 MS. MUNN: See, I downloaded --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No, actually (unintelligible).

11 MR. GRIFFON: And then the -- the third 

12 paragraph on the first page is where I said 

13 attached are five tables which show a breakdown 

14 of the cases by site, decade first employed, 

15 years of employment, type of cancer and 

16 probability of causation. And this was a work 

17 product that -- that SC&A put together for us 

18 before. Kath-- I think Kathy worked on this 

19 primarily, but we sort of showed these graphics 

20 of the breakdown of what we've covered, and I 

21 think those -- those pretty much speak for 

22 themselves. I don't think we need to summarize 

23 it in the front end of the letter.

24 I did point specifically to one, which was that 

25 we -- only five percent of our cases fall in 
259

1 that 45 to 50 percent probability of causation 

2 range.

3 The next page is the summary of findings, and 

4 this should look very familiar. It's -- it's 

5 from the letter format previously used. It has 

6 the method of ranking and it -- and it 

7 summarizes the finding. In here I just -- I 

8 just summed up all our numbers for the findings 

9 impacted individual estimates versus the -- the 

10 program-wide impact. You'll notice in my 

11 comments on the side that I had a little 

12 trouble making the numbers equate. Kathy's 

13 checking into one of these things for me. 

14 Interesting from a tracking standpoint, my 

15 notes show that 12 unresolved issues were --

16 were in the second and third set of cases, and 

17 I asked Kathy was -- what are -- what are 

18 those, or -- you know, we need to look back at 

19 those, maybe. That was a little surprise to 

20 me. I thought before we issued these letter 

21 reports that we had closed most things out, 

22 but...

23 And then the -- the last couple pages go into 

24 conclusions and recommendations.

25 MS. MUNN: Wait before you leave that page.
260

1 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I was just stepping through 

2 the whole thing and then if you want to go 

3 back, Wanda --

4 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay -- okay, go ahead.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Conclusions and 

6 recommendations, and these -- these -- most of 

7 these are fairly -- we -- we've had these in 

8 our letter reports before. What I did was I 

9 did add some text in a couple of areas. I took 

10 out some of the -- the details where we 

11 referenced case numbers, et cetera, things like 

12 that. I kept it a little broader, but most of 

13 these issues, if they weren't in all -- in all 

14 three letter reports, they were at least in two 

15 of the three letter reports that we previously 

16 submitted. Not the exact wording, but the --

17 the headings, so to speak, those conclu--

18 conclusion headings.

19 So that's sort of stepping through what's in 

20 the report in general, and then we can go back 

21 and get specific comments. And I don't ex--

22 you know, I mean -- from my standpoint, I know 

23 you just got this, so if people want to red24 line it and give me more in-depth comments, 

25 then I'm certainly -- you know, we can work 
261

1 that way with this as we move forward. Just 

2 wanted to start the ball rolling on it.

3 MS. MUNN: It's a really long report.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

5 MS. MUNN: One would be led to think we'd done 

6 a lot of work here.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it has been three years, so 

8 --

9 MS. MUNN: It has been --

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- or four years, I don't know.

11 MS. MUNN: -- yes, indeed.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

13 MS. MUNN: On that page three, I guess -- one, 

14 two -- it starts on page two, I guess -- under 

15 the summary of findings which have program-wide 

16 or site-wide impact.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

18 MS. MUNN: That -- the last three sentences 

19 there, starting with (reading) It is noted 

20 there's a greater level of high level and 

21 medium level deficiencies -- I -- I read 

22 through those sentences three times.

23 MR. GIBSON: Starting where, Wanda?

24 MS. MUNN: With (reading) It is noted -- under 

25 summary of findings which have program-wide or 
262

1 site-wide impacts, right after the 145 low 

2 level --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

4 MS. MUNN: -- low level deficiencies, trying to 

5 figure out, you know, where's the error here.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe not greater level, it 

7 should be greater number, I think. Yeah.

8 MS. MUNN: I think -- I think so. You know, 

9 the -- I re--

10 MR. GRIFFON: This was cut and pasted, too, so 

11 we might have missed it -- that before.

12 MS. MUNN: Well, I reread those three sentences 

13 --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

15 MS. MUNN: -- more than once, and it -- every 

16 time I read them I thought this doesn't read 

17 properly.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

19 MS. MUNN: This is --

20 DR. MAURO: I -- I have to -- yeah, I know what 

21 --

22 MS. MUNN: This is not right.

23 DR. MAURO: -- I know what it means, but it's -

24 -

25 MS. MUNN: I know what it means, yeah --
263

1 DR. MAURO: -- someone not close to it is going 

2 to have trouble understanding --

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

4 DR. MAURO: -- what you're trying to say.

5 MS. MUNN: I just didn't get it and thought now 

6 we need to -- we need to work on -- this needs 

7 work.

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay.

9 MS. MUNN: And I guess in -- under the summary 

10 --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I agree. That language was 

12 lifted from before, but I --

13 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- I agree, it's not --

15 MS. MUNN: It's not clear.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- for an outs-- especially for 

17 an outside observer, you know --

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, uh-huh.

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's not obvious.

20 MS. MUNN: The paragraph underneath that, I 

21 highlighted the last sentence on the page 

22 there, (reading) This is also reflected in the 

23 case statistics.

24 I think we -- we've said that before, and I 

25 didn't know whether you were deliberately 
264

1 trying to make a --

2 MR. GRIFFON: No -- yeah.

3 MS. MUNN: -- big point of it, and if so, we 

4 should say "as previously stated" or something.

5 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we need to restate 

6 it. I think I was -- you know, I was -- I was 

7 cutting and pasting and putting this together, 

8 so I think it came up twice.

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we said that already.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

11 MS. MUNN: And just a real nit, in the first 

12 sentence on the next page, right after 

13 "review," that really needs a comma between 

14 "review" and "concerns".

15 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, Paul.

16 MS. MUNN: No, it really does.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Where was that at?

18 MS. MUNN: Oh, the very -- the second line of 

19 the next page.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Review -- okay, yeah.

21 MS. MUNN: Total outcome of most of the cases 

22 reviewed will likely not be impacted by the 

23 findings in this review, comma, concerns were 

24 identified which would have a broader impact. 

25 It actually needs a semicolon.
265

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, a semicolon.

2 MS. MUNN: Under concerns about the dose 

3 reconstruction final reports, I guess it's a 

4 matter of personal preference in that first 

5 line. It is apparent that the DR reports that 

6 NIOSH provides to the claimants -- I -- I'm not 

7 at all sure that "apparent" is what you really 

8 want to say. Apparent has sort of a 

9 prejudicial sound to it, and the double that 

10 that, you know, I guess -- that's a very long 

11 sentence. It just goes on and on and on. So 

12 if you would like, I'll be glad to suggest a --

13 a couple of --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Feel free.

15 MS. MUNN: -- minor editorial changes --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Feel free.

17 MS. MUNN: -- there on that one.

18 MR. GRIFFON: By the way, this sentence was 

19 also lifted from our previous letter report, so 

20 --

21 MS. MUNN: It's just (unintelligible).

22 MR. GRIFFON: I know, it --

23 MS. MUNN: It just goes on.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And I think we did say 

25 apparent before, but I -- I think I know what 
266

1 you're saying, yeah.

2 MS. MUNN: And with your -- your comment five, 

3 my personal thought is that no, I -- I don't 

4 see any reason why it should stay in the 

5 summary report.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Which one? Oh, no, I --

7 MS. MUNN: Procedural issues.

8 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I -- I edited that 

9 paragraph to the point where I thought it did 

10 still belong in --

11 MS. MUNN: That it should --

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause that --

13 MS. MUNN: -- be there.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- TIB-8 and 10 came up in all 

15 three letter reports, so I thought --

16 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, they were -- I 

18 thought it was -- yeah, I do think that should 

19 stay. And I know it is a -- a longer report 

20 this way, but...

21 I would actually point you to something that --

22 I think at the end of the internal quality 

23 control section is one of the areas that's --

24 that's a little different than previous letter 

25 reports --
267

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I'd draw your attention to 

3 that. And there's a couple things in there. 

4 One is this DR notes or guidelines are 

5 mentioned.

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

7 MR. GRIFFON: And this question that came up --

8 actually came up today, this inclusion of 

9 analytical files in the case file, you know, 

10 and I -- I think NIOSH is obviously aware of 

11 that and they're looking into that, you know, 

12 at what -- you know, as Stu put it, at what 

13 threshold do you -- you know, does something 

14 warrant being put in as opposed to not being 

15 put in.

16 And then the question about the peer review --

17 internal peer reviews process --

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I guess that -- I was a little 

19 uncomfortable with the way that -- that last 

20 part of the internal quality control segment 

21 was worded. I'm wondering whether this is the 

22 appropriate spot for us to be officially 

23 requesting things of NIOSH.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MS. MUNN: Is this -- should we not be doing 
268

1 that in some other forum, rather than this 

2 letter to the Secretary? This is a report to 

3 the Secretary. Right?

4 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

5 MS. MUNN: And if we are going to be asking 

6 action of the Board, it just seemed to me that 

7 this was not the proper place to do that in 

8 quite this way. If we're going to say the --

9 the --

10 MR. GRIFFON: I see your -- yeah.

11 MS. MUNN: -- that we anticipate that we -- we 

12 will be requesting this or -- I just -- didn't 

13 seem quite right.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 DR. WADE: That's reasonable. You can 

16 certainly, as a board, request something from 

17 NIOSH during that meeting --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right.

19 DR. WADE: -- and then say you requested it.

20 MR. GRIFFON: And then say we requested it, 

21 yeah.

22 DR. WADE: You -- you're an advisory board to 

23 the Secretary. You can request things of 

24 NIOSH. That's fine.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I guess -- yeah, I 
269

1 mean -- and this is sort of -- I wrote this --

2 I thought this would raise some discussion. I 

3 -- you know, part of the reason I'm writing 

4 this is that I felt like I requested the notes 

5 and guidelines be in the case files --

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- and have found out a year and 

8 a half later they're still not being put in --

9 MS. MUNN: Right.

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I thought, you know, that 

11 was requested, as far as I was concerned. At 

12 some point we have to --

13 MS. MUNN: Formalize the request.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I don't know, how much 

15 more formal can it be than being brought up ten 

16 times on a Board meeting and have and 

17 agreement, you know. Now this last one, the 

18 peer review, I agree we have not really 

19 requested that yet, so that's a different 

20 thing. But these notes and DR guidelines, that 

21 has been brought up repeatedly, so...

22 DR. WADE: I mean Stu, from your perspective, 

23 has NIOSH heard that request and we just 

24 haven't acted on it, or --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- it's come up in this 
270

1 group, yeah. We've heard it. We've started to 

2 act on it a number of times, and it just kind 

3 of fizzled out.

4 DR. WADE: Okay. So you've heard -- you've 

5 heard the Board's request.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I've asked the contractor 

7 before. I haven't followed up, and then we 

8 were overcome by other events and it got 

9 pushed, you know, sort of off the table, so...

10 DR. WADE: Okay. So then Mark's reaction is 

11 appropriate --

12 MR. GRIFFON: And I know you had a -- you had a 

13 --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand Mark's reaction. 

15 I understand Mark's reaction.

16 MR. GRIFFON: You had a year worth of time when 

17 your contractor was depleted, too. I 

18 understand that.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there -- well, there was 

20 a time when we were real short of money and --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's still not the best of 

23 situation. We're going extension by extension.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's -- there was a time 
271

1 when we stopped a lot of things -- essentially 

2 stopped a lot of things in order to maintain 

3 the essential services.

4 MR. GRIFFON: I understand. But -- but Wanda's 

5 point was well-taken on the last part. I -- I 

6 would even be willing to modify that the Board 

7 anticipates requesting, or we can bring this up 

8 --

9 DR. WADE: Just do it first.

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- and request it in the Board --

11 do it first --

12 DR. WADE: At the meeting.

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, right. Yeah. Is that 

14 --

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah, if we request it at the 

16 Board meeting, then that should --

17 MR. GRIFFON: We've talked about this peer 

18 review stuff but I've not requested that, I 

19 agree.

20 DR. WADE: Now you can do that as the chair of 

21 the subcommittee, or you can have the Board do 

22 it as a whole.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

24 DR. WADE: It's up to you.

25 MR. GRIFFON: I gue-- I guess that's -- that's 
272

1 another -- I mean we could -- you know, that's 

2 another discussion for NIOSH. Would -- would 

3 that raise concerns or heartburn of -- of 

4 requesting a peer review -- internal peer 

5 reviews be included -- I think you --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to ask the contractor 

7 --

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- do track them in your --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- yeah, there's -- there's a 

10 checklist still done on --

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- peer reviews.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Right. Well -- yeah, there's a 

14 sign-off -- the peer reviewer signs off on a 

15 form --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: On a form that I looked at 

17 these things.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So if they didn't find 

20 anything, there -- I guess it would only have a 

21 signature on it.

22 MR. SIEBERT: They -- there's -- there's only -

23 - that's all there is. There's that single 

24 form saying I followed the peer review 

25 checklist and form --
273

1 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I thought there were --

2 MR. SIEBERT: -- and everything falls into 

3 place and it's good to go. That's all there 

4 is.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So they won't -- they don't 

6 fill one of those out if there's --

7 MR. GRIFFON: There's not -- I've seen comments 

8 --

9 MR. SIEBERT: If it gets returned -- no, 

10 there's not one of those because it has not 

11 been -- has not been completed yet --

12 DR. WADE: What is the record?

13 MR. SIEBERT: -- (unintelligible) goes back to 

14 the dose reconstruction -- (unintelligible) --

15 DR. WADE: What is the record?

16 MR. SIEBERT: The record is the peer review 

17 form, once it's signed off, saying I did 

18 consider everything in the peer review and 

19 everything's acceptable.

20 DR. WADE: Right, now is there anything -- if -

21 - if the peer reviewer has problems --

22 MR. GRIFFON: Comments or --

23 DR. WADE: -- is that captured somewhere?

24 MR. SIEBERT: No.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Not in that kind of a form, I 
274

1 guess.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Not in a record form because it's 

3 --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Is it (unintelligible)?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, it's -- it's an interim, 

6 back-and-forth process, such as sometimes, you 

7 know, a dose reconstructor will walk to the 

8 next cubicle and talk to somebody, and whereas 

9 creating all documentation going back and forth 

10 -- we've had discussions on that and that just 

11 did not seem feasible.

12 MS. MUNN: But if a peer review does --

13 MR. GRIFFON: I thought you had specific forms 

14 where -- I -- I've seen some copies of these 

15 where there's a comment, and then there was a 

16 response from --

17 MR. SIEBERT: There's a -- there's a NIOSH 

18 comment --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, that was NIOSH --

20 MR. SIEBERT: -- resolution comment --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- that was NIOSH, not ORAU.

22 (Whereupon, Messrs. Siebert, Griffon and 

23 Hinnefeld spoke simultaneously.)

24 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, not our -- our internal.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Gotcha.
275

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Ours are in that fashion. Our 

2 comments are in the record. They're in --

3 MR. GRIFFON: They're in the record in the case 

4 file?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, which folder are they in? 

6 They -- is that an ADR?

7 UNIDENTIFIED: ADR folder.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: ADRs, right?

9 MR. SIEBERT: It should be in the DR 

10 (unintelligible).

11 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, they're not -- okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, our -- if we make a 

13 comment --

14 MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH's comments --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- during review --

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- are in there. Right?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that's in there. Now you 

18 put resolution on that form and put it back in 

19 there?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So that -- our comment 

22 resolutions are there. Their peer reviewer 

23 apparently just signs --

24 MR. SIEBERT: Internal review process, yes.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they just sign and say I 
276

1 looked at all these things --

2 MR. GRIFFON: All these items --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it's okay. That's --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- and it's okay.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that's all it is.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right.

7 DR. WADE: So what -- maybe I should ask Mark, 

8 but --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

10 DR. WADE: -- the phrase "peer review reports", 

11 what does that mean?

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, maybe I'm misspeaking 

13 there. There are no reports. Right?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- there -- yeah, there 

15 are no --

16 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, all there is is the sign17 off sheet.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the -- the signed form that 

19 --

20 DR. WADE: But when NIOSH reviews the document, 

21 there is comment resolution.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

23 DR. WADE: So that exists.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

25 MR. SIEBERT: There is a comment form --
277

1 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- in my eyes, is a peer 

2 review rep-- when I said --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, those --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's two levels of review, 

5 one is ORAU, one is NIOSH. Right?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

8 MR. GRIFFON: And so at least --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: And the NIOSH --

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's a report for the 

11 second --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the NIOSH is in -- the --

13 NIOSH's are there.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- and they're there already.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

16 MR. SIEBERT: On the form 73(unintelligible) 

17 that form --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

19 MR. SIEBERT: I see (unintelligible).

20 MR. HINNEFELD: The form number is not 

21 (unintelligible) of your mind when you 

22 (unintelligible).

23 DR. WADE: So then to follow on to the action 

24 part of this then, you're proposing that NIOSH 

25 come to the Board and report trends --
278

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

2 DR. WADE: -- in that. Well, I know recent --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Have you looked at trends on 

4 these? I don't know that (unintelligible).

5 DR. WADE: I know recently Larry did a QA/QC 

6 presentation.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

8 DR. WADE: Did he cover this, do you recall, 

9 Stu?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't know. We record -

11 - we do have a statistic and we keep a record 

12 of the number of dose reconstructions delivered 

13 to us that we send back with comments, 

14 percentages, and he may have talked about that 

15 because we do keep that statistic. I mean it's 

16 an easy query that's pulled up automatically, 

17 and it's -- you know, the number that are 

18 approved as they're -- when they're delivered 

19 is -- is well over 90 percent, as I recall. It 

20 -- it's over 90 percent of (unintelligible), so 

21 you know, there would be some ten percent then 

22 that would have a NIOSH comment 

23 (unintelligible) --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think -- I think part of 

25 the -- the -- you know, part of the reason --
279

1 part of where this comes from is that, you 

2 know, we've noted that -- in some cases we've 

3 seen, and we've said it around the table here, 

4 that how could QA miss this one or -- you know, 

5 if it was being QA'd, these -- there were some 

6 things that we just --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there are some things in 

8 there --

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, so that -- that's 

10 when we -- we questioned --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we've said yeah --

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you're right, there are a 

14 number of things -- recall, though, that -- I 

15 think I've said this --

16 MR. GRIFFON: You've got a lot of --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- several different times --

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- cases going through. Right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we -- if we see a small 

20 mistake, we won't necessarily send it back. 

21 That's been -- that's been a standard practice 

22 for a while. I guess the guys are still doing 

23 this, but from the time when the idea was we 

24 are so far behind we have to get these dose 

25 reconstructions out --
280

1 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if we were reviewing one and 

3 we saw that say they left out the ambient dose 

4 for three years -- now that's just something I 

5 made up -- and the --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- POC's 30 percent, we 

8 wouldn't send it back. We'd approve it and 

9 send it on, because, A, it's not going to 

10 change anything in terms of outcome; and B, 

11 we're so much under the gun to get them done 

12 and -- and the recycle loop, you know, you're 

13 talking easily a week -- easily a week, 

14 probably --

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- longer, before we're going 

17 to see that corrected thing back, and so we 

18 sent it. So we consciously didn't try to 

19 correct every freaking thing.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Now if there were -- I mean we 

22 have findings that man, we're not so sure how 

23 this -- you know, this may have more impact 

24 than just a minor impact, we'd send those --

25 we'd comment on those, and we'd make comments 
281

1 where we were wrong, you know. They would 

2 explain to us no, this is how we did it and so 

3 the -- that's -- the resolution is acceptable 

4 that way. So -- but we've not -- we've not, as 

5 a matter of practice, automatically tried to 

6 find every mistake -- or --

7 DR. WADE: But the intellectual --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- not correct every -- we're 

9 not trying to correct --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- every mistake.

12 DR. WADE: But on a very collegial level, I 

13 guess the question has to be: In the first 100 

14 reviews were there things that SC&A caught that 

15 we should have caught?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'd have to go -- you 

17 know, I'd have to go back --

18 DR. WADE: That's what this report is all 

19 about.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, to look at -- yeah, yeah.

21 DR. WADE: Yeah. So if the answer to that is 

22 yes, then the question is that we need to shore 

23 up our QA/QC. Doesn't mean we're bad people, 

24 just we need to --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I -- I understa-- yeah, 
282

1 I'd say that. I'd have to -- I even started 

2 looking at that at one point at first. I was 

3 overcome by events, too, but -- well, as an 

4 example, OTIB-8 and OTIB-10, you know, that --

5 that makes -- there's a lot of findings -- not 

6 a big number, but a lot of findings on OTIB-8 

7 and 10. That -- that interpretation that was 

8 presented and commented on all these times was 

9 high. It was an overestimating mistaken in an 

10 overestimating approach, and so, you know, had 

11 -- should we have caught that? Well, maybe 

12 yes, maybe no. Actually it stems from, in my 

13 mind, ambivalence in the way 8 and 10 were 

14 written. Different health physicists read it 

15 and interpreted it differently --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- even within our staff at 

18 OCAS. Two of us read it. One of us 

19 interpreted it one way, the other was interpre20 - the other one interpreted it the other, so it 

21 was ambivalence in the way the thing was 

22 written. So since it was a -- if it was a 

23 mistake, it was an overes-- it was a mistake --

24 overestimating mistake in an overestimating 

25 approach anyway, you know, I don't know that we 
283

1 would spend a lot of time correcting and 

2 sending that back at a time when we're trying 

3 to get a lot of production in. So I don't 

4 think that's what we'd have found.

5 Now I'd have to go back -- so you want to look 

6 at these things and find out should we have 

7 found these or should we have corrected these. 

8 If you have a mistake that's going to leave out 

9 a few years of dose in a 43 percent POC but you 

10 see that you gave them the maximum intake on 

11 internal, well, you know that that huge dose on 

12 internal is going to mask a couple of -- couple 

13 of years of his dose, and so you say okay, 

14 we're going to let that go. And we don't -- we 

15 don't make a note of that. You know, we don't 

16 write a comment form for our own use --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to go back and demonstrate 

19 that, so that is kind of, Lew, what you've --

20 you've talked about this -- a lot about this, 

21 when you do your QA, what do you find. And we 

22 have not -- as a -- as a matter of practice, we 

23 have not done that sort of thing where you'd 

24 write essentially what you call a deficiency 

25 report but accept the deficiency as-is --
284

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then you'd have the 

3 record that you were able --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to do that, you could report 

6 that as well as part of it. All we report is 

7 the corrective -- the corrected --

8 MR. GRIFFON: And that's why I'm asking about 

9 ORAU's process, but apparently there's nothing 

10 saved to show the comment resolution --

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- process, yeah.

13 DR. WADE: But there's a tremendous investment 

14 in time here, and there are two benefits to us

15 -- NIOSH. One is the review of the 100 cases 

16 and the findings, and the second is the ability 

17 to use that as a lens to look at our QA/QC 

18 process to see if there needs to be some 

19 adjustment, and I think that's what Mark is 

20 getting at here. And that's --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think as a carry-on 

22 from this point (unintelligible) our action 

23 (unintelligible) you think follows at this 

24 point to -- based on this report and based on 

25 these findings, to take that additional -- the 
285

1 additional action I've talked about, which is 

2 to make our own analysis of those 100 cases and 

3 what's our -- what's our interpretation of this 

4 finding, and should this fit this category of 

5 mistake that we would not -- would not 

6 necessarily try to correct. Now we -- that's 

7 to my way of (unintelligible) -- but that's a 

8 fol-- that's following for us after this 

9 report.

10 DR. WADE: Right. And there are two levels. I 

11 mean there is -- the efficiency level needs to 

12 be introduced, because there could well be 

13 things that are identified as mistakes and are 

14 passed over for efficiency reasons. Again, 

15 that's a policy judgment.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

17 DR. WADE: But then there are other things that 

18 don't fit that. And then the question is why 

19 didn't we.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

21 DR. WADE: So I mean this is a good thing. 

22 This is what this is all about.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right.

24 DR. MAURO: I -- I'm afraid when I read this 

25 that we're all too close. I'm thinking about 
286

1 what we're in the middle of when we're -- we're 

2 really getting into the fine structure to a 

3 level of immense detail. And I -- from reading 

4 this, I'm concerned that we have not, you have 

5 not, all of us have not extracted ourselves far 

6 enough away to really say well, what did we 

7 really do and what did we really accomplish, 

8 almost as if the -- we're all wearing the same 

9 hats and we're in a process, and SC&A's very 

10 much an integral part of a process where there 

11 is an iterative interaction going on 

12 continuously. And I have to say, when I read 

13 this I understand exactly what you're saying, 

14 and it's exactly correct.

15 Then I put myself -- and say well, wait a 

16 minute. Let's say I didn't -- I was not close 

17 to this program and I was the head of HHS and I 

18 was reading this, would I really get a full 

19 appreciation of a very -- of a -- a process 

20 that had systematic steps and outcomes and 

21 accomplishments, and I don't -- I don't get 

22 that from -- I mean I'm -- I'm trying to be 

23 constructive and I -- I think it's -- we -- and 

24 it's not because it's wrong, it's because we're 

25 looking at -- we're too close. I know that we 
287

1 struggled with that on the procedures.

2 MS. MUNN: Yes, we --

3 DR. MAURO: We -- I remember how many times we 

4 had to go through that first page.

5 MS. MUNN: I kept sending it back to you --

6 DR. MAURO: You kept bouncing it back --

7 MS. MUNN: -- this is too long --

8 DR. MAURO: -- step back, step back, step back 

9 -- it's almost as if -- you've almost got to 

10 step out of our -- your own shoes and say well, 

11 wait a minute, what do I really want to tell 

12 this person? And I don't -- I'm afraid that 

13 when I'm reading this -- it's funny, my first 

14 reaction when I read it is oh, yeah, this is 

15 good, this is -- oh, yes -- then -- now and 

16 again I read it and I read it and say wait a 

17 minute, are we too close to this? And when we 

18 talk about some of these -- these issues we 

19 had, when you get into OTIB-004, I mean are we 

20 too close to that? Is that -- or we talk about 

21 what are the big issues -- what was the terms 

22 that we use -- here, one of the places that I 

23 tripped over real quick was (reading) SC&A 

24 concluded that 94 of the first 100 dose 

25 reconstructions reviewed were considered to be 
288

1 sufficient for the purpose of determining 

2 probability of causation.

3 That is an extremely loaded statement --

4 MS. MUNN: It is a loaded statement.

5 DR. MAURO: -- which means that six perc-- you 

6 know what I would read if I were the reader of 

7 this and I didn't know better? Six percent of 

8 all the dose reconstructions had to be reversed 

9 --

10 MS. MUNN: Had to -- yeah --

11 DR. MAURO: -- needed a reversal. Now that's 

12 not true.

13 MS. MUNN: No.

14 DR. MAURO: So somehow we're so clo-- I mean 

15 that statement is correct, within the context 

16 of our own language that we use in the world 

17 we've built for ourselves. We built this house 

18 and we're living in it now, and I'm telling 

19 you, right now you read that sentence, someone 

20 says oh, my goodness --

21 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

22 DR. MAURO: -- six percent had to be reversed? 

23 No, that's not what we're saying here. In 

24 fact, I have a funny feeling that -- could we 

25 even answer the question right now, out of the 
289

1 100 cases that have been reviewed, have any of 

2 them been reversed? Do we know the answer to 

3 that?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, none have 

5 been reduced -- reversed by the findings here.

6 DR. MAURO: That has to be said.

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

8 DR. MAURO: That has to be said. But 

9 nevertheless, the process that we've engaged in 

10 to -- after going through these 100, have --

11 have uncovered certain areas where there's a 

12 need for improvement. It's almost like -- okay 

13 -- and what is -- what is it? I mean, what --

14 what -- is there anything that you folks walk 

15 away with? I mean here we are, sitting around 

16 a table for five years --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh.

18 DR. MAURO: -- doing this, do you bring -- do 

19 you bring back to yourself -- it's a tough 

20 question to ask yourself. When you bring --

21 'cause this what this letter's about. NIOSH 

22 has to be introspective in saying is there 

23 anything that SC&A brought to the table as a 

24 result of supporting the Board, and that the 

25 Board brought to the table as a re-- that sort 
290

1 of opened up other ways of looking at things, 

2 other ways of approaching problems, identified 

3 processes -- other words, I -- I feel as if so 

4 much more could be done with this letter if --

5 but it has to be at a much higher level. Right 

6 now it's almost like a letter written to 

7 ourselves --

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I --

9 DR. MAURO: -- as opposed to a letter written 

10 to the head of HHS. I --

11 MS. MUNN: Right.

12 DR. MAURO: It didn't dawn on me till after --

13 till this -- reading it over and over and over 

14 again and it -- it just hit me now and I hope 

15 you see it as a constructive criticism in terms 

16 of maybe there's another way to package the 

17 information that is at a higher level. And I 

18 think it's very important that none of those 

19 100 were reversed. That's an important message 

20 --

21 MS. MUNN: It needs to be said --

22 DR. MAURO: -- but there is -- that needs --

23 that -- but there is a -- but then NIOSH has to 

24 ask itself and help --

25 MR. GRIFFON: But that's not -- yeah, go ahead.
291

1 DR. MAURO: No, I'm sorry, it what -- what do

2 you want to sa-- I mean really -- I mean --

3 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I --

4 DR. MAURO: -- where do you want to go with --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, that -- that's only 

6 -- it only seems that that's been important 

7 when we -- we've struggled with that throughout 

8 this Board, that we can never talk about POC 

9 unless we didn't end up reversing any of these 

10 ca-- you know? We couldn't even --

11 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't know, I --

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- we couldn't even say those 

13 words in our letters at first.

14 DR. MAURO: Well -- well, right now that infor15 - that -- that --

16 MR. GRIFFON: And now the fact that we didn't 

17 change the outcome, all of a sudden, you know, 

18 you're saying we should conclude that that -- I 

19 mean where -- where we ended up going down --

20 DR. MAURO: Well -- but then --

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't disagree with your 

22 statements about the overall letter, but --

23 DR. MAURO: Then that -- that statement over 

24 here -- I mean then -- the idea that 94 of 100 

25 are considered to be sufficient -- see, that 
292

1 was a term -- I mean -- you know, it's for the 

2 purpose of -- do -- in other words, what -- I 

3 know what that really means.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

5 DR. MAURO: But I can see someone 

6 misinterpreting what that means.

7 MS. MUNN: Most people won't know what that 

8 means.

9 DR. MAURO: We have -- that -- that --

10 DR. WADE: What does it really mean, John?

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, what does it mean?

12 DR. MAURO: What this -- oh, the -- the -- the 

13 process that was used in -- 94 out of 100 we 

14 concluded that the -- the way in which it was 

15 done was strictly in accord with the 10 -- 40 

16 CFR Part 182 to make sure that it was -- it was 

17 done in accordance with the rules that require 

18 you to do dose reconstruction. Other words --

19 and -- and -- other words, there's a certain 

20 set of rules, regu-- the regulations demand 

21 that you follow really the three big steps 

22 regarding -- you know, you start off with the 

23 bioassay data, dosimetry data, then there's a -

24 - there is a -- a process that is laid out by 

25 rule on how you go about doing dose 
293

1 reconstruction so that you could come to a 

2 decision regarding dose reconstruction that is 

3 -- is -- is consistent and in strict accord 

4 with the regulations. And I think we found 

5 that 94 out of 100 did follow the regulations 

6 to the letter. However, six we found didn't 

7 quite follow to the let-- and I think that's 

8 really what's being said here, but I can see 

9 someone reading that meaning no, you came --

10 there's a reversal in here.

11 Now -- now I -- I agree what you're saying. 

12 I'm sorry, I can't --

13 DR. WADE: That's fine.

14 DR. MAURO: -- but I -- I -- these kinds of 

15 things are very, very important to me. Whether 

16 or not you want to say anything about 

17 reversals, I understand that.

18 DR. WADE: Uh-huh.

19 DR. MAURO: Maybe there shouldn't -- that's not 

20 something we should say. And maybe it should 

21 be made very clear that that -- that we're not 

22 talking about that. That -- that's another 

23 part of this, that make it clear that wait a 

24 minute, nothing about we're going to talk about 

25 today has to do with whether or not our process 
294

1 has identified dose reconstructions that had to 

2 be reversed. If that's -- if that's a true 

3 statement, I think that needs to be 

4 communicated. Or is it something that you --

5 you have to ask yourself, do we want to 

6 communicate that? And if we're not going to 

7 communicate that, what is it that we're trying 

8 to say? And I -- I -- what I found very, very 

9 -- I -- ter-- very useful is the -- the forms 

10 in the back. The forms in the back said --

11 said that we built a machine that had certain 

12 layers to it that would cut across all the 

13 different cases in a number of different 

14 directions to make sure that -- and I think you 

15 say that. I think you say that.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's fine.

17 DR. MAURO: And this demonstrates it 

18 beautifully.

19 MR. GRIFFON: But those are just summary stats. 

20 I mean --

21 DR. MAURO: Those are summary stats, but I mean 

22 --

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- they're fine, they're in there 

24 --

25 DR. MAURO: -- so -- and -- and it's in there, 
295

1 so I --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- some nice tables, yeah.

3 DR. MAURO: -- and I think you -- I think you -

4 - I think -- so the front end of this --

5 MR. GRIFFON: There's no conflict in those.

6 DR. MAURO: -- is golden. You're right --

7 MR. GRIFFON: They're fine.

8 DR. MAURO: -- it's golden.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

10 DR. MAURO: And they say okay, after going 

11 through this process and now we're about -- you 

12 know, out of the 240 that of course we've 

13 reviewed to date -- by the -- when we finish 

14 the tenth set it'll be 240, we -- we're at the 

15 -- right there -- you know, the first 100, I 

16 don't -- I don't see what I would call 

17 accomplishments.

18 MS. MUNN: And that was my primary concern 

19 after I read through. I read through this and 

20 I thought what I'm coming away with is a really 

21 negative feeling --

22 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

23 MS. MUNN: -- as though here's all the stuff 

24 that's gone wrong for the last X number of 

25 years. I -- what I did not see is a feeling of 
296

1 accomplishment. And if that's -- if that's 

2 what we want to convey, then that's fine. But 

3 I was disappointed that I didn't -- I didn't 

4 feel that sense of movement, that sense of 

5 achievement, that sense of change that I feel 

6 has come out of --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 MS. MUNN: -- the subcommittee. But it's --

9 DR. MAURO: That's a real hard thing to catch, 

10 and I think we're all -- we're all very close 

11 to it. It's very hard to do that, to step that 

12 far back and say what -- what did we really 

13 accomplish here -- tough question.

14 MS. MUNN: It is a tough question.

15 DR. WADE: See, what --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I --

17 DR. WADE: -- and I don't really have a dog in

18 the fight, but where I came away with the sense 

19 of accomplishment was, in each of the 

20 conclusions and recommendations, at the end you 

21 speak to what NIOSH has indicated it would do 

22 in response. So to me, the accomplishment was 

23 embodied in those statements.

24 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) see it that way.

25 DR. WADE: So, you know -- and I felt good 
297

1 about that, you know. Now there's only that 

2 didn't. Number seven, for some reason, didn't 

3 have that.

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we effected some 

5 change and I tried to -- to integrate that in 

6 there. It might have got lost in the back, you 

7 know, but --

8 DR. WADE: I mean I'll just --

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- the pro-- the process did 

10 effect some change. It may be less than --

11 DR. WADE: Just a number of things. I don't

12 think you should be hung up on whether or not a 

13 POC change was made. I don't think that's the 

14 business of this. This is a review of the 

15 scientific process, and -- and if there is 

16 something found at fault with the process, 

17 regardless of whether it triggered a change, it 

18 needs to be pointed out and -- and counted.

19 Again, you're writing -- while you're writing 

20 this to the Secretary, you're writing this for 

21 NIOSH. The worth of this is that NIOSH takes 

22 it, reads it and is motivated by whatever it's 

23 motivated by, the kinds of things Stu was 

24 talking about doing. So I wouldn't lose that 

25 grain.
298

1 Whether or not you move things around to -- to 

2 convey this fact that we did something and the 

3 world is better for it, that's a matter of 

4 style and I'd leave that to you --

5 MR. GRIFFON: We're also writing this for the 

6 broader public, too, so -- and the claimant 

7 population at large. I mean they're going to 

8 see us as an independent body reviewing, you 

9 know, the dose reconstruction contractor, so --

10 DR. WADE: Well, last -- lats --

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- we have different audiences, I 

12 think.

13 DR. WADE: Right. The last thing I'd say is 

14 audit reports are never po-- never fun to read.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

16 DR. WADE: The only thing I -- and you've 

17 always done this, and I would suggest you do it 

18 again, is you turn to the -- the audited body 

19 and you say are you offended by this; do you 

20 think it's wrong. If they say yes, you need to 

21 listen to them. If they say no, then you move 

22 forward. You've done that with other letters, 

23 I assume you'll do it --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, we'll -- yeah, we'll 

25 send comments on the -- I didn't open this till 
299

1 this morning and nobody else --

2 MR. GRIFFON: No, I know. I just wanted to get 

3 the dialogue going again and I do -- I -- I do 

4 agree that -- that -- I -- I think there's some 

5 good -- in what John said, there's -- there's 

6 some --

7 DR. MAURO: Hey, I'm struggling --

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- other things we can add in 

9 some letter -- in the front end to -- to show -

10 - to speak to the accomplishments, maybe not 

11 just bury it in the back, but pull it up to the 

12 front so -- so that we do speak to that. I 

13 don't disagree with that.

14 This 94 out of 100, I -- I had a little 

15 heartburn of putting that in there for the 

16 reverse reason, that I thought it was a 94 

17 perc-- you know, it got an A, you know, and --

18 DR. MAURO: No, I would say --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I thought it buried some 

20 of the -- you know, some of the -- the 

21 important things that -- that --

22 DR. MAURO: Well, thi-- thi--

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- important deficiencies, you 

24 know.

25 DR. MAURO: The -- that -- I think it should be 
300

1 said in a way I think -- I think it was 

2 intended. Namely that --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

4 DR. MAURO: -- for -- in our audits we found 

5 that 94 percent of the dose reconstructions 

6 strictly followed the regulations as laid out. 

7 Other words, we --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: -- they're -- they -- it was --

10 that's really what we found out, that is --

11 which is -- it is an A. That is, if in fact 

12 there's a set of regulations out there and we

13 audited against are you following the rules 

14 that were handed you by -- by the regulators 

15 and by Congress, and the answer is ye-- in 94 

16 percent of the time, we did; and six percent of 

17 the times we found this was -- there was some 

18 deficiencies -- and I think that should drive 

19 the whole thing.

20 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know about --

21 DR. MAURO: Other words, in effect -- you don't 

22 see it that way?

23 MR. GRIFFON: No, I don't see -- I don't see --

24 I don't even see your definition of a 94 

25 percent --
301

1 DR. MAURO: Okay, then what is it?

2 MR. GRIFFON: I think it is the P--

3 DR. MAURO: It is the -- that's what I --

4 MR. GRIFFON: It's the POC. I mean it's the 

5 POC.

6 DR. MAURO: Well, then you're saying six 

7 percent -- you think six percent --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: -- of the POCs were not --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Not -- not -- that -- that's what 

11 we've said in every previous letter report. I 

12 mean the la-- SC&A concluded that 38 of the 40 

13 dose reconstructions reviewed during this phase 

14 of the audit were considered to be sufficient 

15 for the purposes of determining probability of 

16 causation. We voted on this letter three 

17 times. We've said those words before. This 

18 was just adding up numbers, for me. This was -

19 - that was a -- you know, so I don't think --

20 and it -- it was -- you know, my point really 

21 was that most of these cases we looked at in 

22 the first 100 were maximizing or minimizing.

23 DR. MAURO: Well, no, that's important.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Probably only five percent were -

25 - five or seven percent or so were best 
302

1 estimates, so it's not surprising at all that 

2 you'd get a very high -- 94 percent, you know, 

3 were -- were sufficient. Now I think we -- we 

4 chose those words because -- in the past 

5 reports because we said, you know, we -- we 

6 can't say that five -- five or six percent --

7 DR. MAURO: You can't.

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- are -- are -- as a result of 

9 this audit were overturned, were reversed, but 

10 we -- in -- what we -- we did say that the --

11 you know, I guess we said that -- that the 

12 sufficiency was suspect, sort of. We left it 

13 in the gray area.

14 MS. MUNN: It raised questions.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it raised questions --

16 MS. MUNN: Raised issues.

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- enough that we couldn't 

18 definitively say they were sufficient, so -- so 

19 those -- you know, again, we -- I'm not saying 

20 that that means that it has to stay that way in 

21 the summary report, but we've said these words 

22 before to the Secretary. That was just adding 

23 up numbers. I -- I totally agree with what you 

24 said about modifying the front end to sort of 

25 say what have we accomplished to this point --
303

1 you know, where -- where are we and -- and sort 

2 of -- 'cause this is -- this is sort of like a 

3 -- a technical letter, almost, not -- you know, 

4 it doesn't step back and say, you know, what 

5 have we gotten out of this, what -- 'cause 

6 there are accomplishments, I agree. And I 

7 think -- you know, Lew found them, but I think 

8 some of them are kind of buried in the text in 

9 the back conclusions. And oftentimes they're -

10 - they're -- you know, I mention an 

11 accomplishment, and then I throw a "however" in 

12 there, which --

13 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, on the other hand.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- I thought Wanda would comment 

15 on those.

16 MS. MUNN: On the other hand.

17 MR. GRIFFON: But I mean -- yeah, yeah, so --

18 so I think some of that -- I -- I don't 

19 disagree with that -- some of that probably 

20 should be added to the front -- you know, 

21 toward the front, and maybe the back end needs 

22 to be sort of narrowed down a little, you know. 

23 It's a little lengthy, but...

24 DR. WADE: Could I ask just a clarifying que--

25 for my own education, could you just describe 
304

1 for me one of the six that would be -- those 

2 si-- are we talking about the use -- when --

3 was the use of OTIB-4?

4 MR. GRIFFON: No --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: No, these are -- as I recall --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Case 44, case 49 -- I think the 

7 Savannah River cases.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: They -- they were close to --

9 the POC in the original dose reconstruction 

10 would be like 48 percent.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And there would be findings on 

13 that that would lead the reviewer to indicate 

14 that we're not so sure this is right. These 

15 findings are serious enough that it might 

16 affect the outcome.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So --

19 MR. GRIFFON: And might affect is the key.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And so the -- what the -- what 

21 is actually the case here is that the dose 

22 reconstructions, as originally prepared, were -

23 - 94 percent were sufficient to reach -- you 

24 know, that were of the ones reviewed -- were 

25 sufficient to reach a decision on probability 
305

1 of causation.

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Which means that six, as 

4 originally prepared, were not. But I think in 

5 all cases of those six, when we reworked the 

6 case with the -- taking the comment into 

7 account --

8 MR. GRIFFON: They weren't reversed.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they weren't reversed.

10 MR. GRIFFON: And we might want to even say 

11 that.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Now the other thing -- now the 

13 thing that -- that strikes me about this is 

14 there -- there should be a way to find -- I 

15 mean there have been certainly site profiles 

16 revised because of this review -- Huntington 

17 Pilot Plant site profile is now revised now as 

18 a result of findings on dose reconstructions. 

19 There have been specific actions taken. The 

20 key -- you know, the key thing about this 

21 review, it has removed the question of what is 

22 a correct dose reconstruction from a federal 

23 agency and it's put it in the public and made 

24 it a broader participation in what is -- what 

25 is the -- what has the country decided will be 
306

1 the correct decision for this law. You know, 

2 that's -- that's the value, to me, of this 

3 review. And if no dose reconstruction is ever 

4 directly overturned because of the findings, 

5 the specific findings on that, there are any 

6 number of things that are done differently 

7 because of this. And a number of cases have 

8 been reworked through PER or through whatever 

9 process --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and practices that are used 

12 now -- dose reconstruction practices are 

13 different, generally more claimant to the 

14 favorable -- to the -- more favorable to the 

15 claimant -- you know, normally I get that right 

16 -- because of -- of this -- this process is now 

17 an open -- you know, a public process with 

18 broader participation than just the federal 

19 government. So the -- or one federal agency. 

20 So there's some real value here, and I don't --

21 that can be spoken of, you know, however you 

22 want, but -- so I think, you know, that's it. 

23 And -- and what -- if we have -- do we have all 

24 five matrices final, I mean with resolutions 

25 and everything, are all five done now?
307

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, except, as I said, there 

2 was these 12 that Kathy and I were trying to 

3 figure out --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, trying to resolve.

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- unresolved, yeah.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: With the final matrix --

7 matrices and a little time, I think we could 

8 come up with: These specific actions have been 

9 taken by NIOSH. Whether you want to put them 

10 in the letter, I mean that's going to delay the 

11 letter while we get to it, but we could provide 

12 --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Well, just what you said there is 

14 useful. I mean I think some of that stuff --

15 yeah --

16 DR. WADE: Sure we capture --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: These --

18 MR. GRIFFON: We can either say it generically 

19 or get specific if we want to, but yeah.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. And we could capture the 

21 specific activities, there's been procedure 

22 revisions, there's been site profile revisions, 

23 there have been practices adopted and applied -

24 - I would guess that PERs have been prepared 

25 because of --
308

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the findings in site profile 

4 -- or in --

5 MR. GRIFFON: Dose reconstructions.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- dose reconstructions. So --

7 I suspect there are -- I'm not 100 percent, but 

8 I suspect there are. So -- so I think there's 

9 a lot of stuff that's happened here that we --

10 it would take us a little time, but we could 

11 probably put together.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that'd be useful. I mean I 

13 -- this is open --

14 MS. MUNN: Very useful.

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- for comment, and what I would 

16 offer is -- I mean everyone around the table, 

17 if you want to send some red-lined comments --

18 and Stu, for that sort of analysis, it's going 

19 to take a little longer, I -- I understand. 

20 But --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I'm afraid I'm 

22 (unintelligible) --

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- or just e-mail of things that 

24 need to be added, I can take another shot at 

25 this and --
309

1 DR. WADE: I do think the sentence of that 94 

2 as we discussed about could be modified to say 

3 that upon reflection or upon rework, that'd be 

4 fine.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I think if you said "as 

6 originally prepared."

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I just put that down, too.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: If you put those words in 

9 there, it provides --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, the -- the --

12 DR. WADE: And then I think, parenthetically, a 

13 follow-on is -- would be appropriate.

14 MR. SIEBERT: And then for our information for 

15 this it'd be very helpful for us to have those 

16 six, specifically what numbers those are, 

17 'cause I don't know those.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You can -- well, we could 

19 probably find them.

20 DR. WADE: You should know them. I mean you 

21 guys should be able --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We've got the report --

23 MR. GRIFFON: From the past letters, you --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: The DR rep-- the DR report says 

25 --
310

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- you have them, yeah.

2 MR. SIEBERT: They have the specific numbers?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The DR report says.

4 MR. GRIFFON: 44 and 49 were two of them. I --

5 I don't have the other letter where the other 

6 ones were listed, but...

7 MS. MUNN: We're not under any real time 

8 pressure to get this --

9 MR. GRIFFON: No, I just want to -- I've said 

10 for four -- three subcommittee meetings I've 

11 said I would start this so I wanted to get this 

12 --

13 MS. MUNN: Right, right.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- this -- a starting point, 

15 yeah.

16 DR. WADE: From my perspective, this is an 

17 unbelievably positive thing on many levels. 

18 What Stu said, the fact that this is an 

19 independent audit, and that's extremely 

20 valuable to everyone associated with the 

21 program, so you're all to be complimented. How 

22 you tell your story is -- is a bit of an art, 

23 and that's fine.

24 DR. MAURO: It's a tough story to tell.

25 MS. MUNN: It is a tough story, but it appears 
311

1 to me to be very important that we get this to 

2 the Secretary's level before we -- if -- as a 

3 matter of fact, in my perspective, this kind of 

4 report is more important than the interim 

5 reports that we sent prior to this because this 

6 is -- this is a -- a serious milestone. We've 

7 looked at -- we now have looked at over 100 --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

9 MS. MUNN: -- of these cases and here's what --

10 here's what's transpired as a result.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Here's what -- here's the change 

12 we've effected, here's some accomplishments --

13 MS. MUNN: Exactly.

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- but also here's some remaining 

15 --

16 MS. MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- concerns, yeah.

18 MS. MUNN: Here are the concerns --

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

20 MS. MUNN: -- we've turned up.

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

22 MS. MUNN: Here are the -- the -- I -- I would 

23 like to have the casual reader come away with a 

24 stronger sense of some sort of accomplishment 

25 than I personally received from just reading 
312

1 through this the first couple of times. 

2 Because we have accomplished a lot here, and --

3 DR. WADE: No, it's not trivial at all what 

4 you've --

5 MS. MUNN: So we can all work on it.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Can all work on it. You've got 

7 till tomorrow morning -- no.

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and give --

9 MR. GRIFFON: That's how quickly I put it 

10 together so I figured I'd give you the same 

11 time. I spent yesterday, you get today.

12 MS. MUNN: Right, exactly.

13 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I really did -- I 

14 understand that. I was working from the old 

15 boilerplates, but I just wanted to get it on 

16 the table at least the first time, and I -- I -

17 - you know, we can certainly -- it certainly 

18 needs some work, but this starts the dialogue, 

19 so...

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- I certainly hope --

21 MR. GRIFFON: And I'd appreciate any -- if you 

22 want to red-line or if you want to send e-mails 

23 with separate things to be included, either 

24 way, I'll try to -- try to rework this.

25 MS. MUNN: Or removed, as the case may be.
313

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, or removed. Yeah. But you 

2 know -- you know, what I mo-- what I also fear, 

3 I do understand the length issue, but I also --

4 I mean even if -- even if we reformat it to 

5 have like an executive summary and -- and 

6 something like that, I -- I really do have some 

7 concerns on making it just high level and --

8 and too broad to -- for the Secretary to 

9 appreciate some of the details, you know, so --

10 MS. MUNN: Well, you want -- you want meat.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

12 DR. WADE: Speaking for the Secretary, I 

13 wouldn't worry about length.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly.

15 DR. WADE: Tell your story.

16 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

18 DR. WADE: Tell your story complete. They 

19 realize you're telling it to multiple audiences 

20 --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right.

22 DR. WADE: -- anyway, so tell it well and tell 

23 it completely.

24 DR. MAURO: With the approach you took on --

25 where you had the two or three-page -- it 
314

1 wasn't even that long -- front end --

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

3 DR. MAURO: -- and then you had this relatively 

4 large attachment --

5 MS. MUNN: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: -- a lot of nuts and bolts --

7 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

8 DR. MAURO: -- that seemed to work.

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

10 DR. MAURO: Everybody wanted to hear --

11 MS. MUNN: Nobody complained, that I heard.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean that's --

13 MS. MUNN: They didn't have the nerve to 

14 complain to me.

15 MR. GRIFFON: What, for the procedures? I mean 

16 we rewrote that at the Board meeting, too, and 

17 that -- but that was a status report, too, and 

18 this a little --

19 MS. MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- different -- I agree, so...

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's different.

22 DR. WADE: This is your stock in trade, if you 

23 read the charter of the work-- of the -- the 

24 Board, this is it.

25 MS. MUNN: This is what we're supposed to be 
315

1 doing.

2 DR. WADE: And we're at one and a quarter 

3 percent, is that -- is my math right, when we 

4 wrote --

5 DR. MAURO: Is that where we're at -- yeah.

6 DR. WADE: Yeah, we're half-way.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Are we really?

8 (Whereupon, Drs. Mauro and Wade, Mr. Griffon 

9 and Ms. Munn all spoke simultaneously.)

10 MR. GRIFFON: Another seven years on the Board, 

11 we'll be all set.

12 MS. MUNN: Which means we only have another 

13 five years.

14 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that's -- I think that 

15 might be good stopping point, but you know --

16 DR. WADE: But do we want to do anything to --

17 so --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, --

19 DR. WADE: -- John can keep working?

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- talk about, yeah, but is there 

21 any more on that --

22 UNIDENTIFIED: I found where (unintelligible) -

23 -

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- send me comments --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll work it out.
316

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- and maybe we'll -- I don't 

2 even know if we'll have time to get a revised 

3 draft -- I might just report back to the Board 

4 that we are working on this, we have a 

5 preliminary draft that the --

6 DR. WADE: You want to --

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- subcommittee members are 

8 working -- yeah, that -- that we're -- but 

9 we're not ready to -- it's not ready to be 

10 pulled out in public yet.

11 MS. MUNN: That would seem judicious in view of 

12 the fact that NIOSH certainly is not going to 

13 have an opportunity to contribute anything 

14 prior to the September meeting.

15 DR. WADE: You want to kill an hour, ask the 

16 Board what they think about these generic 

17 issues --

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, exactly.

19 DR. WADE: -- they'll tell you.

20 MR. GIBSON: Just an hour?

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

22 MS. MUNN: If you need a filler.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so the tenth set, Stu, did 

24 you --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I figured out where we 
317

1 are.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know why we're at this 

4 point and no farther, but we have pre-selected 

5 cases. We have -- of the pre-selected cases, 

6 22 survived the review by -- for DOL by post7 closure activity and the PER review to see how 

8 many have been reopened for PER.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So 22 survived that. We have 

11 the additional information from ORAU and --

12 let's see, I was just looking at these real 

13 quick -- I think seven of these have POCs above 

14 50 percent, nine of them have POCs 

15 (unintelligible) the 40s.

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The job titles -- you know, 

18 we've got a couple we don't know. There's one 

19 secretary/stenographer. The others look like -

20 - you know, people who -- chances are going to 

21 be exposed. The reason I'm pretty confident I 

22 haven't distributed it is on the last version I 

23 could find it still has all the identification 

24 information in it, so I would not have 

25 distributed this version. I'd cut that out 
318

1 before I distribute it back to you.

2 A way to do this would be to just send it -- I 

3 can do it either Friday or Monday. I'm barely 

4 in the office. I won't be back in the office 

5 till Friday and not much -- probably not till 

6 Friday afternoon, so depending on when I can do 

7 it, I'll either do it Friday or Monday, send it 

8 to the subcommittee members and -- and if you 

9 agree that these claims look okay, we could 

10 just make these 22 the tenth set.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be a way to do it.

13 MS. MUNN: What number were we aiming for in 

14 the tenth set?

15 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think we started with 30, 

16 didn't we, but we ended up --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I can tell you that in a minute 

18 -- well, I might be able to. The way my 

19 computer's behaving, I don't know if I'll be 

20 able to tell you in a minute or not.

21 MS. MUNN: That's -- that's why I asked, 

22 because my memory was that we were after more 

23 than 22.

24 DR. WADE: Well, but is this --

25 MS. MUNN: 22 is (unintelligible).
319

1 DR. WADE: But are -- right. Now is this the 

2 first set for next year?

3 DR. MAURO: No, this is -- this -- we haven't 

4 fin-- we had 60 this year. We only have 40 so 

5 far.

6 DR. WADE: Okay, this is --

7 DR. MAURO: So we have 20 more that we need to 

8 do.

9 DR. WADE: Okay, so this would be --

10 DR. MAURO: In theory, it was --

11 DR. WADE: -- this would be the right number, 

12 if these 22 are --

13 DR. MAURO: This 20 -- if we could pick -- if 

14 you could sel-- pick 30, out of the 30, they 

15 could pick 20, 20 would basically fill the 

16 hopper for when we -- our obligation to you for 

17 this --

18 MR. GRIFFON: This can probably be a quick 

19 look, Stu, 'cause I think we're going to say go 

20 with all -- go with these 22 or go with -- you 

21 know.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

23 MS. MUNN: I imagine so.

24 DR. WADE: So you could send it out, the 

25 subcommittee could look at it. If they had any 
320

1 gas, they could say to Mark, gas. If not, you 

2 go to the Board in early September --

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

4 DR. WADE: -- and you propose these 22. It's a 

5 plan.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 'cause we've already had --

7 had one cut at these so we're -- we -- we 

8 picked them once and then --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, one other thing we removed 

10 were the ninth set because when we selected --

11 we made the pre-selection of the tenth set, the 

12 ninth set had not yet been finally selected, 

13 and so there were some of those --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- pre-selected 

16 (unintelligible) --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so those were also removed.

19 MR. GRIFFON: That's right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: The pre-selection list, I 

21 believe, was 55 -- 55 cases long.

22 DR. WADE: But 20 -- 20's what you're looking 

23 for?

24 DR. MAURO: 20 -- yeah, that'll fill up the 

25 hopper.
321

1 DR. WADE: 22 is always good. What a -- what a 

2 country.

3 MS. MUNN: As long as we don't --

4 DR. WADE: Yeah, see -- see how smooth things 

5 work when I'm here?

6 MS. MUNN: As long as we don't have to every 

7 month, then we're fine.

8 (Whereupon, numerous comments were made by 

9 various participants.)

10 MR. GRIFFON: I'm just looking at the -- so, 

11 Stu, you didn't -- the last one I got sent to 

12 me was 3/24/08.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. It was like middle of

14 April when we got everything -- or late April 

15 when we got everything done. I don't know why 

16 it's not there. I really don't know.

17 DR. WADE: Where do you stand on the 40, John, 

18 are you --

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, oh, where are we -- tell me --

20 what's the number? Our plan is to deliver the 

21 report by the end of September. That's where 

22 we -- in fact, that's one of the reasons I 

23 brought this up. Come the end of September, we 

24 will have delivered all deliverables that we 

25 owe you, except for these 20, and it puts us in 
322

1 a position where there's no more work for us to 

2 do except workgroup meetings for closeout. But 

3 I mean, you know, all along over the past five 

4 years we always have two, three site profiles 

5 in the hopper, two or three SEC petitions in 

6 the hopper, a dozen or more procedures in the 

7 hopper, you know, all that going on.

8 MR. GRIFFON: We'll get some SEC work for you 

9 come this (unintelligible).

10 DR. WADE: Yeah, you'll get SEC work.

11 DR. MAURO: It's just going to like end like a 

12 brick wall, September 30 comes -- boom, we're 

13 done. What do we do now, you know?

14 DR. WADE: Well, you do these and you do SEC 

15 work.

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah -- no, if there's more, but it 

17 has to be authorized. I mean, you know.

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 DR. WADE: Do you have money to do more site 

20 profiles?

21 DR. MAURO: We've got $1.7 million we need to 

22 spend. We're spending $300,000 a month. That 

23 means we could work five more months on the 

24 money that we -- we're supposed to have spent 

25 by the end of September.
323

1 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, there's no way to get a 

2 initial cut for an eleventh set by --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We're working on it. We should 

4 have it by the -- by the Board meeting.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, maybe we can get --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll try to get out -- try to 

7 get out ahead of --

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, maybe we can do our first 

9 cycle through that, I don't know.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I cho-- I told the -- I took a 

11 little management initiative here and told them 

12 for the -- when the full internal and external 

13 set, I said rather than run them all, just run 

14 any ones that were completed in 2007 or 2008, 

15 so I'll see what I can get. If it's too small, 

16 we'll go back another --

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, that'd be good, 

18 yeah.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And then the random pool is 

20 going to pull from the whole -- the whole pool 

21 of available cases, so there'll be a random 

22 pool with a couple of hundred, and however many 

23 we get of the full internal and externals.

24 MR. GRIFFON: All right, I think that does it. 

25 Anything else for the...
324

1 DR. WADE: A wonderful meet. You got 

2 everything done you set out to do.

3 MR. GRIFFON: ... for the record? You got 

4 anything else for the record, Lew?

5 DR. WADE: That's for the record. These are --

6 and don't lose sight of the worth that you do. 

7 This has been an extremely valuable process, 

8 not only to the agency, but also to the people 

9 we all serve, so you've done a fine job.

10 MS. MUNN: It's not easy.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Let's all catch a plane before 

12 the procedures workgroup.

13 DR. WADE: Yeah, you want to be here for that, 

14 that's -- that's tough stuff. Christine said 

15 she could handle the dose reconstruction, but 

16 the procedures were tough.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we're -- we're adjourned. 

18 Thank you all.

19 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:26 

20 p.m.)

21

22

23
325

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Aug. 20, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein.

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein.

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

18th day of Dec., 2008.

___________________________________

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102