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

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

FRIDAY,

JULY 15, 2011

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee met in the Zurich 

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Mark Griffon, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member*

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH*

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

BRANT ULSH, DCAS

*Present via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Review of NIOSH ten-year review............ 6

SC&A Blind reviews........................ 72

Case selection............................ 98

7th Matrix Item Discussion ............... 192

8th Matrix Item Discussion ............... 213
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (9:09 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Welcome 

4 everyone. Starting our Dose Reconstruction 

5 Subcommittee meeting. And just for the sake 

6 of those who didn't bring the agenda like me, 

7 I'm going to read -- read it out, just so you 

8 have a sense of where you're going today.

9 The first item that I put on the 

10 agenda was discussion of the NIOSH ten year 

11 review, findings and recommendations, 

12 specifically those focused on dose 

13 reconstruction and the quality of science 

14 issues. If you remember the last Board 

15 meeting, we committed to reviewing this at the 

16 Subcommittee with the intent of coming back to 

17 the full Board with possibly a proposed --

18 some proposed recommendations to make to the 

19 secretary. There are comments on the ten-year 

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

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Or to NIOSH really.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Back to NIOSH, 

3 right.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

6 To NIOSH. So, that's the first item. The 

7 second item is the blind case reviews, which I 

8 believe are two, right, Doug? There are two 

9 of those.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Blind case 

12 reviews, which we've -- or maybe it's me, but 

13 we've neglected to put on the agenda for a 

14 while. They've been done for quite -- quite a 

15 long time, yes. And then we have the PER 

16 number 12 case selection, which I don't think 

17 should take us a terribly long time to do 

18 that. And then the 15-set case selection, and 

19 these are documents.

20 These sets of cases were set out 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to everyone. So, I hope if you didn't get 

2 them, maybe email Ted while we're talking 

3 about the earlier items so you can have them 

4 in your computers when we come to the agenda. 

5 And then the last thing is our normal course 

6 of work, which is to continue on the case 

reviews, 7th, 8th, possibly 9th 7 set.

8 So, is there anything else that we 

9 need to add to the agenda? I think that kind 

10 of covers it. Okay, so to start off, I mean 

11 the review of the NIOSH ten-year review, I --

12 there's -- I guess there's two documents out 

13 there, and I'm sort of looking at them this 

14 morning myself, but one was sent out before 

15 the Board conference call about a week ago, 

16 and that was a boiled down version is my 

17 understanding, of the larger, earlier 

18 document.

19 It was sort of proposed actions on 

20 some of the priority items, I guess is the way 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's laid out. And the other document that I 

2 was looking at was a -- it's a 14-page 

3 document, a draft final recommendations 

4 document, that is actually posted -- I don't 

5 know if both of these are posted on the web, 

6 but this one is in the website, and it was 

7 presented at our last full Board meeting in 

8 St. Louis.

9 So, if people have those 

10 documents, I think that's maybe where we can 

11 start our discussions. Everybody on the 

12 phone, you got those items?

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have the 

14 boiled down action items. I'm still looking 

15 for the earlier one.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: That was Member 

18 Richardson.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

20 I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to look up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what was sent earlier. 

2 DR. MAURO: And Mark, this is John 

3 Mauro. I have a document I'm holding in my 

4 hand, which I read carefully. It's 44 pages, 

5 dated 2011. It might be something different 

6 than you're looking at right now.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the one I 

8 have --

9 DR. MAURO: It's a large document.

10 MR. KATZ: John, I just emailed 

11 you and Kathy the condensed version.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 MR. STIVER: It should be in 

14 there.

15 DR. MAURO: We should be working 

16 from that. Thanks a lot, John. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I guess 

18 we can start at least the discussion of these 

19 items. I -- I mean I think -- I'm not sure 

20 that there were a lot of surprises. A lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it has been similar to what we've been finding 

2 all along.

3 One thing that -- two things that 

4 jumped out at me, and I'll just start the 

5 discussion. One is the QAQC focus, and 

6 actually Lew does include that on -- as one 

7 of his first items on some action items 

8 related to QAQC issues, and we've certainly 

9 been dealing with that on our Subcommittee.

10 And the other is the -- the 

11 question of using the overestimating approach, 

12 and whether we -- I think one of the findings 

13 was that raised some complications over the 

14 years for various reasons. You know, a lot of 

15 the biggest ones was another cancer coming up 

16 later, then having to report back lower 

17 numbers later. Things like that.

18 So, that question of how often or 

19 when should you -- should NIOSH continue to 

20 use that, how often, that sort of thing. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 John, did you have something?

2 MR. STIVER: Oh, no.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I don't 

4 know. I mean that's just a couple quick ones. 

5 I must admit I didn't extensively review 

6 this, but if others have items that they think 

7 either are in support of NIOSH's -- consistent 

8 with NIOSH's findings, their ten-year review, 

9 or different items, I guess that's what we're 

10 here for. So, Wanda, anything?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe so 

12 based on what Lew had to say at our most 

13 recent teleconference. I think the things 

14 that are applicable to what we're doing here 

15 are -- already are noted. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: If I could just 

17 offer an item or two?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: In the QA section 

20 of continuing review in my view relied very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heavily on the work of the Subcommittee and 

2 the work being done here. So, it probably 

3 sounds familiar to the Subcommittee. And we 

4 are -- we have been doing some work on that. 

5 We haven't ignored the issue, and have been 

6 looking at it. 

7 There was a selected set of cases 

8 with specific -- specific findings related 

9 that ORAU has taken a look at in terms of 

10 positive factors for those errors, and I've 

11 also taken a look at. And I've got to tell 

12 you it's -- it's not -- thinking about it, 

13 it's not encouraging because the mistakes 

14 oftentimes were a lapse of attention on the 

15 dose reconstructor, and then you have a peer 

16 review process that doesn't specifically ask 

17 you to check that particular thing that was --

18 that was missed. It has general -- more 

19 general instructions in the peer review 

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

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, it got -- it has peer 

2 review also, whether it was inattention or 

3 just didn't happen to think of it at that 

4 time, or it didn't fit. You know, the 

5 questions in the peer review procedure didn't 

6 drive them to check that particular item. 

7 And so, when you think about in QA 

8 terms of process improvement, what would you 

9 do about that? Well, what you try to do is 

10 design your system so that those mistakes --

11 you aren't putting yourself in a position to 

12 have those kinds of mistakes because that's 

13 going to happen when you do 30,000 cases. 

14 People are going to make a mistake.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And then, so if 

17 you -- in that kind of a situation, where you 

18 have people making all these independent 

19 decisions, all these decisions on all these 

20 dose reconstructions, then you have to rely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really heavily on the inspection process. 

2 So, if you make a really thorough 

3 inspection process to avoid any kind of 

4 errors, then you really slow it down. You 

5 make it far more expensive, and you really 

6 impede the progress on dose reconstruction, 

7 which is -- I'm not saying that we shouldn't 

8 be doing it. I mean we definitely are trying 

9 to improve the quality of the dose 

10 reconstruction, but this is not an easy nut to 

11 crack.

12 I mean when you get into that kind 

13 of error, that is a tough one to fix. I think 

14 some things have been fixed by better and more 

15 robust tools, and more things are done 

16 automatically now than were done over the 

17 years in some of these cases that were done 

18 quite a while ago. 

19 And so, I think there are a number 

20 of things that have been done, and maybe some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 additional things that can be done, but I mean 

2 the classic response to, "How do you make sure 

3 those errors don't get out?" is you make a 

4 very specific and prescriptive inspection 

5 program. And so, just in the list of however 

6 many findings that was -- maybe 10 or 11 

7 additional items to specifically check on 

8 inspection in order to drive the peer reviewer 

9 in order to find that mistake.

10 And so, if you did this, you would 

11 just continually build this enormous 

12 inspection checklist for the peer review. And 

13 so, it just doesn't seem like a winnable 

14 battle. So, we're going to have to be a 

15 little more creative than traditional on this 

16 and see what we can do. So, it's going to be 

17 a tough nut to crack.

18 Lou's opinion, and I agreed with 

19 his opinion, is that my preference is that 

20 this Subcommittee not find any mistakes in any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the dose reconstructions. You know, that's 

2 my preference. I'm not sure we can attain 

3 that.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Looking for 

5 them or --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll take it 

7 either way.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: But not matter how 

10 much you look, you shouldn't find any, and 

11 that's the way I feel about it. But boy, this 

12 is a tough one.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Zero errors is 

14 tough, right. David, go ahead.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I totally 

16 appreciate that. What I felt like coming out 

17 of the QAQC is -- is I don't have -- I don't 

18 have a starting point, like a place where I 

19 plant my stake and say, "This is where we are 

20 today." An action that you take following the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ten-year review is going to have a positive or 

2 negative impact on the quality of the work 

3 being done or the product that's being 

4 delivered.

5 And so, that's -- to me, that's 

6 concerning because in fact it's possible that 

7 you can introduce a tool or a new procedure, 

8 which has a not anticipated impact on the 

9 quality of the work product. And so -- and I 

10 feel like there's a little bit of a 

11 distinction, and it's probably between -- I 

12 mean this could be a difference between health 

13 physics and epidemiology in a sense of 

14 difference between a deterministic 

15 intervention where you're saying we have to 

16 have greater oversight on a record by record 

17 basis, and what I would call a probabilistic 

18 or stochastic evaluation process, where I 

19 would say I feel comfortable with a 5 percent 

20 or 10 percent sample, and getting from that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 survey census perspective, getting an idea of 

2 the quality of the work product being 

3 delivered.

4 Now, one of those, as you said as 

5 you increase the -- kind of the types of 

6 deterministic interventions where you're going 

7 to have a more detailed inspection on every 

8 record as that increases, necessarily that's 

9 increasing the cost of and the time that's 

10 required for the evaluations.

11 But for -- in a lot of business 

12 models, you might say, "I'd be willing to 

13 accept a 5 percent or 10 percent increase in 

14 the cost of the process, and a 5 percent or 10 

15 percent increase in the time," and we kind of 

16 bound that by the sample drawn, and we're 

17 going to run certain records blind the second 

18 time.

19 I mean that has -- it should be 

20 proportional to the amount of effort for that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quality assessment procedure, but that --

2 that's -- that kind of remains the sort of 

3 thinking that I'm having. You need to do that 

4 before you take any actions. You can bound 

5 the cost of that on the times that's required 

6 by the sample drawn, and then you take 

7 intervention and evaluate forward.

8 So, that's what -- that's what I 

9 was still hoping to see: something laid out in 

10 terms of coming out of the ten-year review. 

11 We feel like there's some questions about the 

12 quality of the product and we don't have a way 

13 of evaluating that yet, and an action item 

14 would be NIOSH is going to commit 5 percent of 

15 next year's effort to assessing that, and then 

16 doing that on a fairly kind of routine basis, 

17 in order to track their progress.

18 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

19 This might be helpful. It's just information. 

20 Stu and David, you know we basically review 1 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percent of all completed DRs in the selection 

2 process used by the Board. Just for your 

3 information, the cost, and we do a very 

4 independent and very thorough review, where 

5 basically we're a complete separate entity.

6 In theory, having something of 

7 that form within NIOSH, a separate group that 

8 does basically what we're doing, the -- if you 

9 were to set something up like that and decide 

10 what percent you would want to sample, in our 

11 case the sample was 1 percent, but it costs 

12 anywhere between I would say 50 to 100 work 

13 hours per audit, and it's pushing closer to 

14 100 these days because of the complexity.

15 Our hourly cost is about $130 per 

16 hour. So, I mean I think that is some raw 

17 materials that if you wanted to consider a 

18 sample and do the kinds of things that are 

19 only internal to NIOSH that SC&A has been 

20 doing, that's the type of cost you might 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 experience if you were to do something along 

2 those lines.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess that's 

4 one way of looking at it. The other way is 

5 that you just -- you have a sense of what the 

6 cost per case is in terms of person 

7 hour/person time at NIOSH, and they're going 

8 to move the record back through. It could be 

9 exactly through the same process that 

10 everything else is processed through.

11 I mean there is an advantage to 

12 having an independent group doing their 

13 oversight, but there's also an advantage in 

14 getting a sense of the reproduced availability 

15 of a result as it moves through -- a second 

16 time through the same process.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think all 

18 are good suggestions, and I think it's helpful 

19 to hear additional discussion about avenues to 

20 pursue here. I think David really hit a mark 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with me in his comment about we don't have 

2 measuring stick today. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't know what 

5 our statistic is today that we would improve 

6 on intervention.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, that 

9 sounds -- that's an important thing to pursue, 

10 and the way to do that is you want to choose 

11 people who are familiar with the process 

12 probably.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, what we 

15 would do is we could carve out some section of 

16 our people or a couple people, and give them 

17 assignment like that. Alternatively, this 

18 probably would not work because it influences 

19 the independence of SC&A. The other thing 

20 that comes to mind is to task SC&A on our own, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not through the Board. But that might not be 

2 doable because --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So, it has given 

5 me a lot of refreshing thought because this is 

6 something that you deal with everyday and you 

7 don't really, and you don't take time to think 

8 about it. So, I think I certainly will take 

9 the feedback, and I think that we can probably 

10 make that part of our response because we've 

11 been struggling a little bit. Like I said, 

12 I'm struggling with what I do --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, what 

14 jumped out at me was the baseline too.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And we don't have 

16 a measurement and that's really important.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because you --

18 you -- even at our presentation, they talked 

19 about all the tools to avoid data entry 

20 mistakes, which everybody around the table 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 felt like that was reducing errors, but there 

2 was no benchmark to demonstrate that it 

3 definitely did --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I think 

6 that's a good point. I mean I --

7 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

8 Behling. Can I make a comment to an issue 

9 that I raised some time ago?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure, yes. Go 

11 ahead, Hans. 

12 DR. H. BEHLING: One of the things 

13 I always thought was missing here in this 

14 whole issue of QAQC is the following: 

15 Obviously SC&A has had a chance to review most 

16 of the documentation to determine whether or 

17 not the guidance documents used by dose 

18 reconstructors are in fact consistent with 

19 contemporary science, consensus science, and I 

20 believe it is.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the other thing is, are the 

2 guidance documents clear and -- and crisp 

3 enough for dose reconstructors to follow 

4 consistently, meaning that there's no real 

5 room for subjective interpretation of the 

6 guidance provided in such documents?

7 And one of the things that I've 

8 always thought might be really helpful is the 

9 following: It's to basically get a dose 

10 reconstruction that has yet to be done by 

11 anyone at NIOSH, and assign that to ten 

12 independent dose reconstructors and assess 

13 their outcome. And that would give you an 

14 understanding of how readily are the guidance 

15 documents being followed. Are they being 

16 followed consistently?

17 In other words, if we have 

18 guidance documents that are scientifically 

19 correct and properly written so that there's 

20 really no room for subjective interpretation, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then 10 individuals following those same 

2 guidance documents should come within a 

3 reasonable dose estimate of the original dose 

4 in question that would be within a matter of 

5 maybe 5 percent of high and low.

6 And if that's the case, then 

7 obviously we have a very firm handle on 

8 whether or not the -- the working methodology 

9 that we're currently using for dose 

10 reconstruction is functional, and it would 

11 obviate the question of is it the luck of the 

12 draw for a claimant to define his dose for 

13 reconstruction that determines compensability.

14 I've often look at -- when I was 

15 still very much involved in the dose 

16 reconstruction, I often questioned what would 

17 happen if the same dose reconstruction were 

18 offered to different groups of different 

19 individuals out there? How much difference 

20 would you have in terms of compensability, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 especially those that are above 40 percent or 

2 45 percent?

3 Would there -- is there enough 

4 slop in the dose reconstruction guidance 

5 documents that allows for some leeway that 

6 would potentially have one person below 50 and 

7 the other dose reconstructor above 50? And 

8 that whole issue should potentially be 

9 resolved if we went to at least one exercise 

10 where ten different dose reconstructors were 

11 given the identical dose reconstruction to do, 

12 and then assessing the consistency by which 

13 the dose reconstructors end up with an organ 

14 dose and a PoC value, and I think that has 

15 never been done, and I think it might be worth 

16 doing.

17 DR. MAURO: Hans, I'd like to add 

18 a little bit to that. I think you're on the 

19 track of something very important. You see, 

20 you need a metric, as David pointed out, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one way to get a metric and a baseline is to 

2 do -- let's say you do just that. You do a --

3 once a year, you do a blind. I call it a 

4 blind. We have ten people each independently 

5 reconstructing some selected, or maybe one or 

6 two cases, similar to the blind dose 

7 reconstructions SC&A did, which we'll get to 

8 later.

9 And that -- and then analysis of 

10 that would give you insight into the 

11 variability that exists for different people 

12 doing the same case, and a diagnostic as to, 

13 okay, the magnitude or the differences and the 

14 reasons for the differences. And then of 

15 course that finding would drive any actions on 

16 how to improve.

17 So, it allows you to start to 

18 focus in on the causative agents for the 

19 differences, and it may be ambiguity in the 

20 procedures, etcetera. And then you do it the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 following year, and the following year, and 

2 then maybe just once a year, and it becomes a 

3 system that -- to track improvement. And you 

4 would hope that the spread gets tighter and 

5 tighter in each of the causative agents if 

6 there's some root cause and you can identify 

7 that way and fix.

8 So, I mean this would be something 

9 that I think would be very manageable and not 

10 -- perhaps not that costly as compared to the 

11 -- the earlier item I mentioned, where you 

12 would actually sample and check. That would 

13 be a direct method, but to actually have a 

14 metric and to track performance and diagnostic 

15 that may not be that costly.

16 So, this is a suggestion, and 

17 Hans, I think it's a good one. 

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, and I think 

19 what you're really looking for is the 

20 variability that I believe may come into play 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here in terms of errors that we identify in 

2 the reconstruction audits is that maybe our 

3 guidance documents aren't as prescriptive. 

4 If you have a very, very 

5 prescriptive guidance document that leaves no 

6 room for error, no room for subjective 

7 interpretation, then it is reasonable, it is 

8 axiomatic to conclude, that you would end up 

9 with ten different people's dose estimates 

10 that are very consistent with each other. And 

11 I think right now we don't know how 

12 prescriptive it is.

13 As John just mentioned, if we had 

14 ten people doing this, and then compare and 

15 say: Where do they differ? Why is it that one 

16 person interprets a guidance document in one 

17 way, and another person interprets it another 

18 way, and you end up with a difference that may 

19 make the difference between compensability and 

20 non-compensability? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think it would be a very easy 

2 way to determine just how good are our 

3 guidance documents that would allow ten 

4 different people to come to the same 

5 conclusion.

6 DR. MAURO: This is offline.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think Brant 

8 has something to say, similar to what I'm 

9 thinking.

10 DR. ULSH: I don't know.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean from a 

12 practical standpoint. Yes, go ahead.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

14 I've just -- I've got to echo kind of what 

15 John and Hans is kind of saying. This is kind 

16 of like when we pull a sample out there. 

17 We've got three or four known blanks or 

18 certain ones that are going to go through to 

19 see how they're processed and everything else 

20 like that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think this would -- you know, 

2 I've got to agree with what Hans is saying. 

3 This would show us, because so many times in 

4 dose reconstruction, when we've been reviewing 

5 these, I've heard, "Well, this is just how the 

6 dose reconstructor does it," and there's such 

7 a variance there.

8 But if -- I think that way, it 

9 would give Stu what he's looking for of where 

10 he can hone in on a benchmark for it, but also 

11 so we can show a sign of improvement too. 

12 I've got to agree with both Hans and John. I 

13 think it's a good idea to kind of look that 

14 way. 

15 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

16 If I could say something here? We have -- I 

17 have some direct experience in this through 

18 the DTRA Program with the Atomic Veterans. We 

19 had exactly the same issue come up as result 

20 of the National Academy Review of 2003. They 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were looking at the quality metrics. We 

2 instituted a blind dose reconstruction 

3 exercise, and initially, we had different 

4 people coming in for the same type of case, 

5 same exposures.

6 So, there was about a factor or 

7 two of each other, and we were able to 

8 identify just areas of the procedures that 

9 needed improvement, and we were able to bring 

10 it down to about 5 to ten percent over a 

11 period of a couple years. And the costs were 

12 not that high.

13 Now, I realize it was a different 

14 paradigm in terms of the scope of the -- or 

15 the magnitude of the program here, but it 

16 worked very well for us, and I think it's a 

17 good idea that might be worth pursuing here.

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: Hey Mark?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Presley. I've got to say something. We've 

2 been doing this for ten years. We ought to 

3 have a pretty good handle on our QC on this 

4 program. Instead of going out here and 

5 spending another $1 million plus, and no 

6 telling how much time, and we don't know what 

7 it's going to tell us.

8 You know we've had blind reviews 

9 before, and we haven't gotten a whole lot of 

10 feedback off of them. I would love for us to 

11 find out some of the feedback that we've 

12 gotten before on some of this stuff that we've 

13 got ongoing, before we go out here and we 

14 reinvent the wheel ten years down the road.

15 DR. MAURO: I could help a little 

16 bit, a couple of items that might be useful. 

17 One is based on our cost, if you were to do 

18 ten per year, blinds, in the matter we just 

19 discussed, it would probably cost about 

20 $150,000 a year. So, I don't think -- and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it'd be offline.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: With ten 

3 different people?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, where you pick 

5 one case and have ten different people. I 

6 base that simply on 100 hours per case per 

7 person. I think I did it right. I have to 

8 check again. I just did a quick calculation. 

9 I mean if you want to get an idea of the 

10 cost, the burden, the economic burden on the 

11 program, you could assume ten people are each 

12 doing a case.

13 Each person might require as many 

14 as 50 to 100 work hours, and each work hour 

15 would probably cost about $130. I'm just 

16 assuming the cost that NIOSH would experience

17 is not unlike what SC&A experiences. So, 

18 that's the kind of cost.

19 The benefit would be it'd be 

20 offline. It would not be a step in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process. You still have your normal QA that 

2 you're doing of course, which -- but if this 

3 is offline, that -- the process would be 

4 independent of the production. And it would 

5 not slow things down, but of course it would 

6 impose this additional cost, which I -- unless 

7 I did my numbering wrong is really not that 

8 large and should give you a lot of 

9 information. 

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, also John -

11 - this is Hans again. If in fact such a QA 

12 program would result in fewer errors, think 

13 about the cost savings associated with the 

14 resolution of the errors that we're currently 

15 finding in our DR audits, meaning that the 

16 investment of $150,000 would improve the 

17 quality of dose reconstruction resulting in 

18 fewer findings in our audits of such dose 

19 reconstructions, there would be a gain in 

20 reducing the number of hours for conference 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calls and revolution of these problems would 

2 have to be factored into that cost.

3 Hopefully such a QA program would 

4 result in fewer mistakes, reduced numbers of 

5 findings, and reduced time in their 

6 resolution.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Ted has 

8 something.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean the thing 

10 I was just wondering about, this methodology 

11 like throwing the same case at ten people or 

12 whatever; considering this program, the 

13 diversity of sites and all that and you're 

14 assuming -- I mean there's one thing --

15 there's the kind of errors that are made that 

16 are just strictly straightforward errors in 

17 procedure, not a matter of judgment or what 

18 have you, and those I suppose you could take 

19 any kind of sample and look at them 

20 intensively and get a better handle.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But if you're -- if you were to 

2 assume that you're going to have very

3 different performance on different sites, 

4 different kinds of dose reconstructions at 

5 all, yes, the real problem with throwing ten 

6 people per case and getting any good picture 

7 of a diverse program like this and -- so, I 

8 mean the idea of peer review I think that's 

9 absolutely right. But I'm not sure that kind 

10 of horsepower would be affordable in a broad 

11 sense for this program.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Wanda and 

13 then Stu.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Ted has touched on 

15 something that is of concern to me. One of 

16 the big questions I have is do we have enough 

17 data on the reviews that have been done to 

18 make any estimates at all, even of trends, 

19 towards the base cause of the types of errors 

20 that we are seeing?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I have not seen anything that has 

2 laid out for me any kind of an overview that 

3 would lead me to believe that we even know 

4 which are the most predominate errors we're 

5 seeing. What's -- what's the cause of the 

6 error that we see if we're going to do the 

7 kind of oversight program that John and Hans 

8 are suggesting? 

9 I can see that there would be 

10 great benefit in that, but that doesn't leave 

11 me with the feeling that such an oversight 

12 would tell me anything more than I already 

13 know about what causes the errors in the first 

14 place.

15 Are we seeing repeated human error 

16 calculation? Are we seeing repeated 

17 misinterpretation of instruction? What are we 

18 seeing?

19 I have no strong feel about the 

20 source of the errors. Is there any way we can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 get a feel for that before we begin to make 

2 decisions about how we might address 

3 direction?

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, this is 

5 Hans, and at least from my exposure during the 

6 time when I was very heavily involved in DR 

7 reviews, it's that I think the principal 

8 source, if I can just generically identify a 

9 cause, is the potential subjective 

10 interpretation that sometimes comes with 

11 following a guidance document that allows 

12 people a certain amount of latitude in things, 

13 such as my interpretation of how I want to 

14 reconstruct this guy's dose.

15 And I believe the prescriptiveness 

16 or degree of prescriptiveness of guidance 

17 documents may require some tightening and 

18 saying there is reduced action for 

19 interpretation.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I appreciate --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Let me add to that.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on. Hold 

3 on, John. Just let Stu -- Stu had a comment.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I had a comment 

5 with -- about one of the -- I was going to say 

6 in terms of cause of errors, that first group 

7 of selective findings, we're pretty close to 

8 accounting for what was the cause of those 

9 errors. After we'd run through them, I kind 

10 of gave them a look and added my piece to it. 

11 It's just something I just finished, so we 

12 haven't sent it over.

13 But there are some things that are 

14 interpreted a particular way. Some of them 

15 came because the dose reconstructor made some 

16 sort of judgment and defining questions to 

17 that judgment. There are some like that. The 

18 one that caused -- that struck me, and this is 

19 strictly anecdotal - I don't know if it's not 

20 -- is the one I mentioned coming in, was that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the instructions were clear. 

2 They -- he just made a mistake. 

3 He put something on the wrong line, or he 

4 didn't include something that he knew he 

5 should've included, etcetera, etcetera, 

6 etcetera. And it wasn't caught. That was 

7 fairly prevalent cause in the findings, that 

8 first collection of findings, that we were to 

9 look at.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So, those are the 

12 kind of things there. Now, back to the point. 

13 I was just going to reinforce the point I was 

14 going to make. I was going to reinforce Ted's 

15 point about the difficulty of making broad 

16 judgments from taking a particular claim and 

17 having multiple people do it. Because the 

18 instructions are pretty site specific.

19 And so, the -- so the clarity and 

20 the lack of ambiguity of the instruction that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you will learn will be for that site, 

2 instructions for that site. The Hanford 

3 instructions are either ambiguous, or they can 

4 be very clear because we -- so, we're not 

5 talking about one case, ten dose 

6 reconstructors. 

7 You're talking about -- if you 

8 want to get a broader view, one case, ten dose 

9 reconstructors gives you a view of one site.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And one other 

12 thing is that we probably don't have ten dose 

13 reconstructors who are experts on any specific 

14 site.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And you want to 

17 have somebody who knows what they're doing. 

18 You don't want somebody to have to learn it in 

19 order to do this duplicate analysis. You want 

20 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Especially 

2 where it comes to professional judgment. 

3 Because assumptions on internal doses --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so, I 

5 don't know. Now, ten is an artificial amount. 

6 So, I mean as long as you don't hold it to 

7 ten, I think there's a way to go about this, 

8 but we got to think about how we're going to 

9 do this. 

10 And the final thing I'm going to 

11 say, and I think I'll probably be quiet for 

12 this, is whatever we decide, the options that 

13 we decide we're going to try, we're going to 

14 have to cost this out and decide what's it 

15 going to take to do this, and what do we not 

16 do instead? Because we spend all our money.

17 Every year, we spend all our 

18 money. And so, if we're going to do -- so, 

19 when we cost this out, what are we not going 

20 to do instead. So, that's part of the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's part of the equation as well.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the one 

3 concrete thing, just to go back to David's 

4 initial statement, the most concrete thing 

5 I've heard is that we need a baseline.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I agree. I 

7 like that.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then you 

9 can -- I like that part a lot. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Absolutely.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And how you get 

12 there, I have several of the same concerns. 

13 The site, the type of cases, I mean internal 

14 dose -- predominately internal dose cases, you 

15 rely more on professional judgment and you're 

16 likely to have a bigger spread in your errors, 

17 and ten dose reconstructors? You could be --

18 I don't know. 

19 And then you get into the AWEs. 

20 You got a lot of AWEs. The AWEs -- they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should be automatic. So, they might be a lot 

2 tighter.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that 

5 doesn't necessarily mean you're -- if you only 

6 look at like ten of those cases, then you can 

7 say, "Oh, we're doing great." You know? It 

8 could be a false indicator. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's a lot 

11 of parameters working in here that you need to 

12 consider. The other thing is -- hold on. 

13 Just one more thing.

14 The other thing that struck me 

15 was, as a possibility, maybe not necessarily 

16 to get -- to measure on the whole 

17 effectiveness of this program, but to the 

18 customer side of this, is that -- and we 

19 talked about this in earlier stages, and we 

20 laid out this notion of -- of having different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 levels for different levels of cases.

2 For instance, the 45 to 50 percent 

3 PoC range you may want to -- you may consider 

4 those more critical, and therefore, you might 

5 have a different level of review or level of 

6 sampling, as David was saying. You know, 

7 something like that.

8 I could even see a situation where 

9 some things close to the percentile, you 

10 automatically put a procedure in place that 

11 says

12 we redo this case with another dose 

13 reconstructor, and if one has 49 and one has 

14 51, you say, give the benefit of the doubt and 

15 compensate the claim, or something like that.

16 That's another -- that's sort of 

17 another thing, but if it -- it made me think 

18 about what Stu had presented earlier, and I 

19 think this is probably over a year ago, but 

20 the idea of possibly looking at different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 levels of review for different -- you know, 

2 the significance level of the PoC to some 

3 extent to have more robust reviews for certain 

4 types of cases.

5 Was that David that had a comment?

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: No, it's Bob. 

7 You are right on the money on that.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I did have 

10 a comment.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: In thinking 

13 about this, I was -- I think right now, what 

14 this Work Group is doing moves between two 

15 types of evaluations, and there's -- and it's 

16 very valuable I think, the information and 

17 insights that are coming from these 

18 evaluations. But they're -- some of it 

19 relates to what I would call external validity 

20 or -- or kind of this -- this logical and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scientific basis of the -- of the dose 

2 reconstructions.

3 And so, you have somebody outside 

4 of the process who is taking an independent 

5 look at the dose evaluations, and saying, "Are 

6 they scientifically credible? Do we agree 

7 with them?" And then there's also, in that 

8 same process, there's some evaluation of 

9 reproducibility of the results by an 

10 independent auditor.

11 So, that's the kind of sense of 

12 this audit. And that -- I think that's 

13 appropriate with kind of small samples because 

14 there's a different type of evaluation, which 

15 is the evaluation of -- of a -- what is -- and 

16 from my view, it's kind of a large scale 

17 production process in creating a work product 

18 for a consumer, and there's a question there 

19 about the -- this is where I was thinking 

20 about kind of the quality assessment, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal consistency, and the reproducibility 

2 of the process. Not in the sense of is it 

3 accurate, is it getting to the most 

4 scientifically valid result, but in this 

5 sense, just is it consistent? Because that 

6 also has an invitation for fairness.

7 And so, that -- that evaluation 

8 can't really be done by an auditor, in my

9 opinion. It has to be -- you have to run the 

10 same input through the process and see if 

11 you're getting the same output by the people 

12 who are doing it. And this is where I would 

13 still come back to saying that you need --

14 that NIOSH needs to budget that.

15 It's probably not even really -- I 

16 mean I think this Working Group could have 

17 some say on it, but it should be part of the 

18 process of running -- running the operation. 

19 And in terms of cost, I agree it's 

20 expensive. You have to decide what you're not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to do, but I don't see how you can avoid 

2 it. Again, the way I would pose it is what 

3 would NIOSH do if there was a five percent 

4 increase in the number of claims next year?

5 I think that there would be a 

6 modest lag, but that's what you would be 

7 generating through the hypothetical of 

8 resampling a random five percent of the cases, 

9 and putting them back through the process. 

10 Could they handle it, and what would the cost 

11 be?

12 I mean there is going to be a 

13 cost, but I think that's part of -- at least 

14 for a period of time, figuring out the 

15 internal consistency of the process because 

16 when we were talking to ORAU, they haven't 

17 been doing that yet, and that's -- it doesn't 

18 catch the kind of -- one type of mistake, but 

19 it catches -- we should get some sense of 

20 what's -- what's the prevalence of those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mistakes where the instructions were clear, 

2 but the people handling the claims are making 

3 some sort of kind of random mistakes due to 

4 kind of just not -- you know, errors?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Your takeaway 

6 point on that again was what is the action 

7 that we would take in order to do the internal 

8 consistency review? Is that a -- a multiple 

9 dose reconstructor doing the same claim? Is 

10 that what you are talking about?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm 

12 going back to my initial case that there needs 

13 to be a random sample of the cases. It can't 

14 be something that's evaluated by pulling one 

15 or two cases out and doing an assessment of --

16 that's going to be most useful for 

17 understanding the validity of the 

18 reconstruction. But I'm interested in the 

19 reproducibility of the dose reconstruction. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: So, in your --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And that 

2 requires going in and running them through 

3 multiple times.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so again, 

5 you would randomly sample a set of dose 

6 reconstructions, and then our -- our action 

7 would be to redo them several times with 

8 different dose reconstructors, or do we do 

9 them in order to -- for this sampling, this is 

10 our issue: consistency of the output?

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: Stu?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes?

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 

14 again. You said something that really bothers 

15 me. Randomly sampling. Now, is it worth 

16 sampling somebody that's got a PoC of 3, or is 

17 it worth sampling somebody that's got a PoC of 

18 49.5?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean you 

20 can randomly sample without being completely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 random. I guess you can -- I guess it 

2 wouldn't be random. It'd be random within 

3 your selection parameter.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I would 

5 advocate that you want to get a -- what if 

6 that -- until you know that probability of 

7 compensation of 3 percent is actually a valid 

8 number by some -- by first evaluating the 

9 process and seeing if there's a gross error, 

10 you just -- you just -- you want to run the 

11 claims through so that they're -- you've got a 

12 duplicate on a subsample, a random subsample, 

13 of all the cases. That's going to --

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: You spend 

15 $130,000 to do that on something that low. 

16 That really is bothering me.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: You're dealing 

18 with maximized doses, which are by nature 

19 subject to a wide range of interpretations 

20 that have no meaning.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: You don't want to use 

2 those. They've got to be best estimates. 

3 They've got to be.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Best estimates.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we're 

6 talking about two different things. I mean 

7 that's what David's point was. You're talking 

8 about consistency versus validity. And maybe, 

9 I don't know that the two options -- what I 

10 would like to do from the Subcommittee is 

11 write out some options that NIOSH can 

12 consider. I think that's where we should go 

13 with this.

14 Then NIOSH can examine these 

15 further and come back. But I mean I think 

16 David has got one scheme. Maybe they're not -

17 - maybe it's not one or the other. Maybe you 

18 use some combination, and use other techniques 

19 to check validity as well internally. Even 

20 though we're doing that to some extent here, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you may want to do some validity check 

2 internally.

3 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on. 

5 Wanda's got the floor.

6 MEMBER MUNN: I have to agree 

7 pretty strongly with what David had to say. 

8 If a truly objective perspective of random 

9 selection means exactly that, a random 

10 selection. If an error has been made on a low 

11 percentage PoC case, it is just as important 

12 to know why that error was made, as it is to

13 know why the error was made on a high PoC 

14 case.

15 I would argue that it would defeat 

16 one of the major purposes of such a -- the 

17 cost of such a review if we limited our 

18 "randomness" to a specific level report that 

19 we had seen. It will tell us as much if we 

20 see the same kinds of errors in low PoC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 numbers as if we had high ones, and one can't 

2 be -- if -- it depends on what our purpose is.

3 If our purpose is to try to define 

4 where the error is occurring and why it 

5 occurs, then the sample, if we do suggest such 

6 a thing, would need to be, in my view, random.

7 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

8 The idea is -- see, when a person does a 

9 deliberate maximizing or minimizing, there is 

10 subjectivity there, where the person stops, 

11 and that's allowed.

12 So, you would expect there to be 

13 differences because you stop -- you pick your 

14 -- you wouldn't expect the same result to 

15 come, or even come close if you're doing a 

16 maximizing and you come up with a low dose, or 

17 you do a minimizing and you come up with a 

18 high dose.

19 You're just trying to quickly 

20 screen and put this to bed. So, you would --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the outcome of that -- certainly, you could 

2 review the results of these and see the 

3 decisions and judgments that were made, but 

4 you would not expect two different people to 

5 come to the same place, but you would expect 

6 people to come to the same place when doing a 

7 realistic best estimate.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I mean --

9 MR. KATZ: I mean keep in mind 

10 this is not just an evaluation for the sake of 

11 evaluation and just for determining root 

12 causes. It's -- you're talking about a QA 

13 process here, and for a QA process, your 

14 primary worry is the outcome of quality flaws, 

15 and there are different levels of quality 

16 flaws if you look at a proper QA system, and 

17 ones that don't impact the world don't matter 

18 very much.

19 So, I would focus your resources 

20 on where it matters the most, and that is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 getting the right decision, which sort of 

2 lends to what John is saying about focusing 

3 more of your resources on those close cases 

4 because at the end of the day, that's what you 

5 worry most about. You want to get the right 

6 decisions out.

7 I mean I agree that randomly you 

8 could still get a root causes no matter what 

9 cases you look at, but it's a QA process. 

10 It's not just an evaluation process. And you 

11 want to -- you want to assure that your 

12 products have quality, and the primary 

13 quality, the most important quality, is that 

14 they come to the right decision, and 

15 everything else is of lesser importance, 

16 although still important.

17 So, that -- that was one thought I 

18 just wanted to throw out there. And a second, 

19 just sort of related to David's thing about 

20 sampling, is typically in a QA process, until 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know the reliability of your system, you 

2 do have an intensive inspection process, and 

3 what -- typically with QA systems, as you get 

4 a better handle on your reliability, you can 

5 reduce your sampling rate.

6 In extremely reliable systems of 

7 course you sample very little, and it costs 

8 very little because you already know. And 

9 that's the way QA systems work. So, I mean I 

10 think you should think in those terms. 

11 That might mean that in this case, 

12 on the front end, it's the more expensive 

13 process. You have to endure delay and so on 

14 until you get a handle on your level of 

15 reliability of your system. But down the road 

16 as you improve, it'll require less inspection 

17 and less -- less QA effort and intensity. 

18 That's the way QA systems work. I 

19 mean so they're front loaded with effort. As 

20 you improve your system, there's less work to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do and inspection.

2 DR. H. BEHLING: With regard to 

3 David's recommendation too, we sample old 

4 cases that have already been reviewed or have 

5 already been dose reconstructed. The 

6 potential risk, I would throw out, is that 

7 given the fact that there -- these results are 

8 documented and readily available to -- to a 

9 person who is now redoing it would potentially 

10 introduce a risk of bias.

11 If you already know a previous 

12 dose reconstructor came up with a PoC of 48 in 

13 a given does, organ dose, for the cancer of a 

14 certain value, redoing that case by someone 

15 who already knows the end result of a previous 

16 evaluation would have a tendency to bias that 

17 individual, and that was the reason why I 

18 suggested early on when I made comments to 

19 take a case that has not yet been done, and do 

20 it by at least several people to see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consistency.

2 Because at this point, you do not 

3 have the risk of someone already knowing what 

4 the endpoint is that he might want to aim 

5 towards.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hans, there 

7 are two issues there, both of which maybe I 

8 wasn't clear about. The first was these are 

9 blind reviews. The second is we spent a lot 

10 of time already, and I felt somewhat 

11 frustrated by it, reviewing old cases and ORAU 

12 coming back and saying, "That's not the way we 

13 do things anymore."

14 The process I was envisioning and 

15 hoped to describe is one in which as cases --

16 that you do this sample of cases coming in, 

17 and there's a probability of sampling somebody 

18 for going through the system twice. 

19 And I was imagining, again, 

20 something like ORAU, when as they're sampling 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- as they're getting 100 cases coming in, 

2 they're going to do a processing on 104-105, 

3 because it's a 5 percent sample. Can they 

4 handle that? What's the cost? Those are the 

5 questions. But then you would have basically 

6 a five percent resample.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 DR. MAURO: This is John. If it 

9 helps, when we get to the blinds, you're going 

10 to find that we did exactly this. We had two 

11 cases, which were independently done. And the 

12 bottom line, by the way you're going to find 

13 this interesting, for both cases the 

14 independent a factor of 2 difference.

15 In other words, we got one data 

16 point here anyway from a blind, where we --

17 well, two data points, where we did two cases. 

18 And coincidentally, two of them, actually the 

19 outcomes you'll see later, is that two 

20 different independent analyses both came out a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 factor of 2 different.

2 So, this is an -- at least two 

3 examples of what you might expect.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: John, I will 

5 correct you on this. You didn't follow the 

6 guidance document on plan B.

7 DR. MAURO: That is correct.

8 DR. H. BEHLING: Those differences 

9 will not necessarily reflect what we would 

10 expect under the conditions for two dose 

11 reconstructors following the same guidance 

12 document.

13 DR. MAURO: That is correct.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: It's not a 

15 correct analogy.

16 DR. MAURO: That's another point, 

17 by the way, David and -- we've been talking 

18 within the context of given the procedures, 

19 will everyone reconstruct the doses the same 

20 way? Now, I'd like to point out though when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we review the cases for AWEs, where basically 

2 there really is no data and there really is no 

3 person-specific dose reconstruction; it is a 

4 matrix. 

5 That's a generic matrix very 

6 often, where -- and what we review, and I do a 

7 lot of these, is the matrix that's being used. 

8 The default set of assumptions. So, in 

9 effect, I -- and I have to say in being part 

10 of this quite a while, the places where the --

11 the -- where there are differences in doses, 

12 when -- when we review DOE site cases, we'll 

13 find -- we find some errors, whether they be 

14 manual errors just made by the dose 

15 reconstructor or interpretive errors.

16 The errors, I have to say, are 

17 relatively small. You know, factors of 2. 

18 When I review AWEs, where I'm looking at the 

19 procedure they're using to reconstruct it, and 

20 I look at the fundamentals of did they come up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with a matrix that seems to be appropriate for 

2 a particular facility, Bridgeport Brass, I 

3 find -- my findings are on the order of 

4 factors of 10 and higher.

5 So, now, when you talk about 

6 quality issues, I think it is important to 

7 make a distinction between following your 

8 procedures and getting the same result, and of 

9 course the deeper issue is are the procedures 

10 appropriate?

11 It sounds like from the point of 

12 view of quality, the conversation we're having 

13 now is given the procedure, are they -- are 

14 those -- as being valid, the question that is 

15 being asked is are those being followed in a 

16 consistent way? If that's what you're 

17 objective is, fine. But --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

19 said. John, that's what I just said. There's 

20 two different factors, and I don't think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're mutually exclusive. I mean the 

2 consistency versus validity, and I think 

3 they're two things that are coming up again 

4 and again by different options.

5 DR. MAURO: The big one -- the big 

6 ones are validity. I mean consistency, yes, 

7 we're picking that up. And you have our 

8 quality report and all the data that we've 

9 summarized as part of your review for the 

10 first 100 cases. It lends a lot of insight 

11 into that.

12 But I have to say that the place 

13 where I believe the greatest is the underlying

14 assumptions that are built in, at least at the 

15 AWE sites. I've picked up, as you know -

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's like 

17 profile reviews. Yes, that's why you're doing 

18 mini Site Profile reviews on the AWEs.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have the Site Profile reviews for the other 

2 sites.

3 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If there are 

5 bigger things, that's where they come out.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, or in the 

8 SEC reviews.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Here's what I 

11 would propose. I want to put together a memo 

12 to the Board, and I'll try to summarize some 

13 of what we've come up with and propose options 

14 for NIOSH to consider in implementing the 

15 action plan, sort of as Lew described or 

16 whatever. And I'll circulate that to the 

17 Subcommittee and get input. We can work on 

18 the language of it and then try to deliver it 

19 to the Board in the August meeting.

20 If I can move people off the QAQC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 item for a second, I think I got sort of a 

2 handle on some ideas to put in there. You 

3 know, I'll be sharing this and getting input 

4 from everyone, but I -- I'd like to know on 

5 other issues on dose reconstruction, and the 

6 one I brought up earlier was this question of 

7 using over-estimating techniques and whether 

8 we as a Subcommittee have an opinion on that 

9 matter, whether we -- I mean I know Stu has 

10 even raised it in our Subcommittee that maybe 

11 at this point where they've kind of caught up 

12 in their level, maybe the merits of using the 

13 over-estimating techniques may not be there 

14 anymore, and it may be better off just to use 

15 the best estimate.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I have something 

17 to offer on that.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, go ahead.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- in the 

20 context, and I'm talking about the context of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what we're facing in DCAS now, we have a ten2 year review with about 20 priority 

3 recommendations. There are probably 70 total.

4 Twenty priority recommendations, a 

5 few of which may be pretty much accomplished, 

6 but most of which would require effort, i.e. 

7 cost, to do. And so, I believe that there is 

8 value in not doing over-estimates because you 

9 cannot explain it to the -- you can write in 

10 the dose reconstruction, "This is an over11 estimate. If conditions change, the dose will 

12 likely go down."

13 You can write that all you want. 

14 If it was the first sentence in the dose 

15 reconstruction, it doesn't matter.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Person says, "I 

18 had 44. Now I have 38 with another cancer."

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay? It doesn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matter. You cannot explain it. So, there is 

2 value in not doing it, but there's a cost in 

3 not doing it as well. And so, this is going 

4 to be weighed in the light of everything that 

5 we're going to be doing including actions for 

6 these 20 priority recommendations, most of 

7 which are going to cost money. Is this going 

8 to make sense?

9 That was my response, and that's 

10 actually how the recommendation --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think -- I 

12 think the other value -- I think you hit it on 

13 the head. I think the other value for not 

14 doing them is that not only is it hard to 

15 explain, but it also I think would improve the 

16 trust of the folks getting the dose -- you 

17 know, the --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You can't explain 

19 something they don't trust.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Trust and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 credibility, I think. Yes, yes. They're 

2 important.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I think our 

4 best focus is to do some half measures. 

5 Because I think it's going to be too costly. 

6 But I think we can do some half measures. For 

7 instance, we could say don't ever overestimate 

8 a medical exposure. Why bother? 

9 That's not enough of a short cut 

10 in math. You know, then they take the bulk 

11 numbers and they get a certain value, and if 

12 they redo it later, they say, "Well, this 

13 person didn't have one every year. They only 

14 had one every other year," and they cut down 

15 the number of medical -- you know, why bother 

16 overestimation. That's not even enough to 

17 worry about.

18 The other thing is once a case 

19 comes back the first time, you cannot 

20 overestimate it at all. You have to do a best 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 estimate. Then that way, you at least won't 

2 have the repetitive. Time and again, people 

3 come back with additional answers and 

4 repetitive lowering of the PoC.

5 So, there are some half measures 

6 we could do, which I think are probably more 

7 promising than doing away with them 

8 altogether. Because you only get about 10 or 

9 15 percent of the ones you do back.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anybody else 

11 have comments on that? I mean I think I want 

12 to include it in our memo.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Absolutely.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll probably 

15 put something to the effect -- similar to what 

16 you said, that NIOSH should consider.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I agree.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean we only 

19 make recommendations anyway, but NIOSH should 

20 consider moving toward this.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you can put 

2 some -- if you can put priorities maybe on the 

3 -- maybe give us some priorities. "We really 

4 think that if you can't do anything else, this 

5 is the thing we think you should do."

6 I mean that's going to help 

7 because I mean there's a lot of -- a lot of 

8 stuff here. And like I said, all 20 of these 

9 recommendations, I don't see any way they're 

10 not going to cost somebody.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Stu's comments are 

13 certainly well taken here. There's no 

14 question that we've had more grief than joy 

15 out of our need to overestimate in the past. 

16 But from the reports that we had, one gets the 

17 impression that the case load balanced against 

18 the available dose reconstructor personnel 

19 list is not as bad as it was five years ago, 

20 hopefully, and perhaps more manageable.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Certainly, I agree with Stu's 

2 concept that there may be something in between 

3 the two extremes that would work, and be more 

4 easily seen as fair to the claimants.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Just so everybody 

6 knows, things that usually -- money is taken 

7 away to do dose reconstruction, and the dose 

8 reconstruction on path. If it's taken away to 

9 meet the objective, and it'll be taken away as 

10 necessary to maintain to make sure we don't 

11 build up another backlog.

12 The work that drops off the table 

13 is the investigation of findings on Site 

14 Profiles first. That's what drops off first.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And the second 

17 thing is the continuing discussion of SEC that 

18 we've looked at an Evaluation Report. Once 

19 we've looked at an Evaluation Report, it drops 

20 that back down to only slightly above a --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

2 Anything else on overestimate? I'm just 

3 raising some of these things that came out of 

4 the recommendations from our group and from 

5 the ten-year review. I think I can summarize 

6 the position on overestimating.

7 Any other items? I mean I have --

8 one other item that comes to mind for me is 

9 the question of, and this came up in several 

10 of our findings in the first five sets review, 

11 was the use of personnel -- or the 

12 questionnaire.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, the CATI?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the CATI. 

15 CATI, thank you. I forgot the name.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: That is in here, I 

17 believe. I believe that's in a different 

18 section. It was in quality dose 

19 reconstruction. There might be a quality --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it might 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come under --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It may not have 

3 made the priority list.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it may not 

5 have. I'm just drawing off my head. I'm 

6 remembering outside of your review that was --

7 in terms of number of findings, we had several 

8 that fit into that category. I know that.

9 MEMBER MUNN: The issues -- and 

10 where appropriate make improvement in such 

11 vehicles. I'm assuming communication 

12 vehicles.

13 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Someone on 

14 the line is not muted. Can you mute your 

15 phone? Star 6 if you don't have a mute 

16 button.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you,

18 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I think 

20 that gets to my point. I agree with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 communications issue, but I've always said for 

2 several years that it's more than just 

3 explaining to the worker that the way we did 

4 this dose reconstruction more than adequately 

5 covers any incidents that you raised in your 

6 report, or -- and then it turns into 

7 boilerplate language in the dose 

8 reconstruction report that goes out to the 

9 individual.

10 And the reality is NIOSH never 

11 goes back to -- or very few cases I guess was 

12 determined that NIOSH goes back to actually

13 investigate anything along those lines, like 

14 an incident or a -- you know.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It's very unusual 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm not 

18 saying that would be done or ever be done. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not very 

20 common to -- to call, but incidents are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sometimes best through contact with the site, 

2 a specific search inquiry or essentially 

3 information or other confirmation --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

5 This is just perhaps a little harsh, but from 

6 the beginning I said this CATI should not be 

7 about sort of a PR move to show the public 

8 that you care and you want their input into 

9 this process, and you never use it.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And never is 

12 strong, I know that. But it's pretty rare. 

13 And if there's no value in doing it, then 

14 perhaps you don't do the CATI. I mean that's 

15 a cost savings if you want to look at it from 

16 the other side.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I actually 

18 suggested that one time a couple of years ago.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I was laughed out 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the room.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's 

3 interesting. I'm encouraged that they laughed 

4 you out of the room.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It's hard to imagine 

6 not supporting the idea of direct 

7 communication -- that seems like such a basic 

8 form of communication. It's so much more 

9 personal than --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but I'm 

11 trying to take it one step beyond the 

12 communication that there's actually valuable 

13 information that can come out of these 

14 questionnaires. And I get the sense that from 

15 a dose reconstructors standpoint, they really 

16 don't see it that way. I mean they really 

17 don't see much value in the data they're 

18 getting back.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, I asked 

20 dose reconstructors at the time we were going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through this, the CATI form, and I even -- I 

2 gave them the opportunity to say, "Hey, do we 

3 even need to do anything like this?" And the 

4 answer I got back from the ORAU side was, 

5 "Yes, we use it for this, this, this and 

6 this."

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would be 

8 good to hear and know exactly how they use it.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll reconstruct 

10 that.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that would 

12 be good. I think that would be good.

13 MR. KATZ: I think just as an 

14 example though of what I think Stu is talking 

15 about, which I think I used to hear about a 

16 lot, was I mean whether they -- whether an 

17 incident is followed up is one thing, but 

18 there's a lot of stuff on the CATI other than 

19 that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Work history, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and --

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, work history and 

3 so on. And I think a lot of times, they find 

4 the work history they got from DOE may not 

5 match up with -- from the person they 

6 interview in the CATI and they follow up on 

7 that, and they end up finding other 

8 information related to work history. 

9 MR. STIVER: I am also going to 

10 add that sometimes these incidents are not 

11 followed up because NIOSH will reinsert 

12 accounted for an overestimating process in 

13 dose reconstruction. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sometimes 

15 that's the case, especially the incidents, 

16 yes.

17 MR. FARVER: It depends on the 

18 dose reconstructor and if they used the CATI 

19 information. Some are better than others. 

20 Some of the reports we look at are very good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about including incident information, and some 

2 aren't. And I think it comes down to the 

3 person actually writing the report.

4 MR. KATZ: My only point was that 

5 it's not just incident information in the 

6 CATI.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I mean 

8 the example that we've run across many times 

9 is the neutron exposures, where we have to 

10 say, you know, "Were they ever in building 

11 whatever?" And we've -- I think we've had 

12 that finding a few times, where -- and then we 

13 might've had a disagreement with our 

14 resolution, but at least we -- you know you 

15 did consider that work history part to 

16 determine if they were ever in an area where 

17 there were neutrons. 

18 So, yes, there's other value, but 

19 I just raise it because it's come up.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and it is one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the points that Lew makes under the 

2 communication category as well is that DCAS 

3 will consider it's current communication 

4 strategies as they might present perceived 

5 burdens to claimants and petitioners, 

6 particularly in light of the real burden felt 

7 by those individuals through their 

8 interactions with the DOL.

9 We've certainly heard a lot about 

10 that.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

12 sort of the flipside is that people get 

13 nervous that if they can't complete this --

14 they don't have all this information; they 

15 feel like they're going to get shortchanged. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: They hear the term 

17 burden of proof a lot.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

19 MEMBER MUNN: They feel badly.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there other issues on the -- you know, 

2 priority issues that people want to discuss? 

3 I mean we have these two documents. I'm going 

4 to try to, like I said, put a summary memo 

5 together in the next couple weeks, and 

6 circulate it so we have time to get something 

7 to the Board by the end of August.

8 And if you think of something once 

9 you see a first draft, it might prime people 

10 to think of other things so we can always 

11 modify this as we go.

12 Okay, anybody on the phone have 

13 other thoughts before we -- I'm thinking of 

14 taking a quick break, but any other thoughts 

15 on this topic before? After the break, we'll 

16 come back and start our blind review 

17 discussion. David, any other words of wisdom?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, Mark, I've got a 

19 couple words of wisdom. This is John. Real 

20 quick. Has the -- has the Subcommittee 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thought --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: David, is that 

3 you?

4 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. I 

6 know.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. I would be very 

8 surprised. There might be some things that 

9 the Subcommittee may want to do. I know the 

10 conversation has been oriented towards 

11 recommendations that the Subcommittee would 

12 have NIOSH do with regard to quality.

13 But a subject that is not on the 

14 agenda, but just to leave you with this 

15 thought is what are some of the things that 

16 the Subcommittee might want to do in light of 

17 the recommendations in the ten-year report?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Like catch up 

19 on our backlog.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. In any event, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just wanted you thinking in those terms also.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That's a 

3 good thought. All right, why don't we take --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Mark, I'm sorry. 

5 This is Scott Siebert. Since we're taking a 

6 break, maybe you guys could help me out. I do 

7 not seem to have copies of the blind audit 

8 report. So, if somebody could send those to 

9 me, that would be very helpful to me.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Scott, I'll 

11 send them. I'm pretty sure I can find them.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks, Stu.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you send 

14 them to me as well?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Who's that?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David 

17 Richardson.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: David, okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we'll 

20 take a 15-minute break because by the time you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 get them sent and they look at them a little 

2 bit. So, let's take 15 and come back in 15 

3 minutes.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 10:23 a.m., and 

6 resumed at 10:42 a.m.) 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, we're back.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, yes. 

9 We're back. We're going to start with the 

10 next agenda item, blind reviews. And does 

11 everyone have those two reviews, first of all?

12 MR. KATZ: I sent them on to --

13 David, I sent them to your CDC address, and I 

14 sent them to Wanda's CDC address, and I sent 

15 them to Stu to distribute to ORAU. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Scott 

17 and David, you have -- you received them?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I'll turn 

20 it over to SC&A to introduce these, and then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we can go from there.

2 MR. FARVER: John, do you want to 

3 do this, or do you want me to do it?

4 DR. MAURO: I'll start it off. 

5 I'll sort of kick it off. I'm opening them up 

6 right now. Let's do the first one. The first 

7 one is the Portsmouth case.

8 If you guys are open to it, I'm 

9 actually opening it right now as we speak. 

10 Give me one second. And we can just work off 

11 the executive summary. As preferences to sort 

12 of set the table for this discussion, the 

13 blind dose reconstructions were a concept 

14 originally conceived in the request for 

15 proposal goes back nine years now, as being 

16 one of the types of activities the Board's 

17 contractor would do by way of evaluating and 

18 independently reviewing the DR process.

19 The idea being that if you take a 

20 case and have SC&A review a case without 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seeing the results of NIOSH's work, so in 

2 other words as if we were doing it from first 

3 principals. We were given basically the idea 

4 SC&A's given all of the Department of Labor 

5 and Department of Energy records, dosimetry 

6 records, internal and external, etcetera. 

7 So, we have all that information, 

8 and we do the dose reconstruction to see what 

9 we get. And we do not see, and we have not 

10 seen, NIOSH's dose reconstructions. So, right 

11 now what you have in front of you in this 

12 first one is SC&A's independent dose 

13 reconstruction for a worker at Portsmouth, a 

14 worker that I believe had bone cancer.

15 Let me go into the numbers here. 

16 Had a couple of cancers, and multiple skin 

17 cancers I believe. Yes, multiple skin 

18 cancers, and a type of bone marrow, a type of 

19 leukemia, I believe. 

20 And so, the idea being for SC&A to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do the blind dose reconstruction on their own, 

2 and then eventually working with you folks, we 

3 would compare our results to NIOSH's results, 

4 which we have not yet seen.

5 But it turned out the way SC&A 

6 ended up doing this was sort of interesting. 

7 What we said we would do -- there was a bit of 

8 a debate within SC&A regarding, "Okay, but 

9 when we do the blind dose reconstruction," 

10 this is actually a debate that Hans and I had, 

11 "is it our intention to take the procedures, 

12 all of the procedures, the kind of thing we 

13 were talking about before, and say, 'Okay, 

14 SC&A will now do the dose reconstruction as if 

15 we were NIOSH, and use all of their procedures 

16 in as explicit accord as best we could 

17 following their procedures, and to see what we 

18 get?'"

19 And then later on, we would see if 

20 we get the same number as NIOSH got. That was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hans' perspective. I said, "You know, Hans, I 

2 think no. That's not what we're trying to do 

3 here." I think we're doing something that is 

4 -- if a health physicist were to do it as best 

5 he could, given the data that is available, 

6 what dose would he get, not necessarily 

7 following the procedures, but using all the 

8 information available to him and using his 

9 judgment on how best to do it?

10 So, we had these two different 

11 concepts of what a blind dose reconstruction 

12 was. This matter was discussed and it was 

13 agreed with the Subcommittee, or the Work 

14 Group I guess it might've been at the time, 

15 that we would do both.

16 So, what you're looking at right 

17 now is the results of SC&A's blind dose 

18 reconstruction for this worker, where two 

19 different independent methods were used, one 

20 based as best we could explicitly, using the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 spreadsheets, workbooks and procedures as 

2 specified by NIOSH, and the other done by the 

3 -- someone that is familiar with doing dose 

4 reconstructions and used his own knowledge and 

5 all the information available, including the 

6 Site Profile and all the other materials 

7 available, but not necessarily using NIOSH's 

8 workbooks and spreadsheets.

9 Okay, I'll move to the -- we'll 

10 start from the big picture and get down as 

11 much detail as needed. But the bottom line is 

12 that if you go to Table ES2, it's in the 

13 executive summary. The bottom line is that 

14 the doses differ by a factor of 2, whether 

15 we're talking about -- whether we're -- and 

16 the doses really consist of two doses: one, 

17 the dose to the skin to reconstruct it because 

18 of the skin cancer that the person 

19 experienced, and the dose to the bone.

20 And if you look at the rollup 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 numbers in ES2, you can see more or less that 

2 there -- we're talking about method B, which 

3 is what we call the hand calculations, came in 

4 at about a factor of two higher. 

5 And there's -- and the paragraph 

6 above that table summarizes the reason for 

7 that difference. But when all is said and 

8 done, the root cause difference for the reason 

9 the two-fold difference is the hand 

10 calculation. When it took -- it took the --

11 think about this worker. He's got external 

12 exposure records for both beta and penetrating 

13 radiation, or -- or not penetrating, 

14 penetrating radiation, and there are actual 

15 data, which we used.

16 But he also has missing data. 

17 There were time periods when he was not 

18 monitored, and there were time periods when 

19 the results came back below the limits of 

20 detection for his film badge. The main reason 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the difference between the two doses is 

2 when I looked at the -- the -- to try to come 

3 up with a coworker dose for this worker --

4 think of it like this. We have all this data, 

5 this data representing the worker population 

6 at Portsmouth, the external data, beta and 

7 gamma, and given that, you say, "Well, here's 

8 the distribution. What would you assign to 

9 this worker within that distribution for the 

10 time periods when he wasn't monitored but 

11 perhaps he should've been monitored?" 

12 That was how the thinking was at 

the time. I picked the upper 95th 13 percentile 

14 of the distribution, while the procedures that 

15 were used in method A by I believe Hans and 

16 Kathy, or Doug - I'm not sure who actually did 

17 that - picked the 50 percentile as being the 

18 most appropriate value to use.

19 And the outcome was a factor of 2 

20 difference. Now, there are other reasons for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the differences, but if you're going to say, 

2 "What's the root cause here?" This one turned 

3 out to be relatively simple. That's the main 

4 difference, and it has to do with the external 

5 exposure. 

6 We did it differently internally, 

7 but the outcome didn't differ that much. This 

8 would be for the long dose. The -- the 

9 external dose to both the skin and the bone 

10 that is the reason for the two-fold 

11 differences for those two organs.

12 Now, we're at a point now where 

13 we're anxious, quite frankly, to find out what 

14 the doses are that NIOSH came up with, and 

15 whether or not they're close to the values we 

16 came up with. The value of this exercise, 

17 one, was to -- I think it communicates a sense 

18 of how different the doses could be when two 

19 different people do it.

20 Now, keep in mind though in method 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 B, we did not try to follow the procedures 

2 explicitly in the workbooks. In Method B, it 

3 was more of like how would a knowledgeable 

4 health physicist do the calculation not 

5 necessarily using the workbooks?

6 So, it really tests it in a 

7 broader sense, as Hans pointed out earlier. 

8 So, we're at a point now where we'd like to 

9 see NIOSH's results, and work out if there are 

10 differences, what those differences are, and 

11 why. I think this goes toward the first 

12 conversation.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we've not 

14 really prepared a lot to discuss here, and 

15 there's more analysis to be done, but I've 

16 found the dose reconstructions. I can tell 

17 you that the skin doses, there were apparently 

18 four skin cancers. The skin doses in our dose 

19 reconstructions, range from 2.92 rem to 3.8 

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

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: That's very close to 

2 our values for method A.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And dose to the 

4 red bone marrow, which is the other one that 

5 was calculated, was about 12.3 rem.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, yours came in a 

7 little higher than ours. Okay, well, I mean 

8 we're all within that factor of 2 thing that I 

9 mentioned.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, we -- we can 

11 look at differences. I mean I haven't done 

12 that. I just found the summary of the dose 

13 reconstruction. That's not too bad in terms 

14 of the skin doses, the bone --

15 DR. MAURO: I think that's great.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, one thing 

17 puzzles me, though. John, your reported dose 

18 on the one cancer is the bone dose.

19 DR. MAURO: Bone marrow.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, marrow?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Oh, I should've said 

2 that. Yes, bone marrow.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: All right, so, 

4 bone marrow. All right, so, I don't know what 

5 that difference is about, but -- because we 

6 haven't really looked at exactly what was 

7 done. I think it could be done.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, but the numbers -

9 - I got to tell you I was concerned that we 

10 might come into a factor of ten apart. You 

11 know, completely blind here. But we're close, 

12 especially the external -- I'm sorry, the 

13 skin. You're coming in higher on bone it 

14 sounds like, somewhat. I'm sorry, did you say 

15 your skin was 2.3 rems? Is that right?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: It ranged from 2.9 

17 to -- what did I say, 3.8?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. So, you're 

19 coming in very close to method A. You 

20 probably used the 50 percentile. You probably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did exactly the way that Doug I believe did. 

2 Doug, did you do this?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. You probably did 

5 -- the fact that you're coming so close to 

6 Doug's numbers means that in this case, these 

7 two independent calculations of the skin dose 

8 are coming in very, very close because you 

9 probably both used the same workbook.

10 MR. SIEBERT: John?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes

12 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, this is 

13 Scott Siebert. Can I ask for a clarification? 

When you're saying 50th 14 percentile, are you 

15 talking about coworker dose?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Or missed dose?

18 DR. MAURO: Coworker.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

20 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. Yes, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 missed dose difference is not the driver. 

It's the coworker dose, where I used the 95th 2

3 percentile. I believe you folks used the --

well, when I say you folks, Doug used the 50th 4

5 percentile.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Just clarifying. 

7 Thank you.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: John, can I 

10 ask for a clarification of one other thing? 

11 DR. MAURO: Sure.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

13 Richardson. So, Table ES2, where there's skin 

14 doses under method A, and the -- the value of 

15 2.9 or 3 that you're talking about is summing 

16 up what -- what values in a column? Because 

17 the total is 5.7.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And if Stu is 

20 talking about the total, or he was talking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about the comparability of the summation of a 

2 subset of values that you were referring to as 

3 summing up to about 3 rem. 

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry. I was 

5 looking at the -- yes, we're -- yes, one of 

6 the skin doses. There were multiple skin 

7 cancers, and yes, you're correct. One of the 

8 skin doses, the one to the back and shoulder, 

9 came in at 5.7, which yes, it's -- I'm sorry. 

10 My mistake. I was looking at the right hand 

11 side. It's somewhat higher than -- I take it 

12 back.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that's 

14 what we're asking is did -- Stu, when you said 

15 your numbers, are you including the 

16 occupational, medical and the internal? Okay. 

17 We're comparing apples and apples then.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The numbers I gave 

19 are described in the dose reconstruction 

20 report as the totals. There are like four 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different skin cancers.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Each one has it's 

4 own dose --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, we're 

6 looking at the total on this table. Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So, the one is 

8 certainly lower, our 3.9 to their 5.7.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But we're about 

11 two-thirds of theirs or something.

12 DR. MAURO: It looks like the 

13 occupational medical dose, as would be 

14 expected, is the driver for the skin doses, 

15 and at least for two of those skin cancers.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean more 

17 complicated analysis is going to be a little 

18 difficult for me on the fly here. Let me see 

19 what I got here.

20 MR. FARVER: You're almost going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to have to go back into the details of the 

2 report for each of the two methods and start 

3 comparing.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. What's 

5 our path forward here? Do we -

6 MR. HINNEFELD: What do you guys 

7 want to do?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we now 

9 reveal the case number, and then let SC&A --

10 MR. FARVER: We know the case 

11 number.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this still

13 blocked to you guys?

14 DR. MAURO: We just didn't look at 

15 it.

16 MR. FARVER: I don't know. I 

17 never tried to look at it.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean we blocked 

19 access to -- so they were really blind. We 

20 gave them certain key information, but we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't give them access to -- now, you guys 

2 have the case number and if you're not blocked 

3 from that folder, you can pull up our dose 

4 reconstruction.

5 DR. MAURO: I know I didn't do 

6 that. Doug, did you --

7 MR. FARVER: I didn't look at it.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It can go either 

9 way. If you want us to do it, we can do it. 

10 It doesn't matter to me.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think both 

12 groups can probably look at it and be ready to 

13 discuss any differences. For method A, maybe 

14 that bone marrow, you question what -- it 

15 seems like a little bit of a spread. Maybe 

16 there's different assumptions that -- that 

17 SC&A made.

18 MR. FARVER: You got to look at 

19 the details.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you got to dig into the details a little, yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: There are -- I 

3 mean there was -- there was IMBA fitting and 

4 bioassay data on those. It wasn't like a 

5 missed dose. It was a --

6 MR. STIVER: Well, once again, 

7 you're looking at the unmonitored photon, two 

8 different keV and the driver for the bone --

9 MR. FARVER: And it depends what 

10 uranium you used, recycled uranium, 

11 enrichment. There's just a whole lot. I 

12 couldn't really summarize in two sentences.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

14 Sure, sure.

15 MR. KATZ: So, should we have this 

16 as an action item?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A task for both 

18 groups, I think, to look at the -- you can go 

19 over the Oak Ridge example too, if you want. 

20 But I think --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: It's sort of the same 

2 story that comes out of Oak Ridge, the Y12 

3 case.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: And what we have here 

6 is the fellow that had the gall bladder, the 

7 bile duct cancer. And again, the difference, 

8 if you want to open to it, the executive 

9 summary of that document, you go to table ES1 

10 on -- let's see. What page is that? Up in 

11 the front there, page 10.

12 It summarizes again method A, 

13 method B, and again method B comes in two 

14 times higher. You know, I'd have to go back 

15 and look at the summary text above it. The 

16 reason for the difference --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Data dose.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, it's the internal 

19 dose in this case. How the plutonium and beta 

20 dose. Plutonium and the -- plutonium and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 beta radionuclide doses were calculated. 

2 That's what the driver is. This was a Super S 

3 issue. There were -- I guess the way in which 

4 you modeled the intake and the bioassay data, 

5 and so this probably is pretty complicated.

6 I see that there is a mix of 

7 radionuclides; strontium is the driver, and 

8 then -- but they have some other radionuclides 

9 mixed in there also. That would be the beta 

10 contribution. And there's assumptions 

11 regarding whether it was like a chronic 

12 exposure versus a series of acute exposures.

13 So, again, the driver in this 

14 case, opposite from the -- even though we're 

15 still a factor of 2 difference, but in this 

16 case interestingly enough, it's not the 

17 external but it's the internal that drives the 

18 difference, not surprisingly since it is the 

19 bile duct and you would expect the internal 

20 emitters to be more important than -- I guess 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you would external.

2 But in any event, same story, and 

3 where it would be worth probing. Where did 

4 you folks come in, by the way, on this one?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm getting there. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Either way, 

7 while Stu is looking at that, I think the 

8 tasking is going to be that both groups look 

9 at the SC&A DR's and the NIOSH DR's, and we'll 

10 come back and see if there's any areas of 

11 learning out of this.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: John?

13 DR. MAURO: Yes?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

15 Richardson. One thing that was interesting to 

16 me is the two methods in terms of the external 

17 dose, you notice the tables are flipped in 

18 terms of method A is giving you a total 

19 external dose of 24, and method B is like a 12 

20 to 14. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, differences would be even more 

2 pronounced, for example, if the two methods 

3 had given you similar external doses but 

4 different internal doses because they're --

5 there's like 10 or 12 rem of external dose 

6 that wasn't added in through method B.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And that 

9 would be interesting.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, we've got to poke 

11 around. There's a lot of probing to do. I 

12 just tried to give you the 30-second sound 

13 bite, but there's a lot to this. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, our value 

15 was about 15.3 rem. So, it's considerably 

16 less.

17 DR. MAURO: You guys came in at 

18 15.3?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about half the value for method A, okay. You 

2 know, that's interesting. Your approach also 

3 was about one-half the value we came at method 

4 A for the Portsmouth case also. So, this 

5 should be -- this factor of 2 is hanging in 

6 there.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, with skin and 

8 gall bladder I wouldn't draw a lot of 

9 conclusions.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: No, no. I know.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And we'll just 

13 have to do the analysis because it's 

14 impossible to tell. This again was a fairly 

15 complicated -- there are a number of IMBA runs 

16 in there. So, it looks like there will be --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why we 

18 picked them.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Oh, gee, 

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

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: You know what's 

2 interesting? This little discussion we're 

3 having is sort of like a mini-version of what 

4 would happen if NIOSH had an internal program 

5 of their own that did this sort of thing. 

6 Maybe having four or five people doing the 

7 same case.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are you trying 

9 to talk me out of --

10 DR. MAURO: And then probe it.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Mark, this is 

13 Scott. Just one thing to keep in mind for 

14 this kind of a comparison, it would really 

15 help us or whoever is doing the review on our 

16 side, to have the supporting files, the IMBA 

17 files.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. SIEBERT: All the other 

20 supporting files. Not just the report.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I knew 

2 what you were going to say as you were 

3 speaking. Yes, that's a good idea.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can make 

6 that happen, right, SC&A?

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug is saying, 

9 "Yes, definitely. No problem." I got him 

10 with me right here. I was going to dig 

11 through his old computer that he did it on 

12 four years ago.

13 MR. KATZ: And what about you, 

14 John? Your envelopes, did you save them?

15 DR. MAURO: We're all fine. Yes.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And if you guys 

17 cannot get access to these folders on NOCTS if 

18 you're blocked, because we did block you at 

19 one time I think. Just let us know and we'll 

20 take that off. Because all of our stuff will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be on there. Our reports are on there. 

2 If you want a guide, give us a 

3 call. Give Brant or me a call. We'll guide 

4 you through what's there and what you can see. 

5 But it's not just plain docs. There's a 

6 whole lot of documents there, including the 

7 dose reconstructions, the IMBA files, the IREP 

8 files and so on. They're all there. 

9 MR. FARVER: I really think it's 

10 going to come down to where it's going to go 

11 back to a basic assumption that we made, and 

12 that's where the difference will --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It may come down 

14 to how we fit the bioassay.

15 MR. FARVER: For the internal, 

16 yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is 

18 probably -- this is gall bladder. This has 

19 almost got to be an internal one.

20 MR. FARVER: Because if you read 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through just our two reports on internal, 

2 they're actually different.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: Just the number of 

5 intakes, the type of intakes. I think it's 

6 going to come down to --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that's 

8 good. That's good discussion that we can 

9 have.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And John, we're 

12 just wondering around the table; did you use a 

13 slide rule for all these, or did --

14 DR. MAURO: Of course.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- you cheat? 

16 Okay. 

17 DR. MAURO: I got help from my 

18 IMBA people. Don't worry. I wish I was that 

19 skilled.

20 MEMBER MUNN: The abacus is so 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 much faster.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The abacus, 

3 yes. All right, I think we'll move on from 

4 blind reviews to -- I don't know what it says 

5 on the agenda, but I'd like to do the case 

6 selection. Well, we can take on the DR 12 

7 case selection first, if people have looked at 

8 that.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Mark, could I 

10 ask for one piece of clarification as I'm 

11 thinking about how to -- how to make sense of 

12 what's going to happen from the comparison 

13 between, say, three different approaches to 

14 reconstructing the dose?

15 I'm wondering -- I'm -- we might 

16 be leaving with different ideas about what 

17 that kind of summary evaluation is going to 

18 look like. I'd be interested to see, for 

19 example, what John and Stu think the next 

20 steps are going to be. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Well, I can tell you 

2 what my plan was when looking at this. If you 

3 look at Table ES1, I plan on putting in 

4 another column that lists the same type values 

5 for the NIOSH dose reconstruction, like we 

6 normally do when we review a case.

7 And then when there's major 

8 differences, we'll try to explain what -- why 

9 the differences occur, and what the basic 

10 assumptions are. So, that's kind of what I 

11 was looking at.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's the 

13 accepted analysis. If you're talking about 

14 what happens after that, I would say that we 

15 in this Subcommittee would discuss the 

16 relative merits of the three approaches or 

17 whichever one is discussed and the 

18 Subcommittee could recommend to -- or the 

19 Board could recommend that these be changed.

20 Or, we may -- I mean we may 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conclude that based on merits that needs to be 

2 changed, or the Subcommittee or the Board 

3 could make such a recommendation to -- you 

4 know, to me, the function of the Board is to 

5 recommend it to the Secretary. And if the 

6 Board in its deliberations finds -- points out 

7 things that we say, "Oh, gee, that should be 

8 changed," we change them. And so, that's what 

9 will happen.

10 If there's some disagreement about 

11 whether something should be changed or not, 

12 then it might be above my pay grade.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, am I right 

14 in understanding that DR method A should --

15 the intention was that it was a blind 

16 replication, using the methodology that 

17 should've been used also by NIOSH?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, there --

20 the hope would be that there's kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consistency and reproducibility there between 

2 column A and what will be column C? And if 

3 there's not, we've got categories of 

4 explanation, which are human error or 

5 ambiguity in protocols or perhaps as you're 

6 saying with -- I mean maybe those would be the 

7 two categories.

8 If there's different judgments on 

9 the internal dosimetry, it's because the 

10 protocols that have been written leave some 

11 things open to subjectivity of the dose 

12 reconstructor?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that might 

14 be the case. I think it's a little hard to 

15 judge what we're going to find when we look at 

16 these, but it might be. And one of the 

17 questions that we could very well run into 

18 since IMBA fits on both these is which fit is 

19 better? You know, is this fit good enough? 

20 Or, is - do I need to do this additional work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and do this fit? So, that may be one of the 

2 questions we run into on this.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, and then 

4 comparing column B to column C is where I was 

5 thinking of questions of scientific validity 

6 of the procedures as opposed to 

7 reproducibility -

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- aligned to 

10 the methodology.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

12 that's sort of why we ask SC&A to do that. 

13 John described that correctly. They kind of 

14 came back and said, "We'd like to do it this 

15 way," and we as a Subcommittee agreed. It 

16 might've even been a full Board discussion. I 

17 can't remember, but that was part of the 

18 reason we asked for two methods by SC&A.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. I 

20 remember that. Sort of kind of face validity. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: John was 

3 going to look at these records. This would be 

4 kind of a -- I don't know if it's a ballpark, 

5 or if it's -- if it's kind of a different 

6 approach to deriving an estimate.

7 DR. MAURO: You know, it's really 

8 a -- there's no doubt that I was part of it, 

9 but I certainly had help, was not -- not 

10 trying to religiously follow workbooks, your 

11 procedures, although we certainly took the 

12 procedures, the Site Profile, and all of the 

13 vast amount of knowledge that was accumulated 

14 by NIOSH and took advantage of that.

15 So, it's not that it's our own 

16 invention by any means. We're using the --

17 we're standing on your shoulders, so to speak, 

18 saying, “Okay, given all this information, 

19 we're not going to use your workbook, but 

20 given all this information and data that we've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 learned over the years, how would you do it?"

2 We try to document that, and 

3 you'll see -- and you'll notice that there is 

4 a difference, this factor of 2, between the 

5 two methods. Now, the degree to which that is 

6 insightful or helpful I'm not sure. 

7 Once we get into it and we start 

8 to see what the differences are, I think it 

9 might lend itself toward an evaluation of the 

10 precision that is achieved or accuracy that's 

11 achieved by the sophistication that you folks 

12 have brought in. 

13 And Ted, as you recall, we had a 

14 bit of a discussion on the sophistication of 

15 the workbooks, the complexity, and what this 

16 should reveal is that there's no doubt that 

17 NIOSH and the contractor have gotten to a 

18 level of sophistication that is admirable.

19 This kind of comparison will start 

20 to reveal what -- what -- you know, by going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the workbooks where things get very 

2 complex, there's added value, and we may very 

3 well find that when you do that, your doses 

4 come down a little lower by sharpening the 

5 pencil, so to speak. And this comparison 

6 might help reveal what it is that you achieve 

7 by bringing in that level of sophistication.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, that is 

9 where I guess I would be interested in framing 

10 the comparisons between column A and what will 

11 be column C in terms of an explanation of 

12 certain categories of ambiguity or error that 

13 lead to differences in two people 

14 reconstructing the dose, whereas with column 

15 B, it'd be interesting for you to have a 

16 judgment about whether the assumptions that 

17 you employ to kind of end up with a higher 

18 dose you feel are better assumptions or are --

19 were weaker assumptions of convenience which 

20 led to an overestimation, where if you had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 "sharpened the pencil," it would've gone down 

2 the other direction.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think that's 

4 where the value lies, yes.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, thank 

6 you. That was useful for me to think about 

7 where we'll be going with this next.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we can 

9 move onto the next topic, the case selection 

10 on the PER 12, and there was an Excel 

11 spreadsheet sent around by Brant or by -- yes. 

12 I'm going to ask that someone refresh my 

13 memory. How many cases did we agree that we 

14 wanted to pick for this review? Did we put a 

15 number on it? I forget.

16 DR. ULSH: Maybe I'll give a 

17 little bit of background.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, go ahead. 

19 Go ahead.

20 DR. ULSH: For those on the phone 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 who may not be aware of the history, just 

2 briefly, PER 12 is a Super-S PER. And so, 

3 number of cases came back to NIOSH, and under 

4 the auspices of this committee, looking at 

5 whether or not we appropriately executed our 

6 PERs, some of those were picked, PER 12 in the 

7 first one, and this committee committed to 

8 looking at those of those cases to make sure 

9 that we followed the PER and implemented it 

10 appropriately.

11 So, PER 12 is the first one. SC&A 

12 reviewed that, and proposed -- you see the 

13 report where the proposed a number of criteria 

14 for selecting cases, and I'll turn it over to 

15 Scott in a little bit to let him walk you 

16 through that. But there was a matrix of 

17 different categories of cases that would be 

18 selected from.

19 So, then it came to NIOSH -- it 

20 became NIOSH's task to identify cases that fit 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 each of those criteria, and that's what you 

2 see here in this spreadsheet that Scott 

3 actually prepared and I distributed.

4 I don't know; did we decide on a 

5 specific number of cases or were we just going 

6 to try to pick some on each matrix box?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, Hans had -- this 

8 is based on Hans laying out characteristics of 

9 cases that would need to be looked at to 

10 examine implementation. So, I believe Hans is 

11 on the line, isn't he?

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

13 MR. KATZ: Do you want to just 

14 speak to the number that you were looking for 

15 in total?

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. Basically, 

17 I did not identify a select number, but I said 

18 based on the fact that the issue of Super S 

19 plutonium, the reconstruction of doses has 

20 multiple different methods by which dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction or revised dose reconstruction 

2 would have to take place, and it's a matrix 

3 that's defined by the type of target organ in 

4 question, and there were four.

5 There was the lung and the lymph 

6 nodes, the thoracic lymph nodes, extra 

7 thoracic lymph nodes, GI tract and systemic 

8 organs. So, there were four different target 

9 organs that would be affected by Super S 

10 plutonium.

11 In addition, the potential 

12 reconstruction of doses would also be affected 

13 by the method by which the original dose 

14 reconstruction was done; namely was it done by 

15 urine analysis, by lung counts, by fecal 

16 sample, or air sampling?

17 So, in effect, you had a matrix 

18 that allowed up to 12, except that we said 

19 that air sampling would not apply to extra 

20 thoracic or GI tract, so that in essence there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were -- I identified 10 different methods by 

2 which a revised dose reconstruction would take 

3 place, and I also threw out the caution that 

4 perhaps not all of those particular pigeon 

5 hole sampling dose reconstructors would 

6 necessarily be represented among the 1,577 

7 claims that were affected by the Super S PER.

8 So, I left it as a minimum. If 

9 you were able to find a case for each of those 

10 particular cases involving the four target 

11 organs and the four different methods by which 

12 original dose reconstruction was done, you 

13 would end up having to sample at least 10 

14 cases in order to take one case for each of 

15 those different procedures that were done to 

16 reconstruct the original dose.

17 Now, I haven't really looked at 

18 what was forwarded to us, but I suspect that 

19 perhaps NIOSH was able to find at least some 

20 cases for each of those individual cases that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I identified as a potential case for review.

2 So, if the Board were to say, "We 

3 will take one of each of the ten cases," then 

4 the number of cases that may have to be 

5 reviewed would be 10. If there's more than 

6 one case for each of the types, then obviously 

7 it would be a multiple of 10. But that's a 

8 decision that has not been made.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, 

10 Brant.

11 DR. ULSH: Well, at some point, 

12 I'd just like to have Scott walk you through 

13 the email that was sent out, and the 

14 spreadsheet. I don't know if you want to do 

15 that now.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm 

17 trying to figure out the four -- I mean you're 

18 saying four organs and four --

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, yes, Mark. 

20 Can I ask you if you have access to the report 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that I submitted March of 2010? It's really 

2 on page 15, and it's Table 2 that provides the 

3 matrix that identifies the target organs and 

4 the method by which the original dose 

5 reconstruction was done, which gives you the 

6 ten choices that you may have to make in 

7 selecting a case for each of those different 

8 categories.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

10 don't have that handy. Does anybody else have 

11 that? I mean I'm just trying to understand 

12 simple mathematics here, Hans. Four target 

13 organs, four different methods. To me, that 

14 comes out to 16 cases. Am I looking at that 

15 wrong?

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes -- no, but in 

17 fact, if you have Scott's write up, he also 

18 has it on page 1, and it identifies the four 

19 different organs, lung, ET GI tract systemic, 

20 and then he has air monitoring, fecal, urine 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and in vivo.

2 So, that matrix is concluded in 

3 Scott's handout.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Like I said, 

5 this --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All I have is 

7 the spreadsheet unfortunately.

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 MR. SIEBERT: For me to walk 

10 through, I --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, 

12 Scott.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I didn't have the 

14 list of Hans' 10, so I started from the 

15 beginning of a matrix of 4 by 4; the four 

16 types of monitoring, air monitoring, fecal, 

17 urine and in vivo, and the four types of 

18 organs, where you make different adjustments 

19 based on lung, ET GI tract.

20 And Mark, you're right; when you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do that straight matrix, you're talking 16 

2 different categories.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

4 MR. SIEBERT: I did not remove any 

5 categories. When I went through the claims, I 

6 tried to find something for every category 

7 just to be on the safe side. Hans is right; 

8 there are times where Super S adjustment is 

9 not appropriate based on the type of 

10 monitoring and the type of organ. However, I 

11 tried to include at least one claim to 

12 demonstrate the fact that we did that 

13 appropriately, even though it doesn't need to 

14 be applied.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: That's it, Scott. 

16 In my matrix, I said no to -- to the 3 cases 

17 involving lung counts, where we talked about 

18 extra thoracic GI tract and systemic organs 

19 because they're not part of a lung count.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. H. BEHLING: And I also said 

2 no to the air sampling involving extra 

3 thoracic GI and systemic. So, I ended up with 

4 ten different potential cases, versus your 16.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Those six that 

6 you excluded again, Hans? A little slower?

7 DR. H. BEHLING: On the lung 

8 counts, I said no to extra thoracic GI tract 

9 and systemic organs because a lung count 

10 wouldn't reveal any information regarding 

11 those.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and the 

13 other three?

14 DR. H. BEHLING: The air sampling 

15 involving extra thoracic GI tract and systemic 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the same 

18 thing.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: That goes back to 

20 why I excluded dose 3 as well. It's been over 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a year since --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: But in essence --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least I 

5 understand your 10 now. Thank you, yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Right, and I agree 

7 that all six of those categories do not use 

8 adjustments.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

10 MR. SIEBERT: So, we're on the 

11 same sheet of music. How scary is that?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's pretty 

13 good. That's pretty good. Maybe we should go 

14 home.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Second? So, 

16 once we had the matrix of 16, I talked to 

17 Brant for a while, and some of these 

18 categories were much easier to find than 

19 others, just based on the types of claims, and 

20 some were much more difficult.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The more straightforward ones 

2 would be fecal sampling because, as we all 

3 know, fecal sampling is less prevalent across 

4 the complex. So, we have many fewer claims 

5 that actually used fecal sampling. So, those 

6 were a little bit easier to find by tracking 

7 the claims where that is stated in the dose 

8 reconstruction report.

9 So, that was actually the first 

10 category I went down, and went right through 

11 the column that dealt with fecal sampling. 

12 And unfortunately, I could not find one from 

13 every category. I found one for fecal 

14 sampling that was a lung claim, and four for 

15 systemic, but I just could not find any for ET 

16 or GI tract.

17 Once again, it's just because of 

18 the limited number of claims there were. So, 

19 those are the ones that we have on the list: 

20 one for organs, being lung and fecal, and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 organ being systemic and fecal, four of those.

2 So, that was the fecal sampling. 

3 The next category that was relatively easy to 

4 find was air monitoring, and the reason for 

5 that is, number one, OTIB-18 is, although it's 

6 an overestimate, it is based on air monitoring 

7 results. 

8 So, I could flip through all the 

9 OTIB-18 claims, and ensure that any plutonium 

10 that was done as part of OTIB-18 had Super S 

11 applied appropriately. Also, there are some 

12 sites that use air monitoring to assign 

13 plutonium. Pantex is the main one. 

14 So, it was relatively 

15 straightforward for me to find air monitoring 

16 claims and I have six for the -- where the 

17 organ of interest is lungs. And then as Hans 

18 said, you really don't have to review ET GI 

19 tract and systemic because it doesn't apply. 

20 However, I did put two claims from each of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those classes just so if the Subcommittee 

2 wanted to ensure that we considered it and 

3 determined it was not appropriate, you could 

4 always look at those.

5 So, that covers air monitoring and 

6 fecal. Before I go on, are there any 

7 questions? Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Guess we got 

9 you so far.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Good. The next one 

11 that was relatively straightforward was ET. 

12 So, I switched from monitoring to organ type.

13 Once again, like fecal sampling, 

14 this was straightforward just because there 

15 are not many claims that use ET as the organ 

16 of interest. If you go into OTIB-5 and look at 

17 how many ICD-9 codes refer to the ET region, 

18 it's just not that many.

19 So, I could track through all 

20 those, and as I already said, I had air 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitoring covered. I could not find one for 

2 fecal, but I did find four claims for -- that 

3 used your analysis, and two claims that use 

4 chest counting in vivo.

5 So, those categories are covered 

6 as well. So, I've gone down the matrix and 

7 I've gone across the matrix, and if you 

8 notice, that's left a few things open, which 

9 is urine sampling and chest counting for lung, 

10 GI tract and systemic.

11 And from that point on, it was 

12 just brute force reviewing claims to find 

13 claims that fell into those categories, and 

14 the latest list that I believe Brant sent out 

15 does have I believe eight claims for -- would 

16 be four organs of interest is the lungs, both 

17 for urine, and eight for chest counting.

18 Found five of them where we used 

19 urine sampling. And for the GI tract there 

20 was only one claim I could find where the GI 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tract used chest counting, which is not really 

2 surprising because there wouldn't be very 

3 many. 

4 And also, as Hans said again, for 

5 chest counting, your ET, your GI tract, is 

6 systemic. There are no correction factors for 

7 that. So, I felt that finding one from each 

8 of the systemic and GI tract was enough to 

9 demonstrate that we took it into account.

10 And I know I've kind of been 

11 dancing around the categories a little bit. 

12 The one that's left over is urine sampling and 

13 systemic, and I found eight claims -- I'm 

14 sorry, four claims -- that were representative 

15 of that. 

16 So, we've actually -- for the 10 

17 that Hans was stating, we actually got a 

18 pretty good chunk of claims in each of those 

19 categories except for fecal sampling for ET 

20 and GI tract just because of the small number 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of fecal sampling claims.

2 That's where we got the numbers 

3 that are in the matrix, and the claims that 

4 are pulled, and it totals up to 50 claims, 

5 which is I believe what we were originally 

6 focusing on putting together so that you guys 

7 could pull from that list.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which if we 

9 look at it from -- from SC&A's proposed 

10 method, I think we -- this would bring us down 

11 to maybe eight cases -- eight categories 

12 anyway, yes.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Because there are no 

14 claims in two of them.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes. 

16 DR. ULSH: Just to make sure 

17 before we go on, I sent out the partial list 

18 on Friday, but then I sent out the full list 

19 on Wednesday. So, make sure you're looking at 

20 the message I sent out on -- the spreadsheet 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's got all the stuff that Scott was just 

2 talking about.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans. 

4 Just a quick question for either Scott or 

5 Brant. Among the cases he identified, how 

6 many of them were compensated? How many were 

7 not compensated? How many were not 

8 compensated among the non-compensated? What's 

9 the distribution with PoC, and if there's a 

10 selection process, could we focus on the 

11 highest that were below 50 percent, but he 

12 highest among those groups?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we have 

14 the PoC numbers in here. So, we can consider 

15 that, Hans, at each end of the table.

16 MR. KATZ: Keep in mind, I mean 

17 the purpose of this is very different from the 

18 DR review purpose. It's to see that PER was 

19 implemented correctly. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, any -- I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean I am kind of looking over. Everybody has 

2 the table open, I suppose, the spreadsheet. 

3 And I assume I'm looking at the correct one. 

4 I mean I have 50 cases listed. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: That would be the 

6 right one then.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It's 

8 highlighted very well. So, you can follow

9 along from different categories. And I mean 

10 again I would say we're really looking at the 

11 category matrix item. If you look at column 

12 K, it has matrix category. Just to simplify 

13 it, you want to target -- based on the 

14 discussion by Hans and Scott -- target matrix 

15 item 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then 

18 whether we want one from each category;

19 whether we want more than one, I guess we have 

20 -- that's open to discussion. And we have the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other factors in the matrix to help us make a 

2 decision.

3 I might've lost a little bit of 

4 your discussion, Scott. I think for some of 

5 the air monitoring cases, you said that they 

6 really were PROC 18; am I getting that 

7 correct? You said they were --

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's fine.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you explain 

10 that again? I might've missed some of that.

11 MR. SIEBERT: That's fine. Since 

12 -- it's actually OTIB-18. OTIB-18, the 

13 overestimating approach for internal 

14 dosimetry, based on air monitoring, or for a 

15 program that had air monitoring, obviously 

16 based on the title, that is based on air 

17 monitoring. So, the correction factors for 

18 OTIB-49 Super S plutonium would apply and need 

19 to be determined. When we do OTIB-18, 

20 whenever the plutonium is assigned, we need to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 also look at the fact of what the calculation 

2 of Super S plutonium in that is, to determine 

3 if it's more claimant favorable and gives a 

4 larger dose than anything else that OTIB-18 

5 kicks in.

6 So, it's another step in the 

7 process, where we apply OTIB-49 Super-S 

8 correction factors to the doses that come out 

9 of OTIB-18.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you were 

11 saying none of those cases are -- they're all 

12 OTIB-18 is what you're saying, right?

13 MR. SIEBERT: No.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No?

15 MR. SIEBERT: The ones that are 

16 listed as Pantex --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, right.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Pantex is a site 

19 that does use air monitoring results to assign 

20 plutonium. So, Pantex claims will have direct 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 values out of the TBD, where OTIB 49 is 

2 applied to them.

3 The other sites other than Pantex 

4 I believe are all OTIB-18s.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, thanks 

6 for that clarification.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. Any 

9 thoughts on how we should go forward selecting 

10 the cases? How many? What kind of 

11 stratification? I mean other than these 

12 categories, I think we -- we did -- I don't 

13 know if the Board approved SC&A's approach, 

14 but I think we -- we -- yes, I think we 

15 accepted it.

16 MR. KATZ: I mean I think you're 

17 just trying to check here. I don't think you 

18 need a statistical sample.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no, no. 

20 I'm just saying --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: But by that example 

2 that you just talked about, if Pantex is 

3 really dealt with differently, then you might 

4 want one of each.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Two 

6 from those guys, right. And I don't know if 

7 there's any other distinctions here, but --

8 so, for item -- for category one, for 

9 instance, we want Pantex 1, and line 6, the 

10 fifth one down, Hanford. It's something --

11 you know --

12 DR. ULSH: Can I bring up an 

13 issue? Just something everyone should know. 

14 The spreadsheet contains Privacy Act 

15 information.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 DR. ULSH: So, when we're talking 

18 about particular claims, don't use the last 

19 name or --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or the Social 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Security number.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Use the line 

3 number, like you did, Mark.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The line number; 

6 that is the appropriate way to select these, I 

7 think.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we can say 

9 site I think.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: You can say site, 

11 and the things that are on the normal 

12 compensation selection list, which would 

13 include site, IREP model and PoC, you can all 

14 talk about. You cannot say -- but I couldn't 

15 go much farther than that.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's good. I 

17 thought Brant was going somewhere else, 

18 actually. I thought you were bringing up that 

19 question we talked about with regard to --

20 with conflicts. If people have conflicts, can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we select cases on sites that we have 

2 conflicts on? Is that an issue still?

3 MR. KATZ: That would be an issue.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: You can't -- you can't 

6 select cases where you have a conflict.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or you just 

8 can't vote on certain ones, right?

9 MR. KATZ: Really should not be 

10 involved on your own site on anything. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: So, just simply if it's 

13 a case on your site, you should be silent 

14 about it.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, just be 

16 silent about it. Right, yes. We can't just 

17 constantly step away from the table.

18 MR. KATZ: No, no, no. Nobody has 

19 to go anywhere.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest that 

2 we start with one of each of the categories 

3 that we identified as being most important, 

4 since I personally have no feel for how long

5 each of these is going to take, and we're time 

6 constrained here. So, let's try to at least 

7 cover one of each of five categories.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott again. 

10 One thing that Wanda just stated, and it may 

11 not be -- I'm just curious. Is this a full 

12 review of the claim, or is it a review to 

13 ensure that Super S plutonium was applied 

14 correctly in the PER assessment?

15 MR. KATZ: It's the latter.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it's 

17 the latter, yes. I think we -- we just --

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, this is 

19 Hans. In my original write up regarding the 

20 review of PER, I did make a distinction. If 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as a result of the PER a claim that was 

2 initially a best estimate would be -- there 

3 you would confine yourself basically to only 

4 those issues that were subject to being 

5 revised under the PER. 

6 However, if it was a maximized 

7 dose, which as a result of the PER then comes 

8 close to being compensated like the 

9 reorganization that was a maximized case would 

10 then cause NIOSH to say, "Hey, now. Wait a 

11 minute. We gave you certain doses that we are 

12 now no longer willing to give you because 

13 we're going to go over the 50 percent limit. 

14 And so, we're going to revise the best --

15 we're going to revise the maximized to a best 

16 estimate. Then it may turn out to be a full 

17 blown review."

18 MR. KATZ: No, Hans. This was 

19 discussed in the Procedures Subcommittee. 

20 That's true what you're saying, but the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Subcommittee was very clear that this isn't --

2 the point is not to do a full blown dose 

3 reconstruction to make sure that this is 

4 applied correctly, PER-12. 

5 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, the 

6 question then becomes was the revision of the 

7 maximized dose to a best estimate done 

8 correctly too? And that gives an awful lot of 

9 latitude to -- to say, "Well, we're going to 

10 knock it down in other areas in order to avoid 

11 the compensation."

12 That's my feeling is that if it 

13 was a maximized dose up front, that is now 

14 being revised as a result of PER, perhaps a 

15 full blown review might be appropriate.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But different 

17 purposes I think is what we're getting at. 

18 There's different purposes. And I think we 

19 want to make sure in this review that if a 

20 maximized approach -- they added Super S on, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and it went above 45 percent, where you then 

2 kick into full -- if it went above the 45 

3 percentile that it actually kicked in the best 

4 estimate. But we wouldn't want to review the 

5 best estimate case. 

6 We just want to make sure the 

7 system is working as it should be, and that it 

8 was applied correctly. That way, NIOSH caught 

9 -- NIOSH made the correction with Super S, and 

10 then in their system it went into the right 

11 place. It went into a best estimate approach.

12 But we're not -- that's not our 

13 purpose here for this -- for these PER case 

14 reviews. We're not doing our full audit kind 

15 of thing. That's my take on it anyway. 

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, if we want 

17 to be -- give the benefit of --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It doesn't mean 

19 we're not interested in it Hans. It just 

20 means not for this part.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. You're 

2 more trusting than I am.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

4 I think I could give you a battle on that.

5 DR. ULSH: We shouldn't expect to 

6 see findings on environmental dose or medical 

7 dose.

8 MR. KATZ: No.

9 DR. ULSH: It'd be internal.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. This 

11 is like targeted task that the Subcommittee 

12 has been given to look at this -- whether this 

13 PER was implemented correctly. That's my 

14 understanding.

15 MR. KATZ: The reporting out is to 

16 the Procedures Subcommittee.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: What the Dose 

19 Reconstruction Committee is doing here is 

20 making the selections.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: And if you make note 

3 of those cases that were redone, then you can 

4 always go back at a later date and say, "Okay, 

5 maybe we want to have another look at this 

6 one, or this one."

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We can 

8 make notes or comments.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It might or might 

10 not be a hint whether there was an adjustment 

11 made. There might be; depends on what the 

12 dose reconstruction says.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we can at 

14 least ask NIOSH, and you can follow up. Is 

15 that possible?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: If it's not 

17 apparent, it won't be apparent to us. Now, it 

18 could very well be that the dose 

19 reconstruction -- depends on the year that the 

20 dose reconstruction was originally -- when it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was done. I don't remember for sure when we 

2 did this. It may very well say that these 

3 were the changes that were made from the first 

4 to the second, in addition to the PER. It may 

5 say that, or it may not.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Most of them should 

7 say that, Stu. I agree.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thanks. 

9 Okay, then it will be apparent from the 

10 language and dose reconstruction. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, with that 

12 in mind, to go back to Wanda's model of -- I 

13 tend to agree with that. I just want to make 

14 sure. I would say generally, one case from 

15 each of the eight categories would be where we 

16 could start here, with the one exception that 

17 Scott pointed out, possibly making two from 

18 that air monitoring category. One Pantex and 

19 one other. You know?

20 Any other comments on how we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should select? 

2 MEMBER MUNN: I suggest we start 

3 with 1 and 4 Pantex item from category 1.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Volume 4?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It's lymphoma 

6 and myeloma -- it's a very low PoC.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That is 

8 an odd one. Am I not understanding that? It 

9 has lung checked, but it shows the IREP model 

10 as lymphoma, multiple myeloma. What does that 

11 mean?

12 MR. SIEBERT: The reason for that 

13 is for multiple myeloma, as you remember from 

14 OTIB-12, when we changed this, this is a 

15 lymphoma myeloma with a change in organs. 

16 Sometimes the organ of interest is the lung, 

17 and that's one thing I guess I should have 

18 pointed out. Remember this is based on the 

19 organ of interest, not necessarily the IREP 

20 model of interest.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

2 Okay. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: It's under the 

4 Pantex one, but we have plenty of items that 

5 we can --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I would say 

7 perhaps that one is borderline, but it didn't 

8 hit the 45 percentile, did it? I was going to 

9 say line 5 might be a good one after that.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Line 4 opens, 

12 okay? And line 5.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I apologize. I 

14 should've numbered the cases with a separate 

15 number. It would've been easier.

16 MEMBER MUNN: No, that's okay. 

17 There are plenty of numbers.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: As long as we 

19 don't resort these, we'll be okay.

20 DR. ULSH: In my notes, I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 writing down the NIOSH ID numbers.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that covers 

3 the matrix 1. We just stepped out into the 

4 green column.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That gets us 

7 through matrix 1. Then there's really only 

8 two that fall into the second category.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I mean I 

11 guess line 8 is okay. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: You were skipping 

13 categories 2, 3 and 4, right?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes, yes. 

15 I'm sorry. You're right. Sorry about that.

16 DR. ULSH: Numerically the next 

17 category that you said anyway was category 5.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Five.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Five.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right. Thank you, Scott. So, that's line 14. 

2 Yes, 14.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Definitely a 

4 multiple cancer claim. So, it covers two 

5 different categories.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I would 

7 say you might want to do 8 separately as well, 

8 but 5 --

9 MR. SIEBERT: I agree.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, around 14 

11 we'll take. That's going to raise 8, and I 

12 would suggest taking another one because 8 --

13 anybody have any preferences over those next 

14 four?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda has a 

17 preference.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Seventeen.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventeen?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventeen it 

2 is. For those on the phone, if you have a 

3 difference of opinion, speak up. Category 9 

4 now we're looking at. Ninety-third

5 percentile.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And 22.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 22 is 

8 exactly the one I was looking at. So, that's 

9 good. We're thinking alike again, Wanda. I 

10 said I think there was one other time in ten 

11 years.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Line 22? I 

13 apologize. I couldn't hear that.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Line 22, yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then down to 

17 matrix 10. Four choices. They're all from 

18 the same site, yes. Why does that one say, 

19 "SRS 2008?"

20 DR. ULSH: Revision.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. What does 

2 that mean?

3 MR. SIEBERT: Because it has been 

4 reworked since due to other technical --

5 either -- I want to say actually an additional 

6 cancer. So, we have to -- if you pick that 

7 one, it has to be ensured you're looking at 

8 the version that was done first after the PER 

9 was put in place.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. With 

11 that in mind, we'll pick another one. Twenty12 nine maybe? Twenty-nine, is that okay?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then where 

15 are we at, 11?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Eleven. Site 

17 perspective on --

18 DR. ULSH: -- line 35.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, 35, 

20 but I would still pick another 12 separately. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Not the same site maybe. 

2 DR. ULSH: Thirty-eight or 39.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so 38 or 

4 39? Any preference? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: I want to point out 

6 the difference between 38 and 39 is -- 39 is 

7 based on coworker data, and the application of 

8 OTIB-49 on it.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, well, I 

10 still think that's okay. Thirty-nine is okay 

11 for me. Thirty-nine. And 13, last category 

12 of interest. Still in this category mostly 

13 from the same three sites, I guess. Maybe we 

14 should pick 47 since we haven't had that site.

15 MEMBER MUNN: That'd be nice. 

16 DR. ULSH: Forty-seven?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 DR. ULSH: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, that should 

20 give us nine cases. Is that okay? Everyone 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the phone okay with that?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. That's 

3 fine.

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: That's fine.

5 MR. KATZ: Did 39 make it in or 

6 not?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll re-read 

10 the cases for Scott and others. Line number 

11 4, 5, 14, 17, 22, 29, 35, 39, 47.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I had line 8 

13 too. That thrown away?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's thrown 

15 away.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

17 DR. ULSH: We're not picking from 

18 that matrix. That was my fault.

19 MR. KATZ: Got it. Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, then that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 takes care of that. And I actually don't 

2 think that we'll open up the case 15 case 

3 selections until after lunch. So, maybe we'll 

4 break for lunch a little early, then do the --

5 if people have time to peruse over lunch that 

6 large number of cases.

7 I think the difference -- Stu 

8 described to me the difference that's done. 

9 We have a lot of cases there to select from, 

10 but they're not all necessarily finally 

11 adjudicated. So, we might want to make our 

12 sample a little bigger with the anticipation 

13 that we're going to lose some when they go 

14 through Labor.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, how many 

18 are you thinking about, Mark? This is Brad.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, what do 

20 we usually -- we usually pick, John?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: We usually shoot for 

2 30 eventually to be approved, but you start 

3 off to bring to the Board a little bit more 

4 than that.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So, 

6 we'll probably want to get 50 from this maybe. 

7 At least 50.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: If you remember, 

9 we usually -- after this step, we get 

10 information from ORAU on what was done --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And there's 

13 another selection. That's usually what 

14 happens. I mean taking that step, I'd get at 

15 least 50. Maybe more than 50.

16 MR. KATZ: But the next step will 

17 be hopefully to have a -- we don't have time 

18 for another DR Subcommittee meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Well, 

20 we can just bring them more detailed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information back to the full Board, and do 

2 that selection there.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the 

5 question I'd have is if we give you 50, I 

6 think you might want to find out before you 

7 get all the detail, find out if they're 

8 finally adjudicated. Because you can just not 

9 bother to do that step if they're not finally 

10 adjudicated, right?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That's the 

12 preference because that's time consuming.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And 

14 then come back with that narrowed list to the 

15 full Board, and we can make the final 

16 selection there.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Do this at the 

18 August Board meeting.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: The next Board meeting 

2 after August is not until December?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, if we could do 

5 that in August that would keep the pipeline 

6 full.

7 DR. ULSH: What about DOL?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they've 

9 never had a long list before.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: They've only got 

12 like 25-30. When they got 25-30 --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Well, if 

14 we give them 50, it should be two days.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd go 50-60. It 

16 shouldn't take them very long.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A couple days, 

18 yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And I'd call them 

20 and say, "Hey, quick as you can." Just to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give ORAU as much time as possible, because a 

2 lot of that is time intensive.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I know, 

4 because sometimes you have to open up the case 

5 to see --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, 

8 we'll shoot for 50 to 60 off this bigger list 

9 today. And like I said, if you have a moment 

10 while you're eating your lunch, try to peruse 

11 them.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: It may -- we 

13 selected cases that were completed all the way 

14 up until two months ago. It'll probably 

15 improve our odds of getting ones that are 

16 adjudicated if we go back six months and just 

17 don't look at any that were done between six 

18 months or newer.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's a 

20 good idea.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: That'll improve 

2 our chances to give them to DOL.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, new cases 

4 but not real, real new cases. No, I'm just 

5 saying on the phone. The other thing for 

6 folks on the phone, Kathy Behling sent around 

7 -- I think everyone got it - a summary of the 

8 statistics for the cases selected so far. So, 

9 you might want to also look at that in terms 

10 of our selection out of this set.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: When did she send 

12 it?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know we got 

14 it recently. I'm not sure.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me. I'm 

16 on the phone. Stu, I'll send that to you. 

17 Can I see your Excel file?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this has a 

19 breakdown of 356 cases. It's called "356-case 

20 Statistics Document."
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: To all the 

3 Board Members on the phone, if anyone needs 

4 it, just let us know. That might be something 

5 that you want to look at while you're looking 

at the 15th 6 set list.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Did Kathy ask me 

8 for something?

9 DR. ULSH: Kathy asked for the 

10 spreadsheet that we're looking at.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 

12 right. And with that in mind, I think we're 

13 ready to break for lunch, and come back at 

14 1:00. 

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: Mark?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes? One more 

17 question.

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob. I 

19 got to go to work.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right. Well, we'll miss you, Bob. And have 

2 fun at work.

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I got to go to 

5 work too at lunch. Alright.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 11:54 a.m., and 

9 resumed at 1:01 p.m.) 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're ready to 

start on the case selection for the 15th 11 set 

12 of cases. And everyone should have the 

13 spreadsheet that was sent around. And 

14 although I asked people to work at lunch, I 

15 myself didn't work at lunch. 

16 So, I can tell you two things --

17 one thing that I've done is I narrowed this 

18 down to at least as a first cut to look at 

cases between the 45th 19 -- well, actually I 

20 went to the 40 percentile between 40 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PoC and 50 percent, and then sorted based on 

2 most recent cases, and using Stu's advice that 

3 we probably don't want to get anything too 

4 recent because it probably would not be a 

5 finally adjudicated case by Department of 

6 Labor, I still end up with about 160 cases.

7 Having said that, I haven't shared 

8 my sort with other Members. So, I'm not sure 

9 how to best walk through this whole thing. 

10 DR. ULSH: You said you sorted on 

11 PoC and beta --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 DR. ULSH: I'm making my own sort 

14 right now. Down to 45 you said?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, about 170. 

16 Oh, 40 percent? Yes. Sorry. I know we 

17 should only select from this range, but it was 

18 just hard for me to look at all 865 or 

19 whatever. And we can still look at the last 

20 three digits of that last column, right, Stu 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or Brant? That's the identifying number.

2 DR. ULSH: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: So you stipulated 

4 part of your criteria. Do you have any other 

5 criteria we're balancing against?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Nothing.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Nothing?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Nothing below 40?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we 

11 should try to keep in mind the statistics that 

12 we have. You know, that were presented to us. 

13 I'm just wondering if I should forward this, 

14 my sort, to people.

15 MEMBER MUNN: It might be easier. 

16 But if we're not going to go down them one at 

17 a time.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

19 mean. If I'm going to go through my numbers, 

20 it'd be all over the place on your
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 spreadsheet. 

2 MR. STIVER: I got the same sort. 

3 It'd probably be better for all of us to 

4 extract that through a different file.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. You might 

6 be -- what was your total number?

7 MR. STIVER: 186.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 186. Yes, 

9 that's about right. 

10 MR. STIVER: I didn't restrict the 

11 dates.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I got 

13 202, but I also noticed that I have like a 

14 couple 39. So, I might've went a little 

15 below.

16 MR. STIVER: The highest was 

17 50.02.

18 DR. ULSH: If you just give the 

19 selection ID to me --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's true. Well, I can just take an initial 

2 crack, but if other people had others, I don't 

3 want to exclude other options.

4 MR. STIVER: You don't want to 

5 restrict it up to January 2011 to make sure 

6 that --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I was 

8 saying I was looking at my others starting in 

9 January. So, I have -- I mean I have one here 

10 that's interesting. It's case number 129. 

11 You going by the last four digits on column A?

12 MR. STIVER: 129?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. PoC is 

14 49.523421. Very precise.

15 MR. STIVER: Not precise enough.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And we are sure that 

17 all those digits are --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's an item, 

19 okay? So, I don't think we've had a lot of 

20 items. That's one to start us off. Okay with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that one?

2 MEMBER MUNN: And the number again 

3 was?

4 DR. ULSH: 129.

5 MEMBER MUNN: 129. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Next one is 

7 332. This does jump around a bit.

8 MR. STIVER: The Argonne.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: 42.9?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, 

12 and we haven't done as many as Argonne West. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Next?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Next one I have 

15 is 530. This is going in order on yours. 

16 MR. STIVER: Are we going right 

17 down?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm not 

19 necessarily going to take all these, but this 

20 one is a Hanford. It's got all digestive and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a skin. Should be pretty close, John. 

2 Basically the same sort. I went a little 

3 lower than 40, I think. So, I got some 38-39. 

4 I think I must've gone down to 38. 

5 MR. STIVER: Restricting up 

6 through January?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, 

8 that's 530. That's three cases so far, right?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: Are you just kind of 

11 identifying every fifth one, or just go 

12 straight down the line? I guess it really 

13 doesn't --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well --

15 MR. KATZ: Either way, it's 

16 random.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: True. Skipping 

18 some of these that are -- there's several 

19 skins here. I mean I have this Spencer 

20 Chemical. Have we done Spencer Chemical? I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking at the other chart.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so.

3 DR. ULSH: Case number?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Let's see. Spencer 

5 Chemical -- I don't see it.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: No. I don't see 

7 a Spencer on here.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Kathy didn't have 

9 it. Kathy didn't --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Number 

11 676, that's just below 40. You shouldn't have 

12 that one on your -- 676.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I show a Spencer 

14 Chemical in Jayhawk Works.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

16 That's it.

17 MR. KATZ: Want to do that one?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the one.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Seventy-six?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: That's supposed to 

2 be --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Last three 

4 digits, not the line number. Right?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. Look at the 

6 date. It's 12/29/2010.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

8 right, next one I have is 28. This is 

9 multiple cancers, multiple sites really. Oak 

10 Ridge and X10 Y12. Thirty years. It seems 

11 like a complicated work history one. 

12 MR. STIVER: What's the date on 

13 that?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 12/28/2010. 

15 It's number 28.

16 MR. STIVER: PoC?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 48.8.

18 DR. ULSH: Up to 5 right?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Plugging 

20 away here. I have 41, a Hanford. Many years 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of experience. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: What number?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Forty-one.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Forty-one. Thank 

5 you.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then also 

7 42, Savannah River. 669, Pantex. 741, 

8 Fernald. On the phone, if people have 

9 opinions on these, please chime in. I'm 

10 pausing a little to give people time to look 

11 at the line. 705 is the next one I have, 

12 Allied Chemical. Did we do Allied, Kathy?

13 MR. STIVER: We've done Allied.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have done 

15 Allied.

16 MR. STIVER: Actually did one 

17 myself.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: And we have an active

20 Site Profile review also going on for Allied. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Just letting you know.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: And to Allied, 

3 2.5 percent is 4.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we can 

5 keep it in there for now. I think we -- Stu 

6 wants a larger list than a smaller.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Larger is better 

8 than smaller. I think we'll lose a lot.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's 

10 ten. We're a fifth of the way maybe. 

11 DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John. I 

12 got a question. While you're going through 

13 the process and sorting through candidate 

14 cases, a thought we had amongst ourselves here 

15 at SC&A was while you're doing this, you could 

16 actually create a pool so that it represents -

17 - actually accumulate cases, and leave -- you 

18 know, pick the ones -- the Board will pick the 

19 ones that they wish to pick.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Doug 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 brought that up too.

2 DR. MAURO: And leave the pool 

3 behind.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we vetoed 

5 that already, John. Sorry.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, we did veto that. 

7 Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're out of 

9 order.

10 (Laughter.)

11 DR. MAURO: Never mind.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We want to 

13 stick with our batch processing for now.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know what 

16 you're saying. We got a little system. I 

17 think we --

18 DR. MAURO: No -- no problem. No 

19 problem.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, for now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Case 705?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case 705 was 

3 the last one. Next two I have are -- I have 

4 269.

5 MR. KATZ: 269, General Atomics?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's 

7 also 49.7 percent. And then 638, which is 

8 Mound. Again, these are also -- I sorted from 

9 most recent to older cases. So, these are all 

10 fairly new cases. I'm at 10/1 now on that 

11 one. That was processed October last year.

12 MR. KATZ: Kathy, what are some 

13 sites where we have sort of -- on the low end 

14 of percentage we've sampled up till now?

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, let's see 

16 here.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Bethlehem Steel 

18 seems pointless.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, Bethlehem 

20 Steel, Fernald. These are not -- actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hanford. I know we had a few of those.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: K25, Paducah, and 

4 even Savannah River, believe it or not.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, even though 

6 we're picking a lot of those cases, they're 

7 still -- yes, a lot of claims right? Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Y-12.

10 DR. ULSH: Are you committed to 

11 not looking at any compensable cases?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no.

13 DR. ULSH: There's a site here, 

14 C.H. Schnorr. I've never heard of it.

15 MR. KATZ: What case number is 

16 that?

17 DR. ULSH: Well, the selection ID 

18 is 590. 

19 MR. KATZ: Case 590.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Which site was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, Brant?

2 DR. ULSH: C.H. Schnorr.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like a bad 

4 joke.

5 MR. KATZ: S-C-H-N-O-R-R?

6 DR. ULSH: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hopefully there 

8 will be no snoring in here later.

9 DR. ULSH: PoC is 65.8 unchanged.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you're 

11 right; we want to look at the site too. So, 

12 yes, yes. All right, that's 590. You got 

13 that? Let me get through -- I'm not committed 

14 just to doing these in the 40 to 50 range, but

15 we're about halfway through the list. 

16 So, maybe we can -- that was my 

17 first cut. Then maybe we'll go back to the 

18 part of the -- the other thing is for like 

19 Bethlehem Steel, even though we're low on 

20 numbers, I don't think we need anymore because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's a one-size-fits-all.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Pointless.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, 

4 there's certain reasons why we can not try to 

5 match our --

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

8 Alright.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Ignore it. They 

10 have what they wanted.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have 623 as 

12 the next one I found, which is an X10, and 

13 it's stomach and all male genitalia. And 561, 

14 which is a Hanford and PNL, yes. 531, this is 

15 an all-male genitalia, also interesting 

16 because it's K25 X10, a Rocky Flats multiple17 site kind of thing. 531, that is. 

18 Number 20, X10, stomach cancer. 

19 This one is -- well, I don't know, this one is 

20 unique to me. Well, it's skin cancer, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's Albuquerque Operations Office. This is 

2 43. So, I think the job site of it is kind of 

3 unique, right? It must be a DOE Albuquerque 

4 Operations Office, right. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Got to be.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Let's see 

7 102, oral cavity and pharynx. 

8 MR. FARVER: On 102, column E, is 

9 that the years worked?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's the 

11 other reason I like that one. The person 

12 worked 99.5 years. We want to examine this 

13 person.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Fascinating.

15 MR. STIVER: This other guy's got 

16 200.6 years.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I 

18 know.

19 MR. KATZ: What site, sorry?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Battelle Labs, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 King Avenue. I don't even know if -- yes, 

2 something is up with -- a couple that have 

3 years worked show weird things. Okay, 675 is 

4 Los Alamos. That should have us at 20. Does 

5 that agree with your numbers, Ted?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Oh, I 

8 haven't seen this before. Amchitka, has to be 

9 a skin cancer. Yes, Amchitka, but they also 

10 worked at Lawrence Livermore.

11 DR. ULSH: What's the case number?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 323. That may 

13 require a site visit.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: He worked on the 

15 Pacific Proving Grounds, too, Johnson Atoll 

16 and Amchitka.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That means be 

18 careful.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How about 66? 

20 This is again the multiple Oak Ridge things, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 E25, X10, Y-12. 210 is a Hanford case, 48 

2 percent, and multiple cancers. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: What's that number 

4 again?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 210. 101 is a 

6 Hanford case, stomach cancer is obvious. I'm 

7 also just thinking about decade worked. 

8 Kathy, on decade worked, are we weak in -- for 

9 a while, we were running weak in the 80's and 

10 the later decades. Is that still true? I 

11 mean, given that cancer is --

12 MS. K. BEHLING: That's true, yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- a reality. 

14 Yes.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you tell 

16 me what that means? Was that the decade of 

17 hire?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Decade -- yes, 

19 decade of hire. Decade first employed. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So --

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Which explains 

3 why that goes back to the 1920's or --

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So did AWE. If 

6 the person worked in the AWE. No, it'll go 

7 earlier --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, because 

9 they were employed before.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: If they were 

11 employed at that AWE before --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got it. 

13 Sometimes they're typos.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. When I 

15 sorted by that, it goes from the 1920's to 

16 2000's.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

18 MR. STIVER: What was the last one 

19 you called out?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 101 was the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 last one I had. Next one I have is 319. 

2 MR. KATZ: What site?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Los Alamos and 

4 Nevada Test Site. I'll just leave it there. 

5 I was looking. I haven't sorted by decade, but 

6 I was starting to look for related decades, 

7 and it is difficult to find this one.

8 MR. KATZ: While Mark is doing 

9 that, someone else may want to do SRS, 

10 Paducah, Fernald. Those are all ones that 

11 we're weak on. We've picked up some K25 and 

12 Hanford in this batch already.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I have 34 

14 as a Savannah River option. 212, a Hanford 

15 case. This is interesting to me because it's 

16 49.9, a lung case and the person worked there 

17 0.8 years.

18 MR. KATZ: Wow. 

19 DR. ULSH: It was approved April 

20th 20 of last year.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, last year. 

2 Should be going back in.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Mark, is there 

4 any concern about the -- kind of validity of -

5 - of that information in that column?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's 

7 why we get another cut at this, David. 

8 Remember the -- NIOSH is going to go back and 

9 pull stats together, more information on these 

10 cases, and bring it to the full Board meeting. 

11 Then we'll get another cut at this list. So, 

12 as it turns out, that should come out at the 

13 next meeting.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Thanks.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: 212 listed how many 

19 --

20 MR. KATZ: Case 212, yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I thought you 

2 said some huge number.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, 283: huge 

4 if you don't like to work, I guess.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Here's a 

7 Fernald case, 349. It's only 3.3 years' 

8 experience, but it is in the 1990's. It's a 

9 later time period. Excuse me?

10 MR. STIVER: It's a lot of 

11 different cancers.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, lots of 

13 cancers.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Mark. This 

15 is Brad. I'd also like to compliment Kathy on 

16 this breakdown that she put out for us. It 

17 sure makes it a lot more interesting to me.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that was 

19 very helpful. Case 30, Savannah River. 

20 Brant, are you up to 29?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ULSH: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Just 

3 wanted to make sure I didn't miss one on my 

4 own list.

5 DR. ULSH: You're halfway home.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Excuse me. 

7 Number 45, another Fernald case, multiple 

8 cancers. That's 30. Yes, I think we should 

9 probably shoot for 60. Almost through this 

10 list of high PoC, and then we'll go back to 

11 the full. 613 and 48, two Savannah River 

12 cases.

13 MR. KATZ: Case 48?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

15 MR. KATZ: Why doesn't someone 

16 hunt up some Paducah cases in this batch?

17 DR. ULSH: Is that 32, Mark?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's 32.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 32. If someone 

20 else wants to sort this whole thing by site, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we can look at it that way. We've done 

2 General Steel, correct?

3 MEMBER MUNN: GSI?

4 MR. KATZ: We've done a number of 

5 cases.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've done a 

7 number of cases, right. 

8 MR. KATZ: How are we on a 

9 percentage sense, Kathy, on GSI?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Four out of 

11 seven.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Isn't it a one13 size-fits-all kind of --

14 MEMBER MUNN: They're halfway 

15 through them, but it wouldn't hurt to have 

16 some more.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's put 

18 317 on the list. Just a GSI pancreas, with 

19 one difference maybe. Have we done Alcoa, 

20 number 584? We've done one? Have we done 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, we've done 

3 one.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: And 2.5 percent 

6 is 1.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 2.5 percent 

8 would be 1?

9 MS. K. BEHLING: That is correct, 

10 yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We would've 

12 done our quota? All right, maybe we don't 

13 need that one. Forget that one. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we might as 

15 well over-quota on some of these.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's true, 

17 but I don't care. I'm indifferent on that 

18 one. Let's skip it. And Medina, we have done 

19 Medina. Correct, Kathy?

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, Medina 1 and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2.5 percent is 1.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

3 we'll leave it at that. 

4 MR. KATZ: John, can you sort by 

5 Paducah? Pull up some Paducah cases?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Ted really 

7 wants some Paducah cases.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, I just think we 

9 ought to --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. I 

11 know.

12 MR. KATZ: It's a little under13 represented. That's all.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would be 

15 doing it if I wasn't doing it.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, no. That's why 

17 I'm asking John. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How about 

19 ElectroMet, Electro Metallurgical, 545? But I 

20 want Kathy to --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: We've done one, 

2 and two is the 2.5 percent. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

4 we'll do one of those, 545. Okay, 407 is X10, 

5 Y-12, liver cancer.

6 MR. STIVER: Ted, is there a 

7 particular site you're interested in?

8 MR. KATZ: Paducah. We've gotten 

9 quite a lot of Hanford in this batch now. 

10 We've gotten in several Fernald.

11 DR. ULSH: Oak Ridge sites, so.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, we've gotten okay 

13 on K25, I think. Well, we've got a couple of 

14 K25.

15 MR. STIVER: There are four --

16 about seven Paducah cases.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Actually, I'm 

18 at the end of my list. The last one is 

19 Paducah, and it's 48.9 percent. I think we 

20 should probably do that. Number 44. So, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's --

2 MR. KATZ: Thirty-six.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- 36.

4 MR. KATZ: John, what are another 

5 couple Paducah ones that look good?

6 MR. STIVER: Oh, let's see. We've 

7 got a couple that are above the payoff. Let's 

8 see. There's one at 50.5 percent, number 430. 

9 DR. ULSH: About two years worked.

10 MR. STIVER: About two years. 

11 Another one from 1970's, which is 50.1. These 

12 are both skin cancers. There's a 34th 

13 percentile colon for only a half year worked.

14 MR. KATZ: What case number is 

15 that?

16 MR. STIVER: That's 264.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait. I didn't 

18 get the last one. 

19 MR. STIVER: Last one was 430.

20 DR. ULSH: Are we going to pick 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that one?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on. I 

3 have it sorted differently. So, 430. Yes, I 

4 mean, it's skin cancer. It's above -- it's 

5 above 50.

6 MR. STIVER: That was 430. 

7 There's another one that's kind of 

8 interesting. It's a fairly low PoC. It's 

9 only 34. About half a year of work in the 

10 1950's.

11 MR. KATZ: What case number is 

12 that?

13 MR. STIVER: That's 364.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 364 is a half a 

15 year worked.

16 MR. STIVER: Only a half year 

17 worked and colon as well as skin cancers. 

18 DR. ULSH: So, you want that one?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's fine.

20 MR. STIVER: So far I've got 44, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 430 and 364 for Paducah. Three is enough?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just did a 

3 different sort of years -- of year worked, 

4 work decade I mean. I sorted work decade 

5 backwards to look at some of the later -- and 

6 actually going from 1994, there's only eight 

7 cases, which makes sense. But maybe in the 

8 80's, I know that we don't have very many in 

9 the 80's, or even in the 70's for that matter.

10 So, I was just going to -- there 

11 is a Fernald, 759. It's over 50 percent, but 

12 it was starting decade 1980.

13 MR. KATZ: Did you say Fernald?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 759.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's a 354, 

17 Savannah River, 49th percentile, 1980 decade. 

18 That brings us to 40, correct? 

19 DR. ULSH: That was 359?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 354. And 367, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 also Savannah River, but also 49 percentile. 

2 I hope I didn't overlap any of these because 

3 I'm doing them in different --

4 MR. KATZ: Nope.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, tell me if 

6 I do an overlapping number.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 638 is a Mound 

9 site, 48 percent in the 1980's.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: We already got 

11 that one.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, sorry. 

13 It's from the same sheet. That's how that 

14 happened.

15 MR. STIVER: I missed the number 

16 for the Fernald case.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 367.

18 MR. STIVER: I thought that was 

19 Savannah River.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: That's 354.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, 354 I have as 

3 the --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You missed the 

5 -- Fernald was 759. Did you get that one?

6 MR. STIVER: Okay, I got that one. 

7 DR. ULSH: Another interesting 

8 site for you, complicated project, Gnome 

9 Nuclear Explosion site.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 DR. ULSH: It's 109.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 109? That's 

13 the -- PoC, what is it?

14 DR. ULSH: PoC is 50.4, lots of 

15 cancers, organ, skin. It's NTS in Project 

16 Gnome.

17 MR. KATZ: How do you spell Gnome?

18 DR. ULSH: G-N-O-M-E.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 109.

20 DR. ULSH: Do you want that one?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I have 

2 176, Pinellas Plant. Again, I'm going by 

3 decade. That's why I'm going for that one. 

4 It's 1980.

5 MR. KATZ: How are we, Kathy, on 

6 Sandia, in terms of representation?

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Sandia we had one 

8 case, and we should have eight.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that's one to 

10 -- Sandia.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you see any 

12 for Sandia that you're interested in?

13 MR. KATZ: No. I haven't seen 

14 any.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Have 

16 we done this extrusion plant, Reactive Metals, 

17 Inc.?

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Let me look here.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case 720.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: I do not see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that, no.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It says 

3 Extrusion Plant, Reactive Metals, Inc.

4 DR. ULSH: RMI?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: RMI, okay. I'm 

6 not used to seeing --

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, we have 

8 done one.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You've done one 

10 of those?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we probably 

13 needed one, right?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: That's right.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So, 

16 let's skip that one. I'm not used to seeing 

17 RMI. That's why I didn't -- here's a Paducah. 

18 I'm moving to decade -- the 70's. I'm in the

19 70's now. Number 110. It's compensable, but 

20 it's -- yes, it's fine. What does that bring 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 us up to, 42?

2 DR. ULSH: It would be 44.

3 MR. KATZ: The last four, Mark, 

4 are 367, 109, 176 and 110.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, I'll 

6 trust you guys. I lost track of the list of -

7 -

8 MR. KATZ: So, while we're working 

9 on this, John or Doug, can you hunt up some 

10 Sandia?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He's multi12 tasking. That's good.

13 MR. KATZ: Just to get us there.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's like radio 

15 silence in this meeting. 

16 MR. STIVER: I only got three for 

17 Sandia here. The highest PoC is case 250, 

18 1960's --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 250?

20 MR. STIVER: 250.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, let's 

2 get that one on there.

3 MR. KATZ: We could use another 

4 one.

5 MR. STIVER: Let's see. 657, low 

6 PoC for gall bladder. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: What was that 

8 number?

9 MR. STIVER: 657.

10 MEMBER MUNN: 657?

11 MR. STIVER: Correct, yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What's the PoC?

13 MR. STIVER: 22.5, gall bladder.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine, 

15 657. How about this one, sticking with the 

16 gall bladder, 797? It's Brookhaven National 

17 Labs. I don't think we had many. We may 

18 have. 1970, though again. I was looking at 

19 the decade. 

20 MR. KATZ: 797?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 797, yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that okay 

4 with everybody? Brings our total up to?

5 MR. KATZ: Forty-seven.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I like this 

7 670, Y-12, liver, started in the 70's, 35 

8 years experience.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, this is 

10 focusing on -- I was wondering about --

11 looking at the report, the breakdown by cancer 

12 type, there aren't that many livers there. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, 

14 and I was also thinking, David, that I'd just 

15 -- I'm doing this from my head because I don't 

16 have Kathy's chart up. If I'm remembering 

17 this correctly, we've been a little lower on 

18 the 70's and 80's and 90's as far as looking 

19 at those decades of first hire. You know, 

20 part of it is just because you're -- the older 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 people are getting cancer.

2 So, I was trying to get some 

3 samples from -- we also have different issues, 

4 especially in the 80's when you start the 

5 clean up regime and different kinds of issues 

6 to look at. So, where are we at, 49?

7 MR. KATZ: Eight.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Forty-eight. 

9 If we can get 10 or 12 more, I think that 

10 would make Stu happy, Brant happy. The more 

11 the better. I know. How about Hooker 

12 Chemical? Kathy, have we had a lot of Hooker 

13 Electrochemical?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Let's see here. 

15 Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have what we 

17 need?

18 MEMBER MUNN: We have exactly what 

19 we need.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Going by Kathy's 

2 chart.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. How 

4 about Reduction Pilot?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That's also called 

6 the Huntington Pilot Plant.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, it is 

8 Huntington. I thought that had a different 

9 name.

10 MEMBER MUNN: That's something 

11 else then.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, we have 

13 Huntington then.

14 MEMBER MUNN: We have Huntington.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: We didn't even have 

17 any requirement on that.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. How 

19 about NUMEC, NUMEC Parks Facility?

20 MS. K. BEHLING: We had one NUMEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Parks Township out of two.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, how 

3 about number 448? How about BWXT?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: No, we don't have 

5 any BWXT. No.

6 DR. ULSH: I saw one in here. 

7 What's the number? 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Number 439.

9 MR. KATZ: That makes 50.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's 50?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What is BWXT? 

13 Where is that?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Lynchburg, 

15 Virginia.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's right. 

17 Okay.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a commercial 

19 plant. Actually, mainly makes Navy fuel, but 

20 they had non-Navy contracts for a while.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Let's 

2 see. There's a Hanford: 689.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: What about K4 25?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, did you 

6 sort by site?

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's put 689 

9 on the list first, and then go ahead, David. 

10 What do you got?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, do you 

12 have 417 on there right now?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Stand by. 

14 MR. KATZ: No.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's K-25 in 

16 the 1970's, with a skin cancer, and I think 

17 all three of those are categories that are 

18 under-represented.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 417, okay. 

20 We'll add that one.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And there's 

4 another one that's similar. It's 717. 

5 MR. KATZ: That's also K-25?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: K-25 from the 

7 1970's with a skin cancer.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We didn't get 

9 that one before, did we?

10 MEMBER MUNN: No, we didn't.

11 DR. ULSH: That's 58 years worked.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Something 

13 happened with the years worked.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Sometimes that is 

15 from the individual years that the --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: But I don't know 

18 if that's what happened here or not.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: What may have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 happened is, oftentimes when we get a referral 

2 from Oak Ridge, there won't be a record of 

3 which plant, and they'll refer all three. And 

4 then they'll include a years-worked, and it 

5 may include the same period for all three 

6 because they don't know where they worked. 

7 So, that's probably --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: He probably worked 

10 there about 20.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Kathy, when you do your 

13 accounting, when someone has worked at 

14 multiple sites, do you put them in each of 

15 those?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I do.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, that makes sense.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just sorted 

19 by site to flip through -- just to see if I 

20 see anything different.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And 341, this 

2 lung cancer case, K-25, 52 percent.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

4 So, we have Santa Susana. How many do we need 

5 from there?

6 MS. K. BEHLING: We did one Santa

7 Susana, and we can do seven. We should do 

8 seven.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

10 there's a couple of those on here. I mean, 

11 maybe number 502. It does have multiple 

12 sites, but it does have Santa Susana. 

13 MR. STIVER: Is that the only one 

14 we have for Santa Susana? 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, there's a 

16 couple more, but they're not -- well, number 

17 815 is the last.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, restricted Santa 

19 Susana.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 only that site. Yes. I didn't know that that 

2 plant was Santa Susana. Where is the BONUS 

3 Reactor Plant, and the Puerto Rico Nuclear 

4 Center?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Must be Puerto Rico.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Facility in Puerto 

7 Rico.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Definitely site 

9 visit on that one, yes.

10 DR. ULSH: What case is that?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 126. 

12 MR. KATZ: Do you want it?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, is this 

14 -- is this one that we have -- you guys have 

15 never heard of it before, right?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I've heard 

17 of it.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You've heard of 

19 it?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: But I don't know 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 anything about it. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I'm not 

3 sure we need that. I mean I don't even know 

4 if there's a handful of claims. It might just 

5 be --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you can keep 

7 going. I'll --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll let you know.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Mark?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Put down 126 as 

13 a star right now while Stu looks. Go ahead, 

14 Kathy.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Can I suggest 

16 Heald Machine Company? There are several on 

17 this list, and that has it's own exposure 

18 matrix, and there's none on the list.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's 

20 the input I want.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: What case number?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, there are 

3 three. It's 840, 736, 718.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Heald Machine 

5 Company, yes. The PoC's are very low. 

6 MS. K. BEHLING: All lung, but we 

7 have not done that exposure matrix.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, looks like 

9 exposure didn't -- it's a natural background. 

10 Yes, so I think selecting one of those would 

11 be -- since there's a matrix, right? 736 is 

12 fine.

13 DR. ULSH: 736.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The one with 

15 the high PoC.

16 MEMBER MUNN: What about 

17 Cincinnati Milling Machine?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anybody know 

19 that site? 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Cincinnati Milling 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Machine. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

3 Kathy's input was good. If there's a matrix 

4 on it, then we know there's probably more than 

5 one individual case.

6 DR. ULSH: What case number is 

7 that, Cincinnati Milling or whatever?

8 MEMBER MUNN: 811.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does anybody 

10 know if there's a matrix on it?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: There is.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There is on 

13 that one?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Yes, there 

15 is. There's an exposure matrix for that, and 

16 we hadn't looked at any of those cases. So, I 

17 thought this would give us an opportunity to 

18 look at that.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, for 

20 Cincinnati Milling Company.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, Cincinnati? 

2 I'm sorry, no. No, there's no separate 

3 exposure matrix.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's no 

5 matrix for that one?

6 MS. K. BEHLING: No.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which tells me 

8 it's likely very few claims, right?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably. There 

10 are two claims from the BONUS reactor.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so, I 

12 don't know that that's --

13 MR. KATZ: That's Puerto Rico 

14 you're talking about?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that's the 

16 BONUS reactor. Puerto Rico Nuclear Center has 

17 three. I suspect --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This person 

19 worked --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- two of them are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 doubled, and there's one. It may be --

2 actually there were three originally submitted 

3 for each of those two sites. There's a pulled 

4 -- one case showed up as pulled on the BONUS 

5 reactor. There are none showing up as pulled 

6 on the Puerto Rico Nuclear Center. 

7 So, somewhere around probably four 

8 total claims from the combination of the two 

9 sites. And the one we just asked about was 

10 Cincinnati Milling? 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure on 

12 either one of those. I'm waiting. I mean we 

13 can put the BONUS one down. We can discuss it 

14 at the full Board, if we want to.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: There are six 

16 total claims from Cincinnati Milling. I doubt 

17 that there's a Site Profile.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

19 MEMBER MUNN: There's a W.R. Grace 

20 claim in there.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Have we selected

2 anything from BONUS, Puerto Rico Nuclear 

3 Center or Cincinnati Milling?

4 MEMBER MUNN: No.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not yet.

6 DR. ULSH: 126, I thought.

7 MR. KATZ: It's tentative. We 

8 didn't -- they hadn't decided.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do people want 

10 that? It's -- it's --

11 MR. KATZ: It's Puerto Rico.

12 DR. ULSH: Puerto Rico.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What are the 

14 particulars in that case again? Is it --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: 35 PoC, 35 percent 

16 PoC. It's all-male genitalia and malignant 

17 melanoma. Started work in the 1960's, worked 

18 for 6.75 years.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't want to 

20 rule it out, but it's probably some generic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 overestimating approach that they had to use -

2 -

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

4 That might be. I don't know.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's put it on 

6 the list. We can -- you can at least tell us 

7 if it was full internal, external or whatever.

8 MR. KATZ: At the Board meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, 126 is on. 

10 What about Cincinnati Millworks?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see any yet, 

12 but we do -- there's a W.R. Grace on there 

13 with a 35 PoC.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

15 DR. ULSH: Just to keep track, 

16 with BONUS in and with the Cincinnati Milling 

17 Company not in, then --

18 MR. KATZ: Fifty-three.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Fifty-eight.

20 MR. KATZ: I mean eight. Sorry. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Two more slots.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

3 W.R. Grace, Kathy, do we have? We've done 

4 that before, right?

5 MEMBER MUNN: We've done it, but 

6 we don't have --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, which 

8 one?

9 MEMBER MUNN: 810, 25 years.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds okay to 

11 me. 

12 MR. FARVER: Have you done 

13 Combustion Engineering?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think so, but 

15 -- Combustion Engineering, Kathy?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: I do not see that 

17 on the list, no.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh. 

19 MR. FARVER: There's about 20 of 

20 them.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's look at 

3 those. All pretty low. Yes, oral cavity and 

4 pharynx. Yes, 832 looks okay.

5 MR. KATZ: 832?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: And that is 60. Site 

8 is what again?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Combustion 

10 Engineering.

11 DR. ULSH: That takes you to 60 

12 cases.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: So, I'm missing one 

15 then, I guess. My last case before that was 

16 736. Do you have a case after that?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 126. Or no, 

18 you got that one.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, I got that one.

20 MEMBER MUNN: 810.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: And what site is that?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: W.R. Grace.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, that brings 

5 us to 60. Anybody else have any others they 

6 feel strongly to add? Otherwise, we can end 

7 this activity.

8 MR. KATZ: No. That's 60.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so 

10 the next step is that NIOSH will take this 

11 list back. First, I guess find out whether 

12 any of these were adjudicated, and then take 

13 the adjudicated list and get more detail to 

14 bring to the Board for August. And then we'll 

15 make the final selection as a full Board.

16 MR. KATZ: And if we could -- if 

17 we could aim to have it at least a week before 

18 the Board meeting.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We can aim.

20 MR. KATZ: That's a start at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 least. Because otherwise, it'll be like 

2 watching paint dry at the Board meeting, which 

3 is even more difficult.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Hate for it to mold 

6 before it dries.

7 MEMBER MUNN: And that can happen.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, let's 

9 take ten minutes to re-gear ourselves here, 

10 get the other matrix up. We're going to start 

with the 7th and 8th 11 matrix discussions next. 

12 So, if you can find those spreadsheets, then 

13 pull them up. We'll take ten to stretch and 

14 then start into that.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter went off the record at 2:09 p.m. and 

17 resumed at 2:24 p.m.)

18 MR. KATZ: Alright, we're back. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we're 

going to start and work on the 7th and 8th 20
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 matrix items, and it's 2:30 now. 

2 Realistically, I'd say we work until 4:00, 

3 4:30. I don't know who has flight stuff, but 

4 I know my options are either 3:00 or 7:00, I 

5 think. So, are your --

6 MR. STIVER: Mine are 7:00.

7 MR. FARVER: Ten until 6:00.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, we'll be 

9 fine. Okay, so maybe until 4:30. 

10 MR. STIVER: That gives us plenty 

11 of time.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, starting on 

the 7th 13 set of cases, then. We're just going 

14 to push through these. And I do want to save 

15 some time at the end because I think we should 

16 think about schedule, and maybe as Ted 

17 suggested, maybe scheduling something a little 

18 sooner to -- to speed up our progress.

We just selected cases for the 15th 19

20 set, and here we are working -- and we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 running into this situation as David described 

2 that we're looking at findings from cases that 

3 are older than what we want to be looking at, 

4 or than that are important. So, we sort of 

5 want to catch up.

6 Anyway, so we should save a little 

7 time at the end for scheduling. But looking 

at the 7th 8 set of cases, I have the first 

9 121.1. It still looks like it's an open item 

10 for NIOSH. Is that right?

11 DR. ULSH: I don't know. In the 

12 resolution column, there's a yellow 

13 highlighting dated 4/18/11 for NIOSH to come 

14 back.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 DR. ULSH: But then in the NIOSH 

17 response column, there's something from April, 

18 but I'm not sure which is older and which is 

19 newer.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 was -- that came into that meeting. That was 

2 your response coming into the meeting. 

3 DR. ULSH: So, 4/18, then is an 

4 additional action item after that one?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I believe 

6 so. Was 4/18 our last meeting? Yes, so 4/18 

7 was from the last meeting, yes. So, that 

8 would be the --

9 DR. ULSH: Well, unless Scott is 

10 going to exceed my expectations here, we spent 

11 all of our time getting this PER case 

12 selection set up.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. ULSH: I don't know that we've 

15 done any action on this.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, close 

17 this out for us.

18 MR. SIEBERT: I hate to not exceed 

19 expectations, but no. I don't have anything 

20 on 121 or 122 because they're sites that I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 not working on. They're Aliquippa and Simonds 

2 Steel -- or Simonds Saw and Steel. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, I'm 

4 just going to -- it's not to be punitive in 

5 any way, but I'm going to put down 7-whatever 

6 today. I'm just going to put down 7/15 

7 remains a NIOSH action.

8 DR. ULSH: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just so we 

10 don't lose track of it.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I'm going to have to 

12 say I'm not sure I recall a discussion on 

13 121.1. It says, NIOSH will look back at 

14 procedure for doing overestimate cases versus 

15 the Site Profile used in this case. The 

16 discussion, the last time we were talking 

17 about it, was the film badges, whether they 

18 were representative for this claimant. And I 

19 don't know what the path forward is on this. 

20 I guess that's my question --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

2 MR. SIEBERT: -- is what we're 

3 looking for.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's a 

5 good question. Doug, do you have any idea? 

6 I'm trying to --

7 MR. FARVER: The one -- I was 

8 ahead of you. So, where were you --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On the first 

10 one, yes. What we were actually -- sometimes 

11 that's the problem, if we haven't met in a 

12 while and we forget what we wanted to do. 

13 Made sense at the time, I think.

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, it did.

15 MR. SIEBERT: The basic background 

16 on this one, if I remember correctly, was 

17 whether the values that we used to assign to 

18 this claimant were claimant-favorable based on 

19 him being near -- in the furnace area.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. This 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is the furnace.

2 MR. SIEBERT: And what we 

3 discussed in April is the fact that the 20 

4 film badges in the study that actually came up 

5 with it, we looked through those and 

6 determined the one that was in the general 

7 area where he was, was not in the higher end 

of the 50th 8 percent -- the top 50 percentile, 

9 but using the 50th percentile made sense in 

10 this -- in this case. 

11 I am not sure what the path 

12 forward is for the overestimating, because it 

13 appears to me that it's appropriate based on 

14 the actual badging. That was Scott saying all 

15 that. Sorry.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's okay. 

17 We got it. And this wasn't -- was this an 

18 overestimating case? This wasn't --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was 

20 done with the Site Profile, wasn't it?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. SIEBERT: It's Aliquippa. So, 

3 I'm sure it was just following the matrix of 

4 what's in the TBD.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Was 

6 this the -- this may have been a question of 

the policy for when you would apply the 95th 7

versus 50th 8 . I'm stretching here for any kind 

9 of --

10 MR. FARVER: That would make sense 

11 given this last statement for the 

12 overestimating cases.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean can I 

14 ask -- it sounds like we're going to have to 

15 pull the transcript at this point. And if you 

16 pull the transcript and it doesn't seem like 

17 there's any action, then leave it at that and 

18 report back to us. Is that okay, Brant?

19 DR. ULSH: Sure.

20 DR. MAURO: Scott, this is John 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Mauro. Aliquippa Forge, I was listening to 

2 your summary of this issue. I don't actually 

3 have the matrix in front of me. Is this the 

4 site where they were suspending film badges?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: And collecting 

7 external data from suspended film badges? And 

8 I do recall, this maybe in a comment that I 

9 raised that the -- this particular claimant 

10 was in the furnace area.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right.

12 DR. MAURO: And I think I recall 

13 that the concern was that, well, now the 

14 badges were suspended, and there's some 

15 distribution of numbers that you would read 

16 off. Now, I was listening to you, but I was 

17 somewhat in the distance. Were you saying 

18 that the median for this distribution seems to 

19 be appropriate for this particular worker? 

20 Because I think that was my concern.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

2 DR. MAURO: That is, you may have 

3 taken the median when the worker was in an 

4 area that may very well have experienced the 

5 high-end exposures. So, I -- I didn't hear 

6 your reasoning for why the numbers are okay. 

7 I lost that.

8 MR. SIEBERT: No, you heard that 

9 correctly. It's based on the fact that we 

10 looked -- we went back and looked at where the 

11 badges were that were used in the study to 

12 create the median, and the distribution. 

13 There actually was a badge that was in the --

14 in the furnace area where this individual was 

15 working.

16 So, that is, you would think, a 

17 representative for what that individual was 

doing, and it was not in the upper 50th 18

19 percentile.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I didn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 hear that. I didn't hear that. Okay, I can 

2 see why that would -- yes, I wasn't aware of 

3 that.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: Very good. I mean, I 

6 could see why that starts to move you toward 

7 closure of this issue. I understand your 

8 rationale that -- so, in other words, what 

9 you're saying is the -- the information you 

10 have indicates that, no, the furnace area was 

11 not at the high end.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

13 DR. MAURO: Got you. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'll 

15 still ask NIOSH to look back. Because that 

16 comment was there before when we discussed 

17 this last time.

18 MR. FARVER: It's still a 

19 discussion point.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So, if 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you could just look back and clarify what we 

2 meant by that, and if you still think it 

3 should be closed, then we'll close it out. 

4 All right, and the next one, similar

5 situation, or do we know what -- I know you 

6 haven't done any work on this. Do we need 

7 clarifying on the action?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Looks like it's 

9 still hanging out there.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is really, 

11 I think, more succinct: evaluate the use of 

12 TIB-70 on 6000, and then place where it was 

13 first used in the case.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay, so we were 

15 going over those very procedures yesterday.

16 DR. MAURO: If you could 

17 conceptually describe the issue again? 

18 Because we've done a lot of -- TIB-70 has gone 

19 through quite a bit of discussion, and there's 

20 some aspects of it that are fine, and some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 aspects of it -- I mean SC&A's position is 

2 there's some aspects of it that are fine, and 

3 there's some aspects that are problematic.

4 The problematic aspects are in the

5 process of being resolved. Jim, yesterday, 

6 Neton explained some changes that are being 

7 made have to do with the 1 percent per day 

8 decline rate. That was the main area we had a 

9 concern with. And TIB-70 is being revised to 

10 change that rate of decline. This would be 

11 during the residual period. Is that issue --

12 if we knew a little bit more about this issue, 

13 perhaps we are close to closure on it. I 

14 mean, perhaps yesterday's discussion is 

15 applicability to this particular issue.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it may or may 

17 not, John. 

18 MR. STIVER: This is for 

19 estimating photon dose.

20 MEMBER MUNN: These matrix values 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 are not assigned as a constant, but rather as 

2 a log-normal distribution. The median value 

3 of 0.25 millirem, and GSD of 1.5 based on the 

4 rationale stated above. This approach is 

5 claimant-favorable. That's the issue that's 

6 being pulled for this one.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 MR. STIVER: John, this particular 

9 worker started in 1948, and the residual 

10 period didn't begin until 1958. So, this is a 

11 pretty small portion of his overall photon 

12 dose. So, I don't know the extent to that 

13 would really apply that change in the 

14 depletion for the residual period. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Probably not much

16 MR. STIVER: Not much.

17 MR. SIEBERT: And I believe --

18 this is Scott again. I believe this is really 

19 more an overall TBD versus OTIB-70 and 6000 

20 issues in this actual claim itself.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. STIVER: That's kind of more 

2 over-arching.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, I agree. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: So, is it asking us, 

5 or NIOSH and us, to look at the claim as if we 

6 were using 70 and 6000 instead of the TBD and 

7 do a comparison? I guess I'm still --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

9 what we're asking is not necessarily to do a 

10 full-out comparison, but to assure that it's 

11 still not going to change any decisions that -

12 - you know, decisions on compensability, I 

13 guess.

14 MR. STIVER: This one hasn't been 

15 addressed in the last three meetings. So, I 

16 think that's --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Practically, 

18 everything on 121 is in NIOSH's court.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, I think 

20 that's my sense of it anyway was that it was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 asking for that comparison, but not 

2 necessarily to the extent that you rework the 

3 whole case.

4 MR. SIEBERT: But more 

5 specifically to the TBD compared to those 

6 methods versus this specific case?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think I 

8 recollect we had this discussion before, 

9 right? And the comment again was, given the 

10 limited data -- I guess you had a limited 

11 amount of data, was there anything about TBD -

12 - OTIB-70 and TBD-6000 that might shed more 

13 light on the -- whether or not the approach 

14 we're taking is appropriately claimant15 favorable.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's the 

17 point. And the next one in 121.3 talks about 

18 TIB-70 more on the internal side, right? I 

19 think that's the only ones we have 

20 outstanding, is actually these first three. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So, that's the main issue. These were done 

2 before those were available, and are they 

3 still claimant-favorable?

4 Then I'm looking at 122.1. 

5 Hopefully, this is the only other case we 

6 have. What's 122, John? Do you remember?

7 MR. STIVER: Simonds Saw.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Simonds Saw. 

9 So is the first one, 122.1. Says, NIOSH will 

10 follow up on the validity of this approach for 

11 the particular job in question. So, it seems 

12 another one of these job things, like, was the 

13 coworker model favorable for a furnace worker. 

14 Is that -- that's clear, Scott?

15 MR. SIEBERT: I'm reading and 

16 looking at --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Once again, really 

19 that's more of a general philosophy question 

20 as opposed to specifically for this site or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 anything else. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this one, 

3 though, is for this worker in question. Would 

4 the new protocol make a difference? I guess 

5 it's for a specific job. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I've got at 

7 least some inkling.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

9 DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John. 

10 Unfortunately, I wasn't -- I probably would've 

11 done a little more homework on these cases. 

12 It sounds like you're dealing with a number of 

13 AWE cases here. You mentioned Aliquippa Forge 

14 before, now Simonds Saw.

15 I would like to say that, if I had 

16 reviewed these prior to this meeting -- now I 

17 got ready for the blinds, but I really didn't 

18 get ready for going back to where we left off 

19 last time. So, I sort of have to apologize to 

20 the Subcommittee that I would've done a little 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 homework so that I could get oriented on these 

2 issues, because I'm pretty sure I know I did 

3 Aliquippa, and I know I did Simonds Saw. 

4 Unfortunately, I'm really not prepared to 

5 discuss, let's say, NIOSH's response to some 

6 of our concerns.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, these are 

8 all your fault. That is correct.

9 DR. MAURO: I'll take full 

10 responsibility.

11 DR. ULSH: Now wait. The ones 

12 we've just been talking about, all of them for 

13 Simonds Saw; all of them are still NIOSH 

14 action items?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 DR. ULSH: Okay, that's what I 

17 thought.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Even though 

19 John wants to take blame.

20 DR. MAURO: Well, it sounds like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you're looking for some answers from me, and I 

2 don't have them, unfortunately.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: I think we need to 

5 look at 122.1. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

7 at least be prepared to discuss these next 

8 time, even though they're NIOSH actions. You 

9 guys --

10 MR. FARVER: Yes. Oh, I 

11 understand.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: And John, you 

14 should have the matrix. I emailed that to you 

on the 12th 15 .

16 DR. MAURO: I opened up -- I had 

17 one matrix that was sent to me, information 

that was sent by Doug, on the 12th 18 . Let me 

19 open that up. Please continue. I'll go track 

20 that down.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. K. BEHLING: The 7th and 8th 1 . 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just sort 

3 of documenting that these things remain 

4 actions, but I'm onto 122 -- I mean it's 

5 basically 121 and 122, I believe. Finding 

6 122.3 says the photon dose from uranium 

7 billet/rod exposure. Again, may not be 

8 bounding for this particular worker. That's 

9 another question, right?

10 MR. FARVER: The validity of the 

11 approach for this job in question.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see anything 

13 going on there since last year.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

15 MEMBER MUNN: So -- at which time 

16 NIOSH had it in their lab.

17 DR. MAURO: Kathy, I got it. Yes, 

okay. And we're looking at the 7th 18 right now?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 DR. MAURO: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. ULSH: Page 8 of 112, finding 

2 122.3.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 122.7 now, 

4 actually.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay, got it. I'm 

6 catching up to you folks.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 122.7 is 

8 the thorium inhalation. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's the 

10 latest date that I see.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm just 

12 scanning forward, are there any other cases 

13 that have outstanding? It's just those two 

14 John Mauro cases, isn't it? 

15 DR. ULSH: It's his fault.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

17 what I thought. It's his fault.

18 DR. MAURO: I didn't think you 

19 guys would get this far today. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 underestimated us.

2 DR. MAURO: I did. I did.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, 

that's it for the 7th 4 set, just those two 

5 remaining action items for NIOSH.

6 MR. FARVER: I do have a question 

7 about 127.2. No, 122.7.

8 MR. STIVER: Oh, this is a -- yes, 

9 there is one set of HASL air sample, DWE-type 

data, that were taken November 25th 10 , 1952, and 

11 that was used to model intakes for a long 

12 period of time, and there was a question 

13 whether the assumptions used for calculating 

14 thorium inhalation --

15 MR. FARVER: Did we ever receive 

16 that data to look at?

17 MR. STIVER: That particular 

18 study?

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 available. I haven't looked at it.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because I mean 

3 the action says, provide us the data. Provide 

4 the HASL DWE data. So, I thought that was 

5 done.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, we have that 

7 data.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, so it's our 

9 action.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, you think 

11 it's an SC&A action? Which one is this?

12 MR. STIVER: I can tell you for a 

13 fact that I got that data last year.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which item is 

15 it again?

16 MR. FARVER: 122.7.

17 MR. STIVER: It's about the 

18 thorium inhalation --

19 MR. FARVER: So that's ours.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, so NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 provided the data. So, now SC&A needs to 

2 review it.

3 MR. STIVER: I don't know if it's 

4 in relation to this particular case, but we do 

5 have that data.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 

7 right. 

8 MR. STIVER: It's an SC&A action. 

9 We have a Site Profile review underway, 

10 looking at those issues.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. 

12 MR. FARVER: I think that's all 

13 for that set.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's it 

for 7th 15 set.

16 MR. FARVER: So, call it a day.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I will email a 

18 revised matrix just to keep us -- since we 

19 lose track of these things.

20 MR. KATZ: Just for that, we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 going to 6:30.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm betting the 

8th 3 set. All right, moving on, anybody on the 

4 phone with us other than Scott?

5 DR. MAURO: John is still here.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: John's still 

7 here.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm still here.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Kathy's still here.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm still here.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, 

12 alright. Good job. It's going to get more 

13 exciting now.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I'll hold 

15 my breath.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 149.1.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Remains a NIOSH 

18 action.

19 DR. MAURO: What site is this?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the 8th 20
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 set -- I'm not sure what site.

2 DR. MAURO: No, I've got that in 

3 front of me.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: It helps me to know 

6 Bridgeport Brass or whatever it is.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. STIVER: What is that site?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know, 

10 John.

11 DR. MAURO: I can go pull my book.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Bridgeport Brass.

13 DR. MAURO: It is Bridgeport.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Bridgeport 

15 Brass, thank you.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, I know what this 

17 is.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This remains a 

19 NIOSH action item. So, SC&A provided some 

20 analysis apparently.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: And the review is 

3 due.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And assuming 

5 the -- right, okay. Understand, I'm just 

6 doing this as bookkeeping. I'm not trying to 

7 -

8 DR. ULSH: I understand.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

10 next. This is 149.2.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I had written 

12 down that we had closed it, but --

13 MR. FARVER: Well, you provided a 

14 response back in April, but the only question 

15 I have is, what's the final resolution of 

16 this. Because it was pretty much a statement, 

17 but it didn't say that there was any action 

18 coming out of it. That was all.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Right. There's no 

20 further action. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, but it 

2 says they'll compare the Site Profile with 

3 TBD-6000 approach, and if necessary -- I mean 

4 was the Site Profile modified, or was there 

5 any action? 

6 DR. ULSH: Bridgeport?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the site? 

8 Anybody know?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think 

10 Bridgeport.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Bridgeport Brass.

12 MR. FARVER: Bridgeport Brass.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, I remember this 

14 issue. This is the nurse where you assigned a 

15 fairly high dose to a nurse from your -- your 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Site Profile. 

18 DR. MAURO: The Bridgeport Brass 

19 Site Profile generic analysis. I mean we 

20 basically looked at it and said that with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 respect to this person, you would not think a 

2 nurse would get doses that are the high end 

3 because she would not be on the operating 

4 floor. And so, we felt in this case we might 

5 have overestimated that. I think that was the 

6 extent of the comment. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: I think so.

8 DR. ULSH: That looks about right.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, so there was no 

10 action for that one. Okay. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, what's the 

12 bit about comparing the Site Profile with the 

13 TBD-6000 approach. I mean I think we agreed 

14 that there was no further action for this 

15 case, but there was some sort of -- I didn't 

16 want to -- I guess this is a question of 

17 tracking. You know, that we don't lose track 

18 of things like this that say NIOSH said they 

19 would check to make sure the Site Profile was 

20 consistent with TBD-6000 or whatever.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. STIVER: I think that was the 

2 whole idea of a tiered versus one-size-fits3 all model. I think the personal model is 

4 applicable here.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean was 

6 this done? Was the Site Profile compared with 

7 TBD-6000 approach? 

8 MR. FARVER: That I don't know.

9 MR. STIVER: I have no idea.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, do --

11 DR. MAURO: The only merit you 

12 might have is that if we -- here we have an 

13 AWE facility with some data. And of course, 

14 when you have such data, real data for real 

15 people, it's certainly useful to -- to 

16 reconstruct the doses with that. 

17 But at the same time, if you 

18 didn't have data or data was severely limited, 

19 you would resort to TBD-6000, and you find 

20 yourself in a funny place. If TBD-6000 were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 defaulted to, or by the way that TBD received 

2 very favorable review. It is a matrix, 

3 generic matrix, that might have resulted in 

4 assigning a person substantially higher dose 

5 than the dose you were assigning given the 

6 date and the limited data.

7 If you have lots of data for that 

8 real person, then of course you would use it. 

9 I think that goes to the -- we've seen this 

10 before, where -- where you really have a 

11 choice. If you have limited data -- and so, 

12 it's insightful to know whether or not, if you 

13 went the TBD-6000 approach, would you end up 

14 assigning a substantially higher dose to this 

15 worker? I think that's the --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

17 the crux of the question.

18 DR. MAURO: That's the crux of all 

19 of this, yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I think it's still applicable. I mean I think 

2 we still want to know that. Right, John?

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So, we're still on 

5 the issue of tiering this -- is that what 

6 we're talking about? Should this person 

7 really get this high a dose?

8 MR. STIVER: Well, this particular 

9 case there wasn't enough data to really do a 

10 tiering. So, they assigned the highest dose 

11 to everyone.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, highest 

13 site-specific dose from the records they had.

14 MR. STIVER: I understand, TBD15 6000.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. STIVER: Comparison if that's 

18 what was left.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So, compare the 

20 values that we got from using the site-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 specific ones here to what we can get --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Where 

3 you have a limited number of site-specific 

4 data, and you end up using the high end, 

5 versus using the TBD-6000 approach. Which one 

6 ends up being more favorable, I guess is the -

7 - or more realistic, right, in this case.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, on the face 

9 of it, I don't know how I feel about that 

10 because we have data specific to this site.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And if we said, 

13 we're going to reject that data and use this 

14 other broader industry data, because there's 

15 more of it, it seems like we opened a whole 

16 other set of criticisms if we do that.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. Either way you 

18 can't win, right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so my 

20 way of thinking, I think we would rather use 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the data from the site. It may not be 

2 abundant, but we think that's probably better 

3 to use than --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's probably 

5 why you use the high end.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, because there 

7 wasn't a lot. Because it wasn't very robust, 

8 we used the high end, I think. I don't know 

9 that we'd ever do anything any differently.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So choose the single 

11 exposure model. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And you choose the 

13 single exposure model because you -- in many 

14 of these claims, you don't have good 

15 information about the -- about the job title 

16 of the person or the job history of the person 

17 because you may get the last job they held. 

18 You almost always get the last job they held. 

19 So, job title in these things -- we are 

20 concerned about the ability to make good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 decisions based on that. 

2 We would rather have a 

3 conservative model and apply it to everyone 

4 than to make judgments that are almost 

5 certainly going to have some arbitrariness to 

6 them.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

8 the thing that I don't know is how do these 

9 two compare? It would be interesting just to 

10 know that.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: To me, we can do 

12 it as an academic exercise, but I think we 

13 would --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We would still 

15 stick to your policy.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: We would like to 

17 stay with the --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But if 

19 it's 20 results, then if you only have 20 --

20 20 results or badge data, and you say we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 going to take the high end of this, where you 

2 have a more robust coworker in 6000 and it 

3 ends up being more -- you know, this case is 

4 the high because we're saying we might've been 

5 too high of a dose.

6 MR. KATZ: I think you have to --

7 I mean I think the right thing to do is to 

8 judge on its merits whether the data for the 

9 site is adequate. If you come to a conclusion 

10 that the data at the site is not adequate, 

11 then --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

13 don't know. I'm speaking a little without the 

14 facts.

15 MR. KATZ: I know, but otherwise 

16 it doesn't make sense. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: It's adequate to at 

19 least provide a bounding dose.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How big a set 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of data was this? Do we know? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do any of you 

4 remember the details of Bridgeport?

5 DR. MAURO: I'd have to pull it 

6 and look at it again. It's been a long time.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: See, I hate to 

8 close these kinds of things out because we all 

9 forgot. At the time when we said this, it 

10 made sense to at least compare. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean 

12 usually -- this is a uranium plant.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And you can look 

15 at a series of dosimetry data and decide, does 

16 this look like a uranium plant or not. So, we 

17 will compare --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I agree 

19 with you, Stu. I'm not -- I agree. You want 

20 to use site-specific if you got it, and I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 think I wouldn't object to that as a policy 

2 move for sure.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Because as 

4 an academic exercise, I think we can do that 

5 comparison because it's not -- TBD-6000 isn't 

6 that hard. I mean we can figure out if they 

7 applied the data for TBD-6000, what dose rates 

8 are we going to get, and then what did we 

9 apply here.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean to me, I 

12 think we're probably in a position where we 

13 would rather stay with the site-specific data 

14 either way.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That'll 

16 probably be where we end up. I just want to -

17 -

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I think we had 

20 almost this identical discussion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know, 

2 probably last time. Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: And came to pretty 

4 much the same conclusion, but that's when we 

5 decided that we weren't going to do anymore 

6 with it.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that 

8 brings it back to Ted's point, which is maybe 

9 a little more frequent meetings, and we can --

10 you know. It's a balance because if we have 

11 more frequent meetings, but people -- if we 

12 don't have any actions, then it's -- yes. So, 

13 all right, 149.3. Yes, we'll follow up as in 

14 149.1. This is an SC&A action, isn't it?

15 DR. MAURO: I have the hard copy 

16 of the big -- the big, thick book with this 

17 case, and this finding. It has to do with we 

18 actually checked -- did our own calculation 

19 using the data that were available, and we 

derived our own 95th 20 percentile from the data. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And we came in a factor of -- twice -- our 

2 dose about twice as high, and I guess we're 

3 not too sure what the reason for that is.

4 I'm looking at it right now. That 

5 was the essence of the comment. We couldn't 

6 match our number. We came in higher for the 

95th 7 percentile. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was for 

9 149.3?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, we're looking at 

11 3, right? The upper --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, the derived --

14 yes, the words right here are -- come right 

15 out of the -- I'm looking at the hard copy, 

16 149.3. Right, and the -- the -- and I'm 

17 looking at the text that stands behind it.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: And it's basically as 

20 simple as that. We actually collected the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 data, looked at it.

2 MR. STIVER: John, I think the 

3 reasons that NIOSH's response -- or I think I 

4 see why. It was just the way the calculation 

5 was done. They used Monte Carlo methods to 

6 combine too many period distributions. You 

guys took the 95th 7 percentile and multiplied 

8 that by the number of periods, and you ended 

9 up with a higher number by about a factor of 

10 two as a result of that.

11 DR. MAURO: I didn't follow 

12 conceptually the difference between the way 

13 you would derive the 95h percentile and the 

14 way we did it. Could you do that one more 

15 time?

16 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

17 I'm just kind of paraphrasing what was in the 

18 NIOSH response. I think I understand the 

19 difference is that what they did is they did 

20 Monte Carlo sampling of all the different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 distributions created a new, combined 

2 distribution, as opposed to just picking a 

95th 3 percentile and multiplying it by the 

4 number of periods.

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, I see.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

8 MR. STIVER: And that would result 

9 in a lower value.

10 DR. MAURO: I would say that's an 

11 interesting discussion. In other words, it's 

funny how one could say we did the 95th 12

13 percentile, but one person or group would do 

14 it one way. Another one would do it in a 

15 different way. And this -- it sounds like the 

16 approach that was used sort of buffers it a 

17 bit, and brings it down.

18 And I'm not sure, quite frankly, 

19 of the merits of each -- either approach, 

20 which one is the one that's most appropriate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 for the particular problem at hand. But 

2 clearly, you could see how here's an example 

3 of ambiguity. You know, two different people 

4 could come up with different numbers.

5 MR. STIVER: Equally, you could 

6 take a smaller number for one of the 

7 distributions, a higher for the next and 

8 overall, you're going to come up with 

9 something that's a little bit lower than this, 

the 95th 10 , the type of number for the badging 

11 periods. It's the property of the technique, 

12 the emergent property.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, this is 

14 Brad. John or whoever, why -- why would they 

15 do that? Is it just -- is that up to the dose 

16 reconstructor?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it wasn't up 

18 to the dose reconstructor because this was 

19 done in the Site Profile document. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So, this was done, 

2 and then this instruction was given to all 

3 dose reconstructors.

4 DR. MAURO: Right. Exactly right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So, it's not up to 

6 the dose reconstructor, but it would -- see if 

7 I've got this conceptually, John or John or 

8 somebody or Mark can correct me if I'm wrong. 

9 But conceptually, it sounds like on our part, 

10 we took each -- we took the two weeks. We 

11 have two-week periods.

12 So, you've got a series of two13 week periods where you've got essentially a 

14 dataset for each two-week period.

15 MR. STIVER: A distribution for 

16 each of those two-week periods.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, a 

18 distribution for each of those two-week 

19 periods, and we said we're going to make this 

one broad distribution average and do 95th 20
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 percentile of this whole distribution. 

2 Yesterday, we said we're going to take the --

3 well, I'm not quite sure what they did. Is it 

the 95th 4 percentile?

5 MR. STIVER: The combined dataset, 

6 lump it all together.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Lump it all 

8 together.

MR. STIVER: Take the 95th 9

10 percentile.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Instead of just 

12 sampling from all of them, right?

13 MR. STIVER: We're going to 

combine this -- multiplying the 95th 14

15 percentile for the combined dataset by the 

16 applicable number in a two-week period. So, 

17 you sum all the data together to --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All the data --

19 MR. STIVER: -- multiply it by the 

20 number of periods. What you guys did was you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 took the Monte Carlo running with one number 

2 from each of those distributions, added them 

3 up. That's one data point in your output 

4 distribution. You went back to that 10,000 

5 times or whatever. You generate your output 

distribution -- 95th 6 percentile of that.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, well, I don't 

8 have a conception. I have a clue.

9 DR. MAURO: I think there's more 

10 to the story here. It has to do with 

11 correlated and uncorrelated data and how it is 

12 processed.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, for this one I 

14 assume there's no correlation for the data.

15 DR. MAURO: Right. The statement

16 in the Bridgeport Brass Site Profile was that 

17 you collected the data and came up with an 

uncorrelated 95th 18 percentile, which means that 

19 you were assuming that each reading, two-week 

20 reading, is independent of each other reading. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And of course if you do it in an uncorrelated 

2 way, it's going to result in a higher estimate 

3 of the 95h percentile.

4 So, I remember Harry Chmelynski 

5 did it this way. He actually matched -- in 

6 fact, he actually ran your numbers correlated 

7 and uncorrelated. It's coming back. And he 

8 matched your numbers, if you assumed they were 

9 correlated.

10 But in your write-up, you claim 

11 that no, we didn't -- the claim that you did 

12 the analysis in uncorrelated, and as a result, 

13 we say, well, if you did it uncorrelated, we 

14 would come in with a factor of two higher.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, I recall this 

17 now.

18 MR. STIVER: John, we talked about 

19 this yesterday in the Procedures meeting. 

20 This is the exact same discussion we had.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: It all gets back to 

3 whether a person who has a high probability of 

4 getting a dose by virtue of the job they're 

5 in, and staying in that job when everybody 

6 moves around the plant. 

7 Everybody is just kind of randomly 

8 moving around the plant, then the uncorrelated 

9 distribution would be applicable, but if you 

10 got people who are in particularly hot jobs 

11 continuously, then the correlation would 

12 apply. And that's really what it came down 

13 to: whether it was correlated or not.

14 So, I guess to really get back to 

15 it, Bridgeport Brass, was that a site where 

16 people changed jobs frequently, or was the 

17 situation where you had --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Do we know?

19 MR. STIVER: Do we know? Because 

20 if you have skilled labor that stayed in type 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of position --

2 MR. FARVER: This will come up 

3 again when we talk about Attachment 1 

4 findings.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this Bridgeport 

6 Brass Havens Laboratory, or Bridgeport Brass 

7 in Adrian, Michigan?

8 MR. FARVER: Bridgeport Brass 

9 Havens.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, laboratory. 

11 So, I don't know. If it's in Michigan, I 

12 think there was extrusion there. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: But I don't think 

15 Havens was.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, at least 

17 that defines the issue a little better. I 

18 mean I understand.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that one I 

20 understand the issue. I need somebody smarter 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 than me to help figure this out. I don't -- I 

2 know Dave Allen might know more about this.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you don't 

4 know work --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: If you don't 

6 really know --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Still 

8 uncorrelated, right. Right, the higher end.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean just 

10 speaking here, but there may be basis for what 

11 we --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll say it 

13 remains a NIOSH action. Go ahead, Brant.

14 DR. ULSH: Yes, the status of 

15 149.1 is we put out our analysis. SC&A did a 

16 different analysis.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

18 DR. ULSH: It's now back in our 

19 court to say there's quite a difference or 

20 it's not a problem.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. STIVER: Just one last thing. 

2 In our interviews at Simonds Saw last year,

3 most of the workers indicated that they pretty 

4 much stuck with a job. They didn't move 

5 around. It took some skill to learn --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's for 

8 Simonds?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, at least for 

10 Simonds.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Some do, some don't.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Others they 

14 specifically say we moved around --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now, 149.4, I 

16 think I can take the highlighting off this. 

17 It says it's transferred to Wanda's 

18 Procedures.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just as long as 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it doesn't get lost.

2 MEMBER MUNN: We lose as many 

3 things as we can, of course.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'll add in 

5 the words, Wanda's Procedures.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Make it very clear.

7 MR. KATZ: So, what number is 

8 that?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Make blame 

10 clear.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, please do.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 149.4.

13 MR. KATZ: 149.4.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's a 

15 global issue under TIB-17 it says.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

17 MR. KATZ: So, do we already have

18 that on our agenda, John or Wanda? If not, 

19 I'll put it there so that we don't lose it.

20 DR. MAURO: Let's make sure. Yes, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 this is -- we discussed this many times, and I 

2 think we've agreed with -- I know Jim was at 

3 one meeting, where we talked about particles 

4 depositing, and that this is a recurring 

5 discussion, you know. And I think that in 

6 concept, I remember one meeting where we 

7 agreed in concept when this might be a 

8 problem.

9 But we're waiting -- we're really 

10 waiting on the global response. How are --

11 and what is NIOSH's position related to, when 

12 do you factor in the possibility that a person 

13 may have had a particulate deposition on the 

14 skin, face, whatever? And you should factor 

15 that into the skin dose. I think we're still 

16 uncertain on that.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think you're 

18 waiting for Godot there, maybe.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll see where we 

20 can go with it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: This is -- I think 

3 it's a uranium plant, or a uranium laboratory. 

4 So, you're not dealing with any hot 

5 particles, but by and large uranium plants 

6 early on didn't have exit monitoring either. 

7 So, it was handled like a metal. And so, very 

8 many uranium plants had opportunity for 

9 essentially unidentified skin contaminations 

10 or exposures. That's how this one falls.

11 MEMBER MUNN: At this point, I can 

12 only say Procedures has had no communication 

13 from Godot.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why we 

16 gave it to Procedures.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's in good 

19 hands.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

2 MR. KATZ: I'm going to follow up 

3 with Tim a little bit on this, though. See if 

4 -- what the path forward is.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

6 149.5. This is the tiered coworker model 

rather than the one-size-fits-all 95th 7 .

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have this in 

9 front of me, the full write-up. This has to 

10 do with the fact that this person was the 

11 nurse, as I mentioned earlier. And so, we 

12 have like a mixed bag here. In some cases, we 

13 feel that it looks like the method 

14 overestimates the dose. In other places, we 

15 feel that it underestimates.

16 For example, the very fact that 

17 this claimant is a nurse, this is what this 

18 last comment has to do. We've just 

19 questioning whether it goes back to what we 

20 said before, whether you would use the upper-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bound 95th 1 percentile for a person that was 

2 not on the operating floor.

3 So, we're a little bit 

4 schizophrenic here, but I think it's still 

5 legitimate to raise the question. You know, 

if you are going to use the 95th 6 percentile, 

7 we have these questions regarding correlation 

8 and uncorrelated.

9 The question then next tier is, 

10 well, would you -- what do you do about a 

11 nurse who probably wasn't on the operating 

12 floor?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd have the same 

14 comments I made earlier.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I really, really 

17 hate to make too strong a judgement based upon 

18 job title because we rarely know specifically 

19 what a particular job involves, and in terms 

20 of where their presence is at the workplace.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. MAURO: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's not 

3 always that often that you have good 

4 information about jobs anyway.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, you could see 

6 the dilemma we ran into in the blind dose 

7 reconstruction. You recall on the first case 

8 where we were doing the -- I think it was 

9 Portsmouth, where we -- where, when we ran it, 

we followed -- we used the 50th 10 percentile for 

11 the coworker model, and not -- as opposed to 

the 95th 12 percentile.

13 And I used -- when I did my hand 

calc, I used 95th 14 percentile. So, there seems 

15 to be a bit of ambiguity regarding -- I think 

16 you have a procedure that talks about when the 

17 -- for external now, when do you use the upper 

18 end, and when do you use the geometric mean, 

19 and when do you use ambient. There's a 

20 procedure out there that talks about that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Here's a place where you could see 

2 different dose reconstructors may very well 

3 make different choices. In this case, the 

decision was made to go with the 95th 4

5 percentile. I could very well see another 

6 person saying, you know, this person's job 

7 description is such that I would feel more 

8 comfortable going with either ambient or 

9 geometric mean.

10 So, here's a -- I think a perfect 

11 example of where you could run into a little 

12 bit of inconsistency on how things are being 

13 applied.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, John, this is 

15 Scott. I just want to point out this is a 

16 one-size-fits-all TBD, so the dose 

17 reconstructor would not be making that 

18 decision.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, is that right? 

20 So, if we look at Bridgeport Brass -- I didn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 know that you picked -- that's across the 

board 95th 2 percentile, as opposed to giving a 

3 choice. Because very often, you do provide a 

4 matrix where you leave a little bit of 

5 judgment whether you want to use the upper 

6 bound or the median. 

7 You know, I actually have it here. 

8 Let me take a look at that. 

9 MR. STIVER: I think it's TIB-14, 

10 just to give you some guidance to that.

11 DR. MAURO: Is that? Okay. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that was 

13 the initial question here, right? In that 

14 finding, NIOSH will further consider the 

15 applicability of a tiered versus coworker 

model versus one-size-fits-all 95th 16 . You're 

17 of a position that you think it's applicable 

in this case that you should use the 95th 18

19 percentile. Because you don't know the jobs 

20 enough. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. STIVER: We don't know the 

2 granularity to really look at people. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean by and 

4 large, with AWE you have more or less specific 

5 information, and you do what the -- I think 

6 for -- for an AWE, since you tend to fall into 

7 this lack of information, or not -- less 

8 specific information, our tendency is to write 

9 one-size-fits-all models, and to make them 

10 conservative so that we won't underestimate 

11 anyone.

Of the selecting 95th 12 , you know, 

the criteria for 95th, 50th 13 , and ambient 

14 coworker description for -- we have a DOE 

15 site. You have a sufficient amount of overall 

16 data that you build coworker models to apply 

17 to people who you don't have monitor records 

18 for. In that case, there are a set of 

19 criteria, which may in fact introduce 

20 ambiguity, which is a completely different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 discussion than where we are, about when do 

you pick 95 and when do you pick 50th 2 .

3 Those are coworker instructions by 

4 and large. As a general rule, our AWE sites 

5 are one-size-fits-all. Let's just not 

6 underestimate anybody, and let's not make too 

7 fine a distinction on places where we don't 

8 have very good information.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That last 

10 one that we were discussing where you had 

11 badges hanging, I forget what site it was. 

12 Aliquippa?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I'm 

15 guessing that there wasn't a whole lot of 

16 monitoring data there. You had some hanging 

17 badge data.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, yes, that 

19 was a one-size-fits-all model. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, was it done 

2 correctly or not? 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In that case, 

you assigned 50th, 4 though. That was the whole 

5 issue there.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think 

7 there's a legitimate question. Should we be 

using 50th 8 or not in a situation where we have 

9 that amount of data? And in fact --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If it was 

always the 95th 11 , then --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. And I 

13 have to go back and check because I'm not 

14 exactly sure which dose component we were 

15 talking about. I mean there was some 

16 discussion. We've had a fair amount of 

17 discussion about dose from deposition of 

18 suspended airborne, you know, uranium 

19 deposition.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's --

2 we've given you -- at least in one of these, 

3 we had a lot of discussion to that, which is a 

4 pretty small fraction of the dose someone is 

5 going to receive in a uranium plant because 

6 it's going to be direct radiation.

7 And so, I think we need to take a 

8 more careful look at what the actual findings 

9 were, and what component of dose is being 

10 described before we draw too many -- too many 

11 judgments here.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Just to confirm, I did 

14 check the Bridgeport Brass, and you're 

correct, Scott. It's a one-size-fits-all 95th 15

16 percentile. And so, the option was not 

17 granted here for a judgment to be made. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

19 So, unless you're prepared to say 

20 yes, we're all in agreement, and let's close 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it, you've just gotten a preview of our 

2 written response.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

4 we leave it as a preview though, because I 

5 think you have -- I want you guys to reflect 

6 on the consistency of that one versus the 

7 previous one that we just discussed. 

8 Hopefully, if we reconvene soon enough, we'll 

9 all have these things fresh in our minds. 

10 MR. KATZ: Can we take a comfort 

11 break?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, we're 

13 plunging right though. Yes, of course. All 

14 right, we're -- let's see. That does wrap up 

15 149. So, does that wrap up 149?

16 MEMBER MUNN: On to 150.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I just 

18 want to make sure. Yes, so, okay, let's take 

19 a ten-minute break, and we'll start back at 

20 1:50 -- I mean with case 150.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

2 matter went off the record at 3:17 p.m. and 

3 resumed at 3:29 p.m.) 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're on the 

5 home stretch, everyone on the phone. John, 

6 you there?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am, and I had a 

8 chance to read the case. So, I can help out a 

9 little bit.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Awesome. And 

11 Scott --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: That'll help, 

13 John. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I hear Brad. 

15 Is Scott on there too?

16 MR. SIEBERT: I'm here.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, great. 

18 We're on number 150.1, and this one is an SC&A 

19 action.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes, basically where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we left this is NIOSH will provide a response 

2 based on the review. They provided a 

3 response. It says, TBD is currently being 

4 revised to incorporate assessment documented 

5 in Special Exposure Cohort Evaluation Report. 

6 The revised methodology combines the intake 

7 estimate at the start of the residual period, 

8 based on the average of the general area air 

9 samples collected during the operational 

10 period.

11 And then they give the resulting 

12 intakes. So, basically, they're going to 

13 modify the TBD. Is that pretty accurate, to 

14 modify the TBD?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: For which one?

16 DR. MAURO: Simonds Saw.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Simonds Saw.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean 

19 there's -- we'll have to because there was an 

20 addition of a Class in February. And so, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 there will have to be a modification for --

2 MR. FARVER: Okay.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the Site 

4 Profile.

5 MR. FARVER: Reviewed it. Have no 

6 concerns with that response. So, we can close 

7 that one.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I knew 

9 we'd close one. 151.1, this is another one of 

10 those effects of things done prior to TBD11 6000.

12 DR. MAURO: Right. This is a case 

13 where OTIB-4 was used. If you remember a long 

14 time ago, that was a bounding approach, and to 

15 -- for AWE facilities, which were only used 

16 for the sake, purpose of denial, which in fact 

17 is what I believe has happened here. Yes.

18 So, the outcome here is that they 

19 used OTIB-4, and they denied. There really is 

20 no concern. And some of the comments in here 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I'm looking at have long been resolved in 

2 other venues. So, I mean we can go over each 

3 one if you'd like, but --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, John, 

5 from the last response though, what does that 

6 mean? NIOSH will look up -- look at the 

7 response in TBD-6000 Work Group, and determine 

8 the effect on this case and review potential 

9 effects on DRs done prior to TBD-6000 

10 implementation. What does that mean? See the 

11 response in 11/8?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. I am looking at 

13 the report, and just correlating the comments 

14 with the write-up.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is OTIB-4. 

17 Give me one second. Oh, okay, all right. 

18 We're going back a ways here. There was a 

19 time during the residual period where we were 

20 concerned that, with two -- two issues. One, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that the way in which NIOSH modeled the 

2 buildup of radioactivity on surfaces. This is 

3 the operation and on surfaces was -- was 

4 fundamentally flawed.

5 We were wrong. It's good. This 

6 deposition velocity approach, where you assume 

7 that the airborne particulates, whatever those 

8 levels are, are settling at the -- at this 

9 settling velocity 0.00075. I think it's per 

10 day. I'm not sure of the -- per second, per 

11 second. And it accumulates for a year.

12 We were concerned that that 

13 approach doesn't work, but it turns out after 

14 reviewing the Adley Report, we agreed that 

15 that approach is okay.

16 So, this comment that we have, the 

17 first comment at 151.1, really goes toward, we 

18 were concerned at the time that that approach 

19 doesn't work well. We now believe it does. 

20 That is in estimating to build up on surfaces. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So, I mean --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, in that 

3 first comment though, SC&A was suggesting that 

4 they use the Adley paper, right?

5 DR. MAURO: Right. And it was in 

6 fact the Adley paper that convinced us that 

7 approach works.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

9 DR. MAURO: In other words, I 

10 don't know when --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the 

12 other question is asking, does TBD-6000 use 

13 the Adley -- I mean is that model --

14 DR. MAURO: That was how TBD-6000 

15 was confirmed. In other words, when we 

16 reviewed TBD-6000, we expressed this concern 

17 about how you are predicting what might be on 

18 surfaces. And one of our suggestions at the 

19 time was why don't you look at the Adley 

20 paper, where they actually measured the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 deposition accumulation rate at a Hanford 

2 metalworks facility, and to see if in fact the 

3 approach with -- where at this facility, 

4 Hanford facility, where they measured the 

5 airborne concentrations of dust, they measured 

6 the amount on surfaces. They measured the 

7 rate in which it accumulated.

8 David Allen wrote a White Paper, 

9 to say, listen, I think we're okay with the 

10 TBD-6000 approach. This is one of our 

11 criticisms of TBD-6000. And he came back and 

12 did these calculations, and wrote a White 

13 Paper, and it turns out in fact that's true. 

14 That is, the Adley paper in fact confirms this 

15 generic approach that NIOSH is using, which we 

16 found originally suspect: the deposition rate, 

17 for a variety of reasons. But the data from 

18 Adley show that no, that approach works. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I 

20 understand all that. At least that is your 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 position on the --

2 DR. MAURO: Well, that was our 

3 position, yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- Adley model. 

5 But the part I don't understand is I thought 

6 we were asking here for NIOSH to consider 

7 cases done before TBD-6000, which would use 

8 the Adley approach. There was another method 

9 used. Now, am I misunderstanding that? 

10 In other words, is the approach 

11 used prior to the incorporation of TBD-6000 

12 and the Adley model, was that sufficient? Was 

13 that claimant-favorable enough for -- or isn't 

14 that what we're asking?

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, and this is --

16 and that's OTIB-4.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: Right, and --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, the case 

20 was done --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. MAURO: -- that was even more 

2 conservative. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, that was 

4 more conservative than TBD-6000?

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, you found 

7 that out. So, in that case, I think we can 

8 close this item.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

11 That's what I didn't understand. All right. 

12 DR. ULSH: 151.1, is that --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean that was 

14 a NIOSH action item, but it sounds like SC&A's 

15 done. John is satisfied with it.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, OTIB-4 is 

19 bounding. The only time we had concern in the 

20 past with OTIB-4 was that it was used as a --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and they ended up compensating people. And as 

2 you recall, that was a concern.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

4 DR. MAURO: And that's the reason 

5 for TBD-6000, to deal with that problem. So, 

6 this actual case must go back a long way, the 

7 very fact that they used OTIB-4.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: Very conservative. In 

10 effect, conceptually visualize that you have a 

11 site where you're working with uranium. 

12 They're assuming the default dust-loading 

13 throughout the facility is 100 MAC, which is 

14 up there. And the materials settling out, 

15 that would be the airborne inhalation 

16 exposure; right off the bat, that's certainly 

17 bounding. 

18 I can't imagine many sites having 

19 higher than that chronically. Then the 

20 activity on surfaces -- I know you guys want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to go home, right? Then the activity on 

2 surfaces building up from the settling. Our 

3 concern originally was, well, that approach to 

4 modeling the buildup on surfaces is not --

5 even though you started with a very high 

6 concentration in the air, the way in which you 

7 predicted what fell out may not be bounding, 

8 but it was demonstrated. Yes, that approach 

9 does bound it.

10 So, in this instance, where they 

11 use OTIB-4, it certainly is a bounding 

12 approach, and still, they came up with 

13 Probability of Causation that I believe was 38 

14 percent. Let me see what the number is. Yes, 

15 38 percent.

16 So, yes, I can't see having a 

17 problem here.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We close. And 

19 thank you for filling that radio silence, 

20 John. I was just typing up everything you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 said. We weren't looking for more 

2 explanation. But thank you.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, this is 

6 Brad. So, I kind of got lost in this. Well, 

7 this has actually started out as OTIB-4?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Before they came 

10 up with OTIB-6?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: TBD-6000.

12 DR. MAURO: TBD-6000.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: TBD-6000. So, 

14 this one -- this one is NIOSH's -- or SC&A is 

15 saying that this -- this was done right?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This earlier 

17 approach was more claimant-favorable.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the only 

20 place they got into trouble with this was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 where they actually compensated some claims 

2 using TIB-4.

3 DR. MAURO: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But for this 

5 purpose, it was higher numbers than TBD-6000 

6 would've generated, and therefore, we have no 

7 further concern with this. So, I'm saying it 

8 can be closed. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I was -- I 

10 kind of got --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was a little 

12 lost, too, Brad.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I'll go 

14 back to quiet then.

15 (Laughter.)

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 151.2. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: I was trying to make 

18 a great effort to get on my database to see 

19 where we were with TIB-9, and whether we had 

20 in fact received a White Paper. But I have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 done something naughty, and security has told 

2 me that I can't get back on. So, again, until 

3 I've logged back off and logged back on again. 

4

5 So, I'm not going to do that. I 

6 will just tell you that I can't respond to you 

7 with respect to the White Paper. Does NIOSH 

8 know if that White Paper has been provided? I 

9 don't even know.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall, 

11 but let me see what I can find here.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I am officially 

13 removing this from our list though, but I'd 

14 like Ted to capture it as a -- it says, 

15 Procedures Subcommittee.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. This is in our 

17 ballpark.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just --

19 so Ted can capture it. 151.2, and it's about 

20 NIOSH developing a White Paper regarding the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 approach for ingestion, TIB-9. This will be 

2 reviewed as part of TIB-9 review.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Procedures 

5 Subcommittee.

6 DR. MAURO: This has been resolved 

7 in principle at one of the meetings.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I thought that it 

9 had been, and I had the funny feeling that we 

10 might even have the White Paper, which is why 

11 I was trying to get back into our database.

12 DR. MAURO: I don't think -- in 

13 essence, it's quite simple. We were concerned 

14 that the ingestion pathway is effectively, 

15 when all is said and done, after all the 

16 numbers are crunched, the ingestion pathway 

17 presumes that the daily ingestion rate is 0.5 

18 milligrams per day, on that order. 

19 We felt, from looking at the 

20 literature, that 50 to 100 milligrams per day 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is more appropriate. Jim and I had quite a 

2 discussion on this at the Procedures 

3 Subcommittee on TIB-9,and it was agreed that 

4 if the site was generally cleaned up and that 

5 you're not kicking around a lot of uranium on 

6 the ground, the 0.5 milligram approach per day 

7 is probably okay.

8 But if you're at one of these old 

9 facilities, where the -- the layers of uranium 

10 oxide dust on the surface is actually -- you 

11 could see it, then -- then the 50 or something 

12 substantially higher than 0.5 milligrams per 

13 day is probably appropriate.

14 So, that's how we converged on 

15 this. So, in this particular case, I believe 

16 the exposure was during the residual period, 

17 and the question that's before us is, where 

18 does this play, this facility and it's status, 

19 fall in that continuum? 

20 Is it more like a site in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 residual period that has been cleaned up, and 

2 therefore there's not that much residual 

3 uranium? Then the OTIB-9 approach works. But 

4 if it's still a filthy place with lots of 

5 residual uranium on surfaces, then that 0.5 

6 doesn't work anymore. It's no longer 

7 bounding. That's the point. Although keep in 

8 mind though that the ingestion dose never 

9 really contributes much to dose anyway. It's 

10 almost like a tempest in a teapot.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It was clearly 

12 a site-specific issue in this particular case, 

13 and I just simply can't remember whether we 

14 have a White Paper on it, or -- we did come to 

15 a meeting of the minds.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I don't think 

17 there was any white -- a White Paper on this 

18 matter ever issued.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I'll have to 

20 verify that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, I found --

2 well, I found OTIB-9 estimation of ingestion 

3 intakes in the database, but there are no 

4 findings associated with them.

5 MR. STIVER: It sounds from John's 

6 discussion, it resolved in a Work Group in 

7 principle, but never made it to a White Paper.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so, and 

9 we may need to just put something in the 

10 database, Procedures database.

11 DR. MAURO: Stu, that's my 

12 recollection of the discussion, and how we 

13 sort of achieve closure in principle. But 

14 right now, TIB-9 just goes to the -- this 

15 multiplied 0.2 -- 0.2 times the air 

16 concentration gives you the daily ingestion 

17 rate, which effectively converts to a very 

18 low, 0.5, on that order, milligram per day.

19 I believe Jim agreed that if it 

20 was a really filthy place, that number is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 probably too low. And I think that's how we 

2 left it, and we really haven't gone much 

3 further. As it applies to this case, it's 

4 really irrelevant.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I'm thinking, 

6 can be closed for this purpose.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This purpose. 

8 It's being transferred to your group, yes. 

9 I'm taking the yellow off of it.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have 152.4. 

12 Looks like a fairly simple -- I was being very 

13 kind when I -- the way I wrote this, NIOSH 

14 will consider adding. I think this was the 

15 idea it wasn't clear to the reader that you 

16 had incorporated both photon and tritium dose 

17 when you reported it out in the DR report. Am 

18 I understanding that correctly?

19 MR. FARVER: Well, this is where 

20 they report their tritium doses with their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 external doses.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: And there is a method 

4 that NIOSH uses to separate out the tritium 

5 doses from the -- from the photon doses. But 

6 that method really isn't documented anywhere. 

7 So, that kind of is the concern.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it's 

9 further than just reporting it out in the DR 

10 report. He says, method is not documented. 

11 That's a different thing. I thought it just 

12 was that it wasn't clear in the DR report that 

13 --

14 MR. FARVER: Go back to the case.

15 DR. ULSH: Looks like Site

16 Profile. Would we consider adding an 

17 explanation in the Site Profile document.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Site 

19 Profile document. Yes, okay. I was --

20 summary finding says the DR report does not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 account for all the -- okay. All right, so, 

2 you're probably right, Doug. It's not clearly 

3 explained in the Site Profile.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, this is 

5 Scott, I do want to point out yes, we're 

6 considering that for putting in the Site 

7 Profile. However, the DR guidance document, 

8 which as you know we're putting into every 

9 claim file as we do it, there is a comment in 

10 there about tritium doses typically included 

11 in both the deep and shallow doses recorded. 

12 So, there is information available 

13 for the dose reconstructors discussing this. 

14 It's just not in the TBD yet.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the --

16 DR. ULSH: Well, given that this 

17 is probably going to remain an open item until 

18 the TBD is changed, right, Scott, do you have 

19 an estimate on -- I mean is there an estimate 

20 on when it going to be incorporated into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 TBD?

2 MR. SIEBERT: That's -- I don't 

3 know off the top of my head what's going on 

4 with the SRS TBD. 

5 MR. KATZ: Given what Scott just 

6 said, do you really need to keep it open?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I don't -

8 -

9 MR. HINNEFELD: If it's a dose 

10 reconstruction -- if the Savannah River dose 

11 reconstruction instructions or guidance for 

12 dose reconstruction for SRS, if that includes 

13 it and that's being placed in the files now 

14 going forward, I mean is it really needed? 

15 You can keep this open for the Site Profile.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

17 we need it. The question is making sure the 

18 comments don't get lost. It's easy when it's 

19 transferred to Procedures.

20 MR. FARVER: You're saying place 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in the case files now. Is it going to be in 

2 the files that we get to review? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Depends on how old 

4 the case is for review.

5 MR. FARVER: That's kind of what I 

6 mean, because we're going to come up with the 

7 same issue the next time, where we can't match 

8 the HPAREH dose with the tritium doses that 

9 are given in the DR. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that won't --

11 MR. FARVER: Well, it comes down 

12 to whether --

13 MR. SIEBERT: If it's in this 

14 guidance document or whether it's in the TBD, 

15 that's not going to change.

16 MR. FARVER: No, no. I'm saying 

17 if these guidance documents aren't included in 

18 the files that we received to review, then 

19 we're not going to know that it's there. 

20 We're going to write it up again. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. SIEBERT: I agree, and we've 

2 run into that numerous times.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 MR. SIEBERT: And we just close it 

5 again.

6 DR. ULSH: Yes, that's a separate 

7 issue.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But how 

10 do we keep track of the -- it's an action item 

11 for the SRS Work Group, I guess. Ah, forget 

12 that one. Can't it go to Wanda's group 

13 somehow?

14 MR. FARVER: Is the guidance 

15 document that contains this discussion about 

16 how to separate out the tritium doses, is that 

17 available on the O: drive somewhere that we 

18 can see?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. It's in the 

20 tools folder for Savannah River tools.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But how to -- I 

3 mean you said the guidance document gives an 

4 explanation if the doses are together. It 

5 doesn't really explain how to separate them 

6 out, does it?

7 MR. SIEBERT: It doesn't 

8 specifically tell you step-by-step how to 

9 separate, no.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So, the 

11 method that Doug is talking about, the method 

12 is still not there, right?

13 MR. STIVER: Is the method in the 

14 tool that's on the O: drive, then?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's no 

16 method at all. Scott, that was to you.

17 MR. STIVER: Scott, is the method 

18 that you're referring to again in the tool 

19 that's on the O: drive?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, no. It would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 not be tied into a tool. It's something the 

2 dose reconstructor would have to do by 

3 comparison. I mean, the information that they 

4 have to look at is already in the guidance 

5 document. The specific line-by-line -- you 

6 know, it's basically just a step of, if 

7 there's tritium dose, you need to compare it 

8 to the -- compare it to the HPAREH dose and 

9 subtract it out. It's not much of a method, 

10 really.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay, okay. So, it's 

12 clear to the reconstructor what they have to 

13 do.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, I 

15 mean I have no problem closing this out. I 

16 just don't want the comment to be lost from 

17 the Site Profile comment. You know, the fact 

18 that --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got a 

20 question for Scott. Where would these --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 where is this instruction found? I mean this 

2 is available to dose reconstructors. I 

3 understand that. But where do they look to 

4 find it?

5 MR. SIEBERT: The dose 

6 reconstructors, the guidance documents, are in 

7 the tools folders, along with the tools for a 

8 site. So, for Savannah River, the Savannah 

9 River DR guidance document is in the same 

10 folder as the Savannah River tools. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so that 

12 folder is -- that's something the dose 

13 reconstructor looks at from your side?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, and then a 

15 copy of the latest version of that is also 

16 submitted along with the claim for SC&A or --

17 or whoever is --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there's a 

19 claim file now. I mean that was started a 

20 couple years ago.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: But I mean where -

3 - I'm still trying to figure out where does 

4 your dose reconstructor look, physically? 

5 What file or what drive does he go to find 

6 that tools thing?

7 MR. SIEBERT: That's on our O: 

8 drive on our server, where we keep all the DR 

9 tools.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's on your 

11 server. So, that's not necessarily replicated 

12 over to our side, or do you know?

13 MR. SIEBERT: That I can't tell 

14 you. I don't know how they keep you guys up 

15 to date on our tools.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'm afraid I 

17 don't know either, but there's probably people 

18 who do know on our side. I'm just not one of 

19 them.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it 

2 means they're being provided now. So, 

3 anything we look at now that has been done in 

4 the last couple years, it'll be there in the 

5 folder. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Will it? This is 

7 Brad. Will it be in the folder then?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess we're 

10 coming back to the same thing we were talking 

11 about earlier in the morning, about being able 

12 to reconstruct these doses when the -- there's 

13 got to be a method that everybody is all on 

14 the same, and what I hear from Scott, and 

15 correct me if I'm wrong, is that it will now 

16 be in the folder, and it'll show how this has 

17 been done, or is this just something that the 

18 dose reconstructor does?

19 MR. SIEBERT: The DR directions 

20 are -- or guidance documents are put into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 folders. So, every file for the last couple 

2 years has had this included. I'm also looking 

3 through, and I don't have the page, but the 

4 present TBD -- and Mutty's helping me out with 

5 this. So, Mutty, correct me if I'm wrong. 

6 The correct version of the SRS TBD actually 

7 does have a discussion on the resolution of 

8 photon, neutron and tritium dose.

9 So, this actually may have already 

10 been put into the TBD to give it the 

11 information.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, if that's 

13 the case, then that answers -- that resolves 

14 my issue.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Hard copy 

16 records do separate; recorded whole body dose; 

17 photon, neutron, tritium. It's section 

18 E.4.1.1. There is a discussion on the fact 

19 that the hard copy records do go into the 

20 separation, whereas HPAREH does not.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So, that's section E.4.1.1. It's 

2 called: “Resolution of Photon, Neutron and 

3 Tritium Dose.” And I think that actually, 

4 Doug, that would close this out because it's 

5 in there.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, that helps 

7 me out. I was a little bit confused there. I 

8 kind of got the impression that they just --

9 they just knew to do it, but there was no real 

10 direction there, and I just wanted to make 

11 sure we had some clear direction that we were 

12 going.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Right. I can 

14 understand that. Let me see. I'm still 

15 getting more information. That's page 243 of 

16 the TBD, the present version of the TBD.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You want to 

18 take a quick glance at that, and we'll move on 

19 if one of you guys wants to look at it. I 

20 think we can close it out.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

2 Behling.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, go 

4 ahead.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I was just 

6 hopefully going to answer Stu's question 

7 regarding the DR tools. I believe on the O8 drive, under -- there is a claims folder. 

9 Under the claims folder, there is a DR folder, 

10 and then under that particular folder is the 

11 DR tools. Then it lists the general tools, 

12 and all the site-specific tools.

13 I'm just not sure how often that 

14 is updated, but the last time I checked, it 

15 seemed to be quite up-to-date. So, that's 

16 where the DR tools reside on the O: drive.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and we do 

18 update that as we find technical issues, or if 

19 we get something into the TBD, we'll usually 

20 pull it out of the guidance document so that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it's not replicated.

2 MR. STIVER: Looks like they were 

3 updated about two years ago, 2009, from what 

4 I'm seeing here.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

6 close.

7 MR. SIEBERT: The one I'm looking 

8 at right now was updated earlier this year.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, maybe. I'm 

10 looking at our side of it.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: To get back to 

12 152.4, I've right now written it for 

13 7/15/2011, "NIOSH included in Site Profile 

14 document section E.4.1.1, and no further 

15 action is required." So, if SC&A is okay with 

16 that, I think we should just do a quick check. 

17 We don't need to carry this over to another 

18 meeting, if you can just look at that 

19 paragraph.

20 MR. FARVER: Fine.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And I'll 

2 move ahead, but we'll come back if you have 

3 heartburn with that. All right, 152.6?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe maybe I 

5 can address this finding. This is that 

6 finding that we've identified over and over 

7 again, with regard to the way NIOSH approaches 

8 missed fission product doses, and they have 

9 what they call a radionuclide chooser program, 

10 that selects the radionuclides at the highest 

11 dose to the issue of concern.

12 And what we've always questioned 

13 is what about the -- the dose component from 

14 all of the other radionuclides? And what 

15 NIOSH has done, and they've provided us all of 

16 the back-up data for this, is they have taken 

17 the actual whole-body count results for this 

18 particular case it was a little bit of cesium 

19 in the whole-body count results. And they 

20 plugged that value into IMBA and calculated 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 internal -- or an intake, inhalation intake, 

2 and then they took that inhalation intake, and 

3 they went to their OTIB-54 workbook, and the 

4 OTIB-54 is fission and activation product 

5 assignment for internal dose related to gross 

6 beta and gross gamma analysis.

7 And they calculated the dose using 

8 this OTIB-54 methodology, and I did look at 

9 all of the data they provided. Clearly, it 

10 shows that by selecting the radionuclide 

11 chooser, that highest radionuclide alone, your 

12 dose is higher than when you go to this more 

13 refined approach in OTIB-54, and you select 

14 all the various radionuclides that you might 

15 expect to see in that environment.

16 And so, I do agree with -- with 

17 their approach of using these OTIB -- or the 

18 radionuclides chooser as a more conservative 

19 approach. And I might also add --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 didn't -- let me just be clear, Kathy. They 

2 didn't really choose the chooser; that was 

3 just an approach that was used before they 

4 developed 54, correct?

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Correct, correct.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, now the 

7 new, more refined approach results in lower 

8 doses. Did you evaluate across the board, or 

9 was it just for this case?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, that's what 

11 I -- yes, I was about to say. At least in 

12 this particular set, there are two additional 

13 findings, two additional cases, case 153, our 

14 next case, and finding 153.8. 

15 Same situation. They did the same 

16 type in their -- they used actually MDA for 

17 cesium-137 because there was no real values 

18 assigned in the whole body count, and still 

19 based on that approach, the dose was actually 

20 higher using the chooser.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 The same thing with, let's see 

2 here, case 155, finding 155.7. Exactly the 

3 same type of approach used, and I verified the 

4 IMBA runs and all of the OTIB-54 runs, and I 

5 do agree with NIOSH on the --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was that 

7 last one? 153.8 I got.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, 153.8 and 

9 155.7.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, then I'll 

11 go ahead and also close those out as no 

12 further action when we get there, if we get 

13 that far. Or even if we don't, I'll go ahead 

14 and clear those out. But let me just -- the 

15 only other question I have, this is a little 

16 bit of a theoretical question, but have we 

17 reviewed OTIB-54?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, my yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we closed it out? I don't know where we 

2 stand.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Almost all of 54 is 

4 closed out.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because we're 

6 assuming that 54 is correct in this analysis. 

7 You know you're saying the chooser was always 

8 more favorable than OTIB-54, but in closing 

9 these out, we're saying -- we're acting as if 

10 OTIB-54 is the truth.

11 DR. MAURO: Mark, OTIB-54, is that 

12 the one dealing with beta-gamma emitters in 

13 urine associated with reactors?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay, we reviewed 

17 that. And where we came out was there was a 

18 set of four or five different conversions that 

19 if you know the gross beta-gamma in the urine, 

20 you can make certain assumption what the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the question is what is the isotopic mix on 

2 those radionuclides? And they differ, if 

3 would differ, depending on the kind of reactor 

4 you use.

5 Joyce Lipsztein reviewed that. 

6 She found favorably on the mix associated with 

7 each of the different types of reactors. 

8 There was one issue, however, that remains I 

9 believe still unresolved. And when you don't 

10 have information on the type of reactor you're 

11 working with, or it's a -- it's not captured 

12 by the four categories.

13 There's a default mix that's 

14 recommended to be used that we had a problem 

15 with because we felt that mix that was

16 selected was not bounding. So, we were almost 

17 home on OTIB-54, but not quite.

18 Now, within the context of this 

19 particular case, if they use OTIB-54, one of 

20 the mixes that we already reviewed and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 approved, then I think this issue goes away. 

2 But if they use the generic mix, that's sort 

3 of like a default when you don't have 

4 information, we still have an issue with that.

5 DR. ULSH: And on that topic of 

6 the generic mix, I can tell you that I've been 

7 in discussions with ORAU just over the last 

8 week or so. We're preparing further analysis 

9 on that.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, do you 

11 know if these three that you mentioned were 

12 generic, 152, 153 and 155? Would they --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they weren't 

14 done with OTIB-54. They were done with the 

15 chooser.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, but were 

17 they a situation where you have one reactor 

18 though, or were they a situation where they 

19 would have -- you wouldn't know? What sites 

20 were they?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Savannah River.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All Savannah 

3 River? So, you could have --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, other 

5 reactors were Savannah River were production 

6 reactor --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think those were 

9 all pretty -

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Similar mixes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I forget what the 

12 mix -- I forget what the things were on the --

13 what the possibilities were.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Savannah River 

16 reactors, at least from my experience, were 

17 draining fuel with the uranium target.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And then you would 

20 have -- essentially, the target was one in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 same, and then there were a number of reactors 

2 that were bad reactors. I forget. I forget 

3 how the categories were in OTIB-54.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean my sense 

5 is we're okay on all these three. I just want 

6 to be --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, and 

8 realistically, I mean there's the OTIB-54 

9 issues that are not resolved yet. I mean 

10 there will be a resolution process and then 

11 follow up from that resolution, which is sort 

12 of independent of these three specific 

13 findings. I mean this sort of kicks these 

14 three findings, any kind of consideration, 

15 into OTIB-54 procedures, in a Procedures 

16 Committee.

17 Then any remedy of any changes 

18 that happen from OTIB-54 from that process --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Would go back.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- would catch 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

333

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 these cases as well.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. They've been 

3 worked very heavily in the past few months.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

5 we're okay with closing them out for this --

6 purpose of our Subcommittee's work. So, I'm 

7 just moving ahead and getting those other ones 

8 that Kathy mentioned. Give me a minute. 

9 Okay, and we're back to -- where 

10 are we now? That was 152. So, 153.1. Does 

11 that catch us up here? This says NIOSH and 

12 SC&A to both further review. 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

14 DR. ULSH: Wait, Mark.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes?

16 DR. ULSH: Before we move onto 

17 that one, I noticed the tab 152 observation. 

18 There's nothing in the response column. Is 

19 there anything that --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 decided that we weren't even going to --

2 DR. ULSH: Close it then? 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean that 

4 might be a symbol on the answer. Was it 

5 reevaluated for Super S, or?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second 

7 here.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It says it was, 

9 yes. I filled that column in saying it was 

10 reevaluated, assuming Scott confirms that. Do 

11 you want to look ahead to 153 while he's 

12 looking that up?

13 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. It 

14 has been reevaluated and still non comp.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 153.1 

16 then.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug?

19 MR. FARVER: The finding was 

20 basically that the 1982 less than 30 keV 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 photon dose was omitted. So, we looked at it, 

2 and yes, it was omitted. It should've been a 

3 very small dose, and from the response, I 

4 gather that they're not sure why it was 

5 assigned all 30 to 250 keV, and why the small 

6 portion was not separated out for that year. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But 

8 they say that -- yes, that's all in the 

9 response. The part I didn't understand was 

10 NIOSH and SC&A will review further.

11 MR. FARVER: I only had a chance 

12 to look at this one.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: Now, I look at it, 

15 but still the question is why did it happen? 

16 Do you want me to cut and paste here, or 

17 something? Don't know. I mean I --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's okay. 

19 That may get in their aggregate analysis of 

20 like QAQC progress. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there's no 

3 further action then, right, that you can see?

4 MR. FARVER: I don't know what 

5 else to do.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I mean 

7 NIOSH agreed -- agrees the error occurred, and 

8 I guess we could've --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: 153.1, is that the 

10 number?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

12 right, no further action on that one.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, so it is 

14 closed?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, then I'm not 

17 going to say a word.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We should've 

19 asked you first.

20 MR. SIEBERT: I agree whole-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 heartedly.

2 MR. FARVER: And similarly for 

3 153.2.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: For some reason, that 

6 year it just all got assigned into 100 percent 

7 30 to 250 keV. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: See that Brant? 

9 We're closing all kinds of things. Okay, 

10 let's continue while we're on a roll. About 

11 15 more minutes for those on the phone. Then 

12 we're done. I think we all have late flights, 

13 but I think by this time of day, we've kind of 

14 had enough of this. All right, 153.6?

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: NIOSH will 

17 review SC&A response. SC&A will review NIOSH 

18 response. Well, they provided something on 

19 415, and I don't think you had time.

20 MR. FARVER: Right. I did have a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 chance to look at it. You know, I still stand 

2 by our original finding that if you look at 

3 the criteria of OTIB-7, that based on the work 

4 location, classification and the laborer, and 

5 the fact that he had measured photon dose, it 

6 does meet the criteria in OTIB-7, and he 

7 should have had neutron dose.

8 And the only other thing I can say 

9 is if there was an issue about where the 

10 employee worked and the CATI report provided 

11 coworker information, and it was even stated 

12 in there this CATI report was provided by the 

13 spouse. She heard from one of his coworkers, 

14 Mr. X, that her husband had worked a lot in 

15 radiation areas, and Mr. X may be able to 

16 expand on the work history.

17 So, I mean the information was in 

18 there. If there as any kind of question, you 

19 could've always called up the coworker.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mr. X, yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. FARVER: So, anyway, I still 

2 stand by that that they should have assigned 

3 neutron dose. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

5 From our write up, I mean we still stand that 

6 it meets the requirements. If it doesn't 

7 assign, we shouldn't assign neutrons. So, 

8 we're kind of at an impasse here.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You judge 

10 meeting the requirements by work location that 

11 you had? I don't have your response in front 

12 of me. I apologize.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Based on the fact 

14 that there's nothing to suggest routine 

15 assignments to a B line facility, which is 

16 where neutrons we would assume would be 

17 occurring.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry. 

19 You're fading a little, Scott. I can't hear.

20 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. OTIB-7, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the facility specific direction for separation 

2 facilities has the following criteria, 

3 "Routine, more frequent than annual plutonium, 

4 bioassay monitoring and relatively high 

5 shallow dose to deep dose greater than two, 

6 and relatively little enriched uranium 

7 bioassay indicate that work on the FB or HB 

8 line."

9 That's pulled directly out of TIB10 7, and what we looked at is there is no 

11 routing plutonium bioassay. The shallow dose, 

12 the deep dose ratio is not high, and there's 

13 no enriched uranium bioassay. So, it does not 

14 meet the requirements in OTIB-7 of assuming 

15 neutrons for that separation facility.

16 MR. FARVER: But for the dose

17 reconstruction for those years, you assume 

18 he's an FB line. For the time periods we're 

19 questioning, '78 to '82, you go back to the --

20 your original dose reconstruction, and for '78 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to '82, he's in 212 FB line.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's -- what 

3 part of the dose reconstruction says that?

4 MR. FARVER: Oh, that's in the 

5 table where you list the areas and the time 

6 periods.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, for purposes 

8 of the photon split?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes, that table where 

10 you split the photons and the neutrons.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, 

12 I agree with you whole-heartedly. The 

13 original assessment put him in FB line. 

14 However, if you read in our most recent 

15 response, it says clearly, "A more accurate 

16 assessment of work locations would not have 

17 resulted in assignment of the 221 FB line 

18 facility." 

19 Based on what I just said, the 

20 fact that there's not routine plutonium, high 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 shallow to deep dose ratio, and relatively low 

2 enriched uranium.

3 MR. FARVER: So, you changed the 

4 work areas?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was the initial 

7 reasoning because it was more claimant 

8 favorable, or why didn't you initially use FB 

9 line? Or is that not clear?

10 MR. SIEBERT: I mean I can't get 

11 into the dose reconstructor's head right now.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Presumably because 

14 it was claimant favorable at that time.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And more accurate.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I could 

18 certainly see how Doug got to where he got. 

19 You know? Yes. 

20 DR. ULSH: If I understand the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

343

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 language in the DR, where it says he worked in 

2 FB line, then you should assign neutrons.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

4 DR. ULSH: And so, it's 

5 understandable to make that comment. That's 

6 reasonable. Given that the comment was made, 

7 and we have gone into more detail and 

8 determined that, "Okay, we used this to make a 

9 favorable split on photon energy, but if we 

10 look more closely at it, here's the criteria 

11 for OTIB-7 or whatever it was. Then we don't 

12 think neutrons should've been assigned."

13 MR. FARVER: What bothers me about 

14 this is, and this is supposed to be a best 

15 estimate, and this goes back to the question I 

16 asked last time at ORAU offices; how do we 

17 really know it's a best estimate? Just 

18 because the report says doesn't mean it really 

19 is. Because in this case, it clearly wasn't 

20 the best estimate if your work location can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

344

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 change if you want to add dose.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Well, another thing 

4 to keep in mind is OTIB-7 did not exist at the 

5 time this dose reconstruction was done.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay, but even your 

7 DR says that you’re assigning -- you're 

8 assuming he's in this work location for this 

9 time period. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, if you 

11 assume that, the best estimate should've said 

12 -- should've included neutrons. Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Correct, if those are 

14 your assumptions that you're going by. Right?

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I would 

16 say if they got into the time they should've 

17 included neutrons, then maybe you can argue, 

18 Scott, that further looking at it now, TIB-7 

19 would've changed their -- you know, we 

20 wouldn't have done it that way. That's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

345

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 way I would kind of look at it.

2 MR. FARVER: This just seems to 

3 keep reoccurring.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: The work location 

6 changes. When we talk -- when we bring up 

7 issues here, we'll go back and look closer, 

8 and say, "Well, no, it really wasn't that work 

9 location. It's this work location."

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. FARVER: And I don't know. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I read this as 

13 saying that his job classification, his job 

14 type, could result in intermittent exposure, 

15 but not a chronic exposure. That would have 

16 been assumed -- I'm just reading the response 

17 there.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's 

19 SC&A's. The 80's work location was the FB 

20 line, and it had intermittent -- jobsite 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

346

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 could've had intermittent exposure.

2 MEMBER MUNN: But it's 

3 intermediate.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Intermittent, 

5 yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm sorry. 

7 Intermittent. That in itself seems to affect 

8 -- should affect the way the DR was done, it 

9 would seem to me. But in either case, we've 

10 got to --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

12 think that has as much bearing on the fact of 

13 location.

14 DR. ULSH: In light of the fact 

15 that OTIB-7 didn't exist at the time of the 

16 dose reconstructions, any discussion of what 

17 OTIB tells you to do -- or OTIB-7 tells you to 

18 do, is kind of irrelevant.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: After the fact.

20 DR. ULSH: Yes. The question is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

347

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 at the time the dose reconstruction was done, 

2 did we do the dose reconstruction in 

3 accordance with the guidance in place at the 

4 time?

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

6 DR. ULSH: That I think is maybe 

7 the remaining idea.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Would you 

9 say a real borderline PoC case?

10 DR. ULSH: That's a best estimate.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's a 

12 best estimate, but I don't know. Forty-five -

13 -

14 MR. SIEBERT: Forty-five percent.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

16 DR. ULSH: And our response, 

17 Scott, references OTIB-7. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, as does SC&A's 

19 response to our response. 

20 DR. ULSH: Okay, well, maybe we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

348

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 need to take another look at our response, not 

2 referring to OTIB-7, and determine whether or 

3 not the guidance in place --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, guidance at the 

5 time. Yes, okay.

6 MR. FARVER: What we were looking 

7 at was section 3.1, non-routine workers. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but that's 

9 OTIB-7.

10 MR. FARVER: Out of OTIB-7.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but I 

12 think it's kind of irrelevant. This wasn't 

13 even in place.

14 MR. FARVER: I don't know. I'd 

15 have to look and see the earlier -- and I 

16 don't see --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I'm going to 

18 tend to say that the guidance at the time was 

19 probably somewhat ambiguous, which is why 

20 OTIB-7 was written.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

349

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well, that 

2 still brings us back to you're assuming the 

3 work location is one place, but you didn't 

4 assign a neutron dose from that work location. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I mean 

6 it does seem a little funny that you would 

7 come back in your review of an -- in this 

8 audit, and say that, "Well, we're changing the 

9 work location. That's how we're answering 

10 this question." I mean --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This dose 

12 reconstruction is three iterations. It was 

13 determined Super S for --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Super S.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's coming 

16 back to at least one other.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. This is 

18 a reoccurring issue with the neutron. The 

19 work location stuff with neutrons seems to 

20 come up fairly frequently, yes. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

350

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is work 

2 location specific.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 DR. ULSH: Well, given where we 

5 are now, I would propose that maybe Scott and 

6 I will sit down and talk this one over soon, 

7 and get back to you with a response.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

9 DR. ULSH: May very well say, 

10 "We're going to stick with what we've said and 

11 here's why." But I don't think we should be 

12 referencing OTIB-7 if that didn't exist. 

13 Maybe that'll change our response. Maybe it 

14 won't. I don't know.

15 MR. FARVER: All right, I think in 

16 our initial write up, we even acknowledged 

17 that it didn't exist, but the logic should 

18 still somewhat apply because if it -- like 

19 Scott says, if it wasn't in a TBD how to do 

20 this, it may have been formulating in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

351

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 guidance document somewhere, where it was 

2 officially produced.

3 MR. STIVER: What do you say about 

4 going back and doing some research on what was 

5 available?

6 MR. FARVER: But the logic should 

7 still apply.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

9 MR. STIVER: If you knew there was 

10 a potential neutron exposure on that 

11 particular work location, then claimant 

12 favorable, the benefit of the doubt in 

13 favorable of the client.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

15 fine. Yes, I think you might come back saying 

16 that it might -- I mean I'm not trying to put 

17 words in your mouth, but NIOSH may determine 

18 that yes, a mistake was made here, and since 

19 then we've developed TIB-7, which would've 

20 changed our decision on work location.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

352

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. ULSH: Possibly.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, something 

3 like that. All right, we'll --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds to me as 

5 if it would've. It sounds to me that it puts 

6 this guy away from HB line. It's in TIB-7. 

7 TIB-7 was not available at the time this dose 

8 reconstruction was done, so the person chose a 

9 conservative photon dose and put it in the 

10 dose reconstruction -- in the table, and said, 

11 "Well, we'll just say he worked there."

12 When it was reworked, guidance had 

13 come out that said -- OTIB-7 had come out that 

14 said, "If people fail to meet these criteria, 

15 they weren't in HB lines."

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I think I -

17 -

18 MR. HINNEFELD: "Well, I can't use 

19 HB line in that photon mix."

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

353

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 makes for an inconsistent -- yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds to me 

3 like that's what happened. Because this first 

4 was done in 2005, and the first rework was 

5 done in 2009, so PER. I'm thinking since this 

was in the 8th 6 set, this had to be the 2005 

7 version that was reviewed. I don't know for 

8 sure.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not sure, yes.

10 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

11 MR. FARVER: During that time 

12 period.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That is 

14 correct. Scott said yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean you've 

16 got the description of what happened, and the 

17 fact is that what we know today about 

18 locations and putting people -- and what's in 

19 OTIB-7, that being a fact, this thing isn't 

20 going to change today. It's done today in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

354

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accordance of what we feel like we know today.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but the 

3 point goes back to any claims prior to TIB-7 

4 may have this kind of issue. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And would they 

7 all be captured on PER reviews or whatever? I 

8 mean that's --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's a 

10 good question. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean I think 

12 that's why we're examining it. Under Super S. 

13 They probably wouldn't have caught this.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We don't want 

16 to assume, for reasons we all know about. 

17 That's the point. I think Brant has the right 

18 approach. If you can go back and talk it 

19 through with Scott.

20 DR. ULSH: Yes. I don't know what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

355

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the outcome of that --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I'm 

3 not saying you're going to change your 

4 position. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, Mark, this is 

6 Brad. I'm on the phone --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Don't even ask, 

8 Brad.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- and I've 

10 caught bits and pieces of it. So, what's our 

11 path forward? I heard a little bit of Brant 

12 and Scott's path forward on it.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Brant is 

14 going to -- Brant is going to work with Scott 

15 and reassess with the protocols in place at 

16 the time for this case. At the time when we 

17 reviewed this case, I should say, because it's 

18 gone through changes since then.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, so this 

20 item will still remain --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

356

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This remains a 

2 NIOSH action, yes.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on, I'm 

5 just documenting this. Let's skip through. 

6 We might be through with 153. 153.7, we still 

7 have something here. Okay, let's do that one, 

8 and then I think we're almost done here, and 

9 we can wrap up after this.

10 MR. FARVER: Same issue, neutron 

11 dose.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, it is? 

13 Okay. 

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, same thing.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just 

16 document that. 

17 DR. ULSH: Wait, is that one that 

18 Scott and I need to talk to in the same 

19 context?

20 MR. STIVER: It's the same issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

357

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. ULSH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because this is 

3 the missed neutron versus the -- yes. 153.8 I 

4 closed out based on Kathy's earlier 

5 explanation. I think we should probably stand 

6 now at this point, 154. I did -- I did make a 

7 change on 155.7, if you're documenting stuff 

8 for the one that Kathy raised, the chooser 

9 versus TIB-54, and I closed that out. But 

10 we'll pick back up on -- I'll leave off at 

11 154, since it's late in the day.

12 Before we close out the meeting 

13 though, let's -- maybe we can talk about 

14 schedule a little. Now, I don't know. I mean 

15 it's mid-July. It seems obvious that we're 

16 not going to get progress before the Board 

17 meeting in August. But perhaps --

18 MR. KATZ: We could pick a date.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The end of 

20 September? The end of September?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

358

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, I would go ahead 

2 and pick a date in part because --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I would ask 

4 that not only as far as these actions, I mean 

5 we talk about these actions, but still 

6 outstanding is matrix 9 and -- you know. I 

7 think 9 we've started deliberating on.

8 MR. KATZ: Started. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But 10, I think 

10 15 through 15 -- or 10 through 14, I don't 

11 know how far SC&A is. Are you through 14 yet?

12 MR. KATZ: They're finishing on 

13 14.

14 MR. FARVER: About halfway through 

15 14.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, 10 

17 through 13 anyway we have no response.

18 MR. FARVER: We've finished up 

19 with conference calls.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so 10 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

359

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 through 12 are sort of at NIOSH to work on 

2 initial response. Is that right?

3 DR. ULSH: But I kind of earlier

4 got the sense of the committee, or at least my 

5 sense, that the highest priority items should 

be the old ones, 7th and 8th 6 . Finish those 

7 off.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we want to 

9 close these out now, but then we do want to 

10 get to these newer ones because they're more 

11 relevant to what's happening now. So, we want 

12 to kind of catch up, I think. 

13 Yes, so just to -- all I wanted to 

14 say was that just because we only mentioned a 

15 few actions today for NIOSH, there's still 

16 that backlog of work for the other sets that 

17 you can certainly be continuing on.

DR. ULSH: Have we finished up 7th 18

and 8th 19 ?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There might 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

360

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 also be a lot of low hanging fruit on those 

2 other ones that you can move quicker on. I 

3 don't know. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: In fact, we should 

5 look at 10 through 12 for AWE claims on our 

6 side, for people on our side and get some 

7 responses back on that. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there might 

9 be some way to at least keep those rolling a 

10 little bit. Let's look at a date in 

11 September. Anybody -- David Richardson is not 

12 on the phone anymore, is he?

13 MR. KATZ: No, David --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we don't 

15 have John, but we can at least get --

16 MR. KATZ: Let's go grab a date 

17 anyway, and then I'll send that out to 

18 everyone to confirm that they can make it.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds good. 

20 MR. KATZ: We'll schedule 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

361

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Procedures, but we're waiting on scheduling 

2 TBD-6000 to schedule that. So, if we look 

beyond the 21st 3 , we're sort of out of the 

4 danger zone of --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Beyond 

September 21st 6 ?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, yes. September, 

8 yes. We were saying late September anyway. 

9 So, like that last week of September, for 

10 example.

MR. STIVER: Is it the 27th 11 ?

MR. KATZ: Yes, 27th, 28th, 29th 12 . 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Getting close.

14 MR. KATZ: It's close to the 

15 fiscal year, but as long as we do our travel 

16 now, we're fine.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 29th or 30th 17 I 

18 would prefer. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I can do it the 

29th, but I can't 30th 20 . This is Brad. I can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

362

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do it any time the 26th through the 29th 1 . 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just --

3 I am presenting at a conference in Washington. 

4 I think it's the week before, but I -- I 

5 don't have it on my calendar. So, I think the 

29th 6 works. Anyone else on the phone that --

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, so let's do --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda, the 29th 8 ?

9 MR. KATZ: Twenty-ninth is the 

10 first choice?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. KATZ: And the 28th 12 , would that 

13 at all -- is that the wrong day of the week?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It's kind 

15 of breaking up too much.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, so let's shoot 

for the 29th 17 . I'll send an email out to the 

18 other Members, and if that works, that'll be 

19 it. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

363

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Otherwise, we can go iteratively on the 

2 emails. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: And so, if you can 

4 put Procedures on either side of that.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, okay. We were 

6 looking for the prior week on Procedures, 

7 though. But we could try to sister them up.

8 MEMBER MUNN: It'd be really nice.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I will shoot 

10 for that then as well. I'll have to send an 

11 email on that one too, but I can do that now 

12 because it's not going to get -- that's not 

13 going to be any trouble with TBD-6000.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, then I 

15 think that's it for now. I will generate a 

16 memo on that first item we discussed on the 

17 ten-year review stuff, and circulate it to 

18 everyone. I mean when I send it to you guys, 

19 I'm sending it to you two. 

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, copy me to --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

364

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And Ted.

2 MR. KATZ: -- cover anyone that 

3 you might miss. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And John. Yes, 

5 yes. So, I'll generate that in a couple 

6 weeks.

7 MR. KATZ: And send the revised 

8 matrices?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to do 

10 that right now.

11 MR. KATZ: Send them to me, and 

12 I'll get them out to everybody again.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, because 

14 that works good for me. Then I don't forget 

15 about it.

16 MR. KATZ: And we are adjourned?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Meeting 

18 adjourned.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 4:37 p.m.) 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at 

this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

365

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16