NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 + + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION 

 AND WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 

 + + + + + 

 THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 The meeting convened at 9:30 a.m. in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

Hotel, Hebron, Kentucky, Mark Griffon, 

Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member* 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member* 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

 Official 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor* 

HANS BEHLING, SC&A* 

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A* 

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU* 

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A* 

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A* 

DOUG FARVER, SC&A 

STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

ELIZABETH HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS* 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

ROY LLOYD, HHS* 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

SCOTT SIEBERT, NIOSH 

*Participating via telephone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Call to order by Mr. Katz................... 4 

Discussion of sixth set of 

individual cases........................... 88 

Discussion of seventh set of 

individual cases........................... 88 

Discussion of eighth set of 

individual cases.......................... 285 

Adjournment by Chairman Griffon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 9:28 a.m. 

 MR. KATZ: So this is Ted Katz with 

the Advisory Board of Radiation Worker Health. 

 This is a Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

Review, and let me just check in with the 

phone first to see if we have board members on 

the phone. 

 MS. ADAMS: Ted, this is Nancy. 

I'm not a board member, but we can hear you. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, great. Hi, Nancy. 

 Wanda, do we have you? 

 (No response.) 

 How about Mike Gibson? 

 (No response.) 

 And how about John Poston? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we need to 

wait? 

 MR. KATZ: Clean slate -- a couple 

of minutes then. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, wait or try 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to contact them. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes -- so we're going to 

wait until it's actually half past. 

 Nancy? 

 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you try to, I guess, 

email or call -- I mean, I know Mike knows 

this is going on and he's going to try to call 

him, but I haven't heard from Poston or Wanda. 

 Can you just check in with them? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Ted, I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, Mike, welcome. 

 MS. BURGOS: Ted, this is Zaida. 

Wanda should be there. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Oh, she should be 

here physically. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda should be here 

physically. Oh, okay. Well, we haven't seen 

her yet, what? So you traveled there? 

 MS. BURGOS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's good to 

know. And then do you know about John Poston, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Dr. Poston? 

 MS. BURGOS: No. He didn't have 

travel orders. 

 MR. KATZ: He didn't have travel, 

so he is calling in. So it sounds like, 

Nancy, you just need to get a hold of Dr. 

Poston. 

 MS. BURGOS: I'll try. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

 MS. ADAMS: Thanks, Zaida. 

 MS. BURGOS: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Should we -- maybe 

Wanda thought it was 10 a.m. Is there a 

possibility? 

 MR. KATZ: She might have. I can 

go -- let me go try to find her. 

 Okay, so this is Ted Katz again and 

Wanda's going to be calling in, and let's get 

roll call done here and get rolling. 

 So starting in the room with -- 

with board members. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON; Mark Griffon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

chairing the subcommittee. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the phone we have 

board members? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and still no Dr. 

Poston. And Wanda said she would be calling 

in shortly, for a little bit at least. 

 Then going around the room, NIOSH 

team? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 

NIOSH. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

Team. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone do 

we have NIOSH ORAU? 

 Okay, and then in the room SC&A? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, 

SC&A any? 

 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

 MR. BUCHANAN: Ron Buchanan, SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, all of you. 

And then other federal employees, HHS, et 

cetera, in the room? 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line? 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor. 

 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Roy. Okay, 

then we're all set. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have your 

normal introductory comments? 

 MR. KATZ: Well, we just -- we have 

a very small group on the phone here, and they 

know the routine. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I have a -

- and I just did this on the plane so it's not 

like I was withholding an agenda, but I think 

we all basically know what the agenda is. 

 The one item that I did want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

discuss up front, which -- which might not be 

obvious, is this question of the DR 

guidelines. 

 Stu, we had some e-mail -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- back and 

forth about this, but that's -- I just want to 

sort of do that as old business. Then I was 

going to try to go into the sixth and seventh 

set, and we're down to a fairly limited number 

on both of the sets, but I'm not sure, because 

we got responses late from both SC&A and NIOSH 

that we're going to be able to close all of 

them out, but at least we can kind of get an 

update on where we stand. 

 Hopefully, we've at least got 

responses on all the actions, so we can step 

through those. That shouldn't take too long. 

 And then I'd like to pick up where we left 

off on these. I don't think we even got 

halfway through. I think Doug -- I said 

halfway, but Doug said probably not even 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

halfway. 

 So, anyway, we can pick up on the 

eighth set matrix then continue. This is our 

first pass through on that matrix, just to 

remind those on the phone. 

 Then bring us up to lunch with 

that, and then right after lunch -- and this 

is probably an important thing for the 

subcommittee, I'd like to -- I -- I redrafted 

a version of the first hundred cases report, 

and we did say at the last board meeting that 

we took this assignment back and -- and our 

goal is to come back to the board with a 

revised version of this. 

 I didn't get any comments from 

other members, but I did try to put an 

executive summary up front. I was reading 

through it again on the plane. I have some -- 

I have some edits to make. What I'm going to 

do is during the lunch break modify my own 

copy and then print it off here, and we'll get 

e-mails to those on the phone. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The report's basically -- the body 

of the report remains the same. It's just 

there's a front end now that has sort of an 

executive summary and we, you know, that -- 

that whole thing is open for discussion, 

obviously, but I just wanted to get something 

on the table so we can get some reaction from 

the -- from the members. And if we get 

consensus that would be great and we can bring 

it back to the board. 

 So that's -- I thought that would 

be good to take up right after lunch when 

we're fresh, and then we can go back into our 

normal eighth matrix and go as long as we can, 

probably 4:30, five, I think we need to break. 

 You know, that's what we've always done in 

these meetings; that's about as long as we can 

last on this stuff, so -- 

 Oh, one other item I skipped. 

After the hundred case report, the selection 

criteria -- we need to revisit the selection 

criteria and -- and also give a report back to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the full board of whether we want to keep it 

the same, revise it in any way, so we need to 

discuss that. 

 So those two items first thing 

after lunch, I think, is the most appropriate 

for that. So are there any other items that 

we need on the agenda first of all? I'll open 

that up to -- I think that covers it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Mark, this is Wanda. 

 I'm -- I'm coming late to the party, but I 

wanted you to be aware of the fact that I will 

not be on the call at all this afternoon and 

only briefly this morning. I have to fly 

across the country today. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're flying 

out, yes. Oh, boy. All right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Whatever you're going 

to do in the afternoon, I will not have an 

opportunity to see until about 11:00 tonight. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What -- what 

time can you be on until this morning, Wanda, 

just so I have a sense, because I may try to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get this -- this first hundred cases moved up, 

because I really need your input on that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I can be on for a 

couple of hours, Mark -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- and probably -- 

shortly after -- I don't know what time you 

anticipate taking a break, but probably 

shortly after your first break I'm going to 

have to leave you because I have to -- I have 

not yet packed. I was going to do that this 

morning because I was aware that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda, I have to 

say I'm a little offended that you forgot 

about me. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The reason I forgot 

is because I very frankly just did not put it 

on my calendar, knowing I was going to be 

traveling. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know, I know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And I -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we all -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we've got so much going on, too, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's just too 

much happening. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. What 

I think I'm going to discuss this first topic, 

the DR guidelines, and then I'm a little 

reluctant to e-mail this version out, but for 

the sake of discussion maybe I'll just e-mail 

what I have from last night. 

 I -- I -- I edited this first 

hundred case report last night, and then when 

I was looking at it on the plane I found some 

areas where I thought the language needed to 

be massaged, so to speak, but for the sake of 

moving the discussion along, maybe I'll just 

send you the version I have and then we can 

discuss these DR guideline thing, take a quick 

break, and we'll get copies of that made, if 

that's okay, Ted -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and we'll 

move that up on the agenda and, hopefully, at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

least have some of your thoughts on that, 

Wanda. I really, you know -- because we 

really want to try to get this moved along in 

the board meeting. 

 Is that okay, Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we certainly do, 

and that's the reason I mentioned it 

immediately because -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- I have much 

appreciation for putting together the format 

that we had discussed at considerable length 

and that I feel is an excellent time for us to 

do it, if we can do it now. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. And 

just understand when you receive it that it's 

pretty raw, so don't get offended right away. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I won't. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Not to worry. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, just let 

me get through this one item first of all, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this is a -- this came up -- I e-mailed Stu, I 

believe, a couple of weeks ago -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and it was -- 

it was just as I was doing the eleventh set 

cases with -- Brad and I are a team, and we 

were on the phone and looking at our cases for 

the eleventh set, I just asked the question of 

SC&A. 

 I don't see any DR guidelines in 

these cases. Have you come across them yet? 

And they basically said that not to their 

knowledge. They don't remember seeing any in 

the cases they've looked at, so that's when I 

e-mailed Stu asking about these, and I thought 

that -- that we had. I haven't really looked 

at the transcripts and all that, but I thought 

we had a commitment that NIOSH going forward 

was going to include those -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You know, we 

sort of debated the retrospective; it would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just too difficult -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- but going 

forward I thought we were going to be included 

because -- and -- and let me just say -- I 

mean, the reason I think they're -- they're 

fruitful is not only for SC&A and for the 

subcommittee, you know, in terms of their 

audit, but by extension I think that would be 

important for the public because we can do a 

better job with our audit, and we can do a 

more complete, you know, review. 

 You know, it's just this -- we've 

come across these cases where the procedures -

- and rightly so in some cases, they cannot be 

prescriptive, but then you supplement some of 

those with these guidelines that sort of 

direct the dose reconstructor in these kind of 

 situations do this, in these kinds of 

situations, you know -- 

 So, we -- we -- I thought we had a 

commitment that going forward those would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

added, and that would help us understand 

whether the dose reconstructor was actually 

falling in the correct guidelines of, you know 

-- and it doesn't seem to be happening -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's not 

happening. 

 Well, my recollection of the 

commitment was to find out how difficult would 

it be for the contractor to do, and, frankly, 

I'm still -- you know, I had to remind the 

contractor how difficult would it be. I mean, 

I heard about, well, it's doable. You know, 

we could probably do that, but I don't know -- 

now, Scott, if I'm incorrect. You do a lot 

more dose reconstructions than Jim Griffin, 

and Jim Griffin's the one I've been talking 

to. 

 So, I'd be really interested in 

your thoughts on this. 

 There are some complications here 

because I would -- now, if I say something 

wrong just say it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm pretty 

confident there are some dose reconstructions 

that are done without referring them to 

something like -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Most -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- most are doing 

without referring -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- without 

referring to one of these supplemental 

guidelines. 

 So being able to check on whether 

everything is there that should be there 

becomes a more difficult task for everybody. 

So when you get -- in other words you get a 

claim and there is no guide associated with 

it, it will be difficult to decide, maybe -- 

might be difficult to decide whether it was 

mistakenly omitted or whether there's just 

none in use. So that's one thing that would 

be somewhat difficult. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask just a 

question there? 

 If you have a Hanford case -- like 

I know there is some cites that you don't even 

have guidelines for necessarily, right? But 

if you have some of the ones that have the 

guideline, would it be fair to assume that -- 

that those claims may always -- or will always 

turn to -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, not, 

because the background on these were 

originally the technical basis documents, as 

you guys know from reviewing them, could be 

very complicated and convoluted, to be 

specific as to what you need to do from a dose 

reconstruction point of view. 

 So originally we had put together 

these to kind of get to the very specific 

points of dose reconstruction as to what's in 

the TBD, and then also list that if there are 

additional things that may not have made into 

the TBD yet that were waiting -- getting into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the TBD, have that direction there, as well. 

 When we went back and looked at 

these, and I've had my dose reconstructors, 

the site leads, and look at them the last 

couple of weeks. Most of what was in there 

actually is already in the TBD, is in 

procedure -- or OTIB 60 for internal, is in 

the external. There's other referenceable 

places for it. It was just put together in a 

way that made the TBDs easier to use. 

 When we looked back at those, 

actually a lot of them we've suspended using, 

because once a dose -- and this is what I'm 

saying -- once a dose reconstructor knows what 

they're doing and knows the TBD well, they 

don't have to refer back to these guidelines 

because they already know what they're doing, 

and they know where they can find it in the 

TBD, okay? 

 So a lot of these actually are 

being removed, because when we pulled the 

string on all the pieces parts, they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

already referenced somewhere else. So they're 

actually getting very small. Some went away, 

and there's some others that there are small 

things that maybe haven't gotten into the TBD 

yet that we have methods to cover holes. 

Those are the only things that can be left in 

these dose reconstruction guidelines. 

 Does that make sense? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, what I 

saw and the few that I looked at, draft ones, 

from a long time ago -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- but from what 

I saw it looked like it had more of the 

assistance with the areas I would call like 

professional judgment, like, you know, for in 

this situation assume this solubility, or you 

had some if-then logic, too. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, yes, and - 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you have this 

then you use this. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And almost all of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that -- most of that was actually internal, if 

I remember correctly -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, a lot of it 

was internal, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- and most of that 

was over -- was taken over by when we put OTIB 

60 in place. OTIB 60 has a lot of that 

directive, decision-making process in it 

already. 

 And that's what I'm saying. When 

we pulled the string and looked at other 

references, most of the direction was already 

in other places, so we determined -- and I 

quizzed dose reconstructors to find out if 

they're actually referring back to them, and 

they are not, because they already know what's 

in them, and they're referenceable in other 

places. 

 Does that kind of make sense? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But -- so if you 

had to guess now what -- how often are they 

used, five percent of the cases, one percent? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: I -- wow, that's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hard to say? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's really 

hard to say, but I'd say a relatively small 

percent. I mean, 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, now Scott, 

let's have a conversation, because I am 

sympathetic, because, you know, I don't really 

read those reconstructions anymore, but when I 

did it could be very daunting to kind of 

follow the logic of why the DR, so I 

understand -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so I understand 

-- I understand the interest in happenings. 

 For a dose reconstructor who's 

doing a dose reconstruction, if he -- well, if 

he refers to one of these things, then he's 

got it handy and it would be fairly simple, I 

guess, for him to copy it and goes like a 

supporting documents -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So if you get it 

that would be fairly simple. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are going to 

be other situations which are apparently going 

to be much more common now where the dose 

reconstructor knows what it says and doesn't 

look at it. I mean, it may still be there. 

It may not be cancelled, and even if it were 

cancelled it would potentially be in an 

archive somewhere. 

 So to then -- if we were going to 

include the thing -- the guide for that case, 

you're asking this person to spend the 

additional time to locate it, you know, pull 

it up, copy it, which doesn't sound like a 

lot, but can turn into a lot. It can turn 

into cumulatively a pretty significant 

investment, particularly when we are 

constantly on our contractor to provide more 

production. 

 So I'm a little -- I'm a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hesitant to just say no matter what the 

situation, if you've got one, grab it and put 

in there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, the other 

-- the other -- and this was in the -- I'm not 

sure who -- I don't think you sent this to the 

whole subcommittee -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I responded to 

you and copied -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- because the 

other part of your response to me was that, 

you know, and this would be fine, but I feel 

like I'm -- I feel like I just got in a time 

machine and went back two years -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- because you 

said that we could provide them for the cases, 

if we have issues about a certain case that 

we're reviewing, then you may be able to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did I say that? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I thought 

you did, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: That surprises me. I 

don't believe we kept those historically. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I thought 

that was the original problem was that you 

couldn't do those historically. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't think 

they're kept historically. 

 MR. SIEBERT: They're not. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I was 

confused when I saw that in your response. 

 MR. SIEBERT: They're not 

controlled documents under the project -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you wouldn't 

have dated versions and stuff like that. 

Right, right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Exactly. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because if that, 

you know, if that were available then we 

wouldn't be here right now. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, you could 

always reference -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just pull the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ones we needed and then SC&A could, you know -

- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So then even -- 

I agree with you, Stu, if they're not -- if 

they're so familiar with them that they're not 

really referencing them or they're in some -- 

referenced in some other way -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- or they could 

be part of the workbooks now or whatever. 

They don't use them, you know, but it would 

certainly be helpful from the audit standpoint 

if we have, you know -- 

 And I'm not sure how much of a 

burden it would be going forward to add a 

file. I know it's many cases, but -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if they pull 

it open and it's open, I mean, they're using 

it. That's clearly that could be done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I mean, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can send that direction here at the break to 

ORAU, and it will take them a while to 

implement it, but it will be done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Apparently, that 

will catch very few of these dose 

reconstructions. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm interested 

about the things that are being retired, since 

you say you don't keep them historically. 

Could you keep them for a while? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we can. If we 

can track them all down. We didn't -- see, 

the site experts were basically in charge of 

keeping those up to date -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- and they were 

basically writing over them as they went over 

them. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean, by a 

version -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm amazed that 

in this day and age that we didn't keep revs 

of things, but -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again, 

they weren't referenceable, controlled 

documents, and it was -- it was much easier to 

do that for small issues that haven't gotten 

into TBD yet, and then once it got in the TBD 

you can remove it and things like that, rather 

than going through the whole controlled 

document process, which does take a while. 

 DR. MAURO: From a practical 

standpoint, from SC&A's side, when I budget, I 

make certain assumptions, and this -- one of 

my concerns is that do we run into 

circumstances where all of a sudden we're 

spending days trying to figure out what was 

done, because I know in my experience once I 

figure out what was done, it's done. Because 

then I'd know whether or not there are 

problems or not. 

 The hard part is figuring out what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was done, and in my mind it shouldn't be that 

hard to figure out. You should be able to 

read the document, then do our calculations 

and match your numbers. Okay, I know what 

you've done. 

 But I find myself caught up -- now, 

I guess I have a question to the work group. 

I know that we don't do this, but would there 

be a problem with our auditor calling up the 

originator and saying listen I don't 

understand what you did here. And it may -- 

you know, just so that we could get through 

this thing. 

 If it's very much a living process 

the way you describe it -- not always, but in 

some cases it's not trackable, simple as that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's -- that's 

deja vu to me, too -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I did say 

that -- 

 DR. MAURO: No, we probably had 

this conversation. No, we haven't done that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We haven't done that because we're auditors, 

and I think that we're probably not supposed 

to do that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: John, can you get a 

little closer to the mike? 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Also, I think 

that NIOSH had some concern about you going 

directly to all staff -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, is this one of 

these? Okay, Wanda, could you hear me a 

little better now? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, thank you, that's 

so much better. 

 DR. MAURO: All I did, I probably 

brought this up two years ago, but what I was 

saying is that sometimes it takes us a long 

time during our audits to figure out what was 

done, because before we could say anything 

constructive or whatever, we have to basically 

reproduce their numbers and say, okay, I see 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what they did. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes, I recall 

that discussion. 

 DR. MAURO: Right, and I know that 

it sounds like that institutionally, to be 

able to put down the complete paper trail, 

either in the DR or reference of documents, 

and it sounds like it's not always there, 

because there are times when something may 

have been retired and a person may have used a 

technique and that doesn't even exist anymore, 

the method that was used and the assumptions 

that were used in 2005. 

 The question I have in order to 

make life easier for us, if we could call the 

author in 10 minutes we might be able to 

straighten this out, rather than spending a 

day or two trying to figure it out, and 

perhaps never figuring it out, and coming out 

with a comment that says we can't figure it 

out. 

 You know, that's not very helpful. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now the only problem is -- is -- does that 

break the barrier that you're looking to hold 

between the auditor and the authors. In my 

mind, it would certainly help me to get my 

costs down by being able to make that phone 

call, but I'd have to take guidance from the -

- from the work group. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, and I would 

also want to talk to Larry. Personally, I 

don't see a particular problem, personally. 

 If we want to call this an audit, 

which we kind of resist, but if this is an 

audit in every audit I've ever had when I was 

in a different job I spoke to the auditor. 

You know, they come and there's a meeting and 

there's conversation, and the auditor attempts 

to obtain the best understanding -- well, you 

would like for the auditor to have the best 

understanding of what's being done. 

 So before I commit to that -- see, 

we have what -- over a hundred probably, maybe 

not quite that many anymore -- not anymore. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We have a lot of people who do dose 

reconstructions all over the place. Of 

course, we can just tell you where they are so 

you know what time zone to call in, but I'm 

not sure about their phone availability. And 

if you called them about a claim, they did 

that claim maybe long ago -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A long time ago. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- maybe long ago. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So the phone call 

in getting some immediacy may not work. A 

question and answer process -- but, of course, 

that's going to build into the delay because 

you're going to have to, you know, if we'll 

have a point of contact for the questions -- 

it might be a contractor point of contact. It 

doesn't necessarily have to be a federal point 

of contact. 

 You know, somebody that, you know, 

 this is the DRist on this and here's my 

question, that kind of stuff -- or can they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

call and we could eventually have a phone 

call, but then the DRist would, you know, get 

that quickly and they would have to refresh 

their memory with that specific dose 

reconstruction. 

 And at that point then you could 

have a useful conversation at a point when you 

could both have a conversation. So then your 

auditor has to -- you know, you have to 

schedule a conversation so you can both have 

the case fresh in your mind, rather than just 

call anybody out of the blue. 

 I mean, there's a process there 

that probably I think that could work. And 

like I said it's not -- this is not ORAU 

policy saying it could work -- or OCAS policy 

saying this, because I really kind of need to 

get some feedback back in the office on it. 

 DR. MAURO: But remember what 

happens. Then it happens on the back end of 

the process. One way or the other that's 

going to happen. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You're right, after 

it's written down then it's going to happen. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: We're getting into 

this. You talk about deja vu because coming 

back to this part of the issue we got into was 

you could not reconstruct what they did, and 

what I've heard so many times coming back into 

this is we don't know what they use. 

 So then we bring it up, and, oh, 

they use this process to be able to do it. 

Okay, so we'll go back and use that one. No, 

that one no longer exists. That has been 

moved to this one, and now -- actually, that 

one doesn't even -- we've moved to this one, 

and this is our issue is we're -- we're 

shooting all over the place, and for an 

auditor to be able to come in and perform 

this, we have -- we have no idea what was 

used. 

 And so it comes back with the 

comments that they do with it. We can't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

figure it, you know -- what -- how did they 

use this or what did they use. And as you've 

said there's many different revs that have 

come down through the line or is now they've 

been moved over to 60 or 66, something like 

that. 

 I think we're right back to where 

we were at several years -- and one of the 

things is that we've got to be able to figure 

out how we can take and reconstruct this for 

them somehow, and they've got to know the 

guidelines that were used, bottom line. 

Because somehow they've got to know how did 

they reach this and why -- this has got to be 

referenced somehow. 

 DR. MAURO: As sort of stepping out 

the picture and just thinking about the 

process we're in, I think there's two levels 

of concern. One as auditor, we'd like to be 

able to efficiently move through the process. 

 In the end, that one percent -- right now 

we're doing about one percent of the cases, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you know -- so that one percent eventually we 

get to, and we all sit around the table. 

We'll have an issue. We can't figure this 

out, and it triggers the process. 

 You bring people in, you work on 

it, you call in your people, and eventually we 

figure out what was going on. So that time is 

going to be spent. Either it's going to be 

spent in the beginning, or it's going to be 

spent in the end. That's one level, and 

that's not that important. I'll tell you why 

I say that. 

 I think what's more important is I 

think there's an obligation is to have a 

tractable dose that is transparent to any 

experience health physicist that is interested 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- not just the 

auditors -- not just the auditors, but you've 

got a document that basically a fundamental 

decision document on, you know, compensation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

versus not, and if there's not sufficient 

weight to how you got there, I think that's a 

problem. I think that's a quality assurance 

problem. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: So I would say that I’m 

-- in the grand scheme of things that's really 

where the essence of the problem is. You have 

to have a paper trail that is bullet proof. 

Whether the number's right or wrong, good or 

bad, bad assumptions, good assumptions, 

terrific assumptions, that's really not the 

issue. 

 The issue is it has to be there so 

someone can go back and say, yes -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's kind of 

what I'm getting at -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- is the show 

your work notion -- 

 DR. MAURO: Show your work, 

essentially. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- show your 

work, and in 10 years, 15 years someone should 

be able to go back to that case file and say, 

okay, I see exactly what they did, you know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there's a 

lot of merit to that point. 

 MR. FARVER: Now, some of the dose 

reconstructions you have different versions 

to. I'm looking at the one from Los Alamos, 

and it's got -- the first page is a revision 

summary. It's got the dates -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the DR 

guidelines? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this a dose 

reconstruction? 

 MR. FARVER: This is a DR guideline 

for LANL. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: And it gives the 

description of the changes, and that goes on 

for a page or so, and then it starts into the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

guideline. So I guess some of them are -- 

describe the versions and what changes were 

made. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I think 

Scott's right, they weren't controlled 

documents so it wasn't -- 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- consistently 

kept or whatever. 

 MR. FARVER: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It would depend on 

who was keeping them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I agree with 

John though. We've still got to be able to 

look at this as a paper trail, you know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I mean, I 

 think going forward, if -- if they're used, I 

guess the question is we can't expect that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they'll be in every case, but we should expect 

to see some of them, you know, and if they're 

used they should be included in the file, is 

my opinion. 

 And I actually thought going 

forward that we had a -- you may be right, 

Stu. It wasn't a strong commitment. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I really don't 

remember. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I do 

remember specifically NIOSH pushing back on me 

on the question of going back. That's why 

your e-mail confused me a little bit. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, I don't 

know why -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought you 

couldn't do that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, you know, 

excepting that you can't really go back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because they're not archived, at least going 

forward I think we should, you know, commit to 

-- if they're using the guidelines -- 

 I mean, I would even go further 

than that. I think that, and others can weigh 

 in on this, but I think if the guideline -- 

if there are dose reconstruction guidelines 

for a given site at the time when they're 

doing a dose reconstruction, it should be 

included in the file, because -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it could 

be that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- because -- 

because from our audit standpoint, you know, 

they may be very familiar with these changes 

and everything, but the auditors not, and for 

that archived record I think it's very 

important that it's there and it spells out 

exactly how they were approaching it at that 

time -- at that, you know, point in time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, that could 

be a matter that could be automatic -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whether you look 

or not. I mean, that actually -- if there's -

- if you've got -- if you're working on, you 

know, you have a site leads. You know, Scott 

referred to site leads -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which were 

senior dose reconstructors, you kind of are 

the expert on, you know, Paducah, for 

instance, just to make one up. 

 And so maybe just as a -- and then 

so you have dose reconstructors who are -- who 

do Paducah cases and they do a handful of 

sites. 

 So just as a matter of course, know 

if I'm doing a Paducah case I'm going to pull 

out if there's a Paducah guideline, I'm going 

to put it in there, whether I use it or not -- 

whether it's even relevant to the case or not. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

actually an easier thing to do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's just grab it 

and put it in. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

thought I was asking for last time, and I 

thought -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you might 

have -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway, I'd -- I 

would -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will -- I will 

pursue that with contractor, and I'll say I 

would like you to do this unless this is going 

to be really hard. Tell me why it's going to 

be really hard. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Can we 

get a firm answer, up or down, in the May 

meeting? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I should think I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be able to e-mail it to you before May. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

because I want to be able to report back on 

that at the meeting. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

guess we'll -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I apologize, 

but I didn't get this resolved earlier and we 

had different understanding where we were on 

it. I'm really sorry about that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll -- we'll 

leave it at that, and I think, Wanda, we'll 

take like an early break now. I know we're 

not really ready for a break, but I need about 

10 minutes -- maybe 10 or 15 minutes. We've 

got to get copies of this report, and we'll email you a version of the report and this 

first hundred cases report. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. I really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

appreciate that, Mark. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we'll move 

that up on the agenda, because I really want 

to -- I think we need your comments on this, 

so we'll get that out in a few minutes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'll go get a bowl of 

Wheaties. Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Have we gained John 

Poston or Bob Presley? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, can 

we -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm going to put 

the line on mute for 10 minutes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Very good, thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Bye, bye. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 10:07 a.m., and 

resumed at 10:28 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda and Mike and all, 

we're back on line. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Hi. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Are you about ready? 

Have you gotten through the -- skimming it, at 

least? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's really 

-- Wanda and Mike, it's really that first page 

that -- really that first page that was 

changed. That should be the focus, I think, 

unless we decide that we don't want, you know, 

have the whole -- I mean, the body of the 

report we reviewed before, and sort of -- that 

was what we brought to the board previously. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we've seen this 

-- the material -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- the first part 

that is of interest. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And I have a severe 

problem reading material like this, simply 

because my -- my overwhelming desire to 

wordsmith things. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. Well, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that was my severe concern about e-mailing it 

this way, but you know -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's very rough, 

and if we can just sort of talk -- I guess the 

major points made instead of -- and we can 

wordsmith later, or maybe you can send me 

wordsmith stuff -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think that's -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- yes, because 

I know it's rough on the wordsmith side. 

Believe me, I was fading off at about 10 

finishing this last night, so I had to get up 

for my 3:45 alarm, too. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's not fun. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway, so, you 

know, what I tried to do was to more or less 

condense some of this down, but also be 

attentive to, you know, what came out of these 

first 100 cases, you know, and so the 

introductory part sort of mirrors the -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

actual Section I where you have the case 

review methodology. 

 I mean, I had to give some context 

to the front end, and then I just tried to 

outline the primary findings. In the last 

paragraph I note that these are, you know, 

more detailed in the full body of the report. 

 But then I -- I mean, I tried to 

also indicate that in the last paragraph at 

the bottom of the first page anyway that -- 

and I believe this to be true that, you know, 

some -- some results of this include, you 

know, modifications, and maybe we want to say 

 in part. I don't think it's totally because 

of the audit, but in part this audit resulted 

in the DR -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Had an impact in our 

final report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, has 

impacted or -- so the wordsmithing we can -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- we can fool 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

around with, but has impacted the DR final 

report, the modification of the phone 

interview and questionnaire, and revision of 

several -- and I didn't get into all the 

specific procedures, but I think TIB eight and 

10 come to mind, you know, some of the early 

TIBs that came up on a number of findings, I 

think, you know, so we -- we had some impact 

in that way. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But then what is most 

preferable in an administrative summary of 

this type is not that type of detail anyhow. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

I guess what I saw a note in -- I think it was 

one of Paul's comments during the board 

meeting was part of this -- you should have, 

you know, sort of implications but also where 

from here, and I wasn't sure -- I don't think 

I bridged that gap like sort of where from 

here, you know, other than to say that my last 

paragraph I was trying to get in that last 

paragraph that we -- and I was going to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

although often tedious, but we think the 

process is effective. I mean, that this 

resolution process it takes -- it does take 

time, but it has, in my opinion anyway, been 

effective to have the board with the 

contractor at the table and just hammer these 

things out. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it takes time, 

and it is difficult, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right, 

right, right. 

 And it has been effective, but not 

only, you know, sort of to what end. Well, to 

what end is some of those things that we have 

impacted and have been revised and overall 

made improvements in the program that way, I 

think. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this -- this 

level of detail in reviewing selective cases 

is difficult and time-consuming, but I think 

the sense of what you're saying in the last 

paragraph is correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, the 

other -- the other, you know -- I guess the 

open question is, you know, am I missing the 

mark on some things. Do you want to add some 

things in? 

 We could -- we could certainly have 

friendly amendments offered when we bring this 

to the board, like if you decide, Wanda, that 

there is a better last paragraph, and 

certainly any wordsmithing I would see as 

friendly amendments, you know, because it 

needs -- it definitely needs some of that. 

 But is there any big points that 

you think should have been included -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, you know the 

discussion we were having just before you 

broke to send this material out has a direct 

bearing on what we're saying here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and that's 

number two in my thing, yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes, and that's 

what I'm looking at and -- and thinking how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

much is reasonable and how much is really 

necessary for truly adequate audits. And 

unless you resolve that without my brain 

assimilating it we still haven't reached that 

point. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'm not 

sure we've gotten to the how much, but I think 

we did -- at least my opinion is that in the 

first 100 cases we -- and especially in the -- 

if I'm not wrong I think it was the fifth set, 

where we got into some of those best estimate 

cases where we really -- at least I was 

saying, geez, it would be nice to have those 

guidelines in these cases, because I think 

there were a number of Savannah River one and 

a couple of Hanford ones where -- and this was 

early enough on, maybe, that the TBDs weren't 

completed, or TIB 60 wasn't out there, or 

whatever, and we were trying to read in 

between the lines of what assumptions the DR -

- the dose reconstructor made at the time, and 

that became very difficult from an audit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

standpoint. It wasn't a good trail there for 

us to latch onto. 

 But I think in this report I left -

- I guess my purpose there was, you know, no, 

I'm not going to get real specific because I 

don't think even at this point, you know, 

we're at a point where we can be real 

specific. I think we still have to resolve 

some of that on, you know, on what can be 

expected and what -- I think the notion that I 

want to be out there was that -- that showing 

more of that work and the, you know, those 

guidelines that got them there would have made 

it -- would have greatly improved the audit 

process from our standpoint. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the method 

-- and this really isn't my issue. It's not 

my product, but I think the message might be 

more as, kind of like John phrased it, the 

record should have a clear path, to use that 

language -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, the dose 

reconstruction file should leave, you know -- 

it should be unambiguous about what was done 

to arrive at this decision, and to the extent 

that you could put some of these details in as 

examples might capture the flavor because 

that's certainly is going to ring true with 

everyone -- you know, everybody who reads, 

write and associates with this program will 

agree -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it should be an 

unambiguous description of how you arrived at 

the decision. And so I think maybe something 

like that -- and it solves the dilemma of is 

it really going to be worth it? Is it going 

to work? Is it going to do this? Is it going 

to take that form or this form? 

 I think that might be option -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just wrote 

down that phrase because I like that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will stop my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wordsmithing at this point, I promise. 

 DR. MAURO: I mean, that's the 

essence of what we're talking about. The key 

word is transparency. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I'll 

consider modifying number two for that. And 

back to what John said earlier, if you notice 

the last part of number two. That's sort of 

what I was getting at, that archival record. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So in addition 

to an auditable -- yes, but that -- I like 

that phraseology. Oh, sorry. I'm so 

conscious about being close to the mikes, you 

know. Anyway -- okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: From the word 

unambiguous is certainly to the point. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I like -- I 

definitely thank you, Stu. I'll try to revise 

Number Two to include something to that 

effect. 

 Any other thoughts on that, Mike or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Wanda? Mike, I haven't heard you weigh in on 

this. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: No, it sounds good, 

Mark. 

 MEMBER MUNN: My only thought is 

we're -- just trying to assimilate this for 

the first time is one that I've mentioned 

before, and that has to do more with the 

overall tenor of the statement than anything 

else. 

 It would be beneficial to consider 

the impact of relatively negative sounding 

statements that we send out to people, unless 

it is the feeling of the entire board that 

this is a negative process. 

 My personal opinion is that this is 

a positive process, and that as a result of 

what we're doing and the audits that have been 

done, we are improving and -- not only 

improving but also doing a better job of -- of 

fully capturing the actions of those 

reconstructions for, as you've already said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mark, archival processes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry. I 

was going to say when I was re-reading on the 

plane, that's part of what I was -- I was 

considering how is Wanda going to read this, 

you know. So, I will be open to some 

suggestions on tone, you know. 

 But on the other hand, you know, I 

feel pretty strongly about the five points 

that I wasn't going to -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the content 

looks good to me. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I wasn't going 

to try to sugarcoat things -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, no. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- but I agree 

with you -- but we also want to say it like it 

is that I think NIOSH has been very -- you 

know, we've made some -- you know, here's the 

impact, and we -- it's an improving -- you 

know, there have been definitely some 

improvements, and so it's not meant to be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

totally negative report, but I also wasn't 

going to sugarcoat those findings. That's 

sort of how I was thinking about it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, one of the 

other aspects that we've not discussed and 

doesn't jump out at one when you read it here 

is the internal processes, in my view, have 

improved significantly over the years. 

 The interactions of all of the 

organizations and individuals that are 

involved have been clarified significantly 

from the time we first started this, and that 

may be a point worth considering of whether it 

is added specifically to this or not, or 

whether it simply a thought that may be 

included a bit -- amplified just a little bit 

in that last paragraph. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you tell me 

-- just give me an example, internal 

processes. I mean, I don't disagree with you, 

but I'm trying to understand what you mean by 

that, internal processes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I think 

everyone involved has a better concept of who 

does which segment of the work that's involved 

in these dose reconstructions, and it's not a 

simple and straightforward -- it didn't start 

out being a straightforward, simple process, 

and it's developed through the years, partly 

as a result of what has been done in group 

meetings like these. 

 And as I said, it's covered in 

concept -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- in the last 

paragraph. We just simply didn't point it out 

anywhere else, but that will probably work 

itself out as you wordsmith it a little bit. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, my hope 

today is that we can maybe vote on this 

internal draft as a subcommittee, and then 

when we bring it to the board, Wanda, I would 

certainly take -- if you have some language 

there that you want to add on to the last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

paragraph, you know, friendly amendments, we 

can do it that way, if you want. 

 My hope is to get the report before 

the board next time, so logistically I hate to 

 hold it up again here, because then we won't 

get to it until -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, let's don't. 

Let's don't. Your goal is to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't disagree 

with what you just said, and if you have some 

language that you want to sort of add into 

that last paragraph or wherever it might fit 

related to that statement, I think we can add 

that on. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Are you going to try 

to come to some conclusion about anything more 

than the general sense of what we have here 

yet today? Are you trying to get an almost 

finalized copy today? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, my hope was 

to get a finalized copy, but, you know, I know 

there's wordsmithing to be done, so -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Make a suggestion, Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: I just have a suggestion 

which I raised the last time the subcommittee 

met and it was in response to, I think, how 

Paul and some of the people that are not 

involved in this process responded when Mark 

gave his update at the Albuquerque meeting. 

 And that's -- again, sort of 

sitting in the chair which I don't fit in, the 

Secretary of HHS, and coming to this report, 

these are all sort of close, narrow technical 

matters that are being brought to the 

attention of the Secretary, and I don't think 

he will -- I think that's fine. I think 

they're simply stated and so on, but what's 

not addressed in this report to the Secretary, 

given the amount of time now that's been -- 

everybody's gone at this is sort of the 

thousand-foot picture. What is the board 

finding in general about at this point in time 

about the quality and validity of Dose 

reconstructions. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Stu sent out to all of you in 

response to the last subcommittee meeting a 

breakout that shows, you know, how many of 

different kinds of dose reconstructions have 

been done to date. 

 And I think it was a very 

illuminating breakout actually, and that -- I 

mean, that gives you a context where you could 

speak to -- well, you know, for 70 percent, 60 

percent, 30 percent, 10 percent -- you know, 

this is generally what the board is seeing at 

this point in time in terms of, you know, are 

people getting claimant favorable results from 

their Dose reconstructions, what have you. 

I'm not going to put any words into the 

subcommittee's -- 

 But those sort of general -- I 

mean, that's really -- that's the bottom line 

charge for the auditing is so that the 

Secretary can know, you know, how long was 

this being done at this point in time, and 

where does it have to go from here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And I think that you've given a 

little bit about where to go from here in a 

process sense, and you've given, I think, some 

nice, positive information about how the 

process is working in improving the Dose 

Reconstruction Program, but not really 

answering the question of how does it stand 

right now. 

 I think that's -- if I were the 

Secretary I'd want to know something about 

that at this point. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And another 

problem with that is that these 100 cases were 

done over two years ago now, right? So we're 

kind of looking at a snapshot two years ago, 

you know. 

 MR. KATZ: But I think you can also 

speak to even though you haven't completed 

everything in the current cases. I mean, you 

have a general sense of how things are now, 

and you probably could speak to it without 

having final results about everything that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

still in process too, I believe -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- as to how things are 

looking in a tentative sense at this point in 

time. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: It's the board's 

decision as to how to report, but, again, as 

the Secretary I think I'd want to know 

something about the bottom line as it stands 

right now. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and again I 

have not gotten through to the end of the 

document here and can't remember what we said 

we were going to include as enclosures. It 

would seem that a roundup of what has been 

done and what the results were would be fairly 

key here, and probably should be a part of -- 

at least referenced in the executive summary 

here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I didn't send 

the attachments. There are those attachments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that Kathy Behling primarily put together 

summarizing the cases. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But, I mean, 

this question of the overall quality and 

validity of the Dose reconstructions, I mean, 

I did avoid that. Again, you're right. I 

think you're right, Paul did bring that up, 

you know, the bottom line question of -- and I 

think part of it is that -- and some of it, I 

think, is hinted at in the five things, but 

not absolutely pulled out, but we -- you know, 

I mean, this gets down to the question of do 

we want to try to give a grade, you know, 

after a hundred cases are reviewed we feel 

that, you know -- 

 MR. KATZ: It could be very 

qualitative. You don't have to give a grade. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- or how -- I 

mean, how do we want to -- I guess I'm open 

for suggestions to how we want to say that. 

You know, my feeling is that, you know, if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

want to get down to right and wrong, I don't 

think we want to go there, how many they got 

right and wrong. 

 There were -- I'm pretty sure no 

one would dispute that there were several 

cases that they got the wrong result on in 

this first 100 cases, although all those that 

everybody would agree on anyway were in the 

claimant-favorable direction. I mean, these 

were those overestimates for compensable 

claims, so those, you know, they got wrong. 

So that's, you know, if you want to get down 

to a just -- you know. 

 And then there's the -- my take on 

the other side of it is that we have five best 

estimate cases, and that's where we got into 

this fuzzy ground. That's why I wrote it down 

 as a finding this way, instead of -- so maybe 

we can get at this qualitatively, but I don't 

think we want to get into a sort of they got 

85 percent, they got 95 percent, you know. 

 MR. KATZ: If you have a large -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean, you can give contacts. They have a 

large quantity of claims for which they have 

overestimated or underestimated to expedite 

those, and how well has that worked. Has that 

gotten people compensated quickly, without 

error, and vice versa? 

 I mean, I think you can speak to 

that whole pie chart in effect, piece by 

piece. I mean, that pie chart was broken out 

into finer gradations than you would probably 

want to speak to because, you know, whether 

it's, you know, whether it's an overestimate 

based on internal or external or both doesn't 

so much matter, but just sort of a sense of 

when NIOSH is overestimating, how are they 

doing when they're underestimating to get 

people compensated quickly? How are they 

doing and so on, I'm going to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: You could speak to it, 

you know. You could speak to those. And I 

think some of that wouldn't necessarily be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

controversial within the board, but I could be 

wrong about that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Stu, again, 

Number 4 does sort of get there. 

 MR. KATZ: But that's a few cases -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not as bold as 

you -- right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- that's a few cases as 

opposed to, you know, 40 percent of the cases 

where they overestimated properly or whatever 

it is, but, I mean, you have the pie chart. I 

mean -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. KATZ: You're talking about 

tens of thousands -- you know, tens of 

thousands. You're talking about thousands of 

cases in these different categories. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And the chart is 

ultimately going to be what people will 

remember other than the words. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm not -- 

but I'm not sure -- 

 MR. KATZ: I'm not suggesting -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you're 

getting a little more complicated how you, you 

know, if we can say, okay, you know, I don't 

know how many. I don't know the right number 

for this, but say the overestimate, I think it 

was four. I'm not sure on that. Four that 

were overestimated that ended up being 

compensable, when they shouldn't have been 

using the overestimate approach. 

 So say that's four out of 100, and 

then we realize there's so many overestimated 

cases in the whole pie. I'm not ready to say 

that that -- because that policy was changed 

at a certain point, so, you know, I'm not 

saying that that probably likely affected four 

percent of the overall. You know what I mean? 

 MR. KATZ: No, but, for example, 

there are thousands of cases for which OCAS 

has underestimated to get people compensated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

quickly, has done a quick sort of 

underestimate of their dose to get people 

compensated in an expedited fashion. 

 How well has that process worked 

for that -- you know, if that's 15 percent of 

the entire caseload, you know, then you can 

say for 15 percent of the caseload this is how 

OCAS has gone at it, and this is how it's 

worked, and this is the problems with it. 

 And you can go down -- again, you 

could probably break the pie chart into four 

pieces or so that are really significant 

because there's a lot of lumping that could be 

done, and you could just speak generally about 

each piece of that, you know, with the context 

of how much of the whole load is this. 

 And what were the problems we saw 

with these, and what's the good that we've 

seen with this piece. I think you could do 

that -- and, again, I think that is what the 

Secretary would want to know about, more than 

that -- I'm sure the Secretary would be happy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to know that the process is going well and 

working together and improving the program, 

but I think that's the kind of bottom line 

messaging that the Secretary would want to 

know about. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Generally, that's 

what I'd expect to see in an executive 

summary, and that charts, especially when 

they're as simplified as that pie chart could 

be made -- always an outstanding way to 

transmit a lot of information in one glimpse. 

 So it's perhaps something we should 

strongly consider in terms of inclusion here, 

and -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can try -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- perhaps have a 

single statement with reference to it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I can 

try to add that in. The question is timing on 

this next meeting, but I can try to add -- 

when you say if we state it qualitatively, I 

guess I was hesitating on it because if we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

started to try to be quantitative about it, I 

thought we were going to go down a path where 

-- 

 MR. KATZ: No, I understand that. 

I understand that perfectly. I mean, the only 

quantitative part is just the -- how much of 

the pie are we talking about with the 

qualitative information we're giving -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- so there's context. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: But, Mark, it also 

seems to me that we don't want the graph to 

make it look so simple that the wording and 

all of the work that we've put into this is 

just glossed over. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's 

unlikely, but it's -- especially if we've 

already given some sense of the percentage of 

cases that are even being involved in what 

we're looking at. That's -- which we do later 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the -- I believe we -- if I remember the 

letter from before, I believe we discuss, we 

mention the fact, not in this executive 

summary but elsewhere that -- that we're doing 

 two and a half percent of cases, and this is 

only a hundred out of whatever number would be 

applicable for the period that these 100 cases 

-- I can't remember the date, the cutoff for 

the first 100 cases that we were looking at, 

but that would give a better feel for the -- 

 DR. MAURO: That was the first two 

years out of a five-year contract, so those 

first 100 cases really were effectively 

processed during that first two years. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, these were many 

years ago now and -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, what I can 

do is add on some of this stuff, and I've got 

sort of -- I'm just thinking through this -- 

the underestimates for compensable claims, how 

effective is that process working. I think 

that's legitimate to put in there. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Overestimates for non-compensable 

claims and how -- and -- but in there I would 

add some of the pitfalls that have been 

identified, such as, you know, people coming 

back with additional cancers, PER reviews 

changing their numbers to lower values later, 

you know. 

 So, there have been -- if not 

necessarily technical problems, it's a 

communication to the public problem, you know. 

 MR. KATZ: It's been an important 

issue. It's not a small issue; it's an 

important issue in this program. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

It's in the overestimate for a compensable, I 

think we have to identify that. The policy's 

changed, but it was an issue earlier, you know 

-- and then the best estimate. 

 Yes, go ahead. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm really stepping 

further away from this. I think that, if you 

remember, what we have here is the date the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

board has performed audits of 140 cases. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: This represents the 

first 100. 

 So that's a very big context and, 

therefore, within that 240 -- it has to be 

understood by the -- that we're really looking 

at the first 100. 

 So there's a story emerges from 

that which is obviously different than if you 

were, you know, trying to capture where we are 

in the 240. 

 The other things that I -- one of 

the things that I've seen -- and I don't know 

whether you want to capture this or not. This 

is just -- I use the term unintended 

consequences. Let me explain what I mean. 

 The regulations have an efficiency 

requirement, have a consistency requirement, 

transparency, hierarchy of data. All of these 

things are fundamental to, you know, the regs. 

 And one of the things that I've seen happen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the process of trying to navigate and not 

only that and putting out water -- how many 

24,000? 

 Whatever the number the pump is, 

putting them out, the pressure to put them 

out, so you're trying to put all these out as 

quickly as you can, but within the context of 

what I say competing objectives, that is it's 

not always easy to be efficient and meet the 

hierarchy of data. 

 When do you resort to surrogate 

data when you don't? There are so many 

judgments that have to navigate their way 

through what I would call to a degree certain 

competing goals, which they should be because 

you're trying -- and I could see the struggle. 

 And what we're watching is the 

maturation of a process that's trying to 

strike a balance that's navigating its way 

through this very difficult competing 

objectives. 

 And as a result of that there are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certain unintended consequences that came out 

that where -- and the thing that the board is 

doing is putting a spotlight on that. That's 

really what this whole thing that we've been 

doing to me has -- it's a way that while NIOSH 

is inside the trenches working the problems, 

putting out thousands of these Drs, what does 

the board do? The board steps back and says, 

well, you know -- and tries to step up into 

the stratosphere and starts to get a sense 

for, you know, where within this process and 

the demands placed on it by the regulations 

and the statute have there been unintended 

consequences that we have to recognize and 

start to, I guess, improve so that we strike 

that balance where all of these missions 

that's dictated by the regulations can be -- 

can strike that proper balance. 

 And I think that in the first 100 

that balance was not necessarily always 

struck. And there's a process at work to reestablish that balance, to try to find that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And I could see this whole program moving in 

that direction. 

 I don't know -- that kind of theme 

is very distant, but it's -- from the way you 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Unintended 

consequences kind of falls off from -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, it does, it does, 

but I mean I think is a very -- quite frankly 

I think there should be a positive. I think 

that the process that we're doing is very 

difficult, but if you step back and you look 

at what it is that we really did, it's really 

dealing with the tension, Lew Wade's word, the 

tension that exists within the regulations 

themselves to try to strike a balance, and 

this is not easy. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, that's fine. 

 I got some of that down. 

 I guess what I'll offer is -- and 

Wanda and Mike if -- I guess what I'm going to 

try to do is redraft this report, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

obviously we won't be able to vote on it as a 

subcommittee, but maybe email it, you know, 

not the day before the May meeting, but email 

it a week before at least, and I will 

definitely commit to that, because if I do it 

in the next couple of days it will be fresh on 

my mind, too, and otherwise -- because when I 

went back to this I had forgotten some of 

those things, you know. 

 So I'll try to do this while it's 

fresh, email it out to the subcommittee 

members, and then present it at the board 

meeting and say that we had a lengthy 

discussion on these issues, but we didn't, you 

know, because of timing we didn't all vote on 

a draft, and then we can just vote on the 

report as a full board, you know, if that's 

acceptable. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's certainly 

acceptable to me. I'm sorry we can't have 

another hour or two-hour long teleconference 

specifically addressing this and nothing else 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as it comes to the board, but I think it will 

be adequate for us to complete that task 

through email exchange if we all actually do 

sit down and address ourselves to it. 

 It's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'd be willing 

to do a couple-hour conference call, but I'm 

not sure how long in advance we need to 

announce a subcommittee meeting. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know either. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can we get it in 

before the board meeting? Is that -- 

 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean we're 

ordinarily supposed to have 30 days to 

announce it. We can do a rushed thing. I 

would also note though that this board meeting 

agenda is relatively light on the second day, 

meaning that there's a good amount of time for 

board discussion for sort of hammering things 

out maybe to a degree -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- that you wouldn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ordinarily have time for in a full board 

meeting, so -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I agree with 

Wanda, I'd rather come with a product from the 

subcommittee. That would be nice. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It would be very nice 

if we could. If we have to do it through 

email exchange and individual conversations 

with each other, then that's -- I'm sure that 

can be done. We haven't done that in the 

past, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let me -- 

at lunch time let me look at the calendars 

with Ted and everyone here -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and let's see 

if we can get maybe a short conference. It 

won't have to be a face-to-face. We can do a 

conference call meeting and, you know, I agree 

with you, Wanda, I'd like to do it that way, 

if we can. 

 MR. KATZ: That calendar -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

week right before the board meeting. I mean, 

I don't know if that's enough time -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Has room? 

 MR. KATZ: -- but that week has 

room. It doesn't give the rest of the board a 

lot of time with it, but if you did it early 

in that week then they'd still, you know, have 

more less a week to cogitate over what you 

deliver. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, we'll 

keep that option open, Wanda, either via email 

or a better situation would be by a conference 

call, either a week before or two weeks before 

the -- 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, by email 

obviously you can't have a vote of the 

subcommittee or anything by email. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: You can share 

information. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You can share 

information, but we can't vote, right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Understood. So we'll try to convene a 

conference call maybe a week before the board 

meeting, but we'll look at calendars and I'll 

email you on that, Wanda. And I want to make 

sure we get John also available -- John 

Poston, I'm sorry. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that will be 

fine. The only day that week, looking at my 

calendar right now that is impossible for me 

is the fourth, that Monday. We have a medical 

procedure with my spouse, and I won't be able 

to be on board at all on the fourth, but any 

other day I could -- of that week prior to the 

Amarillo meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, May 5th might be a 

good one to shoot for. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Cinco de Mayo, 

maybe. Okay. All right, I'll email people 

about that, but I'll try to resolve it before 

we leave today because Ted has to -- I mean, 

we have to make an announcement -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: We have to make a 

Federal Register notice for that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Good, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I guess we'll 

leave the topic for now. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'll look forward to 

getting your second round. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You had another 

draft. Sixth round, actually, but who's 

counting? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I've got 

all my revs. Anyway -- so do we want -- if 

everybody's ready I was going to go into the 

sixth set and seventh set now, and then unless 

people need a break I would just as soon -- 

let's go into the sixth set at least and try 

to get through that, and then we'll get our 

lunch break in. 

 And, Wanda, are you dialing off 

soon or hanging up? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'll try to hang in 

for another 45 minutes or so, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- but by nine 

o'clock my time I have to be out of here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm glad 

we -- I'm sorry about it being so rough, but 

I'm glad we had the discussion while you were 

on the line. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I appreciate 

your moving it up. Thanks, because I -- 

obviously if this is important and certainly 

looms large in my own personal concerns over 

what we're doing in this subcommittee, so 

thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Okay, so if everybody's got -- I mailed like -

- much like everybody else I mailed the 

updated matrices which I promised at the last 

subcommittee meeting and said that I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

send them out like a day later. I sent them 

out a day before this meeting, so they were a 

little late, but they are -- I think they're 

pretty easily formatted to go through. The 

yellow highlights should have the outstanding 

actions, so if we can just kind of turn to 

that sixth matrix and maybe start our 

discussion from there, and then you guys can 

tell me what's been sent around in the last 

couple of days. 

 MEMBER MUNN: There's one thing I 

ought to mention also, Mark. Two weeks ago, 

my electronic file for all of my ABRWH data 

self-destructed, and so if we're referring to 

any material that was transmitted or was in 

place prior to the month of March, then I'm 

going to have to back track and get that 

information from someone else, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- I do not have the 

information on which I've been building for -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventeen years. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Well, you do have the matrices, right, 

because I think I sent those out the other 

night? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I believe so. 

They're the sixth set, right? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm just 

going to do the same thing I did the last 

meeting, pan down and look for yellow 

highlighted items. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The first one I 

have is Case Number 104.7 -- or Finding 104.7, 

asking NIOSH to provide the basis for the 

concentration of transuranics use for this 

site. 

 Do you have that? That was a site 

specific one, not a -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The research into 

transuranics and uranium was done essentially 

on a grand scale. What can we find out about 

this, because this particular site -- I was 

just trying to open -- Doug, do you know which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site this is, off hand? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Superior Steel. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So, it's Superior 

Steel. So it's one of the AWEs that would 

take the metal that we sent them and machine 

it. 

 And so there's a category of this 

research that has, you know, that essentially 

that addresses the steel -- or the metal 

inventory, uranium metal inventory at various 

stages and things like that. 

 And since it has a number of 

aspects associated with it, it's been somewhat 

controversial in our own shop, within OCAS's 

shop, and we've -- because of competing 

priorities have not come to a resolution on 

how exactly we'll proceed. 

 There is a draft of TIB prepared 

that addresses essentially. It would describe 

for uranium metal -- you know, this is the 

content, the likely content or the bounding 

content, or however it would be written for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

these years and then for these years. I think 

there would some year-to-year specification in 

there, although I'm not terribly familiar with 

it. I haven't looked at it for quite a while. 

 I'm not one of the people involved. 

 So it would be informative of this. 

 I mean, it would be a way to describe the 

research that has been done, and it occurs to 

me that I should just go do that. I should 

just go read, you know, figure out what 

research has been done that reflects the metal 

content, not worry about the rest, and I can 

provide that information. I have not. 

 And I've kind of been, you know, 

lazily resting. I've been doing other things, 

because I've got plenty to do and letting this 

sit until we could come within OCAS to some 

resolution of that. 

 What is our approach going to be, 

the TIB is -- doesn't seem to be as precise as 

it could be, for instance. 

 So, maybe it is as precise as it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can be, you know. There's that debate as to 

what's going on. But given that I don't know 

that the debate really speaks to the metal, 

the uranium metal content, which is as I 

understand it -- in my poor understanding of 

this is probably fairly well understood, as 

opposed to the immediate products where the 

concentrations do not stay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Once you've got the 

metal, it's going to stay there. So I could 

go and try to retrieve that -- you know, 

retrieve that portion of the research, you 

know, or that portion of the document -- kind 

of reproduce that for this subcommittee and 

say this is why we believe these values are 

correct, or the values in this TIB were based 

on old research and are not good, and we'll 

have to, you know, at least do something like 

a PER to this particular site. 

 DR. MAURO: I may be able to help a 

little. Because of the work we do with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Fernald and because a lot of the work I have 

done on these sites, I find myself getting 

very familiar with the uranium issue, and it's 

taken form in my mind what the issue is. 

 In essence, the metal that was 

shipped to AWE facilities, it was a 

specification that it shouldn't really not 

have more than parts per billion. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was an 

internal DOE specification? 

 DR. MAURO: Right, and from what we 

can tell that was at least starting at a given 

point in time seemed to hold up well, so when 

I review an AWE I usually come down pretty 

favorably as it applied to an AWE. 

 Where we started to run into a 

little trouble is at Fernald. Fernald would 

receive the material from Hanford and other 

facilities and in theory the default recycled 

uranium was 100 parts per billion, but there 

are lots of exceptions to that, especially 

this tower ash from Paducah, and in addition 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there was another one that challenges that 

default assumption, and that is that 

apparently there was a change in the early 

years going from -- that go through the 

chemical separations process, the deliberate 

effort to chemically separate out the uranium. 

 There would be a specification on -

- once you could separate the uranium out, to 

make sure that it met a certain spec. That 

was when they took the spent fuel and 

deliberately went through this process to 

separate out the plutonium, uranium. 

 There was also a plutonium step. 

But prior to that date which I believe is 

sometime in the mid fifties they were actually 

-- the digested spent fuel that was in the 

tanks at Hanford became -- was the source that 

was there, and then it came from there and 

then it was processed. 

 My understanding is that when they 

were in that mode, when they were working from 

the digestive spent fuel that was coming out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the tanks that was being recycled, that's 

when there's -- we have some question about 

the break down and understanding the 

composition of the material that was sent to 

Fernald, and the material that may very well 

have gone on to AWEs, because there was less 

control over the mix. 

 And the mix of not only the 

plutonium to uranium that's 100 parts per 

billion but neptunium and the other 

radionuclides relevant -- in the mix also 

became a lot more uncertain. 

 So right now SC&A's position I 

guess is that the first line of concern is 

that there's an elbow between when they were 

working from digested material in the tanks 

and when they weren't, and when they weren't 

later on there was a lot more control of 

knowing what we were dealing with, as opposed 

to when they were working from material that 

was coming out of these. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that time when they started to do the 

separations at Hanford or whatever, that was 

in the mid fifties or sixties. But before 

that it wasn't happening -- 

 DR. MAURO: This is -- the way I 

see it is the root cause of the concern over 

getting a good handle on making sure that we 

understand what the composition of the 

recycled uranium is. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Now the degree to which 

it reaches though -- this concern -- see, you 

have barriers. You've got the barrier of 

control that's at Hanford. 

 Then you go to Fernald, and of 

course that started up in I guess '52. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it 

started around '52. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. And there was a 

time period where Fernald was dealing with 

this material, and of course from Fernald it 

goes to the AWEs, but there was also before 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. I mean, these AWEs were getting 

material before Fernald, you know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: So we do have lots of 

AWEs that were processing recycled uranium. 

So the question was when they were getting 

that material before it came from Fernald they 

were getting that material, did the 10 part 

per billion still hold? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, were 

there specs on it? 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly, so -- I mean, 

 I'm trying to get the -- this is really where 

the I think the game is, where we have to get 

a good handle on -- and it has to do with 

time, and when the controls start to come in 

and take hold. 

 Once they took hold, I think that 

the 10 part per billion and 100 part per 

billion probably holds well. It's before 

those controls were in place. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you’re right. Complex wide, that's an 

important thing to look at, but for this 

individual part I think Stu's answer's I think 

a good approach here, you know. Look back to 

this particular case, see what you have. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, this is Superior 

Steel. I mean, within that context just on 

the date itself would give you insight on 

whether or not -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- you could trust -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and I don't 

know when it was operational. Do you know off 

hand? 

 DR. MAURO: Not off hand. I did 

that once, and I don't remember the date. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's just 

leave it as an outstanding action, but -- but 

I heard what you're saying, John, and that's 

good information. 

 But, Stu, you'll follow up -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and it occurs 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to me now sitting here that this could have 

been -- I've been sitting here waiting, 

thinking that, well, until we OCAS resolve our 

internal discussion about how were we going to 

deal with recycled uranium which actually 

informs us of some other dose -- there are 

other dose reconstructions as well, but we 

think we have, you know, the intention was 

let's describe what we can. I mean, and it 

may say if you've got site-specific data then 

this is the default. That may be what it 

says. I don't really know. 

 And I just kind of have been saying 

well until that's resolved there's no point in 

trying to resolve these, and that's not 

entirely true. If the debate doesn't concern 

what this DR -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I'm 

thinking. This might be a simpler situation -

- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- than some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other site. Some of the sites are going to 

get complicated because you overlap that time 

frame you were talking about. 

 DR. MAURO: It depends on where it 

falls. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We might be able 

to resolve this one a little quicker. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Now did I understand that 

conversation correctly to boil down to how 

effective were early reprocessing efforts in 

actually extracting the materials that they 

were built to extract. 

 Is that the real question here? 

 DR. MAURO: I think it's a matter 

of implementing technical specifications on 

the product. That is, at some point in the 

process the ability to control the quantity of 

plutonium and other radionuclides in the 

recycled uranium, it improved as time went on, 

so that those specifications were in place, 

and the controls were in place to know exactly 

what we were dealing with. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: As you go back in time, 

those controls were a little less -- they were 

more ambiguous. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, they were 

rudimentary, but the question then becomes 

whether it's necessary to know the source of 

the material as well as the approximate dates 

that the reprocessing of the material took 

place. In fact, isn't that getting enormously 

complicated? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I guess 

all we're asking for is, you know -- and maybe 

it is, maybe -- I don't know. Maybe what 

Stu's going to come back and say, you know, 

that we chose these values because we're not 

exactly sure of the source, and this would be 

bounding, or something like -- you know. 

 So all we're looking to understand 

in this particular case is why did you select 

the numbers that you did for -- is it General 

Steel? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Superior Steel. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Superior Steel, 

I'm sorry, for Superior Steel. 

 So what's the basis for those 

numbers -- and, NIOSH may come back and say 

we, you know -- like you said we couldn't 

track down every source that they got, but 

based on our knowledge this would be the most 

bounding value, or something like that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And we may know 

that, and I just haven't pursued it to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's sort of 

what I'm thinking, Wanda, anyway. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Well, we'll leave it as an action, so we're 

not going to close the sixth set. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, does this go to -

- this doesn't go to OTIB 53 then. In other 

words, this is not something that would be 

transferred? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was trying to avoid -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- was not to 

have them rolled into that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, the thing 

about it is that we might be able to put this 

particular dose reconstruction or Superior 

Steel to bed without resolving everything 

else. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that's why I 

left it as an action on this site, because I 

thought the bigger TIB, it didn't have to wait 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: I've got you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think we're 

on the same page now. 

 All right, moving on to 107.4, 

additional analysis information. Anyway -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can 

summarize. I sent this fairly late yesterday 

-- pretty late yesterday for me, and I believe 

-- the note I took was to, let's see. I said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

refer to the fairly extensive SC&A reaction in 

the resolution column. In other words, SC&A 

has provided a fairly extensive discussion of 

our earlier response, and then my -- 

 The issue is what guidance is there 

for selecting chronic intake versus acute, or 

a series of acute intakes in cases like this, 

and what guidance is there for specifying 

duration of a chronic intake, and can't such 

guidance be developed. If so, where could it 

appear? 

 And it appears that it does exist 

now in OTIB-60, and the package I sent -- at 

least I hope I included -- is this the email I 

 sent last night -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- describes 

essentially passages from OTIB-60 that provide 

guidance to the dose reconstructors about 

choosing when you're doing a missed Dose 

calculation, what should you choose? 

 And there's -- the guidance in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

OTIB-60 is largely that the presence or 

absence of bioassay data in and of itself is 

not a definitive indicator of potential for 

exposure. For instance, if a person is going 

on and is being monitored and their job -- and 

then there's a couple of years when they 

don't, say they were on annual sampling and 

there are a couple of years when they're not 

sampling, and although their job appears to 

remain the same and so on and so forth, then 

it would seem that their exposure potential -- 

you should not say that, well, they apparently 

weren't exposed because the sampling stopped, 

but there has to be some other evidence, as 

well. Just the sampling stopping would not do 

it, and there are examples in here what kind 

of evidence to look for. 

 And so I guess in this case -- and 

I guess -- like I said I looked at this very 

late and haven't studied it real closely, the 

persons essentially stayed in the same job, 

the other evidence -- the other supporting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evidence didn't go along with that, and so, 

you know, the guidance that's provided in the 

OTIB. 

 So essentially what we've -- what 

the project is about for this is the technique 

is usually to -- I think it's a chronic -- 

chronic exposure over the potential exposure 

period, if I'm not mistaken. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So essentially it's 

-- you know, that kind of decision was made. 

Now I think there was some work done early on 

that indicates that chronic exposures -- that 

technique tends to bound what you can come up 

with if you do a series of acutes. Didn't we 

do that early on? 

 DR. MAURO: I remember Jim giving a 

presentation on that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, David 

Allen, actually -- 

 DR. MAURO: It was Dave Allen? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- earlier than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. So we had a couple of those. We've 

been around the block on that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that was -- and 

so that's kind of it, and since that's 

generally -- you know, since generally the 

bounding scenario then that's usually what's 

selected for this kind of exposure. 

 So that's how we got where we are. 

 That's what I was able to find out. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

that answers the question. We had asked on 

03-12 -- the real follow-up, I guess, on this 

issue was can NIOSH investigate -- you know, 

is there general guidance used for this 

determination, and your answer is yes, in 

OTIB-60, so I think that's our answer is that 

in OTIB-60 -- 

 I'll ask Wanda this: is OTIB-60 

still under review in the procedures work 

group, or have we -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Ask me that. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Well, this is Liz 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Brackett, and I can tell you that it is. I’m 

right now asking questions -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I thought 

it was. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Liz. It 

was -- my memory was that it was still open, 

but I don't have my matrix in front of me. 

 MS. BRACKETT: I think there's just 

one open question on it. There have been some 

bounds already on it, and we're down to just 

one or two now, I think. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me guess, 

chronic being bounding. I'm sorry, good to 

hear you, Liz. 

 So I just put that this guidance is 

available in OTIB-60. OTIB-60 is being 

reviewed in the procedures committee. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that's closed 

out for our purposes. 

 MR. FARVER: I mean, I just 

appointed the finding was in this case that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

chronic wasn't binding. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, that's 

right. That is. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and I remember 

that we discussed this at the end of it last 

time. We did the comparison. We did the 

acutes, and it was both of those times larger 

than anything that was calculated in OTIB-1, 

any of the documented intakes that had been 

assessed at Savannah River. 

 MR. FARVER: Right, and this is 

what led to, well, how do you determine 

whether to choose multiple or acutes or 

chronics? It goes back to this finding or 

their response. 

 It pretty much -- I've been 

reviewing that while we've been talking, 

what's in OTIB-60, and it's not that specific. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all right. 

 So this is back to the -- and this is sort of 

the -- and these are the kind of findings that 

spurred my question of this DR guideline. You 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, is there more specificity in those 

guidelines, but apparently not, you're saying. 

 So I guess the issue remains on 

this. I'm sorry, Doug, I didn't mean to get 

ahead of myself. 

 MR. FARVER: I'm not sure you could 

make good guidelines to do that, you know, to 

determine whether you use multiple, acutes, or 

chronics, especially since this was a strange 

case. This was a person who moves around a 

lot and was on an annual frequency which 

compounds the problem, you know, considerably, 

so I don't know what you do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then if you 

go back to Savannah River, I mean, some of my 

initial concerns about the whole high five -- 

 I mean, you're saying that these would have 

exceeded any of the recorded, and that's -- I 

guess that's the key -- 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- recorded high 

intakes, you know, so -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: And I guess I would 

feel better -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- is this guy 

someone who was missed? 

 MR. FARVER: -- is if it's 

somewhere included in the DR report that we've 

looked at multiple acutes, we've looked at 

chronic. Multiple acutes are not very likely 

because they would exceed, you know, the 

maximum dose here, so we chose chronic -- some 

kind of justification saying we looked at it, 

but. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think -- I 

mean, like I said when you're generating an 

unambiguous record of the decision, it's 

always worthwhile to say as much as you can 

about how you reached your decision. I think 

that's probably a good point. 

 MR. FARVER: And whether that's in 

the DR report or in a comments form that's in 

the record -- or you want the records. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- as I recall, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this person was this personal security officer 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so in order 

for the multiple acutes then to be, you know, 

realistic, then you would have a person who's 

generally in most places not considered highly 

exposed, you know, certainly not to an 

internal. I mean, it would probably be an 

event type of release likely for a significant 

exposure. 

 Multiple times, they went to a lot 

of places -- 

 MR. FARVER: A lot of places -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that I think in 

-- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Briefly. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in most cases 

that large intakes were people who were -- you 

would expect to be. Well, they were around an 

event, you know, a large event, or they were 

the people that you would expect to have -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you know, people who were welding and burning 

and cleaning out pipes and stuff. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. I 

know a case -- I don't think this is revealing 

too much, but I know one of the cases that Tom 

LaBone presented several years back was this 

situation where somebody got unexpected, very, 

very elevated internal Dose, at least for the 

time period they were in, I think it was in 

the nineties -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and they were 

just doing surveillance through the -- you 

know, and there was this big debate between a 

number of people. I mean, I remember Skrable 

saying put BZAs on everyone and Tom LaBone 

saying, yes, right, that's ridiculous. That 

brings us back to school. 

 But, anyway, you know, so that's a 

situation where the guy wasn't being, you know 

-- so I don't know if -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, the large 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

intakes, you know, the large intakes context 

-- large, based on the time period, and these 

were multiple -- same guy, multiple large 

intakes, larger than any that had ever been 

reported down there, that had been recorded 

down there. 

 MR. FARVER: Right, all I'm saying 

is if you look at it and you say these are 

larger than anything recorded down there, so 

we chose this -- somewhere in the 

documentation that would be fine. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, again, 

that's unambiguous. I agree with you on this. 

 MR. FARVER: And this is what -- 

well, how do you know what to choose between 

the two? 

 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I -- in this 

case it clearly should have been modeled as a 

chronic intake, because there's three intakes 

in a row that are all positive and slightly 

increasing over time. That seems to be the 

most obvious way to model it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 If you have slightly increasing 

results over time, why would you model it as 

three separate acute intakes? 

 MR. FARVER: They were over a 

period of years. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, but they were 

the only ones. 

 MR. SIEBERT: There were only two 

samples. Sorry, Liz, I just had to throw in. 

 There's two samples, one in 55 and one in 56. 

 MS. BRACKETT: I thought there were 

three samples. 

 MR. SIEBERT: With -- with no 

necessary indication as to why they were 

taken, and Liz is correct, they were 

increasing, and that -- in the original 

response to this, the dose reconstructor did 

say that's why they selected chronic, because 

they were increasing over time. 

 MS. BRACKETT: And there is 

specific items in OTIB-60 that tells you to do 

that. It says under general philosophy -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

well, in Section 5.3.2, it says fit all of the 

results simultaneously. A mix of chronic and 

acute intakes can be applied. A single 

chronic intake can also be fit when there are 

only intermittent positive results that are 

relatively small. This could be 

representative of a low level chronic intake. 

 So I mean, the general guidance to 

the dose reconstructors is to assume chronic; 

and in fact, I'm going to have to find a 

reference, but there is -- there have been 

papers recently published that said, if you 

don't know when the intake date is, it is more 

accurate to assume a chronic exposure during 

the time frame than to assume the midpoint. 

The British have published papers on that and 

have been doing some analysis of that. 

 And I would also mention that we 

can't possibly model every possible intake 

scenario. I mean, if we did that, we would be 

here till the end of time trying to look at 

everybody's results and come up with what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

could possibly be the largest possible intake 

scenario for each individual. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well let me slip 

back on this one, was it a best estimate case? 

 I don't have that. 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, it was about 35 

percent, if I remember -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- with some 

overestimates in them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so it 

was not -- I mean, it doesn't seem as if, you 

know, there could be a debate maybe on whether 

-- 

 MS. BRACKETT: Sure, for a best 

estimate you -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MS. BRACKETT: -- tone it down, but 

given, you know, the methods that we do, we 

couldn't get all the cases done if we had to -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, no, no, no. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I'm just saying it's not between 45 and 50, 

so it's not as if this was a, you know -- 

would this likely affect the outcome. That's 

the question I guess -- you know if -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Liz certainly gives 

us the basis for appropriate approach to this 

particular case. It sounds as though it was 

followed. 

 MR. FARVER: We're going to have to 

go and see what the difference in the doses 

would be. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Does SC&A accept 

that? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, he's 

looking at something right now. I mean I 

guess, you know, I would say this can be moved 

to procedures work group under TIB-60 unless 

it's an issue of the doses were very different 

and could, you know, potentially affect a 35 

percent going up to, you know, near 50, which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I would think is unlikely, but you know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So you're thinking 

this is an appropriate discussion for 60? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, just that 

60 is being reviewed right now under -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: I believe within the 

last response we gave back in March, I believe 

it was, we did state, even if the acute intake 

scenario had been assigned using Type F, the 

overall POC would have increased from 35 and a 

half to 37.8 percent -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Okay, so 

I think on that basis -- 

 MR. FARVER: -- for internal, which 

still would not be enough. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think on that 

basis we have to -- yes, we have to -- 

 MR. FARVER: I think we agreed it 

was a judgment call -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- and during the 

discussion we brought up, well how do you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

determine -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: -- guides out there to 

say you need to look at this or what to do. 

 I mean, that was -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It sounds like in the 

context of this case, this judgment was 

reasonable, and another judgment could have 

been made, but it wouldn't change anything. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I would say, 

and I'm sure what finding remains open in TIB60, but I guess the question to me now is to 

look back at TIB-60 and say, is there enough 

specificity for this -- because I heard some 

varying opinions on that as I'm listening. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, that might be 

one of the items that needs to close down. 

I'm not sure I remember all the findings from 

OTIB-60, but that might be one of them. 

 MS. BRACKETT: I don't think that 

was -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Was it -- 

 MS. BRACKETT: -- because I know it 

does not contain enough detail, and based on 

experience that was gained since it was first 

written, I am trying to add, you know, more -- 

more specific detail into it where possible. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, that was the 

response to the initial finding, and that's -- 

you're going to add detail, and I think we 

accepted that. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: So it's in abeyance. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me ask -- 

let me ask the other question looming from our 

earlier discussion. Is there a Savannah River 

set of guidance or notes right now, or have 

those been -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: They would not have 

handled this situation. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They wouldn't 

have handled this situation? 

 MR. SIEBERT: At that time, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

probably -- and I'd have to go from memory -- 

 we probably had something in there that was 

very much like what went into OTIB-60 -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- because that has 

been the prevailing -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It wasn't any 

more specific, or -- okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I'd just like 

to say one thing. I heard that they were 

saying the security cards would not be a part 

of it. In our situations out there when we 

have an event or something goes awry, a lot of 

times security has to come in and cover that, 

and they've actually come up with a lot of 

higher doses than what the operators actually 

got into. 

 There's a protective process in 

there, a lot of these different ones, they 

basically have to secure up everything, and we 

come to find out later that we were actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

putting them in more harm's way than the 

actual operators, because the operators were 

prepared for it. The guards weren't. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's a good 

point. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well but Brad, 

wouldn't that explain the reason for the two 

specific pieces of data that have been 

collected on this particular -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: It very possibly 

could. He could have been involved in 

something, especially in the earlier years in 

something like that. When something went 

awry, the guards would actually come in and 

protect this while they reconstructed a -- 

well, what we call a recovery action or so 

forth like this, and this very possibly could 

 have -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes -- well, 

we're all familiar with that. We know how 

that works, but this -- when those things did 

occur, it was generally -- the administrative 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

action was to gather as much data on the 

exposed individual as possible, and I thought 

that's probably what was occurring here with 

these too high reports that we have. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: It very possibly 

could -- it's just under -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well I think the 

generic issue we're going to send your way, 

Wanda -- although I'm on that subcommittee, 

too, so I'm not getting out of anything, but I 

think I've closed it out on this one. I mean, 

I think Scott's answer that they did examine 

the acute scenario in this case anyway, and it 

still doesn't affect the PRC, but you know, 

OTIB-60 is still open and apparently still 

being modified, so either the current review 

of OTIB-60 on the procedures work group or the 

review of the modification of OTIB-60, I think 

that's where it'll be picked up. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right? Just 

wanted to give you some work before you -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- before you 

get on the airplane. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I do appreciate that. 

 Every -- every little bit helps. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anything I can 

do to help, Wanda. You know me. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We know, we know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

moving on, we're going to try to get through 

set six before lunch here. 

 So that one's closed, and it's a 

ways down here -- 119, is that where you're 

at? 

 MR. FARVER: 118.1. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 118.1, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's where I took 

the next note. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 118.1 is 

the next one -- is continuing to look into 

this, and there's a note on 12/12 that says 

what this is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- hear the 

response. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, now that -- 

that response is in what I submitted last 

night. It quotes from a couple of technical 

documents, one from Idaho and one from 

Hanford. The Idaho badge at the time -- let's 

see, that was implemented in 1958, was 

apparently tailored after the Hanford multi 

element dosimeter, and had both the sensitive 

and insensitive film, and gives a pretty wide 

range, utilization range, for the combined 

film. 

 So I guess since -- you know, this 

was just provided -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it would 

have to be, I guess, you know, it would have 

to be looked at. 

 I would think those documents would 

be available on our site research data base, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

which you guys -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I already -- I 

already put the action for SC&A to review 

these, because I think we got them late. 

 MR. FARVER: You did send them? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They're in -- I 

didn't send the documents. I sent the 

response. The documents -- I mean, I can get 

them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are the -- does 

the response include the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The response 

includes the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The citations? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the citations, 

yes. And they should be on the site research 

data base. Well, I guess one would probably 

be in the Idaho, and one would be in Hanford. 

 MR. SIEBERT: One specifically does 

have the SRBB number on it. The other one 

apparently doesn't, the Hanford one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just find 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this. Is it called the sixth -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the sixth 

case. What was my email's name? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: December -- I'm 

looking for which one? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's written in the 

 -- and the response is clipped into the 

matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You put it into 

the matrix, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's a matrix 

from -- from NIOSH, April 15th '09, is the 

last -- is the end of the title. Starts with 

 -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's down on page 52. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was on my email 

from yesterday -- last night, and it's -- it's 

clipped into the matrix, so -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's in the NIOSH 

response column. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and I thought 

I had made it a different color to make it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

stand out, but apparently I failed. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well it's a little 

different color, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the April 

15 -- okay, I got it. So I'm going to cut and 

paste that over to the one I'm working from. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, sure, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the 

references are in there, and I'll put an 

action for SC&A to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. If you have 

any trouble finding either one of them, just 

let me know, and we'll pull it out and give it 

to you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Give me one 

second, I'm going to get this together. Okay, 

so I got that action. I copied your response 

in the working matrix, and then let's look for 

the next item -- 118.6. 

 MEMBER MUNN: 118.6. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, this was 

what -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That was an action 

from December, I think -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, SC&A agrees 

with NIOSH. No further action -- okay, I've 

just got to remove the highlight there, so 

that's done. 

 118.7, is this also closed? Yes. 

Is that it? I think that's it, yes. That's 

all I found. Anybody else have any others? 

Doug? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'm sorry, did I miss 

what you were just saying on 18.7? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 18.6 and seven, 

I left the highlighting on. It was closed at 

the March meeting. If you note down below the 

highlighted portion, it says that no further 

action -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so I just -

- I didn't take the highlighting off. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that's it for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the sixth matrix -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Great. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- yes, we only 

have a few hanging out there, so -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It might just be 

that -- well, depending what do you do with 

OTIB-60 and that one -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: well that's been 

referred, so that's closed, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's just 

the one on the -- well, I'll provide whatever 

I can without waiting for a meeting. I'll 

just go ship it to all my usual addressee list 

here, the subcommittee members, SC&A, and the 

associated feds who I'm sure have me on quick 

delete. Whenever they get an email from me, 

they just delete it automatically. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait, there is a 

quick delete? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I haven't found 

it. If you're good, there probably is. You 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can probably set your -- set your email so 

that it throws away every -- you know, just 

identify me as spam. You'll never have to 

read this crap again. 

 MEMBER MUNN: My assistant has 

already done that for me. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Well, I think rather than start into the 

seventh, this might be a good place to break 

and take our lunch break and come back at 

1:00. 

 And Wanda, I assume you'll be on 

your way to the airport? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I will be -- 

hopefully have something in a suitcase by 

then, and yes, I'll be on the highway. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

Mike -- Mike, we're going to reconvene at one 

 if you're -- hopefully you're available? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'll be 

available. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right, great. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks, folks. See 

you later. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 11:49 a.m. and 

resumed at 1:03 p.m.) 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1:03 p.m. 

 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz with 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

Review, and we're just reconvening after a 

break for lunch. 

 And I just want to check on the 

phone lines for board members, to start with. 

 Who do we have? Do we have Mike? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here, 

Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: Good to hear you, Mike. 

 And by any chance to we have Dr. Poston, 

John Poston? 

 Well, how about Bob Presley? 

 Okay, no board members I take it, 

then. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Do we need to check on any ORAU or 

SC&A attendance? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: You're not worried 

about it? Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Ted, we've got 

some other people on there, too. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, we do. Is there 

anyone on the line that wants to identify 

themselves? 

 Okay, so let's carry on. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we're 

going to move into the seventh set, and do the 

same thing we did with the sixth set, 

hopefully as quickly. 

 We had some outstanding items, and 

hopefully, I did the same kind of thing. If 

everybody has the matrix, I've got the 

highlighted actions, so starting from the top 

there is one right away on Case Number -- or 

Finding Number 121.1. So this remains an 

outstanding item from NIOSH by way of the use 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of TIB-70 and TIB-6000. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I've -- there 

 was -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think I 

have something on that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I'm having a 

little trouble getting my hands on my own 

right now. 

 The -- well, there are a couple of 

items here. I -- well I collected my notes 

from -- when I wrote my notes from the last 

meeting, I wrote notes for findings 121 and 

122 -- 121.1 and 121.2 -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and part of the 

comment I think also pertains to 121.3 because 

-- let's see, OTIB -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where is your 

response? Is it in this -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just trying to 

figure that out. I'm trying to figure out -- 

I don't know if I sent the right one. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is it in the 

matrix that you sent? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It would have been. 

 I tried to put them in the matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't see 

anything in the -- in the matrix for that one, 

anyway. 

 DR. MAURO: Conceptually, the issue 

has to do with an AWE facility, and it goes 

back to, on many occasions what we see is, for 

the residual period, many of the cases NIOSH 

would use data collected during the FUSRAP 

characterization program, and apply that -- 

those exposures and measures to residual 

period exposure that may have occurred a 

decade, two decades, sometimes three decades 

earlier, and now -- and basically the comment 

here is that -- well listen, you know, rather 

than do that, which is sort of questionable, 

you know, to use this time span -- there are 

now tools in place, namely OTIB-70 for a 

residual period of TBD-6000, both of which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

address this issue in a better way, and it 

seems that, you know -- and that's really what 

the comment was. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's the 

nature of it, and there's a couple of tools, 

OTIB-70 and OTIB -- and TBD-6000. One is sort 

of -- I think sort of an externally related, 

and one's internal -- 

 DR. MAURO: No, no. Seventy is 

specifically for residual -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Residual, okay. 

 DR. MAURO: And it only applies to 

AWE facilities. Six thousand is not only 

residual but is everything. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right. 

So those are -- that's two of it, and then 

there's the third comment that the model is 

constructed as a -- a -- a distribution model. 

 I mean, there's something that's chosen as 

the -- the mean value with a geometric 

standard of deviation. You know, some other 

value was chosen as the geometric standard of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

deviation, and so -- and then the TBD says 

apply this to everybody. One size fits all. 

 And the other comment was, well, 

this person was in a -- what seems to be a 

particularly highly exposed job. Shouldn't he 

really get more than the full distribution, 

you know, toward the top end of the 

distribution rather than the full 

distribution. 

 So that was the nature of the 

comments. 

 Now I did get a response -- and 

this was a cut and paste or a save error on my 

part, because I did not save the response to 

the file I thought I was saving at -- where I 

intended to save it, so I probably sent you 

one that does not have its response. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes, I can 

see it in the matrix. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so we 

have a note, or it appears that -- well, 

there's a -- one reviewer, or the person who 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wrote the response said that the TBD-6000 

approach, were it used for -- this is for 

Finding 1, which is, what, re-suspension? 

 DR. MAURO: No, this is the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: External? 

 DR. MAURO: I think this is -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes, okay, 

for external -- that TBD-6000 would result in 

a lower dose. Now that's -- you know, someone 

apparently has looked at that, but it doesn't 

really walk you through the discussion or the, 

you know -- 

 This is the selection I made out of 

TBD-6000, and this is why I reached that 

conclusion, so that really needs to be 

expanded on a little bit. 

 DR. MAURO: But it -- yes -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And in fact, I 

think -- I think that's why it's not in the 

matrix is because when I read this, I said, 

that doesn't quite answer it. It needs more. 

 You can't just say, well, TBD-6000 would be -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, but -- we're 

dealing with TBD-6000. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And there are 

options in TBD-6000. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: The right way to do 

this is you actually have the procedure in 

OTIB-70, and that is you say, listen, at the 

time, at the end of operations, we have 

airborne data, we have external data, which 

sort of sets an upper end of what it might be 

at the beginning of the residual period. 

 Then you also say, somewhere down 

the line, maybe 10 years, 20 years, 30 years 

later, you have a whole bunch of measurements 

taken just prior to the FUSRAP cleanup as part 

of the characterization program. This is the 

way OTIB-70 reads, and it makes sense. 

 So you've got an upper-end value 

right at the beginning of the residual period, 

and you've got an estimate before they did the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cleanup as part of the characterization. 

You've got two points. You draw a line 

between the two points, and that is the slope 

of the exposure that is indeed experienced, 

whether it's external or internal, by people 

during the residual period. 

 That makes sense, and I guarantee 

you if you applied that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well even there 

there's some assumptions on the data. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. I 

just circled that explanation. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm just trying to 

conceptually and philosophically -- it is a 

sound principle upon which to base your 

models, your approach to the problem. 

 Whether your data is adequate to 

support that, that's a different question, but 

I think we have to agree that that basic 

approach is the one that you want to embrace 

across the board on a residual period, and it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

makes sense. 

 And that's what it says -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- in TBD -- now then -

- you know, when you actually apply it on a 

case-by-case basis, you run into trouble 

sometimes, because the data aren't there to do 

it the way you really want to do it. 

 For example, when the data aren't 

there, you guys assume, well if we do have the 

data for the first point but not the end 

point, we assume one percent per year -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well it's faster 

than that. 

 DR. MAURO: -- or one percent per 

day, I'm sorry, which is -- one percent per 

day is not the rate at which this stuff is 

going away. 

 So there are issues on TBD-70 also. 

 Anyway, but that's what this is all about. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well I think we 

have to kind of put this one on hold -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and actually 

this is one I pulled out, and I've got the 

technical documents in my briefcase, thinking 

that I would have time to think of -- you 

know, take some shot at this, and I haven't. 

 So this is -- let's see, this is a 

-- well, I'm not sure if it's an OCAS or not. 

 This needs additional work. You just can't 

be, you know -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

applies for one, two and three. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And I think it 

applies to 3-F, as well, because if I'm not 

mistaken looking -- you had a comment -- then 

you highlighted area on three, and three is -- 

I've got to look and see what three is real 

quick. 

 DR. MAURO: There's no doubt that, 

when it comes to residual period, we have a 

standing issue on how you deal with resuspension inhalation. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: You know, we know that 

ten to the minus six -- you know, that's -- 

time and again we run into that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I think 

121.3 is -- I think that mean is during the 

residual period, if I'm not mistaken. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think -- I 

think you're right. 

 DR. MAURO: 123, this is the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: 121.3 is 

inappropriate data used for modeling 

inhalation ingestion -- intake. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm looking at -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Intake -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

you're right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I think 

it's during the residual period, so I think 

it's very much the same. I mean, it's the 

same kind of thing as one, with a different, 

you know, exposure about it -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, different -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if I'm not 

mistaken. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think you're 

right. I think it's correct. 

 So they're going to be put on hold, 

all three of those, I think, Stu, just -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It sounds like 

you've looked into it, but you might have to 

just go back to ORAU and get a better 

explanation on -- than what you have right 

now. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I have -- we 

have to expand on this explanation a little 

bit, so -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, in fact, if I 

had paid more attention to my handwritten 

notes on my sheet here, I would have realized 

that I don't have a check mark by that one, 

which would indicate I didn't try to fix it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, then 

I'm moving down to 122.1 as the next one. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe this 

is the same -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 121.2, which is 

using the full distribution -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Full 

distribution versus -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for again what 

seems to be a likely highly-exposed person. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's the same 

-- I mean you don't have a response on that 

one? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we don't have 

anything on that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 122.3 -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't have 

anything -- I didn't have a note for that. 

 DR. MAURO: This is the rod and 

billet exposure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: I think this guy might 

have been a furnace operator. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think you're 

right. He had a high exposure. 

 DR. MAURO: And he was only working 

with billets. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it was this 

question, SC&A feels that it may not be 

bounding for this particular worker -- 

 DR. MAURO: No, this is a -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- because it 

was a high -- yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh well, isn't that 

the same, though? I mean, 122 -- yes -- 122 -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same kind of -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: 122.3 is much the 

same as 122.1. It's the same kind of thing. 

This is a highly exposed person. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Aren't they -- 

aren't they pretty much -- I mean, it may be -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- I think it's different exposure modes, or 

something? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. You know, if I 

had the full case in front of me, if I 

remember a case where the guy was a furnace 

heater -- the furnace where you heat up the 

billets. The billets come in, you heat them 

up, so that they can be rolled into rods. His 

full-time job was to work with billets -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and I think that the 

default method here, if I remember correctly, 

was that there's a 50/50 between rods and 

billets. It turns out the exposure rate from 

billets is about twice as high as the exposure 

rates from rods, because of the size and 

geometry, so we felt that, as applied -- that 

approach -- that fundamental approach, the 

50/50 -- three and a half hours each a day, is 

good, but not for this guy, because this guy 

is working entirely with billets, and as a 

result of that -- not only that, he may be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

working with more than one billet, because 

right now, it's based on a single billet. 

 His external exposure rate could be 

substantially higher than -- I think we said 

about a factor of two higher -- or 40 percent. 

 It's coming back, 40 percent higher, because 

of the kind of work he does. 

 And whether that's -- how important 

that is to the -- but if 40 percent is -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's listed in 

NIOSH's response, I think. It says it only 

shifts the POC from 28.5 to 29.3, right? 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, is that right? Oh, 

okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we've seen 

that one earlier. 

 DR. MAURO: I believe that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 DR. MAURO: Bear in mind when we -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the question 

could remain that -- I mean, the question 

could remain that -- that -- I mean, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question could remain that, you know, for this 

 -- for -- you know, how is that type of 

worker handled. I mean, in this case it 

didn't really affect the POC. But the general 

question still stands. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a fairly 

specific example of -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is a one size fits 

all appropriate? 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: There are -- we've run 

into situations where -- in fact, it went the 

other way the last time. Remember when we 

talked about the nurse, where they were 

assigning a generic -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- I mean, we went the 

other way. We said, listen, you were giving 

this nurse exposure that no way that she could 

get. And now we have the opposite. Now this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

guy is a furnace operator. He's going to be 

on the other side of these. For the one size 

fits all, it doesn't always work very well. 

 And I guess that's a critique that 

is I think a little bit more intentioned. It 

could be, wait a minute, this guy's a little 

bit different than the average guy. 

 I don't know if you guys want to do 

that, but that's how we see it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: One size fits all 

are convenient. 

 DR. MAURO: Convenient, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: As simple as 

possible. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- even I can 

understand those dose models sometimes, but 

the, the way it's constructed, the valid 

point, I think the real point here is 

constructed as a distribution, as if we don't 

know exactly, we think this is a likely median 

estimate, and we think this is a likely 

bounding estimate for people who work there, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

without saying specifically, this is the most 

-- we're going to reconstruct the most highly 

exposed people, even though there could be 

uncertainty in that, and you could say this is 

what we expect, and this is what the upper 

limit could be of the most highly exposed 

people. 

 And just for -- so that we're -- 

because we're not confident of our ability 

really overall to sort people into high and 

modest, we're just going to give it to 

everybody, which is why we gave it to the 

nurse. 

 You know, because we're not really 

that confident of our ability in every case. 

And so -- so we've done that on a number of 

occasions. Now in this case we didn't -- we 

didn't write it that way. We said this is 

what we believe, you know, is the dose rate. 

We didn't really say that it's -- or provide 

any evidence that this is likely as high as 

even the most highly exposed person could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

been exposed to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. I 

think that was the question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which, it seems 

to be it. 

 DR. MAURO: Well in your defense, I 

will argue that the very assumption that a 

person is going to be one foot away -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For all of that 

time. 

 DR. MAURO: -- in front of a 

billet, so in other words, you're almost, in a 

funny way, you're sort of caught between a 

rock and a hard place. In other words, you 

come up with a fundamental one size fits all. 

 You say we're going to apply this to 

everybody, where they're standing one foot 

away from the billet, and they're there for 

seven hours a day. 

 Now right off the bat, that 

approach itself is extremely conservative, 

because it's unlikely anyone's going to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doing that, but that's what you're doing, so 

therefore, that's a given. 

 Now but then you come along with a 

person who -- that, you know, you say well 

what do we do about this other guy who only 

works with billets, he may be working with 

multiple billets, and I don't know how long he 

stays in front of it, but is it possible that 

for him we've got to treat him special. 

 So it's -- you're in a funny spot. 

 You know, the fundamental model you use -- 

there's no doubt that that's conservative, but 

there's also no doubt that he probably has a 

potential for exposure that's substantially 

higher than, say, most of the other workers. 

And most of the other workers are probably not 

going to get that exposure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I understand. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think 

that's why it was a remaining action, because 

we wanted to see -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- if your 

approach left the dose reconstructor the 

flexibility to assign a higher amount for some 

job types or whatever. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, right 

now -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right now it 

doesn't. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, in a way, you 

know -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that's 

why it remained, because obviously it doesn't 

affect this particular case very much. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And the other 

interpretation of this is that the model is 

constructed, even though it wasn't constructed 

this way, but the way the numbers come out is 

an estimate of as high as anyone could have 

been exposed on this plant. 

 Now that's not the way it's written 

and constructed. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that if he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would have written it that way -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If you had written 

it that way, and you said, because we're not 

confident of our ability to sort -- now some 

we could probably sort. But we don't 

necessarily feel confident of sorting all 

these job titles, and we may not even know job 

titles. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We're just going to 

apply this -- we think this is as high as 

anybody could have gotten exposed. 

 You know, I think that's an 

acceptable approach on something like this, 

but we didn't write the thing that way. We 

didn't write it. We wrote it more in lines of 

we're going to kind of homogenize the work 

experience here. We're going to include some 

rod exposure. We're going to include some 

billet exposure to sort of homogenize it, and 

so we didn't really try to write it for the 

most highly exposed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: One of the dilemmas, 

too, is that, you know, since we're looking at 

all of these different AWE sites, and what 

they did at Bethlehem Steel was assume the 

person is spending all day one foot away -- 

no, no, standing in front of an infinite slab 

of uranium, where the dose rate at one foot is 

two mR per hour. 

 So in other words, now we have a 

circumstance -- and I don't know what you do 

about this, you know, because we're talking as 

the years progress, and you mature, and your 

models develop, now you have a group of 

workers that worked at Bethlehem Steel as 

being given an external dose that is pretty 

high. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, this equity 

claim. 

 DR. MAURO: But now you have another 

group that's doing jobs that are, you know, 

but now you're getting a little more 

sophisticated. Well, this is really a billet 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or a rod. 

 Well they were working with rods, 

also. They weren't working with big slabs of 

uranium. So then you say, well, what do you 

do now? Is it fair that they're getting this, 

but they're getting that? I don't know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and there is a 

lot of radiation monitoring data from the 

plants that did uranium -- or uranium metal 

handling that, you know, so there is this 

whole population of claimants out there who 

are -- who handled uranium metal who are 

monitored -- uranium metal and essentially 

nothing else, like Fernald I'm thinking of, 

and to a certain extent Y-12, but they're a 

little more exotic, that were monitored and 

handled that way. 

 And you've got this whole history 

of how high the exposures went at those sites 

where the metal was handled, so there's a lot 

of things that could kind of inform an answer 

here, I think. But anyway, I have nothing new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on that -- on those findings, either, but I 

do, starting with the next one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

we've all agreed that it doesn't affect this 

particular case, but what I want to find out 

for the resolution is, are you going to modify 

your language in your, you know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think something. 

I think -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

question, and if so, how are you going to 

modify it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

moving on. So 122.7 -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That has new 

information, thank goodness. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've got one. 

Is that in the matrix? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in the matrix, 

and this one I did manage to change the color 

on this one, too. This one is sort of blue. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess it's blue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's in your 

response column, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in the 

response column, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: We're going to have to 

look at this. 

 DR. MAURO: Could you just give us 

a quick -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure I 

understand it. I may have just clipped it off 

and put it in there. 

 DR. MAURO: What is the issue here? 

 Which side is this? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It relates to some 

HASL published data, and again, to really 

understand the whole conversation, you've got 

to look at the finding in the original review. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, is this an AWE? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is still 122, 

so -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Simon Saw. 

 DR. MAURO: We're still on Simon 

Saw. I know Simon Saw well. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The reviewer 

questions whether the assumptions used for 

calculating thorium inhalation -- well okay, 

you can read that. 

 And I believe -- I don't know, but 

I think probably what happened was there was 

some -- maybe there was a certain small set of 

samples of thorium air monitoring, and then 

there was a broader -- maybe more air sampling 

during other -- during uranium operations. Is 

that what went on? 

 MR. FARVER: Thorium inhalation 

during the rolling operation? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, maybe not. 

Maybe it was just done -- maybe it was based 

on -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it was a oneday study. Is that what -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

true. I don't know for sure. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, the -- yes -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, I think it 

is. 

 DR. MAURO: There is only one day. 

And that was one of my comments on, when we 

get to Simon Saw, is to see the exposure 

matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One day. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, yes. 

Apparently, there was one day of thorium air 

sampling, and it was assumed to be 

representative of all the 36 rolling days. 

 DR. MAURO: That's it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So -- and 

we have as Simon's 13, and that reference is 

on the O drive. Do you have that right there? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It should be on the 

O drive. It should be. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that 

would be the only thing. I think you need to 

look at this, but John, do you have that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reference, do you know? 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I was 

looking at -- which one is that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the HASL data, 

Simon's 13. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have that 

reference that they note in their response? 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you know how 

the -- 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You refer to it 

as Simon's 13. If we don't, Stu, you'll make 

it available in the -- okay. 

 So I think I'm going to put that 

NIOSH provided a response and SC&A needs to 

look at the response along with the HASL 

report, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry for the 

delay. I just wanted to -- I'll lose track. 

This seems to be working for me. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 All right, 125.1, I think he did 

provide something for Case 125. Anyway, I 

think I saw it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, 125.1 is in 

the response under the response column. It's 

also in blue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Here. Now, I read 

that, so it wasn't in the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The finding was 

correct. The finding was correct. The 1984 

dose was not; it was inadvertently omitted 

from the original case. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So NIOSH is -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we've 

apparently gone through and added all the 

doses from the comments, you know, the various 

comments, and rerun the POC, and it changed 

very marginally, 34 to 35. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just give me a 

few seconds to update that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And you provided the supporting 

files? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I did. I 

think they were attached -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that -- it was 

the honking zip file that came across last 

night. I believe that's a technical term. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The big honking -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the big honking. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean, I'm 

going to say no further action on this, but 

I'm assuming that, Doug, you'll take a glance 

at those files. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, I put down the 

note to review it, but I don't think there's 

going to be any action. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

it's -- based on your POC calcs, I don't think 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you can take 

it upon yourself to catch that, or to review 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it. I'll put it as closed, but since you have 

provided the attachments, we should look at 

them, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They did all the 

work. 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, just ignore that 

one. It makes my job easier later on. I can 

just throw anything in there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

definitely review it now. 

 All right, so that one's closed 

unless we find something strange, which is 

doubtful. 

 All right. So 125.4 then, is this 

-- it's not related, is it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Same claim, 

different issue. It relates to positive 

cesium, whole body counts, correct? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- I may have 

to have Scott help me out here. It would 

appear that these are nominally -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: First of all, 

you didn't provide anything in the matrix, did 

you? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Matrix 125.4, 

it's in there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The positive 

results are I guess, what, nominally higher 

than background, or very slightly higher than 

the NCRP published -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the first one is 

-- yes, rather than the -- is slightly higher 

than the average NCRP. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The population 

average that NCRP would say that a person had 

from fallout -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- essentially. 

Okay, from testing fallout. And so the actual 

-- if there's an actual intake there on top of 

the fallout cesium, it's -- it's small enough 

that the doses are a lot less than a millirem 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a year, or something. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I mean we 

overestimated it. When we re-ran this in the 

big honking file, we actually overestimated 

using the highest cesium result that we had 

for the whole employment period, and it was 30 

millirem that we overestimated it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, did you use 

that highest result as the net result? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, without any 

stripping -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Without any 

stripping of any -- of what might be there 

from background? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So I guess 

the reason why these doses weren't included, 

you know -- I mean, the company even says 

they're small doses. I think the comments 

said that. But the reason they weren't 

included was that I guess they were judged to 

be essentially no different than what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

atmospheric testing background would have led 

those people to have. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And the DR report 

should have probably said that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: One point is that there 

is a certain table that you go by of cesium 

values, and if it's below, you don't consider 

them, and if it's above, the TBD says to treat 

that as an occupational intake. 

 And there were values that were 

above -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- that were not 

calculated -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: -- so regardless of 

what the dose is, it was just not handled 

properly. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, if it's 

less than one millirem we don't -- we -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the difference between -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It could be. Yes, I 

believe the actual -- and then Doug's right, I 

think the total dose was three millirem. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right. 

Okay, it probably should have been in there, 

then. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It probably should 

have been in there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but we all 

agree it was no effect on the -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And Stu, help me 

with this, because I guess I'm -- you know, as 

we go through these dose reconstructions, and 

we find issues like this where they weren't 

really handled correctly, or not, or whatever, 

we can change this one, but what are we doing 

in the process to make sure that it doesn't 

happen on other -- 

 You know, this is really why we're 

doing this sampling and so forth, because so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

many times I've seen that we've come up with 

stuff, but how do we, you know, how do we 

follow up to make sure that this is being done 

on other ones? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's a good 

question. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: This has always 

bothered me on this, because we find, you 

know, on some of them we can cover them with 

OTIB-60, I believe it is, and so forth, but 

when we -- when we see an issue like this, I'm 

just wondering how we get it so that we're not 

making this mistake. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know. 

 And one of the things that makes this 

difficult is that, if we're talking about a 

category of a mistake like this one, which was 

a three millirem omission, or even a 30 

millirem omission, we're talking about things 

 that really are not going to be consequential 

in the outcome. 

 And so to do something -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That might 

result in a PER for that, right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. So to do 

something for this, you know, for this error 

that was seen in this dose reconstruction, you 

have to build some sort of system that's going 

to take work by different people, a variety of 

people. You know, you've got the -- 

 It's been captured. You know, by 

identifying it, it's done, but then you have 

to essentially turn it -- well, why would this 

have happened, and how can we prevent it. 

There's work to decide how -- how that would 

happen. You know, it has to do that. 

 And then, from the time you take 

the corrective action, presumably that -- that 

corrective action will impose additional work 

on additional people to do that. 

 Now without really saying as much 

just, you know, right out, although I have 

said a number of times to make the basis of 

this, we have always aspired to concentrate on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the correct outcome -- you know, the 

probability outcome. 

 That's -- and so from our 

standpoint -- from our standpoint as the OCAS 

reviewers who approve a dose reconstruction, 

we have not made it a practice to correct, or 

to send back for a correction, an omission of 

a few millirem, or the inclusion of a few 

millirem that may be more than it should. 

 So when there's a -- when there's a 

something -- you know, even if we see it, we 

say, even if we see that and comment and send 

it back, that puts, A, delays the answer for 

this dose reconstruction, and throws this dose 

reconstruction back through this whole cycle 

for this change that makes very little 

difference, and quite likely is within the 

uncertainty of the total -- the final number, 

anyway. 

 So I guess that's kind of where 

we're coming from is we have not really 

embarked on a program of trying to eliminate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

an error that represents essentially a small 

omission like this, or a small overestimate, 

if it were an error in the other way. We have 

not really made that a part of our mission. 

 In our -- you know, in our review, 

just because of our -- you know, is the effort 

that that requires, is that worth -- you know, 

is it worth the outcome? Is the change, the 

improvement going to be worth that? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

understand that. I guess I kind of looked at 

this as another standpoint. But with this 

one, it may not. What about the ones that 

maybe this change is actually -- would make 

the difference. I guess what I'm looking at -

- you know, I guess part of my issue and part 

of my feeling is that the reason that we're 

going through these is to also make sure that 

it's being done properly, so forth, and if we 

are seeing errors, how do we correct them so 

that it's the best quality that we can. 

 Now this one may have been a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

smaller dose or so forth like that, but -- and 

it wouldn't have made any difference in the 

compensation of this one, but what about the 

ones that the same thing could have possibly 

happened that it would have? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, for a case 

where there's close to 50 percent, those 

reviews are done far more carefully, and in 

those instances if you're at 49 percent and 

you see a relatively small error, you want to 

make sure you correct it. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. Well, the 

thing is we're not reviewing, you know, all of 

them. That -- that was my point. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that's 

what Brad is getting at -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But we do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That system's in 

place, right, and you have some -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: When our guys look 

at it -- you know, first of all, everybody 

hates to pick one out at 49 percent. When you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get one of your reviews at 49 percent, you 

say, oh, man, this one is going to take me 

forever, you know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And rightly so. 

 I mean, that's the ones -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so those 

are the ones where you really worry about 

things like this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If you've got one 

that's at 30 percent and the majority -- now 

you probably don't even add up every number -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, to 

make sure that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But there's also 

other -- other -- I mean, part of the reason 

we built this review system this way -- we're 

only reviewing a sampling and part of -- I'm 

not sure people pay attention to this as much, 

but I think we have as we've gone on, is this 

notion of the case finding versus the broad 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

finding, and I've sort of ended up being the 

one characterizing those, but we always 

discuss them, and I think we've had a number 

of those like the dose conversion factors and 

things like that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they've been 

broad findings. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they end up 

being broadly applied, and then you end up -- 

you know, they may result in a PER, so there's 

a number of mechanisms that might kick in -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- you know. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that there is a 

way to deal with this problem. This is a good 

example. 

 Here you are, you have a dose 

reconstructor going through a process. He 

knows that in the guidelines if you're above 

one picocurie, whatever the cesium number is, 

if you see it more than that that means it's 

above what we sort of agreed it might be, due 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to occupational, as opposed to fallout. 

 But at the same time you say, I 

know this is not going to change anything. I 

mean, I'd hate to take that away from this 

guy, so all he's got to do is say -- say that. 

 Say, listen, I realize this is above it, but 

I'm not going to go through the process of 

going through all the calculations because -- 

so I'm just going to disregard it. 

 You've done it in other places 

where you've said that, you know -- I've seen 

it. For example, very often you would just 

disregard submersion of -- and uranium 

airborne for particulate for a guy who was an 

AWE worker. Why? Because you know that that 

dose contribution is going to be very, very 

small, maybe above one milligram a year. I 

understand it was below one milligram a year, 

and that's the end of it. 

 But even if it's above and you know 

where this guy's coming out, it would be -- 

I'd hate to force someone to do a silly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

calculation when it doesn't have to be done. 

But I think at the same time to go back to 

transparency -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let me 

turn that question around -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- to your own 

procedures. Of course, you do -- I mean, is 

it prescriptive to say that anything over 

millirem should be included? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What is the current 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I don't recall it 

specifically saying a one millirem -- 

 DR. MAURO: Unless -- unless you 

walk away from it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. I've 

heard that discussion, but I don't know where 

it's documented. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's something we've 

talked about numerous times, and they think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it's understood because IREP only goes out to 

one millirem. 

 DR. MAURO: So you -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. FARVER: But there's, you know, 

a couple of issues with that. Number one, 

you're not going to know it's one millirem 

unless you're going to do the calculation, 

even if it's just some bounding thing, okay, 

you're not going to know that. 

 The second issue, the DR report 

said that during this time period, they had 

three whole body counts, and there were no 

positive samples. All three were positive: 

potassium, sodium, and zinc. 

 So, it's incorrect in the DR report 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: The next issue is -- 

your peer review check list specifically asks 

all positive bioassay samples considered -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

yes, no, or not applicable. It should have 

been caught there. 

 A lot of times you have an Excel 

file that's put out what's called prep -- 

where it has all the external and internal 

data in there, and sometimes it's flagged if 

it's above MDA or body count, or lung count. 

I've seen that before. 

 You know, they'll have the result, 

plus they'll have the MDAs along side of it, 

and it's very easy to tell if something's 

exceeding the MDA, whether it's a positive 

count or not. 

 So there are some ways to catch it. 

 It's just you get caught. It is not just 

that it's less than a millirem, it's that the 

DR is incorrect and the peer review should at 

least have a note somewhere -- and it may -- 

saying that, you know, no, they weren't all 

considered, but down in the comments you could 

put: but it didn't matter. But I don't know. 

 MR. KATZ: Just from John Demming's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

perspective, I mean the question you ask 

yourself is, is this a systems problem or is 

this sort of a random number of errors, and if 

it's a random number of errors that have 

resulted in the situation, you generally don't 

go in and monkey with the machinery. 

 But if it's a systems problem, 

that's when you would make a change. And so, 

I mean, I think that's the way you need to 

think about these, isn't it. Do we have a 

systems problem, or is it just that it's a bad 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One DR. 

 MR. KATZ: -- or a bunch of errors 

came together and produced this -- individual 

errors. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

understand what you're saying, Ted, but we're 

sampling basically what -- one percent? 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, two and a 

half eventually, is what we're shooting for. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: This one was kind of 

interesting to me because there was several 

different errors in it and stuff like that. 

 I've always looked at this as if we 

would come back or somebody would come back 

and look at this without all of this matrix or 

anything else like that, would they be able to 

figure how and what was done, and stuff like 

that. And I don't see that level of detail, I 

guess, coming back into it, because so many 

times in our dose reconstruction reviews and 

so forth we find small errors, and I can 

understand that, and a lot of it has been -- 

it wouldn't have made any difference. 

 Just somehow I guess -- maybe I was 

looking at, and I know it's probably not a 

procedure to do it or whatever -- just so that 

people knew that we did this when we change 

the POC because of this, or something like 

that. 

 I'm just looking at this also from 

a historical -- try to come back and look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and I agree 

with Doug that, I think, the bigger story here 

in this case is there's other things in it. 

If we start to see a trend in those, that's a 

problem, you know. That's what we -- 

 MR. FARVER: Well, I've got to tell 

you what I just heard. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, if you 

know that it's not a big deal that it was left 

out, but the fact that it was missed on peer 

review -- yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I thought it was just 

maybe something that said I'm not going to 

bother you with this, but, no -- there's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, 

that's right, that brought us back to the meat 

of the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's sometimes 

what the problem is from working with the 

matrices, because you don't remember exactly -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- 

 MR. FARVER: Well, that's why I try 

to pull up the cases, because I don't remember 

them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Nonetheless, I 

think NIOSH is in agreement in this case, so 

that it probably should have been assigned, 

right, and that would be the end -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I hate to do this, but 

I think that Ted hit the nail on the head 

though. Is there anything about this case 

that would be indicative in the system file? 

That's really what we're asking. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, you can't 

find out from one case. 

 DR. MAURO: You can't find out from 

one case -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I'm 

saying. 

 DR. MAURO: -- but there was -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It doesn't mean 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we're not going to try. 

 DR. MAURO: But through the system 

it was self-evident, at least to you, that, 

listen, they have these positive hits of three 

radionuclides, and every step in the process -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- denied that that 

occurred. It said, no, it's okay. In other 

words, why would -- how could something like 

that happen? I guess, why did it come to you 

for you to pick it up? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And looking at 

this down from another standpoint, if we do 

have a lack in the quality assurance or 

whatever or there's been a glitch or something 

like this, this is the opportunity to be able 

to go back and say to the people that are 

doing this, these are the things that have 

been seen. 

 We need to focus more in on this. 

If they need to change a process or a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

procedure or whatever else, then that's 

different. Or what -- we've got to look at 

the quality assurance. 

 DR. MAURO: I would have taken it a 

step further. Even though we're operating as 

an independent auditing TBD work group, what 

I'm hearing, if I was sitting outside, I would 

say I want to know why that happened, and I 

would -- and I would have an action item that 

would go back and see where in the process did 

it break down that we didn't catch it, and why 

did that happen. Is there a systematic 

problem or just something that, you know, I 

don't know -- or was done on purpose. Or was 

a judgment made, no, this is not going to 

change anything and I'm going to let it go. 

 Then at least we'd know that it was 

done consciously and deliberately, and there's 

reasons for it, as opposed to no one was 

watching the store. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, because 

we've -- and I hear so many times that our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

quality assurance on this -- we have this 

check, this check, this check, but now all of 

a sudden we're pulling one of these up. 

 And granted, Stu, I'm not 

criticizing or anything else like that because 

I think you do a marvelous job, but the thing 

is I see a glitch here that we may be -- may 

want to review, just to call a process of 

this, to be able to -- to see maybe where we 

stubbed our toe or whatever of how did this 

happen, and do we have something to stop it 

from happening, because that's been my whole 

question is -- as we find these small ones -- 

 is there a bigger issue that's lurking out 

there, and that's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, yes. I 

guess that's my -- I don't disagree with what 

you said, John. The question I have is, well, 

just to step that through a little bit. I 

mean, is it a -- is that -- you know, to ask 

NIOSH to look back at that, I'm imagining that 

if you went to the peer reviewer they're going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to say, oh yes, I looked at it, but I 

considered it a minuscule difference. 

 I can give you the answers now, if 

you want them, you know, so where are we going 

to learn that exercise? I'm not sure we would 

gain a lot from that exercise. 

 On the other hand, in my matrix I 

think I ranked this as a -- one of these lowhigh items, you know, low case relevance but 

high -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- high overall 

relevance, and that should get the attention 

of our subcommittee and the whole board, and 

then if we start to have a lot of these 

findings related to quality or questions about 

quality or peer review of cases, then that's 

what Ted was getting into. Then we sort of 

see -- looking for these trends, you know? 

 I don't know that we -- we start 

chasing down for one -- I don't know. I don't 

know if we start chasing it down for one case. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, realize what 

you're doing here. You're defining the 

acceptable quality for dose reconstruction, 

because you're saying that these errors 

essentially are significant enough that -- not 

that the dose reconstruction is unacceptable, 

but we expect the program not to make these 

errors. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if we 

ever had that objective, to try to avoid an 

error of a few millirems. I don't know that 

we've ever had that as a program objective, to 

say that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that's not 

the error -- 

 DR. MAURO: It's procedure. 

There's a procedure. Yes, there's a 

procedure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the error 

of -- these other errors, you know, that I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think are more concerning to me anyway, to 

Doug -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Knowing this case and 

like you said, going back it's hard to 

reconstruct what somebody was thinking -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: But knowing the case 

and knowing who did it, my guess is it 

probably was considered. Just like we were 

saying, it's barely over the NCRP value. It's 

going to give very little dose. He forgot to 

write it in the dose reconstruction and 

considered that and probably was -- he didn't 

change the template language to say there were 

no positives. That's my initial guess. 

 MR. FARVER: But whoever reviewed 

it made the mistake -- the same mistake. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, same 

mistake, right. 

 MR. FARVER: And they also did the 

same thing for the next finding, 125.5, where 

it was the wrong absorption type. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: In the text? 

 MR. FARVER: In the text, which 

also should have been caught according to the 

 -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so it looks 

like a case of -- maybe a little bit -- I 

mean, I can imagine that you get -- you know, 

that's the question -- is there a trend here, 

or is it just an isolated incident where you 

saw a low POC, you saw a fairly 

straightforward -- you know, and the peer 

reviewer was a little lax maybe in this case. 

 Or is that one or is it a trend? I think 

that's what we want to look out for, I don't 

know. 

 MR. KATZ: I don't know that's at -

- on this one case you can't say this is a 

high impact or anything like that, potential 

impact. I think you just want to track and 

see, is there more evidence of this kind, at 

this point? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, when it's -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

when I've given a high ranking it's because 

this -- the nature of the finding could have 

effects on more than this case -- you know, 

broader impact. 

 MR. KATZ: The finding being? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The finding 

related to quality, right. So -- 

 But anyway that's where I -- I 

would not -- I don't think I'm -- I'm not 

leaning toward having a NIOSH action to go 

back and investigate this case to see why this 

happened. I'm more interested as we go 

forward, do we see more of these, you know? 

 At least that's my feeling right 

now. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, that's -- and 

I guess I'd even go a little bit step further. 

 I guess that in the processes that I'm used 

to, when we kind of have an audit like this -- 

and they may not be significant issues or 

anything else like that -- but it's always 

portrayed back to us: these are some small 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

things we saw. They're not -- I guess, what 

is the process back to you guys? I just want 

to make sure, you know, that it is addressed, 

that they may be minor items, and stuff like 

that, but we are -- we are seeing these things 

and maybe be able to say, you know, we need to 

look at maybe our quality assurance and make 

sure that we try to catch these things. 

 I guess I was looking kind of also 

too of the feedback to make sure -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that's -- we 

have the opportunity to convey that to NIOSH 

in our recommendations or in our reports to 

the Secretary. You know, if we start to see 

those kinds of trends I think we -- we write 

that sort of thing out and say, you know -- 

 DR. MAURO: It's just a matter of -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, my 

concern about having an action for this 

particular case would be that, you know, 

basically what Scott said. I mean, it's going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to be people trying to remember what they did 

and likely to say, I think this is probably 

what happened, you know. 

 And how useful is that going to be, 

you know. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that NIOSH has 

an obligation. When a judgment is made and it 

should be given to the team to make a decision 

-- a judgment. In this particular case, I'm 

not going to follow the procedure because it 

doesn't make sense to follow because I know 

it's not -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that should 

be documented. 

 DR. MAURO: And that should be 

documented. That's it. 

 But right now there is no way for 

us to know whether that was what was done, or 

there's a breakdown of QA. We just don't 

know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. But I 

agree with Doug where, you know, your peer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reviewer came in, you should have at least 

checked it off and said, you know, it looks 

like this will be a low dose. Is this why you 

didn't include it? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then it 

would have closed the circle completely, you 

know? So that's the question. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: This comes back to 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we've 

beat this issue around enough, yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: But this also 

comes back to your earlier comment earlier 

today of kind of keeping track of how they -- 

how they did with those process of -- you 

know, the process of -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, an 

unambiguous -- yes, yes. 

 So -- and, Doug, I guess we've got 

one more of these. I didn't realize that -- 

something similar to this, but for now I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

included that NIOSH is in agreement, but I 

don't have any further action on this 

particular case. 

 But like I said, it doesn't mean 

that it's lost to our overall assessment. I 

mean, we understand that the issue's out 

there. That's my feeling. I'm not at this 

point ready to make an action out of, you 

know, going back to -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

wouldn't know what the action would be. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

mean. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

mean. I'm not sure to what end, you know -- 

or John was bringing that up. That's why I 

said, you know, to have NIOSH go back and 

investigate this. I don't think it's fruitful 

at this point. 

 All right, I think we have that 

issue. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: And if you're the 

employee and you get this report you're going 

to say, my gosh, I know I had positive 

bioassays -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: You know, it's just 

not good all the way around. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I agree, I 

agree. So we got the point. 

 Okay, let's move on to 125.5, 

especially if it's there -- the similar thing 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: Well, that's been 

closed. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was 

supposed to be closed. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's been 

closed. 

 MR. FARVER: It was. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was the same 

thing. 

 MR. FARVER: Same thing. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. It was a 

quality product, so you already captured that 

in Resolution 2. All right. 

 And I am down to 125.9. 

 MR. FARVER: 125.6. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, what happened to 

six? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I had it as point 

six. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry. 

 MR. FARVER: Stu added some there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Okay, I 

just -- I didn't have it highlighted, that's 

why, okay. 

 The remaining question is 

documenting what approach was used, I guess. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then I say 

no further action. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: For 125.6, the note 

I took was when there is information -- like 

in this case there was -- a TBD gave you a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certain year range for a particular practice, 

and it was subsequently determined that that 

range should have included one more year. 

 So prior to -- so my note was prior 

to revision of the TBD, how is that 

information captured and shared with dose 

reconstructors, and that's what our response 

speaks to. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. This is one of 

these cases where it wasn't -- the information 

was not in the document that was referenced in 

the DR. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: It was an in-between 

TBD type issue, so when we go back and look at 

the next rev of the TBD, yes, they followed 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see. 

 MR. FARVER: I guess this goes back 

to your -- your DR guidance issues. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So do we 

have a bottom line on this one, then? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: I mean, it is what 

they said. It was in the next rev of the TBD. 

 It does follow the current guidance. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It does follow 

the current guidance. It just wasn't -- there 

was nothing at that time -- 

 MR. FARVER: There was nothing in 

the TBD that was referenced. It did not 

follow that guideline. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this could 

have been a case of that in-between DR 

guidance -- 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Apparently, there 

was one. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, yes it is, 

because I was able to track down the Hanford -

- 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- guidance that was 

in place at that time, and I put a copy in 

there, and it does specify -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You did put a 

copy in there? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I sent 

that. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that did come 

across last night, and, yes, it does -- it 

does specify that for that year you used a 44 

to 46 value. And that's a good example of 

something that is good for us to have. I 

agree. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling. Just for one second. Okay, this is 

one that Stu sent and it's SC&A 125.6 support 

document, and what was included here, as we've 

been talking so much about today, is what 

reminds me of a DR guideline. I believe 

that's what you could call this, and this is 

why, I guess, we've been pushing to say this 

would be something that would be such a useful 

tool to have in the case files. 

 I don't know if you all have that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

open or if you can view that particular 

document, but would you agree, Stu, that this 

 would be considered a DR guideline? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I believe if 

there were -- I mean, this one -- I think this 

specific one has elapsed because the TBD has 

been revised, but things like this would be 

what I intend to tell ORAU to use. You know, 

if there's one that pertains to a cit and 

there are dose reconstructions from that cit -

- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: To include in 

the file. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Just stick it in 

the file. You don't have to -- if you don't 

use, no matter if you don't refer to it, you 

don't use it, if it doesn't even apply, it 

doesn't matter. 

 MS. BEHLING: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stick it in the 

file. 

 MS. BEHLING: And not only is this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

invaluable to the auditors, but it's 

invaluable to, like we've been talking, years 

from now -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- if we ever go back 

to this, you'll know precisely what was done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. One 

second. Now 125.9 is the next one, right? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't really 

have anything. We were hoping to get a little 

more clarity about our action here, because I 

failed to make any notes on this last time. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was one of the 

highlighted items. I just didn't have any 

notes, and I couldn't recall what the 

discussion was. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay, the -- it looks 

like the DOE records indicate this employee 

was involved in four incidents. Three in '57 

and one in '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 

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 In three of the incidents it said 

bioassay requests. For example, potential 

fission product, uranium and plutonium 

inhalations, positive nasal smears. Bioassay 

requested on two dates. 

 Well, these dates don't match up to 

the bioassay data, and also the write-up in 

the -- well, I guess that write-up refers to 

the CATI report, not the DOE record. 

 The DR does talk about some 

instances in the DOE files of contamination 

events, but since the person was being 

monitored for internal and external, well they 

should have been taken -- should have been 

included with the bioassay data. 

 But I don't believe the dates of 

the incidents correspond with the bioassay 

data. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that's the 

question? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the bioassay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

request forms related to the incidents do not 

match the bioassay data, and NIOSH was going 

to look into that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- I 

couldn't remember. I couldn't remember what 

to do on this, so I didn't take -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no, no, 

right. I mean, that was the clarification for 

next time, right? Was that what we're after? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so this is an 

instance where we have -- you say it's a DOE 

record that describes the incident -- 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and this 

person's is set for bioassay, or whatever. 

 MR. FARVER: It's either written on 

there or checked -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: -- and I forget how it 

is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so there's no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bioassay approximating that date -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Around that time 

period. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- around that time 

period, or at least from that time period, or 

at least not from that point later. And so 

what happened to those bioassay samples and 

how do we know we got them, or why didn't we 

get them? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Should we, you 

know, make another attempt? Our additional 

attempts back for data have largely been 

fruitless, although it doesn't mean we 

shouldn't go back and ask. 

 I think -- what would an 

explanation like this be, that since this 

person was on a bioassay program and didn't -- 

apparently we don't have an incident sample 

from these incidents but we do have a routine 

sampling regimen, it would seem to me that an 

intake, an acute intake associated with this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

event, could be matched up with later bioassay 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and you could 

compare what does that -- you know, how big 

could this event have been -- with the 

subsequent bioassay date, and how does that 

compare with what we assign, because we 

probably used a chronic if we didn't have any 

positives or something. How does that compare 

with a chronic? 

 So that could be it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think you 

see, looking at the 12/08 action, if you look 

at that that's all those things you're saying. 

 Was all the data obtained? 

 Why wasn't it picked up in peer 

review? That's another standing question 

here. And then is the chronic bounding, and 

if you can sort of demonstrate that that the 

chronic is bounding, then I think that would, 

you know -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

would, you know. Yes, we couldn't find the 

incident data; however, you know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- these dates 

and looked at the data and, you know. 

 DR. MAURO: This is a recurring 

theme, and if I understand what we have here 

is, yes, that's correct. There is this 

misalignment, but it doesn't really matter. 

The answer is: well, it doesn't really matter 

because it probably was because of -- he was 

on a routine bioassay. 

 All of that answers why it's okay 

that that wasn't done. It leads us right back 

to what we were talking about before: 

transparency, documentation, archiving, the 

four processes that went into it. So I guess, 

you know, we're hitting this over and over 

again. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, but the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other thing on this one -- I agree with you, 

John, but the other part -- and I'm not that 

familiar with this case, so I might be 

speaking out of turn here, but I guess the 

question I would have also is are the 

incidents related to the similar nuclides that 

are involved in the chronic -- or the routine 

bioassay. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The incidents 

were contained in something else. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, well, one was 

uranium and one was plutonium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, and then 

you're back at square one. And I don't know, 

I have been on sites where incident data is 

sort of kept separate from routine bioassay 

logs and stuff, so it may be that there is 

some missing chunk of data. It could be 

across the board for a number of employees, 

not just, you know -- 

 I think that there's some other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions here. 

 DR. MAURO: You're absolutely 

right. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, do you have 

this one? Was this the Nevada Test Site? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hanford. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought I saw 

some NTS stuff on here. Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's more 

clear. At least I remembered to take some 

notes this time. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I think -- 

like you said, Stu, it may be what you come 

back with isn't -- isn't -- isn't the data 

itself -- but the fact that later data, you 

know, considering the dates of the incidents 

and the matrix incidents, we clearly show we 

come down -- that kind of, you know. So that 

may be your response. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we've got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

some people on the project who are pretty 

smart about Hanford and so, you know, if the 

incident data would not have been captured -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, they 

should know that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the record, 

you would think that they would know that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

true. 

 MS. BEHLING: I believe this 

individual did work occasionally at the Nevada 

Test Site, also. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, really? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought I saw 

that on there, but that's been one of the 

questions of is -- especially being on the 

Nevada Test Site, Savannah River, so forth, 

what I've run into is the home place says that 

they're being -- say it was Hanford, well, 

Nevada Test Site actually monitors them while 

they're down there, and Nevada Test Site says, 

no, they're not our responsibility. They're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Hanford's site. 

 So there has been -- as I have seen 

there's been a disconnect on where the data 

went. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would a 

complicating factor. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's a 

complicating factor in who is actually 

responsible for them, but they both point 

fingers in the opposite direction. There was 

data taken, but what happened and where did it 

go? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the incident 

 file we have -- the incident's from Hanford? 

 I mean, that's usually the site that gives us 

an incident report in the exposure history. 

You know, normally Hanford does that. I don't 

know that NTS does that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Nevada didn't 

have -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway, I won't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

go there. I'll save that for next week. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I'm glad this 

came up because this had been a reoccurring 

thing that we've seen similar things like 

this, but several different sites, especially 

where they were going out and coming back and 

so forth like that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I think 

that -- that completes 125, and I'm going to 

propose a -- we take a 10-minute -- 10-minute 

break, comfort break, maybe turn the heat down 

in here. 

 MR. KATZ: I feel it. It's a 

little warm is right. Okay, so I'm just 

putting the phone on mute. I won't disconnect 

the line. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 2:10 p.m. and resumed 

at 2:23 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: All right. Hello, we're 

back. We're back on the phone. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we're back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

live in the Cincinnati Airport Hotel. 

 MR. KATZ: Mike, Mike, are you with 

us? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm still 

here, Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Mike. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, Mike, 

thanks for hanging in there, Mike. It's 

exciting material -- we do get through the 

details, this is good. 

 We're on Case 126, although I have 

to find the next one that we really -- 126.2 

has a follow-up item. This is NIOSH to verify 

based on work history that OTIB-2 is 

appropriate and the certainty that it is 

bounding. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I sent a 126 

on -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So one case 

finding went to 126.2. Did you sent something 

for 126? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's what file 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I sent it last 

night. It was on the part two email, so in 

set response is part of two. 

 MR. FARVER: I haven't looked at 

it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a 126 zip. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can maybe you 

just present it and then -- SC&A hasn't had a 

chance to look at it, but at least maybe you 

can give us an overview. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a second, let me 

finish the email that I'm already doing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The zip only has 

about 12 files in it, right? More than that? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, the email file 

is on the way to your desk. 

 MR. FARVER: The real one? 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's the real one, 

unless I sent the wrong one. Which one are we 

looking at now? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 126.2, it's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

zip file that was sent last night. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, that's what 

this is. What's in the zip file are all the -

- all the background files to demonstrate that 

if we had assessed the internal based on his 

actual data, it's less than what we assigned 

under OTIB-2. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: That's -- I mean, 

that's all -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what's 

there, right? Yes. Really, we just need to 

give SC&A time to -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't want to 

do that live, you know. Yes. Doug, agree? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought you'd 

agree with that. 

 MR. FARVER: But that was just a 

question, right -- whether it's bounding or 

not? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And that's all that's 

demonstrating in this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm just 

going to put NIOSH provided supporting files 

and SC&A will review them. 

 DR. MAURO: Mark, after we do the 

review do we -- how do we mechanistically 

handle it? Do we just email you, say that we 

recommend closing? Is that how we -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How do you come 

back to this meeting? 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, the next time would 

be -- so you wouldn't do it in between? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I don't want 

to close out, because the work group's 

closing. We don't want to get into that issue 

of the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, I'm not saying 

 we're closing. We just recommend that we 

close -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: -- and give you the 

reason and you have it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I know 

that's one of the problems I've had with the 

procedure, the subcommittee's database -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- is that 

sometimes I see SC&A closed this issue. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, no -- no, no -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They recommend. 

 DR. MAURO: -- we recommend, and 

that's the only reason I asked you. Would you 

like to see something from us before the next 

work group meeting with our recommendations, 

so that then you could act on it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, it's always 

better if you have a response ahead of time. 

We all get into this habit of the last minute. 

 DR. MAURO: As opposed to doing it 

here? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but if you 

have a response ahead of time -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: We'll do it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- then at least 

we can -- but then we can formally close it. 

 DR. MAURO: And then close it at 

the meeting? That's what we try to do. 

 MR. FARVER: And if there's 

supporting information, I usually try to email 

that ahead of time -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- things like that. 

 DR. MAURO: Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay -- so 

moving on 127.1, and I don't know why. I had 

a couple -- I had highlighted in the NIOSH 

response as well. Anything about an 

additional response? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was that 

something I was missing or -- anyway. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I had a note that 

we were supposed to provide evidence that EE 

worked in Building 108 while in the 100 area. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 That's the note I took at the March meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that I have 

in the -- yes, that I have in the resolution 

column, but then I have in the matrix -- under 

the NIOSH response I have something about 

additional response. I'll try to -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the additional 

response is -- the April 15th response. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I see. Your -- in 

 what I sent. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's in your -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What I sent last 

night was -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There it is, 

okay. Oh, and it's a good one. It's a long 

one. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Don't mix those up. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So can you maybe 

summarize that -- what you found out? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean the 

person was a laboratory technician in the 100 

area, and so I think the finding relates to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

why weren't neutrons included in the dose 

reconstruction, since they worked in the 100 

area, which is the reactor area. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And our response 

was, well, not every building in the 100 area 

is a reactor building. This person was a lab 

tech and, you know, based on the work, et 

cetera. 

 And so this is more exposition on 

that. It explains where in the file -- in the 

case file we find the information that 

describes, you know -- well, I guess where it 

describes that she's in Building 108, or I 

guess in one case Building 1713. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Both -- both areas. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And then we quote 

from a -- it looks like a document available 

on the web about work activities that occurred 

in Building 1713. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What's the 

relevance of this beryllium work? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the bottom line 

is they exposed rats for research purposes and 

then transferred them over to another building 

for care -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But exposed to 

beryllium -- or not radiation? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, but they were 

-- but they were exposed in another part of 

the plant, and -- what this is pointing out is 

they were transferred to this facility, which 

clearly is not a facility with neutrons. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's where the -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's where they took 

care of the lab animals. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: One of the 

buildings is where the EE worked, and so they 

were taking care of lab animals in that 

building. 

 MR. SIEBERT: So that combined with 

being a lab technician dealing with biological 

blood samples, stuff like that from the 

animals, the Dose reconstructors determined 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that neutrons would not have been appropriate 

because they weren't working anywhere near the 

reactors, and it's just explaining that 

situation, which I think we had agreed on the 

last time. You just wanted a little bit more 

specific information as to why we came up with 

that idea. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, I thought I just 

agreed to it, but -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we'll go with 

that, too. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I guess 

SC&A's -- 

 MR. FARVER: I'll read through it. 

 I think it would be okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sure it's 

how the TBD states it. I mean, do they 

segregate -- I mean, how do you -- I don't 

know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you know, Scott? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- if it 

generically says that neutron exposures took 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

place in the -- you know, because it segment 

out in different buildings. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you off 

the top of my head. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just 

wondering about, you know, going forward on 

other cases if -- 

 DR. MAURO: Am I correct, Doug, 

when we see that someone's in the 100 area at 

Hanford we automatically assume they should be 

assigned neutron does? Is that something that 

we -- 

 MR. FARVER: We don't do that. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was your -- 

Doug, what was your answer to that? Do you 

know? 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, we just don't 

automatically assume. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You need more 

information, right? 

 MR. SIEBERT: And if I remember 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

correctly, it was actually stated specifically 

in the dose reconstruction -- as a laboratory 

tech her duties included reading dosimetry 

badges for personnel, which obviously you 

wouldn't be reading personnel badges in a 

neutron area, performing tasks and so and so 

forth. And they specified that as their work 

and used that idea as to why they did not 

assume neutrons. So it was in the original 

dose reconstruction. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Going back to 

our theme of the day, this -- this -- these 

duties and the job activities were in the 

original -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- dose -- okay. 

 Okay, so I think that closes that issue. It 

does happen. 

 All right, 127.5. -- it's the same 

-- is it the same issue? It's missed neutron, 

right? It's the same -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's the same thing. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same exact 

thing. I'm completing the record here. Okay. 

 Now 127.8. I should look in your 

matrix. You probably have a response, or no? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got on in 

there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and SC&A -

- Doug, have you looked at this one or had a 

chance to? 

 MR. FARVER: No, we haven't. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Stu, can you 

give us a summary of it maybe and -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the -- the 

finding I think relates to the fact that there 

is some common fission products that aren't 

addressed in the internal dose. And I think 

we -- you know, Scott, you know, again correct 

me if I say something wrong or stupid here. 

 Our approach to fission products is 

rather than identify every potential fission 

product and try to do a dose estimate on every 

single one, let's choose the most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radiologically significant, you know, in terms 

of this person's dose, essentially assume all 

the fission product activity is that 

radionuclide, which would then give you -- 

which would be higher than the dose had you 

apportioned that radioactivity among the 

various radionuclides and assigned a dose in 

that fashion. 

 And so I think that's what this is 

trying to explain. It's a long explanation, 

and I didn't get the chance to read much 

before I sent it out, so I think that's what 

it's trying to say. 

 MR. FARVER: Is this our standard 

one that has to do with OTIB-54? 

 DR. MAURO: Fifty-four, right. But 

that has a mix. In other words, 54 has the 

different reactor types. It has a different 

mix of radionuclide. In other words, what you 

do is you go to gross beta gamma in the urine 

and say, okay, given that gross beta gamma in 

the urine we're going to assume that this kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of reactor -- this is your default mix and you 

get your intake, as opposed to what you just 

described which would be a single 

radionuclide. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I, really -- I'm 

just speaking off the -- but I think it is 

true that we don't attempt to identify every 

radionuclide and assign a dose for everyone. 

We try to find one or perhaps a suite and 

apportion the activity, the total activity 

among those, you know, and the knowledge that 

those are more radiologically significant and, 

therefore, would bound with any other 

distribution of the dose. 

 MR. FARVER: This looks like the 

one where you went to the radionuclide chooser 

on this one. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. This was done 

prior to OTIB-54 and OTIB-39, which is the coworker. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's basically 

seen as more conservative than -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And when we went back 

and re-calculated, if we did it the present 

way the doses went down -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Went down. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- from what we 

assigned. I've got to read this over again. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you provide 

those calculations to us, or was that part of 

this transmittal? You may not. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

don't remember any 127 files. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because the way 

I read that last part, you know, they have 

typically resulted in lower internal -- you 

know, it's a little squishy there, so -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's one of those 

where we may not have done the actual -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 DR. MAURO: By the way, on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

OTIB-54, we did review it and found it 

favorable. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that still in 

the work group or -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think we've gone 

through it, and there was a few comments, but 

by and large it was a favorable finding. I 

don't know -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that approach 

as Stu described it, or is it -- 

 DR. MAURO: No, what we did -- what 

they did is they took different categories of 

reactors -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it's a 

little more sophisticated. 

 DR. MAURO: It's very 

sophisticated. And, you know, whether or not 

this particular reactor is embraced by that 

range of reactive types that are captured in 

54. 

 Then what we did is we did a very 

detailed analysis of the origin runs that were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

run, to figure out the radionuclide mix and 

what would be the limiting -- Joyce did the 

work, and she did a very thorough review, and 

we came back saying, good job. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they actually 

went with a mix rather than just a -- 

 DR. MAURO: They went with a mix 

but it was based on -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I haven't looked 

at TIB-54. 

 DR. MAURO: The -- the -- the 

starting point though was the bioassay, and 

the problem is -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- there's a lot of 

gross beta gamma data in urine out there. 

What do you do with it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Of course. So I 

guess what I would -- I don't know about Doug 

but what I would want in this case maybe is 

just the assessment that Scott described just 

now, the documents that show that, and then we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can close it out, you know. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, I thought there 

was another finding from another case about -- 

we had this question about, well, we used a 

radionuclide chooser, and we always come back 

to say, well, 54 should have taken care of it. 

 We're looking at that, but I never remember 

it being closed out. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's an open 

finding in a number -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- findings, the 

kind to reconcile this -- the fission product 

internal dose approaches, you know. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, old 

approaches with current and sort of the basis, 

and essentially also at the same time as this 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In other words, 

is this method used in the past more bounding 

or at least as bounding as TIB-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 

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, yes. When 

this was initially done this person had gross 

beta urine and whole body counts, and back at 

that time, without OTIB-54, if you tried to 

base everything off the urine, the numbers 

were just unbelievably large -- 

 DR. MAURO: I remember this. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- and so what we did 

is we eliminated with the most claimant 

favorable radionuclide based on the whole body 

counts -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- which is where 

that whole chooser thing came from. Now that 

we have OTIB-54, a claim like this would be 

based on the gross beta urine, and with the 

suite assigned to it, and what we need to do 

is we need to make that, I guess, what you 

want to see is that comparison of doing it 

that way -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- versus what we did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

previously with the chooser. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you answered 

my other question which is why -- why did 

things get switched over to this sophisticated 

model in TIB-54, and the answer is the doses 

were way too -- 

 DR. MAURO: Too high. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- astronomical, 

right. 

 So what is the -- the remaining 

action here, I think, is that, you know, NIOSH 

will provide support files to indicate that it 

is at least as bounding -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- as bounding 

as TIB-54 approach, or something like that. 

 Okay, moving on, 127.10, you added 

a response to those, Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I believe it's 

much the same issue but from this -- is that 

right? 

 MR. FARVER: Probably, let's see. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, we closed a 

section of the TBD that talks about Carbon 14, 

P-32. There was a radon generator as 

potentially -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is -- 

 MR. FARVER: But I thought we had 

discussed this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The way that's 

worded, several -- radionuclides as opposed to 

the fission -- you know, it seems like it's a 

different thing. 

 MS. BEHLING: It's definitely 

different than the fission product. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, it is. 

 MS. BEHLING: And I thought we were 

still waiting on maybe NIOSH to resend a 

response, because I don't seem to see one 

here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they did -- 

they did add a response -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- but I'm not 

sure it's responsive. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes -- to be 

honest with you that was a response to the 

note that I wrote last time which has to do 

with send initial responses to these findings, 

so that was my note that I wrote last time. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay, and I see they 

did introduce a response into the matrix, into 

Stu's matrix. I guess we just need to look 

this over. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure -- 

Doug, can you -- Doug or Kathy, can you go 

over the original? You have the text there. 

I mean, it doesn't seem to be related to the 

fission product question. 

 MR. FARVER: No, it doesn't. It 

has to do with Carbon 14 and P-32. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: Apparently, it's -- 

there was a radon generator used for animal 

studies in the 1008-F Building and later moved 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to some other place. Monitoring was probably 

just by air sampling, but no information has 

been discovered yet. So that's taken as a 

TBD. 

 I guess if we can conclude that 

this person -- well, no, they didn't work in 

the 1008. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So Scott, are 

you saying that those doses from those other 

nuclides are also bounded by the fission 

product? 

 MR. SIEBERT: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I think -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

that -- yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I mean, radon, I can 

tell you right now, isn't an issue that's 

pressing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Do you 

want to strike this response, is this going to 

confuse us down the line? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm down to 

129.5. This is the TIB-54. This is the exact 

question we were just bringing up, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So do we have 

files for this woman? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is 

Savannah River. This would be a different 

issue because as it stands right now OTIB-54 

is not applied to whole body counts, and 

that's what we are -- that's where the 

discussion needs to be dealt with. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this was done 

based on whole body counts? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. This was 

using chooser with the whole body count. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And the 

question I have -- maybe this is wrong, but we 

were going to -- NIOSH was going to compare 

this to values using TIB-54 and see if the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

approach was still bounding or consistent or -

- is that wrong? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I'd have to 

look at this case. If this case does not have 

urine bioassay -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, so 

I'm not sure. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- for beta, I -- you 

don't -- 54 doesn't really apply, or we don't 

have a method to apply it at the moment. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are -- aren't 

there a series of Savannah River internal 

fission product dose reconstruction limits 

around here somewhere? 

 MR. SIEBERT: It falls under all 

the rest of them with Savannah River where we 

used chooser as being -- as what we were going 

to look into. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MS. BEHLING: I don't believe that 

in this particular case there was any 

urinalysis data. I think it was lung and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

whole body count data, and 54 I don't think 

would apply here. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, as it stands 

right now, that's one thing I believe we are 

looking into is how we could apply them -- 54 

methodology to whole body counts. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's what -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And that's the issue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Can it be applied. 

 DR. MAURO: Isn't Savannah River 

the place where you used the high five -- 

highest five, or are you not doing that any 

longer? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that's OTIB-1. 

 That's the overestimate. 

 DR. MAURO: Right, but you weren't 

doing that here? 

 MR. SIEBERT: No. This was 

actually using the chooser -- used the largest 

of the most claimant favorable of the 

radionuclides that were monitored within the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

whole body count. 

 DR. MAURO: How does the dose 

reconstructor decide when to use the high 

five, as opposed to this method? What would 

be the judgment -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: When they can use an 

overestimate. 

 DR. MAURO: So, in other words, was 

this person denied? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I would assume, 

probably yes. 

 DR. MAURO: But if you would have 

gone with the high five, he wouldn't have 

been? 

 MS. BEHLING: John, this is a best 

estimate case. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, say it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Best estimate 

case. 

 MS. BEHLING: This is a best 

estimate case. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is a best 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

estimate. Okay, I'm sorry -- okay. 

 MR. FARVER: This is right after -- 

 DR. MAURO: And he was compensated. 

 And you wouldn't use high five under those -- 

okay, got it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, Scott, let 

me just capture that. You said you were 

reviewing TIB-54 first to determine whether it 

can be used with whole body count data, right? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or whether that 

-- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. I know that's 

on our plate. We're looking at that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I don't know 

that that impacts this finding right now. I 

mean, that's -- that's sort of would go over 

to the procedures work group, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Well, it's going to 

come up a lot in findings that you won't have. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And it has been for 

quite a while -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- because every time 

we bring up chooser this is what we end up 

with -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- that it's being 

looked at and -- 

 MR. FARVER: I think we're still -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And do we have 

any kind of time frame on that, or is that way 

out there, or it's hard to tell? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, we're 

going to leave -- I'll leave it on there for 

now because we left it on there last time, so 

 -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, in this case -

- and it's certainly up to you, but in this 

case it was comp so it's not going to make a 

decision, and it's already captured in many 

other places, you could just close it. 

 MS. BEHLING: This case -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thought this case was denied. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If it was 70.00 it 

shouldn't have been. 

 MS. BEHLING: No, it's 36.6. 

 MR. FARVER: Did I read the wrong 

one. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Now I'm seeing 46.9. 

So what's the right answer? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've got three 

different -- we'll leave it on there either 

way. We can -- we can deal with that later, 

but -- 

 MR. FARVER: Well, but I don't have 

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, it's not 

going to matter that much for the whole matrix 

because if we delete them all -- if they all 

fall off at once, that's fine. 

 All right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's 129. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 130.6. I'm 

moving ahead. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: 36.63. Do we all 

agree now when we look at the right one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, you were 

right. 

 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. 

 MR. FARVER: I guess what's scary 

is we could all look at different cases and 

not realize it. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: That comes up to a 

quality assurance. 

 DR. MAURO: Failure to communicate. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm on 130.6 

now, so we can -- 

 MR. FARVER: Trying to get there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- get focused 

here. We're getting near the end of set 

seven. 

 I though we would be doing set 11, 

but not quite. So is this a question of the 

work history, right, to see if -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's a question of 

when is it appropriate to be assigning missed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fission product dose for this individual -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- based on the area. 

 And further investigation of where the person 

was put them in the 400-D area, which is not a 

reactor area. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that the heavy 

water area? 

 MR. SIEBERT: The heavy water 

facility. So obviously tritium monitoring 

would be appropriate; however, fission 

products, you're not going to be getting it in 

that area. 

 So what we determined is that is 

made sense not to be assigning it. The 

individual also didn't have a badge, an 

external monitoring badge, because it was 

practice in the area of not assigning badges 

to that area because it wasn't external 

exposure, as well. 

 So everything that we found during 

those earlier years wind up that he was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

actually in the 400-D area, and it was 

appropriate not to assign this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why don't we -- 

that was your initial response, really, but 

for some reason we were requiring -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: You wanted to get -- 

you just wanted us to go a little bit more 

deeply into determining the 400 area, which we 

delved into and found. Yes, that's what 

everything is. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I guess what 

I'm getting at is I don't see an additional 

response on that -- that delving into it. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's in Stu's. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, thank 

you. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, Doug, did 

you have a chance to look at this? 

 MR. FARVER: No, I have not. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Would you like a 

chance? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, please. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Now this person's 

exposure record theoretically would have a 

bioassay cards, it would have the work 

locations? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it does. It's 

listed as 400-D in the very early years, or 

just D a little bit later, which was fifties, 

early sixties. And we also looked at the fact 

that Savannah River doesn't have a D reactor. 

 It has a C, L, K, all those others, so it 

couldn't be confused with a reactor area. 

When they were specifically saying D, they 

meant the 400-D area on the cards. 

 MR. FARVER: That's correct, 400-D 

is heavy water. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And the person was an 

operator, foreman, and supervisor in the heavy 

water operations. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 131.4 is the 

next case I have. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sent anything to you on 131.4. 

 DR. MAURO: I think we had an 

action on that, right? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, NIOSH will 

provide a sample calculation for those. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: My action item was 

sample dose calculations showing how dose was 

reconstructed for this DR-4 for a given year. 

 Is this --does this have a shallow dose? 

 DR. MAURO: You didn't have all the 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm on 131.4. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, I thought we 

closed this last time. 

 MS. BEHLING: I thought so, too. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I had something 

about a sample calculation using -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I had them there, 

too. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, this is the point 

three. I do remember this one. This is one 

we couldn't figure it out, and they were in -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's a 

remaining action? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, and I 

didn't send anything before this meeting. I 

didn't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 131.6? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I didn't send 

anything additional with this one either, but 

 this is -- it sounds a lot like the one we 

talked about just a minute ago. 

 It wasn't in the consolidated 

matrix that came over a couple of days -- 

 131.4 and 131.6. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I took a big 

jump down to 135.1, is the next one I found. 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, we haven't 

answered that one. I think it was just -- 

matrix -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, it is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug, you 

probably haven't had an opportunity to look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this, have you? 

 MR. FARVER: No. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it probably 

shouldn't be that hard. The question was 

whether it is based on missed or co-worker 

dose, and it was based on -- the person was 

actually monitored the full time, so it was 

based on actual badge numbering, and it was 

based on missed. 

 That was the only question I had 

outstanding. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So it was 

based on reported badge doses and missed 

doses, not a co-worker model, right? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there any 

follow-up on that SC&A, Doug? I think that -

- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's clean. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 135.4. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't send 

anything new on that. I'm still working on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we're 

supposed to provide information about work 

locations where tritium might have been a 

factor in 112. Isn't that what we were asked 

to do? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Because our 

response says based on where he worked. There 

isn't any, but that was all it said. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. All 

right, yes, because he reported on the CATI, 

too. It was reported on the CATI. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, he probably 

checked it on the CATI. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

136.3. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that was an 

extra file I sent last night. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's the xrays at Rocky Flats. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that in the 

matrix or is it -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's separate, and 

I’m thinking that might be part three. No, 

not part three. 

 It's in the seventh set response it 

is not part two or part three. It was the 

first of the messages. There are a series of 

 136 files attached there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry, Stu, 

which -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a series 

-- it's on -- the message I sent just said 

seventh set response. I sent it at 5:23 

yesterday, and it doesn't have a part two or 

part three on it -- the title. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't see anything 

in there concerning x-rays. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know. 

 I sent a bunch of 136 files. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, those are all 

the internal files for 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 

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, this is -- 

okay, these are 36.4 and 5. That's not for 

three -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so I have not 

got a report back; in fact, I have, I think, a 

phone call in from -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, we've got that 

done. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did I do something 

on this? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is part of 

what I sent. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I dropped 

this one. I dropped this one, then. 

 MR. SIEBERT: The bottom line on 

this one, if this is where we were having the 

issue that the Rocky Flats films may not have 

lined up with the paper record that we were 

basing everything on, so we had requested from 

Rocky Flats to look through their films for 

specific cases to see if there was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 258

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

difference in what was in the film versus what 

they sent us. 

 And this was one of the ones that 

came back and actually what we had in the 

paper record was identical to what was in the 

film record. So this one actually, because we 

used the paper record as a best estimate, it 

was appropriate because it's the same as what 

was in the film record. 

 Now we found at Rocky Flats there 

are some where there are more films than what 

was in the paper records, and that's a 

different issue that we're dealing with. But 

for this specific case they lined up on a oneto-one basis so what was done using the paper 

record was accurate. 

 MR. FARVER: But you didn't know it 

was accurate at the time? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: At the time we did 

 the dose reconstruction we didn't know that 

the -- that there was a problem with the paper 

records. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That we discovered 

later. 

 MR. FARVER: Even though that's in 

the TBD? 

 MR. SIEBERT: The TBD says there 

may have been inconsistencies, however, it 

didn't always direct to always use annual -- 

we had this discussion before. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the TBD left 

the dose reconstructor with nothing to do -- I 

mean, no -- it said it threw that in there but 

didn't provide any direction, and it took us a 

while to discover that we needed some 

direction, and then once we started looking 

in it we saw, yes, that's really true. We 

can't rely on the paper record, and so that's 

when we started . I think we were actually 

retrieving the paper records. 

 MR. SIEBERT: But they're going 

through all the films. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's what I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

meant, going through all the films. 

 DR. MAURO: So you don't default 

to this -- what is it, Ron Kathren's report, 

the OTIB-6, for all x-rays. In other words -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, not if we have 

something in a -- not if we have a TBD. 

 DR. MAURO: And you have actual 

film records for this worker and how many 

records -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: We ended up going 

back to the film record. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We had a paper 

summary, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: We had a paper -- 

it's Rocky Flats. So we have a TBD, which 

told us -- gave us direction but it was not 

real clear on how we implemented the 

direction, and then once we determined that 

was the case we -- this really came up 

because I was trying to determine if the paper 

records were fully complete or not, and when 

we looked at those seven ones requested, most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of them had some films in there that were not 

in the paper record. 

 Now this one, like I said, this one 

did bring up that issue. 

 DR. MAURO: Just for my own 

information, did this person's records include 

one per year or more -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, no, it's -- 

there's one in '69, there's one in '73, one in 

'75, one in '77, '78, '83, and '84. 

 MR. FARVER: You tell me that's 

what they did. As you got older, you had them 

more frequently. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: But it doesn't match 

up with the frequency in the TBD. Has the 

guidance in the TBD been changed or clarified? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there was a 

lot of changes made to that TBD. There were a 

lot of changes made. I don't know if this one 

was changed or not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: This is a relatively 

recent -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- issue that's come 

up in the last few months that's exactly with 

the film records and so on, so I'm guessing 

probably not at the moment. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, can I -- 

you might have answered this already, but 

going back to Doug's initial questions you 

assumed up front when the case was done that 

the paper record was complete. And you kind 

of got lucky on this one. As you said, other 

cases didn't line up, but how did you -- you 

didn't know that beforehand. 

 MR. SIEBERT: The way the TBD was 

written is it said there may be some 

inconsistencies. So what we looked at doing 

was if it appeared to be -- and this has to be 

a judgment call. 

 If it appeared to be complete to 

the dose reconstructor -- there's no reason 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for them to believe things were missing out of 

it. That's -- they made the assumption that 

the paper record was accurate and moved on 

from there. 

 And that's what they did in this 

case, because he was getting one every couple 

of years. There's wasn't just huge time 

frames that were missing, so they used their 

professional judgment of saying it looks like 

it's complete, so we'll make the assumption 

that it is complete. 

 MR. FARVER: It just -- it was not 

clear to TBD? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: You know, TBD says 

based on the records review during 

preparation of this document, no worker 

received x-rays more often than annually. And 

then it goes on without a review of the 

specific claimant's x-ray file, an exact count 

of the x-rays is impossible. Medical files do 

not always document each x-ray taken, at least 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not in the years before the mid seventies. 

 So claimant's favorable approach is 

to assume -- lumbar spine was taken, that the 

claimant worked -- it gives guidance about 

what to assume, then. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: But -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And another thing to 

point out there, it does say prior to the mid 

seventies. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: One, two, three, 

four, five -- five out of his two, four, six, 

seven -- out of his seven x-rays were taken 

from the mid seventies forward, so -- 

 MR. FARVER: No question about it. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- once again the 

dose reconstructor looked at it and said, 

well, it looks like it's complete, and I don't 

have an indication that it's not. And that's 

why a default process went in there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

where. Is this a remaining TBD? I should ask 

the question. We have some -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got a note. 

I'll ask and see -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We still have 

some Rocky Flats. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There's still some 

Rocky Flats changes? We'll continue getting 

Rocky Flats cases or cases outside the class 

period, so -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And now that we're 

getting the film records -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And we're getting 

the films -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- the TBD's going to 

be easy enough to say you've got the film 

record, go with it. 

 MR. FARVER: And that's kind of 

what I was getting at. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: You change it to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, we have not 

done that, as of yet. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you have -- 

I mean, there's complete sets of films -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I've put it on 

the list. You understand -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: That's what they're 

going through now. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Our project to-do 

list -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They'll be there 

for all workers, do you think? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, they're going 

through -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Our project to-do 

list is a Microsoft project file that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you haven't 

made that commitment yet, so you definitely 

use those records or that's just something -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we internally 

are. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What's that? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Go ahead, I'm sorry. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I was just babbling 

about our to-do list. I said I would put this 

TBD revision on the to-do list, and our 

project to-do list is a Microsoft project file 

about this thick. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was making a 

to-do list on the plane just for tomorrow -- 

anyway. 

 So, you're saying -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: But this is a good 

example of something that we can't put into a 

guidance document. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, exactly. 

That's what I was thinking. It's for 

guidance; it's not a TBD yet. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And then there's -- I 

don't see it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. I 

mean, I captured that stuff and said no 

further action for this case, I don't think. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We've got another one now. 

 All right, 136.4. Now these are -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, point four and 

point five are in the files that I sent along, 

okay. 

 MR. FARVER: I mean, the real files 

aren't the ones that they sent. That was some 

teaser file to attract you this morning. And 

once they finally sent me the real file -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can Scott -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did this come over 

in the transfer file? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I think so. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, can you 

send us the correct file, as well? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I'm not sure I have 

everybody's address. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you send it to 

me? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I just forwarded 

it to you a little while ago. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Stu, I know you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were looking at this on the break. I mean, 

are you ready to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, no. I finally 

found out what the real file was, and I'll 

have to look at that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The other file's 

really -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: You thought nothing 

had changed because with the files you had 

nothing had changed. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Are you saying the 

original analysis used Type S, and you agree 

that Type M should have been used? Is that 

what this is? And then you reran it with M? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, it's the 

one where -- yes, we assumed -- we assessed it 

as Type M because the dose came out more 

claimant favorable than Type S, based on the 

assumptions on how you fit the data. 

 And Doug came up with a way to fit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the data that Type S had a larger dose, but 

the file that I sent out a little while ago 

demonstrated that that actually overestimated 

 earlier chest counts, and is also 

inconsistent with assuming exposure during the 

whole employment time frame. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In other words, 

the approach that Doug described. You're 

saying the course that he described? 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's outside -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They were given 

higher chest measurements than they actually 

have to? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, yes. It's two 

to three times higher than the actual results. 

 MR. FARVER: And just from looking 

at your file, I still have some questions 

about it, so I'll ask you about them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we still have 

a working subcommittee? We have me and Mike, 

out of five? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

that we can -- 

 MR. KATZ: There's no quorum 

requirement for the subcommittee. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, there's no 

quorum requirement for the -- okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: You can have a 

meeting all by yourself. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was getting 

tired. 

 MR. SIEBERT: We can put one in 

place. 

 MS. BEHLING: No, no. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 100 

cases report. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I just copied 

everybody -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I try, I try. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I was with you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is only 

the dead spot in the afternoon. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I was right 

there with you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I need one more 

coffee. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Hello. I'm sorry, 

this is Liz. Emily, are you sure there's no 

quorum requirement since they have a charter? 

 MS. HOWELL: No, because the 

subcommittee is less than quorum anyway. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Oh, okay. No, I 

meant quorum of the subcommittee members. 

 MS. HOWELL: I don't think so. I 

don't -- I can check. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Liz, if you 

can find something -- I'm a little low on 

energy, so anything you can find. 

 MS. BRACKETT: I'll look. I'll 

pull up Roberts and make sure, but, no, just 

carry on. I just wanted to double check. 

Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going on to 137.4, overarching issues. So I 

think this is just going to be an on-going -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, my note was 

that this was going to be an overarching 

issue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

137.6. 

 MR. FARVER: I'll have to review 

this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you guys 

send the data? Okay. 

 Is there a response in the matrix, 

or is this pile that you -- 

 MR. FARVER: In the matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 137.7. 

 MR. FARVER: I'll have to review 

that. See, a lot of these ones like this I 

can just email you back saying -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

And then we might be able to very quickly at 

the next meeting. That's fine. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is also in 

the matrix? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry to 

take the time up this way, but it's going to 

make it a lot easier. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's great. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 137.8, 

anything? 

 MR. FARVER: Same thing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A lengthy 

response. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's -- it 

went really long. Trying to be explanatory. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We appreciate 

that, Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Part of this is my 

fault. The original response to that I didn't 

think answered the whole question, so I 

answered more and it really came across with a 

lot more. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Looking down, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 275

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there any of those here? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think one's 

144.2, maybe. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 144.2 is 

the next item I have. Did you respond to that 

in the matrix? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me see. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I did. 

 MR. FARVER: Now would this be an 

example of something that would be a DR 

guideline? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, I'm still 

tracking back to 136. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: 144.2 where it says 

-- this is -- there's an inconsistency in the 

ambient dose table in Los Alamos. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, this is the 

table, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is there a guide 

out about that? 

 MR. SIEBERT: No, I'm sure -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 276

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

probably it's correct in the tool, and you 

would never assign outside the tool, so -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So in other words 

this is -- the additional guidance is in the 

tool? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, the tool 

handles the issue itself. It has from the 

initial version of it. It has always used the 

max value as opposed to the value that says 

it's the max in that table. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is there a site 

protocol? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the tool has 

the correct maximum value in the table, and 

the table has the wrong one -- the table in 

the TBD? 

 MR. SIEBERT: The TBD has the 

correct values across the board, except it has 

a table that says the max, and it isn't always 

the maximum from all the other tables. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It should be, but it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

isn't. It's a TBD issue that we're aware of, 

and I know the TBD authors are going to fix 

that in the next version of the TBD. 

 The tool itself from its initial 

incarnation has always had all those tables in 

there and assigned the maximum of them, as 

opposed to what came out of the max table. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: So the maximum was 

always being assigned, even though the TBD 

didn't specify it correctly in the maximum 

table. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, I understand 

the process. I'm just trying to think how 

anyone could check those numbers then if, you 

know, if they didn't know that. 

 In other words, if you can go to 

the tables and pull out what should be pulled 

 -- the numbers that should be pulled out, you 

are going to get different answers, like we 

did when we looked at it. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, depends on what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you say should be. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: If you should be 

using the maximum table in a TBD, which has a 

couple of entries that are wrong, yes, you 

will get the wrong answer. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: But if you use the 

maximum value from all the tables, you will 

get the identical answers we get, which is the 

correct answer. It's just that max table is 

wrong and needs to be updated. 

 MR. FARVER: Did you send out a 

notice saying, hey, this max table is wrong? 

No. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Probably not. 

 MR. FARVER: Right, because they're 

using the tool. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. It's -- once 

again it's something the TBD author is aware 

of and needs to be fixed, and then it can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 279

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

merge into the TBD. 

 From our implementation point of 

view, it's already covered, but from a 

documentation point of view, I see where 

you're coming from. 

 MR. FARVER: I'm also thinking that 

before you do another one of these cases we're 

going to have the same findings. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It was only -- if I 

remember right it was only a few years that 

had that issue. I mean, it's only three, four 

years out of all the years. 

 MR. FARVER: Do you feel lucky? 

 MR. SIEBERT: You happened to pick 

one of the years. 

 MR. FARVER: And that was all. If 

we're going to run this again, it's just 

trying to figure out how to avoid it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

 for this case it's closed, it's picked up in 

the revised TBD. I put that down. 

 Is that the last one, and it's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 280

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

last one I have. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the last one 

I had. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it's a 

good point for a break, and then maybe we can 

 -- let's look at the eighth matrix. If 

people still have some energy I'd like to go 

another hour, maybe with -- continue on the 

first pass through the eighth matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I was going to 

make a suggestion. There are -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the other 

cases. 

 DR. MAURO: -- that are the back, 

which are site profile -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why don't we do 

those. Have you sent -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, we're ready to do 

that. I think -- I think our team is still 

there. I haven't lost some of them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

That's right because Kathy told me Hans is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

available, and he did one of them, yes. 

 Is that okay, Kathy, if we do that? 

 We'll take a short break, 10 minutes, and 

then we'll -- 

 MS. BEHLING: That will be fine. 

Yes, Hans is available. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 DR. MAURO: Which -- it's the -- in 

the back of the eighth set it's Bridgeport 

Brass, Harshaw, and Huntington Pilot Plant. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And they're all 

in the back of the eighth? 

 DR. MAURO: And they're all in the 

 back. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's do those 

because we've got the availability -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right, and by doing 

those keep in mind that most of the comments 

on real cases that deal with those are going 

to be addressed -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I agree. 

 DR. MAURO: -- so by doing that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

may knock off 20 cases. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And these each 

are at the point where you provided comments, 

NIOSH provided responses, and now -- 

 DR. MAURO: All except for 

Huntington. I don't think we've received 

anything back. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't given 

you any comments on Huntington. 

 DR. MAURO: The Bridgeport Brass 

and Harshaw are very mature. We went back and 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay, so 

let's do those when we come back. Let's take 

10 minutes and then we'll attack those first. 

 MS. BEHLING: I also wanted to just 

mention that I was a little bit late with 

this, but I did send out two file -- two white 

papers yesterday that will be part of this 

discussion, so, hopefully -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, and I 

think we all got those. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: I brought extra copies 

of that last one, the Bridgeport Brass one, 

that was prepared last night. In case anyone 

doesn't have it, I can hand out. I brought 

extra copies. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we'll take 

10. We'll put you on mute, I guess -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and keep the 

line on, Ted. Is that what we're going to do? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all right, 

be back in 10. 

(Whereupon the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 3:28 p.m. and resumed 

at 3:38 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Kathy, are you with us 

and Mike? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm still 

here. 

 MR. KATZ: I thought maybe you guys 

would be chased off by that terrible sound 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that came on the line right after we ended the 

session. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So Kathy and 

Hans or John, I don't know who -- 

 DR. MAURO: Let me -- the first one 

I'd do is Bridgeport Brass. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Just let everybody know 

this is different than everything we've done 

before. 

 We actually did a mini-site profile 

review on three AWE site profiles and prepared 

reports with findings that were attached to 

the back, Attachments one, two and three of 

the eighth set of cases. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: So unlike what we've 

been doing before when we were looking at a 

particular case, we're not looking at a case 

now. We're actually looking at a -- we're 

doing a site profile review, for all intents 

and purposes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 On Bridgeport Brass we had a bunch 

of findings contained in our report. Our 

response came back from NIOSH regarding our 

findings, and just very -- just last night 

Hans prepared our response to that response. 

A few folks have it on your -- machine's 

great. If not, I have extra hard copies here 

of Hans' comments on your comments. If 

anybody needs them -- but with that I'll turn 

it over to Hans, and there's a story to be 

told here. 

 Hans, I don't know if everybody's 

familiar with Bridgeport Brass, but you may 

want to tell the overarching story and then 

get into the details. 

 MR. KATZ: Do we have Hans on the 

phone? 

 DR. MAURO: He's probably on hold. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, Hans? 

Hans, Kathy? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: John, Bridgeport's 

all we're going to talk about? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe they 

figured 10 minutes -- regular board's 10 

minutes is like 20 minutes. 

 DR. MAURO: I could take it. I 

could certainly get it started. Hopefully, 

we'll get him back, but let's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why don't you 

give the background? 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or is there 

another one that you want to start with that 

Hans wasn't involved with that? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, Hans has 

Bridgeport Brass and Harshaw, and I have the 

last one, Huntington, but I'm very familiar 

with -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, all 

right. 

 DR. MAURO: I'll get it started; in 

fact, I carried it from the front end. Hans 

did the last round -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: -- where he responded 

to the NIOSH comments. 

 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. 

I just joined. I didn't realize you'd be back 

this quick. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, I just gave some 

introductory comments regarding Bridgeport. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay, so we're 

starting with Bridgeport instead of Harshaw? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I'm going in the 

order in which they are in the attachments. 

The first attachment is Bridgeport, and you 

may want to tell -- I don't think everyone's 

familiar with Bridgeport and the story, so to 

speak. So you may want to take them to the 

top. 

 DR. BEHLING: I guess I'm going to 

also ask you, John, did you take some copies 

with you that you expected to distribute? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, it sounds like 

everyone's got them, though. Does everybody 

have Hans's file? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

 DR. MAURO: No? I've got a stack 

of them. Whoever needs one, take one. 

Anybody else? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you have 

enough, I'll take it. That's easier for me to 

read on the -- 

 DR. MAURO: I want to get rid of 

them. I don't want to carry them back. By 

the way, the only problem some of you may have 

is that -- some of the figures are in color, 

but not in the copies. 

 So when you get the electronic 

version, which should be on your machine 

shortly if not already, you'll have the color 

graphs. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have color in 

my copies. 

 DR. MAURO: You've got my 

originals. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, Hans, 

we're turning it over to you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 289

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay, I guess I'll 

just follow the contents of the white paper 

just as a review. John mentioned the fact 

that we may want to just go over the site 

profile to some extent in explaining what the 

time periods were, et cetera, and that's under 

operational history 1.1. 

 Important to note were the time 

periods of operation from '52 to August of '62 

for the Havens laboratory, and for the Aiken 

plant the period of operation was from '54 to 

'62. And, of course, we're going to be 

looking at those dates in context with one of 

the findings 

 Let me just briefly -- one of the 

things I wanted to summarize is that this is a 

composite of -- of several documents 

obviously, starting with the actual site 

profile or what's called the matrix for the 

Bridgeport Brass facility. 

 And then, of course, SC&A had the 

opportunity to review that particular matrix 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and identified findings one through five. And 

those are summarized also under section one, 

page two and three. And you can briefly scan 

through those particular findings. 

 Obviously, this is just a summary 

of those findings and a more elaborate 

explanation's given in one of the appendices 

that's also enclosed in that document. 

 In -- on January 26, 2009, NIOSH 

issued a working draft response to the abovecited findings, which are also enclosed in 

this document as Appendix A, and I briefly 

will summarize this. 

 In response to Finding Number 1, 

NIOSH agrees with findings and will conduct 

additional analyses of data. To date as best 

as I know, we have not received those 

additional -- that additional data, and so I 

guess that issue requires some additional 

evaluation down the road. And so when we talk 

about conditional resolution, it's conditional 

on the issue that we have access to that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 291

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

response, and then of course that the work 

group agrees with that response. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, why don't you 

just give a brief summary of each issue so 

that everybody has context. 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay, I can read it, 

or you can read it with me on line on page two 

of the report. 

 Finding 1 states the site profile 

would benefit from additional analyses that 

demonstrate that the default intake rates 

adopted in Table 3-1 of ORAUT-TKBS 0030 of the 

exposure matrix, the claimant favorable for 

early operational periods in different job 

categories. 

 And to just add to that, there is 

just very little data for the earlier periods, 

and the co-worker model is really based on 

later time periods. And so the question 

arises can we transport in time and space 

information that may or may not necessarily 

apply to the earlier time period. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And as I say, the issue of Number 1 

is that it is something that NIOSH agrees to 

look into and will come back to us with 

additional findings or analyses. 

 So, let me see -- where am I here? 

 Finding -- response to Finding 2, 

let me just briefly iterate what Finding 2 is. 

 Finding 2 is the documentation from the 95th 

percentile estimate of the external doses are 

inadequate. In addition, it appears that the 

default 95th percentile doses adopted by NIOSH 

for non-penetrating and penetrating radiation 

are low by about a factor of two. 

 And that required a fair amount of 

explanation that you will see in the 

attachments there that involves basically the 

issue of statistics. Let me go and -- 

 This particular response initially 

-- and John maybe you can supplement my 

comments -- this particular initial response 

or finding to two was done by Harry 

Chmelynski, who is our resident statistician, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and he believes that when you look at the 

data, and the data's really for a couple of 

years and they involve external radiation 

exposures as defined by a film dosimeter that 

was issued on a two-week time interval. 

 And what was done there was to 

essentially aggregate that data and then 

establish a 50th and 84th percentile value and 

then end up with something that was assigned 

as a value to people who may not have been 

exposed or who were not monitored during an 

earlier time period. 

 And it is SC&A's opinion that the 

95th percentile value is underestimated by a 

factor of two, based on the fact the data are 

correlated, as opposed to non-correlated. 

 And really -- I'm not that familiar 

with the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, you know, let me 

take a run at it, and is Harry on the line? 

 DR. BEHLING: No, he's not. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, he's on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 294

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

line. 

 DR. MAURO: Harry, you know what 

I'm going to do, I'm going to give it in my 

layman's perspective of what was done as I 

understand it, and then you correct me because 

I think I've got it. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: All right? I'd like to 

ask everyone to open up to -- sort of like in 

the middle of this handout is a page seven, 

and it's called Table 1, external gamma film 

badge results. Okay? If you have that in 

front of you. That's the data. 

 In other words, think of it like 

this. What we have is one through 46 on the 

left hand side is the name of a real person. 

We took the name out and put a number in. I'm 

sorry, the other way around, the other way 

around. I wasn't sure of the way you entered 

it. 

 All right, so we have the names of 

the people, A through R, and the numbers one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through 46 are two-week readings on a film 

badge. In other words, what we're looking at 

is for period number one, worker number B got 

 20 milliroentgen. Okay, so these are 

individual film badge readouts. 

 Now you say, okay, I've got all 

this data, this matrix of data. There's your 

starting point, and with that we want to build 

a co-worker model for all those workers that 

either have incomplete data or for all 

workers, who have not been monitored. In 

other words, one size fits all. How do we use 

this data to build a co-worker model. 

 Now one of the -- there are a lot 

of options that as we understand it were 

available to NIOSH to do that. One option is 

to collect all this data, make a big basket of 

data, plot it out on a graph paper, and come 

up with a log normal distribution, which it 

might follow, and pick off the upper 95th 

percent, two-week reading. In other words, 

this is the -- close to one of the highest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

readings anyone experienced in one two-week 

period. Multiply that by 26 and get an annual 

dose. 

 That would be unrealistic, off the 

charts. In other words, no one's going to get 

every week, after week, after week, after week 

the upper 95th percentile two-week reading. 

So rather than do that, what my understanding 

 is that NIOSH did is they took these numbers, 

and here's where I want to make sure I get 

this right. 

 You go into this and you sample -- 

you take a random sample of these data and you 

do that 26 times. This is a basket of 

numbers, say it's 200 numbers. You reach in, 

you pull a number out. Okay, you reach in and 

pull a number out, and you pull out 26 of 

those and you add them all up, okay? And then 

you've got -- okay, I've got one-year's worth 

of data. In other words, this is like one 

person's number, and you do that again, and 

you do that again, and you do that again until 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you've got a thousand estimates of an annual 

dose, based on going in and pulling a number 

out. And you plot that, and on that you pick 

up your upper 95th percentile. That's called 

uncorrelated data. That is -- as if each one 

of these two-week readings were independent of 

every other one. That's what they did. 

 They said they didn't do it, and in 

the write-up they said, no, they did a 

correlated analysis, but the reality is we 

wanted to actually mail their number doing it 

just the way I described. So we believe this 

is an important finding. We believe that 

though you said you did a correlated analysis, 

you actually didn't. And the problem with 

that is as follows. 

 If everyone is treated 

independently, it doesn't take into 

consideration there are some workers who have 

a job with -- they have a job that gives them 

a high end. By doing it uncorrelated, you 

actually sort of average everything out, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 298

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you don't want to do it that way. 

 We -- Harry went in and he went in 

and did a correlated analysis, and he could 

explain what that is, but what that does is 

take into consideration the fact that, no, 

there are some workers who week after week 

after week are going to have the high-end 

exposure, or higher exposure. And so you want 

to work -- what you really want to do is take 

the annual dose for each worker and plot those 

and pick off the 95th percentile from that, 

because that would take correlation into 

consideration. In other words, take the -- 

each worker -- you know, reach into the basket 

and actually say well we're going to look at 

Worker A, B, C, D. Each one will have his own 

annual dose and plot that. 

 So we did it that way and came up 

with a dose both for external penetrating and 

external data using the correlated approach, 

and we took it up with a factor of two higher. 

 Harry, did I describe that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

conceptually correctly? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: That's very close 

to what we did, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Anything about 

that that you want to clarify? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Well, there's a 

difference here between the original analysis 

that we presented to NIOSH, which dealt with 

the pooled data alone. In other words, we 

tried to follow their assumption that we 

should use pooled data and then tried to 

reconstruct their numbers, and then we did it 

a different way. 

 Dose round what we did was actually 

build those individual dose estimates for each 

worker, and that's not using pooled data 

anymore. We're actually using the individual 

worker data, and even though some of them 

don't have data for the whole two years we 

were able to assign an annual dose to each 

worker. 

 And only the difference -- rather 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

than phrase it in terms of correlation and 

uncorrelated data, I think the better way to 

think of it is should data be pooled across 

all workers for analysis, or should we be 

looking at individuals? 

 And in our final tables here that's 

what we were doing was looking at individuals, 

finding that if you do it that way you get 

higher doses at the 95th percentile. 

 DR. MAURO: Now I think -- I mean, 

I think if you're comfortable with 

conceptually with what we've just described, 

there's an important difference between using 

 -- well, we have a two-fold difference, and 

we believe that's the reason for the two-fold 

difference. We think that though the site 

profile states that they did in fact use 

correlated data, we don't think you did. We 

think that somewhere along the line you went 

and actually did it in an uncorrelated way, 

the way I just described it by the sampling 

method, because when we did it that way we got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 301

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

your numbers. 

 So we think that's the problem. 

Now I think that your response -- 

 Now, Hans, when we -- when this 

exchange took place, what's NIOSH's current 

position on this issue from the last go 

around? 

 DR. BEHLING: Okay, let me go -- 

You have to have it in front of you, John. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. BEHLING: That is defined in -- 

 DR. MAURO: What page -- what page 

should we look at in your report? 

 DR. BEHLING: It's Appendix A, and 

it's page two of Appendix A. 

 DR. MAURO: Page two? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, here we go. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask just a 

housekeeping question? Do we have this 

Appendix A in a Word document, because I want 

to cut and paste it into a named matrix. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You do? Do I 

have that Kathy, or can you provide it? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'll -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

that's just a -- but I just want to keep this 

in the main matrix, also. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, unfortunately, 

right now what you have is a report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

Just for tracking, I want -- 

 DR. BEHLING: John, do you have the 

hard copy in front of you? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, everyone does, 

yes. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, as I said, the 

response, the NIOSH response is really defined 

in the summary findings matrix -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- it's just a, you 

know, a column of statements, and you will -- 

I can read it for you if you can't put your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hands on it. In response -- 

 DR. MAURO: You're good, okay. But 

I guess the point is that this is one of the 

places where we're still in disagreement. I 

think that NIOSH's position is, no, we're 

okay, and our position, no, I don't think 

you're okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: John, can you 

explain, or Harry maybe, on page 13 in the 

back the difference between -- and I'm just 

looking at this for the first time, too -- the 

difference between individual doses, 

annualized dose, and your 95th there versus 

your SC&A simulation with 100 percent 

correlation? 

 DR. MAURO: Harry, do you have a 

copy of Hans's report? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes. I'm looking 

at the table now. Essentially, the pooled 

data columns are the original finding and 

that's as far as we went in our original 

analysis. The individual dose analysis was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

added as part of this white paper, so that's 

just in terms of background where these came 

from. 

 Now the pooled data calculations, 

both of those used the log normal distribution 

that John described earlier, which is to take 

all the numbers that you saw in Table 1, put 

them on a curve, and come up with a 

distribution. And what you have is the 

distribution of two-week measurements, and 

then the question where we differ in the two 

columns here between NIOSH and SC&A is how we 

treated the distribution of the two-week 

measurements. 

 That distribution -- when NIOSH did 

it in their column, it says no correlation. 

They did theirs by picking 26 random numbers 

and taking the sum of them. 

 Now what I did was -- was 

essentially to take the two-week distribution 

and multiply it times 26, to get an annual 

dose, which would be the 100 percent 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

correlated idea that in every two-week period 

this worker would get the same number if he 

did the draw and, therefore, we could estimate 

his annual dose by multiplying by 26. 

 And the individual dose 

calculations are completely different. 

They're not based on pooled data. What I did 

there was I looked it on the column for each 

worker and said, well, here we have his dose 

totaled over x number of weeks, which may have 

been more than a year or less than a year, and 

I calculated what the implicit average annual 

dose was for that worker. That gave me doses 

for twenty some workers, which I could put on 

a curve and pick the 95th percentile from. 

 So the individual doses do not use 

the pooled data distribution that John 

described originally. They use the individual 

annual doses, of which I only had 20 workers, 

so that's -- I had to fit a curve and pick the 

95th off of that. 

 DR. MAURO: So am I correct -- let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me see if I got this right. So if you used 

the individual doses and you plot them, you 

get a 95th percentile annual dose of 634? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: As compared to the 452 

obtained by NIOSH -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Right, and if were 

to 100 percent correlate it, which is either 

side that at the beginning may be too high 

because it's based only on the two-week data, 

we do get something much higher, which is 

twice as high as NIOSH. 

 So there's three different numbers 

here, and they sort of lie where we might 

think they would have come out. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Just to get the 

634 again, so this is actually taking each 

person -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And estimating his 

annual dose -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: -- on average over 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that period. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And then having a 

collection of individuals and taking the 95th 

percentile of those individuals. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. So what we 

really have is that there are three different 

ways you could come up with a 95th percentile. 

 The approach taken by NIOSH that we 

believe is probably not claimant favorable. 

Whether you want -- now there are two other 

approaches you're presenting, one that gives 

you a number that's 634 versus 452 millirem 

per year versus the 955. 

 I guess -- here's the story. We do 

think there's a problem. We do think there's 

a problem with the current matrix. What the 

solution might be, you know, is to go back and 

take a look, and maybe you want to take a look 

of doing it in a correlated way and, you know, 

coming up with your own approach, but we're 

think you're too low. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu 

Hinnefeld. I just want to ask Harry one more 

time for the column, the FTA simulation, 100 

percent correlated -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I've 

forgotten what you described. Those were -- 

could you describe one more how -- how you 

arrived at -- that distribution was generated? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Well, okay. The -

- if were to take the two-week distributions 

and pick off the 95th percentile, that would 

be what we would call the 95th percentile or 

the two-week data. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That two-week 

period, okay. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And if we had a 

100 percent correlation, we would have 26 of 

those identical numbers in a column -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, okay. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: -- and I -- and 

rather than putting them all in a column I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just multiplied one of them by 26, because 

they're all 100 percent correlated. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- okay. So you 

took a two-week -- in other words you took -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I took the twoweek distribution, and I picked a draw from it 

and then I multiplied it times 26 to get an 

annual, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: When you say you took 

the two-week distribution, what do you mean -- 

in other words, we've got a bunch of numbers 

in that table. What do you mean by the twoweek distribution? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Well, the log 

normal with 1.45 and sigma 1.31 in that 

particular -- for the gamma dose, but it is 

the distribution you described at the 

beginning, which is to take all the Table 1 

numbers and put them on a log normal plot and 

pick off the 95th. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, so -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, so treated each 

one, you treated each individual measurement 

on Table 1, plotted that -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: All pooled -- yes, 

the pooled data from Table 1 all on one 

distribution. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: All on the single 

frequency distribution, and then you -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Right, and I think 

we both used that distribution. The only 

question is how do we use the pooled data 

distribution. That's how we differ in these 

two columns. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, let me see 

if I understand that. In other words, if I 

were to take all these numbers, all 200 of 

them, whatever they are and rank order them 

from top to bottom. Let's forget about log 

normals and everything, and I picked off the 

upper 95th percentile number, then multiplied 

that by 26, would that come pretty close to 

the number you got? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, I would say 

that's overly conservative. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I agree. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And that's -- and 

like I said, that one comes out the highest. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now the way I 

would do it is I would take each person. Now 

we don't have that many people, but somehow 

get an estimate of -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's your 

first column -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And that's the 

first column. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, 

individual column. 

 DR. MAURO: I like that better. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I've got to tell you 

until now in having this conversation around 

the table, I wasn't quite sure of which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 312

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

approach was used. I like the 634 better, so 

it's not a factor of two, it's one point five. 

 Okay, and that probably also goes 

for the data, the non-penetrating. Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know 

that we're good, but -- 

 DR. MAURO: We're communicating. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I understand the 

issue, yes. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I guess the point 

of this discussion, the reason why this ended 

up catching my eye in a sense was because when 

you read the original site profile or exposure 

matrix, it says that when we did the 

simulation we did take correlation into 

account. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: But yet I don't 

see where that was done. And the individual 

dose approach is a way of trying to bring the 

correlation back into it. It doesn't use the 

same distribution as you used, but it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

another way of looking at the problem. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you explain 

why the -- why the beta dose for the 

individual doses doesn't -- those three 

numbers that we just discussed for gamma dose 

why they don't fall out the same way for the 

beta dose. In other words, your individual 

dose is lower than the NIOSH estimate? 

 DR. MAURO: That's a good question. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I agree. It comes 

out -- well, actually, I'm not sure myself. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 

wondered if there were an obvious reason or 

not. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: No, they are two 

different approaches -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: -- and that's how 

it came out. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: I've got to say it's 

counterintuitive that the -- in the beta -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 314

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you know, you would expect that if you picked 

 -- you have all these two-week numbers, you 

would expect a 95th percentile of those to 

always be higher than when you do -- you know, 

when you take a person for a year. 

 So I don't know why that's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You don't touch 

the final number, right? That's the 7-3-6 -- 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, I'm sorry, I'm 

sorry. No, I take it back. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's way 

higher. It doesn't make sense to me. So that 

makes sense, that part. 

 DR. MAURO: It makes sense. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The first column 

I was curious about. 

 DR. MAURO: So what we're really 

saying to non-penetrating radiation, it looks 

like your approach is fairly in agreement. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, they come out 

about the same. 

 DR. MAURO: So the real -- the only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

problem area we -- this is good. The only 

problem area -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There had to be 

a logical explanation for that why it differed 

so much for gamma and not as much for beta. 

 DR. MAURO: So that -- if the 

penetrating -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

it's intuitively obvious. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And this is pulling 

the data from Table 1 and Table 2? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it looks 

like it. 

 MR. SIEBERT: The question I have, 

in Table 1 and Table 2 do the dashes mean no 

monitoring or no detection? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I would -- I'm not 

sure. It means we had no data for that time 

period. Now why I'm not sure. 

 MR. SIEBERT: My question there is 

 when you do an individual dose are you just 

taking the percentage of the years that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were monitored and then multiplying to make it 

a full year -- 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- because then if 

somebody's monitor it for a short amount of 

time but has more dose, they're going to be 

skewing the distribution? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, and that 

could be the effect here. 

 MR. KATZ: I think that's why you 

have these two different results. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: You get two 

different results, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I look at, you know, 

Person M and he has less data than most but he 

has some of the higher results and he's 

probably pushing the distribution up if he was 

multiplied to make him a full year. 

 MR. KATZ: I agree. I think that's 

why you get these different results with beta 

and gamma. Just looking at the data it just 

makes sense. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 317

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: I guess the plots 

 tell me that story here is there are some 

workers who routinely were in rather exposed 

jobs and others who weren't, and that's 

literally where I have a problem with pooling 

the data when you have that situation. 

 DR. MAURO: And now we're at a 

point where it's really a judgment call. That 

is, we know that there are people -- some 

people -- that got substantially higher doses 

than others. You know, how do you want to 

build your co-worker model. 

 You want to make sure that everyone 

 -- no one is underestimated. Certainly, the 

non-correlated approach you're going to run 

into a problem. Correlated approach and how 

you process this data, sort of the kind of 

questions you just asked Scott, is something 

you've got to think about and decide what is 

the way to do it so that at the end I have a 

degree of confidence that everyone is going to 

-- no one dose is going to be underestimated, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because that's really our goal. You want to 

make sure that no one is underestimated. 

 Right now I think -- the problem 

quite frankly wasn't as serious as I thought 

with a dose factor of two. It clearly is less 

than that, but I still think there's something 

that has to be dealt with here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we know -- I 

mean, what percentage of the workers were 

monitored at Bridgeport? I mean, you have A 

through R here, but how many -- how many 

people are going to rely on co-worker models 

entirely? 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know 

either. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, you want to move 

on to the next issue? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, if we're through 

with that one. Issue Number 3. Issue Number 

3 centers around the concern regarding the 

ability to reconstruct extremity doses, skin 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doses to the extremity, but perhaps also skin 

doses to other parts of the body that were 

perhaps not properly monitored by way of a 

film badge that's worn on the chest and shows 

as a whole body exposure. 

 And we do know the fact that these 

people were probably not given anti-c's -- 

anti-contamination clothing, nor were they 

probably frisked on the -- when they left a 

radiologically controlled area, et cetera. So 

the question arises can we rely on a film 

badge data that's a film badge dosimeter that 

was worn on the chest to account for skin 

exposures to the extremities or perhaps skin 

exposures to other parts of the body where the 

potential exists for a skin contamination, 

clothing contamination, which would obviously 

not be picked up. 

 And of course the response on the 

part of NIOSH was that while they agreed that 

this potential problem exists, it doesn't -- 

it's not like it could be one that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

happen frequently, and they also feel that the 

decision on how to adjust exposure in a 

claimant favorable manner is left to the dose 

reconstructor's judgment. 

 And we feel that's leaving too much 

 responsibility on the shoulder of the dose 

reconstructor and we believe we've done it in 

other instances where we realized that 

exposures that are being monitored by a chest 

location is not necessarily going to give you 

the proper exposure to other parts of the 

body. We found out in the case of people who 

work in glove boxes, et cetera. 

 And while NIOSH acknowledges this 

potential deficiency but believes that a 

judicious approach on the part of the dose 

reconstructor is adequate, we believe that 

some guidance is needed here and can be in the 

form of providing at least a strong statement 

that says when you have a cancer that involves 

exposure to the extremity or perhaps to some 

other body part that may have been exposed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

skin contamination or clothing contamination, 

some additional guidance is necessary here. 

 And so at this point it is 

something that we feel can be resolved, but it 

will require some additional guidance on the 

part of NIOSH to introduce that into the 

matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: I'd like to add a 

little something, too. The issue of -- 

ultimately, we're really going toward OTIB, I 

think, 17, which is your non-penetrating 

radiation protocol. 

 There are two issues here that I 

think they're universal. One is that you 

really can't use film badge, non-penetrating 

to be a good indicator of what different parts 

of your body might have experienced. 

 It's your exposure at a distance 

from data basically, and, you know -- and I 

guess we're concerned that a person's hands, 

arms, forearms, neck, especially if you're in 

a situation where there's a real potential for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

air particulates to deposit on the body. This 

issue has come up on Nevada test site, and 

it's come up on a lot of the AWE facilities 

where we know there was a lot of airborne 

particles being generated. 

 And right now I think that this is 

 -- this issue -- I think NIOSH has a pretty 

good handle on being able to adjust or account 

for the fact that maybe the hands were closer 

to the source than the chest, and there were 

adjustment factors. 

 We did that with the -- what do you 

call it -- the glove boxes. There was a 

factor of 1.4 of two or something like that -- 

adjustment, which seemed to make sense. You 

know, that wasn't done here, but of course 

this isn't a glove box. 

 But the place that we're really -- 

I'm not quite sure how this is going to be 

resolved is particles landing on a person and 

 kind of a localized dose it could give, 

because I had a case that a person had cancer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 323

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on the neck and in the ear, several cancers. 

And you say, you know, you can almost conceive 

of particle deposition in that area, and given 

a localized dose -- and if you can't discount 

the possibility of that kind of scenario, you 

know, what do you do? 

 You know, he's wearing a film badge 

over here, and you know the kind of job he 

had, he could very well have gotten some -- he 

was a guy at Paducah, could easily have gotten 

some skin contamination. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's, yes. 

That's a difficult one, isn't it because if 

you -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- then you're 

almost to a point where, I mean, there's not 

going to be records necessarily for every 

particle, you know? 

 DR. MAURO: I've got to -- you 

know, I'm just putting it on the table. This 

is a very difficult problem. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: But, nevertheless, I 

think it's real. I think it's a challenge. 

What do you do? I know if I was working at 

Paducah for many, many years, knowing that I 

was dealing with a lot of airborne 

particulates being generated, sometimes you 

could even see them, and I came down with 

multiple cancers around my neck and ear, right 

where the particles might stick, increases, 

I'd say, you know, you've got to tell me why 

it wasn't that that didn't cause my skin 

cancer. That would be me, if that was me. 

 I think that we -- all of us have 

an obligation to answer that question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, that's 

come up before. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we've 

talked about that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have 

anything better -- to say than last time. 

 DR. MAURO: Where we left it the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

last time was to try to parse sites, where 

that was a real concern. That is, it really 

could have happened. Nevada test site was 

agreed, yes, that could have happened there 

because of the nature of the contamination, 

and many of these uranium -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Uranium plants that 

closed operations. 

 DR. MAURO: -- where they were -- 

especially where they were machining uranium, 

where there were airborne particulates 

settling. Those are two places. 

 And I know that, for example, at 

least with regard to uranium, it's pretty 

straightforward to figure out, you could 

probably place an upper bound on what the dose 

might be under the skin where a small particle 

of uranium might land. You run the bar skin. 

 We've done some calculations, and of course 

you have to ask how often does it happen. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 326

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

answer, but I think we have an obligation to 

deal with this. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, a 

decision like that almost has to be kind of a 

policy decision; don't you think? I mean, 

there's -- there is no evidence -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

was just thinking, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no 

evidence that it happened -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no 

evidence that it didn't happen. We can't 

expect every -- it would almost have to be 

essentially a policy decision that because of 

that this is what we will do and everybody 

gets this for skin cancer. I mean, that's 

what would have to happen, I think, rather 

than try to find out, you know, through -- I 

don't know of any possible way to research 

this and get an answer. 

 So, okay, well, I've started 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 327

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

chatting with -- about that back at the 

office. I'll try to get some more attention 

on it and just see what people think. I've 

already gave my opinion, which I understand is 

exactly what you're saying. You know, I 

hesitate to go down that road because I don't 

know where you stop, and so you just have to 

have a policy decision. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is where -- 

this is what you do. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, next one. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, the next one is 

 -- okay, the initial finding is stated as 

follows. The site profile would benefit from 

a quote leave one out analysis of the data. 

 And since we have Harry Chmelynski 

on the phone I would actually want to defer to 

Harry's assessment of that particular finding. 

 I will state that NIOSH has agreed that 

additional analysis of this finding is 

necessary and will be provided upon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

completion; however, since probably most of 

the people here have not heard of this 

particular technique I will ask Harry, if he's 

still on the phone, to perhaps give just a 

brief explanation of what the leave-one-out 

analysis really is representative of. 

 Harry? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Okay, the leave 

one out is a rather simple version of 

resampling kind of approaches to determining 

how uncertain the answers are. In particular, 

since we're dealing with co-workers who may 

have missing data, eventually this motto would 

be applied to. 

 I was thinking that what we ought 

to be doing is looking at some examples of -- 

well, if we have some workers who -- we 

actually have them today is that we know who 

they are, but if we left them out and used the 

data set to build a co-worker model and then 

went back and see how it worked for those 

individuals that we left out, we would have an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 329

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

out-of-the-sample kind of measure of the 

effectiveness of the co-worker model. 

 And this in general is a good 

technique for -- for cases where we would like 

to know how the model works on cases where it 

hasn't -- where we haven't been able to see 

the data. In other words, we always know when 

the person was in the database that we built 

the model with, it's not going to be that bad. 

 But when you use the model to 

predict some people who are not in the 

database, it may be completely different. And 

this is a way of simulating that kind of 

analysis, to leave them out and don't use them 

to estimate the model. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that person 

randomly selected, or do you systematically 

leave somebody else out? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Well, generally, 

you -- yes, generally, you systematically go 

through and leave each one of them out, one at 

a time -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Leave all of them 

out. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: -- and see how it 

works, but it's not necessary you run it that 

often. You can only leave a sample of them 

out and build, you know, 10 models with 10 

different subsets of the data and see how the 

left-out person is predicted. 

 DR. MAURO: So you get an array of 

-- for example, right now we have an estimate 

of the 95th percentile using correlated data, 

whatever that dose was, 635. 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Right and we used 

all 18 individuals when we built that log 

normal model that is underlying all of this. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. So you're 

saying let's do 18 of these by leaving one 

person out each time and see how different 

that 635 is? 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, see how it 

does on the one we left out. 

 DR. MAURO: Got you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 331

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. CHMELYNSKI: And to tell you 

the truth what happens is when you leave out 

the high guy you often find, wow, gee, the 

model doesn't really know he's there now, and 

the model doesn't work very well. 

 So I'm just warning you that this 

can lead to some -- some situations where 

you're not so confident that the model's 

working well anymore. That's why I suggested 

it might be something that should be adopted 

as a more general principle, rather than just 

here for Bridgeport. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, this goes towards 

your question, Mark. If you only have a 

limited number of people that have been 

monitored but there are lots of people that 

could have been exposed -- okay, let's say 

like we have 17 people that were -- whatever 

it is -- but we know that there were 200 

people that might have been exposed. I'm 

making this up. 

 This is a thought problem more than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

anything else because it's really basically 

we're putting the time back in your court 

again relating to this concept. 

 So what happens is that if this 

exercise, by leaving one behind, shows when 

you do that, the results change by an order of 

magnitude, the 95th percentile. Again, I'm 

making this up. 

 What this means is you might not 

have sufficient data to build a co-worker 

model, especially -- 

 Now if it turns out all these 17 

people -- there are only 20 people and we've 

got 17 of them, well maybe they're fine. 

 But if you've got a lot of people, 

that means it's very possible there are many 

people -- that's what the leave one behind 

would tell you. There might be many people 

out there that could have gotten higher doses 

 than anyone that's even in this table. 

 So I guess that's -- I mean, it's 

almost like common sense argument. Yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 333

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that's true. And I think that your question 

is very important. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it may not 

be a completely random 20 either, you know? 

Like if it's the highest exposed, so that 

changes -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's true. That's 

true, too. I agree with that, a hundred 

percent. But there's a lot -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And it's a good place 

to evaluate many issues that we've been 

struggling with for long time, this one 

particular site, and it will go toward so many 

things that we've been talking about. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So -- by the 

way, I've been keeping actions here for the 

last two. That one, Stu, I did put down an 

action that NIOSH will follow up with staff 

regarding potential policy on this hot 

particle type question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 334

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then for 

this one I just put it as a continuation of 

the NIOSH response that you're going to 

further assess this. Is that -- that fair? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's one 

 of these we did. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, I 

guess. I mean, it can go in a couple of 

places, one is the continuing open, unresolved 

issue having to do with how the distributions 

were coded. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that is clearly 

unresolved, there needs to be additional 

discussion on that issue, but it seems like 

the leave-one-out analysis is perhaps beyond 

that, as well. 

 And it sounds like whatever we can 

learn about the size of the radiological 

population during the time that they monitored 

 -- they probably didn't monitor 18 at a time, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 335

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in fact, would be also instructive about the 

amount of confidence you can have in your coworker model, which of course is obvious. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

 DR. MAURO: Hans, we've got one 

more, the last one, Finding 5? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, this is -- this 

is going to be a little more time consuming 

because the actual, initial finding is quickly 

resolved. The initial finding stated the 

following, that it appears there is a 

misstatement in the site profile, in the 

actual surface contamination level used to 

divide inhalation exposure associated with the 

residual radioactivity about a hundred fold 

lower than the stated value of 23,460 dpm per 

hundred centimeters squared. 

 Let me just correct that. That is 

probably the correct value; however, what is 

really is nothing more than a typographical 

error that occurs in the TBD on page 33. In 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 336

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Table 5.1, based on that particular surface 

contamination level of 23,460 dpm per hundred 

centimeters squared, NIOSH divides an airborne 

level for respiration and then divides a daily 

intake. 

 And I calculated that value. It 

turns out to be 6.9 picocuries per day, if you 

average over 365 days, which is what basically 

you need to do. And that number is correct 

actually in the text of the matrix, because 

I'm looking on page 33 of the Bridgeport 

matrix and it says and I'll quote "multiplying 

the estimate air concentration by an air 

intake rate of 2,400 cubic meters per work 

year results in a calculated uranium 

inhalation intake of 2,540 picocuries. 

 And if you take 2,540 picocuries as 

an annual exposure that's based on 2,000 hours 

of work at 1.2 cubic meters per hour 

inhalation rate, you end up with seven 

picocuries per hour, which turns out to be the 

number that I also derived independently. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 337

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And if you look at the actual value 

in Table 5-1, you have 6.6, and that would 

have been correct if you would have started 

there, but you have in there 6.66, E⎯2

 and 

hence you're off by a factor of 100, and I 

believe that's nothing more than a 

typographical error when you view that in 

context with the statements that were written 

 in the text of 2,540 picocuries per year that 

is based on 2,000 work hours and 1.2 cubic 

meters of inhalation per hour. 

 So it's nothing more than a 

typographical error, and the only thing you 

need to do really is to correct the values in 

Table 5-1 and convert 6.6 E⎯2

 to something 

like seven picocuries per day as the value. 

 And I think I explained that in my 

write up, but here comes the issue here that I 

want to spend a little time with. If you go 

to my white paper and look at Section 3.0 on 

page four, I have a topic called the new issue 

concerning Finding 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 

 338

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And I briefly go over this whole 

issue of the 6.66 E⎯2

 picocuries per day as 

an error, and I recalculate that value as you 

see at the bottom of the page and say the real 

value should have been seven picocuries per 

day. But that's really not the issue. 

 What I was concerned about is the 

following. We start out with a single value, 

a single measurement, and that is a 23,460 dpm 

per hundred centimeters squared surface 

contamination that is assumed to be all alpha 

activity. And then you convert that into -- 

by multiplying times a hundred you get the 

activity, surface contamination activity per 

square meter, and for -- for deriving the air 

concentration, NIOSH assumes a re-suspension 

factor of E⎯6

 per meter. 

 Now that's a value that has been 

used in the past in one of the TIBs, and I was 

questioning that, and I questioned that in my 

review of the -- the OTIB, and I'm going to be 

looking at this again in context with this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 339

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

particular write-up here. 

 If you look at the write-up that I 

have under Section 3 you will see that I had -

- I had reviewed OTIB-70 and provided data 

that suggests that for a facility that has not 

been decontaminated but simply had stopped 

doing that work and is now doing other work, 

the potential re-suspension factor can be as 

slow as minus three, to minus four. In 

effect, a hundred to a thousand fold higher. 

 And one would now, for instance, 

question whether or not my assessment of that 

situation is correct, but let me go down and 

say -- let's go a step further and look at 

what was quoted in this particular matrix for 

Bridgeport, and you will see that in a 

quotation that is on page five of my write up 

where they talked about the 1961 assessment 

that is based on the 23,460 dpm per hundred 

centimeters squared contamination that is now 

by way of re-suspension factor converted into 

an air concentration that turns out to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 340

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

roughly 2.3 dpm per cubic meter, and if you 

convert that into picocuries, in essence it is 

one picocurie per cubic meter. 

 That's basically what you -- you 

might want to just jot that on the margin. 

One picocurie per cubic meter is the air 

concentration that is derived using 23,460 dpm 

per hundred centimeters squared and applying a 

re-suspension factor of E⎯6

 , okay? 

 So that is our starting point for 

drawing a comparison that says do we really 

trust the E⎯6

 re-suspension factor in 

converting a surface contamination into an air 

concentration. 

 And the reason that I raise that 

question is if you read that particular 

quotation that comes from page 32 to 33 from 

the Bridgeport matrix -- let me read it for 

you, in case you don't have it in front of 

you. 

 In the matrix, the following 

statements are made on page 32 and 33. "The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 341

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

documentation reviewed indicates there was 

residual contamination outside the listed 

operational period of 1954 to '61," and then 

in parenthesis, "specifically '62 through 

'76." 

 It goes on "to estimate internal 

exposure from residual activity, this analysis 

assumes that the median uranium exposure was 

associated with uniform contamination of the 

Adrian plant to a level of 23,460 dpm per 

centimeters squared. This was the maximum 

alpha contamination level fixed in total 

measured in the 1961 survey of the Adrian 

plant. 

 Using a re-suspension factor of E⎯6

 per meter results in an air concentration of 

1 E⎯12 microcuries per ml, which is consistent 

with a higher 1976 air concentration 

measurement," and then they define that 

measurement in 1976 as 33.2 percent of the 

maximum permissible concentration of 3 E⎯12 

microcuries per ml prior to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 342

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

decontamination. 

 Okay, these are some weird numbers 

here to convert, but when you convert 1 E⎯12 

microcuries per ml, it turns out to be the 

same as one picocuries per cubic meter. So 1 

E⎯12 microcuries per ml is equal to one 

picocurie per cubic meter. 

 And as I stated earlier, this was 

derived in 1961 from a surface contamination 

level and then applying the 1 E⎯6

 resuspension factor. 

 And the phrase that caught my 

attention was that that particular 1 E⎯12 

microcuries per ml were one picocurie per 

cubic meter, in 1961 is actually less than a 

measured air contamination measurement that 

was taken 15 years later in 1976. 

 And I go on to explain that 

particular issue on the bottom of page six and 

on to the next one. If you -- first of all, 

there was a mistake in that quotation because 

it's not 33.2 percent of the maximum 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 343

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

permissible concentration of 3 E⎯12 

microcuries per ml, it is, in fact, and I 

included the particular document in Appendix D 

of the document where that came from. It is 

actually 5 E⎯12 , so in essence what it really 

comes down to the bottom line is that the air 

contamination level that is derived in 1961 

from a surface contamination using the E⎯6

 

re-suspension factor is actually only 60 

percent of a measured air concentration that 

was taken in 1976, 15 years later. 

 And what of course -- that is 

obviously something that you cannot assume is 

consistent, based on the simple fact that up 

to this point in time in OTIB-70, NIOSH has 

assumed that you have a daily source depletion 

rate of one percent. 

 So you actually over 15 years you 

increase the air concentration for one 

picocurie per cubic meter to 1.66 picocuries. 

 In other words, you increase it by 66 

percent, and, of course, you wouldn't expect 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 344

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that based on source term depletion, which 

NIOSH has insisted is -- it can be assumed to 

be one percent per day. In fact, 15 years 

later no matter what you started out with you 

would expect nothing. 

 And so here you have a situation 

where you have a derived air concentration 

that makes an assumption of a re-suspension 

factor in 1961 that is less than a measured 

air concentration 15 years later that is 1.66 

times higher. 

 And so what I've basically stated 

is that you can only reconcile that by one or 

a combination of two things. Either your resuspension value of 1 E⎯6

 is wrong, or you 

have basically a no depletion at all -- and 

or. And my gut feeling is obviously the resuspension factor is possibly off by a three 

orders of magnitude, and you have a depletion 

factor that's considerably less than the one 

percent that OTIB-70 predicts. 

 And rather than discuss this, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 345

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think we can defer to the resolution of OTIB70 in my review -- OTIB-70 on those two very 

issues. But here's a classic case where we 

look at the application of OTIB-70, which is 

designed for post-operational periods, and 

realize it simply cannot match the actual 

numbers that we have to work with here, and 

here's a classic case. 

 I'm not sure if everyone followed 

the issue here that is defined as a new 

finding, but I think it's an important one, 

especially in context with OTIB-70, which has 

yet to be discussed. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

Hinnefeld. I followed the issue. It's well 

described, so first we just saw this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm going to 

capture it in a remaining issue. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we've 

got to resolve all these, anything that's not 

completely resolved. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. Back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 346

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to Hans's first point though, I sort of had 

two issues there, and the one of the six point 

six to the minus two value, and if it's just a 

typo that's fine, but I'm wondering is that 

number used in a -- 

 Of course, the question is was that 

value inadvertently put in some workbook and 

carried through any dose estimate. That's the 

real -- that would be a concern, you know. 

 DR. MAURO: We have some dose 

reconstruction for cases, but I don't know 

whether it was residual period -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I guess I'd 

ask that. 

 DR. MAURO: You'd find that out. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that would 

be followed up on that one. 

 DR. MAURO: That's important, 

because it's -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 

other part, I think we got the 61 versus 76, 

and that was a very detailed and good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 347

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

explanation of that, so NIOSH obviously just 

got this today and we'll follow up on that. 

 Is that the last -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that was the 

last one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

we're going to get to the other ones. 

 DR. BEHLING: Earlier this morning 

I heard that people would want to necessarily 

 break up as early as 4:30, and I guess we're 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

That's what I was just about to say, Hans. 

I'm not sure we can take on Harshaw right now. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that's -- that's 

my question. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Some of us do 

have to get flights and stuff, yes, and we're 

fading here, too, you know. 

 DR. MAURO: By doing this case, 

this high profile -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 348

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: -- basically, we just 

did every Bridgeport Brass case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's why 

we did these -- right, yes. I thought it was 

a good idea. 

 DR. MAURO: It was a very good 

idea. It was your idea. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you. 

Thanks, Hans, that was good. I mean, I'd like 

to do Harshaw because I know you're available 

on line, but I don't think we have the time 

or, you know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Energy. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- energy left, 

yes, yes, so -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I'll be here 

next round -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- and we can get 

started on Harshaw. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's good to 

hear you again. We haven't heard you in a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 349

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

while, you know? 

 DR. BEHLING: The other thing that 

I would like to do is I realize we got these 

white papers to you in just only yesterday, I 

believe, Kathy sent them out, and sometimes 

it's very difficult to explain complex issues 

 when no one's had really an opportunity to 

read them. 

 Now that we can postpone the 

discussion for Harshaw for another meeting, 

perhaps everyone at least will have the 

benefit of the time to read the white paper 

and become at least familiar with some of the 

issues and to be in a much better position to 

discuss when we have the opportunity next 

time. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would be 

great, yes. Okay, anything else on Bridgeport 

for now? I think we sort of got the next 

steps. Everybody's clear on that. I think 

we're ready to adjourn. 

 Did we get any responses on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 350

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other subcommittee meeting date for May 6th? 

 MR. KATZ: We're putting on a 

Federal Register notice, so Mike -- Mike, are 

you still on the line? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Are you good for May 6th 

for a teleconference for three hours, from 11 

to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Two. 

 MR. KATZ: Two? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that looks 

good. 

 MR. KATZ: So, we'll do it -- I 

mean, whether the other -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're going to 

talk about that hundred case report and the 

selection criteria, and that will be it. None 

of the matrix stuff, none of the cases. 

 Okay, so we've got Mike and Wanda, 

I believe, said she was okay with that. 

 MR. KATZ: And I sent an email to 

John and Bob. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 351

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And Brad's okay. 

 Okay. May 6th from 11 to one. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Eleven to two, 

I'm sorry. 

 MR. KATZ: By phone. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: By phone, yes. 

And I guess we're adjourned for today. Thanks 

everybody. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 

adjourned at 4:42 p.m.)