This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON HANFORD

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

NOVEMBER 30, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

BRADLEY CLAWSON, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

FRED DUNCAN, ORAU Team

TOM FOULDS

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS 

TOM LABONE, ORAU Team

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

PHILLIP SCHULTZ, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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

A G E N D A

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL ..................... 4 

NIOSH PRESENTATION ON HANFORD DOSE

RECONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR INTERNAL

DOSE ESTIMATES ............................ 7 

DISCUSSION OF RELATED QUALITY 

ASSURANCE ISSUES ......................... 39

PETITIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ......... 46

RECOMMENDATION ON SEC PETITION

155 ...................................... 63

ADJOURN .................................. 68
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 (11:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, it's 11:00 a.m. 

4 Good morning, everybody. This is the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the 

6 Hanford Work Group. And let's first get 

7 started with roll call, beginning with Board 

8 Members. We're speaking about a specific 

9 site, so please speak to conflict of interest 

10 for all Board Members and agency-related 

11 personnel, beginning with the Chair.

12 (Roll call.)

13 MR. KATZ: A note for everybody, we 

14 have materials related to this call on the 

15 NIOSH website, as well as, they should have 

16 been distributed to interested parties and 

17 certainly to all Board Members and related 

18 staff. And the principal material is a 

19 presentation from NIOSH, and also the agenda 

20 for this meeting. And you can also find them 

21 posted on the NIOSH website under the Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 section, under the meeting section, under 

2 today's date. So, you can go there and find 

3 that if you don't have that already in your

4 hands. 

5 Let me just also make a note, for 

6 the benefit particularly of Mr. Foulds. Mr. 

7 Foulds provided last night and I provided this 

8 morning when I received them several materials 

9 for the Board Members and related staff. And I 

10 just want to note, particularly for Mr. 

11 Foulds' benefit, that the Work Group will not 

12 be discussing any individual cases, including 

13 a case that might be represented by Mr. 

14 Foulds, so those individual materials that are 

15 details from someone will not be taken up by 

16 the Work Group.

17 Otherwise, let me just note for 

18 everybody, please, if you're not addressing 

19 the group, put your phone on mute, because it 

20 will improve the audio for everybody, 

21 including the court reporter. If you don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 have a mute button, press *6, that will mute 

2 your phone. And then to take your phone off of 

3 mute, press *6 again. And, also, please, 

4 nobody put the call on hold at any point. If 

5 you need to leave the call for a piece, hang 

6 up and dial back in. Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

8 Ted. At our prior Work Group meeting where we 

9 were discussing this petition, 00155 regarding 

10 Hanford, we had at that meeting reviewed and 

11 discussed the SC&A review of the NIOSH 

12 Evaluation Report regarding this petition, and 

13 we had talked about a number of the issues 

14 related to U.S. Testing. So, at the end of 

15 that discussion, we had decided at least one 

16 other issue we wanted to discuss as a Work 

17 Group, which was to have a little bit better 

18 understanding of the dose reconstruction 

19 methods that were being used for internal dose

20 for this particular situation. So, we asked 

21 for NIOSH to develop a presentation for us on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 those dose reconstruction methods. 

2 So I will start the call today; I 

3 think Sam will be doing this presentation. We 

4 all have the PowerPoint slides that he 

5 prepared, and then we'll discuss those. So, 

6 Sam, you're ready to go?

7 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Before I do 

9 that, any Board Members have any questions on 

10 procedure or otherwise? If not -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have none. This 

12 is Ziemer.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, yes, 

14 Paul.

15 Go ahead then, Sam. 

16 DR. GLOVER: I want to mention in 

17 the folder this material was transferred to 

18 you guys, I also provided some of the quality 

19 assurance reports in that time period.

20 MR. FOULDS: I'm sorry, Sam, can 

21 you speak up a little bit? You're hard to hear 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 on this end.

2 DR. GLOVER: Yes, I'll do the best 

3 I can here. I'm having to do this at home 

4 since I'm sick. I included several references 

5 from the QC program from PNNL in that folder 

6 for your guys' easy and convenient access. 

7 Also, three, actually four documents from PNNL 

8 that kind of summarized -- they were doing a 

9 plutonium fecal analysis program because of 

10 their concerns about Super S. So, for that 

11 it's pretty direct and to the point related to 

12 some of the different materials, so those are 

13 in there, as well. So, let me just -- some of 

14 this front material I'm going to go through 

15 fairly quickly, so I'll just -- unfortunately, 

16 the slides aren't numbered, but hopefully you 

17 can just keep track of them on the tab 

18 numbers. As I change slides, I will make sure 

19 that I say where we're at. 

20 All right, so Slide 2. All right, 

21 so briefly just a very quick overview. I did 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 focus on the bioassay program, focusing on 

2 Super S and the fecal sampling. I want to 

3 discuss a little bit about OTIB-49. I didn't 

4 know who did part of Rocky Flats and how 

5 familiar you are with OTIB-49, which is our 

6 Super S dosimetry, how we deal with Super S. 

7 And then also how we deal with OTIB-49 at 

8 Hanford. 

9 I didn't get into the 

10 presentation. I was way late, maybe like 

11 yesterday asking ORAU in a conference call. 

12 They've done their best to verbally summarize 

13 what the changes would be to these, but 

14 essentially we'll go through that as well, at 

15 the very end. I'll give them an opportunity to 

16 discuss what they reviewed in the 11 cases out 

17 of probably 8,000 cases that have fecal 

18 samples used at Hanford. So, there's not many 

19 of these.

20 So, just to get you all back, 

21 we're going to be on Slide 3. This is November 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 10, 2009. The petitioner requested all 

2 personnel who were internally monitored, urine 

3 or fecal, who worked at the PFP, the 200 Area 

4 at Hanford in a very narrow time frame, 

January 1, 1987 through December 31st 5 , 1989. 

 Qualified for evaluation May 3rd 6 , 

7 2010, and it was based on falsification of the 

8 records, potential falsification of records. 

9 Number 4, please. There were four SEC Classes, 

10 just to make sure we're all on the same page. 

11 The four SEC Classes previously enacted in 

12 Hanford, the very beginning one `43 to `46, 

13 `46 to `68, then we subsumed that to be all 

14 areas, because those others were very 

15 specific, and then this most recent one we've 

added July 1, 1972 through December 31st 16 , 

17 1983. These all have individual SEC numbers. 

18 They were added as -- essentially, they were 

19 really part of SEC 55. And that was requested 

20 up through -- I'm sorry, 57, page 5, SEC 57 

21 petition requested through 1990, so the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Advisory Board and NIOSH continue to review 

2 post-1983.

3 SEC 155 was encompassed by this 

4 previous SEC; however, the data or the request 

5 is so specific and focused we deemed it 

6 appropriate for separate review, again, based 

7 on falsification of data. 

8 And just to refresh everybody's 

9 memory, it was based on evidence from the U.S. 

10 EPA of purposeful wrongdoing by U.S. Testing, 

11 resulted in NIOSH determining that issues

12 regarding the quality of the bioassay data 

13 require further investigation. This is page 6, 

14 I apologize. The intent of NIOSH is separate 

15 evaluation of SEC 155, which will ensure that 

16 issues identified with U.S. Testing's non17 bioassay program did not also adversely affect 

18 the company's bioassay analysis. 

19 Now, that being said, most of the 

20 discussions we were talking about really were 

21 driven by the bioassay, what was going on with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 the fecal analysis program and concerns about 

2 the quality control, so we'll focus on that. 

3 So, we were again evaluating this 

4 time period from January 1, `87 through 

December 31st 5 , `89. While the location was 

6 specified employees who worked only at the 

7 PFP, Plutonium Finishing Plant, the evaluation 

8 was focused on the overall program of bioassay 

9 which applies to all hands. 

10 Page 8. So, just to refresh your 

11 memory on some of the sources of exposure, and 

12 I've starred two of them because those are 

13 ones that PNNL specifically were concerned 

14 about as being related to fresh -- that means

15 has no americium-241 -- freshly produced 

16 plutonium that could produce Super S material. 

17 So, that would have been the weapons-grade 

18 metal production in the remote mechanical 

19 line, mechanical C, RMC line. And there also 

20 had other areas in the PFP, obviously, major 

21 plutonium facility, so they also had the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 plutonium reclamation facility and 

2 miscellaneous glove box treatment operations, 

3 analytical lab operations, development 

4 laboratory operations, and also in this time, 

5 the Poly Q process, a mixture of polystyrene 

6 and plutonium oxide which I believe was used 

7 mostly for criticality kind of works. 

8 Also, they discussed doing a 

9 limited run on workers, there was an oxide 

10 production line at PUREX, so they were also 

11 concerned at that facility of being low 

12 americium-241 content plutonium that could be 

13 Super S. 

14 Slide 9. So, I tried to get up 

15 some data to give you a flavor for how many 

16 samples. Obviously, U.S. Testing processed 

17 many thousands, there's probably, I think, 

18 15,000 samples versus a few hundred fecal 

19 samples at Hanford. The urinalysis is the 

20 principal bioassay method. And it was also 

21 then supplemented by in vivo. Workers deemed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 to have a higher risk may have fecal samples, 

2 and they have a limited scope program focused 

3 on these, and they discuss that in some of the 

4 papers.

5 And americium was typically 

6 monitored with in vivo counting, and it was 

7 usually an indicator of plutonium intake. So, 

8 of course, we'll not discuss in this review, 

9 but Hanford maintained an extensive air 

10 monitoring program to supplement this. 

11 Slide 10. PNNL was responsible for 

12 many of these years for overseeing the quality 

13 of data produced by U.S. Testing, and just 

14 very briefly they had several hundred C15 retrospectively, these numbers don't look that 

16 large at 250 blanks and quality controls, `87 

17 to `89 that were blind bioassay. They weren't 

18 double-blind, but they were blind, and the 

19 annual reports during the time period of 

20 interest were reviewed by NIOSH as part of the 

21 evaluation. Those are provided for you guys.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 If you look retrospectively at 

2 these, U.S. Testing had its own internal QC 

3 with blanks and quality control samples, so 

4 these were separate and above. And then 

5 putting this in perspective with the historic 

6 programs, you know, the 1990s and `80s is when 

7 EML and others really started to implement 

8 these kind of programs and provide additional 

9 blinds, and give you this extra quality 

10 control. So, these aren't the kind of programs 

11 that you would see in the early `50s and `60s, 

12 so we were actually asking this to be held to 

13 a very high standard. Of course, they were 

14 accused of falsification of data, so I guess 

15 that's not unreasonable. 

16 Slide 11. So, just before this 

17 happened, Hanford, I'll call it they 

18 modernized the bioassay methods. Now, they 

19 used a total alpha measurement technology, 

20 they separated the plutonium and then they 

21 would measure that. So, they would just get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 the number of counts. And in 1983, they 

2 updated that to an alpha spectrometry method, 

3 and they did that for uranium as well as 

4 plutonium. 

5 I know a number of my esteemed 

6 colleagues have seen a lot of alpha spec, but 

7 some of us may not, so I included some slides 

8 from old material that I produced for the U.S. 

9 Transuranium and Uranium Registries, so just 

10 to give you an idea of what an alpha spec 

11 would look like for various radionuclides.

12 One thing of note is that, in the 

13 massive dosimetry files that we have, we 

14 talked a little about MDAs. MDAs can vary 

15 because U.S. Testing had to respond at 

16 Hanford. Hanford at times would say, "I want a 

17 result today. We've got a guy with a massive 

18 intake. We're going to chelate him. I want a 

19 result today."

20 So, those are not going to have 

21 nearly as good MDA as a sample where they can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 take their time. And those are listed in the 

2 data sets or in the database, so you can see 

3 what's listed with those. So, I did want to 

4 make brief mention of that. There are many 

5 kinds of plutonium samples, not just one. 

6 We did our best on Slide 12. We 

7 asked ORAU to do -- I'm not very good with 

8 databases, so they extracted this, because 

9 it's a massive database. Any time you have a 

10 fecal sample for somebody, they found out how 

11 many samples on either side of a year for 

12 urine or in vivo had been taken. You can see 

13 that there were a few that were zero, but 

14 those were all people who were part of the 

15 internal QC program. In other words, they were 

16 the people providing blind samples for the 

17 fecal program. So, anywhere from one, in some 

18 cases they actually have more than 10, so you 

19 can actually get a feel for this. And in `87 

20 they were really just starting this plutonium, 

21 they were still on sort of a small pilot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 program. `88 you get more samples, `89, `90, 

2 and then you see they actually terminated that 

3 in 1990, because their concern went away. The 

4 fresh americium plutonium -- fresh plutonium 

5 with no americium that they couldn't see in 

6 the in vivo, so their concern went away. That 

7 fresh plutonium wasn't going to be present. 

8 And they still used fecal sampling for 

9 accidents, so you'll still, of course, see 

10 that continue on, but not nearly as many 

11 samples.

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sam, could I ask a 

13 question about this chart? This is Arjun 

14 Makhijani. 

15 DR. GLOVER: Sure.

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Each one of those 

17 bars represent one worker, or -- 

18 DR. GLOVER: No, actually, that 

19 would be -- so, let's say 1988, there are 180 

20 workers who have four -- and I apologize, I 

21 should have gone through this, so say 1988, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 that purple line that goes up to 180. So, that 

2 list, that would be four either urine or in 

3 vivo counts for that fecal sample there. So, 

4 they had 180 instances where workers had four 

5 other bioassay samples. And you'll see there's 

6 a little blue line that starts it, so there 

7 were only a handful that only had one. So, 

8 most of these guys would have been on a more 

9 aggressive bioassay schedule. Probably just 

10 annually, they may have been annually both for 

11 plutonium urine and in vivo, which I guess if 

12 you look at one year to either side, that sort 

13 of makes sense, so we're getting four as being 

14 the dominant factor where these guys were in 

15 an annual in vivo and urinalysis program. I 

16 can certainly provide those to you, Arjun.

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Sam, I got 

18 confused because the title says "Bioassay for 

19 an Individual," and then the vertical axis has 

20 "number of bioassay samples," not number of 

21 workers. So, it's a little confusing. I guess 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 I can talk about it with you off line.

2 DR. GLOVER: You're right. That 

3 would have been a better axis title on that. 

4 Really what I'm trying to say is for 180 

5 workers, the number of workers who had, for a 

6 given year, how many bioassay samples they 

7 would have had per fecal sample. So, they had 

8 a fecal measurement, then either a year before 

9 or a year after that measurement, how many 

10 urine or in vivo samples do they have?

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

12 DR. GLOVER: And really just trying 

13 to show that you had a very -- they weren't

14 just getting fecal measurements. These things 

15 are -- this is a very small part of the 

16 overall program. And they just want to verify 

17 that by actually testing it. 

18 So, on Slide 13 -- go ahead.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hold on. This is 

20 Ziemer. I think I had the same question, so 

21 let me understand if I'm interpreting it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 correctly. So, in `88 you had 180 workers who 

2 had four other samples beside the fecal?

3 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. They would 

4 have had -- 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then three of 

6 60, 70 or so had three samples plus the fecal 

7 and so on. Is that how we're --

8 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir, that's 

9 exactly correct.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

11 DR. GLOVER: Sorry for the 

12 confusion on that chart. It would have been 

13 better, I could have explained a little bit 

14 better coming into it. Is everybody okay with 

15 that one then? I'll move to Slide 13.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, this is 

17 Phil. I'm on the line. 

18 DR. GLOVER: Oh, good. So, we'll be 

19 on Slide 13, Phil. 

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

21 DR. GLOVER: Did you catch the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 explanation of Slide 12?

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I did.

3 DR. GLOVER: Very good. All right. 

4 I just did a simple query to give you a 

5 relative feel for how many urine, which is the 

6 U of course, the F is fecal, at any particular 

7 time. So, they -- roughly, I tried to force 

8 the program to be on an annual but it could be 

9 a little stubborn, so it's not quite exact. 

10 But you can get a real good feel that we're 

11 looking mostly anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 

12 bioassay urine samples, and fecal analysis is 

13 a very small part of the overall program. 

14 So, Slide 14. So, it was 

15 interesting that, you know, Hanford -- Tom 

16 LaBone down at SRS and others were very 

17 aggressive about some fecal analysis programs. 

18 Tom was the author of OTIB-49; he's on there. 

19 He's on the call with us today. And my Hanford 

20 principal internal dosimetrist, and also the 

21 overall internal for Scott -- they've actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 done a lot of the looking at the cases. Let's 

2 talk about some of those programs. I'm not 

3 paying nearly enough attention to my dog, 

4 she's not very happy that I'm not paying 

5 attention to her. Sorry about that.

6 Hanford represented -- they 

7 presented an overview of technology shortfalls 

8 for Superclass Y, a.k.a. Super S, a 1988 

9 document which I provided to you in that 

10 directory, "Methods to Improve Plutonium

11 Monitoring."

12 Now, while this document describes 

13 ICRP 30 which is -- this is previous to what 

14 we use for this program, and ICRP 30 or 26 

15 lung models, still gives you a feel for what 

16 was driving their concerns. And they talk 

17 about a number of different issues. And, 

18 essentially, the amount of plutonium going to 

19 be in the urine was too low to be observed 

20 using the alpha spectrometry methods, and they 

21 had several processes at the time that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 produced freshly separated plutonium which 

2 would defeat the lung counting program to get 

3 a prompt analysis that would provide what 

4 these -- to meet their 100 millirem.

5 All right, Slide 15. Just very 

6 quickly on these, so these are just -- I gave 

7 you a few actual numbers. So, these are the 

8 kind of levels that they wanted to hit, what 

9 the intake rates would be, and plutonium-238, 

10 -239, and americium. So, this is what would 

11 meet their requirements programmatically. 

12 Again, this is not necessarily completely 

13 applicable because this is a 6 percent 

14 plutonium mixture and this would give them the 

15 levels that would meet their requirements. 

16 So, Slide 16, just to give you a 

17 feel for how is that getting into the urine 

18 and clearing the lungs. So, the top slide, 

19 Figure A is the excretion and urine from acute 

20 intake measurable at one year. So, you see 

21 somebody had an acute intake one year before 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 that, this is the disintegrations per minute 

2 per day in that urine sample. So, that kind of 

3 gives you a feel for what you can miss.

4 The lower curve, expected urine 

5 excretion that would be available from the 

6 target intake, so you see that within six days 

7 they weren't going to meet their target 

8 intake. It was below their capabilities, and 

9 you could see that's even worse by the Super S 

10 intakes. They call it Superclass Y at the 

11 time, based on the ICRP 26. So, again, 

12 technology shortfall, so they were exploring 

13 different ways to deal with that.

14 So, Slide 17. This is, 

15 essentially, how many years minimum detectible 

16 intakes of Superclass Y in terms -- so you can 

17 see they were -- in terms of rem, they were 

18 essentially looking at quite a large missed 

19 dose, so they were concerned that they could 

20 miss a number of rem, not just a few millirem 

21 on Super S. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Slide 18. So, they initiated in 

2 1986 a pilot fecal program, approximately 50 

3 workers. And they had a number of problems, 

4 and we need to make sure we take those into 

5 account. One, they didn't have very good 

6 participation. The workers didn't like it, 

7 which is common; it's not a urine or a 

8 bioassay method which is well-received. Only 

9 58 of 84 scheduled samples were received. Just 

10 to give you a feel for that, 1,719 Pu 

11 urinalysis samples in 1987, so they 

12 definitely got some feedback from the workers 

13 that they weren't happy with that. 

14 The pilot program was continued 

15 for 100 workers at the PFP. They showed about

16 40 to 50 percent of the workers had 

17 statistically greater than controls. And the 

18 reason I've got to emphasize some of this is, 

19 it talks about the QCs that were being done, 

20 essentially they were using artificial fecal 

21 samples and they had a number of non-exposed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 personnel provide human fecal samples. And 

2 they were testing those against -- just so 

3 they could get a statistical analysis against 

4 what the workers were getting, and what is the 

5 actual blank in the lab, and how does that 

6 compare. Do you see a real statistical 

7 difference or are they similar? So they've got 

8 to do a lot of chemistry. And they found in 

9 their paper, this is actually a 1993 Health 

10 Physics paper that about 40 to 50 percent of 

11 the workers had statistically greater 

12 plutonium than the controls. So, they found a 

13 low-level plutonium inhalation intake at the 

14 facility, and they confirmed that later by 

15 high-level large volume air sampling. 

16 So, Slide 19. So, in April of 

17 1989, about 12 months after the pilot program, 

18 sampling frequency was changed to annual, with 

19 the provision of obtaining about the same 

20 number of samples each quarter, you'll see 

21 that there were about 2,156 routine urinalysis 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 plutonium samples in 1989, about 259 routines. 

2 There were also specials, and those can be 

3 associated with accidents. They call them 

4 specials when you look at the bioassay 

5 database.

6 They did implement the program 

7 using experiences from the pilot program. It 

8 was mandated by the employers, so 

9 participation, while probably reluctant, they 

10 didn't have a choice. 

11 External spike fecal samples were 

12 not provided that I could tell, that the 

13 personnel, they were really looking at the 

14 blanks versus trying to determine whether the 

15 blanks -- do they get a real difference in the 

16 measures, so they really didn't have an 

17 external QC, but they would still have been 

18 using the standard reagent blank with each 

19 batch because you do radiochemistry. You still 

20 have to spike -- provide a spike sample where 

21 you spike it, make sure your tracer was added 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 correctly. And you also get a blank because of 

2 each set.

3 Slide 20. So, the routine fecal 

4 program operated normally until the contract 

5 default by U.S. Testing on June 1, 1990. May 

6 samples were never analyzed. In September, 

7 before the interim contractor could be put in 

8 place -- so they were looking at having an 

9 interim contract done until they could get a 

10 permanent contractor -- Hanford decided to 

11 terminate the program. This was done because 

12 the facilities were no longer processing 

13 material that would be considered freshly 

14 separated Superclass Y.

15 The dose determinations that were 

16 made for workers in the program at the start 

17 of the year, so chronic exposure, January 

18 through September based on fecal results 

19 obtained December 1989 through April 1990. 

20 There were 759 Pu urinalysis, 56 specials, and 

21 you'll see there are only 35, and this is sort 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 of the tail end of the program. 

2 Slide 21. I mentioned earlier they 

3 published a 1993 paper on the routine fecal 

4 sampling program of approximately 100 workers. 

5 Again, the quality control samples, it was a 

6 mix of artificial and known blank, no natural 

7 samples included to compare the results of the 

8 workers. 391 samples from workers were 

9 provided, there were 47 controlled samples 

10 consisting of 31 artificial and 16 from 

11 unexposed individuals. And in that paper they 

12 describe the sampling and radiochemistry 

13 methods used to do the chemistry.

14 So, very briefly, Slide 22, OTIB15 49, it's our basis for estimation of doses for 

16 plutonium strongly retained in the lungs. The 

17 newer ICRP is more insoluble compounds than 

18 ICRP 30. Various accidents did show that it 

19 was -- there are cases where it has longer 

20 retention. And our OTIB was based on nine 

21 cases from Rocky Flats and one from Hanford 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 that had well-defined intakes and exhibited 

2 long retention times. We used upper bound

3 cases to establish bounding doses for Super S 

4 materials. We fully compared that data to U.S. 

5 Transuranium and Uranium Registries cases.

6 Slide 22. So, just to give you a 

7 feel for the effect of Super S. This is one of 

8 the Rocky Flats cases. The purple line, you 

9 see it falling off to 10,000 days to being a 

10 fairly low one-hundredth of what was inhaled; 

11 whereas, the reality is that it stayed in the 

12 lungs essentially with very little change for 

13 that long time frame. So, this is the kind of 

14 analysis that we're doing to make sure that we 

15 don't underestimate the dose.

16 Slide 24, please. Essentially, 

17 what you have is the lower curve line on Slide 

18 24, that first slide. That's what Type S 

19 normally would be expected, but we are finding 

20 in some of these cases that upper line, so 

21 what we essentially have done is we've -- it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 a factor of 40 between the upper line and the 

2 lower line if you get out to 50 years, and 

3 actually you see the lung adjustment dose 

4 factors per year. Those are the lines that it 

5 takes to get that lower line to these 10 

6 cases. And we used the upper lines to 

7 determine the adjustment factors for dose. So, 

8 you see that our adjustment factors go up to 

9 even above 100 after you get past 40 to 50 

10 years.

11 So, it's fairly straightforward. 

12 It is cumbersome to enact because when you 

13 actually do this with chronic instead of acute 

14 intakes, there's a whole series of tables in 

15 order to deal with this, but that's, I think, 

16 pretty thoroughly reviewed as part of Rocky 

17 Flats.

18 So, Slide 25. Just very briefly, 

19 this doesn't have the fecal sample. I'll talk 

20 about that next slide, but we basically have a 

21 number of tables that adjust the dose. So, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 would take the lungs or for the different 

2 systemic organs. It's really the most 

3 important for the lungs and for the lymph 

4 nodes. When you get into the systemic organs, 

5 the lung counts and the air concentration data 

6 doesn't affect it, but the urinalysis, there 

7 are some factors that could apply, because it 

8 continues to leak out at a flatter rate than 

9 what we would expect. Leaking out of the lungs 

10 and still being in the system, so it still 

11 continues as a long-term component for the 

12 systemic organs, being not in the lung but in 

13 the rest of the body.

14 So, Slide 26. So for fecal 

15 adjustment, OTIB-49 does specifically address 

16 the adjustment of fecal data. Fecal samples 

17 collected less than two months after an acute 

18 inhalation intake of less than two months 

19 after the end of the chronic intakes should be 

20 evaluated with a standard Type S model. Once 

21 the intake is determined, the dose is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 adjusted, taking direct measurements, fecal 

2 samples collected after two months should be 

3 treated as if they were urine samples and the 

4 dose adjusted by a factor of 3. 

5 So, you can see here on Slide 27 

6 the fraction of intake in the urine versus 

7 feces, samples as a function of time. And then 

8 on Slide 28, you'll see the urine to feces 

9 activity ratio. And you see that nominally 

10 gets to be about three when you get past 100 

11 days, so it's kind of a little swirly out 

12 there, but they chose a factor of 3. 

13 So, during this period, 

14 essentially for the application at Hanford, we 

15 used standard DCAS procedures. Assumptions 

16 include the age of the plutonium, the 

17 plutonium oxide makeup, fuel-grade or weapons18 grade, solubility class including Super S. 

19 That's not applicable for all cases. I mean, 

20 in some cases, it's detrimental to the 

21 claimant to assume Super S for certain cases. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 And you essentially have to evaluate the 

2 information available for the case.

3 Slide 30, the NIOSH TBD currently 

4 uses the contractual MDAs, so SC&A has

5 described that method during this time 

6 period. The current TBD uses 10-year old 

7 plutonium. I don't know if they included that 

8 in their discussion, but that is the base. We 

9 are using aged plutonium currently. Weapons10 grade and fuel-grade plutonium may be 

11 evaluated, see which is more claimant12 favorable. Rarely is fecal data available. The 

13 OTIB-49 is used. I'm going to have Scott or 

14 Fred summarize what they saw. Essentially, 

15 though, where we have used it, it's oftentimes 

16 because it was the only indicator of an 

17 intake. If the fecal sample was positive, so 

18 the dose reconstructor chose to use a positive 

19 sample instead of a sample that was not 

20 indicative of an intake, so it was below the -

21 - the fecal sample showed he had an intake but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 not the urine sample, so they chose to use 

2 that. And sometimes intakes are not favorable 

3 assumptions by their methods and, essentially, 

4 case-specific data must be reviewed, since the 

5 in vivo data may make assumptions not 

6 claimant-favorable.

7 So, that concludes this. Do you 

8 want to let Fred Duncan or Scott kind of 

9 summarize what they found in the 11 cases that 

10 they looked at?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, let's sort 

12 of finish up the presentation part. That would 

13 be helpful, so go ahead. 

14 DR. GLOVER: Scott or Fred?

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'll 

16 go ahead and do that. It seems like the NIOSH 

17 team here is falling apart. Sam's sick and I 

18 just got back from the dentist, so if I sound 

19 a little slurry, I apologize for that. 

20 We did walk through the 11 cases 

21 that specifically did use fecal sampling in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 the assessment. It includes cases that used 

2 the fecal sampling for the assessment, and 

3 also a couple where it was just used to 

4 validate the values that came out of assessing 

5 based on urine or chest counting.

6 Reviewing all 11 of them, I'm not 

7 going to go through specifics on any one case, 

8 but generally speaking, the samples, the fecal 

9 samples that we used were in response to 

10 incidents, as Sam mentioned earlier. And in 

11 cases like that, just like the slide that he 

12 mentioned and went over before, in most cases, 

13 actually in all cases here, we have additional 

14 urine sampling and/or chest counting 

15 relatively quickly after the incident. So, 

16 even if we don't take into account the fecal 

17 sampling that we do have, if we base it upon 

18 the urine or chest counting that we have, in 

19 each of the cases, it was a very minimal 

20 impact. And by "minimal," I mean I didn't see 

21 anything that would change any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 compensabilities. Very, very small doses. Some 

2 of them actually urine may have been more 

3 limiting just based on the specific scenario 

4 involved. So, as I said, we went through the 

5 11 and didn't see anything specific that would 

6 cause us alarm if the fecal samples had not 

7 been available. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, go ahead.

9 MR. FOULDS: This is Tom Foulds. 

10 I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, if you 

12 could wait a little bit, we'll give you an 

13 opportunity to -- 

14 MR. FOULDS: Sure, be glad to.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- speak in a 

16 little bit. Sam, anything further you want to 

17 present?

18 DR. GLOVER: I think that's it for 

19 me.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

21 So, let me open it up for questions from Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Members or SC&A.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, this is 

3 Phil Schofield. I've got a question. Looks 

4 like in some of these you're using air 

5 sampling as an upper bound. Is that breathing 

6 zone sampling or is that like an average for a 

7 room?

8 DR. GLOVER: I think everything 

9 we're doing at Hanford right now is based on 

10 urinalysis. As the time frame increases, as we 

11 get into the 2000 time frame, the Plutonium 

12 Finishing Plant right now is relying -- is 

13 using breathing zone sampling data. So, we're 

14 not into that time frame right now, so this is 

15 still based on urinalysis and fecal 

16 measurements. The OTIB-49 is generic. It could 

17 be based on any site, not just Hanford. 

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sam, this is Brad. 

20 I had a question. You were talking about the 

21 other samples that you had other than the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 fecal samples. Were they just urinalysis or 

2 were they chest counts?

3 DR. GLOVER: Usually, they're 

4 going to have both lung and chest counting, 

5 and urine samples. It depends on the bioassay 

6 frequency, but there's kind of a model -- 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, what drove 

8 these samples? Were they what we call our 

9 birthday samples, were they done on a yearly 

10 basis? This is -- they came in, you know, got 

11 this all done within about a two-month period? 

12 I'm just looking -- I was wondering because I 

13 can't see any kind of a date when each one of 

14 these were performed or anything. I'm just 

15 seeing numbers that say, you know, they had C16 DR. GLOVER: The uranium -- or, I'm 

17 sorry, the plutonium urinalysis program would 

18 have been spread out to try to make sure that 

19 the lab analyzed samples in a reasonable --

20 so, I don't know what their -- you said it was 

21 based on a birth date or, you know, there is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 some -- it used to be quarterly. I don't know 

2 when, off the top of my head, when they 

3 switched to annuals. But there's always been 

4 sort of a graded approach. Sometimes people 

5 could still be on quarterly, I think, even at 

6 that time frame, and if they got urinalysis 

7 program and they were -- they would expect to 

8 also be part of the in vivo program. I didn't 

9 get to include those statistics in this one, 

10 but -- so, yes, they'll have -- anytime they 

11 have a suspected intake they would have 

12 numerous samples that would be related to 

13 that. So, those are going to come up whenever 

14 intake is suspected. They have to analyze 

15 that.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So, they 

17 still have incident-driven ones, but I just 

18 refer to them as our birthday samples because 

19 that's how we process through there every 

20 year. We got a load of all these samples that 

21 we put in so they could kind of build a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 baseline for us. So, I was just wondering 

2 because when you were saying the other 

3 samples, I was wondering if it was done on a 

4 routine basis, or if it was a check every once 

5 in a while, just to check people. I was 

6 wondering if they were to that standpoint yet 

7 or not. Thank you.

8 DR. GLOVER: Okay. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

10 Members, SC&A questions?

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sam, on Slide 26, 

14 just to follow up on what Phil was asking. The 

15 third bullet you say, "Once intake is 

16 determined, dose is adjusted using direct 

17 measurement factors, for example, air 

18 monitoring." I think he was referring to that. 

19 I didn't quite get how that is done.

20 Hello, am I on mute?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I can hear you, 

3 Arjun. 

4 DR. GLOVER: I'm sorry, I was on 

5 mute. 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: There's a number of 

8 ways, because sometimes they have multiple --

9 and, actually, Tom, would you mind just 

10 addressing that very briefly, the adjustment 

11 factors in OTIB-49? I'm pushing my stamina 

12 here for the day. 

13 MR. LaBONE: I'm not sure what 

14 slide -- the slides aren't numbered, so -- 

15 DR. GLOVER: I'm sorry. It's Slide 

16 26. It's fecal adjustment factors. Really what 

17 the question is, Tom, is: they were asking 

18 because I just said that once the intake is 

19 determined, essentially what we have is -- you 

20 determine an intake and then you have a series 

21 of adjustment factors, depending on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 bioassay method being used. Maybe you could 

2 just briefly -- I didn't go into the specifics 

3 of what you would do for urine versus fecal or 

4 for urine versus air into the specifics. 

5 Sometimes you just use one or the other, or 

6 you have multiple. I'm not being very clear 

7 here.

8 MR. LaBONE: What does the title of 

9 the slide say?

10 DR. GLOVER: All right. It's near 

11 the very end. It's the fourth from the end.

12 MR. LaBONE: Fourth from the end.

13 DR. GLOVER: Fecal adjustment 

14 factor. The concern is, I said, "Once an 

15 intake is determined, the dose is adjusted 

16 using direct measurement factors." So, in this 

17 case, like for air monitoring, you would use a 

18 specific set of adjustment factors if you used 

19 air monitoring. For urinalysis, you'd have a 

20 separate set of adjustment factors. It just 

21 depends on how it's being processed. So, what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 we -- it's probably too cumbersome, Tom, to 

2 have you answer off the cuff. 

3 Essentially, and you can correct 

4 me if I'm wrong, we use the basis, what's 

5 soluble. If it's urinalysis, that's what was 

6 removed from the compartment, from the lung. 

7 We determine an intake, and from that we then 

8 adjust that intake, what actually stayed in 

9 the lung. So, what you see is we get the 

10 correct intake at the original time of intake 

11 determined, but then we have to adjust up the 

12 dose by that factor of 100 at 50 years. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. I get it. 

14 Okay.

15 DR. GLOVER: But it depends on what 

16 -- if it's chronic, if it's more -- then you 

17 have to deal with -- you know, it's not a 

18 single number, a single year, so we have a 

19 number of tables that adjust for this.

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, right. Thank 

21 you. I don't know if Joyce is on the line?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

2 DR. GLOVER: Okay.

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Hello?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can hear 

5 you, Joyce. 

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, I just got 

7 in.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Sorry about that.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Out of your 

11 control, so -- 

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else have

14 -- Board Members or others, SC&A, have 

15 questions at this point?

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just one more 

17 thing. Is there a write-up of those 11 cases 

18 that would be available at some time?

19 DR. GLOVER: No, we didn't write 

20 them up yet. I gave them this -- 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 DR. GLOVER: If the Board would 

2 like us to, we can summarize what the -- 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, a summary 

4 table or something.

5 DR. GLOVER: Dr. Melius, just let 

6 me know if that's something the Board would 

7 like us to take up.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, let's 

9 -- when we get to the -- 

10 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Finish with the 

12 questions and try to resolve this. And we can 

13 talk about that. Any other questions?

14 MR. FOULDS: You're still asking 

15 for the Board Members, right?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm still asking 

17 Board Members. I'm going to get to you in just 

18 a second.

19 MR. FOULDS: Sure.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And why 

21 don't we ask you, Mr. Foulds, then, for any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 comments that you might have. We've received 

2 your materials actually this morning, but 

3 Board Members will have time to -- or Work 

4 Group Members will have time to review those. 

5 Again, as Ted Katz indicated earlier, we're 

6 not really in a position to comment or address 

7 issues with specific cases.

8 MR. FOULDS: Sure. Sure.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, if you have 

10 any comments or want to summarize your 

11 comments now, that would be fine. 

12 MR. FOULDS: I apologize for the 

13 possible disorganization of the materials that 

14 were furnished this morning from me, Tom 

15 Foulds, on behalf of the petitioner. We were 

16 just informed of this conference two and a 

17 half days ago, and right in the midst of a 

18 number of other things, so it was very -- we 

19 did our best job possible yesterday working on 

20 this. 

21 And it's obviously not complete, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 but, at the risk of being redundant, and maybe 

2 Sam has already covered this, but there was, 

3 as the Group is aware, there was a oversight 

4 examination done by four independent 

5 scientists and engineers selected by the 

6 Department of Energy who did an analysis of 

7 the procedures, "U.S. Testing Company 

8 Radiological Procedures," 1990. And they found 

9 a number of, in their opinion, of 

10 shortcomings.

11 Incidentally, all of these members 

12 of this group that was selected, they're from 

13 separate agencies, and they all each have a 

14 degree of radiological or engineering 

15 expertise in their background. And they found 

16 among other things, and excuse me for being 

17 redundant, maybe Sam has mentioned this, but 

18 as of May 1990, they were furnished a large 

19 number of samples. And out of the 3,000 

20 samples that they were given, none were fecal 

21 samples. And they felt that the number 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 overall, and this is all in this material, so 

2 I don't want to be redundant, and I'm not 

3 trying to review it all. But overall, they 

4 found that the procedure for taking samples 

5 was inadequate, that they were not obtaining 

6 enough samples. Now, this is as of 1990.

7 I don't know what the procedures 

8 were like in 1998 because the difficulties 

9 with U.S. Testing had not yet -- I should say 

10 1988, I don't know what the procedures were 

11 because U.S. Testing, the disclosure of the 

12 EPA had not yet been made public. But in any 

13 event, in 1990, May of 1990, they felt that 

14 the sampling was inadequate overall, and these 

15 are radiological samples. And that 

16 specifically, out of the samples that were 

17 given to them, that there were no fecal 

18 samples to use.

19 That brings up another point that 

20 I raised in the exhibit I presented, part of 

21 which was a section out of the last dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 reconstruction done in 2010. In that report on 

2 page 13, they provide a list of measurements

3 that were made of plutonium mixtures, number 

4 of disintegrations per M -- and I guess per 

5 day or per millirem, I'm not really sure --

6 and they compared measurements done by the 

7 technology utilized by U.S. Testing.

8 But the plutonium measurements, 

9 they compared that with the lung count 

10 measurements, and they could not find any 

11 consistency between the two types of 

12 methodologies of measurement either through 

13 the lung count or through the -- presumably a 

14 gamma spectrometry analysis used to find the 

15 239. So, you've got two different 

16 methodologies with the same objective, yet 

17 they're not consistent. And it would appear, 

18 in my layman's point of view, as a indication 

19 of the lack of ability on the part of U.S. 

20 Testing to do a credible job of testing for 

21 plutonium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert 

2 of the ORAU Team. May I address that question?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we let 

4 him finish, and then we can address -- 

5 MR. SIEBERT: You got it. Thank 

6 you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

8 though. Go ahead, Mr. Foulds.

9 MR. FOULDS: Well, basically that 

10 in a nub is the basic concern of my client; 

11 that is, that the procedures being utilized by 

12 U.S. Testing during the period of time in 

13 which the fecal samples were taken from the 

14 client at the time of that special incident

15 that everybody concurs he had a special 

16 exposure, and then following that there was 

17 some samples taken, some of which were beyond 

18 the two-month time range specified in the 

19 technical bulletin that is utilized to make 

20 the evaluation of the measurements. 

21 And the technical bulletin 4.1.4 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 requires that if there is ample plutonium 

2 identified in fecal samples identifying 

3 plutonium beyond the two-month limit after the 

4 major incident of exposure, then they would 

5 take the dose that had been computed as of the 

6 time and multiply it by a factor of 3. 

7 Now, that particular technical 

8 bulletin on procedure 4.1.4, specifically on 

9 how to handle fecal samples, was never 

10 addressed in either the 2009 dose 

11 reconstruction nor the 2010 dose 

12 reconstruction. In fact, it was not just never 

13 explained, it was never even mentioned at all, 

14 so actually, I and the client are in some 

15 bafflement as to why that was not applied, 

16 since no explanation for not applying them was 

17 ever given. But that, basically, comes back to 

18 the concern over the measurements.

19 Even putting that aside, it would 

20 seem that the measurements being made of what 

21 was discovered beyond the two-month time 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 period would still be questionable whether 

2 they were at the minimum detection limit, or 

3 whether they were below it or above it, that 

4 it is the petitioner's position that the UST 

5 was not capable of providing a reliable 

6 answer. And I think, in effect, that it's 

7 impossible to do a reasonably reliable dose 

8 reconstruction. And that's basically 

9 summarizing the position, and I'll take no 

10 more time of the Advisory Board. And if I've 

11 been redundant on anything Sam has already 

12 covered, I apologize. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no need to 

14 apologize. It's a very complicated, very 

15 technically difficult area. But, again, I just 

16 will reiterate, you know, our Work Group and 

17 the Advisory Board really can't address 

18 specific issues with a single dose 

19 reconstruction, individual dose 

20 reconstruction. What we're looking at has been 

21 really evaluating the petition and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 evaluation of that petition by NIOSH as to 

2 whether or not the overall methods being used 

3 for dose reconstruction are appropriate given 

4 how the statute is set up and so forth. So, 

5 that's been our focus in the previous review 

in the Work Group meeting on September 12th 6 , 

7 as well as this meeting today.

8 Sam or anybody from ORAU want to 

9 respond? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Sam, do you want me 

11 to go ahead and -- 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 DR. GLOVER: Yes, just keep it 

14 brief.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. The only thing I 

16 was going to point out is when Mr. Foulds

17 brought up the inconsistency between the 

18 different measurements, what we are pointing 

19 out in any case is that after an intake at a 

20 set amount of time, say 100 days, the type of 

21 material will make a difference, whether it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 able to be seen in a different type of 

2 analysis or not. 

3 If you base an intake on urine, 

4 for example, you may project out what you 

5 should have seen in a lung count on that same 

6 date. And if we have a lung count that does 

7 not demonstrate that amount, if we should have 

8 seen a very positive amount, and we have a 

9 count and it does not demonstrate that, that 

10 merely means that that material type is 

11 unlikely to have occurred because the 

12 measurements are inconsistent, not because 

13 there's anything wrong with the measurements, 

14 but just because they are not designed to have 

15 the same amount of sensitivity at a certain 

16 time after intake based on a different 

17 material type. I know that's a relatively 

18 complicated explanation, and I may have 

19 muddied the waters, but it's not a problem 

20 with the measurement as much as just: you 

21 cannot measure the same thing with different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 types of measurements and always get the same 

2 value. You're going to get inconsistencies 

3 based on material type.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

5 for that clarification. Any other -- Sam, or 

6 any of the Board Members with additional 

7 clarifications or questions? Because I think 

8 where we are with this petition, in our 

9 previous Work Group meeting we had discussed 

10 the original NIOSH Evaluation Report, the SC&A 

11 review of that, and I think the only issue 

12 that we still wanted additional information on 

13 out of that Work Group meeting was the issue 

14 related -- some more information, more 

15 detailed information on the actual dose 

16 reconstruction methods that were being used, 

17 because it was a little bit confusing in terms 

18 of understanding what was going on.

19 Work Group Members, how do you --

20 what is the feeling in terms of -- are people 

21 satisfied with the amount of information now, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 have the methods being used been clarified 

2 sufficiently?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I'm 

4 satisfied, but I would like to hear from SC&A, 

5 perhaps Joyce or Arjun in terms of their sort 

6 of evaluation of this material that we've just 

7 reviewed.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Arjun, do 

9 you want to start?

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Joyce, do you want

11 to go ahead?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Joyce and I 

14 discussed it briefly.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Okay, I was 

17 just muting. Hello?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can hear 

19 you. 

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I think it's 

21 fine. I agree with everything. I think it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 good. It's based on OTIB-49, which we already 

2 revised and approved, and has been used. So, I 

3 think it's okay. I don't have any questions. I 

4 think it's okay, good material. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: My one comment was 

6 this -- okay. I hate to bring up this slide. 

7 Sorry, I wasn't ready. This thing was done in 

8 1993 that you mentioned, Sam. Was that some 

9 kind of -- I guess I'm on Slide 21, 1993 

10 published paper, and the sampling and 

11 radiochemical methods you described. That's 

12 the last bullet. Did you look at, you know, 

13 the consistency of these -- it's indicated 

14 here with the standard practice across the DOE 

15 complex at the time, and whether those 

16 standard practices were being followed, even 

17 though we understand there weren't QC samples 

18 during the period for fecal. Were there 

19 samples afterwards that found the program to 

20 be okay, and were the methods being used at 

21 that time consistent with what was being used 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 in `87, `89?

2 DR. GLOVER: My recollection is 

3 that soon after, about early `93, `94 they 

4 made a modification to the procedure. So, I 

5 don't know if later methods -- 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: -- I think they added 

8 hydrofluoric acid or maybe a fusion method to 

9 deal with these highly insoluble compounds. I 

10 think they modified the procedure at that 

11 point, so I don't know -- as far as I know, 

12 there's no way to go apples to apples 

13 backwards and back-compare. 

14 For those who are technically --

15 or not technically, but inquisitive of what 

16 they were doing, it was pretty just they would 

17 ash the samples, dry ash them, burn off all 

18 the organics, and it was a peroxide. And then 

19 you would just do the standard analytical 

20 separation. It was fairly routine. I don't 

21 know if there's -- and they used those for --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 but they didn't get blind samples to cross2 validate that. That didn't come in until 

3 later, that DOELAP and others would provide 

4 blind fecal samples for analysis. This 

5 predates that.

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: But the lab method 

7 being used in `87-`89 was consistent with that 

8 being used at other sites?

9 DR. GLOVER: I think -- Tom LaBone, 

10 how many sites actually had a fecal program 

11 back then? I think Idaho may have had one for 

12 uranium. SRS did something. I don't know if 

13 Tom is still with me. 

14 Tom LaBone. I may have lost Tom 

15 LaBone. Anyway, I know he did -- but I think 

16 it's probably not many -- there's probably not 

17 many sites that I recall who had a routine 

18 fecal sample. We could look into that if the 

19 Board would like to.

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. Yes, it was 

21 just a question, because it seemed to me that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 you had looked into it. That's why I wanted 

2 some clarification, but I guess with -- it's 

3 more complicated than I thought.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

5 comments or questions?

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I saw the paper and 

7 the description of what was done, and it's

8 really -- the paper was really done very 

9 carefully. And that's the same method we used 

10 for fecal samples in our laboratory, so it 

11 seems okay to me.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

13 Joyce. 

14 MR. LaBONE: Hello, this is Tom. I 

15 hung up instead of hitting the unmute button.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Do like I 

17 do, I talk for five minutes on mute wondering 

18 why nobody's responding, why other people 

19 start talking. Go ahead. I don't know if you 

20 heard the -- 

21 MR. LaBONE: Do you still want me 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 to respond to Sam's question?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it would be 

3 helpful, I think.

4 MR. LaBONE: Okay. As far as I'm 

5 familiar with, the people who did routine --

6 the sites that did routine fecal monitoring 

7 are Argonne and Idaho. At Savannah River, we 

8 had a pilot program that ran for about a year, 

9 and was kind of similar to the one that they 

10 did at Hanford, but routine-wise it was just 

11 Argonne -- I guess Argonne East as we call it, 

12 and Idaho National Lab, the ones I'm familiar 

13 with.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: And, Tom, they used 

16 the same analytical methods that were used in 

17 the period by U.S. Testing?

18 MR. LaBONE: I don't know that.

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

20 MR. LaBONE: I typically just 

21 focused on the results. I'm not a chemist, so 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 -- when we did Savannah River, our study in 

2 the 2000 timeframe, we were very concerned 

3 about dissolving the samples, so we went 

4 through a microwave dissolution and we tested 

5 it with some Rocky Flats soil, which is a 

6 pretty insoluble material, just to make sure 

7 that we getting into solution. I don't know 

8 how much people focused on that in the late 

9 `80s/early `90s. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: I guess Joyce 

11 really answered my question.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. Any 

13 additional questions? If not, I think where we 

14 stand is that, you know, we had essentially, I 

15 think, again, had dealt with the what we'll 

16 the testing fraud issue with our previous 

17 discussion, and previous Work Group meeting. 

18 And then we had, I think, just clarification 

19 on this. And I guess my question to the Work 

20 Group Members: are we ready to make a 

21 recommendation to the Board for our upcoming 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 meeting, or is there something additional that 

2 needs to be done? And, again, focusing on the 

3 SEC aspects of this.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

5 think we're ready to make a recommendation, 

6 but I may need a little help in ascertaining 

7 the form that it should take. I don't recall 

8 what was on the floor prior to this, if we had 

9 a motion that was tabled, or what was the 

10 status before?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: As I recall, I 

12 don't believe we had a motion. I think we --

13 it's sort of -- we were talking about what to 

14 do and one or two of the Work Group Members 

15 thought that some clarification on the testing 

16 method would be useful, and need to give NIOSH 

17 time to respond to that and prepare something 

18 so that we -- so I don't believe there was a 

19 motion at the time. So, it's open. It was sort 

20 of done by consensus.

21 MR. FOULDS: Mr. Chairman, can I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 make one comment? This is Tom Foulds again.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. FOULDS: Speaking only in 

4 regards to the SEC 155, I would submit that 

5 the very detailed analysis done by that group 

6 that I mentioned before that had been 

7 appointed by the DOE, that they were actually 

8 reviewing the then ongoing U.S. Testing 

9 procedures, and that would seem to me the most 

10 viable document to illustrate the conditions 

11 that would be involved in SEC 155.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Foulds, we 

13 actually discussed all those issues at the 

14 last Work Group meeting, and there's a 

15 transcript available of our discussions. And I 

16 appreciate the comment, but we have, you know, 

17 I think addressed those issues and discussed 

18 them in terms of -- and had our technical 

19 contractor, SC&A review, so I just don't want 

20 you to think we're ignoring it, but it is 

21 something that's previously been addressed. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 So, let's move on with the Work Group. Paul, 

2 do you want to -- 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, may I 

4 say something that might help clarify that 

5 particular point?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mr. Foulds, if you 

8 look at the report that SC&A did, you'll see 

9 we extensively reviewed the 1990 report and 

10 the 1991 report. And we also interviewed the 

11 authors, some of the authors of those reports 

12 at length -- 

13 MR. FOULDS: Oh, okay.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- about the 

15 usability of the data. So, we did take your 

16 comment and petition into account. And I think 

17 you might find the interviews which we did 

18 with those experts, who were independent 

19 outside experts, very useful as regards their 

20 opinions about the usability of the data.

21 MR. FOULDS: Okay, thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so what do we 

3 need motion-wise at this point?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, whatever 

5 you want to make as a motion. But I think the 

6 question is: do we recommend to the Board that 

7 -- 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, is the motion 

9 to accept the NIOSH analysis in this, or is it 

10 the bigger motion to accept the recommendation 

11 on the SEC? It wasn't clear to me what you 

12 needed.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think it 

14 will be a recommendation on the SEC, I think 

15 is what -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, to get 

19 it on the floor then, I'll move that we accept 

20 the NIOSH recommendation regarding this SEC. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I have a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 second for that?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

3 second it. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

5 Brad. Now, discussion. Again, I mean, 

6 personally I think we've addressed the issues 

7 here in the report, and I think that's the 

8 appropriate recommendation to make to the 

9 Board. So, I'm obviously in favor of that. 

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I tend to agree 

11 with you there.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

13 Phil. And, John, Dr. Poston, are you still on?

14 MEMBER POSTON: As soon as I get on 

15 the right side of the -- 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks. I 

17 know the feeling, John. 

18 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I'm still 

19 here.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And do you 

21 agree with the motion that the Work Group 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 recommend to the Board that we accept the 

2 NIOSH conclusion that dose reconstruction can 

3 be done? Essentially, turning down the 

4 petition. We're accepting NIOSH's 

5 recommendation.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good, okay. 

8 I think we're all set. Any further follow-up 

9 needed, or questions?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was that the -- did 

11 we vote, or is that -- 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think 

13 we've got everybody agreeing, so -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Unless, you know, 

16 like -- 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, just 

18 for the record, since you said dose 

19 reconstruction can be done, there is another 

20 petition for the same period that's under 

21 review. I just wanted to say that for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 record.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is for SEC 

3 155.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, which is 

6 what we're focused on. All right. Thanks, 

7 Arjun. Then we'll present this at the Board 

8 meeting and update them then in a couple of 

9 weeks in Knoxville. 

10 Mr. Foulds, thank you for 

11 participating, and Sam and everyone at ORAU, 

12 and Arjun and Joyce, thank you, also, 

13 appreciate your input. And I guess we'll see 

14 everybody, or see many of you in Knoxville in 

15 a couple of weeks.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

18 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

19 off the record at 12:19 p.m.)

20 

21 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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