1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
 


OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
 


+ + + + +
 


ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION
 


AND WORKER HEALTH
 


+ + + + +
 


HANFORD WORK GROUP
 


+ + + + +
 


WEDNESDAY,
 


SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
 


+ + + + +
 


The Work Group convened
 


telephonically at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight
 


Time, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.
 


MEMBERS PRESENT:
 


JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman
 


BRADLEY P. CLAWSON
 


PHILLIP SCHOFIELD
 


PAUL L. ZIEMER
 


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
 


ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE
 


ROBERT BISTLINE, SC&A
 


FRED DUNCAN, ORAU Team
 


SAM GLOVER, DCAS
 


JENNY LIN, HHS
 


ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A
 


JIM NETON, DCAS
 


LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS
 


SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team
 


JOHN STIVER, SC&A
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 


AGENDA ITEM PAGE
 


SC&A review of Hanford SEC Petition #155... 6



Summary and WG report to the Board........ 58
 


Status of current Hanford activities...... 61
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


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


(1:01 p.m.)
 


MR. KATZ: First of all, it's the
 


Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.
 


It's the Hanford Work Group. Welcome,
 


everybody.
 


Let's begin roll call. Since
 


we're speaking about a specific site, please
 


speak to conflict of interest as well for all
 


Board Members and agency staff and related
 


staff. And let's begin with the Board
 


Members. Thank you.
 


(Roll call.)
 


MR. KATZ: So the agenda for this
 


meeting is posted on the NIOSH website. And
 


the document, which is the SC&A review of the
 


petition and NIOSH's Evaluation Report on the
 


petition, is up on the NIOSH website, as is
 


the presentation by which people can follow
 


along summarizing that review by SC&A, which
 


Arjun will be doing.
 


So let me just remind everyone,
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


please, if you are not addressing the group,
 


mute your phone. If you don't have a mute
 


button, use *6 to mute your phone. And then
 


you press *6 again to take your phone off of
 


mute. Please nobody put their phone call on
 


hold. Hang up and dial back in if you need to
 


leave for a piece.
 


And, Jim, it's your agenda.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes.
 


Thank you, Ted. And thank you for everybody
 


to come on this call.
 


Today we are going to be focusing
 


on Hanford, the Petition Number 155. And so
 


that is going to be probably the major part of
 


the discussions of this meeting. We will at
 


least have as an agenda item a brief update on
 


other Hanford activities at the end of the
 


call, but, again, the major focus is the
 


Petition 155. And we have recently received a
 


very thorough evaluation of the NIOSH
 


Evaluation Report on that SEC petition. And
 


SC&A has done that.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


And I am going to ask Arjun to
 


present the SC&A review. And, as Ted
 


mentioned, he has prepared a short
 


presentation on that. So I'll turn it over to
 


Arjun, and then we'll have questions and
 


comments and further discussion on that.
 


So, Arjun, go ahead.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Jim.
 


So I will just mostly follow the
 


slides. I have a couple of other things I



would like to mention along the way. But I
 


will follow along with the slides so we have
 


the record of what's being done. And, if you
 


like, of course, you can interrupt me with
 


questions on any slide or save it to the end.
 


The petition relates to the
 


1987-89 period to Hanford 200 area. And its
 


basis is that the bioassay data are not
 


trustworthy and should not be used for dose
 


reconstruction.
 


Environmental Protection Agency
 


had several problems with U.S. Testing in this
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


period that were detailed in various documents
 


that are part of the petition. NIOSH
 


evaluated this petition and found that any
 


data mishandling and fraud had not affected
 


the bioassay data. And so the bioassay data
 


could be used for dose reconstruction.
 


And the Board asked SC&A to
 


review, and we did. We focused on four
 


questions, and they're not in the slide, but I
 


should mention them. Of course, a large part
 


of our investigation was, was that direct
 


evidence of fraud or mishandling of data that
 


affected the bioassay program? We looked hard
 


for evidence.
 


Were there issues of concern that
 


point to the potential for fraud or data
 


mishandling? Were there other data integrity
 


concerns? And how do the issues raised by the
 


EPA relate to the usability of the bioassay
 


data?
 


So these were the four broad
 


questions. And we did a pretty wide-ranging
 


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
 review. We reviewed the petition and
 

2
 Evaluation Report, a number of other documents
 

3
 from the EPA relating to the testing. We
 

4
 reviewed internal U.S. Testing and PNL audits
 

5
 of the bioassay program. We reviewed the
 

6
 external reviews in 1990 and '90-'91 that were
 

7
 done as part of this whole investigation of
 

8
 fraud and mishandling. And we reviewed
 

9
 documents supplied by the petitioner. And we
 

10
 also reviewed non-public documents. And Bob
 

11
 Bistline was our point person for doing that.
 

12
 And they were reviewed along with NIOSH and
 

13
 with Board Member Brad Clawson.
 

14
 We also did a lot of other
 

15
 research. We interviewed the petitioner and
 

16
 the petitioner's representative. We reviewed
 

17
 external -­ the external bioassay expert for
 

18
 the 1990 oversight. We interviewed two
 

19
 external experts who participated in the May
 

20
 1990 oversight and had raised a specific
 

21
 concern. No. Sorry. We interviewed one of
 

22
 the two external experts who participated in
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


the May 1990 oversight for the DOE. And we
 


interviewed two of the external experts who
 


did the 1991 retrospective review.
 


And during these interviews, Board
 


Member Brad Clawson and Sam Glover were
 


present. And there was also a DOE
 


classification officer. And all interviews
 


which have been reported in the report itself
 


were reviewed by DOE for classification and
 


also by the interviewees.
 


And we reviewed data quality
 


issues pretty extensively, including MDAs,
 


minimum detectable activities. And we
 


specifically reviewed bioassay data for
 


plutonium, uranium, americium, strontium-90
 


and neptunium, and four completed dose
 


reconstructions from just as specific kind of
 


bioassay data used to address an issue raised
 


by the petitioner.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: Arjun?
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes?
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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


I 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


just wanted to let you know that I am on the
 


phone. I have been on for a little while.
 


But I hate to interrupt you. I just wanted to
 


let you know I was on.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, and thank
 


you, Brad, for all the effort you made during
 


this process.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: No problem.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So just to address
 


directly the question, did fraud affect U.S.
 


Testing bioassay data? So we looked
 


extensively for evidence of fraud or
 


mishandling of data. We asked the petitioner
 


and the petitioner's representative for
 


documentation of personal knowledge of fraud.
 


And none of the information provided
 


contained direct evidence of fraud in the
 


bioassay program.
 


The interviews revealed two issues
 


that could be potentially of concern, and I
 


will talk about them in more detail. But
 


those two issues also had reasonable
 


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
 explanations and did not indicate fraud.
 

2
 We didn't find any motive for
 

3
 fraud in the bioassay program. The reviews
 

4
 that were conducted could have detected crude
 

5
 levels of fraud, but they did not find. But
 

6
 it should be stressed -- and you will see this
 

7
 in the interviews as well as in the
 

8
 documentation of the reviews -­ that these
 

9
 reviews as well as the audits that were done
 

10
 during the time by U.S. Testing, or by PNL, I
 

11
 should say, were not set up to find or detect
 

12
 sophisticated fraud.
 

13
 So our conclusion is that, to all
 

14
 available evidence, U.S. Testing bioassay data
 

15
 are not affected by fraud or mishandling of
 

16
 data. But obviously since none of the
 

17
 internal or external audits were structured to
 

18
 detect sophisticated fraud, you know, we can't
 

19
 arrive at any complete and 100 percent
 

20
 definitive conclusion about this.
 

21
 There are two views of data
 

22
 relating to the fraud. The petitioner in the
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


petitioner's interview, as well as the
 


Department of Energy in 1990, PNL itself, and
 


Environmental Protection Agency, indicated in
 


various ways that if any part of the data
 


generated by U.S. Testing was affected by
 


knowing and willful manipulation of tests or
 


data, that all of the data should be regarded
 


as suspect. So in that case, if the data are
 


suspect, then the implication is they should
 


not be used.
 


And this was explained by the
 


then-DOE site manager in a deposition. There
 


was a lawsuit after the PNL contract was
 


terminated. And PNL terminated the U.S.
 


Testing subcontract, including for the
 


bioassay program, for default in 1990, along
 


the lines that are quite similar to the
 


reasoning of the petitioner in the
 


petitioner's interview as well as in the
 


petition itself.
 


In contrast, there is another view
 


expressed by the oversight and retrospective
 


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
 reviews in 1990 and '91, that found the
 

2
 bioassay data to be acceptable because there
 

3
 was no direct evidence of fraud -­ there were
 

4
 quality assurance and other issues, but
 

5
 overall these reviews found and the
 

6
 participants that we interviewed confirmed
 

7
 during the interviews that the data were
 

8
 useable.
 

9
 One interviewee said he would give
 

10
 a qualified yes to the usability of the data
 

11
 for reasons that are explained in the
 

12
 interview. And I can go into it in more
 

13
 detail.
 

14
 But the reviews did not conclude
 

15
 that bioassay data were unusable because of
 

16
 quality assurance issues or because of the
 

17
 fraud issues that had been raised on the
 

18
 chemical side of the U.S. Testing program.
 

19
 And, finally, in the court
 

20
 proceeding regarding the termination of U.S.
 

21
 Testing's contract, the court said that
 

22
 termination of the contract for default was
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


not warranted, but termination for convenience
 


essentially, as I read it anyway, that because
 


so many concerns had been raised, that the
 


contract had been terminated for convenience.
 


There were a number of quality
 


assurance issues that stretched back to the
 


1960s. And this was some of the documentation
 


provided by the petitioner and the
 


petitioner's representatives.
 


There was also evidence that U.S.
 


Testing and PNL made efforts to correct these
 


problems, but they persisted from the 1980s
 


until the period under review. Of course, the
 


pre-1987 data quality issues don't have a



direct bearing on the usability of the data.
 


We did review the quality
 


assurance issues from the point of view of, do
 


they affect the data sufficiently that they
 


are unusable? Generally, the quality
 


assurance problems related to minimum
 


detectable activities in some cases, for
 


example, for strontium-90, the minimum
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


detectable activities were more stringent than
 


prevailing industry norms.
 


And we have a number of
 


observations and recommendations about the use
 


of the bioassay data. They would need to be
 


adjusted to take into account these quality
 


assurance problems, but we didn't think that
 


problems such as those affecting minimum
 


detectable activities rendered the data
 


unusable.
 


The May 1990 oversight review
 


found that a quality control file had been
 


edited. I am now on slide 8. This edit
 


appears to have a reasonable explanation. And
 


this is based on a memory going back 20 years.
 


There is no paper trail that can verify that
 


only a minor change not involving the data was
 


made. So this is memory from the person who
 


participated in the review itself.
 


Also the quality, the change, the
 


fact that the quality control data file had
 


been changed was flagged in the file itself.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


And this, according to SC&A, lent support to
 


the hypothesis that a change was made to
 


correct an error, rather than to manipulate
 


data. Apparently, no data were changed, just
 


the name of the person.
 


Were data withheld from the 1991
 


review? So the 1991 retrospective review
 


contained, in more than one place, an
 


observation that data were withheld. And so
 


this, of course, raised a question in our
 


minds. And we investigated it. We
 


interviewed two of the participants.
 


There is, in our mind, some
 


uncertainty regarding the completeness of the
 


data in the possession of Pacific National Lab
 


at the time of the review in 1991. But there
 


is no evidence that records were actually
 


withheld to hinder the review or affect it in
 


any way. The unavailable records appear to
 


have been the result of prior procedures for
 


records transfer. And these procedures were
 


basically set by PNL.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


And the team, the review team
 


itself, concluded that this matter did not
 


affect the conclusions in any way. And they
 


were able to conduct their review in the
 


manner that they desired. And they got all
 


the data that they actually requested for
 


review. And they found no evidence of fraud
 


or data manipulation.
 


So the bottom line in this review
 


of fraud is really a policy question and not a
 


technical question. Technically, we did not
 


find fraud in the bioassay data. But there
 


was the problem of fraud affecting the company
 


and data mishandling in another side. So the
 


bottom line, as it says on slide 10, is,
 


should bioassay data, which to all available
 


evidence are unaffected by fraud but generated
 


by a company that was dismissed because of
 


data manipulation and fraud in another
 


technically unrelated area, chemicals, be
 


trusted for use in dose reconstruction?
 


SC&A did not express a view
 


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
 regarding -­ because this is a policy
 

2
 question, we felt, for the Board.
 

3
 There were some other observations
 

4
 we made and, in particular, failure to meet
 

5
 minimum detectable activity limits, a quite
 

6
 important observation and finding, actually,
 

7
 but fecal data had never been subjected to
 

8
 quality assurance sampling. NIOSH had also
 

9
 noted this in its Evaluation Report.
 

10
 SC&A concluded that these problems
 

11
 did not invalidate the bioassay data but that
 

12
 appropriate adjustments would be necessary in
 

13
 some cases before their use.
 

14
 We have two findings. There were
 

15
 a number of observations but two findings.
 

16
 Petitioner had raised the review of the proper
 

17
 use of fecal data. And SC&A reviewed four
 

18
 completed cases not in litigation and selected
 

19
 from the cases that NIOSH has completed.
 

20
 In three of those cases, we found
 

21
 that fecal data had been appropriately used in
 

22
 the dose reconstruction, but we found that in
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


one case, the procedure hadn't been followed
 


and it resulted in a considerable
 


underestimate of the plutonium intake.
 


And the second finding is that
 


there is less confidence in the fecal sample
 


results since no quality assurance samples
 


were ever analyzed in the period under review.
 


And this is what led one of the experts to
 


say that QA samples are needed to assure that
 


results are credible, but it does not
 


necessarily mean that the results are not
 


credible. But certainly was a weakness of the
 


program that there were no fecal QA samples.
 


So there is some uncertainty
 


arising from this problem. And that should be
 


addressed when using the fecal data. Also,
 


obviously, the procedure that had been set
 


down for the use of fecal data should be
 


followed more carefully since we found, in one
 


of four cases, it was not followed. And I
 


should caution four cases obviously does not
 


constitute a statistically valid sample.
 


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
 Thank you. That ends my
 

2
 presentation.
 

3
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you,
 

4
 Arjun.
 

5
 Board Members on the Work Group
 

6
 have any questions for Arjun or comments?
 

7
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.
 

8
 I'll just make a general comment that I really
 

9
 appreciated the work that was done on this by
 

10
 SC&A. I know it was a very comprehensive and
 

11
 thorough look at the issues. So I appreciate
 

12
 their report.
 

13
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Dr.
 

14
 Ziemer.
 

15
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I second
 

16
 that, Paul. I had told Arjun that I think it
 

17
 was a very good report technically and very
 

18
 helpful in terms of understanding this issue.
 

19
 And I think for this particular type of
 

20
 concern, whether it may have been fraud or
 

21
 other problems in a laboratory like this, a


22
 thorough report is really the -­ the sort of
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


thorough technical report and going through
 


the facts and what happened is really the best
 


and only way we can address it. I thought he
 


did a very good job with this and the others
 


at SC&A.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. Of
 


course, I should mention our team. Joyce
 


Lipsztein was a very prominent member. And
 


she did all of the QA review and the dose
 


reconstruction reviews. And Bob Bistline was
 


our document review point person and also
 


participated in the review of the non-public
 


documents. We had a lot of help from Lynn
 


Ayers in terms of the logistics of arranging
 


the interview.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board
 


Member comments or questions?
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer
 


again. I'd maybe just ask NIOSH this
 


question. In the use of this bioassay data
 


for dose reconstruction, had we been using the
 


minimum detectable limits that were stated to
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


be in the contract, which they apparently
 


didn't need?
 


So I gather that the actual MDAs,
 


or minimum detectable activities, were higher
 


in actuality than the contract had called for.
 


That's a matter of basically you would end up
 


assigning a little more dose if there was a



minimal value.
 


Do we know which was used in
 


actual practice?
 


DR. GLOVER: This is Sam Glover.
 


I believe that the TBD -- you know, at Hanford
 


this has been going on for some time. So the
 


TBD is part of the review.
 


And so we haven't changed it based
 


on the things that we have found, but I



believe the stated contractual limits I



believe were what are in the TBD.
 


For a lot of people, coworker
 


data, Paul, actually will be used in this time
 


frame, though. And so that really won't be
 


affected by the MDA so much. I believe I'm
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


stating that correctly.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I ask Sam a
 


question about that, if you don't mind?
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Go ahead,
 


Arjun.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Sam, doesn't the
 


MDA kind of set the lower limit of how the
 


coworker model is constructed?
 


DR. GLOVER: But it doesn't really
 


affect below that. It really doesn't change
 


the fit to the line. I think we basically use
 


all of the data.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay.
 


DR. GLOVER: And so I don't think
 


it is going to have much material effect on
 


how our coworker models are put together. We
 


certainly will look at it.
 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton.
 


think the only way that it will affect the
 


populations is if the 50th percentile of the
 


distribution was at or below the MDA.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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


I 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.
 


MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon. I



think we need to look and see what the TBD
 


actually calls out for the MDA. Me, I would
 


be rather surprised if it actually took the
 


contract limits. I would think it would have
 


looked at other documentation for that. So I
 


think we need to look at that.
 


DR. GLOVER: And this certainly
 


isn't a question or an answer off the cuff. I



don't recall. We looked at it. We discussed
 


this. And I can't recall where we left it.
 


And I apologize for that.
 


At the Board meeting, we can come
 


up with an answer I think between now and
 


then.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I think
 


that would be helpful if you can do that.
 


DR. GLOVER: Yes.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other
 


questions or comments on the SC&A report from
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


the Board Members?
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is just
 


Brad. I would just like to make a comment. I



know that Arjun has been through this, but if
 


I could just have a minute, though, and part
 


of my concern that I have with some of these
 


things, if I could.
 


As you know, I was involved in
 


most of the documentation that was pulled and
 


so forth like this. And Arjun is right
 


exactly in what he said, that we have seen no
 


proof of manipulation and so forth like that.
 


There are some things that did
 


bother me in going through the report. And
 


the people we brought in to interview did a



marvelous job. I think also, too, NIOSH, did
 


a job. What this really comes down to, what I
 


want to put out, especially to the Board
 


Members, is this is going to come down to us.
 


SC&A isn't going to say one way or another.
 


The thing that bothers me about
 


this is that people were able 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



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


reports, that there was no documentation of
 


it. Plus, we never knew what was changed.
 


Now, they said that it was editorial or
 


whatever else like that. Well, we could never
 


know about that.
 


These are the caveats I just want
 


you to think about as we go in and we're
 


saying that, yes, we can use this data or, no,
 


that we can't.
 


There was a comment that was made
 


by one of the people that performed the audit
 


about access to the files. And due to a PNL
 


issue, they could take and request certain
 


things within a category and then PNL would
 


pull all of these documents out for them.
 


They by no means had access to whatever they
 


wanted. Whatever they requested they seemed
 


to be able to get brought to them.
 


But then one of the other things
 


that came out that struck me into this, and
 


this is the weak program. The process that
 


they did, even in the auditors' eyes, was a



NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27
 

1
 weak program. There were no checks and
 

2
 balances. There was nothing like this.
 

3
 All these things put together, I'm
 

4
 sitting here. I'm looking at a Board Member,
 

5
 at the other Board Members, and how they think
 

6
 about this. And I want us to just keep this
 

7
 in the back of our minds.
 

8
 All this information is
 

9
 questionable anyway because of what happened
 

10
 at U.S. Testing. We have gone through this
 

11
 report. And I can truthfully tell you that I
 

12
 could not really see any kind of outstanding
 

13
 -­ that there was any kind of fraud or
 

14
 anything else like that. But there were many
 

15
 things that didn't pass the smell test, they
 

16
 just didn't smell right, but the processes
 

17
 were very weak. There are a lot of little
 

18
 things that I didn't like into this.
 

19
 So this, in my eyes, is going to
 

20
 come down to us as Board Members to be able to
 

21
 discuss this process and be able to understand
 

22
 it. And we've already heard that they have
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28
 

1
 lost these contracts because of convenience,
 

2
 because it didn't look right, it didn't smell
 

3
 right, and so this is why their process came
 

4
 to an end.
 

5
 And this is mainly for you, Jim,
 

6
 and also as we bring this forth to other Board
 

7
 Members. I just want to make sure that they
 

8
 understand the SC&A did a marvelous job.
 

9
 NIOSH has done a marvelous job.
 

10
 I would like personally to
 

11
 compliment Sam because he has really dug into
 

12
 this and really worked on this. I have been
 

13
 involved in many, many of the interviews with
 

14
 this process. And I have not seen any
 

15
 fraudulent things, but I have sure seen some
 

16
 things that didn't sit right with me. And I
 

17
 just wanted to make sure that I say this up
 

18
 front of what my personal -­ and this is just
 

19
 my personal feelings on what I have seen.
 

20
 That's it.
 

21
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank
 

22
 you, Brad.
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


Just one comment or question. I



believe that Arjun certainly addressed the PNL
 


issue in the report or is that a discussion?
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it is in the
 


report, Dr. Melius.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: PNL did conduct
 


audits, but they weren't really -­


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Audits.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: You know, they
 


weren't so independent from the bottom-up
 


audits. They were more like double checks of
 


what U.S. Testing was doing.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And this is in the
 


review reports that were done, I believe
 


either one or both of them, in 1990 and 1991.
 


For example, when they submitted blind
 


samples, it was often known. So the blind
 


samples weren't really blind.
 


And what Brad just said is right,
 


that there wasn't a check on whether third
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


parties could change the data or not. So one
 


of the very strong recommendations in the May
 


1990 report was that some control should be
 


put in place as to when and how data were
 


changed, and that there should be a paper
 


trail of the old data as well as the new data
 


and who changed the data and all of that. So
 


that there was a verifiable trail of why data
 


were changed and so fraud could be ruled out
 


in cases. But none of the audits actually
 


covered this issue. They couldn't. There
 


isn't a paper trial to go back.
 


And the other thing regarding
 


availability of data that I should have
 


mentioned but didn't, is that the
 


retrospective review team in 1991, to the best
 


of my memory now, requested data from a PNL
 


log. So they requested data from what PNL
 


already had. So it was natural that they were
 


able to get whatever they requested, but we
 


don't know what data remained with U.S.
 


Testing. It didn't remain with U.S. Testing
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


because U.S. Testing withheld it for some
 


nefarious reason, to the best that we can
 


tell, or the PNL policy. But I do think that
 


probably some data remained with U.S. Testing
 


at the time, or possibly some data remained
 


with U.S. Testing at the time of the review.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks
 


for that clarification.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is also
 


Brad. There is something else I wanted to
 


just throw out. I apologize, but just to keep
 


in the back of your mind, too, that these
 


audits that came in were like a one-time
 


audit.
 


They never followed up. If I



remember this correctly, they never followed
 


up down the road to be able to see the
 


changes. These people came in. They did a



one-time audit, and basically they were gone.
 


And so, you know, to me that is just another
 


weakness that I was looking at.
 


And I know why that they did the
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32
 

1
 audits and so forth like that, but it doesn't
 

2
 even -- you know, if the information was taken
 

3
 "Okay, we'll look into that" or anything else
 

4
 or any follow-up that we could see that the
 

5
 programs were or the suggestions were even
 

6
 taken.
 

7
 DR. NETON: Yes. They were
 

8
 outside groups.
 

9
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.
 

10
 DR. NETON: And, as I recall, I


11
 mean, some pretty prominent people were
 

12
 involved.
 

13
 MEMBER CLAWSON: These auditors
 

14
 were all quite renowned, and they did a very
 

15
 good job. They had some -­ I think I guess
 

16
 the thing that kind of got to me a little bit
 

17
 is here we're looking at this. We're looking
 

18
 at this program here. And they come in. And
 

19
 as they do this audit for certain reasons,
 

20
 they also offer up suggestions to be able to
 

21
 control the process, et cetera.
 

22
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: And then, you
 


know, we don't even know if anything was
 


followed up on or if changes were made or so
 


forth.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: And so -­


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I understand
 


that.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board
 


Member questions?
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.
 


have another question. I think I just asked
 


Arjun this. This has to do with the inter-
 

comparison issue. I think contractually they
 


were required to do this every so often, maybe
 


every six months or something like that.
 


Was the issue that they didn't do
 


that on the frequency that they were supposed
 


to. Were some inter-comparison standards run
 


on these bioassay samples? They're fecal
 


samples or not?
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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


I 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: There was no
 


quality assurance done on the fecal samples.
 


There were some inter-comparisons done with
 


the environmental measurements lab, but there
 


were gaps in that inter-comparison program.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And they are
 


identified in the report. I actually don't
 


recall the specific areas that were called out
 


as a deficiency in inter-comparisons, but I



can do a search of the document.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: I think they
 


wouldn't do it as frequently as they were
 


supposed to. Is that -­


DR. MAKHIJANI: There is actually
 


a gap in the inter-comparison program. And
 


there were also gaps in the internal audits.
 


But, you know, U.S. Testing and the EPA
 


actually called this out as a problem in 1990,
 


when they were discussing the whole question
 


of the status of U.S. Testing.
 


DR. GLOVER: Dr. Ziemer, this is
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


Sam Glover. I just want to mention, the fecal
 


sampling didn't exist unto itself. I mean,
 


usually that's a complimentary technique. And
 


these people also had urinalysis.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. In dose
 


reconstruction, what was used or what would
 


have been used?
 


DR. GLOVER: I believe what
 


happened on one, they treated the fecal
 


sampling as if it was a positive data point,
 


is why it was low, rather than use like MDA
 


and multiplying it. There's a Super S



correction factor that wasn't put properly.
 


But there is a procedure, and it is spelled
 


out in one of the appendices of OTIB-49. It
 


can walk you through how the data should be
 


applied.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Ziemer, I can
 


now answer your earlier question more
 


precisely. They did do inter-comparisons of
 


the uranium with the environmental
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


measurements lab, but they were required, as
 


you said, to do them every six months. And
 


inter-comparing also shall be performed with
 


EPA.
 


Now, environmental radiochemistry
 


section of UST participates in these QA
 


programs. The bioassay section does not. And
 


this, I was just reading a direct quote from a
 


DOE reviewer, one of the auditors in 1990.
 


So there was a lack of external
 


checks because, as I said, the PNL reviews
 


were not what one would really call external
 


audit. And that was observed at the time.
 


There was more in the nature of a double
 


check.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other
 


questions or comments?
 


(No response.)
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are the
 


petitioner or the petitioner's representatives
 


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
 on the line and wish to make comments?
 

2
 (No response.)
 

3
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Apparently not.
 

4
 Then do we have a recommendation as a Work
 

5
 Group to give to the Board, or how do we want
 

6
 to handle that?
 

7
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.
 

8
 What are our options here? What actions are
 

9
 needed?
 

10
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A possibility is
 

11
 the -­ I mean, I think the major possibility
 

12
 would be that we have the SEC Evaluation
 

13
 Report from NIOSH recommending that the
 

14
 petition be denied. And we have a report from
 

15
 SC&A that basically confirms that
 

16
 recommendation. And I think the question
 

17
 would be, do we recommend to the Board that
 

18
 the petition be denied, that the NIOSH
 

19
 Evaluation Report be accepted?
 

20
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, just
 

21
 one sort of point is we didn't actually go
 

22
 into the area whether the NIOSH recommendation
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


should be accepted or not.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We posed the
 


policy question to you.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Well, I



think certainly on technical grounds, NIOSH
 


did not find -- SC&A's findings were basically
 


confirming the NIOSH findings on a technical
 


level.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That's correct,
 


Dr. Melius.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We did agree with
 


NIOSH that we did not find evidence of fraud
 


in the bioassay program.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. All right,
 


which is the basis for the petition.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: So let me sort of
 


ask this question. This is Ziemer again. It
 


seems to me there are two parts of this. One
 


is the policy issue on whether or not, even if
 


there is no evidence of fraud, because this
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39
 

1
 company had some questionable practices on the
 

2
 chemical tests in a separate program, whether
 

3
 that should carry over to this, even in the
 

4
 absence of evidence of fraud.
 

5
 And then a separate issue is,
 

6
 well, suppose we say, if there is no evidence
 

7
 of fraud, then the data can be accepted. You
 

8
 still have the issue of the quality of the
 

9
 data or the related issue.
 

10
 So I don't know if we -­ let me
 

11
 ask it this way. If we were to recommend to
 

12
 the Board that they agree that the fraud issue
 

13
 is not sort of a showstopper in itself, I


14
 believe NIOSH is saying, in spite these other
 

15
 sort of shortcomings on the minimum detectable
 

16
 levels and quality assurance and so on, they
 

17
 can still reconstruct dose. And it's not
 

18
 clear to me whether SC&A agreed with that part
 

19
 of it or not.
 

20
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. We -­

21
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think they
 

22
 haven't taken a position on that part of it.
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40
 

1
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I think we
 

2
 have basically charged SC&A with evaluating
 

3
 the fraud question/concern -­

4
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.
 

5
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -­ and to
 

6
 evaluate what reports have been done to, you
 

7
 know, evaluate that in the past with the two
 

8
 outside reports and then to go into that for
 

9
 us. So I think that was the main focus of
 

10
 their charge and of their report.
 

11
 I think certainly -­ I certainly,
 

12
 in reading the report and reviewing the NIOSH
 

13
 report before, I didn't see any findings in
 

14
 the SC&A report that would support a finding
 

15
 that -­ you know, that contradicts the NIOSH
 

16
 Evaluation Report. I mean, I think that I


17
 didn't see any findings that say that NIOSH
 

18
 cannot do dose reconstruction with sufficient
 

19
 accuracy, despite the shortcomings in the
 

20
 data.
 

21
 Now, I mean, another option we
 

22
 have, we could, you know, ask SC&A to evaluate
 

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 of those technical issues, if that's what
 

2
 people would like.
 

3
 MS. LIN: Dr. Ziemer and Dr.
 

4
 Melius, this is Jenny with OGC. I think the
 

5
 Board is definitely in a position to make
 

6
 policy decisions with respect to the air
 

7
 quality and the use in this program, but I


8
 just want to caution the Board that, even
 

9
 though you could make a policy decision, that
 

10
 decision needs to be sustained by some
 

11
 technical basis. So I'm just putting it out
 

12
 there -­

13
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, I


14
 understand.
 

15
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, maybe
 

16
 I just -­

17
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 

18
 DR. MAKHIJANI: -­ point the
 

19
 Working Group to a couple of things? As you
 

20
 know, we did look into the quality assurance
 

21
 issues to some extent, specifically with
 

22
 regard to some radionuclide. As you observed,
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


this report was mainly focused on the fraud
 


and data manipulation question.
 


The petitioner raised the question
 


of quality assurance. And so we have looked
 


at it also. It's not a full review of the
 


quality assurance question.
 


The one issue, I think, the one
 


finding we had in that regard relates to the
 


lack of quality assurance on fecal samples.
 


And, you know, when it comes to minimum
 


detectable activities, you can make
 


adjustments for that. We have not
 


investigated whether or not adjustments can be
 


made, given that there are no quality
 


assurance samples in the fecal program and
 


that fecal data are being used for dose
 


reconstruction.
 


DR. GLOVER: Dr. Melius, this is
 


Sam Glover.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. GLOVER: I just want to
 


briefly mention that this is a -- you know, we
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


are seeing this data only because we are
 


getting nearer to the '90s and seeing the
 


advent of DOELAP and these issues. You know,
 


this is a process that has taken decades to
 


come here. This quality assurance is
 


something that was developed over time. Many
 


of the old samples from HASL, they're the best
 


available science and technology that was
 


implemented.
 


I just want to throw that out and
 


remind you that we used that QC data to -- did
 


we see anything? They were testing it. Did
 


that give us evidence that something bad was
 


happening? I wasn't trying to put them and
 


hold this program into another standard when
 


we hadn't tried to subject the same data
 


previously when no QC, no EML existed. I just
 


wanted to throw that out.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil.
 


I've got a little bit of worrying just on the
 


fecal samples. How large of an impact that
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44
 

1
 would have on the reliability of the dose
 

2
 reconstruction.
 

3
 DR. MAKHIJANI: So I think that's
 

4
 a question maybe that NIOSH should address
 

5
 because we reviewed for dose reconstruction.
 

6
 We didn't address the specific question that
 

7
 you are asking.
 

8
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.
 

9
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sam, do you want
 

10
 to address that or -­

11
 DR. GLOVER: I hate to do it
 

12
 totally off the cuff.
 

13
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean, if you
 

14
 are not comfortable -­

15
 DR. GLOVER: I just want to make
 

16
 -­ you know, they are complementary tools. I


17
 mean, we have data from lung counts,
 

18
 urinalysis, and fecal sampling. So it's part
 

19
 of a complementary -­ basically, Hanford was
 

20
 looking at trying to assess -­ they brought a
 

21
 special program into play, to see was there a
 

22
 very low-level intake happening below which
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45
 

1
 the urinalysis program might be missing it?
 

2
 They're assigning missed dose for
 

3
 that anyway. So they're trying to go down
 

4
 even further and use this fecal sampling
 

5
 program to look at really low doses. So
 

6
 that's why it was done.
 

7
 And it also complements what you
 

8
 can understand from the particle sizes. And
 

9
 so it can be useful from an accident scenario.
 

10
 Lack of a fecal sampling program
 

11
 does not prevent us from doing, even if we
 

12
 throw out the fecal data, from doing dose
 

13
 reconstruction. I hope that's -­ we could
 

14
 address it technically and show you in a


15
 presentation, but, really, they had a very
 

16
 broad-scope bioassay program. It was
 

17
 multi-tracking, multi-pronged.
 

18
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I guess
 

19
 I'm just having problems, Sam. I know you are
 

20
 speaking off the cuff on this and so forth,
 

21
 but I guess I have a little bit of problem
 

22
 with an argument that, well, just because this
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


is a newer and at least theoretically better
 


technique, the fact that there was no quality
 


assurance doesn't mean that it couldn't have
 


been, you know, misused or misapplied or that
 


there couldn't be some problem with certain
 


individuals as this technique was -- you know,
 


other dose reconstruction would be more
 


dependent on this and so forth.
 


DR. GLOVER: Would it be fair to
 


ask maybe if we looked at it if we had
 


bioassay data from the fecal program or any
 


other and then we were to remove that, what
 


would the impact be? Would that be helpful to
 


the Board? I guess what I am asking -­


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I'm trying
 


to think off the cuff also on what would be
 


appropriate steps to take and who should do
 


them, and how that would be done in the most
 


sort of efficient way to address this.
 


I guess, first of all, I would
 


just like to back up a little bit on this
 


issue to get some input from the other Work
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47
 

1
 Group Members as to whether they would like
 

2
 this avenue to be pursued before we go to make
 

3
 a recommendation to the Board.
 

4
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Jim, this is
 

5
 Brad. Can I speak for just a minute? I'm
 

6
 going to speak just from my personal opinion
 

7
 on this. So take it for what this is worth.
 

8
 I know that we were looking at
 

9
 this from the fraud standpoint of it. And we
 

10
 got into this. And, you know, it's not
 

11
 inconclusive that -­ we didn't find any
 

12
 blatant fraud. To tell you the truth, I


13
 wouldn't use this data with a ten-foot pole
 

14
 because there are too many questions over it.
 

15
 And this is where SC&A put out to the Board
 

16
 that this is actually a policy question.
 

17
 I saw the audit reports. I talked
 

18
 with the people that got involved with it. My
 

19
 personal opinion is that I don't like the
 

20
 looks of the data. And it doesn't look and
 

21
 smell very good to me.
 

22
 I just want the other Board
 

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
 Members to realize that because of my
 

2
 involvement in this -- this is just my opinion
 

3
 now. I know that Dr. Ziemer is going to look
 

4
 at this from a different standpoint as, well,
 

5
 "We can change this and go to that." But
 

6
 also, too, from the standpoint of a petitioner
 

7
 who has brought question into this, the
 

8
 company has been under question. I myself
 

9
 would not really like to use this information,
 

10
 period.
 

11
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, Brad, I


12
 mean, I think the problem with that approach
 

13
 is that, as Jenny said, then we have to have a
 

14
 technical basis for -­

15
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Not using.
 

16
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -­ not using the
 

17
 data that was fraudulent or there is some
 

18
 other technical problem with the data that
 

19
 renders it not -­

20
 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's not useable.
 

21
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -­ useable for
 

22
 the purposes of dose reconstruction in a way
 

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
 that, you know, precludes or does not support
 

2
 dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy.
 

3
 So I think we have to have more than, you
 

4
 know, than that, than what your sort of
 

5
 personal view would be on this.
 

6
 And I think that I personally
 

7
 looking at reviewing the report from SC&A
 

8
 don't see a technical basis for doing that
 

9
 based on the fraud issue. And that was the
 

10
 issue that we asked them to do.
 

11
 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.
 

12
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess the
 

13
 question I am asking is would other Work Group
 

14
 Members feel that it was more helpful before
 

15
 we make a recommendation to the full Board to
 

16
 look in further detail at the use of this data
 

17
 in relationship to the quality assurance
 

18
 issue, which was not addressed in the SC&A
 

19
 report because we didn't ask them to do that.
 

20
 Maybe this step, because I think if it hadn't
 

21
 -­

22
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


Let me comment on that, Jim. As I understand
 


it, the fecal data really only becomes
 


important at the lower end of the intakes
 


where the known samples, or the in vivo counts
 


are insufficient could detect something. Is
 


that what you were saying, Sam? It sounds
 


like this was a tool for the very low end of
 


the intake spectrum. Did I understand that
 


correctly?
 


DR. GLOVER: I think one of the
 


reasons we had the discussion about the two to
 


three times multiplier, that's so we don't
 


underestimate the dose. We're supposed to
 


multiply it and raise that up, because there's
 


a ratio of -­


MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes, but -­


DR. GLOVER: And you're right.
 


It's going to be a complementary technique
 


that you would look at all of the data
 


packages together.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Ziemer,
 


there's a procedure -- is it 49, Sam?
 


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
 DR. GLOVER: That is correct.
 

2
 DR. MAKHIJANI: -­ in which it is
 

3
 stated that if the fecal sample is more than
 

4
 two months after the incident, then there is
 

5
 -­ then it should be used as a urine -­ I


6
 mean, be misstating it, so correct me if I am
 

7
 wrong. Then it should be interpreted as a


8
 urine sample and multiplied by three. And
 

9
 that is the specific thing that we actually
 

10
 reviewed as to whether that procedure would be
 

11
 applied.
 

12
 So it isn't exactly, in my
 

13
 reading, that these correspond to where there
 

14
 are very low intakes that are being
 

15
 interpreted with this dose reconstruction
 

16
 procedure. That was actually the review that
 

17
 was done at the time to try to detect whether
 

18
 they were missing something as part of the
 

19
 fecal program. So I think that's correct, but
 

20
 I don't think that's exactly the way it is
 

21
 being applied.
 

22
 Unfortunately, Joyce could not be
 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


on the call. And she is the one that did all
 


of the detailed review of these cases. But
 


that's the best of my understanding. I could
 


certainly stand to be corrected by Sam or Jim.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is
 


Ziemer again. I would just like to know if
 


maybe I would recommend sort of a two-part
 


motion, the first part being that,
 


recommending that the Board accept the data as
 


being useful with respect to the issue of data
 


fraud, since there is no evidence of fraud,
 


that we proceed on the basis that we have a



usable database and then ask SC&A and NIOSH,
 


to the extent that they need to provide
 


additional information, to give us an
 


assessment of the impact of the way the fecal
 


sample calculations and corrections are made.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: Something along
 


that line.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I sort of
 


agree with -­


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: And maybe it would
 


be two motions. I don't know.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I'm
 


thinking even to sort of step back from
 


motions but think about the way of moving
 


forward.
 


DR. NETON: Dr. Melius?
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?
 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. NETON: I would like to just
 


say something first before this goes too far
 


down the path. It seems to me that -- and Sam
 


can correct me if I am wrong, but the fecal
 


samples, as Sam indicated, are really used to
 


estimate a lower bound than what would be
 


predicted by the urine samples. In other
 


words, the fecal samples always have a much
 


better lower limit of detection of an intake
 


than a urine sample.
 


So it seems to me that if the
 


fecal samples are invalid, then one can always
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


rely on the urine samples to calculate the
 


intake. At that point it becomes effectively
 


a Site Profile issue, in my mind, not can dose
 


reconstructions be completed.
 


Fecal samples aren't absolutely
 


necessary to complete dose reconstructions.
 


They're helpful. They're useful to help
 


bound, to count at a lower bound, but they are
 


not in and of themselves a whole new way one
 


can do a dose reconstruction. So I just
 


thought I would offer that.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I think in
 


theory, I agree with you. I'm not sure that
 


we've presented it to the Work Group and we're
 


all familiar enough with it to sort of reach
 


conclusion on it in this meeting is my
 


concern.
 


What I was about to suggest was
 


that, rather than ask for an additional
 


report, though that is a possibility, is that
 


we ask that we hold another Work Group
 


meeting, that we ask NIOSH to present in more
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


detail the method that's used and how these
 


are used, and that we also schedule it at a



time when both Arjun and Joyce would be
 


available and that we have a discussion and we
 


try to reach, you know, conclusion then.
 


So we wouldn't require another
 


report necessarily, I don't think. Now, you
 


tell me if a report would be helpful. But
 


that way it would inform us on it and I think
 


we could reach either closure on this or
 


certainly can determine if further work is
 


necessary.
 


Paul, does that -­


MEMBER ZIEMER: Sure. I'm
 


comfortable with that. I was just wondering
 


if we would want to put the fraud issue behind
 


us as far as the Board is concerned.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I just think
 


that my concern about that is that the Board
 


deals with things better if they come with a
 


package, at a single time. And the second
 


issue is so major, it would require further
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


work on that.
 


And I think to some extent a part
 


of this issue is so it would bind with this
 


fecal sampling issue that I'm afraid other
 


Board members would have some of the same
 


questions we're having. And we need to be
 


ready to address those at the same time.
 


MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine with
 


me.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad and Phil,
 


is that -­


MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree with
 


that approach because, like Paul said, I'm
 


still uncomfortable with using that data at
 


this point until it's a little more qualified.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I think
 


then we would all know better how the data is
 


being used and what some of the primers are
 


and some of the, I guess, potential problems
 


with that.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad
 


again. I agree with you, Jim.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57
 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


MEMBER CLAWSON: I think this
 


would be a lot better approach to it, and
 


personally it would make myself feel better
 


and I think the other Board members coming in,
 


too.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, could
 


I request one specific thing -­


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that might kind
 


of smooth the way a little bit? Since the
 


question of MDAs is fairly prominent in our
 


report, maybe as NIOSH prepares their
 


presentation, they might address the MDA and
 


other QA issues that aren't specifically
 


related to fecal sampling but do concern urine
 


sampling as to how they are actually used,
 


what they are actually using in the current
 


dose reconstructions, as you discussed earlier
 


with Sam.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Thanks.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


That makes sense. Sam, Jim, do you meet with
 


that?
 


DR. NETON: Yes. That's fine by
 


me.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. GLOVER: Seems perfectly fine.
 


Many of the Board members haven't heard the
 


Super S stuff. This might be a time for them
 


to.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay.
 


What I'll do at the Board meeting is just
 


report on our review, you know, discussions,
 


and that we will be having another Work Group
 


meeting and share our recommendation with the
 


Board we hope after that meeting.
 


Sam or Arjun, do you want to have
 


an update on other Hanford activities?
 


MR. KATZ: Jim, before we do that,
 


can I just clarification for preparation at
 


least for Denver? So Arjun's presentation and
 


so on, that won't, then, need to be presented
 


at the Board level in Denver. Is that
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


correct?
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is a good
 


question.
 


MR. KATZ: Well, either way. I



mean, I was meaning that as a leading
 


question, actually. I just am uncertain.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I was
 


actually thinking it would be helpful to do
 


that.
 


MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay, good.
 


Then, actually, if other Board members have
 


other questions or whatever -­


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Exactly.
 


That's what I'm also thinking. And then we
 


sort of declare up front that we're not ready
 


to make a recommendation yet, that we have
 


further work with this schedule. We go and
 


Arjun's ready. So -­


DR. MAKHIJANI: Is this scheduled
 


for the 18th, Ted? Because I am only going to
 


be there on the 18th.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's on the
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


18th.
 


MR. KATZ: Yes, it is. So, Arjun,
 


I don't think you need to make any changes to
 


your presentation. We can just send that out
 


for that, right?
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. No, no
 


changes are needed.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Eleven a.m. on
 


the 18th.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I'll be
 


there. I'm coming on the 17th.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
 


MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good.
 


DR. GLOVER: I wanted to just be
 


absolutely confirmatory. NIOSH will develop a
 


presentation for the future Work Group
 


meeting.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.
 


DR. GLOVER: We will not try to
 


develop a presentation between now and next
 


week?
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
 


DR. GLOVER: Very good.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Good. Sam
 


or Arjun, do you have updates on other
 


Hanford-related activities that you can share
 


with us or want to share with us?
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure, I can give
 


you an update. I think that ball is in SC&A's
 


court after NIOSH presented the last
 


Evaluation Report to you. So you asked us to
 


investigate the remaining outstanding period,
 


1984 to 1990, for the Hanford SEC 57-2. And
 


we are doing that. You know, Hanford is such
 


a complicated site. So, unfortunately, it is
 


taking a fair amount of digging.
 


We have scheduled with NIOSH a



cooperative sort of data capture visit.
 


prepared a memorandum for Joe Fitzgerald and
 


Bob Bistline, who are going out there on
 


SC&A's behalf. So there are some very
 


specific requests.
 


Just to give you a little
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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


I 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


vignette, you know, there were highly enriched
 


uranium inventories into the 1990s, just to
 


make sure that, were they handled, were they
 


repackaged. And there are uranium data that
 


can be used, but to try to see whether the
 


workers who handled the highly enriched
 


uranium were the ones who were monitored
 


appropriately. So we're kind of really trying
 


to get down into the fine print.
 


And there will be at least one
 


data capture visit. It is scheduled for
 


September 30th. In the meantime, I am working
 


in parallel to review the available
 


documentation and prepare, you know, initial
 


notes for a report.
 


But I think it is going to be
 


February before you see a report. I hope to
 


give you a report that can be presented at the
 


February Board meeting, but I am not sure that
 


I will be able to do that because I don't know
 


when the documentation we requested will be
 


available. The first visit is September 30th.
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


Sam might want to amplify. We
 


have been corresponding a little bit about
 


these data capture visits.
 


DR. GLOVER: Very briefly. Arjun
 


has some very specific things that he has
 


listed. We, as you know, Bob Bistline and
 


SC&A have participated in this. But we went
 


through an extensive data capture.
 


And so some of this is to make
 


sure that Joe Fitzgerald and Bob are fully
 


aware of what we have already put hands on,
 


where that is, and make sure that we use the
 


data that we have already touched because some
 


of that certainly had an extensive classified
 


review.
 


So they will come to grips with
 


that and then determine what else they need to
 


pull. And then they will be working with Gail
 


Splett to resolve budgetary issues so that
 


they can get this done in a timely fashion.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Just to
 


complement what Sam just said, you know, it is
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64 

1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10
 


11
 


12
 


13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 


21
 


22
 


important for us to have unclassified notes
 


from these classified reviews so we can
 


actually put them in reports that then
 


petitioners can see and the Board can discuss
 


and evaluate. So part of the effort here is
 


to go for this classified review but also to
 


make a set of notes that can go through the
 


declassification review process and be made
 


available for a public report.
 


DR. BISTLINE: This is Bob
 


Bistline. Just for clarification, that
 


session at Hanford is going to be on the week
 


of the 24th, Arjun.
 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, I see. I



wasn't aware that the dates had been shifted.
 


Thank you.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any Work Group
 


Members have questions for Sam or Arjun on
 


that?
 


(No response.)
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, then I



don't believe we have any more Work Group
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

65 

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 


14
 


15
 


16
 


17
 


18
 


19
 


20
 

21
 

22
 

business for today. And I believe we can
 


adjourn. Ted, do you have any final words?
 


MR. KATZ: No final words. In
 


fact, I look forward to seeing all of you out
 


in Denver.
 


CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Denver next
 


week. That's right. Thanks, everybody.
 


(Whereupon, the above-entitled
 


matter was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)
 


NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
 


1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 


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