NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 + + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 

 + + + + + 

 THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 The meeting came to order at 

9:30 a.m., in the Zurich Room of the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron, 

Kentucky, Mark Griffon, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member* 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

 Official 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor* 

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A* 

DOUG FARVER, SC&A 

STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

ROY LLOYD, HHS* 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

SCOTT SIEBERT, NIOSH 

*Participating via telephone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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 

 (9:30 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Good morning. This is 

Ted Katz, the Acting DFO for the Advisory 

Board of Radiation Worker Health. And this is 

the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

Review. 

 Welcome, folks on the phone. We 

are going to start with roll call. Board 

members in the room, starting with the Chair? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is Mark 

Griffon, Chair of the Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, 

Advisory Board member. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

Advisory Board member. 

 MR. KATZ: And then on the 

telephone, Wanda, do we have you? 

 Okay. Not yet. I believe Wanda 

is intending to attend. And Dr. Poston let us 

know yesterday that he wouldn't be available 
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 

until this afternoon. So then -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is Bob Presley, 

is he -- 

 MR. KATZ: Bob, are you? Are you 

on the line, Bob Presley? 

 Okay, then. For the NIOSH ORAU 

team in the room? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

NIOSH Office Compensation Analysis Support. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And Scott Siebert, 

the ORAU team. 

 MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

NIOSH ORAU members on the line? 

 Okay. Then SC&A in the room? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: Any SC&A members on the 

line? 

 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Kathy. 

 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. That covers. 
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 

And then other federal employees? There are 

none in the room. On the line? 

 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Roy. 

 MR. LLOYD: Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. That covers. No 

federal contractors either? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Who is Roy? 

 MR. KATZ: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh. Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then that covers 

attendance. Any members of the public or 

staff of congressional offices on the line? 

 Okay. Then we can get going. 

Mark, it is all yours. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Okay. We have a lot of stuff on the agenda 

today, which I am sure we are not going to get 

through everything. But we missed the meeting 

in January, I believe. It was snowed out. So 

we are back to make up on some of that work. 

 One of the first items -- well, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

let me just read a proposed agenda. I might 

have even sent out earlier something of an 

agenda, but the other might be slightly 

modified. 

 For those on the phone, just to 

let you know, if you have certain sections you 

want to click off, the first thing I want to 

do is this 11-set case selection. We have 

some proposed cases in front of us. This is 

really a Subcommittee item. 

 At the last meeting, the last 

Board meeting, the Board communicated that we 

could do the selection of the cases for this 

round. And so we have a final set of cases 

with all of the detailed information on it. 

We are going to do that selection process in 

a minute. 

 After that, we are going to go 

into the sixth and seventh set of cases. And 

there are some outstanding items on those. We 

are close to closing, I think, on most items 

on both of those sets of cases. It would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

nice if we could close those out. 

 And then we have an eighth set of 

cases. The last version of a matrix I have is 

on December 8th, which has the latest. NIOSH 

added some additional response into that 

matrix. So this will be our first cut through 

of the findings in the eighth set of cases. 

 After lunch -- and this one I 

wanted to try to save for after lunch because 

I think John Poston is going to be able to 

join us at that point, and we would like his 

input on the discussion -- I would like to get 

into that first 100 cases letter. 

 We brought a letter back to the 

Board. And Paul said it wasn't good enough. 

No. Several people asked for more 

information. Sort of up front I think we 

wanted to have a better either executive 

summary or, you know, bottom line kind of 

bullet points. And I think that is what I 

want to take up after lunch. 

 And just in thinking about 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 

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

people might consider how we are going to 

format that because one of the reasons we left 

it out, quite frankly, the first time was that 

I'm not sure we could come to a consensus on 

every item. So we didn't make a one single 

bottom line conclusion. 

 But we may not have to do it in 

that format. We may be able to -- you know, 

several things were identified during this 

review, including a listing of bullets of 

conclusions that we feel strongly about in 

that review. 

 So we will have that discussion. 

And then depending on where we get, we will 

continue on these. I don't think we will need 

more on the agenda than that. That should be 

done by 5:00 o'clock. I think anybody who has 

to travel, has later flights, should be done 

by 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock, I would think this 

will take us up to. 

 So if there are no questions on 

the agenda, we will start it with the 11-set 
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 

case selection. I mean, I have gone through 

a lot of these. My overall impression was 

that other than these, I shied away from 

selecting multiple Bethlehem Steels or 

multiple General Steels. I think it was like 

three of each of those. But a lot of the 

other ones I thought were reasonable for 

selection. I mean, let's just do it a page at 

a time and go through like we always do. And 

I think, Wanda, are you on the line? 

 Not yet. Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Bob, have you joined 

us? 

 Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Well, I will keep a tally. It's just the 

three of us right now. On the first page, I 

selected all of them. 

 MS. ADAMS: Do you want me to try 

and call and see if they will get on the line? 

It's Nancy. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's Nancy. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. ADAMS: Do you want me to try 

to call? 

 MR. KATZ: Nancy, that would be 

great if you could give them a ring just to 

check. It's early for Wanda. So I could 

understand her -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is early, 

yes. 

 MR. KATZ: -- not being on the 

line. 

 MS. ADAMS: And then who else is 

missing? Bob? 

 MR. KATZ: Bob Presley. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. He may 

not be planning on it. 

 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Well, maybe 

I'll wait like 15 minutes or so before I call 

Wanda. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Don't 

want to get her mad. 

 MR. KATZ: It's okay, Nancy, 

because she has an answering machine-type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hookup. So if she's not up, she won't pick it 

up. 

 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Then I'll call. 

All right. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

do you want to pause or what? I don't think 

we may that many other people on the phone if 

you want to wait for them or no? 

 MR. KATZ: You don't need to. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Anybody 

have any opinions? I mean, I actually checked 

every case on this page as being reasonable 

for us to look at. Any dissenting view on 

that? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Page 2? Page 2 I picked number 35, 37, 40, 

and 42. The only ones I skipped were the 

extra Bethlehem Steel cases. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: That works. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 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 

next page, I have number 46, 47, and 51 at 

the bottom of the page. I skipped the Hanford 

number 48 because it seemed like we had a 

couple of skin cancer ones coming in there. 

I didn't want to. All right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Did you skip Rocky 

Flats for a reason, 43? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I skipped 43. 

Well, yes. That's when I was realizing maybe 

that's SEC. I don't think it's SEC anyway. 

I mean, I can't imagine it's not SEC. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Those other two 

I didn't check the cancer on those, but let's 

leave those on there for now. 

 Next page, I have 53, 56, 60, and 

61, although I guess we could look at either 

56 or '7 for General Steel. They are both 

lung cancers. One is a little closer to the 

50th percentile. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I picked the one 

-- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Fifty-seven? 

Okay. Yes. Yes. I just saw that. So it's 

53, 57, 60, and 61. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Mark the page 56, 

though. Based on the job title, you wouldn't 

expect chainman to have that much of a -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That is 

-- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's chainman. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, chainman? 

Yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sorry about that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's time to 

put on my glasses. All right. So we'll stay 

with that, 53, 57, 60 and 61. 

 Next page, I have 64, although I 

want -- no, no. Sixty-four is probably okay. 

Sixty-five, 67, 68, and 72. Really, just skip 

the General Steel case. 

 Next page, I have all of them 

checked. And the other thing I will say is 

that there were several Savannah River cases 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in here and Hanford cases, and that is 

something I might not have mentioned on my 

afternoon agenda, the selection criteria. 

 I still think we have done quite a 

few cases with Savannah River and Hanford, but 

when we looked at -- if we really wanted to 

stay with that two and a half percent, we were 

still well below in the overall cases. So I 

think we are okay with those. 

 We had a couple of best estimate 

cases for Hanford and Savannah River, where we 

had some pretty lengthy discussions in the 

fifth set, I think it was. So I think it 

might be good to revisit. I don't think it 

hurts us to do several more of those. So all 

six on that page. 

 And the last page was General 

Steel. I skipped that last one. So I think 

if my count is right, I had 27. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Twenty-seven, 

yes. And we may lose a few, but at least 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 

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will give -- 

 DR. MAURO: The General Steel now, 

I know that they had been a two-phased 

approach. It was the early General Steel. 

And then this is in light of the matter that 

you -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

you are loud enough. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Correct me if I 

am wrong. On General Steel, there may have 

been some earlier cases that used an earlier 

version of the site profile. And then perhaps 

I do believe the site profile was revised. 

There may have been some later cases. I'm not 

sure. 

 I don't know if anyone on the line 

or here in the room recalls there may be an 

early date and late date that might make a 

difference. And it's the later date that -- 

well, I don't know. I would guess you would 

want to look at both, especially if they were 

denied. 
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 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: These are all 

done either 7-26-07 or 9-20-07 or the dates on 

all. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, they were close. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that your 

completion date, that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a date 

approved or something. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Date approved. 

Yes, approval date. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is 

essentially the completion date because that 

is the date that the health physics reviewer 

at OCAS says okay to the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they are all 

done 7 to 9 '07 there. 

 DR. MAURO: They are probably all 

the same. Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think they 

are probably old set. I am not 100 percent 

sure there has been an amendment to the site 

profile. 
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 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I know when the 

film badge data came in, it had a sweeping 

effect on it, but that went more toward 

validating. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Validating. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think what we 

considered the film badge data to do was to 

validate that the model we had selected was 

bounding. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, you are right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And I don't think 

we -- 

 DR. MAURO: There was no need to 

revise. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And since it would 

be a downward adjustment, we tend not to put 

those very high. 

 DR. MAURO: Never mind. You're 

right. 

 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

Kathy. Just to add to John's comment, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with the General Steel, there were maybe two 

selected, but the first one was pulled for 

some reason. I only believe we have actually 

evaluated one General Steel. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Kathy, the first 

one that was pulled turned out to be Granite 

City. It was one of those cases. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: So you are right. We 

do have only right now one General Steel. And 

this would be the second one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This would be 

the second one. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Very good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

guess the process from here is I will get 

these to Paul, but this is a Subcommittee 

final decision here. Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe the 

Committee authorized the Subcommittee to make 
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 

the final decision. So I think yes, you 

should notify Paul, but I will independently 

send this list, the selected list, to Jeff 

Kotsch, ask him -- he's usually pretty prompt 

about this -- to look for what he calls 

post-closure activities. 

 I will take another look. We will 

take another look on our site, make sure 

something hasn't reopened as well. Jeff will 

probably tell us that anyway. And then 

prepare the list. Let everybody know how many 

it is. And I'll send the list to John. 

 DR. MAURO: Terrific. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It will contain, 

that list will contain, NIOSH tracking numbers 

so that John's folks can find the case in the 

office and be able to -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. And -- 

 MR. KATZ: Is it possible with 

that follow-up work that something might drop 

out, in other words? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes. 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 

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Some of these may drop off. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Some of these 

may drop off, right. 

 MR. KATZ: So if they do, do you 

want to just establish now while you have the 

working group in session that for the ones 

where you had a duplicate at the same 

facility, that you just swap out, then, as 

opposed to losing -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If those drop 

out -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Would you like me, 

then, to select the next highest? I mean, if 

you give me a decision criteria, you can make 

it simple and say, select the next highest 

POC. That is a simple one. There are others, 

though. There may be some that are very 

interesting and some that you want to check 

that might be worthwhile. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

for the Bethlehem Steel, if that one happens 

to drop out, we could use on page 2 if 
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 

everyone agrees -- number 38 could be 

replaced. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Backup. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, backup. 

So 38 as a backup Bethlehem Steel case, in 

other words, not of another -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Same with the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then for 

Granite City, yes, or GSI, I mean, yes. Let's 

not go there. GSI. You started me on that. 

GSI. I mean, I could get -- either one of 

those is fine with me, the lung or the stomach 

case. Anybody have a preference on those two 

cases? 

 MR. GIBSON: Do you want to do that 

chainman? 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I read the same thing, 

Mike. Let's have 56 as a backup, then, as far as -- 

 DR. MAURO: Do you have the lung? 

Is the lung going to be picked? 
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 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So those 

two will be backups if those, Bethlehem or 

GSI, happen to fall off. Right? Otherwise, 

I mean, if the Rocky things fall off, we just 

have a smaller number, for instance. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only other 

thing I would ask, Stu, is I think, I guess, 

if you get a final listing, if you will cc me 

and Paul or something because Paul has got to 

make the Board assignments for who is going to 

review what cases. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that would 

be the only other thing. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Good morning, all of 

you. 

 MR. KATZ: Good morning. Welcome, 

Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's a good thing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Nancy called. So now I am awake. 

 (Laughter.) 

 I am upright. And my computer is 

now glowing anyway. And I have no idea where 

we are. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we just 

finished the first agenda item. 

 MEMBER MUNN: How wonderful. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It went 

swimmingly. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have the agenda as 

well. Okay. 

 MS. ADAMS: Sorry to wake you, 

Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, that's quite all 

right. I am glad you did, Nancy. I have no 

idea how it -- well, I'm going to blame it on 

anesthesia. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda, the 

first item was the 11-set case selection. And 

I think you should have gotten an e-mail from 

Stu in the last couple of days, wasn't 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 

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

last several? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's been within 

the past week or two that -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: I can't blame it on 

anesthesia. No kidding. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't do it 

this week. I know that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Let's see what I 

have here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I did it probably 

last -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Last week, I 

think, maybe. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Anyway, 

we went through those. There were about, 

what, 40 total cases on there, Stu, or a 

little less? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, something 

like that. I don't know the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And we 

ended up with selecting 27 of those, at least 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with the understanding that Stu has got to 

bring those back to DOL and make sure that we 

can review all of those, that they haven't 

held up for something else. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I think we 

have 27 right now. They're all between 45 and 

50 percentile. If you recall, that's the ones 

that -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So let's see. 

If you find a list, maybe at a break I can go 

through which cases you selected in. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: And just to summarize 

for her as to how selection was done is 

basically we stuck with just one case with 

Bethlehem Steel, where there were numerous, 

and one case of GSI, where there were 

numerous. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And almost 
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 

every other case. 

 MR. KATZ: Almost everything else. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We skipped a 

few other ones but almost every other one, 

yes. Yes. They all look pretty reasonable 

for review. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But GSI, yes. 

GSI had like four cases there. And they all 

used the same site-wide models. So we only 

selected one of those. And the same with 

Bethlehem Steel had three, I believe. And we 

used one of those. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then yes, 

otherwise pretty much across the board. Yes. 

 All right. Now we are going to 

move on to the sixth set. And, Wanda, just to 

give you a brief of where we are going today 

while you are making your coffee -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Right. This 

is not going to happen. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. The sixth 

and seventh set we're going to discuss this 

morning. And if you recall, there are not 

that many outstanding items left on those. I 

believe if you check on your email, I sent 

those out. 

 I think I have one 29 on the date 

or one 27. It's right at the end of January. 

It was before that last snowed-out meeting 

that I sent a revision of both those matrices, 

the sixth cases and the seven set of cases. 

 And, for ease of review, I believe 

-- and we will have to check this as we walk 

through them -- in the final column, if there 

was still an outstanding item, I tried to 

leave it highlighted in yellow so we could all 

quickly scan through and find it. So that's 

what we are going to do the rest of the 

morning. 

 We also have an eighth set of 

cases that NIOSH gave us additional responses 

on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: When did you send 

the matrix you are talking about? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You didn't get 

it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

don't know. 

 MR. SIEBERT: We look sufficiently 

confused over here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Sorry. 

1/27/09. And I would have sent them probably 

to -- I think I just sent them to John and Stu 

and then assumed that you got -- you know, you 

would -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Is it possible for 

someone to forward that to me? This is Kathy. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. I am 

comfortable with Kathy. 

 MR. KATZ: It is coming your way, 

Kathy. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have my old 

laptop. I am not able to get on mine here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If you are going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to e-mail it, how about email it for me, too? 

 MR. FARVER: I'm nice. I'll 

e-mail it to -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

while we are looking for these documents, 

Wanda, then as we get there, we are going to 

go into the eighth set. And that will be our 

first pass-through on the eighth set of cases. 

 And then in the afternoon, after 

lunch, I think this is one of the more 

critical items, the first 100 cases letter 

report. If you recall, we were asked to 

revisit that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And John Poston 

can't be on until after lunch. So I kind of 

wanted to do that item when John was able to 

join us. So we are going to start that right 

after lunch. 

 And then also we wanted to have a 

discussion of the selection criteria, 
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 

whether we want to modify the selection 

criteria at all, case selection criteria. 

 So that is pretty much the agenda, 

just to give you a sense of where we are 

going. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have to find 

something here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I know 

it's a little early, but let's take a 

five-minute pause. You can just mute the 

phones maybe. 

 Let's get these documents e-mailed 

and stuff, make sure everybody has them in 

front of them, no sense moving on until we 

have the documents. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter went off the record at 9:56 

 a.m. and resumed at 10:01 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Tea time is over. We 

are starting up again. Do we have you, Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: You have me, but 

that's about all you have. Something has gone 
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 

wrong. Mr. Gates and I were arguing this 

morning. 

 MR. KATZ: Your voice is cutting 

out, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's because I 

have my head in something other than the 

speaker. I'm having a hard time even finding 

my file. Mr. Gates has done something to me. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So do you have 

the electronic file, Wanda, or do you want us 

to wait a minute or -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. Don't wait for 

me because the file that should come up at my 

bidding is not coming up at all. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Well, we'll plunge ahead. This is old stuff 

from the sixth and seventh set. So you have 

certainly heard these before. So we will plow 

ahead. And hopefully you will get new stuff 

in front of you soon. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Keep going. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. All 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right. So what I am going to do is go through 

the sixth set. Right now I'm going to just 

scan down on the electronic version, but 

please stop me if I miss something that is 

still outstanding because I am not completely 

100 percent confident that my little yellow 

highlighting system is flawless. So please 

stop me along the way if we have something 

that is not resolved that wasn't in yellow 

highlight. 

 The first one I see, though, is 

finding 104.7. And it's there's an action, 

NIOSH to provide the basis for the 

concentration of transuranics used for this 

site. So was this specific question about the 

-- it's sort of a -- 

 DR. MAURO: Recycled uranium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, recycled 

uranium. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I actually 

know a little about this question. It won't 

be necessarily the case on all of these. 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 

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are, in fact, trying to decide how to deal 

with this issue of publishing transuranic 

contents. There is an effort, which is what 

we said. 

 And it is still not approved. 

There are some questions about is this really 

the applicable thing, is this really what we 

want to do. 

 So that is in the OCAS shop. That 

is not in ORAU. That is in the OCAS shop. 

And I just have to get the right couple of 

guys to decide, is this what we're going to do 

or not? If we're not going to do this, then 

where are we going to write what we're doing 

and showing identification for these things 

that we have selected? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So is it fair 

to say there is continued action or not? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We still owe you 

something, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will work on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that when I get back in the office. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Just 

bear with me. I'm trying to update this live 

so I can then forward a copy right after this 

meeting and we don't fall into that trap 

again. 

 The next one I show is 107.4. 

Doug, please stop me, too, if you find 

something in your notes. 107.4 says NIOSH 

agreed to provide additional analysis 

information -- that's my note -- analysis on 

this. 

 And this looks like a Hanford 

case? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Savannah River. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I'm sorry. 

Savannah River, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wrong number 

scheme. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The finding 

related to whether the chronic assumption, 
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 

chronic exposure assumption, is truly bounding 

in this case. And we have generally used 

chronic exposure scenarios for intermittent, 

a bioassay where you have got some positives 

and you can feel like a chronic exposure 

generally bounded. But there was an analysis 

done by SC&A that apparently called that 

into question and we have not provided 

addition. So this is on the list. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is still 

outstanding? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. The 

interesting thing on this, I mean, I want to 

understand this because on 3/25, we said that 

it would have no effect on the case. And it 

looks like we are still continuing to plug 

away on it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, yes, I 

mean, if we can close on this case, that would 

be one thing to do. But the question now 

would remain, even if this case -- I guess 
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 

that means because of the initial analysis 

with maybe the higher internal intake still 

didn't change the compensability. I guess 

that's what that means. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

that is what that means. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But there is the 

open general question -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Of how -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- since we use 

this technique a lot -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A whole lot. 

Right, right, right. So let's keep it -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- are we really 

confident that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is more in 

the general -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that that 

is probably why we -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think we 

concluded, you're right, that it didn't affect 

the case either 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 

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If I were you, 

that is what I would be thinking. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, even 

with -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I am going to say 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, no, no, no. 

I was just trying to understand. I think what 

SC&A concluded was that, even if they used 

their approach, it still wouldn't have -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It wouldn't 

have -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- changed the 

outcome. Right, right, right. We want to 

know why. 

 MR. FARVER: I believe this is 

going to come down to one of these 

professional judgment calls. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: I thought you had 

provided 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 

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. There is a 

fairly lengthy response. We have gone back on 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I am kind of with 

Doug. I think it ends up being professional 

judgment as to -- 

 MR. FARVER: And I'm not sure that 

either party can tell you which is correct. 

So how do you decide? I guess that is kind of 

where we left it, is how do you make that 

determination? 

 DR. MAURO: For my edification, it 

was my understanding that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- when you are 

confronted with a series of bioassay results, 

a judgment, you try to fit the data or you 

make an assumption that what is the chronic 

intake or you make an assumption if you have 

other information that it might have been a 

single intake, halfway between the two at 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 

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

time this bioassay was taken and the previous 

bioassay. 

 So, in other words, the last time 

I was involved in this kind of question, it 

was my understanding that assuming chronic 

uniform is your standard practice, there are 

times when you take exception to that. And 

there's usually a rationale. 

 And I guess that in this 

particular case, whichever approach you took 

was something that we weren't expecting to 

see. I think we were expecting to see either 

one, chronic or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the 

comment was that a periodic acute would be 

higher than what was -- 

 DR. MAURO: In this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In this case. 

 DR. MAURO: This is a case, just 

for anybody who is not with the reading here, 

this is a firsthand annual bioassay. So 

someone in their -- they fit into a job 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

category that is generally -- there is 

potential for exposure that is not considered 

one of the highly exposed. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't know. 

 DR. MAURO: So an annual bioassay 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: I don't know if that 

is true or not. A security guard can go 

anywhere at any time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. But they 

would not be working directly with the 

material, like some package or -- 

 MR. FARVER: You know, they might 

be standing next to it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they could. 

They could. Our general approach is that what 

we would consider security or exposed, we 

wouldn't consider like, for instance, chemical 

operator at Fernald or something like that. 

 MR. FARVER: No. And that depends 

on the site. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is off-site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dependence on it. That's true. But that is 

only partly relevant. If a person had annual 

bioassay, which is another reason that that 

the site felt that they were not heavily 

exposed -- 

 MR. FARVER: And I believe what it 

came down to is when you set the midpoint or 

the intake -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And you could 

fairly choose with an annual bioassay and then 

there were no incidents or -- as I recall, 

there were no incidents or follow-ups. 

 MR. SIEBERT: There was nothing 

indicating -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There was nothing 

indicating exposure. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, specific, 

yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So it was just the 

annual bioassay. 

 DR. MAURO: That basic philosophy 

or strategy is reasonable. That is, let the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

occupation and its exposure history speak to 

the analyst. And then a judgment is made by 

the analyst and puts down in his report the 

rationale for picking whether it is going to 

be episodic intake or chronic. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know if this 

is a generic issue. I think that is agreed 

that that is the reasonable way to come at the 

problem. Now, if it turns out, though, that 

when that judgment is made, it makes a 

substantive difference to this particular 

case, well, then we have something that is of 

importance. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, you are saying 

that it really didn't make a substantive 

difference. What I am saying is I guess 

leaving it open-ended to a degree to allow the 

analysts to use judgment, as opposed to some, 

let's say, strict hard and fast rule, you 

shall always use chronic, something along 
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 

those lines. 

 So I guess my sense is that it 

makes sense to leave the analysts with a 

degree of discretion as long as when he 

exercises that discretion, he documents it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He documents 

it. I think that's been one of our 

frustrations, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And also demonstrate 

that by going the other route wouldn't flip 

the conclusion. I think it is important to 

recognize how important that discretion is. 

 Now, in this case, what I am 

hearing is that it really wouldn't change 

anything whether you went from chronic to 

acute or not. Is that what -- 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I've 

got kind of a write-up on this. I think it 

was Doug's response that said exactly what you 

guys are, stand by our initial finding. 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 

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

recognize that in the event of the assumption 

uranium dose or triple chance in the total 

dose is small, we would not affect the outcome 

of this case. However, we urge NIOSH to use 

caution when assuming chronic intake over the 

employment period. Consider the EE job 

function, if possible, as a single or multiple 

acute intake. 

 That is what you sent back on that 

one. And this is basically what we are 

saying. We have got to have an avenue to be 

able to make this judgment, also so that we 

see in the case, don't we? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, which does 

make a little sense with the security guard 

function if you would expect it is probably 

more likely that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Episodic. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Episodic is 

more likely. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is more likely. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

walked into something at one time or a couple 

of times or whatever, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- as opposed 

to the routine steady chronic, yes. So I 

guess that was your point, Doug. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. How do you make 

that determination -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- between chronic or 

acute, especially when you have a job position 

as this, where he is in and out of different 

facilities. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: If I remember right, 

this one was where the samples that he had to 

base this on were positive and slightly 

increasing. I think that was part of the 

thought process that -- well, if they were 

slightly increasing over time, chronic could 

be fitting, although I can see both sides of 

it. It is usually an internal dosimetry 
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 

thing. I can see both sides of it, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, but how do you 

make that determination? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we will 

check and see. I will have to check and see 

what kind of guidance is available or what 

kind of guidance might be possible even. 

 DR. MAURO: I think the only time 

we really had a strong disagreement in a 

situation like this is when you assume the 

intake occurred the day before the bioassay 

occurred. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And unless you knew 

that, that really was the case -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- because we have 

seen those. That would tend to minimize the 

burden of the work. So in a case like this, 

where that judgment has to be made, you know, 

I guess I feel as if as long as it is 

explained, it sounds like you went 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 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

chronic, but an argument could be made, well, 

you know, perhaps acute would be better. 

 In this particular case, it really 

didn't change anything. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, security 

guards are an interesting one because each one 

of the sites is going to be a little bit 

different. I know in our case, a lot of times 

when we have had an issue, a problem that has 

arisen, we have left. And they check us for 

it, but they actually position the guards. 

 In one our instances, we forgot to 

involve them in the bioassay program. All of 

us were checked, but none of them were. And 

they were just outside the door because they 

had controlled access. 

 So, you know, each one of these 

has their own little nuance in what is going 

to be -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, in your case, 

would you say your security guard would likely 

represent a chronic exposure situation because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the nature of his job, as opposed to acute? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: That one would 

have been chronic or acute, I guess. They 

come in and out. And a lot of times they have 

to come into situations where we have to leave 

something unattended -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- and back and 

forth, each one. That is why I am saying, 

especially with a security guard, that we 

tried to do these by job categories. But a 

lot of them come into things that were going 

out. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And another thing 

with this one is when we looked at the acute 

numbers, which, you know, we looked at Doug's 

numbers, they are generally three to five 

times higher than what we used as the largest 

calculated uranium intakes that have ever been 

at the site. 

 So that is also kind of another 

indicator that your security guard problem 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

isn't the guy who got three or four times 

higher than the documented largest intake at 

the site, -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- although that's 

another thing that could be documented in the 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

part of the problem is the documentation. 

 DR. MAURO: You've got to tell the 

story. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That's always a help. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: We did respond. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: I'll turn it back to 

you so you can just read it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, we're done 

talking about it. 

 MR. FARVER: Basically NIOSH did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

send a response. And they went, and they did 

work different scenarios for the full 

employment period, for acute intakes. And 

they present a table of their results. 

 And you can see from the table the 

doses are all over the place. It could be 

anything from 19.6 rem to 150 rem. 

 DR. MAURO: But even the high-end 

one doesn't flip it? 

 MR. FARVER: Let's see what they 

say. It changes the POC from like 35 to 38. 

It's a matter of process. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, process. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I am not 

sure that we have anything more to do on the 

general. I mean, we have made our comments on 

this, right, that we believe that the how, the 

selection process should be better documented 

or explained. 

 And I don't know to what extent it 

is in any TIB, but I think I agree with John 

that it shouldn't be prescriptive. But, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, is there some guideline? 

 This goes back to my other 

question, too, of the site-specific guideline 

that they used at the time. I know Savannah 

River has some site guides. And if that was 

included in the case file, you know, that may 

or may not -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: That's not a site 

guide thing, but I see what you are saying. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

But I think I agree with John. We could 

probably try to close this finding and just -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I will just 

for my own curiosity and for edification, 

future meetings, try to figure out if there is 

guidance out there and what kind of thought 

process goes into it. I mean, did we think 

all of this ahead of time or sometimes paint 

this stuff after the fact. 

 DR. MAURO: When we have a 

circumstance like this, where we agree that 

the issue is resolved as applied to 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 

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

particular case but we also agree around the 

table that there will be a benefit from a more 

thorough development of the rationale on these 

kinds of decisions, how does that come home to 

roost, so to speak, that somehow we make sure 

that, in fact, does happen? 

 You know, this is one of those we 

can all agree around the table, yes, it is a 

good idea, I think we should do that, but then 

later on is there a way in which feedback, for 

example -- yes, we have implemented that and 

this is the way in which we have done it. 

 We have made it a part of an OTIB. 

We have maybe supplemented one of your 

internal dosimetry OTIBs that we'll talk 

about. I know 53, whichever there might -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Sixty. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. And that doesn't 

necessarily have to be done right away, but 

perhaps the next go-around there is a home for 

this kind of language. And that would be at 

least a way that we could all agree that 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 

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we have found a vehicle to sort of memorialize 

this agreement. 

 MR. FARVER: Is there any document 

on how you determine between a chronic or 

multiple acutes? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the logical 

place for it would be in the internal -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Internal, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- TIB 60, which 

is -- 

 MR. FARVER: I don't remember 

seeing something like that. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I believe we're 

updating it at the moment. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There you go. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I have a feeling Liz 

suddenly at her desk went -- 

 DR. MAURO: Not only that. I 

think maybe Wanda knows what is coming. It is 

heading over to transfer to TIB 60. But that 

would be the logical thing to do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I do agree 
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 

with John that we don't want to lose this. 

 DR. MAURO: We don't want to lose 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This really is 

the age-old question here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can report 

back to you this afternoon, after I find 

something out, what’s in the system -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what we think 

is an avenue to help out here if there is an 

avenue that can help out. It sounds like 

there is one to me. 

 And so if there is an avenue, we 

can find out and what kind of avenue, what is 

best for that, because sitting here today, it 

seemed like OTIB 60 would be that may not -- 

you know, I don't want to say decide today 

that is how it is going to happen. You know, 

there are a lot more people a lot smarter than 

me about what goes on in this process. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Stu, I can barely 
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 

hear you. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I am sorry. I was 

sitting back and mumbling. I will try to talk 

into the microphone. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. That is all 

right. My line is not very loud, and I don't 

know whether it has something to do with my 

specific connection or whether it has 

something to do with the equipment that you 

have there. 

 I am hearing you folks but not as 

clearly as I would like, clearly not with the 

volume that I would like. I don't know if it 

is possible to do anything there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Can we just blame 

that on the anesthesia? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I would like to 

blame it on the anesthesia, but, 

unfortunately, I was on yesterday and didn't 

see a problem. 

 MR. KATZ: Nancy, can you hear us 

well? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Aha. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps it's just my 

connection. 

 MS. ADAMS: Yesterday in and out. 

There was some in and out. But today I can 

hear you fine. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it is 

individual lines, I guess, Nancy. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We will try to 

make sure we are all near the microphones, 

too. That is always a problem. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am particularly 

sensitive since I heard John say my name. And 

I think it had something to do with another 

work group or something. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not to worry, 

Wanda. It was nothing. It was just assigning 

more work to the procedures work group. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But this is not the 

first time that this kind of issue has come up 

before us. And it might be wise for us 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 

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

consider. I shudder to say this, but it would 

be a relatively small document. 

 A separate matrix that had existed 

on only items of this kind that have been 

closed in terms of technical issue but still 

have some potential administrative issues that 

we wanted to track we could -- we have a few 

of those, I think, previous matrices, do we 

not? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On this one, I 

think I am going to let Stu do what he 

indicated, which is to look back and see the 

process because if it is, in fact, going to be 

addressed in the internal dose procedure, you 

know, in other words, investigate to see if 

there are any procedures or documents that 

currently have the NIOSH approach outlined. 

And if that is the case, you can tell us that. 

And if they are being revised, then we can 

push it over to the procedures review 

committee. That way we won't lose the general 

sort of concern. 
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 

 I think for this case, we have 

kind of closed it out. But I have left a 

little highlighted thing, saying NIOSH will 

investigate, you know, general guidelines, 

what they have in terms of general guidelines 

for this kind of instance. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's going to be -- 

well, Stu will have to identify what the 

procedure is, what the thing is there but 

okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. All 

right. So I am moving on to 114.5 now. It's 

the next one I had. Oh, and it says no 

further action. 

 The reason that is highlighted, I 

wanted to make sure that I captured the 

response correctly from our notes that people 

have from the last meeting. That must be the 

reason I left it highlighted. I have NIOSH 

and SC&A agreeing, but I wanted to make sure 

I wasn't misstating something there. 

 114.5. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I must 

agree with that because I don't have a note in 

my notes about that one. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't either. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MR. FARVER: Just to tell you, 

this has to do with the CATI information and 

our view they didn't consider all the CATI 

information. I think we just agreed that they 

probably should have done a little better job 

of including it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. I 

guess I just wanted to make sure that NIOSH 

agreed with that. All right. 

 Scanning down to 118.1 -- 

 MR. FARVER: This was a question 

about the response of some dosimeters. It's 

a dual film dosimeter, and when you get up 

above seven rem or so -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- how does it 

behave? 
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 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

In my note there, it doesn't specifically give 

NIOSH an action on that, but it sort of leaves 

it hanging out there that you still have 

concern about it. Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I have in my note 

that's an active item. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I had almost no 

time to prepare for this meeting. So I don't 

know that I have received anything on this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'll put it 

as an active item from NIOSH. Is that fair, 

Stu, or are you still -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's fair. 

If -- in fact, I may have received something 

from the contractor -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but that 

doesn't affect this. But that's correct. 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 

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is still active. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's only 

going to be a few. So we're really narrowing 

it down here. 118.6, this says both to 

further review, NIOSH and SC&A. 

 MR. FARVER: My notes say, review. 

Send in the runs to Stu, and then on 12/8, to 

review again, and I did that, and I marked 

that, okay. So that means I reviewed what 

they did, and I am okay with what they did. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What did -- can 

you fill us in on sort of -- 

 MR. FARVER: I think I know this 

case. I believe this is an Idaho RaLa 

incident. And there was iodine. And there was 

questions about how the bioassay was 

interpreted. And this has been going on for 

quite some time going back and forth. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: And I think we 

finally looked at it. You know, they sent us 

their files, and we agreed that that's an okay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

way to handle the incident. That's the short 

story. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was hoping to 

have a little more information on the story 

there, but do you have -- 

 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

think that this was maybe the case where there 

were several bioassay files, included in this 

case, and one was considered a secondary file. 

 And I believe when we first 

reviewed this case, we looked at that 

secondary file, assumed it was what should 

have been used, that it was not what was used 

by NIOSH. And when we reevaluated the case, 

we realized that NIOSH did use the correct 

number, and that what was handwritten on 

another document was different than the actual 

bioassay records. So we had selected data off 

of this secondary handwritten bioassay record, 

which was inappropriate. 

 And NIOSH I think reevaluated 

based on the correct data. I believe that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the case for this one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that seems 

-- I was looking through the previous back and 

forth, and that does seem like what happened, 

Kathy. There was some question about which 

sample was used. 

 Okay. I'm okay with that. If 

anybody else has questions on it? Brad? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

that item is closed now. I have, SC&A agrees 

with NIOSH's reevaluation, no further action. 

 118.7. Is this the same case? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And it's 

the same issue, right? Yes. Okay. So we've 

got the same conclusion. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I have 

the last couple here, but these might be my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions more than -- 120.5, I have that 

there was agreement, and then I have this 

question about no effect on the case. I just 

wanted to make sure that we -- I'm pretty sure 

it wasn't in my notes, and I didn't want to 

assume anything. This is 120.5. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't make a 

note on 120.5. 

 MR. FARVER: No. I didn't either. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Because I think we 

looked at this as just has to do with the dose 

reconstructor normalized data that really 

didn't need to be normalized. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sure if 

there was an effect on the case, we would have 

brought it up during the discussion. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The same thing 

on the last one. And that's the same case. 

Okay. So I just want to -- usually when I'm 

making my notes from the hard copy, I put 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 

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there. And I didn't see it this time. I'm 

just making sure. 

 Okay. So we're through the sixth 

set. Look at that. We only have a few 

remaining, so next time I will do what Scott 

suggested. I don't know if we were online at 

that point, but for the next meeting, I'll try 

to, since we're down for the sixth and seventh 

set, we're going to be down to like a couple 

of findings. And before the meeting, I'll put 

down, you know, discussing items 117 point 

whatever. 

 And then we'll get this done with 

-- I think I counted in my head maybe three or 

four that have little things left, right? Two 

to four, anyway. All right. But I will get 

those out, along with the updated matrix, 

before the next meeting. 

 Why don't we take five? Everybody 

get the seventh matrix together, and we'll 

reconvene in like five to ten minutes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you for having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sent it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I'm not 

sure what I said, but thanks, Wanda. 

 Oh, sending it? Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I'm going to 

just put the line on mute for five minutes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks, Ted. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter went off the record at 

 10:34 a.m. and resumed at 10:46 

 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: We are back, folks on 

the phone. Wanda, are you there? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I am. 

 MR. KATZ: And Kathy, do we have 

you again? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes, you do. I'm 

here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

We're moving right along. We're going to move 

on to the seventh set of cases. And we 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 

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the first one, had an action items here, 

121.1, NIOSH will evaluate the use of OTIB0070 and TBD 6000 in place of the approach 

used in this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I do have that in 

my notes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You said you 

have a response to that, Stu, or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't have a 

response. I have notes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Let me -- I can help 

out a little bit. This is Aliquippa Forge. 

The approach that was taken to do the external 

dose is based on a radiological survey in 1978 

taken as part of the FUSRAP characterization 

program. 

 In the external radiation field, 

they have some numbers, and you end up using 

the median dose for 1978 with distribution, 

and assigning that as the external dose to a 

guy who worked there in 1950. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now the problem with that is 

you've got a 28-year time spread. So your 

recourse is -- well, the thing we suggested is 

-- that was the problem. Second, the worker 

turned out to be a guy who shovels briquettes 

into the furnace. 

 So if anybody is going to get, you 

know, both from an internal and an external 

point of view, conceptually the problem is 

this. You got this big time spread. You 

really can't use the 1978 data to apply to a 

guy in 1950. 

 On top of that, even if you have 

some good generic information for the 1950s, 

this guy's job was a nasty job. He was 

shoveling briquettes into a furnace. So I 

think that your response, that is, that we'll 

take a look at OTIB-0070, which is the 

residual period, 1950 on for Aliquippa Forge, 

no operations. But it's right after the 

operations. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: So if you go -- I 

would say there are several scenarios in OTIB0070 which might fit this well. And that 

might be your strategy. Or you may decide, 

like one of the things we suggested, go with 

the upper 95th percentile in your FUSRAP data. 

I would prefer one of the better scenarios at 

70. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got the 

notes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll leave it 

on NIOSH's action. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Like I said, I may 

even have something from the contractor on it, 

but I haven't distributed them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

I'm thinking the next one is the same. It 

looks like 121.2 it's the same case, same -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only thing 

I'll ask is bear with me, because I just want 

to update this matrix live. It's so much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

easier if I have it done. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. The problem, the 

next one is different. And in concept here, 

let me explain -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which one are 

you on now? 

 DR. MAURO: I'm on the second one. 

In other words -- well, I'm looking at the 

strength. The one I just talked about now is 

external exposure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 121.2? 

 DR. MAURO: Let me see. 121.2. 

Let's see where we go to 2. Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds like 

121.2. 

 DR. MAURO: No, I'm sorry. I'm in 

122 already. No, I'm sorry. 121.1, it's the 

same problem. So in other words, whether 

we're talking internal, any of the issues 

associated with 121.1 have to do with using 

1978 data, whether it's external or internal, 

to apply to a 1950 worker. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And OTIB-0070, a newer document, 

gives you a vehicle to come at this problem. 

How you select to use OTIB-0070, because you 

have a lot of options, is really going to be 

at play eventually. That's all I had on 

121.1. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And 

that's the same for 121.2, I think. 

 DR. MAURO: No. One twenty-two is 

different. That is Simonds Saw. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, not 122. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 121.2. 

 DR. MAURO: I keep doing that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 121.3, though, 

I have a different note here. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It says, SC&A 

to review NIOSH response. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And maybe my 

note is wrong, but that is a different thing, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it looks to me. 

 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

internal dose, John. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Oh, this might 

go back to the re-suspension factor business 

because this is all residual period. I 

happened to look at the -- if you give me a 

minute? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: This is 121.3. Let me 

go back to my report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Apparently last 

time -- 

 MR. FARVER: The intake values 

that they used were derived for residual 

contamination characterization data collected 

in 1992 and '93. SC&A believed 1992-93 data 

may not be applicable to the period from 1950 

to 1978. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we had that 

before, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

realistically, I mean, OTIB-0070 would address 

the internal as well. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. It would do 

both. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, 

realistically the action that we are going to 

take for 1 and 2 by just extending it into the 

internal dose would be in another evaluation. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But in this 

case, didn't you have site-specific data? I 

mean, you don't have -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is 

site-specific data here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's right. 

Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is 

contemporary. I mean, there was 

decontamination, 1949 data. There is 1949 

survey. 

 DR. MAURO: And 70 will give you 

the path forward. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And, see, that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

why I am saying since you've got 1949 data and 

now there is TIB 70, we could go back. Rather 

than justifying the use of the '74 numbers, 

which is essentially what this does, our 

response is simply -- 

 DR. MAURO: Tried to, right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- tries to 

justify these 1974 numbers or '78 numbers, 

whatever they were. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Rather than try to 

justify those, since we have the data from 49, 

TIB -- 

 DR. MAURO: Seventy. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 70, we could 

then just by extending the 1 and 2, what we're 

going to do with 1 and 2 in the internal, we 

can deal with this one as well and kind of 

illustrate. 

 DR. MAURO: What is going to 

happen on 70? We did discuss 70 before. It 

is the slope. That is, you're in a very good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

position here. Here you've got a guy who 

worked in the early years, right after the 

termination of operations, '49. 

 You've got data characterizing 

operations. Pick up right from there, whether 

it's internal or external. And you say, okay. 

What is going to happen in 1950? How many 

years he goes on after that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It may not be many. 

And the only issue we had with your OTIB-0070 

is how you develop your slope. You know you 

have this much airborne activity as soon as 

the operations stop. You start there. Now 

it's going to start to go down. 

 Now, you used I think one percent 

per year. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No it's more than 

that. It's faster than that. 

 DR. MAURO: One percent per day? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be one 

percent per day. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. We had a problem 

with that because if it's one percent per day, 

you could imagine it's gone. In a year, it's 

gone. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't 

know. I thought it was -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: There was a first 

year reduction. And then after the second or 

third year, then -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are various 

techniques. If you have data at two points, 

which in this case we apparently do, we have 

1949, we have 1978 data, I think what TBD 7 

tells you is you set the two data points. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, as long as there 

was no decontamination between the two 

periods. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That was our criticism 

when you applied on OTIB-0070. You applied it 

in another case. That's how we were reviewing 

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 

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then the other 

case, their site-specific question might be 

the data itself, you know. In other words, 

the 1978 data, it's a decon survey. How 

robust is that data set? And how useful is it 

for extrapolation? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was probably 

FUSRAP, right? It's a FUSRAP survey probably 

in the condition since we got here. We've got 

to do something here. 

 DR. MAURO: If you have 

comprehensive pre-cleanup. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: FUSRAP data, '78, 

giving you surface activity, maybe some 

airborne activity. And you have your 1949, 

you know, these are the levels we had airborne 

in our surfaces. Now you have a pretty robust 

way to do the slope. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you have a 

comprehensive FUSRAP survey for any site, 

I would like to see 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 

 78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: You would like to see 

it? 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, their 

goal was to see, do we need cleanup or not? 

So they kind of stopped when -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They didn't really 

do it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In fact -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 

comprehensive is not -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That kind of 

information would be available in the actual 

FUSRAP docket probably, if it did exist. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Once they 

saw that they had required a cleanup -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That they required 

cleanup. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- why bother 

going much further comprehensively? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what 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 

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

suit in discovery -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why 

you've got to be careful how you use that 

data, I think. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. There might 

be additional. And, again, like I said in 

this case, we've got before and after data. 

I mean, before the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have 

something there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We have 

operational period data and operational 

period. Then you have got something at both 

ends. There should be something that -- I 

mean, that would at least get this finding 

fixed in terms of this finding and would put 

the debate in the TBD 70 debate if there's a 

TBD 70 debate in terms of that would be your 

part. 

 The way you are using this TBD 70 

is that initial FUSRAP survey is really a good 

enough survey or should you be looking at 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 

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

extended condition, which they may have done 

later. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I recall there 

were particularly five or six different 

alternative approaches in TBD 70 depending on 

the nature of the data you have. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And you have to choose 

which one is best. And I recall one of the 

options was when you don't have back-end data 

and you have to assign a slope to your 

front-end data, we had a problem with that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

have the action. I captured the action now 

that NIOSH is going to consider TIB 70 as 

pertains to this case basically. 

 Moving forward, now we are up to 

122, John. Now you're on again. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. That was it 

through a lot of -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This says, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH will follow up on validity of this 

approach for the job in question. That's 

122.1. So we have this. What was the job? 

 DR. MAURO: This is the guy who 

was a shoveler. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I remember this 

story. Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is Simonds 

Saw? 

 DR. MAURO: This is Simonds Saw. 

This is a worker who worked at the furnace. 

His job was to heat up the billets, heat them 

up so they could go through rolling. 

 There is a generic Simonds Saw 

matrix that was applied to this person. And 

I believe you applied the methodology 

correctly, but you didn't take into 

consideration this guy's job. In other words, 

it turns out he was a pretty unusual guy 

because of his job. 

 One, with regard to external 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposure during operations now, -- let's talk 

during operations -- your generic approach is 

the person is standing close to a rod, 3 and 

a half hours a day close to a rod, and 3 and 

a half hours close to a billet. In his case, 

he would only be next to billets, which 

effectively increases his dose, external dose, 

by about 40 percent. 

 So we believe in his case, you 

know, that generic approach doesn't really 

apply. If you were going to assume seven 

hours a day of external exposure up close and 

personal, for this person, it would have been 

better if it was all billets. 

 And it turns out the radiation 

field from the billet is about 40 percent 

higher than from a rod. So the dose could 

have gone up a bit on that. 

 That was one thing. That was the 

external part. The internal part had to do 

with the dust loadings. Now, I believe you 

had generic information on what the inhalation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

rate was for the uranium and everything else. 

However, we felt that, rather than working 

from the 50 percentile from this guy, because 

of his job -- and we have a lot of information 

on this -- when a person is a furnace 

operator, he gets exposed to the high-end 

continuously. I would have gone with a high 

end of a fixed. Rather than the full 

distribution that was centered off the 50 

percentile, we suggested for him, he might 

have been better off going with the upper end 

because of his job category. 

 So those are the two, I mean 

conceptually, the two concerns we had. And I 

don't know the degree to which you have had -- 

I will look at your matrix. You may have 

responded. That was my concern. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

was going to ask. Are these still active, 

Stu, or did you -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 

what I have done. So I will have to check. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I sent this, I'm pretty sure, yes, to our 

contractor a couple of weeks after this 

meeting, the December 8 meeting. They could 

very well have replied to me by now and I just 

haven't managed to sort through it. 

 When they send a reply, I normally 

like to see if I like it before I send it to 

the Subcommittee. And so I have not done 

that, I don't think. 

 So unless I did it prior to -- 

it's a thought. We were going to meet in late 

January. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Hang on. 

 That would be my message, that 

message going on the 23rd or something. That 

was what I was talking about related to the 

contract. 

 DR. MAURO: By the way, as another 

point -- and I don't know from a policy point 

of view how to do this. Bethlehem Steel is 

very similar to this site, the kinds 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 

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposures people get. What you ended up doing 

with Bethlehem Steel was what I consider to be 

a truly bounding assumption. 

 Use some billet workers spent one 

foot away from an infinite slab, which was 2 

mr per hour. You placed an upper bound. In 

this case you were more sophisticated. You 

said, well, wait a minute. We know that this 

guy -- we are going to assume that people are 

exposed to billets and rods, single ones. So 

what happens is that reduces the exposure. 

 So in a funny sort of way, it 

seems like you're giving a little bit more 

benefit to an applicant from Bethlehem Steel 

than you would here. There may be good reason 

for that because I think that these -- I mean, 

maybe the nature of the work in Bethlehem 

Steel, we had these very long rods, stacked 

up, which, for all intents and purposes, the 

geometry was like being next to an infinite 

slab. 

 While in this case the handling 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 

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the rods was one by one, one came in, we 

heated it up. We rolled it, moved it out. 

And so no one really is up close and personal 

to an infinite slab. It's not apparent if 

that is the case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in 

retrospect, I kind of wish we had chosen a 

dose rate from uranium metal, -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- rather than 

trying to be too site-specific and too this 

and that. 

 DR. MAURO: It's not that much 

different, a factor of -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is, yes, a 

factor of two. You've probably got it covered 

in all of these situations. 

 -- and just said, okay. For these 

places that rolled uranium or dealt with 

uranium metal, this is a uranium metal dose 

rate at this, this, and such and such, and 

based it on something, whether it be an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

infinite slab or whether it be -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a stack of 

metal, a couple of rods, or you want an array 

of rods or an array of billets or something 

like that. Keep it simple. Give it to 

everybody. 

 Now, not having started with that, 

I think that because we have an approach in 

one site, you know, like an infinite slab, I 

don't know that we necessarily want to tie 

ourselves to always do it that way. 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. What is -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so there may, 

in fact, be some situations -- 

 DR. MAURO: There may be a good 

reason here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where these 

aren't going to be equitably treated. 

 DR. MAURO: There was one last 

point on this case that was surprising to me. 

In this CATI, he had another cancer that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not in his records. His wife, I guess, they 

interviewed, said that there was a second 

cancer that was never credited to this person. 

 There may be good reason for that, 

but I don't know. So that was an issue we 

raised. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can tell you 

what should have happened. We should have 

identified that to the Department of Labor and 

let them deal with it because we cannot do 

that. We can only reconstruct for the cancers 

that the Department of Labor verifies and 

sends to us. So we cannot add a cancer. 

 So we would not get to a different 

dose reconstruction because that was told to 

us. We should have asked the claimant to 

convey that information to the Department of 

Labor. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 122.10 says, 

additional cancer was added by DOL in March 

2008. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No further 

action. Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think we 

addressed that in the last minute. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Good. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So summarizing 

for this case, I have 122.1 and 122.3 as 

remaining follow-ups for NIOSH. And if you go 

on down, the other ones are these white 

papers, these other issues, a lot going to the 

procedures committee. 

 122.7 I have no resolution there 

and no NIOSH response, actually. We never got 

an initial NIOSH response on this thorium 

inhalation question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I probably 

still owe it to you. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. We had a number 

of questions on this, but, if I recall, the 

thorium contribution is probably relatively 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

small in terms of the throughput. 

 But yes, we did have a number of 

-- I see them here, a number of questions on 

thorium. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Scott 

reminds me this will be an issue with TBD for 

this site, you know, what do we do with that. 

And it could very well be. 

 I would think today we might have 

different information than we had when we 

wrote the TBD. And we may want to just make 

the adjustment -- I don't know -- or we may 

have sufficient information that would support 

the numbers. I am completely -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Stop me if you 

see anything else, but I am up to case 125.1 

now. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does that make 

sense, the 84 -- I vaguely remember this one. 

Doug, do you -- 

 MR. FARVER: I couldn't find 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 

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- for the one year. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The one year 

didn't appear, right? 

 MR. FARVER: And I have gone back. 

And I looked. And what they're referring to 

was 1984 dose. The IREP as entry number 29 in 

the IREP input is 1948 dose if you look at the 

IREP table. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. I think that 

was just read wrong. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: A typo there. 

 MR. SIEBERT: That's initially 

48/84 when we were answering it. I think we 

still owe you a response on that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Did you say '48 or 

'84? 

 MR. SIEBERT: I believe in the 

response, we had thought that was -- the dose 

reconstructor came back. And we were saying 

that that was where the '84 was. And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we just -- it was a misread, that it was 

actually '48. So I think I still need to 

track this down. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. And, as far as 

I can tell, there is no 1984 entry in the IREP 

table. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Let's see. To be 

clear on that, that's for the recorded photon 

dose. There are entries for 1984 for missed 

photon dose. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So 

that's still an active action item. The next 

one I had is 125.4, still the same case here. 

This is regarding dose from whole body counts. 

So I guess this dose wasn't included is what 

you are saying, even though there is a small 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. It may be a 

small dose, but it just wasn't included. As 

we go through these, a lot of these will come 

down to, well, why wasn't that caught in a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

review? And we can go through a lot of these 

and ask that same question. And I don't know 

what the Board or -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, is there 

a level on this, Stu -- yes. I know. I know 

what you are saying, Doug, but is there a 

level on this that you consider de minimis and 

you don't include them or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I would say that 

it would be very likely for a reviewer to 

notice this and not care. I think that would 

be very likely that, you know, we have seen -- 

if this is a Hanford case, that must be -- is 

that the ingestion, 136 one, 65 and 147? And 

that's under water. It shows up in whole body 

counts because of that. 

 MR. FARVER: Probably, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That sounds 

familiar to me. 

 DR. MAURO: Zinc is. Sodium is -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

Sodium was an issue in the water, 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 

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Sodium-22 is -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It could have been 

-- and not knowing very much about this case, 

I probably shouldn't say very much. But it 

could be that it's apparent from the POC and 

the dose that this is going to add officially 

to it. And so this isn't going to change it. 

So we're going to say okay. 

 I think we want to be a little 

careful about drawing quality program 

conclusions or how good is the quality program 

from a finding like this. 

 Now, if you had to draw any 

conclusions from other findings, you may want 

to draw that conclusion. But from a finding 

like this, where an experienced reviewer -- I 

mean, our guys who see these things see a ton 

of them. And they pretty much kind of know 

what is going to matter and what doesn't. 

 And so they may just say, you 

know, if I don't say okay to this, that means 

it's got to go back over to the contractor. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

It's got to get through their system. It's 

got to put in five millirem total or whatever 

it turns out to be, which isn't going to 

change anything. It's not going to matter to 

anybody. Why don't I just say okay? I mean, 

that process has occurred. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, there were 

three whole body counts. All of them exceeded 

cesium-137. The DR report clearly states 

there were no positive cesium-137, sodium-24, 

or zinc-65 bioassays during the period. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is a little 

more serious. That is clearly a flaw, a 

mistake that should not have been there. Now, 

those are positive counts, though, right? 

They exceed the protection level? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, I believe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: How is it that it 

has been reported as a finding, that we simply 

have NIOSH add it quickly, a significant 

effect on dose, that it be closed? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we need 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 

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

look at it. See, I am just talking out of 

school here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That is 

what we are trying to find out, Wanda. If 

NIOSH agrees and it doesn't have an effect on 

the case, that is different. That is a 

different answer, but -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think your note 

describes it exactly. 

 MR. FARVER: An example, in June 

1960, cesium-137 result of 8.4 nanocuries and 

the fallout level -- I mean, you could say 

it's fallout. The fallout level is 6.8. So 

it exceeded the fallout level and, therefore, 

by your documents should be assessed. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So yes. 

I think that note still applies, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: And there was a 

second one that also exceeded the fallout 

level, in '69, I believe. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the next one 

I have is 125.6. SC&A was going to review 

this and compare it to the currently available 

TBD. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think it 

was working from an old TBD, right? Yes. 

125.6 we're on. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. Let me get my 

notes here. Okay. Let's go back to the NIOSH 

response in the third column, May 3rd. If we 

go up to the first section, it says, the 

guidance provided in section 5.1 is probably 

blah, blah, blah. The TBD author -- 

recognized by the TBD author to be incorrect, 

and DRs were advised that the period should 

also include 1947. 

 Now, the question comes, is that 

notification to the DRs documented somewhere, 

that you told the dose reconstructors to 

extend that period or how would they know 

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 

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Scott, how did 

that -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: I would assume that 

would come out in one of our weekly conference 

calls. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. So, even 

though it's a change to the document, it's not 

really documented anywhere or -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that would be 

ahead of the fact that the next rev of the TBD 

did incorporate that change. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: So it's a question 

of what do you do up until the time that it's 

officially changed in the TBD? 

 MR. FARVER: And do you need some 

kind of documentation? I don't know how you 

fill that gap. I would think you would at 

least have a memo documented to hold that for 

that period because, even though Rev 2 

incorporated the change, the dose 

reconstructor didn't use Rev 2. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, this 

goes back to the dose reconstruction notes 

also, doesn't it, Scott? Would those have -- 

because I know they are modified in between, 

you know, as you go kind of. 

 MR. SIEBERT: During that time 

period. Once again, this is the old learning 

curve and -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- how old it is 

kind of thing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I can't just tell 

you off the top of my head. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no. I 

know. I know. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This comes up a 

lot, as Doug says, also that if there was a 

guideline. 

 MR. SIEBERT: In that interim 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

period. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But if 

there were these notes that applied while the 

case was being worked on, you know, then it's 

easier to audit. I mean, it's easier to look 

at and say, okay. This is what they're 

supposed to be doing, you know, instead of 

speculating. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: You know, I'll check 

back and track down what I can find. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I am not 

sure what we expect back from this, Doug. I 

mean, it's not in the case file, right? It 

probably happened on one of your conference 

calls in between time. And the current TBD 

covers it. So what more action is there for 

us to discuss --? 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's more -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- Other than 

that generic issue of we would like -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: What can you do? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- To see a 

document in the future cases? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right, for this 

specific case here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And they explain 

what they did, which is okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're okay 

with that, right? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I don't 

think we need any more action on this case 

particularly, but you get the general concern. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. How do you 

want to handle an interim period -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The document, 

yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- when you find out 

some information? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I am going 

to say I think this is closed for this case or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for this finding, yes. Okay. 

 Sorry. I just lost my place in 

the document. What number was that again? 

One twenty? 

 MR. FARVER: 5.6, 125.6. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 125.6. Thank 

you. 

 All right. So 125.9, we had a 

couple of items here. 

 MR. FARVER: 125.9. This has to 

do with information. We may not have all the 

radiological incidents and bioassay data. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: There are some 

incidents identified in the DOE files that 

indicated that bioassay was requested on 

certain dates, but those dates don't 

correspond to bioassays in employees' records. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So am I safe to 

assume this is still an open -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 126.2, new case 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here. So this a question where the TIB 2 is 

bounding based on the -- it must have been for 

the highly exposure level job. Is that what 

you're saying, John? Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: You can see the first 

column what he is doing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Column 3 gives a 

nice summary of his job. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Stu, any 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have any 

updates -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from what your 

note says. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Your note is what 

I have. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: I know there were 

circumstances of when we raised questions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about OTIB-002 being valid. We all agree that 

OTIB-002 assumptions are very extreme as a way 

to place an upper bound on internal exposure 

when you know for sure that there is no way 

this guy is going to be compensated. I mean, 

that is what they intend to do. 

 I know we have raised questions on 

OTIB-002 when it came to application to places 

like where there was a lot of residue, thorium 

residue. The issues I think came up at 

Fernald, that certain workers that handled the 

K-65 material, Mallinckrodt, where there were 

such extreme circumstances that even OTIB-002 

may not be bounding for the purpose of denial. 

 Is there a reason to believe that 

this particular person worked at a facility 

where there was not extreme? My recollection 

is open -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Hanford. 

 DR. MAURO: It is the Hanford? 

Yes. This is Hanford. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the issue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here was part of this last finding we just 

talked about was the TIB 2 input, you know, 

the intake set, suite of intakes. So it was 

used in a TIB 2. You've got several to choose 

from. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You chose the 

non-uranium reactor facility. The comment 

was, well, they clearly had uranium at 

Hanford. Why did you choose the non-uranium? 

 Our response is that, well, the 

guy has a bioassay record for plutonium and 

fission products but not for uranium. So it 

indicated he wasn't in the uranium building. 

So for that, the natural answer is if you've 

got a bioassay record, why did you use OTIB002? And there is also a place in the CATI 

that apparently wasn't completely addressed. 

 Yes. That's what my note says. 

We just still owe a response. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. How 

about 127.1? I have on this one, it seems 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 

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be I have this highlighted part, additional 

response. I'm not sure why that is in there. 

 MR. FARVER: 127.1 refers you 

later on to the CATI report section, section 

4, which would be finding 127.11, I believe. 

If you're not confused, I'll try harder. It 

has to do with work location. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The note I 

made from the December meeting was that we do 

have the action to provide the additional 

information that we relied on in our response, 

where we say that the individual, while they 

worked in the 100 area, worked in building 

108, which is not a reactor building. 

 So apparently this is a neutron 

question or something. I don't know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Apparently it's a 

what, Stu? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It's a what? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What is it? 

 MEMBER MUNN: What is 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 

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 

what the finding is, but what we said was that 

this individual -- we found information that 

this person's assignment, his work location in 

the 100 area was in building 108. I don't 

know what that building is. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which is not a 

reactor building -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It's a biology lab. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it's biology 

lab. So it wasn't a reactor building. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We couldn't 

hear you there, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I said 105 was the 

reactor building in that particular part of 

the 100 area. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Wanda. Wanda, 

whatever you just did makes it much easier for 

us to hear you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I picked up 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 

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

handset and put it up against my ear, but it's 

almost impossible for me to sit here doing 

that in that position. 

 MR. KATZ: I don't mean for you 

for listening but for hearing you when you 

speak up, that would be great. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. When you 

talk, that is great. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I understand. 

Even though I have great faith in this tiny 

little microphone hidden in my telephone, it 

clearly pleases me more than it pleases the 

recipients. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. You 

were going to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So our action on 

127.1 from my last note was to provide that. 

You know, in other words, what is the evidence 

we use to include the person working in 108? 

But there are also some CATI. There are 

several more here on 127, I think. 

 MR. FARVER: I think so, too. 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 

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

started off where the DR talks about the 

employee working in the 100 area and 300 areas 

and then the NIOSH assumes, for this DR, we 

will just assume it is all in the 300 area. 

That is where it leads on to, well, maybe that 

is not what your already work location, you 

didn't consider the 100 area. And it just 

went on from there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which one, 

127.1? 

 MR. SIEBERT: 127.1. 108 is the 

biology lab, as opposed to the 100 area 

generic. I don't know if we ever got that. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't know. I 

don't see that here. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'll get back to 

you, then. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

that's the essence of the question as to you 

stated that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it goes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

down. You're right. It comes up in 127.5 

again, same sort of question, I think. Is 

that right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It looks like it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I am 

looking further down. 127.8 and 127.10. 

That's my note, I think, and I think you 

provided a response, but maybe we were both 

working from different matrices or something. 

I don't know. I don't have a response or oral 

resolution for those. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think 

there is a response somewhere. And so I will 

get that out. But there may be some of that 

additional info as well. Yes. I'll -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Because 

I don't know if we have discussed -- do you 

have any notes on those Doug, that we have 

discussed the resolution on those or -- 

 MR. FARVER: On which ones, now? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 127.8 and 

127.10. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Nope. I have those 

as being blank. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. So 

all right. I will leave that highlighted in 

there that you need to resend the response. 

I don't know what happened to the response, 

but I thought it was -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe I didn't 

send it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And they are on 

my -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There was one that 

was written, and I didn't send it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. But 

either way, that's fine. Okay. 

 I'm down to -- moving right along. 

Nothing on 128, I didn't have. 129.5 is the 

next thing I have. So this is another one of 

SC&A comparing the results -- or NIOSH will 

compare whole body count results versus what 

-- using the TIB methodology. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They did before 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

versus -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right. Is 

there an outstanding one? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We still owe 

you what we owe you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. This is 

a question under your analysis data versus the 

work history data. You were going to follow 

up on the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, still have 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I am updating 

these files. So I will also send these right 

out. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That way, you 

know, because I think the last time I sent my 

revised matrices out, like the day before, 

that close to our meeting. 

 On this one, if it's okay, I mean, 

on the sixth matrix, there were only a few 

items. And I'll list those separately 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 

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

e-mail to prompt people. But for this one, I 

will highlight. And I think that works pretty 

well. You can find them pretty easily, you 

know. 

 I'm down to 131.4. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. And that was 

to us to review. And I looked at their 

response. And basically I couldn't figure out 

how they calculated their doses where the 

calculation is based on IG001 since OTIB-0017 

wasn't around. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What did they 

send you? 

 MR. FARVER: Well, I looked at 

their response. And they have it how it was 

calculated. I could not determine how it was 

calculated from their response. It probably 

was not using OTIB-0017 since that was not -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: It wasn't available 

yet, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Basically a factor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of .94 was used, as opposed to a .3. 

 MR. FARVER: So I would appreciate 

a sample calculation using the employee's data 

for a year. That will educate me. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So NIOSH 

will provide a sample calculation. Okay. 

That's fine. 

 Okay. 131.6. This is a TIB 54 -- 

whole body count versus TIB 54. Is that the 

right TIB number? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Fifty-three is 

different. Didn't I have 53 before? Anyway. 

All right. As long as you know these numbers. 

Okay. So this remains as an item. 

 DR. MAURO: OTIB-0054 was 

reviewed. I recall being involved in that 

review. And it received a favorable review. 

I believe it went before the procedures 

workgroup. 

 It will be on the record in the 

procedures workgroup, but I think that -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

remember when I read the original review 

performed by Joyce Lipsztein, she found the 

basic -- there were a couple of minor 

findings, but, by and large, OTIB-0054 held up 

pretty well if that helps out any. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We had a rather 

extensive review in procedures. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this 

requires a comparison. 

 DR. MAURO: It requires, but I'm 

just saying at least it -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Except that there is a 

lot of controversy right now. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

right. It looks like not much yellow here for 

a while. 135 is the next one I show, 135.1. 

This is a remaining action item. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I think we have hit 

the point where at the December meeting, 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 

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hadn't gotten this far into getting back into 

the seventh set. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. Yes. This is probably just a 

refresher at this point to see what is out 

there. 135.4, follow-up on potential tritium 

exposures. All right. 

 Well, this one, 136.3, this says 

NIOSH is following up on this and the case is 

being reviewed under PER review. I mean, I'm 

trying to think what we've done. If it's 

being reviewed in PER review -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: That was a few 

months ago, but it's still status? Is that 

where it is still? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

know. I'll have to go find out. Well, the 

issue being reworked as -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that may 

prevent us from going further on this. 

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was wondering because most times in most of 

the resolution I have, if it's under PER 

review, we kind of note it, but we don't go 

any further with it, you know. And then we're 

going to say eventually we may want to look 

back at some of those PER review cases, not 

necessarily all of them but some of interest 

or whatever. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because when 

you rework, as we all remember it, when you 

rework the case for PER review, you also often 

rework many aspects of the case, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it would be 

a whole different thing. So my question is, 

why is that phrased differently? It looks at 

follow-up and PER review. Go ahead. 

 MR. SIEBERT: This is the issue of 

Rocky Flats and what they sent us 

documentation on their X-rays. That is coming 

back to me. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: We've been dealing 

with this, that in a TBD, it had basically 

said the X-ray records may not be fully 

complete, which gives the indication that they 

may or may not be. 

 When we were getting records from 

the Rocky Flats document people, we were 

getting the paper medical records from them. 

And when we were reviewing them, most of them 

looked pretty much like they would be 

complete. 

 In other words, you would see 

either annuals or you would see every couple 

of years. Nothing looked like there was 

something missing. There weren't big, bulky 

gaps in it. 

 So at that time, we were saying if 

it looked like it was complete, we would go 

with the record. We weren't sure we would go 

with annuals. They went back to the TBD 

saying that they may or may not be complete at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that point. 

 We have looked into the situation 

a little further and looking at the actual 

films for some examples. And it looks like 

the film record may be more complete than the 

actual paper medical record that they were 

sending to us. 

 So we are presently working with 

the Rocky Flats folks as to how they're going 

to send us the X-ray information so that we 

know that we have all the information on the 

X-rays. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They're 

going back. They've got the film. So they're 

going back to check the films. 

 DR. MAURO: Any reason why you 

didn't go to -- on so many occasions, I have 

seen you resort to OTIB-006. It's the one 

that's a generic approach for reconstructing 

exposures from medical X-rays, when you use 

look-up tables. We did a very detailed review 

of it and found very favorably. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Any reason why you don't go to 

that? 

 MR. SIEBERT: We won't go to OTIB006 if we have a TBD. TBD would trump OTIB006 because it's site-specific information, 

which was fitting in this case because the TBD 

did clearly say that they may or may not be 

fully complete. This is pretty much how we 

applied that information and then went back 

and looked at films and realized that it may 

not be consistent. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And we did have a 

discussion when we found this when this issue 

came alive. We did have a discussion about, 

well, shall we just go with the default annual 

or should we go try and get the record from 

the film, the film record? We're not going to 

get the films, but there is going to be a 

record there, an actual film record. 

 And, for some reason, we decided 

to go get the films. And, to be honest with 

you, I don't remember why. We did talk about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that at the time. And someone made a fairly 

compelling argument that we ought to try to 

look at the film. 

 It may even have been as much as 

some of the cases that there were more than 

one a year or something. It may have been. 

I don't know if that was it. I don't know if 

that was it. 

 But, for some reason, you know -- 

and I don't remember. Somebody made a 

compelling argument we ought to go see what 

those tell us. So that's what we are 

pursuing. 

 So, I mean, with respect to that, 

I mean, so other than the fact that it is in 

PER, I mean, 136.3, at least for Rocky Flats 

cases, you know, we kind of by pursuing the 

more complete records feel like we have been 

addressing 136.3. 

 Now, 136.4 poses an interesting 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This case is being 

PER reviewed. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But the version we 

have in front of us is not. And we still have 

this inconsistency about which solubility 

class is better. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And there is an 

agreement to trade IMBA runs. So I would 

suggest that we maybe go ahead and do that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

we -- 

 MR. FARVER: I did. I sent it to 

you all -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And we probably 

have not sent you all our -- 

 MR. FARVER: -- January 27th. 

 MR. SIEBERT: We actually have 

runs. I see runs from August. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So we will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get to you our runs. We have yours. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me go back 

to 136.3 just for a second. Are we closing 

that out or can we close that out? You said 

that you're following up to see if -- I mean, 

the original finding is that the CATI was 

inconsistent with the actual X-rays that you 

-- the extra frequency that you had in -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess if 

you ask questions of CATI, it is going to be 

consistent with the film record. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I don't 

know what exactly CATI says. Maybe it says 

annual X-rays or something. I guess my view 

of when you ask somebody 20 years after the 

fact "How often did you have X-rays?" they 

will remember, "Well, we went every year and 

had X-rays." 

 MR. FARVER: Well, it's not 

consistent with the CATI or the TBD. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And 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 

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fact of that -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And then that was 

the reading of the TBD where you interpreted 

it as saying it may be incomplete, so always 

really should assume annual versus we were 

reading it as it may be incomplete, so look at 

the record and see if it appears like it would 

be complete. That was the different way of 

interpreting what was written in the TBD. 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I guess my 

question is, do I leave this open until you go 

back? You're going back to the site to ask 

for these records, the things -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, or wherever 

they store the records there. This is -- 

 MR. FARVER: Because it says it is 

not reliable to count the records. The 

medical files do not always document each 

X-ray taken. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It said it right 

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 

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, if you can't 

rely on it, then I would guess you would 

assume anyway. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Or go to the actual 

films of what we're truly doing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which is what 

you are doing now. But that is like a 

follow-up action, really. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I don't want 

to close it out until, you know -- I will 

leave that as -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: What are you looking 

for from us? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You just want a 

report while we have it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, just a 

report. Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Which is what we are 

intending to do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. When you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

went back and found the films, what did you 

find out, too, compared to the original 

assumptions? Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I think I have that 

information. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: I guess for future 

cases, you would consider if there is 

conflicting information in the CATI report for 

Rocky Flats anyway. It should get kicked back 

to go look for if it's POC or something -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We are getting all 

of those things. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You are? Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We are getting all 

of them, I mean, claim, all the claim ones, -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- not all of them 

but the claim ones. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Now, the 

other two I agree with you, Stu, that we 

should leave them all. But even though it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a PER review, we should look at the sheer IMBA 

runs on this. That's 136.4 and .5. 

 Anything else on that? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I will just ask 

a question. I haven't seen this kind of 

attention before to the film. It sounds like 

a case difference may make a difference. In 

other words, for you folks to be putting this 

much attention -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Now, I don't believe 

this makes any difference whatsoever, but 

since the TBD was written the way it was and 

the way we interpreted it, we wanted to 

basically go back and figure out, Okay. What 

is really the right interpretation of reading 

it? So we went back and actually requested 

the films. That's why we went into that 

depth. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The first 

thing we actually did was we went and looked 

at like nine and just said, "Okay. Here are 

nine claims. Pull these out, these nine," 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

claiming that the actual film record be done 

compared to the medical record we got. I 

don't think any of them -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

any of them -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: And it was 

inconsistencies between both sides. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so based on 

that, we said -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You had better 

just get them off. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Just a little bit of 

discussion on 136.5. This is where I believe 

the employee mentions that there were fires in 

one of the buildings in the CATI report. He 

worked in the building that caught fire, 444. 

Okay. 

 And when you look at the DR report 

that talks about the CATI information, main 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fires at Rocky Flats occurred before the 

employee's employment. However, it will 

account for any small fires that may be 

involved in the assumption of insoluble 

material was assumed. 

 That refers to plutonium. The 

building 444 is a beryllium/uranium building. 

So this goes back to support the type S 

uranium. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And I think 

that there were two issues. Initially in the 

dose reconstruction report, we referred to the 

work in 776, the plutonium areas, versus 404 

or 444, which we agree we should have written 

the 444 for the uranium. But this is the same 

thing as the previous one in that -- 

 MR. FARVER: Sure. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- I believe the 

Type S was not claimant-favorable, a more 

soluble form based on latency of -- we need to 

trade the -- 

 MR. FARVER: Can relate to each 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: In IMBA. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I am on 

down to 137.4. I don't really see a clear 

action there as I wrote it. Which site is 

this on? 

 MR. FARVER: This is Paducah. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Paducah, yes. 

So I guess part of it is OTIB 17, but part of 

it is the case-specific question of 

contamination at the location or radionuclide, 

I guess. 

 MR. FARVER: According to their 

TBD for Paducah, it states "Some skin 

contamination events involving tech-99 could 

have occurred without being detected at the 

time. 

 "In some cases, therefore, it 

could be appropriate to consider an additional 

skin dose component for a reported shallow 

dose of a worker who could have had direct 

contact with Tc-99. In the absence specific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

data, the dose reconstructor must make 

assumptions about the number of times per year 

on the effect of the skin region that could 

have been contaminated and the extent of each 

contamination." 

 And basically what we point out is 

the buildings that he worked in. There was 

Tc-99. There was thorium. And he had the 

potential for low energy beta radiation. So 

we feel that he should have considered a 

shallow skin dose growth. 

 DR. MAURO: And it appears that 

NIOSH agreed with that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the bottom 

of your response. It should have been 

included. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's interesting 

because I don't know that I much agree with 

that. Here is the situation. Here is what 

concerns me about that. You are suggesting 

assigning a skin dose component for a 

contamination event that we have no evidence 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

at all. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But I 

am wondering how you are going to do that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I am really 

at a loss for how to do that because if you 

are going to assume a contamination event, why 

not assume several? Why not assume whatever 

level you want for as long as you want every 

day until you wash it off or you didn't take 

a bath until you just compensated? I mean, I 

don't know if you've ever got -- but for a lot 

of cases you could. 

 So my concern is a practical 

matter here. If you have no evidence of it, 

how in the world do you deal with it? Because 

you essentially are speculating its existence. 

And once you have done that, you could have a 

reasonable amount that you put on there for 

the entire work period. 

 MR. FARVER: But I believe it was 

monitored internally for tech-99. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will run into a situation everywhere. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, I understand 

that. So how many -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not only a 

tech-99 issue. I mean, this will go any place 

that has unconfined -- 

 MR. FARVER: I mean, I see the 

problem from an implementation point of view. 

I also see it from looking at, well, yes, it 

could have. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 

 MR. FARVER: And the way the 

documentation is currently written, it says it 

could be appropriate to consider a skin dose 

component. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I just don't know 

a way to do it. 

 DR. MAURO: We run into this time 

and again. At the Nevada test site, this 

issue came up. And the discussion goes there 

are certain sites where the potential for skin 

contamination, it's clear that it exists. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

This might be one of those sites. 

 Then under those circumstances, I 

know we talked. All right. So let's say we 

have a circumstance. And now a person goes 

into a controlled access area. He's suited 

up. 

 In some cases, he's suited up to 

the point where he's completely covered. And 

so, therefore, the potential for him to have 

experienced a direct deposition skin 

contamination is extremely small. 

 And that was one of the answers 

given for Nevada test site, that there was 

access to controls. The person was totally 

covered. But there are also circumstances 

where that is not the case, where there is 

evidence that the person was not fully 

covered. He could have gotten some 

contamination on the face, skin, hand area, 

uncovered areas. And there was a very real 

potential for that kind of contamination. 

 That was, by the way, one of 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 

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concerns with OTIB 17. All right? Because 

you remember everything that you do in OTIB 17 

is based on the non-penetrating exposure as 

read out on the film badge as if any kind of 

non-penetrating exposure was at a distance, no 

consideration given to those unusual 

circumstances. 

 Now, one of the arguments given is 

that, notwithstanding even if he was 

uncovered, he goes through an access and 

egress control point, where we scan. And if 

there is any contamination, it would be picked 

up and washed off. 

 And I think we left it as I think 

unresolved, namely is that good enough. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if we want 

to pursue this, I'm just going to suggest this 

has to go on the over-arching issues because 

this is an issue that will -- I worked at 

Fernald in the 1980s. I hear exactly what you 

are talking about. And so I know exactly what 

you are talking about. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 There was a period at Fernald when 

there were no contamination monitors. Before 

you went home, you were required to shower 

before you went home. 

 But there were no contamination 

monitors. You don't know if he first got in 

the shower contaminated. You don't know if he 

got out clean. 

 So I understand exactly the point. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I am just trying 

to say that sitting here today, I don't even 

know what I would do about that. 

 MR. FARVER: You know, I am 

looking back further here at the job 

description, what the employee did. There's 

a groundskeeper for a certain time. And then 

he was mechanical maintenance. So he did some 

mowing in the cylinder yards, also 

sandblasting cylinders, wetting down roofs or 

buildings and grinding them up and putting new 

roofs on buildings. So maybe you can narrow 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it down to a time period. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But even then, I 

mean, you can. You might be able to bound the 

case. I just think it's universal. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, it is. It's 

definitely universal. 

 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe the program 

needs to come to grips with dealing with that 

because, by the way, the roofs at Fernald were 

not good either. It was just a tar roof, but 

apparently it attracted further contamination. 

 MR. FARVER: Go out and weld cells 

about once a week in various process buildings 

on the cell floor. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the other 

thing, different from John's example, I think, 

is that in Paducah, we know that they weren't 

always all covered, you know? I mean -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Or at Fernald, 

right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or at Fernald. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The experience my 

career has -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand 

exactly what you are talking about. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How to quantify 

it is the problem. Yes, yes. I listed it as 

a NIOSH needs to consider this as an 

over-arching issue. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am continually 

making assumptions that each and every 

individual who is in the area of specific 

radionuclides, like tech, when they are badged 

and you have material from which to work in 

making a plausible scientific assessment of 

what their exposure was, it's foolish to make 

the assumption that every individual had every 

type of exposure that would be possible. How 

would you come to the conclusion that that was 

a legitimate thing to do? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, by putting 

it as an over-arching issues, I will let Dr. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Neton worry about that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. I don't 

think anybody disagrees with that one. I 

mean, it's just how these determine for, you 

know, there has got to be some sort of -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there needs to 

be some evidence. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think there 

was some evidence. 

 MR. FARVER: If you go back to 

where what the job functions were, you know, 

cutting and welding on a process floor might 

be a good indicator. Mowing probably isn't. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Interesting 

debate. It will be an interesting debate. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I am not sure 

there is much to debate about. I am not sure 

there is much to debate about, but it will be 

an interesting discussion. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So where are you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with respect to this finding? What do we do 

about that? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I put it 

on NIOSH will consider this as an over-arching 

issue, white paper idea, I guess, you know, 

white paper concept. I am not sure how it 

affects this individual finding for this case. 

I mean, that's -- 

 DR. MAURO: He is a skin cancer 

case? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It has to be. 

Otherwise it wouldn't be here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Otherwise 

it's not even a concern. Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And we are talking 

about uranium? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's Paducah. So 

it will be some potential for -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, uranium, 

thorium. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But they have tech 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there as well. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Paducah is 

probably locked in with Fernald. 

 DR. MAURO: You have a particle of 

any -- say you've got a cancer of the neck. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: You could say, "Okay. 

We know the" -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What kind of 

particle? 

 DR. MAURO: What's that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What kind of 

particle would get cleaned off? 

 DR. MAURO: I don't know, but -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It would happen 

again and again. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know. 

 DR. MAURO: If it was me, what 

would I do if it was me? I said, "Wait a 

minute. Wait a minute." I would say, "Let me 

make an assumption that some particle 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 

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sitting on my neck for eight hours before I 

took a shower. And I will run the skin." 

 What is that, VARSKIN? Run over 

there, and I will see what the dose was for 

that little spot. That's what I would do if 

it was me. I would want to know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Call Jim. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe as a 

starting "What if?" Yes. Okay. 137.6, then, 

is the next one. And I have "NIOSH to follow 

up on this case." This is a solubility 

assumption. 

 And that holds for the next two 

also, NIOSH to follow up on .7 and .8 as well. 

So it's fission products and then the CATI 

incidents reported question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a Paducah 

case. Is that right? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, well, we 

will get you more on it. I think they used 

the Y-12 mobile counter at Paducah, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It just spit out 

radionuclides. You know, since it spit out 

Cesium-137, that didn't mean they were looking 

for Cesium-137. So any kind of a fission 

product contribution from Paducah would be 

from recycled uranium content. So it ought to 

be addressed to that. 

 I don't think you would want to 

interpret a printout from the mobile counter 

as including things like Cesium-137. There 

may have been some other stuff on it, too, as 

meaning that there were indications that 

really needed to be monitored for it. I think 

the intake would have to be based on the 

recycled uranium conclusions. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

you're right. I mean, that sounds logical, 

but you want to check. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I can go 

chase this down some more. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically we are just saying you didn't 

consider fission products. We're not really 

saying it's from whole body count. We're 

saying we have in vivo and in vitro. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Cover both. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a really bad 

day when they have some fission in Paducah. 

It's a really bad day. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. All 

right. So I propose that we stop here. I 

thought I was going to get through the whole 

matrix. We almost made it, but it's a good 

time to break for lunch. 

 We're at a new case here, 138. 

Why don't we pick it up and give ourselves and 

hour for lunch and reconvene at 1:00 o'clock 

our time, Wanda? Is that all right? 

 MEMBER MUNN: That will be fine. 

All right. With many mea culpas, I have to 

tell you that I appear to have done something 

really bad to my data files when I shut down 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

yesterday after our teleconference yesterday. 

 And I am not sure I am going to be 

able to retrieve my Board files. They seem to 

be pretty well trashed or hidden somewhere 

that I can't get to them. 

 So the material that we are going 

to cover this evening, this afternoon, when 

John joins us is probably not going to be 

easily retrievable for me either. If someone 

has that easily available that could -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll get that 

case report sent to you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I really appreciate 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you need the 

eighth set of cases, too? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Apparently I do. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am unable to 

resurrect any of the Board files. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We will get 

those e-mailed to you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have no idea where 

my Board files are. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. It's 

going to be two files. We'll send them to you 

from one of us. I'm not sure. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I very much 

appreciate it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. Bye 

bye. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I am 

disconnecting the phone. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:04 p.m. and 

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

 (1:03 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Hello. This is Ted 

Katz with the Advisory Board of Radiation 

Worker Health. And this is the Subcommittee 

on Dose Reconstruction Review. We are about 

to get started again, having broken for lunch. 

 I just want to check first for 

Board members on the phone. Wanda, have you 

rejoined us? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have. Thank you 

for sending me the necessary files. 

 MR. KATZ: You're welcome. And, 

Dr. Poston, are you with us, too? John? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not yet. Well, 

maybe he will be by the time we get to -- 

 MR. KATZ: Not yet. Right. Do we 

need to check on anyone else? Do you need to 

know from SC&A? 

 DR. MAURO: No. We are fine. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I would 

like to wrap up the seventh set. We are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

almost to the end of the seventh set of cases. 

So I figure we will wrap that up. And then we 

will go into the other piece, the first 

100-day report. 

 We left off on case number 138. 

Actually, I see nothing on that one. This can 

be quick. 

 Okay. One forty-three is actually 

the next place I have where I see NIOSH to 

follow up on this case, whether or not we 

received all available dosimetry data. That 

was sort of the finding. I guess if I don't 

hear anything else, I will assume that is -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We can give 

it a try. I mean, generally when we go back 

to DOE about things like this, we send you 

what we've got. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Send me what 

you have, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we can 

ask. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Why 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

does it come up in this particular case to 

remind us? Doug, I know we have been through 

this before, but -- 

 MR. FARVER: I'll find it real 

quick. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There must be 

something that -- 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, because it was 

something in the CATI report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Now, is the correct 

finding 143.1? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: 143.1. Okay. It has 

to do with the CATI report. We're in the EE 

routine radiation, dosimeter badges. And the 

claimant has copies of the employee's 

dosimetry records. 

 The DR report doesn't mention 

anything about this. So SC&A is questioning 

whether the dosimetry records were requested 

from the claimant and any additional ones 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 

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

DOE. 

 So part of this is whether the 

check box in the CATI report when the claimant 

says, "Yes, we have additional records." Do 

those records get requested? And the other 

concern -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you mean the 

individual said they had additional records? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. Well, 

that's one part of it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Just so 

everybody's expectation is the same here, I 

mean, this is a claim that was adjudicated a 

long time ago. So this claimant would not 

have been -- unless there were cases we opened 

for some reason, it would not have been a 

communication with the government about this 

claim for a long time. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Pulled. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Pulled? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Stu, I can hardly 

hear you again. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, Scott 

advises me that this case has been pulled for 

SEC. Apparently this person's employment is 

in the Los Alamos. It's a LANL case. It was 

in the LANL SEC period. And so it looks to us 

as if it's going to be concentrated in that. 

 Just in the instance of this, we 

don't make it a practice to go back to 

claimants on these cases that the Board is 

reviewing that have been adjudicated long ago, 

for instance, in this case where they said 

they had more records. We just feel like they 

ought not to reopen the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You want to 

make new communications with them and get any 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Why reopen 

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- closing since 

they got their adjudication answer. And so we 

wouldn't go back. Now, we could do additional 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

searching, you know. 

 MR. FARVER: No. But, I mean, 

when someone marks that in their CATI 

interview -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In our response, 

we did say, "Well, there are a lot of medical 

records in the DOL file." And so it could be 

that she has boxes of medical records but 

nothing additional on the dosimetry. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I think in 

this case you didn't go back to the individual 

probably. That's -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Really, by the 

time the Board reviews it, unless this case is 

back and active again, I don't think we -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no, no, no. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, you mean at 

the time we would do it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At the time you 

did it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I'll bet we 

probably do not. I'll bet we probably do 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 

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that 

would be more -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We concluded that 

she was referring to the medical records and 

review at the time we did the dose. That was 

probably our conclusion at the time. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That is kind of 

an assumption. 

 MR. SIEBERT: But you would have 

had the opportunity during the close of that 

interview to say that that was unacceptable to 

her and said she had more records -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- and could have 

sent them in, too. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean, we can 

go back to LANL, you know. LANL has been a 

bit of a problem child sometimes with records. 

And so, you know, we can see if there is 

anything else there. We can check back with 

our own research. Maybe we have discovered 

that things really weren't that good back 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 

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

those days or we don't have any -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: its being 

pulled for SEC anyway. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, it 

is not a bad claim. I just think it is just 

for general reference. 

 MR. FARVER: That was part of it. 

The claimant said there were additional 

records. In this case, the employee worked 

there from '46 through '90 or '91. It's a 

long time period. And there are only three 

years of exposure data: '56, '57, and '64. 

 That is probably what keyed it up 

to us there so that there might be additional 

records, if you worked there that long and you 

just have three years of monitoring data. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right. 

Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So the real bottom 

line here is did we have adequate records to 

do the job that was necessary to be done? And 

that is to say, does what we have constitute 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

adequate information? 

 This is not additional needed 

information or was it not? That is the 

question that seems -- 

 MR. FARVER: Well, I can't tell 

you it was adequate because you only have 

three years of monitoring data. And then they 

only assign three years of missed dose data 

based on those three years of monitoring data. 

So I am not sure that is adequate. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the 

real bottom line is it's likely to be in the 

SEC, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, that 

may be, you know, the reason for it. But yes, 

this case is in the SEC. I think that, Wanda, 

to answer your question, did we have adequate 

records, it depends on we should have had more 

or not. 

 If the person was only monitored 

for three years, then we had all of the 

records. If the person was in a fairly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unexposed job or pretty much unexposed job for 

their careers, then we had adequate records. 

 But if this person was for a while 

in jobs where they had a relatively high 

exposure, especially for long years, I mean, 

they worked there a long time and those 

records weren't made available to us, well, 

then, arguably, we didn't have adequate 

records. 

 So, you know, you can't really 

answer the question were these records 

adequate without knowing if there is still in 

them. 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. And if you 

go back even to the job descriptions, well, 

janitor, lab associate, technician, prototype 

machinist, casting machinist, so yes or no. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'm thinking in 

terms of the closure of the file itself when 

I really should see if we have adequate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

records to complete what needed to be done. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in this case 

the judgment was made that the Los Alamos 

records are of sufficient quality that had he 

been monitored, we would have had more 

records. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That was the tacit 

assumption that was dose reconstruction 

because when a person didn't have a monitoring 

record, they were assigned the ambient dose, 

which means that they were essentially a 

non-exposed person. They just worked on the 

site. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that was the 

assumption in this. And whether or not that 

was a good assumption or not would depend on 

whether our understanding of the Los Alamos 

record system is correct or the one we had at 

that time. 

 I can check to see if it has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

changed. I mean, we could go back to Los 

Alamos and with the general question about, 

are we sure, are you sure we are getting all 

of these exposure records. But in terms of a 

follow-up, I don't know if there is going to 

be anything terribly satisfying. We normally 

go back to a DOE site. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But in any case, did 

I hear correctly that this now falls into an 

SEC? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that is the 

case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does it fall 

into or it's being assessed to determine? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is our judgment 

that it will. It is on that list because they 

have employment in the covered period and they 

have what appears to us to be SEC cancer. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I see. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's why they 

end up that full category. That's what puts 

them in 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 

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So, now, on that 

one, I said we would see what we can find out 

if there is a way to find out any more. That 

is actually several of the 143 findings fall 

in that category, right? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but I was 

just going to say, if I can use that last bit 

you just said, I don't feel that there is any 

further action on this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is even 

better. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, we will 

just say that it's no further action in this 

case since it appears -- I want to know how to 

phrase this -- to fall under the SEC class. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I haven't 

looked at the other couple of findings, but it 

may be that that applies as well, you know. 

We're talking about 143.5 and .6. 

 One is related to receiving all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the velocity of the other. I think the same 

thing would be applicable here, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the other 

one is really the CATI. Yes. So I think it 

still applies, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we'll close. 

I think we'll close this case out because it 

falls under the SEC. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Some of the closures 

of some of the earlier items on that 

particular case were closed, saying that that 

badging policy is to be reviewed in site 

profile review, another one of those things 

where the action goes somewhere else. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, it's hard to 

hear you. Maybe you could pick up the -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Maybe I am just 

speaking too softly because -- 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, maybe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- I do have my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

handset in my hand. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's better. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I was raising a 

question with respect to the badging policy to 

be reviewed in the site profile review -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- for item 2 and 

item 3 of that particular case and was 

commenting that this is another one of those 

things where the action goes somewhere else 

and it's not clear how that particular item in 

this matrix gets its final stamp of closed. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, for this 

case, since it's an SEC, the case would be 

closed anyway. But I understand what you're 

saying in general you refer to a site profile 

review. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It's not 

necessarily this case but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Usually it 

stays open, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- overall have 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 

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

finally wrestled that to the ground how we are 

going to "write closed" in the final column? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

we have any further than the procedures 

workgroup has. I mean, I think it's the same 

scenario that we -- the procedures 

subcommittee will have the same kind of thing. 

 I mean, we just have to be able to 

track all of these matrices -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Well, it -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- across our 

Board work, you know? Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is 

getting referred to the LANL site profile 

review, which I guess I am involved with. And 

we just have to make sure it doesn't get lost. 

Yes, I know what you are saying. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We are 

going to do that in the data. John just 

talked to me before the meeting started 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 

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

morning that I have to get in touch with Kathy 

and probably Doug and work a little more. 

They have a beta version of a database similar 

to the procedures subcommittee database. And 

I think they have even uploaded most of the 

past data on that. 

 DR. MAURO: We've been working on 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, you 

know, we are probably ready to -- that will 

help us in tracking these kinds of -- and 

being able to query and see what is hanging 

out there and what has been transferred where 

-- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- and so 

forth. So yes, yes. So will use matrices in 

the meetings and the database for tracking . 

Anyway, we'll talk more about that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Is Kathy Behling on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the line? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I am on the 

line. 

 DR. MAURO: Kathy, as a little 

update, how do things stand with Don Loomis 

loading the data into the database? Are we 

making some progress there? 

 MS. BEHLING: We've made a lot of 

progress. And I had hoped to get the database 

into Mark's hands before this meeting, but 

when I looked, in fact, Don has loaded the 

first five sets onto the database. I'm still 

reviewing some of that. 

 The one thing that has been added 

to this database that is not included in the 

procedures database is some statistics tabs. 

And that hopefully is going to help the Board 

with their selection process. They will be 

able to go to that tab and see just what 

facilities we have already picked cases from 

and what types of cancer and so on and so 

forth as you looked at now. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We are still working on the 

facility portion of that statistics tab. And 

that is really the last thing that needs to be 

done before I turn it over to Mark and he can 

look over it and see what he thinks about it. 

 Hopefully by the next meeting we 

can be up and running with that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That will be really 

helpful, Kathy. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So, 

then, 143.5 and .6 are a similar outcome as 

143.1. So I am moving on to 144.1. I have 

asked SC&A to review the case. 

 MR. FARVER: I've reviewed it, and 

their response is correct. In other words, we 

actually agree. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's wonderful. 

 MR. FARVER: Mark that down. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's good to 

close out some. Can you tell us a little bit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about the why? 

 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

calculation of shallow dose for -- let's see. 

 MR. SIEBERT: For missed dose. 

 MR. FARVER: Missed dose? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. It's all 

missed dose -- 

 MR. FARVER: Missed dose. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- assigned as 

photon. And there was no electron, but that's 

because it was all missed dose related to 17 

that way. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. It has to do 

with counting the zeroes. And if it's a zero 

shallow and a zero deep, you do one thing. 

And it's the different combination of the 

zeros and the positives. And it's all spelled 

out in OTIB 17 pretty well. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So SC&A accepts 

NIOSH's explanation? Case closed. 

 MR. FARVER: Case closed. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 144.2. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH has an action here on these. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got nothing 

new to provide today. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see if I 

can't get some of this stuff before next 

meeting. We're meeting again next month, 

right? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see if I 

can't get some of this stuff. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It will be good 

to close the sixth and the seventh if we can. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We will try 

to focus on those. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We are pretty 

close, I think. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. That one 

concerns, really, the ambient intakes for dose 

rates and which table you chose, I believe. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That sounds 

right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: I'm not going through 

the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There's one where 

there's like a max table and -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: There is a max 

column. And yes, there's the different TAs. 

And there's a max column, yes. There's -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: For certain years, 

the max is smaller than one or two of the TAs. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Than one of the TAs, 

yes. 

 MR. FARVER: There are different 

tables with different columns. And it's hard 

to tell which table was used. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And 

that's the end of this seventh matrix. I'm 

just cleaning up a few things before I save 

and close it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So there's no change 

on that on 144.2? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. That's a 

remaining action for NIOSH. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. The next 

topic on the agenda is a discussion of this 

first 100-day -- or first 100 cases. First 

100 days. I'm thinking of Obama. 

 MR. KATZ: Obama. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He's got to 

give a harder report pretty soon. 

 First 100 cases report. I was 

looking back at some of my notes. And I'm 

sure Wanda and others have ideas on this, but 

one thing I saw, I think Paul was saying some 

things about just that we should have 

something in this report of the value or 

implications of the work, of the first 100 

cases that we reviewed. And that didn't come 

out in the front end of the report. 

 You know, I think part of the 

reason -- well, I think in order to get 

consensus I was maybe staying away from some 

of those discussions, but I think here we are. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

So it's been turned back to our subcommittee 

to consider this. 

 I guess I would pretty much open 

it up to the floor. What I can do is maybe 

take better notes at this meeting and figure 

out. I don't think we have to have the exact 

sentences, but if I can get some ideas on what 

people think should be in this, I can rework 

a draft and circulate it. 

 And for our consideration at our 

next meeting, which is also before the next 

full Board meeting, we've got another one of 

these Subcommittee meetings coming up in 

April. Is that right? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I guess that 

-- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Just as a sidelight, 

that is the only one that I had on my 

calendar, by the way. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You missed this 

little one? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have no idea why 

it isn't on my calendar, but it isn't. 

 MR. KATZ: Can I check? John 

Poston, are you with us now? Dr. Poston? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. He's still 

there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, he'll 

still have an opportunity. What I will do is 

circulate this. And when it's in written 

form, then you can really tear it apart. I 

guess I will just open it up to ideas here. 

And then I will try to redraft something and 

circulate it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I guess the real 

question for me is, have you attempted to 

address that issue of the value, what it was 

doing? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. And right 

now would be an opportunity to do so. I mean, 

I apologize, Wanda. I haven't wrestled with 

this much myself since the last meeting. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and neither 

have I. I looked at it very thoroughly at one 

juncture, but I actually, to be truthful, have 

slept too many times since then. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I have 

some notes here, you know, value. You know, 

some things that come to mind for me are that 

I need specifics on this, I think. 

 Some things that come to mind to 

me are that, going through these first on your 

cases, some of our work in this audit affected 

NIOSH changing their DR report or at least 

partially -- I don't know the exact words. I 

don't want to say that we were the only ones 

that -- you know, because of us they modified 

the whole DR report. They might have had some 

of that ongoing already. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But it was an 

influence. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. At least 

they influenced -- that is probably a better 

word -- influenced the redrafting and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reshaping of some of the DR reports that 

communicates to the claimants. I think that 

was a positive output of value to this first 

early work of the audit. 

 That's one thing that struck me a 

lot. The other thing I think was that some of 

this work has affected sort of the structuring 

of the case files themselves by NIOSH to make 

them more -- you know, this whole concept of 

showing their work. 

 I guess then on the other things 

that have come up out of this -- and I don't 

know if these are necessarily, you know, maybe 

slightly more negative. I'm not sure how to 

term it, but I'll just draw out my things that 

I have down. 

 We've had some concerns about the 

overestimating approaches, especially related 

to compensable cases that came out in these 

first 100 cases but also related to this issue 

of if someone gets a second cancer and you use 

an overestimating approach the first time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through, then they get it back and their dose 

gets lower and they come waving these two 

things to the Advisory Board meetings and 

saying, you know, "My husband" or whoever "got 

another cancer. And my dose went down. You 

know, how can this happen?" 

 MEMBER MUNN: Repeatedly. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

So, you know, we understand it, but from a 

communications standpoint, from communicating 

with the public and fairness, you know, not 

fairness but just clear communications with 

the public, that's been a little problematic. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'm almost sure that 

is never going to be cleared up entirely. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know. I 

know. I mean, I actually have some little 

thoughts here, but this is probably -- some of 

it is a little bit hindsight at this point 

maybe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'm not sure whether 

we help or hinder that communication in what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we do, but I don't think that is going to go 

away. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, yes. 

Yes. I mean, this is kind of probably a 

little late to throw out there, but one notion 

that I have had kicking around in my head for 

a little while was that maybe the 

overestimating approach should never have been 

used for anything but survivor claims because 

then they're obviously never going to get 

another cancer, you know. 

 But, you know, at this point all 

I'm prepared to say is that it's been kind of 

an issue. And it's more of a communication 

issue. It's not that we're saying NIOSH did 

anything inappropriately from a scientific 

standpoint but as a communication issue. 

 Other items that I have on my 

list, Wanda, just for your thoughts -- and 

maybe we can all just take this as homework 

and take the draft and either add text in and 

I can roll them together, we can do something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

like -- you know, however you want to work 

this, but I have quality down and equity. 

 Again, I am not sure exactly. I 

know that quality issues came up in the first 

100 cases' reviews. I know the question of 

equity continues to come up. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's pretty 

subjective. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And these 

tend to be lesser as I go down my list, I 

think. And these are just like brainstorming. 

I'm not sure if these would even make a draft, 

let alone a final. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Quality certainly 

ought to be in there if we haven't done an 

adequate job of addressing the quality. I 

thought that was one of the things that we had 

attempted earlier. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And then 

it gets into how because quality is in this 

report. So it may not rise to the level of 

putting it in this beginning section, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know. It's already in the report. There is 

a section about quality. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's see. And 

the last item I have, but I think this also 

comes out more in the findings, is the best 

estimate cases, the cases that were near 50 

percent, 45 to 50 percent. My note says -- 

and this I would have to check this for sure, 

but I think it was four out of five or three 

out of five, fairly subjective here but I said 

required extensive revisions due to the audit. 

 And, you know, at the end of the 

day, they weren't flipped if they didn't go 

over 50 percent, but they were significantly 

revised from the initial report. That was 

just a note I made. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's a pretty 

significant number. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Excuse me? 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's a pretty 

significant number. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, four to 

five of them. But I think three of them were 

Savannah River because they were all at the 

same site, you know. So that's one to think 

about. 

 I don't know if you had anything 

Wanda, that you were thinking about as far as 

value or implications of the work that's -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: If I had at any time 

had such thoughts in my mind, they are 

certainly not lodged there very deeply now. 

I continue to have concerns and probably am of 

the outlying opinion with respect to these 

reports and how extensive they should be. 

 I know that Paul and I think you 

also believe that these reports should be 

quite extensive and that they should serve as 

a truly official document and communication to 

the Secretary in very thoroughly identifying 

what it is that we have done. 

 It may be even more crucial that 

that happened now with a new Secretary coming 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in, but my philosophy for all reports is that 

brevity is the soul of precision and that the 

less we say and the more concisely we say it, 

the more likely it is to be factored into easy 

communication with the individual or 

individuals who are our target audience. 

 So I still continue to pump for 

brevity, despite the fact that I know that is 

a minority opinion here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, it only 

is. It's a five-page report. I do hear what 

you're saying. And that might be part of the 

reason of having this sort of executive 

summary up top. And if they want to look 

further for more details? But at least this 

gives them a paragraph or two overview of what 

we did with this work. I hesitate. 

 DR. MAURO: No. Nothing specific, 

as a general. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I understand what you 

are trying to do. And I think, like you, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think about these things. And we are always 

looking at it from the inside out. That is, 

we are in the middle of a process, and we're 

thinking about all the fine structure. 

 But I would say to myself, what do 

you think the questions would be that the 

Secretary of HHS would ask you? In other 

words, let's say the Secretary walked in this 

room right now and wanted to get a 15-minute 

rundown. And let's say you had a series of 

questions. Break yourself clear of being 

inside the box because right now we are inside 

just thinking about the programs the last five 

years and all the findings and all the charts 

in the back. 

 I would sooner say, you know, 

"What do you think he would want? What would 

the questions he would need?" 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and I think 

what do you think the Secretary would want is 

really and truly the crux of the question. 

Certainly I don't know what the rest of you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would do, but if I were sitting in the 

Secretary's chair, the only thing I would 

really want to know is, is this doing any 

good? Are we doing this right? 

 Other than that, everything else 

is in the details. And that's why the Board 

and the agency and the contract exist. Are we 

doing okay? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't even 

know, though. If you say are we -- yes. Who 

is we? But also are we doing this right or is 

NIOSH doing this right? You know, I think 

from the claimant's standpoint, if we were 

compensating 100 percent of the people, they 

would say, yes, they are doing it right, you 

know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the claimants 

are not the only ones who would say that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What? 

 MEMBER MUNN: The claimants are 

not the only ones who would say that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: That isn't my point. 

The point is, is this being done correctly 

under the aegis of the law? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Is what we are doing 

here, "we" being the collective we who are 

involved in this statute, are we doing what 

the statute requires us to do? And is it 

getting anywhere? Those are really the only 

two issues. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. The first 

part of your question was, is it doing any 

good? And that's different than I guess doing 

it scientifically right, you know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, is it doing it 

in accordance with the statute, with the 

requirements of the statute, not the intent of 

one of the legislators, not with the intent of 

any one of the administrators? Is this 

meeting the letter of the law? And is this 

being done properly? This is a key question. 

 I am not sure whether we get 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 

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that point. We talk about what we have done. 

And we evaluate it to some degree. But I am 

not sure we are very clear in response to what 

I feel is the overriding question that a 

person at the top of the responsibility chain 

would want to hear. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

And I think part of the reason I in the first 

draft of this sort of avoided this question 

was that, you know, the answer is 

unanswerable, I guess, because of all the 

limitations of the first 100 cases. 

 That is what we have been through 

before, is that we did all overestimates, 

underestimates. Ninety-five out of 100 were 

overestimates, underestimates. You know, so 

I guess that was my -- you know, how much 

conclusions can we draw from those big 

questions like you are asking, Wanda? Are we 

meeting the letter of the law? 

 Well, based on -- you know, we 

would have to qualify that in so many ways. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I'm not sure that would be a satisfactory 

answer if I were on the receiving end of it, 

you know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Not a lot of 

qualifications. Was this done the best way 

that could be done at the time given the 

circumstances and the information that was 

available? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I'm saying 

our sample doesn't tell us that answer. 

That's what I'm saying. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, no, it doesn't. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's why in my 

view we need to qualify it in that way. 

 MR. KATZ: Can I give you a 

government perspective? It is going to be a 

government person who is receiving this 

report. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, if I were the 

Secretary, I would still want to know. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean, we have been at this for five years or 

whatever it's been, six years, whatever. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How long. 

 MR. KATZ: Whatever, quite a 

while. And you have been reviewing dose 

reconstruction cases for this period. So I 

mean, I think still -- and the Board has a 

very specific charge to evaluate the quality 

and validity of the dose reconstructions 

within the context of what they are supposed 

to do, these dose reconstructions. 

 So I mean, I think you can have a 

very general summary statement up front that 

gives the answers that can be given, given the 

nature of the complexion of the cases 

reviewed. And you have to consider that in 

the context of the complexion of the cases 

that get done in this program, too, because 

many of the cases are underestimates and 

overestimates. 

 You know, if 70 percent of the 

cases were overestimates and underestimates, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you need that context, too, of all of the 

cases. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: So I think you could 

talk, I mean, pretty briefly about give that 

appropriate context and then the nature of the 

cases that have been reviewed in these five 

years and what you have found with respect to 

those cases as to-- is the quality and validity 

of them adequate for the purposes and so on 

and where there are issues, what those issues 

are very briefly. And then what's ahead would 

be the rest of your summary. Now we're 

getting into these different nature cases. 

 And so they can expect sort of 

what the path is down the road for -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: And that's -- 

 DR. MAURO: I would think that you 

could do that very briefly in a page abstract 

at most or two-thirds of a page. And that 

would be very helpful to the Secretary to know 

sort of where we stand. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: And the second set 

of 500 cases will be viewed differently. 

 MR. KATZ: Delve into some issues 

that, you know, are still on the path. 

 DR. MAURO: And the wisdom of 

starting off with the low-hanging fruit. You 

know, certainly strategic judgment was made 

early on that when we come at this problem, 

we're going to go after the min/max. 

 I mean, there's a certain amount 

of -- a judgment could be made by the Board as 

to whether that strategy was a healthier 

strategy, I think. I'm sorry to jump around 

here. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It remains valid. 

The attempt to resolve as many of these cases 

as possible as early as possible was a 

directive not just from the statute itself but 

from the desires of the Board. That's what we 

all wanted to do is clear as many of them as 

we possibly could as early as we could, sooner 

than better. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Stu, does the workgroup 

have sort of statistical breakouts? Are they 

a picture of how many of all dose 

reconstructions are min/max? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Kathy Behling has 

kind of kept something like that. I don't 

know - 

 MR. KATZ: Kathy, are you there? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if it's current 

or not, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, cases 

reviewed, but he's talking about -- 

 MR. KATZ: I mean all the cases 

done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy has the 

cases reviewed, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Cases reviewed. 

So what do you want? 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, the context of 

the cases reviewed, in part, is what is the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In other words, 

is 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 

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: -- the nature of the 

cases that get done in this program? So if 80 

percent of the cases are min/max or 50 

percent, whatever it is, that picture would be 

helpful context for the Board to be able to 

speak to what is found. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. KATZ: So say -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I would bet there 

would be -- I don't know that that - 

 MR. KATZ: You can run those 

statistics, right, or not? Is it not coded 

that way? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I am trying to 

figure out what would be databased that would 

tell me that for sure. I mean, the only item 

that comes to mind that was databased that is 

something like that, which is the indication, 

the type indication, that the reviewer puts on 

when he approves the dose reconstruction, 

where he says it's full internal and external 

overestimate of this kind, overestimate 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 

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that kind. 

 There is not really a lot of 

guidance out there on what to choose. And 

people tend to choose things differently, like 

some may choose the Bethlehem Steel site 

profile approach as being an overestimate 

because it's a friendly -- you know, it's a 

high site profile, where others would say 

that's the only approach we've got as a poll. 

Let's poll internal and external. 

 So there's not a lot of - 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We may not need 

the exact numbers, though. I get your point. 

It's not like it's a 50/50 breakup. It's best 

estimate and over and underestimate. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can run that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a fairly easy 

thing to run. The breakdown by probability of 

causation, so you can see how the probability 

of causations tend to be at the very low end 

or -- well, actually, it kind of fakes you out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because it is just everything above the 51 

bar. 

 So the probability of causations 

tend to be sort of low end and are fairly 

modest as you go up higher. So there are some 

things like that that can be done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That are 

indicators anyway, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And I could run if 

you're interested in that full internal and 

external versus all the various kinds of over 

and underestimates, I could run that. I mean, 

I can set it up, but I won't actually do the 

running of them. It can be done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It 

wouldn't hurt in terms of a given perspective 

put our numbers in what cases we did. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So do you want to 

go over those things I mentioned or do you 

want to just go with Larry's last presentation 

to the Board or the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we can look 

at that. But also I think running the 

overestimate the way people defined it, while 

we know it is not perfect, it might give us an 

idea anyway. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you want this 

of all of the claims we have finished, rather 

than the ones available for -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think so 

because we are not going to quote this exact 

number necessarily. 

 MR. KATZ: Just to give a sense. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just to give a 

perspective of what -- yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Of what the Board has 

reviewed compared to what the products are 

that are out there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But 

again, when you said a "summary," I mean, I 

think we have got enough to go with or I've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

got enough to make a first cut. And maybe 

with everyone's input, you know, we can work 

with redrafting like an executive summary 

paragraph in the front end of this. 

 Some of the things you just said 

said that they are -- I think they are in this 

report. They just probably need to be pulled 

out of the weeds and put into more of a 

summary fashion statement. 

 Sometimes, though, I mean, I will 

just say this up front because I see this 

coming down the pike. Sometimes when we try 

to boil down the language that was tortured 

over in the later paragraphs, that is where we 

got into trouble that we didn't get agreement. 

So we kind of went back to being very precise 

and sort of stating the facts. 

 You know, you start to summarize, 

and you start to get more subjective with your 

language. And that's why we ended up rolling 

into -- you know, I actually made some 

concessions and stated facts, instead 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 

 195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

saying a large number, you know, start putting 

adjectives in there. And people take offense 

to one side or the other of certain issues. 

But I will take a crack at it. 

 I think it is a good idea to give 

a summary up front. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, a Secretary is 

not going to read a five-page report. The 

Secretary will read that front piece. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. Yes. And if we grab his or her 

attention enough, it may go further. But -- 

 MR. KATZ: His people will go 

further, his people. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The program is 

horrible. No. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Ted, what would 

you think of a report to the Secretary that 

accounted for the lack of consensus on the 

Subcommittee or maybe lack of consensus on the 

Board? 

 MR. KATZ: Really, it is the 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 

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that will matter. It doesn't matter if there 

is consensus within the workgroup. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's say -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We mentioned 

that, too. Paul mentioned that in the Board 

meeting. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So let's 

take a shot at it. Let's hammer away at it. 

And maybe we can come. You know, I'm just 

saying we may have trouble concisely 

summarizing because we have, you know -- 

 MR. KATZ: But I think it would 

speak well for the Board for the Board to be 

able to come to consensus on as much as 

possible, for the Board. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I agree. 

I agree, yes. I agree. 

 MR. KATZ: So whatever the reality 

Is-- is another issue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, we came 

to consensus on this five-page document. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thought that was pretty good, actually. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If there are other 

statistical queries you want me to do you 

think of just drop me a -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

right. Wanda, is that all right from a 

process perspective? I'll take -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I think it 

probably is, Mark. I would appreciate it if 

you would just send me a quick e-mail after 

we're done here with your list of items that 

you -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. I 

have an old computer with me today. So it 

might have to be tomorrow. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, your old 

computer obviously is functioning better than 

my new one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just don't 

have an internet access on this. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, that's all 

right. I seem to have eradicated my entire 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Board file, so not to worry. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No big deal. 

Ted is getting me a new computer soon anyway. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's going to 

be fully loaded with all of our answers, I 

hear. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And all of the 

material that has been exchanged over the last 

six years is on it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

think, Brad or Mike, you -- I mean, I will 

take a first shot at this. But feel free to 

send me like paragraphs or ideas that you 

think, you know, "I think this should be in 

your opening paragraph," you know, "Don't 

forget about adding this in." 

 Shoot me some of that stuff if 

you've got it. I'll try to put it together 

and circulate a draft in the near future and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bring a draft back to the next meeting in 

April that we can hopefully come to consensus 

on as a group. 

 I'll get it to John as well. I 

don't think he's on the line yet. 

 MR. KATZ: Another suggestion is 

you may want to put up front what the Board 

was charged to do, up front in that abstract. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right in the 

executive summary? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We don't 

want to get in too deep. 

 MR. KATZ: It's a sentence or two. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: But it makes sense to 

have it up front. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: So that is the charge 

and -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's kind of 

what we do in the first -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

thought we did. 

 MR. KATZ: I don't have it in 

front of me. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm just saying -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes. The first 

paragraph says -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It may be more 

than we want for that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It cites the law 

itself and says, "The President delegated to 

the Secretary HHS shall establish an 

independent review process." So all of that 

language is there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A lot of that 

is in there. We might be able to shorten it 

up a little bit, but -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: "Advise the 

President of the scientific validity and 

quality of dose estimation and reconstruction 

efforts." 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. All 

right. So I think we will do that. And that 

is our path forward on the report. 

 I am ready to go to the next item 

if people are ready. Or do you want to take 

five? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's see. 

What did I have next? Case selection? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case selection. 

I'll be honest with you. I wasn't sure we 

were going to get this far, but I don't know 

if I have our original criteria in front of 

me. Wanda, do you have that on your computer? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am serious. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just 

kidding. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am serious. Every 

item of my Board information that was not 

compiled yesterday during our meeting is not 

currently coming up for me. It's got to be on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here somewhere, but it is not where it is 

normally filed. And so -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You know what? 

I will ask. I guess I can ask right now. I 

think one thing that I heard Kathy talk about, 

which I think will be very useful for us, is 

when we have it in the database because we 

have had updates at certain points on how many 

cases per site, things like that. 

 And we have I think an original 

spreadsheet that I put together from the 

original. You know, that was at a point in 

time, though, of how many cases by site. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes. We were 

working by site. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We were working by 

period of employment. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We were working by 

type of cancer. We were working by -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Years worked. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- POC, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Total years 

worked, yes. Yes, POC. Right. And I'm not 

sure. Actually, I don't see much fault with 

our criteria, but I don't have it in front of 

me. 

 I guess I was going to say if we 

wanted to for the next -- since we are having 

one of these in April again, I could bring the 

-- because we wrote out a selection criteria 

document. And I could actually print that 

out, forward that to the Subcommittee and look 

at it specifically and see if we want to 

update the criteria as a written document. 

 I think that is the product we 

want to be able to bring back to the Board. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is probably a 

good idea - 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- although I 

thought about those criteria from time to time 

and was rather surprised that I thought we had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

done a better than average job of identifying 

the various aspects we needed to look at. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We kind 

of stumbled into filling a lot of the fields, 

too, you know, accidentally or on purpose. 

And then the other thing I guess to consider 

would be the overall number, you know. Ted is 

shaking his head violently on that one. 

 So that's the over-arching issue, 

I think, of concern, is do we still want to 

stick to the -- two and a half percent was 

pretty arbitrary. It was based on Till's 

assessment of the sister program there. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes. But that 

is a fairly widely accepted -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sample, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- valid number. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So it isn't as 

though we just picked it out of the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. It 

wasn't without basis, yes. But we can see 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what that -- I don't know right now what that 

means in terms of how many total cases are in 

the system. I don't know offhand. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Twenty-six thousand 

the last time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you are 

talking about referrals, I mean, the number of 

cases that have come over to us, we are at 

29,000. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Twenty-nine 

thousand now. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In terms of number 

of dose reconstructions completed, it's, oh, 

five to six thousand less than that probably. 

 It's over 20,000 have been done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And then how many 

are available for adjudication I don't know or 

have been adjudicated and available to you I 

don't know. Something that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that would 

750 if we based it on 30,000, right? It would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be two and a half percent of all the cases? 

Ten percent would be 3,000. And a quarter of 

that, yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, you might 

consider, for example, do you need to double 

your rate just to get within -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And 

that has implications on SC&A and whether they 

have -- 

 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- the 

person-power. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think 3,000 

completed cases a year has certainly been 

attained for the last several years. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: By NIOSH, yes, 

yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in fact, 

more than that, more than that. I don't 

remember the numbers right offhand. I think 

Larry may have put them in his last 

presentation, in fact. I don't know I 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 

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: To give you an 

idea -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: So you are thinking 

less than 4,000, though? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. It 

might be more than that. Let me see what I 

can find. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, you know, if 

you were talking 4,000 cases a year, we're 

still talking about 100, 2.5 would be 100. 

 DR. MAURO: We've been doing 60. 

SC&A has been doing 60. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. But we have talked in the past about 

upping that. John looks like he needs a 

little more workload, right? 

 DR. MAURO: I'll take it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: At the risk 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 

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

adding the possibility of one more evaluation, 

which pains me just to even think about it, 

but if we were able to look at the cases that 

we have done, the findings that have developed 

and make some subjective evaluation with 

respect to the types of findings that we're 

finding, whether there is a trend there, if we 

can identify whether there are any trends, 

then that might affect our decision with 

respect to both the type and number of -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That is a 

good point. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- what we need to 

do. But this business of identifying trends 

with this kind of data just at first look 

appears overwhelmingly difficult to do. I'm 

not sure whether that's even an achievable 

thing. 

 Certainly if one considers no drastic 

expansion of staff support or anything of that 

sort, I don't know how we can do that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

good idea anyway. And maybe having the 

database, having all of the cases on the 

database is a starting point anyway. At least 

we will have something that we can query from. 

 But I agree with you. It may be 

difficult to see trends, but it is a good idea 

in theory. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Kathy has something 

going on in her head. I can tell. 

 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. 

Actually, early on -- and it may have been 

maybe a second or third presentation that I 

made to the Board. And this would be after 

our third set of cases or so. I did attempt 

to put together some evaluation of exactly 

this type of thing. What were our findings? 

How could we group those findings? 

 It was difficult to do back then 

because in some cases it's difficult to 

categorize them specifically. But I know I 

had done that early on. 

 It would be a fairly difficult 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

task at this point, but I could possibly go 

back and look at what I had presented to the 

Board. 

 And that was, like I said, several 

years ago with some of the earlier cases. And 

I could present that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That 

would be useful. Maybe we can update it with 

what we have now, too. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. The other 

thing I wanted to just mention with regard to 

the criteria that you all have been using, I 

believe that initially in your letter to the 

Secretary, you were going to include 

statistics at the end. 

 And if you look at that attachment 

and those statistics, that identifies in each 

one of those what the criteria, what the 

initial criteria, was for the Board. 

 And I can provide you with -- you 

had sort of a flow diagram. I still have that 

with almost a handwritten type of thing 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 

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I still have for the initial criteria that was 

selected by the Board. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

have your attachments, and they are a part of 

the -- right now, anyway, we were going to 

have them as part of the report depending on 

the Board's wishes as far as the length of the 

report. But I have those attachments. 

 Is it something different than 

those attachments? 

 MS. BEHLING: I do have one other 

document that I believe we were initially 

given when we were granted this contract. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: And I will scan 

that, in fact, e-mail that -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- over to you also. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. It might 

be the flow chart from our -- yes, send that 

to me. And for the next meeting, I will also, 

like I said, circulate this. I know somewhere 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in my archived files I have our original 

selection criteria that we came up with as a 

workgroup at that time, I think. 

 MS. BEHLING: Right. And once we 

see the database, as I said, I included a 

statistics tab that is supposed to cover each 

of the areas where you were looking to achieve 

some -- you know, you had a goal to achieve 

for the different criteria. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thank 

you, Kathy. 

 MS. BEHLING: You're welcome. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Other comments? 

I guess we'll -- so I'm pushing this to the 

next meeting. And with all of those things we 

just mentioned, we will try to bring those to 

that meeting or get them to people prior to 

the meeting for consideration. So we'll take 

this up again at the next meeting if that is 

okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's going to be 

an armload. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I think that 

presentation Kathy was just talking about, she 

sent it out as a PowerPoint back in April of 

'07. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: April of '07 

you think? Okay. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I have it here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. If you 

can forward it to people, that would be great. 

And maybe forward it to Kathy to make sure 

it's the same one she's thinking about. 

 MS. BEHLING: That's a good idea. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. 

 MS. BEHLING: Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. This 

might be a good time as a break point. Let's 

take like ten minutes and reconvene. And 

we'll start in on the eighth set, make sure 

everybody has it on their computers and start 

up on the eighth set. Is that okay? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I am going to 

just put the phone on mute. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter went off the record at 2:01 

 p.m. and resumed at 2:14 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, are you back? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I am. 

 MR. KATZ: Great. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We are 

ready to start up again, our final topic on 

the agenda, actually. I don't really expect 

that we are going to make it all the way 

through the eighth set of cases, the matrix. 

It's 64 pages. But we will do what we have 

done in past meetings. 

 This is our first cut through with 

the eighth set of cases. We have gotten 

responses, I think, for all. There may be 

some that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I won't guarantee 

there's one for all of them. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We got a group of 

them together, and we sent them on. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

We have most of the responses, I think, from 

NIOSH in here at this point. So it's a good 

time to start out with this. 

 I guess we will do like we always 

do. If, Doug or John, you guys can sort of 

summarize the finding? And then NIOSH can 

explain the response. And then we'll have our 

discussion. 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

start off with 149.1 is the first one. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. It's Bridgeport 

Brass, women who developed breast cancer. And 

the dose reconstruction was performed using 

the Bridgeport Brass Adrian laboratory 

exposure matrix. 

 By the way, we did have a formal 

review of that as a separate part of 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 

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

eighth set. I guess eventually under a 

separate venue, we will look at those what I 

call many site profile reviews. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: However you guys 

want to do it. We have added some responses 

to our matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So we have added 

some. I'm not sure Bridgeport is one of them. 

 DR. MAURO: So what I will quickly 

go through, so here we have a woman. She was 

assigned an external exposure using exposure 

matrix. And you folks have used a very 

claimant-favorable strategy, pooled all of the 

film badge data, took off the upper 95th 

percentile. And you are applying that across 

the board. 

 And it is in our opinion -- by the 

way, this woman was compensated. Okay? And 

in our opinion, this is a strange finding 

because we don't always go this direction. 

 I don't know if I could tell you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

her occupation because I will start to zero in 

and you can identify who she is. But she had 

an occupation which would not put her up close 

and personal to the extrusion activities. 

 And so in my opinion, you probably 

have assigned her an extremely favorable dose: 

external dose and internal dose. And she was 

compensated. So interestingly enough, our 

finding with regards to this person is you 

probably -- this is probably a substantial 

overestimate -- if there is any place where 

you would say maybe the median dose would 

apply. 

 Here is a case where you elect to 

universally apply the upper 95th percentile, 

you know, every year after year, which is 

quite a conservative assumption in and of 

itself, even for a person who is working in an 

operational setting. 

 Here you applied it to a person 

who is not -- I couldn't envision the [Identifying 

Information Redacted] always being on the operational 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

floor. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Almost too 

conservative you are saying? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: To the point where now 

-- see, that's what we basically found about 

-- that goes for both internal and external. 

We were going to be able to quickly go through 

these. We do have some concerns regarding the 

matrix. And whether or not you want to talk 

about that now -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure. Yes. I 

think we can do it. You put your thing at the 

bottom, I think, of this matrix, Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Bridgeport was one 

of them. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Bridgeport is 

one of them. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see it listed 

at the bottom. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Attachment 1, 

finding 2 or something like that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: What we can do when we 

get down there because we -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We can jump down 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Since we are 

talking about Bridgeport, I think it is easier 

to stay on Bridgeport, instead of -- 

 DR. MAURO: So as far as 1.1, I 

mean, basically think of it like this. You 

have external full-time. You have external 

non-penetrating. And these are the different 

findings, both of which you employ the upper 

95th percentile. It is certainly extremely 

claimant-favorable to apply that to this 

person. 

 That would be 149.1. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. Your 1.1 

says the derived value is low by a factor 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 

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. That goes 

toward the exposure matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Matrix more 

than the case. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I 

understand that. 

 DR. MAURO: And we will get there 

later, but the reason we felt that when you 

took your pool data and you selected the upper 

95th percentile, you derived it, claiming that 

it was correlated data. That is, you didn't 

just take all of the data and pool it. You 

said that they're correlated by person. So in 

other words, it is really a distribution of a 

person's annual data. 

 And that would be the right way to 

do it because think of it like this. If you 

took everybody's weekly exposure and put it, 

everyone in the numbers, and put it into one 

big pot and then build a model and talk off 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the upper 95th percentile, what might happen 

is the upper 95th percentile may underestimate 

what the upper 95th percentile dose is to a 

real person because the real person may always 

-- we reran and correlated it. We had a 

statistician run it as correlated data. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And when we did that, 

we came up with an upper 95th percentile that 

was twice your value. So though you claim in 

the matrix that you processed your data in a 

correlated way, we were only able to match 

your numbers when we processed your data in an 

uncorrelated way. When we did it in a 

correlated way, we came up with numbers that 

were twice as high. 

 Of course, it's irrelevant as 

applied to this particular case because she 

was compensated anyway. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We're 

talking about matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: So now we're 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 

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

matrix territory. That goes not only for 

penetrating but also non-penetrating. So that 

covers, well, 149.1. I believe that's also 

149.2. Let's see what the next one is. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's 

see. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can we stop at 

1 at least? 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. Sure. Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I want to hear 

what NIOSH has to say about that one. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, our response 

talks about the different method of generating 

how the 95th percentile was generated and 

seems to indicate that we understood how you 

generated yours and that because of the way 

ours was generated, that's why we cannot get 

numbers physically in generation. 

 From reading your finding, it's 

not clear to me that we really understand each 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other, how we did it. If you've got a 

response? 

 DR. MAURO: No. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. The 

response we wrote -- well, here. Let me just 

go through it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The one right 

here, right? 

 DR. MAURO: This one? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It's NIOSH 

response. It's in the matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought you 

might have been referring to another separate 

document. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. This is it, 

that there was apparently a combination of the 

various two-week periods. It almost -- now, 

John, in your discussion of -- you know, there 

is no discussion here about correlated, 

uncorrelated. 

 DR. MAURO: It's in the main body 

where you talk about correlated. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So yes. It could 

very well be in your report, yes. But I mean, 

here in the response, there is no discussion 

of it. 

 So I think that we may be facing a 

situation where we have got to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Share those. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- make sure we 

are both clear on how we did this. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. In our report, 

we show you exactly how we got our numbers. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: We ran it both ways. 

We ran it both correlated and uncorrelated. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, what we concluded 

was that since our uncorrelated numbers 

matched yours exactly, we felt that, even 

though you said you did it in a correlated 

way, we don't think you really did. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Where on 

your -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: It's in the main. You 

have to go to the actual report. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I'm in your 

report. 

 DR. MAURO: There should be a 

discussion there on correlated/uncorrelated. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: When you say, 

correlated, just tell me again. You're 

talking about an individual's dose by year? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. In other words, 

yes. And you're getting -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're getting 

a distribution of all of the different 

individuals, right? 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: As was 

uncorrelated, it was just the badge data. 

 DR. MAURO: This is badge data 

because one person may very well have a job. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And with 

correlated, you got higher values? 

 DR. MAURO: You get a factor 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 

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two higher, yes. Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I wouldn't have 

guessed that, actually. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. And Harry did 

it. I didn't know about this. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I wouldn't have 

guessed that because I would have thought the 

badge data -- I don't know. I'm not sure I 

can assume either way. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, you know, I 

think we probably need to communicate more on 

this one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm sure 

the -- 

 DR. MAURO: And it should be part 

of not so much this case, but it should be 

part of the generic review of the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, for 

correlated. Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: So I was expecting to 

get there with it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is it maybe 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 

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that section of your report? I don't -- 

 DR. MAURO: It is not in the 

report? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't see it in 

the findings part. 

 DR. MAURO: I'd have to open up my 

report and see if I can find it. I wish Harry 

was on the phone. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I have heard of 

discussions in our office about correlated 

versus uncorrelated data -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the impacts 

that having correlated data would have on a 

Monte Carlo. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And so I know 

that it is an issue. I don't know how it 

would go exactly. Let's see. That would be 

in your -- it would probably be in the last 

book. Let's see. 

 DR. MAURO: This might not be an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

actual case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It might be in 

attachment 1. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I would have to go 

look at it. 

 MR. SIEBERT: That must be the 

case. Yes, it must be. 

 DR. MAURO: It may not be because 

I think that the way we said it in here is 

that we came up with a number that was -- in 

fact, the actual words we used when we did 

this case was we came up with a factor of two 

higher. We don't know why. That's what the 

words are right now on this write-up. 

 And later when we did the more 

formal review of the exposure matrix for 

Bridgeport Brass, you know, that's where we 

uncovered the factor of two. And we think it 

has to do with correlated versus uncorrelated. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes. 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 

 229

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

discussion of correlated versus uncorrelated 

is -- 

 DR. MAURO: Is in the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now, I 

don't know if we say anything about that in 

our report, which would be in the matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think your 

statisticians will have to look at that and 

see if they agree or not. There may be more 

to the story. There may be. You know, we 

just happened to see, oh, we matched it when 

it was uncorrelated and just don't have 

anything -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I put 

that as an action for you, Stu, to have NIOSH 

review SC&A's analysis. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It appears we 

haven't provided a response on the findings. 

 DR. MAURO: On those. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: At least it is not 

in this one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to say as I am tracking these things, 

the way I am putting this right now for 149.1 

and .3, .3 is your -- 

 DR. MAURO: Is the other one. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. The way I 

am putting that is that NIOSH is going to 

review this, no effect on this case since the 

case was compensable. Now, for 149.2, it is 

going to be different because that is the 

question, is the 95th the right choice for 

this work? 

 DR. MAURO: For this person. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For this job. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's good. 

Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So okay. So I 

think we can go on to that number 2 now. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, they have 

answered that. Yes. Right. They haven't 

answered the 2. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 149.2. I 

guess the question that I have from the 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 

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

John presented it is, is this the right 

selection? Oftentimes if you're clearly not 

in the RAD area, you do select the whole 

distribution, at least, or even ambient those 

models, so in this case you assign a 95th, it 

seems to be a bit conservative for this job. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I know why 

we would do it. It's because when you start 

deciding that you are going to parse people up 

by job title and have certain people get this 

because you're doing a dose model anyway. The 

only difference would be you would have two 

dose models, instead of one, or maybe even 

more than two. 

 When you start to parse people out 

by job title, first of all, there are a lot of 

cases where you don't have a job title. So 

you may have a nurse that you have their job title and 

another nurse whom you don't have their job title. 

 One gets the high model. If you 

don't have a job title, you give them a high 

model. So then one gets the high model. Then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we'll get the low model. That's one 

fundamental difficulty of parsing your models 

up by a job title. 

 The other one is that a job title 

and the exposure that goes with the job title 

are not intuitive all the time. You know, 

it's difficult to make that. And you 

absolutely will get objections from people who 

are in the low model, saying, you don't 

understand what I did. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I don't know 

for an industrial [Identifying Information Redacted]. 

 You would think the [Identifying Information 

Redacted] would spend the majority of the day in 

the dispensary. We don't know for sure, you 

know, things like that. 

 So there are certain, I think, 

when we are thinking correctly on our part, 

there is a certain reticence in dividing these 

dose models up based on job title. And that's 

essentially what our response 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 

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Plus, we don't know. Maybe this 

stuff was tracked all over the place. We have 

heard examples of break rooms and lunch rooms 

being affected by the material they were using 

in the room that -- 

 DR. MAURO: I would agree with 

internal because the airborne activity could 

find its way everywhere. External you've got 

a pretty high dose here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: You have to be pretty 

close to the middle. I mean, we're talking 

uranium. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I know. I 

know. I just think, in general, I think when 

we're thinking correctly, there is certain 

reticence to try to parse that out very much 

based on job title. And essentially that is 

what we said. We have kind of laid out a 

series of reasons why. A lot of times we are 

not very comfortable with trying to do that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, but there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is a great deal of value in what you just 

said. By the same token, when you know 

certain things about a specific site and about 

the people who work there, then it would seem 

reasonable for us to make the best scientific 

judgment based on the information we have, 

rather than being unduly concerned about the 

feedback from other people with similar kinds 

of job descriptions, either on that side or 

elsewhere. 

 We are going to have that, I 

suspect, regardless of whether those decisions 

are made. And it's one of the problems that 

would face, I would think, the dose 

reconstructor under any circumstances. To be 

able to make some value judgment was my 

understanding was part of the job. 

 And this is one of those cases 

where given a significant difference in what 

is likely to have been the case, it appears 

that SC&A has a valid issue with respect to 

this particular person. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And one can't say that about 

[Identifying Information Redacted] anywhere or 

everywhere else other than here, you know, the 

materials that are involved on this particular site. 

And one can certainly make some good judgments about 

it. 

 It's sort of a moot point at this 

juncture since this was a principal case in 

any event, but as a matter of principle and 

policy, it doesn't seem reasonable for us to 

take the position that dose reconstructors 

cannot make that kind of evaluation. 

 DR. MAURO: And, Wanda, with 

regard to this particular exposure matrix, 

now, we have reviewed lots of AWE exposure 

matrices, including TBD 6000. Where an effort 

was made to parse job categories, this 

particular one, that wasn't done. 

 So one could argue, well, is that 

really fair? In other words, this one you 

always apply the 95th percent everywhere. So, 

really, you don't have provisions for 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 

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

parsing while you do in other places. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But the amount of 

fairness was supposed to be the coup de grace 

for all of this that we do isn't necessarily 

so. The coup de grace out to be one of 

reason, not of fairness. And to remove the 

ability of our dose reconstructors to make 

some educated judgments about the cases that 

come before them would not seem wise to me. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we 

can check. I don't know that there is a 

finding. Well, these are all relative. You 

know, all of these findings, this is kind of 

a site profile findings. I don't know if it's 

duplicated back in the back but clearly a site 

profile finding because -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Six would be, 

really, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The six would be. 

You don't have one model. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes, 

like you do in several other sets. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Interestingly enough, 

you will see we don't go in our review of the 

exposure matrix, we are not critical. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It's not 

listed. 

 DR. MAURO: Because we felt it 

very favorable that you all would hope to go 

into the 95th percentile except for this 

correlation business. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That philosophy of the 

95th percentile applies to everyone. You 

know, as a general rule of thumb, that is 

pretty good. But then there along I come. 

And I said, well, wait a minute. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I guess 

as I read your response, you know, it strikes 

me that that does certainly give rationale for 

assigning the full distribution. You know 

what I mean? 

 DR. MAURO: 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 

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So someone who 

was likely not in the operational area a lot. 

But you weren't sure. So you are saying okay. 

But there was something in the 95th. It seems 

to me like a little bit of overkill. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, then -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You know, what 

is the action? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What action do you 

have here? I mean, we wouldn't do anything 

for this claim. I don't know what our status 

is on Bridgeport. 

 We are always, you know, liable to 

get more from any given site. I don't know if 

you've got any open now or not. It was why we 

get more, I guess. I don't know that I 

necessarily want to commit to a lot here. I 

mean, there are -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I was not the 

person who developed Bridgeport or actually 

worked on Bridgeport Brass. I don't know what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kind of evidence people are feeling, if we 

have about -- what happened there, I believe 

this is an extreme process. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I mean, 

maybe I could offer that you can keep it in 

the mini site profile review portion of this 

and say that NIOSH will further consider the 

applicability of a tiered model, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- rather than 

a one size fits all model, 95 percentile, just 

to be clear. Does that make sense? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I say 

consider because you may look back and say, 

you know, it's a good idea in principle, but 

we looked further at this. And we're more 

convinced than ever that the job title 

information, it's too vague, and we don't want 

to. You know, so that may be your final 

answer, Stu. I'm just giving a maybe look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it further. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I guess 

that is part of my question because I see at 

other sites we have done both guiding job 

titles. 

 DR. MAURO: And they parse it 

pretty finally. For example, TBD 6000 parses 

it really fine, you know. And I could see why 

you wouldn't want to parse at that finding, 

especially if the people could wear several 

different hats. 

 In this case, though, if there was 

ever a place where you would want to make a 

parsing -- now, certainly if we could find out 

a little bit more about what does it mean to 

be a [Identifying Information Redacted] at this 

facility -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I don't think you 

really could call out a [Identifying Information 

Redacted] because we have our [Identifying Information 

Redacted] come right into our areas in 

accidents. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: They're there eight 

hours a day working next to the rods. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. Actually, 

when we had an accident was somebody involved 

those. But they're actually coming right into 

it. We have had some -- 

 DR. MAURO: Get high doses? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, 

contaminated and so forth. It's kind of an 

interesting aspect. I guess my picture that 

I was seeing was one side was dividing them 

all down real fine, holding that, and then 

this not -- maybe we didn't have enough 

information or something like that. I don't 

know. I'm just -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I'll 

just leave the action like that, then. Let's 

-- want to go ahead onto the next finding, 

John? 

 DR. MAURO: What number are we up 

to? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

149.4, because we just did 3. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Four is 

non-penetrating, same issue, but now we're 

talking non-penetrating. So it's the same 

issue. In other words, in this particular 

person, non-penetrating is -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So they 

overlap. Yes, I got you. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. And it's the 

same concept. You did exactly the same thing, 

but non-penetrating. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Your summary of 

your finding doesn't read that way. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. The summary dose 

non-penetrating -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The summary of the 

finding is -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 

I stand corrected. No. This finding -- I 

thought I was saying that, use the 95th 

percentile here. No, no, no. This was one of 

those places where we asked the question. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it doesn't really apply to this person, 

because they were compensated, but I do not 

believe there's any provision in the exposure 

matrix for direct deposition of uranium 

particles on skin. This goes back to the 

issue -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the issue 

we had a while with the Paducah case. 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly, exactly. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, it doesn't affect 

this case, because it was compensated. This 

is a cancer of the breast. So the positive 

activity would have play. And as it stands 

now, this goes to that generic issue when you 

said that you think might be worried with the 

generic analysis. 

 How do you deal with the person 

with skin cancer, or I would say breast 

cancer, perhaps, perhaps not testicular cancer 

because the person is wearing clothes. But I 

am more concerned about exposed skin, where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there could be a particle deposited. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is 

deriving shallow dose from -- 

 DR. MAURO: Shallow dose from 

deposited material on the skin surface. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's 

essentially the same issue we had earlier, 

because I mean, we could say that either it 

doesn't matter in this case because this was 

a compensable case anyway, or if we already 

know it's on the generic list, or you refer to 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

put it both ways, because it's kind of a 

matrix finding this way that you're going to 

develop this over-arching, but it doesn't 

affect this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm looking at the 

next ones. And you know, they all say the 

same thing. And I'd have to go back to the 

report and say, what's the difference between 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the 149.5 and 149.6? They're both talking 

about the use of default values in the site 

profile will likely result in a substantial 

overestimate to this worker. I have to go 

back. Let me pull the report and see what 

that's about, see if it's here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're on 

149.5, and now you're looking -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'm looking at 

149.5, and just to see why -- 

 MR. FARVER: 149.5 is external, 

and 149.6 just deals with the internal. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So we moved 

it to internal. Okay. There you go. Okay. 

149.5. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So the 

whole issue on 149.5 and .6 is the 

overestimate -- 

 DR. MAURO: As applied to this -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is too much 

of an overestimate, right? 

 DR. MAURO: As applied to 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 

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have the 

same follow-up, right? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Right. 

Let me just copy and paste why I'm doing this, 

and then get it right. 

 (Pause.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So we're 

on the 150 now? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 150.1. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did we want to go 

to the other Bridgeport Brass findings? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there 

different stuff at the bottom? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there 

might be more than just the couple we talked 

about. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can we stay on 

Bridgeport, John? Is that all right? 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. Where do we go 

down to on 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 

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's at 

the very bottom of the matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: There it goes. Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's 

Bridgeport's attachment 1. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. What's the 

number? Does it have a number? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's attachment 

1, right? 

 DR. MAURO: I just have an 

excerpt. Let me go sit over there with Doug 

maybe. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So it's 

on page 55 on mine, maybe 54 on yours. 

Fifty-five? Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Page 55. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this one, 

yes, would benefit from additional analysis to 

demonstrate -- do you have that one? 

 DR. MAURO: I have to say, I'd have 

to read my -- to be able to -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Let's hold off on this. 

 DR. MAURO: Can we hold off on it? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We won't even 

get this far in the matrix by the end of the 

meeting. So we'll come back to those next 

meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: I am not prepared to 

talk about the mini site profiles. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One fifty. 

We're on 150. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. That's 

Anaconda. 

 MS. BEHLING: Simonds Saw. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. That's right. 

Simonds Saw. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We miss you at 

these meetings, Kathy. 

 DR. MAURO: Kathy? 

 MS. BEHLING: Sorry I couldn't be 

there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sure you 

are. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We don't 

believe that. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Kathy, could 

you help me out here? 

 MS. BEHLING: Page 3. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. It's Simonds 

Saw. I don't have it in front of me here. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Page 4, yes, 

finding 150.1 on the matrix. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 150.1, method 

for deriving internal doses not 

claimant-favorable. Let's see. 

 DR. MAURO: Is this residual 

period? This is residual. Is that right? 

 MS. BEHLING: Let me look. Yes, 

this is the residual period. The method used 

to reconstruct the doses to the organ of 

concern due to the inhalation of re-suspended 

residual activity appears to underestimate the 

dose from this pathway by one order of 

magnitude. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay. I know 

where we are. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay? 

 DR. MAURO: We've been through 

this before. This is the same old, same old. 

You've seen it when you derive the activity on 

surfaces. I believe, on Simonds Saw, there is 

information on the amount of residual 

activity. 

 On Simonds Saw, you have 

information on the amount of residual activity 

on surfaces based on those film badges that 

were held, right? So from there, you could 

back out and say, okay, how much contamination 

would you have on surfaces that would give you 

those readings on the film badges? 

 And I think that if you try to 

back it out, the amount of activity per unit 

area would be much higher than the default 

value you folks have adopted in your Simonds 

Saw dose reconstruction. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

response, for what it's worth, is that the 

re-suspension, which would be the function of 

the average, you know, not the highest spot, 

because people would be re-suspending the 

things from throughout the day. And so my 

understanding, from reading our response, is 

that the re-suspension values were generated 

from the average of those readings, rather 

than from the highest reading. 

 DR. MAURO: I would agree with 

that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's my account. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: At least that's the 

way we read this. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The way I read our 

finding, that seems to be what we interpreted 

the difference to be. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes. I would 

agree with you completely that, if you have an 

estimation of the activity that's on surfaces, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and its variable, in some places it's high, 

in some places it's low, and you're trying to 

determine what the low, whether it's external 

exposure or its re-suspension, in both cases 

I would say, yes, you're working from the 

average as being the right place to work. 

 But I think my concern is that I 

don't think there's parity between -- you 

know, I think you predicted the level that's 

on surfaces using the standard deposition 

velocity approach. You know, that, about 

0.00075 meters per second times the airborne 

concentration, and you allow the radioactivity 

to fall for some time period. In this case, 

it might have been a year, which is pretty 

conservative. So it's all coming back to me. 

 So I just have a problem with 

that, as I've said on many occasions. The 

whole approach to saying, if I know what the 

airborne activity is in milligrams per cubic 

meter or whatever units, then I apply this 

deposition velocity of 0.00075 meters per 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

second, which is a deposition velocity for 

five micron particles, and then so you get 

this rate that's falling, and that's, you 

know, I think mechanistically it doesn't work 

that way, especially in Simonds Saw, where 

we're talking rolling operations with large 

flakes. And we talked about this yesterday. 

 And so I would say, 

mechanistically, that is not a good way to try 

to get a handle on what might be on surfaces 

during operations. Okay? Quite frankly, I 

would have sooner gone with the film badge 

that was hanging and see what reading that is 

and what activity that would correspond to our 

services that would you that radiation field. 

I mean, it was five feet above the surface. 

 I would compare the two and say, 

okay. If the two sort of came in close to 

each other, then we are modeling approach. 

And in reading, I would say I think you 

probably are pretty robust. But if I came up 

with, let's say, a ten times higher surface 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contamination from the film badges, I would 

have been claimant-favorable, and went with 

that. 

 And I think that that's -- you 

know, if I had the report in front of me, I 

think that I found that I came up with much 

higher numbers if I were to use the film badge 

data to get my surface activity. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it sounds 

like, at the very least, we need a better 

description of -- well, at least I need to 

understand better where our number came from. 

I think I understand where your number came 

from, or I can probably read that in your 

report. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we need 

maybe some additional comparison there, and 

maybe reconsideration of whether what you 

adopted was right. 

 And now there's a second aspect of 

this finding, I think, which is 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 

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

re-suspension. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, that's the other 

half. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's, I 

believe, on the global -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. That's a 

global issue and we have a running discussion 

where we think it should be closer to 10-5

. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think that, by 

the way, we could benefit from yesterday's 

conversation in that we -- we made a 

distinction between the airborne activity due 

to re-suspension that might be associated with 

the operations time period, where the stuff is 

very loose, people are walking around and 

kicking it around, and clearly, under those 

circumstances, 10-6 is not a good number. 

 But the argument was made by Jim 

yesterday, and rightly so, but wait a minute, 

we never use re-suspension. You know, during 

operations, we use our best estimate of what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the airborne level is from measurements of air 

sampling or bioassay data. 

 We only use re-suspension factors 

during the residual period. And during the 

residual period, one could argue that the 

radioactivity that's been deposited is less 

re-suspendable. It's aged, and we would agree. 

When you're dealing with -- even though it may 

not have been cleaned up, but when it's aged, 

and certainly if there's no anthropomorphic 

activity, people, trucks, people, forklifts, 

whatever, your potential to create re-suspended 

material is diminished. 

 So we left it yesterday as 

agreeing that, for the post-operation period, 

but prior to decon, when you have residue, you 

know, what do you use for your re-suspension 

factor? 

 I would say it could certainly be 

someplace between 10-6 and 5 times 10-5. See, 

5 times 10-5 is the value that's sort of been 

widely accepted as a good re-suspension factor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for a place where there's loose contamination, 

it's fresh, and there's people walking around 

reading higher than that. 

 And 10-6, by the way, is a good 

re-suspension factor for a place that's been 

cleaned up. In other words, in fact, the NRC 

recommends, when you are going through the 

license termination process or licensed 

facility, and you finish cleaning everything 

up, and you do your survey, and you look for 

residual radioactivity, your goal is to make 

sure that, if someone were to occupy that 

building at some time in the future, that 

person would not get more than 25 millirem per 

year. That's their cleaning criteria. 

 When making that determination, 

they recommend using a re-suspension factor 

once you, you know, you do your survey of 

10-6. So they are the first to say that 10-6

probably is pretty good when you've cleaned 

the place up. 

 And there really isn't very much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 258

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

removable contamination left. You certainly 

don't have that in the situation you're 

talking about now. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean I 

didn't really -- we did have this discussion 

yesterday a little bit, but I mean, there's a 

couple things I had, while I was sitting on 

the phone thinking about that was, you know, 

this aged idea. But also the -- I think we 

have to be careful when we say that a 

facility's post-operational time, because 

these places -- we're talking about post-AWE 

operation. 

 And a lot of them continued 

operation. They just weren't doing covered 

operations, you know? So you still have a 

lot of activity and stuff, you know? 

 And then the other, I mean, there 

are so many things in what you just said, but 

the other side of it is, you know, back to my 

old harping on these surveys at the end, 

these decommissioning. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Decommissioning in the '70s was a 

lot different than decommissioning in the 

'90s. And you know, I've cleaned up places 

that the NRC cleared in the '70s. 

 They were cleared for free 

release. And I was there for six years, 

which I didn't mind. You know, getting paid 

for it and doing a lot of work. But they had 

a lot of contamination left. I'll tell you 

that. 

 And you know, the questions raised 

by the workers there at the time were, you 

know, what do you mean that roof is totally 

contaminated? We've put new rock on it like 

every other year. Did we get exposed up 

there? 

 And that's all in your, quoteunquote, residual period, where if they use 

the NRC report from 1978, I think in this 

facility I'm thinking of, it basically said, 

it's good to go, you know? 

 So I guess those two factors, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the one that I guess we can best get our 

hands around is, when we say, you know, 

post-operational, it doesn't mean like it was 

moth-balled necessarily. It's not just 

sitting there. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I mean, if you 

think of it, if it's post-operative, the 

license terminated, you've got some residual 

radioactivity. And then all of a sudden, you 

know, you still have people working there, 

but not -- in other words, it's an AWE 

facility, but you stop rolling uranium. 

You're back to rolling steel. 

 We've been through this before, 

you know, and I think there were methods that 

were developed, for example, in Bethlehem 

Steel, that seemed to work very well, because 

as time went on, what happened was you had 

the starting point. You had some residue of 

uranium. But as time went on, you started to 

add more and more metal residue, which 

diluted 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 

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So as time went on, you have a 

slope. So you know your starting level, and 

you know that, as time goes on, that's going 

to be reduced. 

 Now here I don't know, for the 

post-operation of Bridgeport Brass, what 

happened after we -- you know, whether or not 

-- I don't know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they sent 

the press to Ashtabula, but I don't -- so the 

extrusion press they had been using for the 

work was not enabling it. But I don't know 

what went on in the evening, I just assume -- 

 DR. MAURO: Or for Simonds Saw, 

too. I mean, Simonds Saw -- so the method 

that was used in Bethlehem Steel seems to 

apply here. Here I think you came up with 

some residual activity, and then applied the 

10-6 re-suspension data. Well, in both cases, 

I guess -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a couple 

of things here. There's resolution of 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 

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

global issue of re-suspension, which would be 

a precursor to solving the specific 

application at Simonds Steel. And maybe it 

will provide the specific application. 

 Here is the situation, this is 

what you do. I mean, that sounds to me like 

this is certainly dependent upon the 

universal or the over-arching issue under 

suspension. 

 And the solution may be at the 

range, you know, based on the conditions, 

this is what you do at that point would be 

the appropriate application to this, which 

would be another -- you know, that would be 

subject to individual, site-specific 

considerations. Until, you know, until that 

is kind of put to bed, I think, or kind of 

this won't go anywhere until we have kind of 

a universal or a large -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think OTIB-0070 is 

the home for -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that's Jim's point, too, is that's where that 

discussion should occur. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the other 

side of it, I have as an action for you guys 

to further consider the initial finding for 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I read that, 

right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the first 

thing I've got to do is figure out the 

sources of both numbers, because I just don't 

know. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now, I haven't 

put that in the procedures workgroup in the 

past. NIOSH is developing a response to the 

re-suspension issue. 

 Is that an official decision that 

we've made, deciding that it's going to go in 

TIB-70 discussions, and it's going to be 

rolled into that or -- I haven't put that in 

the past, because we've had this ongoing, as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we all know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well yesterday's 

meeting was BB, appendix BB, and TIB 70. Is 

that right? 

 DR. MAURO: No. Any issues 

related to residual period, where you're 

dealing with external exposure to surfaces, 

contaminated and re-suspended inhalation of 

material is a -- OTIB-0070 is here now. And 

it addresses that, and it's different than 

what's been done historically at other sites, 

and other sites affected. 

 But now you've got OTIB-0070. And 

we are engaged in a discussion on issues 

related to OTIB-0070. 

 In my mind, once all the OTIB-0070 

issues are resolved, I'm going to say, 

everybody agrees, this is the right way to 

go. I think that's the method that should be 

applied universally to all the -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That would 

be my way of thinking, and so this is caught 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

up in that, or -- 

 DR. MAURO: It's caught up in 

that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the issue 

solution. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So right now, 

since, without going back and changing all 

the last other matrices from white paper to 

TIB 70, I'm going to leave it as white paper, 

but if you guys come back saying, this has 

been addressed in TIB 70, then all those 

follow-ups will go away on this, on our 

matrices. All right? Just maybe verify that 

with Jim, or whoever. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, that's 150.1 you 

just talked about? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Do you want to move on 

to 150.2? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 150.2 is 

ingestion, and I'm happy to say that 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 

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ingestion problem is solved. I don't know 

who was here yesterday, but for the longest 

time, there has been a fundamental 

disagreement between SC&A and NIOSH on how do 

you model inadvertent ingestion. 

 SC&A has been operating, you know, 

based on reviewing OTIB-009 and digging into 

its literature as best we can, which is the 

generic protocol for ingestion, we thought 

that fundamental to that method was the 

assumption that the default ingestion rate 

for hand-to-mouth activity, for sandwiches 

that might get contaminated, was 0.5 

milligrams per day, as being the quantity 

that's ingested. And we took exception to 

that for a number of reasons. 

 One, the EPA for inadvertent 

ingestion recommends 50 milligrams per day 

for an adult. NCRP 123 recommends 100 

milligrams per day. And Jim has pointed out 

on a number of occasions that both of those 

-- when you go into the literature that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

behind that, we find that is very poor. And 

I would agree with him. In other words, the 

way in which they came to the 15 to 100. 

 Even though it's become universal, 

because everywhere you look, that's what 

people use as a default value, Jim has 

elected not to adopt that, and to go with 0.5 

milligrams per days. No, no, I'm sorry. Jim 

has elected not to do that and to do 

something else. I did it again, right? I'm 

glad you caught me -- and is doing something 

else. 

 I thought that something else was 

0.5 milligrams per day because we've tracked 

down the literature, and we believe that he 

was using RESRAD assumptions, which is 0.5 

milligrams per day. 

 It turns out Jim corrected me 

yesterday. He said, no, no, no, no, no. 

We're using -- and I should have realized 

this -- we're using 0.2 times the 

concentration in the air as being the intake 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

per day. 

 So for example, let's say you have 

five milligrams. Let's talk in milligrams. 

Let's say you have five milligrams per cubic 

meter, okay, in the air, which is, by the 

way, a pretty high number. It's the TLD for 

dust. But it's not that high for the early 

days of the AWE. In fact, I think we went up 

to the hundreds of milligrams per cubic meter 

at Bethlehem Steel. 

 Let's go with five. You multiply 

that by 0.2, you get one milligram per day as 

your ingestion rate. So in other words, your 

method for deriving ingestion is to simply 

take whatever the concentration is in the air 

-- I'm using milligrams, but it could just as 

well be Becquerels -- you multiply by 0.2, 

and it gives you a number. 0.2 times 5 is 1. 

You would get one milligram per day. 

 Once you get into the milligram 

per day numbers, that is a lot more 

reasonable, one to ten, because you could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

easily, if you go to any of these sites and 

look at the airborne dust loadings that 

correspond to, I guess, to 100 MAC, for 

example, or 10 MAC, you're now in the range 

of multiple milligrams per day. And that's 

the kind of number for ingestion that I was-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought Jim 

was saying yesterday that it was based on the 

surface contamination data that they had. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, but in the end, 

there's a whole story about this 

hand-to-mouth, and they're licking their 

hand. But what happens is what they do is, 

it's the 0.2 rule. You know, if it turns out 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where does this 

0.2 value come from? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, that's where 

they got it from. You know -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I missed this 

part of the call, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It's pretty torturous. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

In other words, it took us a while, and we got 

it wrong. Trying to figure out, how did you 

get to the 0.2 number. In other words, you 

take the 0.2, and you multiply by the dust 

loading. And we try to track that down. 

 And it brought us to Charlie Yu 

and RESRAD computer code with the 0.5 

milligrams per day. So I seized upon that. 

I have a lot of trouble. And then, in fact, 

we had a part where we passed around a vial 

containing 0.5 milligrams of sand, and you 

hardly could see it. I mean, it's almost 

invisible, and it's almost inconceivable that 

it could be that small. 

 Jim corrected it. He says, no. 

We're not making that assumption. We're 

saying -- and you know, if it's a pretty 

dusty environment, you could get many 

milligrams per day as being the inadvertent 

ingestion rate. 

 You know, this is one of those 

areas where 0.5 was just too low, in my mind. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Fifty was the number that I know that has 

been the status quo for EPA. 

 So the real number in my mind is 

some place certainly well above 0.5, because 

0.5 is intuitively just too small when you 

look at how much it is. And 50 might be too 

high, because the literature upon which it is 

based is flawed. 

 Well Jim ended up coming up with 

numbers that are on the order of maybe a few 

to maybe ten milligrams per day, depending on 

the dust load. 

 And on that basis, and my sense is 

that this issue is closed. So the method you 

use, have adopted for your default approach 

across the board, because you're using it 

universally, is you come up with an airborne 

dust loading. 

 Now given we agree that the 

airborne dust loading is -- yes, that's a 

good number. Using the 0.2 approach seems to 

be -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I still don't 

understand where the 0.2 is. It's just a 

number that works, or -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: There's various 

conversion steps along the way. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It ends up this 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: It ends up there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is it 

documented somewhere? 

 DR. MAURO: It's in OTIB-009. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is in OTIB009, somewhere in OTIB-009? 

 DR. MAURO: But you have to go 

through the literature. You have to track it 

down. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: And we did that. So 

anyway, what I can say is, you know, based on 

the conversation we had yesterday, it seems 

that, you know, Jim made a very convincing 

argument that the 0.2 rule of thumb seems 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 

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

work well. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And what do you 

do if you don't have air-monitoring data? 

Are you just using -- 

 DR. MAURO: You can't do it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So you 

have to have air monitoring. 

 MR. SIEBERT: You have to have 

some estimate of the air field, or if you 

know what the activity -- now, if you know 

what the activity is on surfaces, you don't 

have -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Then you've got the 

re-suspension problem, which is a different 

issue. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: But you can get a 

value in the air, and then the 0.2 will work. 

 DR. MAURO: And then apply it to 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It will work as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

long as you buy how you do the re-suspension. 

 DR. MAURO: Bingo. You've got it. 

So I mean, it's not all -- but I think there 

is a breakthrough here. At least I would say 

we are more than halfway home on the 

ingestion in terms of, if you've got good, 

claimant favorable dust loading, airborne 

dust loading, to me, the 0.2 rule seems to 

work. 

 Now, if you're coming up with your 

airborne dust loading using a re-suspension 

factor approach, 10-6, then we've got a 

problem. It may be low by a factor of ten or 

more for the reasons we have mentioned on 

many occasions. And that's a generic issue 

that I think everyone has agreed -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this 

ingestion issue is no longer going to be a 

white paper? You're satisfied with TIB 9, is 

kind of what you're saying? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'm satisfied 

with the 0.2 rule. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 275

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The explanation 

of TIB 9? 

 DR. MAURO: Now that I understand 

it, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we still 

have it as waiting for a NIOSH white paper. 

Is NIOSH going to provide anything on that? 

or are we just going to let that go? It 

comes up in every matrix from like the first 

one, I think. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it 

might be worthwhile to produce something that 

says -- explains better what's in TIB 9. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Better than TIB 9? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, it just 

explains, you know, maybe lays out a sample 

calculation or something that people can 

follow through, because obviously if they 

have trouble following it -- you know, it's 

been on the public record for a while. I'm 

just saying, if we just dismiss it now, 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 

 276

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would look funny. Is that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll find out. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 

understanding that SC&A seems to be fine with 

the bottom line at this point. So it's 

really just an explanation of what you're 

already doing, I guess, you know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So Mark, you want 

this to go where? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm saying that 

NIOSH is going to -- just to satisfy past 

actions, NIOSH is going to develop a -- we'll 

call it a white paper, but it's really just 

to explain what's in TIB 9 maybe just a 

little more with a sample calculation or 

something so that it will explain what John's 

just sort of outlined here. 

 And I'm going to indicate that, 

you know, SC&A appears to be satisfied with 

this explanation, but we want it documented. 

That's all we're waiting on. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understand. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I was just asking 

where it's going to land, what it's going to 

be attached to so that, the next time, 

re-suspension factors, and how many times 

people -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- that comes up, 

which it will do within the next 24 hours for 

sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I've got 

you. I've got you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We know where that 

white paper is going to land, and we can all 

say it in chorus. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I follow 

you. 

 DR. MAURO: It's important to make 

a distinction between the re-suspension 

factors -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. This is 

ingestion. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and the ingestion. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is 

ingestion, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: I think ingestion, 

we're almost home free. I think maybe some 

documentation of, no, it's not 0.5 milligrams 

per day. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me ask, on 

the procedures subcommittee, have we reviewed 

TIB 9? 

 DR. MAURO: We did. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And was it 

pending this? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. In TIB 9, we 

have issues related to re-suspension factor 

and inadvertent ingestion. And I think we're 

really making some nice progress on the 

inadvertent ingestion. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm going 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 

 279

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say this is going to end up in your 

subcommittee, Wanda, to answer your question. 

Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I gathered 

this is -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- which is one of 

the reasons why I'm trying to be specific 

about words. I already know it's going to be 

in my lap, but where in my lap. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think it's going 

to be nicely trapped. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Related to TIB 

9. It will be a white paper. Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: All right. We 

undoubtedly have some action item. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But given the 

current state of my electronics, I'm not even 

going to try to look at it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Go 

ahead, John. I'm sorry. I just wanted 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 

 280

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get that down. 

 DR. MAURO: We're up to -- well, 

it looks like that was 151 and 152. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That's it. Now we're 

up to 151. I'm not sure what 151 is. Do you 

know what site that is? 

 MEMBER MUNN: We are on 152.1. 

 DR. MAURO: I see 151.1. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. We are on 

151.1. We were just on 150.1 and 150.2. 

 DR. MAURO: 151 is Anaconda. 

Okay. I've got it. Anaconda -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: You were just ahead 

of us. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: You know, somehow I 

had Anaconda in my head. And I read Anaconda 

during the lunch break, and I'm ready to talk 

about it. This was a person that was denied 

using OTIB-004, as opposed to the Anaconda 

site profile, because I believe the Anaconda 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- I guess it's an appendix, perhaps to TBD 

6000. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's probably 

true. 

 DR. MAURO: So I think Anaconda is 

an appendix of TBD 6000. It was not 

available to the dose reconstructors at the 

time. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It was done well 

before that, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: So and this was a 

person where you placed an upper bound using 

OTIB-004, and denied, which is exactly what 

the purpose of OTIB-004 is, to place an upper 

bound in denial. 

 When we reviewed this, I think 

that the external exposure and internal 

exposure, we agree -- and I wish I had it in 

front of me. In other words, you basically 

followed OTIB-004, and we agreed that OTIB004 is certainly bounding for external 

exposure, because you are assuming a person 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is up close and personal, I think to the 

source, for a protracted period of time, and 

it really places another bound on external 

exposure. 

 And I believe on internal exposure 

you assume the person is continuously exposed 

to 100 MAC of airborne dust loading -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- extremely 

conservative. So from that point of view, 

you certainly place an upper bound. For the 

residual period, we're right back where we 

started again. It's not important, though. 

 In other words, though we comment, 

and that's the two comments here, we have a 

comment on exposure to surface contamination. 

That's 51.1. And 51.2, we have a comment on 

ingestion. The ingestion problem has gone 

away. 

 The external exposure to surface 

contamination, you know, in our mind, it's 

still a problem. That is, the way you come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to that number. But in this case, I'll say 

it. 

 You know, you deny, but you know, 

you can really increase that pathway, let's 

say. It's not going to change anything. By 

far, the exposure from operations drives this 

thing. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

we'll leave it as a finding. It won't affect 

this case kind of thing. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 151.1 won't 

affect the case -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- but it's still an 

issue that needs to be resolved. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, 151.1 I 

believe is the issue about how the 

contamination, the starting contamination -- 

 DR. MAURO: Surface contamination. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the residual 

period, surface contamination, is generated 

-- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Is generated. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from the 

deposition pattern. And that's on the books 

somewhere, right? Is that on a generic or 

over-arching, or is that in TIB 70, or -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think that's one of 

the steps in TIB 70. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: It starts with that. 

That is, the thing with TIB 70 is, one of the 

starting points, as you know, with the 

activities on the surface, because you may 

have mentioned it during operation, and now 

we're into a post-operation period, and you 

have to assign a slope to it, because it will 

start to decline with time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure. 

Does TIB 70 talk about the original 

derivation of the -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think it gives you 

different cases. If you know 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 

 285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: But how you get to 

that, I don't think TIB 70 tells you how you 

can get to the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. That is an 

operational -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You've got six 

specific -- yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This has come up, 

this finding about -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We just 

had it last case, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, that seems 

to me like that is one broad thing to be 

resolved. You know, if you do it once, you 

know. Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I would say when 

it comes to residual contamination of 

surfaces at AWE facilities in the early 

years, -- that's what I'm talking about -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there has been a lot of work done between 

Kingsley -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and also the Adley 

paper. They have information on how much -- 

and it's a lot of residual radioactivity. 

And there is a lot of data on that. 

 If you were to say, "We are going 

to use that generic upper bound," if you look 

at the Adley paper, it is by far the best 

one. This is a report that was put out, AEC 

1952. It has the citations. 

 There is all this incredible 

amount of data on what it was like in a 

uranium-handling facility back in the late 

1940s, early 1950s. They did a tremendous 

amount of research characterizing the 

airborne activities, the deposition rates on 

the surfaces. 

 I think if you use that as a 

generic starting point, okay. We are going 

to assume that at the time of termination 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 

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

operations, this is the residual activity, an 

upper bound estimate of what might have been 

on surfaces at an AWE facility that we don't 

have very much data for. 

 If you have data, great. Use it. 

But if you don't have data, you would apply, 

I would say, the Adley report starting point. 

 And then you trigger in okay. 

OTIB 70. What happens in time? And how are 

you going to get a slope on that? Right now 

OTIB 70 says you pick some point out in the 

future when you've got some measurements. 

And if they're good measures, let's say, all 

of a sudden it's 1978, and you've got some 

FUSRAP. And you know there wasn't any D&D between the 

time they shut down, let's say, 

1960, and the FUSRAP characterization. Let's 

say, 1978. You've got two points, you know. 

You've got your slope, you know. 

 And that is one option you have 

available to you under OTIB 70. OTIB 70 

gives you a lot of options because sometimes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you don't have that point. And you have to 

say, "Well, what slope do you use?" 

 One of our criticisms of OTIB 70 

is you use, I think it was, one percent a 

day, the rate at which it goes down. We've 

got a real problem with that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I put that in 

there, then, Stu, in terms of follow-up, you 

know, that you might want to consider the 

Kingsley and Adley. Is it A-d-l-e-y? 

 DR. MAURO: A-d-l-e-y. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A-d-l-e-y. 

 DR. MAURO: It's AEC 1952 

citation. I have all of that stuff. You 

have it. Jim has it. Jim is very familiar 

with the report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: And that is 151.1. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

is, yes. And this is a little different than 

Simonds Saw because in that case, you know, 

it's the same question, but you have film 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 289

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

data, too, you might want to consider. You 

have site-specific data there. 

 DR. MAURO: We're on Anaconda now. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. I 

know. But I'm just saying it's not the exact 

same action, necessarily. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, but 

it's up to them to decide how they want to 

approach it. 

 DR. MAURO: See, to me, whenever 

you have a question "Are data good enough?" 

you can always go to Adley. And Adley has 

got some incredible data, and they are high. 

The numbers are high. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Going on to 152, John. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that leaves my 

territory. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 152 is 

moving on to one of your sites? 

 MR. FARVER: Savannah River site. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. You got it. 

 MR. FARVER: You are off the hook, 

John. 

 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

 MR. FARVER: Here I am on the 

hook. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good thing you 

studied during lunch. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's why I was 

here. 

 MR. FARVER: 152.1, Savannah River 

site case. The employee was an inline 

mechanic, worked there from '52 through '83, 

so for several years. And the concern was 

the difference between some of the dose 

records. And we did a couple of exhibits in 

our report, some of the handwritten dose 

records as they were kept compared to the 

HPAREH -- is that how you say that, HPAREH? 

-- report. 

 And although the differences are 

not large, there are some differences. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 291

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we are just reporting that there were 

differences. 

 Now, in some cases you are looking 

at maybe ten millirems. Some of it came from 

-- I believe, the handwritten cards are 

difficult to read. And they were added 

incorrectly, which in some cases is not 

always picked up in the HPAREH report. 

 So we just wanted to bring it to 

your attention that there are differences. 

That is the gist of first finding. 

 MEMBER MUNN: This doesn't 

properly account for all photon doses. 

 MR. FARVER: That's correct. In 

other words, there are handwritten dosimeter 

cards. And then there is the 

computer-generated report. And they do not 

always have these same numbers. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And so the dose 

reconstruction report doesn't have the same 

numbers as the raw data? Is that what you're 

saying? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. That is 

what I am saying. I believe that the policy 

to follow the HPAREH report, that that is the 

dose reconstructor policy. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Are you saying the 

HPAREH report does not agree with the raw 

data? 

 MR. FARVER: In some cases, 

correct. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, right. Okay. 

Now, that's all. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Doug, I'm not sure 

when there is a disagreement between HPAREH 

and the cycle data, our thought, we thought 

that we would pick higher. But it isn't in 

this case, clearly. 

 MR. SIEBERT: That is what we're 

saying, that we did use the HPAREH dose, 

rather than cycle data. And it could be an 

underestimate, which seems to indicate to me 

we're saying that maybe we should use the 

larger of the two. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. I just wasn't 

sure if you were just following the -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Generically from my 

mind, when they're not horrendously different 

and we can't find the difference, we'll go 

with the larger of the two. If there's a 

huge difference, then we'll be doing a lot 

more investigation as to why. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And how significant 

were the differences? 

 MR. FARVER: We are looking at 

differences of ten millirem in one case. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Ten to 20 millirem 

here and there. 

 MR. FARVER: Twenty millirem here 

and there. 

 MEMBER MUNN: A year or individual 

doses, what? 

 MR. SIEBERT: The HPAREH is on a 

yearly basis. 

 MR. FARVER: It would be a year. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 294

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: So it's not very 

significant doses. It's just mainly to point 

out that there were discrepancies between the 

two records. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let me 

clarify something, though. I thought from 

your response -- oh, I see what you said. 

You said that this could possibly result in 

underestimate. 

 I guess the question is, is that 

policy being used, the one you just 

described, where you're saying that they'll 

use the higher of the two? If that's the 

case, then that's fine. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. They can 

verify it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And 

either way, I think the bottom line for this 

case is either way, it wouldn't have affected 

the outcome of the case. But you do want to 

know if they were following the procedure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

That's another question in the process. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It is of interest, 

too, that only two years. I am not familiar 

with the HPAREH report. Does that report 

exist for all of the covered years or for all 

of the years of operation or is it limited to 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It extends away 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, I don't 

know if it continues to present today, but it 

starts way back and goes pretty late. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It goes into the 

'90s. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Into the '90s 

at least, yes, I think late '80s or '90s, I 

think. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. And so this 

is a very comprehensive database that you're 

using here? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: That you are using 

here? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And what I think I 

have heard is that all was being pointed at 

as if they are small discrepancies, not 

particularly significant ones, between the 

raw data and, at least for these two years, 

the HPAREH report? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right? Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: In this case they are 

small differences. I can't say that for 

every case. I just know there are 

differences. 

 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

have seen, at least from many of the cases 

that I have reviewed on the Savannah River 

site, generally there is a comparison because 

it's put into their workbook. 

 And I think initially there is a 

data group that enters all of this weekly and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

biweekly and monthly data. And then the dose 

reconstructor actually compares that and 

makes a comparison to the summary data. 

 And generally, in fact, I know 

that there are some dose reconstructors that 

even will highlight when they find a 

discrepancy if they will use the higher dose. 

And they will highlight that with a red, in 

red, so that it's clear this was dose that 

was added so that the individual monthly, 

weekly dose adds up to the summary dose if 

that summary dose was higher. 

 So I think in general, that the 

comment that you have made regarding using 

the higher dose is what I have seen in the 

past that they used higher. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Okay. What 

this boils down to essentially, for the 

uninitiated, appears to be possibly even 

human error in recording of data, which we 

all know occurs on a regular basis -- we 

can't overcome that -- but that it has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 298

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

checked by the dose reconstructor and the 

appropriate claimant-friendly dosage is used 

as a matter of course. Am I interpreting 

that correctly? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, except 

for the last part. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The last part, 

Wanda. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what we 

are following up on. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what we 

have to follow up on, whether the policy is 

to use the higher value when you have these 

fairly small discrepancies. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think 

Kathy said in general she is seeing that, but 

for this case, we're not sure. So we're 

going to at least follow up. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's go on to 

the next one. 

 MR. FARVER: Next finding. Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Improperly converted photon doses to organ 

doses. 

 MR. SIEBERT: This is the usual -- 

 MR. FARVER: This is the usual one 

that we have been putting in about when they 

combine distributions of the dose conversion 

factors, which has been corrected and the 

current EDCW workbook. So this is finding 2 

and finding 3 have been corrected. 

 Now finding 4. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on. I was 

catching up there, Doug. So 152.2, where are 

we at? 

 MR. FARVER: 2.2 and .3 have 

already been corrected. It's a workbook type 

of situation in the Savannah River workbook. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no 

Savannah River workbook. The entire -- 

 MR. FARVER: And you will see this 

come up, even in the next case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

been revised in TIB 12, right? Is that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's 

what it is. But yes, it's -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: No. It's in the new 

tool itself. Rather than using the max and 

min, it uses the actual -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got you. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The AP range. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's what 

it -- and this particular claim came back. 

And so it got reworked with the correct 

worksheet, you know, the correct workbook 

after -- or it will be reworked. I don't 

know right now. 

 MR. KATZ: Stu, you disappeared. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I disappeared? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry. This case 

either has been or will be reworked with the 

correct Savannah River workbook because it 

came back to us for rework because one of 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 

 301

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

PERs. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: PERs. Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. We presently 

have it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Do we have it? 

Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And 

that's for .2 and .3? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MS. BEHLING: Let me ask a 

question there. When a change is made to a 

workbook, as in this case, is there any kind 

of a PER process that goes on? Because I 

think in this particular case, like for 

especially things like breast cancer, I think 

it can have something of a significant impact 

if I am remembering correctly. 

 I just wondered, like when you 

make changes to your procedures, when you 

make changes to a workbook, do you go back 

and look at cases 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 

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, by and 

large, a change to a workbook occurs because 

of a change to a procedure. Isn't that 

right? 

 MS. BEHLING: Not in this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they didn't 

in this case, but, by and large, that is what 

happens. I mean, the workbooks are supposed 

to faithfully reproduce the technical 

guidance that's in the technical documents. 

 And so to that extent, then other 

than maybe you can make some selection items 

more readily accessible and make the 

selections easier, I wouldn't think there 

would be a lot of changes to the actual 

calculation of a workbook unless there were a 

concomitant change or an associated change. 

But it's a technical document that describes 

this is the calculation method you use. 

 So I wouldn't think it would occur 

very often, but I know in this case it was 

not. It was strictly a workbook 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 

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Scott is looking 

for something here. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I know we did 

actually review all of the cases that were 

used with that tool for the impact of this. 

I am just -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That was my 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was the 

question. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. I know we did. 

I am just trying to figure out if I can find 

documentation as such. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a good 

question, though. And, Doug, pick it up on 

152.4 when you're ready. 

 MR. FARVER: 152.4. The finding 

was that the report does not account for all 

the recorded dose. And this has to do with, 

if you look at the HPAREH report, in the 

later years, there's a column for tritium. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And they'll report tritium doses, which are 

not always the same doses that are calculated 

from tritium bioassays. 

 And it has to do with how they 

determine their tritium exposures for 

personnel monitoring for -- I don't know what 

to say, but they use their external dosimetry 

to regulate their exposures to tritium, I 

guess is one way to say it. 

 And so what we are pointing out 

there is a couple of discrepancies between 

what is in the HPAREH report and what was 

used for the dose assessment. It has to do 

with subtracting out tritium. It's not 

stated anywhere. 

 And, really, we just suggest that 

they document what they do. In other words, 

if you are going to pull out about 70 percent 

of the dose and call it tritium, just 

document it somewhere, like in the technical 

basis. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

saying here to -- well, it's hard with the 

summary finding sometimes, but -- 

 MR. FARVER: Right. That's why 

I'm looking at the report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- the DR 

report does not account for all the recorded 

dose. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. That's why 

we're looking at the report. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The DR report 

does not account for all the recorded dose. 

What you just said -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: That was initially 

the finding because it was thinking that the 

tritium dose was actually photon dose. And 

if you thought that, then you thought we 

didn't do all of the photon. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Well, if you look at 

an HPAREH report, the values that are in that 

report are not always the values that are -- 

how shall I say it? Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. SIEBERT: In HPAREH, they are 

all lumped together as external because 

Savannah River just considered tritium 

external because it was whole body. 

 And if you just look at HPAREH, 

look at 100 millirem, you would immediately 

think it is 100 millirem photon. The 70 

might be from tritium. 

 And we actually have to pull that 

out when we do the external and then -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How do you pull 

it out? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Just subtract it out 

in the tool. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But how do you 

know what percentage or whatever? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Because in the cycle 

data -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In the cycle 

data, it's there? Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. It shows the 

difference. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

was trying to -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: They added that in. 

 MR. FARVER: Now, we have included 

a couple of exhibits in there. For example, 

if you look at the dosimeter card for 1975, 

there is a 195-millirem deep dose, 

210-millirem shallow dose, and 455 for 

tritium. If you look at the HPAREH for 1975, 

it's 670 deep dose or maybe I've got that 

backwards. I've got that backwards. 

 The HPAREH is the lower value. 

And the dosimeter card is 640 deep, instead 

of the HPAREH's 195 deep. So they subtracted 

out 455 millirem and called it tritium. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Which is in HPAREH 

under the tritium column. 

 MR. FARVER: Which is in HPAREH 

under the tritium column, but it's not in the 

dosimeter card, the handwritten card. And 

all we're suggesting in -- I understand what 

you do because basically I know what they did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there, but you should probably document it 

because I don't know that it's documented 

anywhere in a technical basis that that is 

how you handle the tritium result. And it 

could lead people to ask questions. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug, when you 

say, document, document where? 

 MR. FARVER: You can put it in the 

external basis for Savannah River, something 

like that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Does 

NIOSH agree with that or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, sitting here 

it sounds reasonable. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

I think I would want to go make sure that 

there is not something better that people 

would know -- 

 MR. FARVER: And what this leads 

to is when you look at the HPAREH report and 

you see these tritium results, let's say it 

says 455 millirem per tritium in 1975. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now later on we might calculate a 

tritium dose for this person based on 

bioassay samples, which may or may not equal 

455 millirem. It might equal ten millirem. 

So how do you explain that? I want to please 

explain it somewhere. So it's just a 

suggestion to eliminate some questions. 

 I don't remember if it was used in 

lieu of bioassay. I don't believe it was. I 

believe it was used as a more real-time way 

to control exposure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What are you 

talking about, in HPAREH, you mean? 

 MR. FARVER: No. On the external 

dosimetry part because I know they subtracted 

it out from the TLD when the TLDs were read. 

I think the TLDs were read more frequently 

for tritium people. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was sort 

of my follow-up. A follow-up question I have 

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 

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: If it's used in lieu 

of bioassay data to control exposure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, what Savannah 

River did, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, Savannah River. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think they 

had set intakes based on bioassay. You know, 

they set doses based on the model that was 

applicable at the time. 

 MR. FARVER: That's what I 

believe, but I believe the TLDs were read 

more frequently and gave a more real-time -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that could 

be real-time, but I think what they chose to 

reflect in HPAREH was the dose that counts 

towards the person's 5 rem a year exposure 

because the tritium as the whole body dose 

would be directly additive to the photon 

dose. And so that is essentially the 

demonstration of compliance with the data, 

the five rem exposure limit. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think that 

is why they would incorporate it there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. They just 

add the two of -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: That's okay. I just 

don't remember reading that anywhere in any 

of your documentation. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 

that I have ever read that. I just would 

suspect it. Why in the world would somebody 

do that? I would say that would be it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You have got all 

the whole body dose in one place. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's all whole 

body dose. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's all whole 

body dose. And you -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Savannah River is 

not the only one. I know that across the 

complex, there were other places that thought 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 312

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of tritium as a whole body dose -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- even though 

that's internal, rather than external. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Not going to be as 

effective a dose, which now is, of course, 

out of date. 

 MR. FARVER: So that was 152.4. 

152.5 is the dose conversion factor for 

neutron doses to organ dose. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same thing as 

.2, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. That one has 

been taken care of previously by 152.2. 

 152.6 has to do with the ongoing 

internal dose from fission products. And I 

am going to ask, Kathy, if you could help me 

out on this. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. This is just 

the finding that we have all talked about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

many times before, but I guess in calculating 

missed fission product dose, NIOSH uses a 

radionuclide chooser tool. And they select 

the radionuclide that will provide the 

highest dose. 

 I guess our comment is that is 

fine. And we don't dispute that, but what 

about the dose from other radionuclides, 

other potential missed radionuclides? And 

there is a list of the various radionuclides 

in table D2 of the Savannah River site. 

 So this has been a very common 

question. The only thing that -- and I guess 

Stu can explain this better, but in the 

response, if I'm reading this correctly, it 

almost sounds like the radionuclide chooser 

tool actually does incorporate contributions 

from the other radionuclides. 

 If that is the case, then that 

would resolve this finding, but I am not sure 

I quite understand the response. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I am 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 

 314

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sure I am really conversant with this, but 

I've got some general -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, what the 

response is saying is the chooser includes 

all of those radionuclides for the decision 

as to which is the most claimant-favorable. 

 And then we determine from that 

the most claimant-favorable, just as you 

said. It's consideration as to which ones to 

assign, not assigning the largest one and all 

the other ones as well. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And there is 

a lot that goes into this decision. I mean, 

there is -- first of all, it's a way to not 

do a separate intake of dose calculation for 

12 radionuclides, many of which are 

inconsequential, or it is the selection 

process is supposed to provide not your best 

estimate of the intake of the highest dose 

radionuclide but, rather, an estimate that it 

is sufficiently high that the dose that you 

get is bounding for the suite 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 

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radionuclides to -- that is the intent, is to 

-- rather than do all of these calculations, 

do one that bounds them all. 

 Now, how well that has ever been 

explained I don't know. And the basis for 

choosing the value that was chosen I can't 

explain very well. 

 But, as I recall, as I am sitting 

here, I am reminded of all of these things I 

should be doing for this Subcommittee. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's good. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but, you see, 

my only hope is I am telecommuting tomorrow 

and nobody interrupts me too much. So I can 

work on it tomorrow. 

 So I think that is what we owe to 

kind of address this whole raft of issues. 

And certainly it would be at least the 

Savannah River issues I think the response 

can be in the response. I think we may have 

the same issue at Hanford. Maybe the Hanford 

response will get it consistent. If it were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the same response, I don't know if that is 

going to be the case or not. 

 So this is an issue we know. And 

this is defining issues that have been around 

for a while. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this ties into 

the OTIB 54 for -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: -- whole body 

comparison because that is really what this 

boils down to. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that was my 

next question. Is this a Savannah River site 

profile issue or is it a TIB 54? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, remember, TIB 

54 didn't exist back at this time frame. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know it's 

not, but I'm saying as far as the -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: The resolution, yes. 

It goes along with TIB 54. And the 

assumption that we are coming up with 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 

 317

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we want to be able to demonstrate that if you 

base it on OTIB 54 versus using chooser, 54 

will be low. That's kind of what that 

comparison is we're discussing for that 

comparison. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But is it more 

realistic? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You had a 

question? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Well -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: More realistic? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Fifty-four we 

believe to be, yes, more realistic than 

chooser, right? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so if 54 is, 

in fact, lower than the chooser approach and 

we're looking at what we're using now, then 

we don't have to worry about these ones that 

were done earlier with chooser approach. 

That's the thought process. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BEHLING: And I guess I would 

have to look a little bit deeper into OTIB 54 

and, like I said, make a comparison. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but I think 

the action is really ours to put together a 

coherent explanation on this. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: And we've been 

talking about this. And a lot of the other 

radionuclides if you assigned what we do 

assign would shine out like a bright, shining 

light in the whole body count because their 

detection limits tend to be lower. But it is 

a comparison we have to do. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Very good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Go 

ahead, Doug. I'm sorry. 

 MR. FARVER: Another thing we have 

is an observation about Super S plutonium. 

Apparently it's been returned to be reworked. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is being -- 

 MR. FARVER: And that was it for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tab 152. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you want to 

take a five-minute break? Can anybody use a 

five-minute break? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be 

good, I think, if we can -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Let's 

take five. Wanda, we are going to take about 

five, maybe a ten-minute break. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Thanks. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter went off the record at 3:48 

 p.m. and resumed at 4:00 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: We are starting back up 

the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee review, 

procedure 153. Is that what you said, Mark? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, are you back 

with us? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not procedure 

153, but -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right, right, right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- case 153. 

 MR. KATZ: Case, case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that's why 

I think we are going to try to plug away for 

another half-hour, maybe a little more, 

Wanda. Then we'll call it a day because we 

have made some good progress. Actually, I'm 

losing people as we speak. They're dropping 

like flies in the room here. So about a 

half-hour, maybe 40 minutes. And then we'll 

call it a day. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Never had the 

experience, Mark. 

 MR. KATZ: You never had the 

experience? Is that what you said? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Seeing people begin 

to disappear at the end of the day. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. I 

know. I know. Right. So, Doug, I will turn 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it over to you to start 153.1. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 153.1. We 

reported that the dose report does not 

include a less than 30 keV proton dose for 

year 1982. 

 This is another Savannah River 

site. The employee was a laborer and worked 

there from '51 through '82, so 30 years. And 

doses were calculated for less than 30 keV 

protons for the other years but not for 1982. 

So we questioned, you know, why not 1982? 

 And NIOSH responded back that 

according to TIB 6, having to do with 

aluminum filtration, and a dosimeter was not 

used after 1981, that you do not include 

shallow dose unless it's a certain organ. It 

would have an effect. 

 I guess that just brings up a 

couple of questions. First, if you look at 

the -- in 1982 -- and it was 221 FB line, 

where the person worked. And the energy 

distribution says 100 percent less than 30 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

keV and 100 percent 30 to 250 keV, which made 

us wonder why we didn't have the 1982 dose. 

 Now, I understand the TIB 6 and 

the filtration. I guess what I was trying to 

find real quick was the energy distribution 

for 221 FB line. And I can't find it to say 

that it's 100 percent 30 to 250 keV. That's 

my concern at the moment. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't remember. 

 MR. FARVER: And I want to make 

sure I've got the right rev document. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So 153.1 and .2 

are -- 

 MR. FARVER: Are the same? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- missed dose, 

right? Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: I am looking at rev 

1, page 99. And there's a table 5.3.4.1-1, 

where it lists the beta and photon radiation 

energies. 

 And I go down to 221 FB line. And 

it says it should be 25 percent 30 keV and 75 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 323

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

percent 30 to 250 keV, which means I should 

still have a 30 keV dose. 

 Well, I don't know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I am going 

to have to learn more about this. I'm 

looking at my response. Apparently the only 

way the response makes sense is if you base a 

30 keV before the -- well, the aluminum 

filter must be over the entire dosimeter, 

over the shallow or whatever. 

 MR. FARVER: Your response is 

correct. That is what TIB 6 says. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So if -- 

 MR. FARVER: But it says if you 

default to the distribution that's in the 

technical basis. So then I went to the 

technical basis to see what the distribution 

was. And it says it's 25 percent 30 keV and 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Was there a 

shallow reading or open window reading for 

'82? And was that apportioned in some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fashion? 

 MR. FARVER: Not that we could 

find. I mean, there was a -- let's see. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there are 

two possible explanations that come to mind 

based on our response. One is that up 

through 1981, there was an aluminum filter 

over the badge. And so you could not count 

on the shallow element to read a less than 30 

keV photon. So it was inferred from the deep 

reading. 

 The deep reading was not 

considered to be based because of the 30 keV, 

but it was due to the 30 to 250. But you 

would have the similar quantity or whatever, 

a ratio based on the ratios in the tables you 

cited, that, in addition to generating the 30 

to 250 number from the deep TLD, you would 

also infer what the 30 keV would be based on 

those ratios because the aluminum filter 

would prevent the shallow dosimeter from 

reading 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 

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 After '81, when the aluminum 

filter was no longer there, a shallow 

dosimeter would be capable of reading the 

less than 30 keV photon. And so if there 

were a less than 30 keV photon exposure, it 

would be recorded accurately in the shallow 

dose. And then that could be assigned either 

as a shallow dose or as a beta dose because 

they work out the same. You know, the 

quality factors are the same. The risk 

factors are the same. 

 So the less than 30 and a beta 

particle, if either is recorded, I mean, if 

there was a reading in the shallow window and 

either one appears in dose reconstruction, 

then that would be the shallow reading. And 

then if there is no reading in the shallow, 

then we are back to that whole thing about 

missed doses and if you have a reading in 

this and nothing in that, do you really have 

a missed dose or not? 

 So that is the only way. I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 326

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know if that is the case or not, but that is 

the only way our response makes sense. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. I was ready to 

agree with your response until I went and 

looked up the TBD and I saw that the 

distribution was 25-75. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But in that case, 

though, if there is no aluminum filter, those 

photos are less than 30 keV photons. I mean, 

those are defaults. 

 I mean, you would always use what 

the dosimeter tells you to use if they're 

just going to be reading appropriately. And 

you would use those energy ranges to 

apportion your dose into the various IREP 

bins. 

 But you would only use those 

ratios to generate the dose number if, for 

some reason, the dosimeter didn't provide you 

the accurate dose number. 

 MR. FARVER: But according to TIB 

6, the deep dose quantity during this period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 327

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

which is for the period 1982 to present, the 

guidance provided in the Savannah River 

technical basis document should be used to 

determine the photon energy distribution of 

the deep dose; i.e., 25 percent less than 30 

keV and 75 percent -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, then, 

we'll come at the -- okay. Okay. Well, I 

don't understand our response, then. 

 MR. FARVER: I just want to make 

sure it's consistent. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think you 

just have that as NIOSH to follow up on that, 

right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was 153.1 

and .2. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it would be 

helpful for me to understand what was going 

on. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: And you can explain 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it to me so I can understand it so I don't do 

this again. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If I ever 

understand it. 

 MR. FARVER: I thought I 

understood it before I went to look it up. 

And that will take care of 53.1 and 53.2. 

153.3, 153.4, and 153.5 are the same 

converted photon doses and missed doses and 

neutron doses to organ doses with the dose 

conversion factors in the workbook. And the 

workbook has been corrected. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you know if 

this case is under PER review also? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect it is. 

Almost everything at Savannah River came 

back. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. You don't 

have any way -- Scott has that listing? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Scott had -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I could probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 329

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

find out. Oh, I know. You've got the 

tracking numbers in your guys' report. I 

think I -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only reason 

I ask is because I have been putting that in 

my resolution so that we can eventually go 

back and look at all the PER, you know, if we 

want to re-review any of the PER review cases 

or rerun cases, whatever. It is getting 

late. 

 So that brings us up to 153.6. 

While Scott is checking on that number, we 

can go ahead with that. 

 MR. FARVER: For some reason, I 

left these two blank: 56.6 and .7. I am 

going to have to check those. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe it's 

because -- do you have the NIOSH response in 

your matrix? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, but I don't have 

my response. And I don't know why. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's a recently 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

inserted response. That's what I understand. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't have a 

response for those two to check those two 

out. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just going 

to put that as an SC&A will provide a 

response. 

 MR. FARVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The claim you 

talked about did get returned for the Super 

S. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thanks. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's not yet 

approved. The new dose is not yet approved. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So that 

moves us down to -- that was 153.6 and .7, 

right, Doug? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 153.8? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 331

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: This is fission 

products, internal doses, which I believe 

it's the same finding that we addressed in 

the previous case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. These are 

both Savannah River. So we have -- 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. 

And then you have an observation? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. It was -- we 

just questioned on how you handle absorption 

types for multiple organs. In other words, 

type S might be more favorable for one organ. 

And type F or M might be more favorable for 

another one. But you really can't have both 

of the same material. So how do you handle 

that? 

 And they provided a very good 

response basically saying if it's an 

overestimate, you would do a separate organ 

to determine the absorption type, but for a 

best estimate, you kind of have to make 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 

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

decision on which one has more impact on the 

cancer. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this was a 

multiple cancer? 

 MR. FARVER: Multiple cancer. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, and 

you have observation number 2 as well. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, this looks like 

this is the Super S. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Super S plutonium. 

And it has been. 

 MR. FARVER: And it has been. And 

that should take care of tab 153. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Moving on 

to 154. 

 MR. FARVER: One fifty-four is 

another Savannah River site case. The worker 

was there from '51 through '66, had lung 

cancer, a heavy equipment operator. 

 154.1 and 154.2. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same as before, 

right? It looks like similar issues. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 333

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: I don't believe it is 

the same. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is one you 

agree with. 

 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. It has to 

do with the method to calculate less than 30 

keV proton doses. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And NIOSH 

agrees, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: The way they were 

calculated, we didn't believe they were 

calculated appropriately. They only give an 

example of what we believe the calculation 

should be. And I guess they agree it was 

incorrectly calculated. 

 The only thing I can respond to 

that is how do you prevent that from 

happening again. Was it a workbook error or 

was it a person error? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to find 

out. 

 MR. FARVER: And that's the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 334

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for 154.1 and 154.2. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me catch up 

to you, Doug. Just one second. 

 MR. FARVER: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. It's the 

same for 154.2 and .3, you said? No? 

 MR. FARVER: 154.1 and -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And .2. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Go 

ahead. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 154.3 is the 

intake -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: I didn't hear what 

we were going to do with 1 and 2, .1 and .2. 

It was agreed in my mind that these had all 

been closed, but I heard the question asked 

about why. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I have 

-- 

 MEMBER MUNN: And I didn't hear an 

answer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 335

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. NIOSH is 

going to review to determine the nature of 

the error and then, you know, the question of 

how can we prevent it going forward. So we 

need to know sort of what was it, just a 

mistake by the DR. Was it a work -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, right. Got 

it. Just did not hear any response. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry. Yes. 

We're getting a little quiet here. 

 MEMBER MUNN: All right. Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 154.3. We are 

really just pointing out that the intake date 

that they used for their calculations is not 

the same date that's in the DR report. It 

lists a date of 1965 when it is really 1964, 

just more of a review-type error. Maybe that 

should have been caught. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You are saying 

there was a typo in the report but not in the 

IMBA analysis, right? 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 

 336

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

 MR. FARVER: The correct dates 

were used in the analysis, but the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the number 

calculated was correct? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So NIOSH agrees 

with that, right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There is no 

further action in my opinion. Okay? So that 

is closed, Wanda. Are we loud enough still? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I got it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Keep us awake. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not quite 

2:00 o'clock out there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. But I just had 

a ten-minute lunch. 

 MR. FARVER: 154.4, failure to 

account for unmonitored tritium doses. What 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 337

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is a quick way to explain this? Basically we 

believe they forgot the year 1957 because the 

employee was monitored for external dose. 

And he falls under the criteria that is in 

the technical basis that they should have 

been assessed a tritium dose because they 

monitored for external dose in that year. Is 

that correct, Stu? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, for whatever 

reason, we agreed with the finding. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: A monitored 

tritium should have been included for 57 

according to our response. 

 MR. FARVER: And dose-wise it's 

not a big concern. It's just a concern, and 

it slipped through. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I will ask the 

same question I asked for the last case. Is 

this under PER review? I would probably 

assume. We might as well check, though, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 338

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

while we're doing this if that's okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So NIOSH agrees 

with this. And no effect on the case, 

though, is what we're hearing, right? 

 MR. FARVER: It would not impact 

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was the 

POC on this? 

 MR. FARVER: The low 40s. Let me 

get back to it. Forty-six. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I hate to 

hastily write this no effect on the case 

without checking that. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The other thing 

is that it is under review anyway under the 

PER. So it is going to be reworked most 

likely. That is why I wanted to find out. 

 MR. FARVER: It probably will -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: -- because that's one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 339

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of our next observations for the Super S. 

But before we go there, we have 154.5, which 

is a failure to account for all unmonitored 

fission product doses. And we have seen 

these points before. 

 Oh, no. This is a little 

different. This goes back to that same 

segment where the TBD, section 4.4.3, workers 

monitored for external dose but had no 

bioassay for each year of assumed exposure 

period assign an annual dose from missed 

tritium. 

 Annual missed dose is equal to 

tritium doses and entered into the IREP has 

less than 15 keV to account for fission 

products. And then it accounts for fission 

product based on that little segment, section 

4.4.3. So that is where that finding comes 

from. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I lost you a 

little bit here. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 340

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I see 

NIOSH's response. It says, see 154.5-D2A. 

Should it be .4? Do you see where I am at? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That should be 

.4, right? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Does NIOSH agree that 

they should have fission products or not -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: -- or just the 

environmental fission products? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I think if it 

gives the same, that makes it clearly must 

refer back to the .4. And this is both of 

those, both the unmonitored tritium and the 

unmonitored fission products, are essentially 

in the same variables, right? 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The same reason 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 341

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we'll put them in. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And they were both 

left out. So yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And this case was 

returned for -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes, which is an 

observation, insoluble plutonium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Oh, yes. 

I see it in the next one. That brings us up 

to 155. 

 MR. FARVER: One fifty-five. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Try one more. 

Yes, let's try one more. What the heck? 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. And another 

Savannah River case. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Another 

Savannah River. I was hoping for a little 

variety. 

 MR. FARVER: No. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 342

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's all 

right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Hey, blame them. 

They sort them together. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I know. 

I was thinking it probably is another 

Savannah River. 

 MR. FARVER: I think he took the 

blame for that one. Okay. The employee 

worked there from 1978 to [Identifying Information 

Redacted], had renal 

cell carcinoma and leukemia. This was a [Identifying 

Information Redacted]. 

 Okay. The first finding is 155.1. 

NIOSH did not properly account for all missed 

proton doses from -- I'm not sure of a good 

way to explain this, although no response 

gives a good explanation. 

 There are two parts. The first 

part had to do with the results that were 

less than half of the dosimeter limit. Okay. 

In the dosimetry record, there were 143 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 343

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

zeros, zero entries. 

 And the first part of it was there 

were some entries in there that were less 

than the LOD over 2. 

 So that was the first part of 

their response, heard five times. And it was 

handled according to how it should have been 

handled at that time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Guidance at that 

time. 

 MR. FARVER: At that time. The 

second part has to do with the zero entries. 

There were 143 zero entries. Plus, there 

were also three-quarters of the recorded data 

for '92 and also for 1995. So you have to 

add in some extra quarters, two extra 

quarters, to account for missed dose. 

 And that was not done. And that's 

what they say in the second part of their 

response, that they agree with that, and we 

can concur with their response, agree. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you check 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 344

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this one, too, Stu? It's in PER review or 

whether it is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was returned. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So in the 

second half, I got the first step of that. 

NIOSH agrees with the second part. Is that 

what I'm hearing? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That it 

wouldn't impact the case significantly. Is 

that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so, 

but it has been reworked anyway. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Reworked, 

right. Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This one and the 

one before at least have been approved by 

NIOSH after the PER. The reworked one has 

been approved by NIOSH. But I don't know if 

it's final or adjudicated. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Go ahead, 

Doug. I'm sorry. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 345

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. FARVER: 155.2, we have a 

concern about the work location that was 

assigned for 1985. And this falls under 

neutron doses, I believe, yes. We're talking 

about neutron doses. 

 NIOSH assigned the measure to 

missed neutron dose for 221H in 1984 and 221F 

in 1985. When we looked at the records, we 

saw the dosimeter location's area 3F for 1984 

and again in area 3F in 1985. Therefore, we 

thought the assignments for '84 and '85 

should have been both been for F area, 

instead of the H and F in '85. 

 This goes back just to the tricky 

part. I'm just trying to figure out where 

the person worked. And NIOSH presents their 

reasoning that -- we'll see what this person 

did. The person is a pipefitter. So he 

would fall under construction most likely. 

And construction could be anywhere. Most 

likely their dosimeter is one-to-one 

location. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 346

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 They presented a response. I will 

have to look at it and see if it will impact 

the dose. Probably not because it is for a 

single year. I can't say that their 

reasoning is any better than our reasoning. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. FARVER: So I don't know how 

we close that out other than saying that we 

understand what they did. And it is kind of 

a subjective call. And for this case, it's 

not important POC-wise. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. What is 

the POC for this? 

 MR. FARVER: Thirty-two percent, 

something like that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Can we say response 

acceptable, close? 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, especially 

since it is being reviewed anyway. 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So yes. I say, 

SC&A understands what NIOSH did and believes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 347

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it is a subjective call. No further action 

for this case. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Good. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- which is 

under PER review. 

 MR. FARVER: I only wanted to 

point it out because I can't guarantee that 

won't come up in another case, -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. Right. 

 MR. FARVER: -- where we have a 

little difference of opinion about the 

records, designation of the records. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

 MR. FARVER: 155.3, we did not 

include all missed neutron dose periods. We 

both agree there were 20 zero entries. But 

we looked closely at the DOE records, and we 

saw zeros in the neutron column for eight 

additional entries. So it should be 28 

zeros, instead of 20, not much impact on the 

dose. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In our response, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 348

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we agreed to the finding. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No further 

action. Okay. 155.4? 

 MR. FARVER: 155.4, NIOSH used 

one-half bioassay data, instead of one-half 

in the MDA values. Okay. Typically what you 

would do -- this is for the internal dose 

calculation -- is you use one-half the MDA 

values when it's less than MDA. And, near as 

I can tell, they used one-half the bioassay 

value. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, response 

would indicate that the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's a less 

than reported value in the bioassay record, 

-- 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which is a 

standard specific MDA or critical level or 

MDA, I guess, versus the -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Site profile. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 349

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- site profile, 

which is sort of a generic that you use when 

you don't have site-specific -- 

 MR. FARVER: So they reported the 

MDA? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. I went back 

and checked the records. And that's true. I 

agree with your result. It just wasn't clear 

to the reviewer because I don't believe the 

dosimetry records actually state that that is 

an MDA value. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It's not 

well-explained. We agreed with that. 

 MR. FARVER: I don't know if you 

want to slip a little statement in your TBD 

about if the records contain MDA values, you 

use one-half of the value given in the 

dosimetry records, the bioassay records. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll make a note. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where would 

this change occur, or what is being proposed? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 350

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, dose 

proposal is where we would consider in the 

TBDs where we list these. It's like tables 

of, you know -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If you've got 

table-specific MDAs, use those instead, you 

know something like that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, then, NIOSH 

is considering that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I'd say we 

will consider that. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what 

people will tell. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have an idea. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It could be a lot 

of changes, a lot of document changes for 

something that we are already doing anyway. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

exactly. Okay. Are we on the 155.5? 

 MR. FARVER: 155.5, SC&A could 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 

 351

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

verify NIOSH's bioassay value. This is for 

strontium. We just couldn't figure out how 

they came up with the value they used for 

their calculation. And we give an example of 

a calculation we think it should be based on 

the bioassay results from the employee. 

 And so we just finally concluded 

we don't know how they did it. And then 

NIOSH's response is -- and it's an order of 

magnitude high. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it was a 

claimant-favorable error, right, basically? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Response accepted? 

I don't -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It's 

under PER review anyway. So it doesn't 

matter. 

 MR. FARVER: Response accepted. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is 155.6 the same 

as 155.4? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 155.6 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 

 352

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the same as 155.4, I believe, about the 

one-half bioassay data, instead of the 

one-half MDA, only this time it's for 

strontium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 155.6 you said 

is the same as the 155.4? 

 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The MDA 

question? Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. This is 

strontium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Got you. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was 

plutonium, something else. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that's the 

same action. All right. Go ahead. 

 MR. FARVER: 155.7, failure to 

account for all internal doses from fission 

products. Now, that one I believe is the 

same as our previous ones. And I know we 

decided on those. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. Give 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 353

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me a number, and I can -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: 152.6 I think is 

where it appears. 

 MR. FARVER: Correct, 152.6. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We said there 

will be further adjustment. Profile 

document, NIOSH will compare the model used: 

the chooser approach or the OTIB 54 approach. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We have just 

neglected to put together -- 

 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- our 

comprehensive explanation of why we think 

that is okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What number 

were we just on? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: .7. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 155.7? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 155.8. 

We're coming toward the end here, guys. 

 MR. FARVER: 155.8. NIOSH failed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 354

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to assign the environmental tritium dose. 

They did assign cesium, strontium, plutonium. 

And, therefore, tritium should have been 

assigned during unmonitored years '78, '82, 

'84 to '88, and '94 to '95. And there were a 

couple of years where tritium doses, we 

acknowledge, were less than one millirem. So 

they would not get included. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We agreed with the 

findings. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: NIOSH agrees. 

No further action on that. And then the 

observations? 

 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: By definition, 

I'm thinking the observation does not require 

any actions. 

 MR. FARVER: No. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But 

let's go through them, nonetheless. I mean, 

I -- 

 MR. FARVER: The first observation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 355

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was there was an inconsistency in DOE 

records. And let me switch documents real 

quick, and I'll try and find that. The copy 

I was looking at is a draft. And it does not 

have those observations in it. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So your 

response to NIOSH's response sort of suggests 

that you don't disagree that there are 

inconsistencies, but you take the higher 

value one there? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The response 

and the description of the observation are 

apparently for the year 1989 -- there is a 

discrepancy between some of the different 

records in a claim file between HPAREH and 

HPRED and SLHP3 database. So that seems to 

be what the other -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are two or 

three different instances of it. And our 

response is, yes, we know that. We used a 

higher one each time. We have to go back and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 356

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

verify the facts that happen, and you want to 

have them verify that that actually was done. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I am 

assuming -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Like I said, 

since it is an observation, I don't think it 

requires an action. But it's more for our 

information, right, overall? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It might 

be an issue with the Savannah River review of 

the SEC. We're going to get into the 

databases and -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Their 

consistency, I'm sure we'll dive into that a 

little more there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Observation 2 is 

the Super S plutonium. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've already 

got that. Okay. I think that brings us to 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 

 357

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

close since we're all getting very quiet -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- on the 

microphone. And I've kind of had enough. I 

don't know about you guys. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Observation 3 had 

to do with the medical -- 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, there's 

observation 3? I'm sorry. I didn't see -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it has to do 

with only the X-ray exams performed as part 

of routine monitoring were included in dose, 

which is the approach that's done. If it's a 

person who has to get an X-ray because of a 

possible broken leg or something, we don't 

include those in dose reconstruction. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

Sorry. I totally missed observation 3. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's at the 

end of the page. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I want to go -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 358

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: One more page here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

think we are about cooked in this one. 

 MEMBER MUNN: You know the 64 is 

not bad. There are only 50 pages left. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You are just 

getting started, right, Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right. Now is 

the time to really get going. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You didn't 

thank us, but you are welcome for your 

wake-up call this morning. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I appreciate 

your having done it. I have no idea how that 

escaped my calendar. It's not on either of 

my calendars. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I am astonished in 

that I wasn't prepared to be online. Sorry 

about 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 

 359

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's all 

right. 

 MR. KATZ: It was kind of nice, 

Wanda. You're a little bit feisty first 

thing. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, let me tell 

you, being hauled out to what? What do you 

mean it's a Subcommittee meeting? Good 

grief. That's all right. I'm just glad it 

isn't video, guys. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we 

appreciate you being online. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. And 

thanks to everyone today. I think we made 

some good headway, believe it or not. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks to everyone for 

all the hard work. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's a long 

day. 

 MR. KATZ: 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 

 360

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we made 

some good headway, yes. And I think we will 

close it out unless there are any final 

thoughts by our DFO. 

 MR. KATZ: No. We are adjourned. 

Thank you, everyone on the phone, for hanging 

in there. 

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thanks a lot, 

everyone. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter was concluded at 4:47 p.m.)