THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 7 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the 7th 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


Reviews held at The Holiday Inn Select, Naperville, 


Illinois, on October 3, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

October 3, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEW WADE, DFO 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 


UPDATE FROM THE CHAIR 10 


FOURTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 12 


FIFTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 74 


BLIND REVIEWS 109 


SIXTH SET OF CASES 112 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 116 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 


Professor, Texas A&M University 


College Station, Texas 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


FARVER, DOUG, SC&A 


HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 


ZIEMER, PAUL, ABRWH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

OCT. 3, 2007
 

9:30 a.m.


 P R O C E E D I N G S 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I serve as the 


Designated Federal Official for the Advisory 


Board, and this is a meeting of the 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction of the 


Advisory Board. This is a duly-noticed meeting 


of the subcommittee. The committee --


subcommittee is very, very ably chaired by Mark 


Griffon. Its members are Gibson, Poston, Munn; 


alternates Clawson and Presley. Let the record 


show that all members and alternates are at the 


table participating in the meeting. 


We also have in the audience Dr. Ziemer, the 


Board Chair, who is observing. There are no 


concerns about quorum or exceeding quorum 


requirements because this is, again, a duly-


noted meeting of the subcommittee. 


Again I would ask those on the line to exercise 


some simple rules of etiquette in terms of 


participating. Mute your instrument if you're 


not speaking to the group. If you are 


speaking, really try and speak into a handset 


and not a speaker phone. And be mindful of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

background noises. 


I think it might be necessary for the 


technician to give us some instruction. 
I 


think we will have something of an interaction 


with several members on the phone and people at 


the table. Is it my understanding that when 


those on the phone are speaking you'll shut off 


our microphones to eliminate feedback to 


eliminate feedback so we should be able to 


engage in a dialogue, although it wouldn't be a 


simultaneous dialogue. That -- that -- which 


isn't good anyway, normally, so... 


I think -- are there any data needs that we 


have for any members of the subcommittee or the 


alternates? Do people have access to what they 


need to participate in this meeting? I think 


it's the review of sets four, five and some 


discussion of blind reviews. We can do copying 


if anyone needs it, if you'd like to have a 


hard copy in front of you. 


So with -- I'd also introduce Dr. Christine 


Branche, who's to my right. Dr. Branche is 


studying the -- the vagaries of DFO-ship and 


will be taking on for me in a reasonable amount 


of time. So she's going to sit up close to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

table and learn the business of what happens 


here. 


Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we need to go around the table 


and do introductions or -- and -- and on the 


line, who's on the phone line, 'cause I -- 


 DR. WADE: You can do that if you'd like. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, I'll start. Mark Griffon, 


chairing the subcommittee and with the Advisory 


Board. 


 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board member, no 


conflicts. 


 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board member. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH. 


 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the ORAU team. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, Board member, no 

conflict. 

 DR. POSTON: John Poston, no conflicts, Board 

member. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Board member, no 

conflict. 

 DR. BRANCHE: Christine Branche, NIOSH. 

 DR. WADE: And Lew Wade with the Advisory 


Board, and I work for NIOSH. It's not 


necessary that we identify the audience. 
I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

assume, from NIOSH and ORAU's point of view, 


the principals are at the table who will 


largely engage in this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We probably have. We have some 


people on the phone, but we believe that we can 


(unintelligible) most of the conver-- at least 


most of the conversation ourselves. 


 DR. WADE: So you ask your people to 


participate as required. I think from SC&A's 


point of view, John, the principals will be 


Hans and Kathy Behling? 


DR. MAURO: That's correct. 


 DR. WADE: If we could hear from Hans and 


Kathy. 


 (No responses) 


Can you hear us? 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: We didn't hear that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can barely hear that, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: A little bit higher, if you could 


get it a little bit higher. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, a little higher. Try that 


again, Kathy. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10

 DR. WADE: I would ask, if Hans or Kathy wish 


to speak, would you sort of give us a signal 


from the back of the room so we can understand 


that? Okay. Thank you. 


Mark? 


UPDATE FROM THE CHAIR


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. We're going to start 


reviewing, like -- like Lew said, the fourth 


set of case reviews, working from the matrix. 


Also the fifth set, and then probably more 


updates on the sixth and seventh set of cases, 


and -- and just a little discussion on the 


blind reviews and where we stand and how we're 


going to go forward with the blind review cases 


-- case selection, actually. 


The -- just -- just a little update. We had a 


meeting in between the last Board meeting -- 


I'm not sure of the date, but we discussed the 


fourth, fifth and sixth set. And for the 


fourth and fifth set we -- we've -- at least on 


almost all the findings we're fairly close to ­

- to a resolution. And from that meeting, 


NIOSH has generated a sort of a sub-matrix of 


the remaining issues where we asked for more 


information or more background calculations. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

And that's -- that's what I want to work from 


today. 


I will update the entire matrix for the fourth 


and fifth set to show the program actions in 


the final resolution column being completed. 


But other than these ones that we're discussing 


on these -- these recently e-mailed -- and I'll 


-- I'll -- as we introduce each one, I'll -- 


I'll read which one we're working from, but 


these sort of sub-matrices, if -- if they're 


not on the sub-matrix, basically they've been 


resolved in one way or another on the ma-- on 


the full matrix. And by that I mean either 


we've decided that -- we -- we've come to 


agreement between SC&A and NIOSH. In some 


cases there's agreement that there -- there's 


still an issue, but it's going to be resolved 


in the site profile review, or in the 


procedures review session. I think that covers 


the bulk of them, but -- but in one manner or 


another, we have a resolution -- like I said, 


except for these remaining ones on these sub-


matrices that -- that Stu has provided to us. 


So I think we should start from there and I'll 


-- I'll just read through the finding numbers 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

and then kind of turn it over to -- to Stu to 


respond to. I think, for the fourth set at 


least, I received a draft response to some of 


the findings from SC&A but did not yet for-- it 


-- it's in draft form. I di-- I didn't forward 


it to the full workgr-- or full subcommittee 


yet, so we may not be in a place to completely 


close this out, but we're real close, I think, 


on most of the fourth and fifth set issues. 


And hopefully -- or definitely by the next 


phone call meeting I think we can have these 


two closed out completely. 


FOURTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS
 

So for the fourth set, I'm looking at a 


document -- it says updated September 26th, 


2007 additional analysis for fourth set of DRs 


on the top. The first finding number is 65.4 ­

- everybody have that -- that document? 


I think this is the appropriate place to start 


-- right, Stu? Is this --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so I'll turn it over to you 


-- 65.4 -- actually this -- this is all, I -- I 


think, resolved from our subcommittee 


standpoint, as being -- NIOSH owes us a, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

quote/unquote, global response or glob-- it's a 


global issue and we're going to get a response 


from the procedures workgroup, so it's going to 


be closed out there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then going on to 67.6, here you 


have some additional analysis, and I think 


maybe you can go through that with us and... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, 67.6, just -- just for 


everyone's information on -- 


 DR. WADE: Stu, you need to get the microphone 


close and speak into it -- for all of us. You 


want to make that rule. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, everybody needs to 


do it like Dr. Wade is, please. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was I okay? 


THE COURT REPORTER: You're doing fine, Mark. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- for 67.6 -- well, first 


of all, let me just describe a little bit of 


the look of the document we're looking at. 


Information that is italicized and in red is 


new information that's been added to this since 


our last -- since the last subcommittee 


meeting, so that's the additional information 


that was provided since the last one. And the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

information in the additional analysis column, 


in the other font, is information that was on 


there the last time we met. 


67.6 -- finding 67.6 was originally a finding 


about some issues with the first version of the 


Savannah River workbook and its treatment of 


dosimeter readings for -- that were less than 


LOD over two, not including those as in the 


missed dose calculation but rather counting 


that dose in the measured dose. And also the 


use of a triangular distribution for dose 


conversion factors that encompassed all 


geometries and not just the AP geometry. So 


that was the original finding. 


And so the original action that we took was to 


rework the case, addressing the findings, you 


know, and show what the outcome would be. And 


in that rework we did -- we adopted all changes 


to technique that would be used. So when we 


did that, we chose a different dose conversion 


factor for low energy photons, for less than 


30, because this was a -- specifically a 


plutonium exposure and so you'd have a better ­

- you know, you don't have this broad range of 


zero all the way to 30, you know, that your -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

your (unintelligible) photon energy is 17 keV, 


so you could choose a -- so a different -- was 


chosen and so the -- the follow-up question 


after we provided our initial response was why 


did you change the DCF on low energy photons 


because there had been no finding about that in 


the original report. And so our response -- 


that I'm finally getting to, the new 


information here -- is that it's our standard 


practice that when we rework a case, for 


whatever reason, when it comes back to us for 


rework and we need to, you know, complete out 


the whole -- the whole case, we will adopt all 


the changes that would apply to it for a 


reconstruction for a -- you know, that would be 


done today versus how it was done originally 


when we rework it. We do that when we get a 


case back for Program Evaluation Report or we 


get a DOL return for any reason, we work it in 


accordance with current practice and that's 


what was done on this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess -- I guess my follow-up 


on this would be sort of rework versus 


recalculating -- you know, we -- we asked for 


clarification on how things were calculated, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

giving the procedures of the time, 'cause this 


-- this new method wasn't available when the 


original DR was done. And unless this is being 


-- I mean this re-- this is not an official 


rework that would go back to the claimant. 


Right? It -- they're not going to get a 


different DR --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- report. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- no. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I guess I -- I -- you 


know, I -- I understand, you know, what you're 


saying, why you would -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, let me ask a 


question. If -- if the DR changed, then I 


presume that they would get another report or 


something, if there was a change in the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You mean if there's a change in 


compensation decision? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If there's a change in 


compensation decision because of something 


that's found, we would notify the Department of 


Labor, and they would have (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. No, I -- I -- I guess I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

trying to -- I'm trying to just think this 


through, that -- you know, 'cause we're trying 


a -- also in -- in this random selection of 


cases to review, we're trying to look and see 


whether the DR was done correctly, given the 


procedures of the time, you know, and when you 


-- you know, you're -- you're responding with 


answers and -- and sometimes more information, 


including further demonstration of what you -- 


how you calculated the dose to begin with, but 


we're not necessarily asking for a case to be 


reworked in that -- that sense that the term is 


normally used. They -- a rework is done for -- 


when you're requested by DOL. Correct? So 


I... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it -- the -- the changes 


that we -- in the original finding, the changes 


that were made that led to the original finding 


are changes in technique that came out of this 


subcommittee's review. Because the original 


procedure -- the original dose reconstruction 


procedure was to use the measured dose that was 


recorded. And the original procedure and -- 


that came -- you know, that was an adapt-- 


adaptation of IG-1 and it was included in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

original workbook, was to use the full range of 


DCF values for the range of DCF. So it was 


done in accordance with the procedures at the 


time. 


Now in the -- in the meantime, largely as a 


result of review by this subcommittee, those 


two issues were pointed out, is that listen, if 


your LOD -- if your reading is less than LOD 


over two, then that's really not a detectable 


number and that should be in the missed dose 


category. And also, there are some issues with 


the full range of geometries and use of the 


full range of geometries in IG-1, and so you 


(unintelligible) use AP. So those changes in 


technique were adopted after this dose 


reconstruction was done. And this was -- and 


so we were saying okay, given the changes that 


have been -- taken place in technique since 


this one was done, what would the result be. 


So -- I mean it was done -- when it was done, 


it was done in accordance with procedures of 


the time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Adjustment in procedures came 


about after this one was done. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19

 MR. GRIFFON: After this review. Okay, that's 


what I wanted to get a handle on. Okay. May--


maybe -- I don't know if it makes sense for -- 


well, Kathy and Hans are on the line. I don't 


know who's going to be the principal respondent 


for SC&A, but I know we have some draft 


responses to these, but if you want to weigh in 


now, feel free to. 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) Kathy 


(unintelligible) hear me? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) was -- was what 


Stu had said (unintelligible) take 


(unintelligible) we were with the -- we were 


only taking (unintelligible) either 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Ka-- ho-- hold on, we -- 

 MS. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) --

 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy --

 DR. WADE: We can't understand. 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) okay that there 


were errors (unintelligible) the first time 


through (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you stop her? 


 MS. BEHLING: -- where they indicate they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

should be an AP geometry. 


 MR. FARVER: This is Doug Farver with SC&A -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Hold on -- wait -- wait. 


 DR. WADE: We can't hear her. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can't hear her. 


 DR. WADE: She needs to -- if it's not the 


electronic system, she needs to slow down and 


speak a little more clearly. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: ... Behling and from here on in 


I'm going to let Doug respond to these 


questions. We were on vacation last week and 


Doug has -- he's very capable of going through, 


I think, of all of the -- these findings and he 


has looked at them. And if he's not 


comfortable with that, I -- I can certainly 


assist. This is very difficult using the phone 


in this manner. 


 The only comment that I would have is it was 


really SC&A's position on this particular 


finding that these were not necessarily guide-- 


not guidelines of the time. These were -- this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

DCF issue, in our mind, was something of an 


error. I mean when you indicate that you're 


going to use an AP geometry, then you use the 


DCF range associated with an AP geometry. 
I 


don't know that it was ever correct to use this 


min and maximum value for all geometries. 


The second issue is, we al-- also thought, even 


if it was not built into the workbooks at the 


time, it was still an error and not claimant 


favorable to assume that values that are less 


than LOD over two should -- they -- they should 


be considered as missed dose. 


So those two issues that were in the original 


findings were errors and it -- it had nothing 


to do with what -- what version of the 


Implementation Guide and so on was in place. 


At least that's how I view it. 


 Thereafter when we brought this issue up -- 


like I said, NIOSH did rework it using all of 


the more current information and that gave them 


the opportunity or -- when they reworked it, 


they obviously realized that the photon dose 


increased but the less than 30 keV, the low 


energy photon dose decreased because of using a 


newer version or an -- an addition to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

Implementation Guide. 


So, you know, I -- I -- I understand what they 


did, but I don't think that -- that I 


necessarily totally agree with the fact that 


they were using -- I think these initial 


findings were errors and not that they were 


using an older version of -- of the procedure 


and Implementation Guide. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Kathy. We're going to 


ask Doug to come to the microphone. Doug, 


could you remake those points, just for the 


record, please? 


 MR. FARVER: Yes, sir. As Kath-- my name's 


Doug Farver with SC&A, and as Kathy mentioned, 


the original issues were the range of dose 


conversion factors where we thought were 


inappropriate and the method of calculating 


missed dose using LOD over two, which were 


technical issues we felt were in error. So 


it's not just they were -- they may have been 


following the procedure, but we felt the 


procedure was in error. That was the initial 


finding. 


And as is NIOSH's practice, when they went and 


updated the case, they reworked it according to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

the current -- standards of the day, should we 


say, whatever we've found out since these cases 


have been done. And sometimes these cases are 


two, three years old, so there's been a lot of 


information gathered between now and then. 


I understand their process, and I think that is 


something that the working group might want to 


consider, whether they like that process or 


whether they would prefer NIOSH to go back and 


rework it to the standards of the day as 


opposed to the current standards. So we 


understand what they did. 


But the original findings about the dose 


conversion factor and the missed dose and LOD 


over two seems (unintelligible). It was the 


fact about the less than 30 keV doses, which 


has to do with the implementing current 


processes at NIOSH. 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. I -- I mean I -- I 


think we get the -- the just (sic) of the 


finding and the response, and I'm still -- I 


don't know if other -- other subcommittee 


members have a sense of the -- I mean the -- 


the question on the rework versus 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

recalculating, I -- I'm not sure how -- if this 


is a real borderline case, either, I can't 


remember, but the question comes up that if -- 


if, you know -- you know, this -- this bottom 


line question of was the decision right at the 


time, when the DR was done. And if we're 


reworking to -- to -- you know, there were some 


errors and we're reworking based on new 


information and it's still under, that doesn't 


necessarily answer the question of did you get 


it right at the time, when it was done. 


So -- Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: If I understood what I think was 


said, the reconstruction was done in accordance 


with the procedure. The procedure itself had 


flaws. Did I get that correctly, Doug? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's right. 


 MS. MUNN: So if that's the case, then the 


question is not whether what's been done 


subsequently was -- was done in the appropriate 


manner. It's whether it is the correct process 


for us to have identified that there was a 


procedural flaw and have that procedural flaw 


addressed, and I believe NIOSH has done that. 


Have they not? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: So to go back to the original 


procedure, as long as we know that procedure 


was flawed and the correction has been made, 


then there does not seem to be any additional 


issue here. The dose reconstructor followed 


the procedure. We've identified a flaw in the 


procedure. The procedure has been revised. 


don't know what further steps we can take. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, I'm getting -- I mean 


we -- we agree on that part. The question is, 


it kicked all up to a rework, in a sense. You 


-- you implemented all the other modifications 


which have come subsequent to the initial DR 


being done, and that -- I'm not sure how much 


that affected or didn't affect the overall dose 


and the potential for this being, you know, a ­

- a -- a case that could have been -- that -- 


that could have been, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, well, sitting -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the outcome could have been 


different, that's what I'm (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sitting here, I don't know, 


either. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But suppose it were. You know, 


suppose that only the LOD over two and the 


triangular distribution corrections were made, 


and we said okay, because we just want to see 


what that effect is, let's re-- let's just do 


that. Let's don't do the full rework, let's 


just do that. And suppose the POC came out 


above 50 percent when we did that. Well, what 


action would we -- supposed to take? Well, 


that means we ask DOL to send it back. DOL 


would send it back. We would rework it in 


accordance with all the current practices, and 


it wouldn't be above 50 percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, but -- but as far as --


since we're randomly selecting here, I guess my 


point is -- I -- I -- I think we're on, you 


know, the same page. Since we're randomly 


selecting cases, though, you know, my final 


outcome for us, you know, one final finding 


could be that this case may have been affected, 


you know. I mean that -- that's -- you know, 


that's one -- I mean I keep -- I -- we -- we 


have this discussion again and again that well, 


we've reviewed 60 cases and, you know, what's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

the bottom line. People say we're not looking 


at POC, but everybody comes up to the mike and 


says to me well, what's the bottom line. None 


of these cases would have changed. Right? And 


here you have a case where what's the bottom 


line -- well, it may have affected the bottom 


line, and then you may have had to rework the 


whole case. You know, you're -- I -- I 


understand it, but you're randomly -- we're 


randomly selecting, so we don't know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- if this may have selec-- 


affected one case or -- or a number of them, 


you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We don-- the selection -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The selection's not really 


random. They're -- it -- it's preferentially 


selected to have cases close to but not above 


50 percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's true, they're 


not -- not completely random. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That is the selection 


(unintelligible) so it's not really a random -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it's not -- we're not looking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

at all --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not looking at all of them, 


that's true. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I just at this 


point have an observation. It seems to me if 


the Board in its past were reviewing the 


scientific validity and accuracy of the dose 


reconstruction, then -- and to accomplish that 


you were looking at individual dose 


reconstructions but they were not essentially 


reviews of individual reconstructions in and of 


themselves. They're looking at the scientific 


validity and accuracy of the processes 


employed. And to that extent, you -- the Board 


-- or the working group subsequently did 


identify an error. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: And I think that -- that's where it 


stands. You know, these are not second bites 


at the apple, so to speak, of all the dose 


reconstructions we've done. I mean I think we 


take great pains to separate those two 


concepts. So --


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I think we're all right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

and that -- that was helpful in clarifying the 


initial finding and that we -- you know, we -- 


errors were identified and corrected and -- so 


I -- I think we're all right in terms of why -- 


I understand why NIOSH reworked the case, and I 


think we know -- you know, we -- we can now say 


what -- you know, this was a finding and it 


resulted in modifications and -- but ultimately 


the case was reworked and it checks out. SC&A 


agrees with the way the rework was done, at 


least in their draft analysis, so -- okay. All 


right. We can move on from that one, if 


there's no more comments. I'm sorry to take up 


so much time with that. I just wanted to 


understand --


 DR. WADE: Well, it's important to get that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- rework versus recalculate, 


yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the -- the next finding 


that has new information on it is 68.2, the 


finding is failure to account for angular 


response of dosimeter. And this finding speaks 


to the fact that this -- we use the dose to the 


badge -- you know, the recorded dose is the 


dose to the badge, and is that really a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

person's dose. So in choosing to do that, 


we've essentially used this information, that 


for a dosimeter the angular dependence is 


relatively small, for about 45 degrees each way 


normal -- up through normal to 45 degrees. 


There's a relatively low -- you know, actually 


very low angular dependence through that range. 


For most occupations and workplaces we 


essentially make the assumption, although we 


don't speak right out and say this, that the 


majority of a person's dose -- not necessarily 


the majority of their time, but a majority of 


their dose will be received from proximity and 


facing the -- the radiation source. And 


therefore we believe the badge to be the best 


first estimate at the dose to a person. 


Now there are cases when that would not 


necessarily be the case. And there have been 


geometric adjustments made in some of our 


technical documents, notably glovebox workers. 


And I believe there are a series of geometric 


adjustments in the Mallinckrodt site profile 


for non-presumptive cases. And we make 


consideration of things like that when there's 


clear evidence that there's some need for an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

31 

adjustment here. So -- and -- and typically if 


a person -- you know, if you want to carry it 


to extremities versus badge, if a person has a 


cancer on the extremity, we know the badge 


reading in all likelihood is not going to be 


the appropriate reading. So we do make 


geometric adjustments in cases, but we do feel 


like by and large the badge dose is the best 


indicator that we would have, rather than 


trying to find some routine adjustment to the 


badge dose for the person's dose. 


 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver with SC&A. We agree 


with -- with what they have written. We just 


want to see -- we -- we would like a little bit 


more time to see if, in this case, a geometric 


adjustment is warranted. We agree that most of 


the time it's one and about the -- the -- the 


angles, but we'd just like a little bit more 


time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And Stu, just -- just to find our 


place on the matrix here, that's finding number 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 68.2. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 68.2. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) number these 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

pages (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, the only thing I -- we -- 


we skipped over 67.8, 67.9 and 67.11? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's no information 


that's been provided since -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the last Board --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, right, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just since they're on the 


matrix, I was going to -- I was going to at 


least ask SC&A --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- if -- so let me -- let me -- I 


think we're okay on 68.2. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Going back to 67.8, that's being 


addressed in the procedures workgroup. There's 


no more -- we don't need any more there. 67.9 


and 67.11, we did see this initial analysis at 


the last meeting, and I just wanted to make 


sure for our matrix that SC&A concurred. 
I 


think -- I think we had agreement -- okay. So 


I'm getting a nod that SC&A agrees with that. 


So those -- we have agreement on 67.9 and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

67.11. 


 Then moving on to 68.3. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 68.3 -- 68.3, we also 


added additional information. It's -- there is 


some -- I believe there's some red non-


italicized information which was -- no, I guess 


not. If there's red unitalicized, it was new 


information at the last Board meeting, and then 


red italicized is where the new information for 


this Board meeting starts. 


This is about conversion of -- of ambient dose 


using -- to organ dose using the isotropic DCF 


since we generally use AP DCFs. But in our 


position, environmental or ambient exposure is 


in fact an isotropic exposure and unless the 


measuring device is shielded on one side -- for 


instance, like being worn on a person's chest ­

- that isotropic is appropriate to use. And as 


a general rule, many of the ambient doses are 


either calculated numbers from emission data or 


some of the times they're instrument 


measurements, and on occasion they'll be 


environmental TLDs, so at any rate, our 


position is as a general rule an ambient dose 


is an isotropic exposure geometry so the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

isotropic are appropriate to use. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Doug. 


 MR. FARVER: SC&A agrees with that. That's 


fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- and I think -- wa-- 


was the initial reason this was a finding -- 


was it a question of the conservative 


application of the AP versus the iso or -- I 


mean I -- I think this is logical and it makes 


sense, but I think there was a question of 


consistency, was there -- or no? Am I wrong on 


that? 


All right. I think we all agree this is 


appropriate, so SC&A agrees with that. 


68.4? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this -- there's no new 


information for this. I believe we did provide 


IMBA analyses of these. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver with SC&A. At our 


last meeting, yes, you -- you provided the 


analyses for IMBA and (unintelligible) the 


initial finding was the selection of solubility 


class was not claimant favorable as to -- they 


were choosing type S material or type M 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

material. 


We went back and looked at this case 'cause we 


were reviewing NIOSH's data and we went back 


and just reviewed the case, and we noticed a 


couple of other things. One of the things we 


noticed when NIOSH did their calculation is 


they assumed there was a bioassay sample on the 


last day of employment. There wasn't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wait, is this 68.4 or 69.4 you're 


looking at, Doug? 


 MR. FARVER: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm at 69.4. Are 


we at 68.4? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 68.4 is the one we -- yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: Oh, I don't believe we have any 


concerns on that one. It's all right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we're okay on that one, 


yeah. All right. 68.5 then? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we up to -- which -- which 


finding do you want to go to, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's 68.5 and it's really -- no 


further information from NIOSH, so -- so I 


think SC&A's okay on this. 68.7 is being 


addressed in the procedures workgroup. 68.8 --


again, I think this falls under the whole 


approach for internal dose assessment and I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

think SC&A was in agreement with this. And 


68.9, I'm assuming the same unless I hear 


otherwise from -- okay. 


Then we're on to 69, which is the next case -- 


69.2, first of all, failure to account for 


recorded photon dose uncertainty. I'll -- Stu, 


nothing new here. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't think -- I think 


SC&A's okay with the response from NIOSH on 


this. Believe the same goes for 69.3, it's the 


same issue, really. And 69.4 -- this is the 


one you were starting to talk about now, 69.4. 


 MR. FARVER: Oh --


 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. Mark, if 


you don't mind, could we go back to 68.8 and 


68.9? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- I believe, unless I 


(unintelligible) for some response from NIOSH 


or some additional information from NIOSH. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there are blanks in the 


NIOSH response, Stu, but there's dates that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- indicate that you gave us 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

something, so I'm not sure -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, it's -- hang on a 


minute. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Kathy. 


(Pause) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I may have a little trouble 


finding it right away. 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: My -- my sense is that .8 and .9 


tie back into the internal dose calculation, 


whether the -- the approach used was going to 


be bounding of the information in the CATI and 


-- and -- and any incidents brought up, but I ­

- I -- I do note -- Kathy is correct, we don't 


really have a response in the matrix here, so ­

- unless it was all in that one response, Stu. 


That's all I can think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Well... 


(Pause) 


I'm a little at a loss right now to be able to 


find --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where that was sent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was thinking --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I was thinking it might have 


come in with 68.4 and 5, you might have rolled 


it all into one response. 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) I see the 


transmission letter, (unintelligible) based on 


information on 67.9, 68.4 and 68.5 


(unintelligible) says the (unintelligible) and 


fourth 20-case matrix (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, here's what I'd propose to 


do --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- let's hold these open for now. 


Let's not say SC&A agrees yet until we get to a 


little better clarification, but likely -- it ­

- it -- I think that we had agreement or close 


to it here. Let's just make sure we -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- actually I believe 


there was some information sent. It was part 


of a folder of -- it's a Word file response to 


68.5, 68.8 and 68.9. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it was all together with 68.5? 


That's what --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It was with 68.5. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I thought it might have been, 


yeah. But you didn't summarize in the matrix 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

here so maybe -- maybe we can just -- let's 


flush that out and leave it as a likely 


agreement with SC&A, but -- but we'll make sure 


-- let -- let Kathy have a final look at that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right? 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) Yeah, that was 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, you -- just to clarify, you 


can maybe pull out the appropriate sentence or 


two that can go in this matrix -- right? -- to 


-- from your letter response? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this -- and that's for 


68.8 --


 MR. GRIFFON: 68.8 and 9, right. All right, 


69.2 and 3 we went to, and then I -- 69.4 I 


think Doug was getting ready to give us a 


response to that, so I'm on -- I'm on 69 -- 


69.4. 


 MR. FARVER: Okay, now 69.4. This was a 


solubility finding about the difference between 


type M and type S plutonium. And we went back 


and reviewed the case and we found a couple of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

other items. When they initially calculated 


the plutonium dose -- is -- they chose a 


bioassay point in 1996, the last day of the 


EE's employment. However, the last bioassay 


datapoint was actually in 1982. So when you go 


back and actually plot the data, you -- you 


wind up with a higher dose than their 


hypothetical dose, and -- so that's just 


something new that came out of this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I -- I think this is 


probably one that -- that you -- you -- like I 


said, SC&A did provide a draft response to some 


of these things. I did not distribute it. I 


think this might be something that NIOSH needs 


to look at closer. 


 MR. FARVER: I agree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we might even be able to get 


Doug and Kathy on the phone with Stu or -- and 


whoever at ORAU and resolve this as one of our 


technical conference calls rather than a full 


committee. This looks like a sidebar might be 


necessary. It's a -- th-- there are some 


questions on -- that we'd have to look at the 


actual IMBA runs, I think, and compare notes, 


basically. Is that fair? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think so. Could there have 


been a termination in vivo count for this 


person? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was asking, if 


there was a termination count in '96, but 


apparently --


 MR. FARVER: There was no lung count. There 


may have been a whole body count, but I'm not 


even sure of that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) I'll -- I'll 


just have to go look. I don't (unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Have to get a closer look, and I 


-- I propose that we do this with a technical 


call and then bring all -- all the information 


back certainly in the public meeting, but let's 


let a few people work together on a phone call 


and resolve this in a technical phone call. We 


can set that up before the next meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Mark, this is Bob. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: When they recalculated this, what 


was the change in the -- in the finding? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you had a fairly 


significant -- I don't know how significant, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

but a difference in dose, certainly. 


 MR. FARVER: Well, the additional finding -- we 


believe it should have been a different 


material class and NIOSH did not believe that, 


and they gave their justification for what they 


-- they did. So they did not recalculate. And 


-- and during our review of their response, 


this is where this other information we found ­

- about that they may not have properly 


calculated it in the first place. This is what 


we need to get with NIOSH and -- and let them 


look at. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think what -- I think Bob was 


asking, with your approach you got a slightly 


higher dose. Is that -- than the initial -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 MR. FARVER: It -- it was a higher dose than -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: -- and I do not know how that 


would affect the POC. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. So we -- we just 


have to have a technical call -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Need to check that out. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) What site was that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

case (unintelligible), do we know? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was that Savannah River or -- 


or... 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Savannah River, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Doug, why don't you -- why don't you 


come up here --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, why don't you --


 DR. WADE: -- and join us. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You might as well. 


 DR. WADE: Easier for you and save you all the 


wear and tear. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now that we're almost to -- well, 


we'll probably need him for the fifth set, too. 


All right, 69.5 is the next one I have, and you 


actually gave a separate document, Stu. This 


is your other document. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So there's a separate Word doc-- 


Word document? Yeah, Word document that -- 


that gives a little more detail on the 


selection of the triangular distribution. Did 


everyo-- does everyone have that second 


document as well? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

All right. Stu, I'll let you describe that and 


then... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure if SC&A had an 


opportunity to look at this or not, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The finding relates to use of a 


triangular distribution with a min of zero, a 


max of the MBA* and a load of MBA over two in 


the evaluation of this in vivo data in this 


case, because in the record received from 


Savannah River there is a number called net in 


the -- in the actual output of the in vivo 


count there's this number in their column 


that's called net, meaning net counts, and 


those are consistently positive. But in the 


Savannah River record the net count rate for a 


particular count is just -- is the count of an 


individual minus the background of an empty 


chamber background. And an empty chamber in 


vivo background will be far less than the count 


rate would be if you had a person -- an 


unexposed person in there. So there is a --


there is a predicted number of counts they -- 


in the region of interest, based usually on 


some other aspect -- it's usually based on some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

other counting, some other -- counting of some 


other region of the energy spectrum, maybe 


potassium-40 peak or something, and so there's 


a calculated number of counts that they would 


expect in the region of interest based on, you 


know, the other -- the presence of a person in 


the -- in the chamber. So the actual number 


that is the in vivo result number is in a 


column called diff -- d-i-f-f, or difference -- 


which is the difference between the net counts 


and the calculated counts. So since those 


counts -- that differen-- that difference 


column is -- is actually those numbers for the 


majority of these counts, do move back and 


forth between positive and negative values. 


And so that's what you would expect in a -- in 


a -- in an unexposed individual. 


 Then there was one count where it did look to 


be a positive count. It's an americium-241 


count. And the dose reconstruction essentially 


judged that to be a false positive result 


because the person did not work in a location 


where, you know, purified americium-241 was 


used. They worked in a situation where 


plutonium was used that would have americium­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

241 in it. There was a bioassay sample taken 


eight days after this in vivo count for 


plutonium intake to -- to try to confirm -- 


essentially they were investigating this in 


vivo count is what it looks like -- to see was 


there a bioassay number here that -- that will 


support that there was some intake here, and 


that didn't occur. And then there were no 


subsequent positive in vivo counts, so based on 


that, dose reconstruction determined that this 


americium result that was, you know, 


incorrectly counted as -- or incorrectly came 


up positive and so it wasn't included and so -- 


in the dose reconstruction. It would have to 


be -- you know, if -- so that's -- that was the 


thought process that was used. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and you actually -- I mean 


in the document, if I read this right, you -- 


you actually indicate that there was a -- a 


study group used for this background sort of 


rate. Is that -- is that -- am I reading that 


right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If I'm not mistaken -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Looks like in the matrix there 


was one person, then -- then you mention 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

several people were monitored and some sort of 


background average was calculated. Is that --


is that documented --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- at Savannah River or -- is 


this Savannah River, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It is documented, yes -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it's -- I believe it was 


a population of unexposed people were counted 


in order to determine that calculated -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- value. What would you 


expect in the region of interest for a certain 


number of counts, however -- however they 


depend -- however they get. It was done 


various ways at different sites, but usually it 


involves a counting in a higher energy region. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And that -- that comparison to 


the region of interest. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Doug. 


 MR. FARVER: When we reviewed the lung count 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

data, particularly the '81, '82 and '83 lung 


counts, if you notice, the chest wall thickness 


changes. The height and weight of the 


individual stays the same, but the chest wall 


thickness changes, and we would like to discuss 


this with NIOSH, but I believe that there's an 


algorithm that they use to calculate chest wall 


thickness in the -- I don't believe they used 


ultrasound back then at Savannah River. And it 


may just be a typo, but I believe that chest 


wall thickness value will have an impact on the 


counts. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I -- I think that 


a conversation maybe would be worthwhile. Now 


you -- this is part of your draft response as 


well, or is there (unintelligible) about this 


or not? 


 MR. FARVER: No, this just came to light 


recently. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, this can --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- certainly be in that technical 


phone call that we do follow up on this. It's 


the same case, so -- yeah. But Jim might have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

an answer for us. 


DR. NETON: I just don't think that a chest 


wall thickness correction would affect the 


number of counts observed. It might affect the 


efficiency correction in the end result, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It would affect the calculated 


value. 


DR. NETON: Calculated value, but as far as a 


basis to -- comparison to the MBA would have 


no... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But it would -- it would affect 


the difference. It would affe-- since it would 


affect the calculated value in the region of 


interest. 


DR. NETON: Only if you applied the efficiency 


to those values prior to doing the final 


calculation. I mean a chest wall thickness 


correction is -- is an efficiency-based number, 


so the net numbers that are coming off the 


chest are irrelevant, the chest wall thick-- 


they are what they are. You take the net 


number that you observe and then apply an 


efficiency correction based on the chest wall 


thickness. I don't -- I don't think the net 


counts here has any basis -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50

 MR. GRIFFON: Comes into play, yeah, yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- in the chest wall thickness. 


This is probably something we should take off 


line --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- but I don't see how chest wall 


thickness could affect -- 


 MR. FARVER: And it may not have an impact. 


The point was there's a discrepancy in the 


chest wall thickness and we'd just like you to 


take a look at it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Then back to the primary 


document we've been working from, 69.6 is the 


next finding, and I think we have -- 69.6, you 


have that one? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not on --


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's 5 and 7. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 69.5, 69.--


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) You're back on the 


original matrix (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm back on the one Stu just sent 


out -- 69.6, the top of page 3 -- no, I don't 


have a 69.7, actually. I didn't think I edited 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

this one. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: The finding is September 28th. 


Wait a second, wait a second. I am on the 


wrong document. I'm sorry. 


I'm sorry, I was looking at -- at SC&A's draft 


responses -- 69.7, you're correct. All right. 


And that's being deferred to the workgroup. 


This is the fission product analysis. 


 And then 69.8? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is the same issue as 


before but this is in the fission product 


region of interest. And again it's the use of 


the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the difference column as 


opposed to the net column as what the indicator 


is of the bioassay result. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And any new issues on this one, 


Doug? 


 MR. FARVER: We're at 69.8, is that right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: Triangular distribution, is that 


what we're talking about? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. FARVER: Okay. 


(Pause) 


We'd like a little more time -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: -- and we'll probably agree, but I 


don't want to say anything definite at the 


moment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. And then I go 


to 70.2? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there's nothing new here, 


I believe, that was provided in May. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe it's -- we did 


this. We just used the correct values and 


recalculated the POC. I believe that's 


probably in the information provided. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't know that you have a 


-- any follow-up concern with this, Doug, but ­

- I notice it's not in your draft matrix, so I 


don't... 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. FARVER: No, what I have is that -- 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53

 MR. FARVER: -- they -- they agree they were 


going to make the connection. 


 (Whereupon, Mr. Griffon, Mr. Hinnefeld and Mr. 


Farver all spoke simultaneously.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: So there's agreement, right, 


right, right --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- okay. 71.2? Really the 

question goes to SC&A. I think there was no 

more information, but... 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) I'd say we 


(unintelligible) previous one, NIOSH agrees 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I'm not sure why this 


made this matrix, Stu, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean it's --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We were asked -- it's -- it's 


something we were to provide additional 


information on that we provided in May. It's 


the use of a DCF of -- of one and a -- a 


constant for measured dose as an overestimating 


approximation for using a normally-distributed 


measured dose, combined with a triangular DCF 


that is all less than one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So there has -- there was 


information assembled that illustrated the 


effect -- you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's (unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you did it both ways, what 


was the change, and it was the -- the 


triangular distribution and the normal 


distribution of the measured dose were only -- 


only -- the only time that exceeded the other 


way was for low doses on a couple of organs. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I do -- do remember this 


discussion. I think we were -- we were in 


agreement on that. Right? SC&A was in 


agreement. 


 MR. FARVER: I'd like to go back to 69.6, and I 


believe the last I have in the matrix was SC&A 


to review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 69.6, that was the one I 


was saying was on your matrix but not on Stu's, 


so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) Okay, well, 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- SC&A -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- matrix (unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

SC&A's reviewed, then I would not 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I generated this because of 


stuff we owed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FARVER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's why I generated this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right, so we -- we asked 


SC&A to -- SC&A wanted more time to follow up 


and review --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- on that one, so 69.6, do you 


have a -- a response to that? 


 MR. FARVER: Yes. We agree to that. We 


understand how IMBA breaks it out, and then 


totals it up as lung to americium, so we -- 


we've worked through that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that was -- that was the 


assigning all those alpha dose instead of 


breaking out the electron do-- yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so SC&A's looked at that 


and is in agreement, so we can close that one 


out. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) closed, 69.9, 


right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 69.6 is closed. 


 MS. MUNN: Point 6. 


 MR. FARVER: And then 69.9 I believe was 


further discussion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 69.9, I do have that one. 


Okay. I guess I should look at both the 


matrices here. 69.9 -- Stu, maybe you can -- I 


mean Doug, maybe you can outline this finding 


and tell us where you stand on it now 'cause 


some people probably don't have this in front 


of them. 69.9, the original finding says use 


of environmental internal exposure values to 


account for likely tritium, iodine and uranium 


inappropriate. 


 MR. FARVER: And -- and basically the NIOSH 


response was well, the person was not 


occupationally monitored for these nuclides and 


therefore we assessed an environmental dose -- 


which we agree with, all except the tritium. 


The individual did submit a couple of tritium 


samples. It is not indicated in the case files 


anywhere where the dose reconstructor looked at 


these results, or did a calculation. Because 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

if you did a calculation, such as using your 


tritium workbook, you would come up with a 


couple of dose entries for the year that the 


individual submitted the bioassay samples, 


whereas there are no dose entries for tritium 


for those years. And this is something we can 


work with NIOSH on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we can -- we'll put it in 


the phone call. You know, again, we'd like to, 


you know, see the draft and -- and then we'll 


have a call. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the question I had on this 


-- and I don't if -- if either NIOSH or SC&A 


can answer, but for uranium, for instance, I 


assume that you looked at job title and 


locations and determined that this person 


didn't work in any areas with uranium, so you 


looked at the envi-- instead of a coworker 


model --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, the --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you used environmental. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we may have actually 


said that since there was no data, we said, you 


know, we assumed he wasn't exposed. But that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

not what we do. We don't consider the absence 


of monitoring data to be evidence of lack of 


exposure. We have to have something else to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you looked at the wor-- okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I wanted to hear. 


All right. And -- and the other -- the tritium 


we follow up on a technical call. 


And I think I'm back to NI-- the matrix we're 


working from, 76.2, is that where I left off? 


I think 76.2 at the bottom of -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- bottom of the page. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this was -- if I'm not 


mistaken, this was a Fernald case that excluded 


neutron doses for a number of years when it 


should have been included, and we've gone back 


and included those, and then the effect of 


doing that is -- is recorded here. I believe I 


probably have but did not distribute a folder ­

- a file that shows this work, so I can -- I 


can send that to the committee just to verify 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we've done --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'd be interested in it, only 


because of -- and I -- and I'm not saying -- 


I'm not disputing this, but it is interesting 


that the ten rem only affected the POC very 


slightly, so -- I'm not disputing that, but it 


would be interesting to look at. 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


over a significant period of years. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Recall that if you have a -- it 


takes quite a lot sometimes to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Oh, yeah, I know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 40 per-- if you have a 40 


percent POC, you're only 50 -- you still need 


50 percent more --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- risk to get you to 50 


percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, like I said, I didn't 


expect a dramatic switch, but that was like 


less than one percent, which was interesting to 


me. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60

 MS. MUNN: Just over (unintelligible) years. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So if you can -- if you can -- 


yeah. Maybe if you can just give us that -- 


that backup dat-- material on that and -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- can I ask a follow-up? 


I don't know if -- if Doug has any, but on that 


one you included unmonitored -- I guess we can 


see this in the details, but unmonitored 


neutron dose in this case, was it a coworker 


model or was it just a --


 MR. HINNEFELD: At Fernald I believe a neutron-


to-photon ratio is used. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you used neutron-to-photon 


ratios? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's what's used at 


Fernald. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So I think we might want 


to -- that'll be in the backup materials? I 


mean the stuff you can give us? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the -- the derivation of 


the neutron-to-photon ratio I believe is in the 


Fernald site profile, so I mean I could 


probably clip out the appropriate section. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well -- or just reference it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

You don't have to -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Anything else? 


 MR. FARVER: No, they made the correction we 


asked --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm going to -- I'm going to go 


back -- there was a couple we asked SC&A I 


think for --


 MR. FARVER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- follow-up on, 73.5, this was a 


failure to account for assigned neutron dose, I 


think it was Y-12 -- is that Y-12? Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: I think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And basically I think it was 


NIOSH's position that the individual did not 


work in any areas likely to have neutron 


exposure, based on, again, job history and -- 


and building -- buildings where he would have 


been working. And SC&A --


 MR. FARVER: We have a different opinion. We 


just feel that based on his occupation and some 


of the information contained in the CATI 


report, such as what he did, the repairs he 


made, the types of material he worked with, 


that we believe that it is likely that he had 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

some un-- unmonitored neutron exposure. We're 


just -- don't -- not clear on what extent that 


is. 


Now NIOSH did go ahead and calculate a missed 


neutron dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So it wasn't that no 


neutron dose was assigned. It's just that you 


didn't use a coworker approach or -- you just 


assigned missed neutron dose. Right? So which 


-- which may --


 MR. FARVER: Well, first --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- which may still be 


conservative, is -- I guess you 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. FARVER: It may be -- you know, their 


position was we don't feel he needed to be -- 


he wasn't neutron monitored and -- but we went 


ahead and calculated a missed neutron dose. 


Now our position is he probably did have 


neutron exposure, so is that the best method to 


account for it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And a-- and again, I think 


to -- to go any further with this one, I think 


we need the rationale by which you came to that 


conclusion. You know, what -- what led you to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

believe that -- I -- I see in your -- your 


summary the CATI was one piece, but also I 


think you looked at -- at certain buildings and 


had an opinion on --


 MR. FARVER: Based on the buildings he worked 


in and the types of work he did, and the time 


period. I believe it was the '80s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FARVER: We just have reason to believe 


that the neutron monitoring -- they may not 


have badged everybody that really needed 


neutron monitoring during that time period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Well --


 MS. MUNN: That confuses one a little bit, 


based on the NIOSH response to the original 


comment, that said according to the site 


profile the source for potential neutron 


exposure in the building where the employee was 


most frequenting was a secure storage area for 


enriched uranium. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda, please speak up and get 


closer. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Speak right into these 


mikes. 


 MS. MUNN: That the employee was unlikely to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

have worked for extended periods in that secure 


storage area, and -- but I'm hearing from Doug 


that you've reviewed his background and felt 


that he did work --


 MR. FARVER: Yes, actually there's I believe 


four buildings mentioned in the CATI report 


that the employee worked in. He most likely 


was one of these employees that frequented many 


buildings making repairs, so he was from place 


to place. But yes, there's several buildings, 


not just the building that is referenced in the 


NIOSH response. 


 MS. MUNN: But secure storage areas, in most of 


these sites, were always monitored, even if the 


employee was not routinely monitored. You 


didn't allow unbadged employees in secure 


storage areas. 


 MR. FARVER: Correct. He may have gone into 


other locations other than the location 


referenced, which -- which may go back to maybe 


the site profile is not completely accurate. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we have to get -- yeah, 


John. 


 DR. POSTON: It -- Doug, it seems to me we have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

to be a little more specific. There wasn't a 


heck of a lot going on at Y-12 where there 


would be neutron exposures in the '80s, so I 


think we need to pull that string a little bit. 


Just to say there may have been neutron 


exposures, I think we need more data, more 


understanding of what the processes were. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we need to be very 


specific. What buildings are we talking about, 


you know, we --


 MR. FARVER: I understand, I just don't know 


how much I can say here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know -- yeah, we might not -- 


well, yeah, and if there's a security issue, 


then we have a -- a clearance issue, then we 


have a whole 'nother question of where we can 


hold that discussion, but -- 


 MR. FARVER: But I believe if you would look at 


the -- the buildings that are mentioned in the 


CATI report, that might help. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe we can ask -- and 


I'm sure NIOSH considered those initially, but 


we can have a little more dialogue on the -- if 


we have this follow-up technical call I think 


we can have a little more dialogue there, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

unless we get into a classified situation. 


Then we can, if we need to, set up a -- you 


know, a way to do that, but I -- I would hope 


we don't come to that, just for -- 


 DR. POSTON: Well, there's certainly enough 


people on the committee that have clearances. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but I mean just for one 


finding out of a -- you know, seems like a lot 


of -- but anyway, we -- let's see what we can 


do on the technical call first and -- as far as 


coming to some sort of agreement on what 


buildings may have been a potential for 


exposure. 


 MS. MUNN: And especially bearing in mind Dr. 


Poston's comment about what was going on during 


the '80s and --


 MR. GRIFFON: In the '80s, right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- makes a big difference. 


 DR. POSTON: And this may be something that 


Robert might want to look at. I mean he should 


be more familiar. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. Okay. All right, so we'll 


hold that on the technical call at least, 


follow up on that. So where were we, did we -- 


76.1, I think there was a follow-up there for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

SC&A also. This was the -- the changing LOD 


question I think. 


 MR. FARVER: We agree with NIOSH's response, 


they're correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FARVER: The LOD was an error on our part. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we have -- have agreement on 


that. 


 MR. FARVER: Yes, we agree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: It's okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's 76.1, yeah, agreement on 


that. 


 MS. MUNN: So it's done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Then back to our matrix, 


76.2 -- did I already do that? Yes, we did 


that one. And 76.3, I do note there's no 


response in the NIOSH column here, although you 


do have a date that you supplied -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, that --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- information, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That file was sent on an e-mail 


in April. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think this was that zip file 


that I overlooked at the last meeting. It was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

in --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, might be, it -- it 


contains actually several -- several files that 


describe -- there's an IMBA run in there and 


there's a mixture radionuclide workbook and -- 


so it -- there's a number of files in there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think the bottom line, what 


we were looking at here, was used a TIB-2 


approach when you actually had an individual's 


bioassay data. I think you're in agreement now 


that the procedure would be to use the data if 


you have it. But in fact the TIB-2 approach 


was bounding of the dose that you would have 


calculated if you used the individual's data. 


Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And SC--


 MR. FARVER: And we reviewed the file and we 


agree --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FARVER: -- it was a bounding approach. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we have agreement with that, 


that it -- it was a bounding approach. Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

I think that covers everything in the fourth 


set, so we are very close. Maybe not quite 


closed out, but close to closing out. The 


technical call we -- case 69 seems to have, you 


know, the most follow-up. 


 MR. FARVER: 79.4 --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry --


 MR. FARVER: -- 5 and 6, and I don't -- 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, 79.4, 5 and 6, you're 


correct, I'm sorry. They all -- they all are 


sort of similar so they're grouped together, 


79.4, .5 and .6. 


 MR. FARVER: And then as I have in the matrix, 


it was further discussions between SC&A and 


NIOSH. Basically we wrote a finding, they gave 


a response. We don't agree with their 


response. 


 MS. MUNN: And these are all missed dose issues 


of every conceivable type. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, and I --


 MR. FARVER: Has to do with an individual who 


worked for a number of years at Los Alamos and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

appears to only have -- one, two -- three 


instances of where they wore a dosimeter, and 


apparently no bioassay. So we -- we believe 


that it's -- it's likely that there's -- was an 


unmonitored dose during that period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or -- or --


 MR. FARVER: Or a missed dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, or records are missing 


or something. Right? Yeah --


 MR. FARVER: Something. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, so there's a question 


that there's -- there's only some -- some data 


covering some of the time frame that the -- the 


individual worked there, and there's a question 


of whether it was just that the individual was 


not in any areas where he could have been 


exposed -- that's one scenario, that they 


weren't being required to wear any do-- 


dosimetry. But the other possibility is that 


they were -- that they -- that all the records 


weren't recovered, or that there was 


unmonitored situations, I guess would be the 


third scenario. So any -- any response back, 


Stu, or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, but I -- I think this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

person ultimately ended up in an SEC class. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm looking -- I'm looking at 


the report where it describes the case 


specifics, and -- I mean we can still go 


through dose reconstruction technique, that's 


what we're doing here, you know, we're not -- 


 MR. FARVER: But I believe you're -- I believe 


you're correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, but -- okay, we'll -- 


we'll add that then to the technical discussion 


that we're scheduling. Now did -- did you -- 


 MR. FARVER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you want to participate on 


that when we schedule this technical 


discussion? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'll probably tie into it ­

- yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: And I guess this just comes down 


to an issue that -- that it was the early 


years, '40s and '50s, and are we satisfied that 


all the records were kept and all the records 


have been provided. And if --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess --


 MR. FARVER: -- you don't have the records, 


what do you do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess what we should look at 


also is what was the -- what was -- do we have 


a job history, do we know what this individual 


was doing and --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We've got --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- is it likely that he should 


have been monitored. Then that would make me 


think where are these records, this -- you 


know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think we need to have that 


discussion on the --


 MR. FARVER: We just felt it was unusual for a 


person to be out at that time period for 15 


years and only have three dosimeter results. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean we -- we can put 


it in the discussion on -- on the discussion of 


the topic. I think that kind of -- does kind 


of beg the question, you know. There is --


that is a legitimate question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73

 MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly, you know, inability 


to get information from the entirety or certain 


types of information out of Los Alamos was the 


reason why a class was added -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, that would include 


this person's employment time frame. So maybe, 


yeah, since we're talking about technique here 


for dose reconstruction, it'd be worth having 


some discussion on it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And I think that -- 


that is all of them on the fourth set. Is that 


true? Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's all -- yeah. We --


 MR. GRIFFON: We covered everything? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We had -- we covered everything 


I knew about a few minutes ago. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. Nothing else on the 


fourth set, we're going to move on to the fifth 


set of cases. 


(Pause) 


We're going to take -- I'm getting a hint to 


take a short break, maybe ten minutes. We're ­

- we're okay on time. We'll still make our 


deadline here, so take a five to ten-minute 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

break. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:00 a.m. 


to 11:18 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so I believe we are ready to 


go back in session, Subcommittee on Dose 


Reconstruction; Chair, Mark Griffon. 


FIFTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, starting on the fifth set 


matrix -- and again, I'm going to work from 


this smaller matrix that Stu sent around, which 


is -- at least I have -- I have a couple 


editorial things to add in, but they weren't 


really NIOSH response items. They were items 


that we either asked for SC&A follow-up or 


otherwise. I'll -- I'll mention those as we go 


through, but this basically is -- with the 


fifth set, if they're not on this short matrix, 


you can -- unless I mention them otherwise, you 


can assume they were closed out in our last 


meeting. And by closed out, I mean, as I said, 


either agreement or deferred to another 


workgroup or site profile review. And actually 


this -- this is a fairly -- fairly small subset 


that we're left to deal with here. 


I'll start off with case 82, which is not on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

this list, but during the last subcommittee 


meeting -- this is a -- a Harshaw case that we 


reviewed, and the only thing we mention -- this 


is where we had a discussion about for some of 


these smaller AWE sites these -- the Board sort 


of considered these as like mini site profile 


reviews. And the case that we reviewed from 


Harshaw was done prior to the site profile 


being available. It was done using overarching 


tools, I forget -- overestimating tools, and 


therefore it didn't really get at the question 


of reviewing the Harshaw site profile. And so 


I -- I put as a Board action or -- or a 


subcommittee follow-up action we need to either 


reselect a Harshaw case that does use the site 


profile or -- or possibly if -- if we choose to 


do, we could have -- have SC&A do the site 


profile review under that -- under that other 


task. So that's -- that's just for case 82 a 


little follow-up. No follow-up on the findings 


for that particular case, but for the Harshaw 


site in general. 


For number -- case 84, also not on the matrix 


yet, we had a follow-up item for SC&A to 


review, using the current site profile. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

according to my notes NIOSH was still 


completing the site profile -- this is for 


Huntington -- and I don't know, Stu, has that 


been released yet, or do you know? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe it has. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So it -- at -- at this 


point we're waiting for -- NIOSH was -- was in 


final draft form of a profile -- a site profile 


for this -- for the Huntington site. And once 


that's available SC&A will -- will look back at 


their findings in this case, in light of the 


profile, so then it would become a mini profile 


review. 


That moves me on to the matrix now, 85.1 is the 


first one, and Stu, we had asked for more 


information for -- this is Superior Steel -- is 


that right? Superior Steel -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this came down to -- 


there was a -- there were several statements I 


guess in this finding. I think at one point we 


had said that the dose from enriched uranium 


wouldn't be any higher than depleted, and 


that's not entirely correct. Enriched uranium 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

would have a higher dose rate, and that was 


pointed out. It's -- for enrichments are 


liable to be handled in any particular 


quantity, it's -- it's a fairly nominal change. 


I mean their Q badge are calculated here so 


it's a fairly nominal change, but the enriched 


is higher. 


I guess our fundamental response, though, that 


there were -- there were certain shapes that 


were modeled by SC&A in terms to model a dose 


rate off of the product that we're talking 


about here and -- and then the dose rate, sort 


of mid-point at this four by eight sheet -- or 


whatever size it was -- was col-- you know, 


collected or used as the maximum dose rate. 


Our own view is that, you know, that's not a 


geometry that a person would actually be able 


to be exposed to. They'd essentially have to 


be -- you know, 'cause -- you know, we're 


fairly confident that a sheet like that would 


be stored flat, as opposed to standing on end. 


And so the exposure geometry would not be 


square-on to the -- to the mid-- mid-point of 


the sheet. I think the doses are modestly 


different anyway, so we just felt like the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

number that was used is -- is probably a 


sufficient number to use. I think we used sort 


of a standard shape we've used elsewhere in 


order to arrive at a -- a maximum dose rate, 


and this is from a uranium product, so... Plus 


there's -- plus we used pretty liberal 


assignment of time and proximity, as well. So 


we felt like when you wrap all this together, 


we felt like we had a -- a bounding estimate, 


as it was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, and I think John worked the 


AWE cases --


DR. MAURO: Right, I did --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for SC&A, so --


DR. MAURO: -- I did the Superior Steel. I did 


get your -- and I took a look at it and a good 


way to think about it is here's a person that 


worked with a -- they were rolling steel and -- 


and he was exposed to these different sized 


slabs. And -- and the assumption was made that 


he spent practically his whole day about a foot 


away. So -- other words, notwithstanding the 


small differences in our models -- for example, 


we -- we ran our -- our models made certain 


assumptions. You ran your models, and -- and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

we're coming in, you know, within 20 percent, 


30 percent of each other. Not surprising, two 


different people running their own models. So 


the way I look at it is that yes, we do have 


some differences -- for example, as you pointed 


out regarding enrichment and -- and, you know, 


correct. We -- we felt it would have been a 


little bit higher. But it turns out -- we did 


the numbers and the to-- it's a four percent 


increase for -- to this amount of enrichment, 


so it's -- it's really in the noise, so I agree 


with that. 


 There's another issue we raise regarding -- 


which I -- I think it might be worth just 


mentioning it, is -- I guess for ruthenium-106 


might be in the recycled uranium. It's got a 


rhodium daughter. What happens is you do get 


maybe a 25 percent increase in the external 


dose if you factor the gamma from that. Again 


we're talking about 20, 30 percent differences. 


When you re-- when you think about it and you 


said well, wait a minute, we're assuming this 


guy spends seven hours a day one foot away, 


that sort of covers all ills. And -- and I 


guess -- so in the end, I -- I think we're -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

we're more or less in agreement, but there's 


something in -- in the fine structure, the way 


in -- the assumptions you make regarding 


enrichment, the assumptions you make regarding 


the recycled uranium, perhaps -- and we are 


coming in somewhat different, enough different 


in our -- our MCNP models versus what you're 


doing that -- we're apparently doing something 


a little different because there were -- we're 


differing by almost a factor of two and in most 


cases we're coming in lower, but in some cases 


we're coming in higher. So in other words, I 


think we're at a point at least here where 


there are tech-- assumptions and techniques 


that we're using that are somewhat different 


than yours, but when all is said and done as it 


applies to this case, it's all -- it's all 


accommodated by the bounding assumption that 


he's -- he's one foot away for seven hours a 


day. So I think on the external dosimetry, 


this very first issue -- I -- it -- it's almost 


like an issue that's really a non-issue, but it 


would be nice to work out the -- this business 


of the -- the rhodium. It would be nice to 


figure out how come we're getting differences 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

by about a factor of two. And when we run our 


MCNP and you run your MCNP -- so that's where 


we come away on this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I guess with respect to 


the ruthenium and rhodium in the recycled 


material, I guess our view is that during the 


metal production process -- you know, once -- 


once the uranium is recycled and goes -- and it 


starts to go back through the system, during 


the metal production process, you know, there 


are several hot -- you know, thermally hot 


operations that have to happen in order to get 


it back to uranium metal, and they're 


relatively volatile. Ruthenium would be driven 


off in those. And so you -- you really don't 


have much ruthenium in recycled metal, whereas 


you might have had it in, for instance, the UO3 that came out at Purex. There may be some 


ruthenium in there. But it wouldn't hang 


around long enough to be in -- or -- not 


because it would decay, but it -- in the -- in 


the -- in the chemical processing to get back 


to uranium, the ruthenium would go elsewhere, 


wouldn't come through. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, I --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82

 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's -- that's why we 


don't sink -- and -- and we think -- we haven't 


seen data that would show ruthenium of any 


particular nature in recycled metal -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whereas you do see it in 


recycled -- like UO-3. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Yeah, we (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But the sugges-- the suggestion 


about a lining on the MCNP runs is probably a 


pretty good one. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'd have -- you know, it'd 


have to be -- the particular people who are 


setting them up --


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- have to start talking to 


each other and figure out what's 


(unintelligible) --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, 'cause we're about a factor 


of two away from each other on that -- which 


turns out in -- in a case like this -- well, I 


know that it's -- we're coming in -- in one -- 


I think for the small piece, we came in half 


your value. For the large piece we came in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

higher than your value. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- yeah. Well, on average, 


we agree then, so... 


DR. MAURO: Pardon me -- yeah, right, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Can -- can I ask jus-- 


just -- it sounds like agreement here, but can 


I ask, this seven-hour assumption, is that 


across the board for all Superior Steel 


workers? Is this kind of an exposure matrix 


issue? Will that always be applied or is that 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I know for this case, it -- 


it's (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: I -- it's -- the Superior Steel 


matrix is one size fits all, more or less, and 


they're assuming one foot away, seven hours a 


day, which is pretty conservative. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So we -- we have agreement 


on that first one, and maybe an agreement to 


get your technical folks together on the MP-- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, polish the apple a little 


bit. Yeah, I'd like to do that. Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Now that was the only write-up -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

now there -- there was some con-- there such -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, 85.2, does these cover all 


these? I -- are these -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was --


 MR. GRIFFON: No, this is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- no --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- different, 85.2's different, 


yeah. Do you have more on 85.1, John? 


DR. MAURO: No, 85.1 -- we're done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: I believe so, let's see... 


 MR. GRIFFON: 85.2, just let Stu -- let's do a 


normal --


 MR. HINNEFELD: 85.2 is a -- a resuspension 


finding. There -- these have been around in a 


number of manifestations and a few different 


issues. We were just -- at the break John and 


Jim and I were talking about these, and we 


think what probably needs to happen is Jim and 


John need to get together -- we don't think 


we're very far apart on these. We just need to 


sort all these things out, and so it'd be 


another technical conversation but maybe 


slightly different players on this one, if -- 


if we could propose that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85

 MR. GRIFFON: Now is -- is this a -- the 


resuspension question, the overarching -- sor-- 


sort of a global issue question or is this 


specific just to Superior -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it becomes one, I guess. 


I mean we have -- Jim, you want to comment on 


that? 


DR. NETON: Yeah. It -- it's kind of wrapped 


up in that, although the inge-- the overarching 


issue is related specifically to ingestion. 


But when you get into the resuspension 


fractions, and SC&A's had some heartburn with 


this one times ten to the minus six for quite 


some time now --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- and we have an approach that's 


been sort of propagated through our various AWE 


sites that use that, so I just need to talk to 


John a little bit more because it -- it's 


occurred at four or five different locations 


under different sort of manifestations that 


aren't exactly the same. And you know, we -- 


we had come to some very firm agreement with 


Bethlehem Steel on how we're going to approach 


it and we felt pretty comfortable with that, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

and the idea was that we would take that 


approach, that successful discussion that we 


had, and start applying it at other sites. But 


there are some nuances that we need to take 


care of and -- and that's where I think John 


and I need to talk about where we left that and 


-- and where we might want to go. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


DR. NETON: I apologize for the delay on this, 


but this is one of these sort of soft issues -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay, so maybe we should ­

- we can have a technical call -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- maybe different people, like 


Stu said --


DR. NETON: I'll commit to working on this -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for this particular site -- 


DR. NETON: -- with SC&A. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and also keeping in mind we 


want a global approach that's consistent, too. 


Right? 


DR. NETON: Exactly, and how that folds in with 


this overarching issue with ingestion as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe 85.3 is also a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

resuspension issue and this would relate then 


to the residual contamination period, or the 


post-operational per-- period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So the same thing on 85.3 -- 


85.5? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there's a question of the 


technical basis for the transuranic content in 


the recycled uranium, if it was there, and so 


in this instance we are developing a T-- OTIB 


that describes that -- you know, the technical 


backup and technical basis for transuranics. 


And so I think that OTIB would have -- would be 


-- speak to this when it's available. So in 


other words, we don't --


 MR. GRIFFON: How -- how close is this? I --


the only concern I have on this is I'd like to 


close out this -- you know, these two sets if 


we can and... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- it's drafted and it's 


being reviewed by our contractor. They've not 


given it to us yet for our review. Our review 


maybe is a two-week to four-week process, 


depending upon if we comment particularly 


extensively or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So we're -- we're -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 -- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

basically we're waiting for a NIOSH TIB here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you give a -- give us any 


insight on -- on the TIB? I mean is there --


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


 MR. GRIFFON: You -- okay, you just don't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's docu--


 MR. GRIFFON: If you're not prepared to do it 


yet, that's fine. I just -- I'm curious 


whether there's enough information about the 


materials that were distributed to various 


sites that you can pinpoint, or is it sort of 


an overarching average approach or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, my -- I don't -- I don't 


know how it'll be organized or how it will be 


organized in terms -- it may be a -- some sort 


of temporal or, you know, time-related 


solution. My understanding of the state of 


knowledge of contents of recycled uranium is 


that it's -- it's pretty good, having in large 


part been reconstructed. There seems to be 


quite a lot of knowledge and there was a lot of 


analysis done, certainly at -- by -- it was 


done a lot in the '80s, certainly. And then it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

was redone again closer to 2000, if I'm not 


mistaken. So I don't know that there's an 


issue of lack of information. I think the --


the issue might be consistency in making sense 


of -- of everything that's out there and coming 


up with a consistent and manageable set of data 


to use. You know, you can't use -- you don't 


want to give a -- have thousands of options. 


You want to have just a few options that would 


address it appropriately. So I suspect the 


issue hits to that. But my understanding is 


there is quite a lot of information that has 


been published about the materials, how -- you 


know, the materials that were shipped around 


the country, what sites, what happened at those 


sites that would affect those with tha-- you 


know, the relative ratios to uranium. And so I 


think there's quite a lot of information about 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I didn't know how -- I -- 


I've certainly seen a lot of that, as far as 


DOE-land went. I didn't know how extensively 


it got into the AWE sites, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I wi-- I do -- maybe 


it's appropriate to comment here that this is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

purely speculative --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that recycled uranium was 


sent to an AWE. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The fact of the matter is that 


the uranium at the time -- we're talking here 


mid-'50s, I think. Uranium to the DOE at that 


time was uranium, and recycled uranium was no 


different. So there's -- there's no -- we 


don't have any indication that they 


specifically sent recycled uranium to this AWE. 


We also don't have any indication that they 


kept track of what uranium was re-- had been 


recycled and what was not. And so since they 


didn't keep track, there's this presumption to 


-- you know -- you know, in the favor of the 


claimant that we'll -- we'll consider this 


recycled uranium, even though we don't really 


have any -- any evidence that recycled uranium 


was sent there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so we -- yeah. So that's 


a -- a little tease for the TIB to come, I 


guess. Okay. 


All right, 86.2 -- and -- and Doug, if you have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

anything -- or John, any time you want to 


interject on these, just get to the mike. 86.2 


is where I'm at now. 


DR. MAURO: I di-- if you'd like, I -- I have 


you comments list. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Go ahead. 


DR. MAURO: Do you want to go over it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, go ahead, John, help me 


out. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, thi-- this -- the -- we 


discussed this (unintelligible) before. This 


is a -- there is a Linde site profile that's 


applied here, and there are data, and this 


worker was involved -- post-operation, it was 


part of the remediation program when they 


terminated the -- the -- the radiological 


operations, and he was a -- he was a welder and 


dat-- there's data for that time period, 


external exposure data, and the data's reported 


in the site profile and they -- and -- and I 


think we have a factual disagreement in your 


red -- the red write-up. I believe it -- the ­

- the numbers that were used were the median of 


the measurements. And so my -- and so my first 


look at the records were well, okay, it -- the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

data -- the external measurements were taken at 


the right time, the time when this person was 


involved and -- where -- where he might have 


been exposed, and there's a range of values. 


They selected the median value with this -- 


it's -- the distribution for this worker. And 


so I asked myself the question is that 


reasonable for this worker, and it turns out 


this worker's job -- I -- I belie-- he was a 


welder, and so he probably went to a lot of 


different places. And so my opinion, using the 


median with the full distribution around it is 


a reasonable approach. Except my -- my concern 


and comment I had -- this was discussed 


previously -- was well, but his job as a welder 


put him in -- up close and personal 


relationship to the piping -- now this is how I 


-- this is why -- this is now my -- my creation 


to say -- other words, as a welder he may have 


had an unusual job that put him in a -- a 


different situation than what the dataset 


describes, so perhaps it would have been more 


claimant favorable to use something more toward 


the high end of the distribution. 


And the -- and the second question I have, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

this -- we discussed this before, was well, as 


a welder -- that means he sort of works closely 


with the non-destructive testing people. At 


the time of our last meeting the point was made 


and cor-- perhaps correctly so, I really don't 


have any additional information to give, 


though, that though he's a welder and though he 


may very well work with the people who do the 


X-rays of -- of the welds, that -- that he may 


have been exposed also as -- as if he were a -- 


a person who did non-destructive testing, and 


we know that these folks very often do get some 


additional exposure. That's why they're 


badged. 


But then the point was made during the working 


group meeting that well, wait a minute, hold 


it, this was during the decommissioning or the 


cleanup of the facility, so it wasn't that he 


was -- he was fixing a pipe. He was -- they 


were getting rid of pipes, so there would not 


have been any testing. So -- and -- and I 


accept that, but -- I mean it's sort of like a 


common-sense argument, so -- so where -- where 


we stand right now is that I guess my -- my 


only concern is what -- whether or not using 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

the me-- for -- this is from the point of view 


of the external exposure, using the -- the 


median for this person, given his job 


responsibilities, is that -- is that as cl-- 


appropriately claimant favorable, and -- and I 


think that's a judgment call. It's -- it's 


hard -- you know, and I leave that with -- with 


you folks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well -- and I know -- I mean at 


least some other instances you've used the 


higher end for certain job titles, depending on 


-- you might use the 95th or something or -- 


but in this case you chose the median. I don't 


think we're talking about big doses either way 


here, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't think so, 


although, you know, we do use a fairly healthy 


geometric standard deviation. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's probably about a factor 


-- maybe a factor of six different between 


median and 95th percentile. There's -- you 


know, there are some survey data from around 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

the decontamination period as well -- you know, 


demolition period -- all, you know, pretty 


modest, quite -- you know, the dose rates are 


quite modest. This just -- you know, to me, 


this looks like a -- a reasonable dose number 


for a person who's engaged in, you know, the 


remediation of the plant, so... 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you're also assuming eight 


hours a day at this, or seven hours -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a -- there's a lon-- 


extensive time period in here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not entirely -- intimately 


familiar with the Linde site profile, I'm 


afraid. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I --


 MR. HINNEFELD: But we gen-- as a general rule, 


we do -- we do assign large occupancy factors ­

- you know, large amount of time -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- exposure. 


 DR. POSTON: Can somebody explain the last 


sentence? Seems to me this is a ridiculous 


argument if that sentence is true. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, is the -- you mean the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

magnitude or the -- the small -- 


 DR. POSTON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- doses we're dealing with -- 


 DR. POSTON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. POSTON: It says if he's -- if the workers 


stay there 24 hours a day for the entire year, 


the dose would be small, and it's less than 


what was assigned to him, so what -- what's the 


discussion? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess -- that's kind of -- 


you know, that was our point was that this is a 


pretty hefty assignment in an area where doses 


seem to be relatively modest. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and that's what I was 


saying, either number you pick is -- is pretty 


small so it's not -- it's not that big an issue 


for this case. Again, these are like mini site 


profile reviews, though. That was part of the 


point. But again, this is also a one size fits 


all model, I assume? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall exactly if it's 


one size fits all -- no, actually it's not. 


There are --


 MR. GRIFFON: It's not --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there are different time 


periods. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's like during remediation 


period and there's during the operational 


period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But there's an exposure matrix 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Cleanup workers --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- cleanups (unintelligible) 


workers. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, as with all matrices, they 


try to parse it as best they can, by time and ­

- and work category, and -- it -- so -- so that 


when I say it's a -- it's a matrix so you do 


have to pick the right box for this -- as 


applied to this person and -- and that 


judgment's made now -- but the only thing is in 


the write-up, the red -- the red part, it 


indicates that -- that -- that the maximum 


value -- see, I guess I'm -- I'm getting a -- a 


-- and this is a factual question, really not a 


judgment call now. It was my understanding, 


when I read -- when I did my original review, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

that the external exposure was the -- the 


median with the full distribution. In the --


in the write-up here it said that the max value 


was used, so that -- when I read this I said 


oh, I -- I -- you know, that's not my -- my 


understanding of what was done in this 


particular worker's case, so I -- either way it 


may turn out to be not important, you know. 


But... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah, we should get that 


part right, but the effect on this case is min­

- so I think we all agree that it doesn't have 


much effect on -- it doesn't have any effect on 


this case, really. So no effect on the case, 


but -- did you -- you -- I mean we should sort 


that out, Stu, if --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we can -- yeah, that was 


sort of thrown into -- that was not the basis 


for the -- the dose reconstruction, but it was 


-- looked over these measurements taken in the 


plant, you know, during the cleanup. Actually 


this -- that measurement I think was after 


there had been some decontamination while, you 


know, this person's employment would have 


continued, and the dose rates were really quite 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

modest at that point. So that was just kind of 


to show an additional indicator that this -- 


this dose reconstruction really seems -- you 


know, we're -- we're -- we're pretty confident 


we're bounding the dose with this dose 


reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I think we've got enough 


to go on we can sort out the factual question. 


89.3? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I want to check this 


original finding here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, this -- didn't we come across 


this -- Doug, (unintelligible). 


 MR. FARVER: I reread our original finding and 


then the dialogue that went with that and as -- 


as I believe, I think that's an L over -- LOD 


over two issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. FARVER: Whereas results were entered in 


that were less than the LOD over two, and we 


felt they should have been considered as LOD 


over two instead of the smaller value. And I 


believe this has been corrected in later 


issues. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and in fact... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100

 MR. GRIFFON: And you said that newer workbook 


treats the dosimeter results that are LOD over 


two as non-detects, so I think you've got it... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and this in fact was done 


-- you know, it was --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- reworked with the LOD over 


two. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so we have agreement there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, 89.5? 


 MR. FARVER: Our finding has to do with failure 


to account for missed neutron doses. In NIOSH 


resp-- there was a response. They even say 


that since SRS did not record negative badge 


results during this time, there is no cycle 


data. But it'd be possible that the employee 


had neutron monitoring with the exception of 


'74 through '78. And they go on to calculate a 


dose and a POC. 


We're okay with what they wrote, their 


response. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I guess -- I guess the 


only question I had, which -- this -- is this ­

- this is Savannah River. Correct? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I guess the only thing -- 


thi-- thing that struck me in this was the 


people that were monitored may not even show up 


on the records, so they -- they could have been 


monitored, but if they didn't have a detectable 


dose, they wouldn't even been an-- be in any 


records that we look at. This is more of a 


site profile question. It doesn't impact this 


case, but it's a question I have. Is that --


is that correct? When we're thinking about 


Savannah River overall, are there people that ­

- and again, they would have been the people 


that were monitored but didn't get a detectable 


measurement, but then we wouldn't know that 


they were even monitored if we're reviewing 


overall records. You follow me, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there is -- there is a 


period of time, a certain number of years, I 


don't -- I don't know what they are, but we -- 


we, you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- programmatically know what 


they are, where the records we get from 


Savannah River do not include a zero badge 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

reading. In other words, it's -- there's just 


nothing there. You can't tell if the person 


wore a badge and got a zero or if they didn't 


wear a badge, so that is true. Because of 


that, we do dose reconstructions down there -- 


we -- we know we can't rely on that record to 


indicate whether the person was monitored for 


neutrons or not, so you have to make other 


determinations. And in fact there is -- I 


think there's a whole OCAS TIB about when do 


you thi-- when should you consider these people 


to be monitored at Savannah River for neutrons 


because you can't rely on the exposure record 


to tell you that they were monitored and got a 


zero. So there are -- there are steps that 


have to be taken on Savannah River cases to 


determine, since we don't have a -- we don't 


have any zero readings for neutrons, would this 


person likely have been monitored for neutrons. 


And so it's based on job title and a certain, 


you know, amount on location and -- and -- and 


era, in -- for instance, at some point they 


started recording all their zeroes, and so if 


the person was in the same job and they start 


recording zeroes in such-and-such year, chances 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

are they were monitored beforehand as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Conversely, if they -- you 


know, if they're in the same job and you go 


through that period where we're getting all the 


cycles and they're not getting -- there -- 


there's no zero dosim-- you know, neutron 


dosimetry after they -- you know, the record 


would indicate it should be there -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- then we would say okay, 


well, since he was in the same job, then he 


likely wasn't monitored before that, either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is this outlined in a TIB or in 


the site profile (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's in -- it's in an -- 


the -- at least a part of it is in an OCAS TIB 


that we hope to get incorporated into an 


upcoming revision of the site profile, which -- 


it makes it cleaner to have one location. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So it's still being 


finalized? Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the -- the Savannah River 


site profile is kind of dynamic. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it's -- it's being 


evaluated now. We know there'll be some 


revisions coming out of that. We -- we 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: So that broad-- that broader 


question then might hold for the site profile 


discussion, but for this case I think we're 


okay. Right? Okay. 


 And 91.5? 


 MR. FARVER: We're still reviewing 91 case, so 


we'd like some more time on 91.5 and 91.8. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And I'll -- I'll go back 


to -- even though it's not in the matrix, 


there's an 89.8. I had that in my initial 


notes, but it was -- it was the fission product 


question. And I think as we put before, that's 


being deferred to the procedures review. Is 


that -- is that --


 MS. MUNN: Is it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's correct, I think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it was submitted to the 


procedures --


 MR. GRIFFON: Trying to get stuff off my disk 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

or --


 MS. MUNN: Stop, already. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, so we'll -- if it's 


okay -- yeah, some of this -- SC&A has not had 


time to review all these, so we'll go past 91.5 


and 91.8 for now. 


92.1? 


 MR. FARVER: 92.1 appears to be like before. 


It's the less than LOD over two issue I believe 


we've been tak-- we took care of. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So we're in agreement? 


Then I have 92.5 as the same fission product 


question, which'll be deferred to the 


procedures group. 


93.1, I had a note on 93.1, Stu, that SC&A -- 


or no, NIOSH would show that the IMBA analysis 


used was bounding. That's the only one I 


didn't -- that's the only discrepancy I have 


with your list and my notes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 93.1? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 93.1, so -- I'm looking 


back --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- the main findings table 


has 93.1 as failed to account for all photon -- 


all missed photon dose. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it seems to be an LOD over 


two issue again. That's back on the -- that's 


on the findings matrix, the bigger -- wider 


matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so it doesn't make sense, 


my note about IMBA. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it's like (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, we'll -- we'll forget 


that one. 


93.2? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this finding we believe 


relates to screening versus -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- dispensary type or medically 


indicated X-rays, and our policy has been that 


an X-ray that's taken as a screening -- part of 


a required screening in order to remain 


healthy, those we include. But for medical 


indication of an X-ray, an X-ray's taken 


because of a medical indication, those are not. 


So that's sort -- essentially a policy decision 


that was made -- I guess before I started. 


 MR. FARVER: And just to add to that, this is 


kind of a special case. It looks like this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

individual had many, many X-rays during his 


employment period -- chest X-rays, skull, knee, 


hand, fingers, back -- all over. And I've been 


reviewing the records. He looks like he was 


involved in a fall of some sort with rib 


injuries and a lot of these are follow-up to -- 


to -- measurements like that. I agree with 


what they did and what they wrote. The concern 


I have, especially if I'm an employee, is would 


you please put something in my dose report that 


says you looked at these but you're not 


considering those, or just mention that I had 


these. Because having dealt with many 


employees, they will remember that they had 


these falls, these -- these X-rays. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly we'd -- that's 


a worthwhile -- I think that might be a 


worthwhile suggestion because we do -- we have 


always struggled to make an understandable -- 


you know, meaningful dose reconstruction 


report. 


 MR. FARVER: And you have to look at this at a 


-- on a case by case basis 'cause most people 


aren't going to have these -- this many X-rays. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so we have agreement on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

that. 


 Okay, 96.2, skin doses. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If -- if I'm not mistaken, the 


origin of this finding is that IG-1 has a 


footnote that says for shallow dose just -- you 


know, if they're reporting shallow dose, just 


use the -- the shallow dose for skin dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And the -- the problem we have 


with actually doing that in practice is that 


the dose con-- or the radiation effectiveness 


factor is different for beta particles than it 


is for 30 to 250 keV photon. So if you're --


if you're really trying to -- to get it -- you 


know, the exact -- if you're really trying to 


get it right, or even if you're trying to do an 


underestimate/overestimate, a good technique is 


to choose the radiation -- you know, the 


radiation type such that you're either 


overestimating or underestimating the dose. So 


that's why we don't strictly use the reported 


shallow dose, the skin dose, even though that 


note is in IG-1. So our action was well, 


(unintelligible) like you want, take that 


footnote out because it is misleading. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

that's what we propose to do. 


 MR. FARVER: I agree, that's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Anything else on the fifth 


set? We've got about four minutes here. 
I 


know people want to have a chance for lunch 


before the main meeting. 


BLIND REVIEWS
 

So if there's nothing else on the fifth set, I 


wanted to mention the blind reviews just 


quickly. If I can ask -- what I'd like -- 


propose to do, anyway, is that the subcommittee 


members and alternates look at the spreadsheet 


that [Name Redacted] -- Stu sent around. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: [Name Redacted] is my wife. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And there's a spreadsheet that -- 


how do I identify -- does everyone have that 


spreadsheet with the cases on? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The blind review potential cases? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: You can hold it up. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, I -- I'd ask that you 


look through that -- each member individually 


look through that and highlight two or three 


cases that they think would be good blind 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

review candidates. And if you can provide 


those to me, I will talk with Stu then outside 


of the meeting. This is one that we don't want 


to discuss publicly 'cause the matrix has a lot 


of identifiable information, and if we're going 


to really keep these cases blind to the 


contractor then we should not submit this 


matrix to the public record. So that's what I 


propose is that each subcommittee member select 


two or three. We'll look for the overlap in 


those and -- and get a few of those cases and 


let's see if this passes the legal test. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm very concerned about the 


subcommittee doing its work in secret without 


having an appropriately closed meeting, so we ­

- maybe Lew and I need to discuss this at lunch 


to decide how best to handle this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. Yeah, we -- we don't 


want to do our work in secret, for sure. The ­

- what we're trying to figure out is the best 


way to keep these cases blind to the 


contractor. So -- all right, we can -- I still 


think you should look through the matrix and 


see what you think is appropriate cases and we 


can --

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111

 DR. WADE: Mark is proposing, and we won't rule 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- on this right now --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- that individual members look at 


the list and make comments as individuals to 


him, and then he as chair would make a 


decision. We'll get back to you after lunch as 


to the efficacy of that approach, but that's 


what Mark is proposing. 


 MS. MUNN: If this is acceptable, when is our 


homework assignment due? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aft-- right at -- no, I don't -- 


as long as we do it before the conclusion of 


this meeting, I think -- by -- by Friday, you 


know, so... 


 MS. MUNN: All right. 


 DR. WADE: But no discussion or deliberation 


with Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 DR. WADE: If you give him a piece of paper 


with some names on it, that's the proposal. 


We'll let you know -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112

 DR. WADE: -- if that's acceptable. 


SIXTH SET OF CASES


 MR. GRIFFON: And the only other note I'd make 


is that we did, at our last meeting, discuss 


the sixth set of cases, and I think the status 


on those -- Stu, make sure I get this right -- 


is that you -- you provided -- NIOSH provided 


responses. We did our first cut through in 


that meeting as far as discussing the NIOSH 


responses, and SC&A has not evaluated all those 


yet. So we -- we will be bringing that back to 


the subcommittee process as well, so -- is that 


-- I think that's where we stand. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I believe that's where we 


are. I've -- I've -- I've sent a -- a sixth 


set matrix with at least some initial 


responses. I won't guarantee that there's an 


initial --


 MR. GRIFFON: It may not have all the ones for 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- response on every one, but ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: -- correct, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So there may be -- you know -- 


you know, candidly, I've really focused on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

fourth and fifth for this and so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I'm a little at sea on where 


we are on the sixth. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- as far as my -- my 


hope for the path forward with the subcommittee 


is that we have a meeting before the December 


6th meeting. Maybe we can time it for some of 


the other work that's going to be going on, but 


have a meeting to close out the fourth and 


fifth, is my desire. And if we have time, we 


can work -- you know, move on to the sixth set 


a little bit, but I would like to at least 


close out the fourth and fifth set and be able 


to report to the full Board meeting phone call 


with a final version of those two matrices on 


December 6th. 


 DR. WADE: For -- for your consideration, Mark, 


on -- on October 24th and October 25th there 


are workgroup meetings in Cincinnati, so those 


are the only face to face meeting for certain 


schedule between now and the 6th. There are 


calls on various workgroups, but the 24th and 


25th there are face to face meetings scheduled 


in Cincinnati. You might consider, you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

before or after those meetings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- yeah, we'll -- we'll 


have to work with a date -- I think we need a 


technical phone call -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for a couple of these issues. 


We talked about technical phone calls prior to 


that, so I'm not sure we're going to be ready 


for around that time frame, but we'll -- we'll 


-- we'll get a date --


 DR. WADE: Well, you could also put a -- a 


stake in the sand and decide you want to have a 


face to face meeting in November -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: November, right --


 DR. WADE: -- and I'd bet others will cluster 


around you then. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. Yeah, okay, we'll 


-- we'll work on the date and I'll e-mail 


others when we get some -- when I get some 


sense of how clo-- you know, how long it's 


going to take, so... 


All right. Is there anything else for the 


subcommittee before we close? 


 (No responses) 


All right. I guess we're adjourning. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

115

 DR. WADE: Thank you all. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 12:00 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

116 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of October 3, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


15th day of November, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 


2 

3