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 the 

THIRTY-SECOND MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

VOL. I 

DAY ONE 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the Subcommittee 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Westin Hotel, St. Louis, 

Missouri, on August 24, 2005. 
 

2 

 7 

C O N T E N T S 

August 24, 2005 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATE SITE PROFILES 

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

SELECTION OF 4TH ROUND OF 20 DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 11 

FOR REVIEW BY SC&A 66 

MALLINCKRODT SITE PROFILE REVIEW 87 

TASK THREE REPORT 150 

BETHLEHEM SITE PROFILE 181 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 210 
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. 

In the following transcript “off microphone” 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

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 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 

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 
 

5 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 

STAFF/VENDORS 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
6 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BERRY, CHARLENE, MALLINCKRODT

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW/MALLINCKRODT

CASE, DIANE L., DEPT. OF LABOR

DOWNS, DEB, TITAN

DUGAN, PAUL, MALLINCKRODT

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH OCAS

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

KOENIG, PHYLLIS, MCW

LEISAR, KEN, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCKEEL, DAN & LOUISE, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS

NUGENT, MARY, GAO

OLSEN, DOROTHY, MALLINCKRODT

PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY

RAMSPOTT, JOHN

ROSENTHAL, JAMES, MALLINCKRODT

SAMPSON, BOB, GAO

SCHWENNESEN, CLARENCE, UNWW

SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC

TENFORDE, THOMAS, NCRP

TOOHEY, RICHARD, ORAU

WILDHABER, SANDRA, MALLINCKRODT

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
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 

P R O C E E D I N G S

 (10:06 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to call the meeting to 

order. Thank you very much. Just for the 

record, this is a meeting of the subcommittee 

on dose reconstruction and dose -- site profile 

reviews. The full Board will not be meeting 

until tomorrow. I will make some of the usual 

announcements and that is to remind everyone to 

register your attendance. This includes board 

members, staff people, members of the public. 

There are registration materials or 

registration book in the foyer where you can 

take care of that. There are also other 

handout materials and copies of the agenda and 

related materials for all members of the public 

as well as others who are here today. 

Also members of the public, there is a sign-up 

sheet if you wish to speak during the public 

comment session. The first public comment 

session will be tomorrow evening at 7:00 p.m. 

as part of the regular Board meeting. 

 On our subcommittee agenda today we have four 

main items. We have not assigned any times to 

them. The subcommittee will simply work 
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 

through the various issues until we believe 

we've reached closure and then we'll move on. 

You'll notice the four main items are the 

Bethlehem Steel site profile, the selection of 

the fourth round of 20 dose reconstructions, 

the Mallinckrodt site profile review, and 

discussion of candidate site profile reviews 

for our contractor. We also may want to have 

some discussion on the status and how to move 

forward on procedures review, which is task 

three, I believe. 

Because of the possibility that we may need 

additional information from NIOSH as we select 

dose reconstruction review cases, it was 

suggested that we take that item up first, the 

selection of the fourth round of 20 dose 

reconstructions. So without objection, we will 

begin with that and then we will move to the 

Bethlehem site profile after that. And I'm 

going to -- yes, Lew Wade has a number of 

comments for us as we get underway today. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Paul. I'd just first 

like to start by apolo-- not apologizing, but 

thanking everyone for coming here. We had a 

working group meeting not that long ago 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 

9 

during that meeting a number of the Board 

members present made the strong suggestion that 

we spend a day in subcommittee because we 

really had many weighty items to work on -- 

Wanda, Jim Melius, Mark -- and I always do what 

Wanda tells me to do, so I thought this would 

be a good idea to have this meeting. But I do 

apologize that we've sprung it on you 

relatively late, but I think it is terribly 

important. 

A couple of -- Paul alluded to the procedures 

review. There'll be a couple of things I think 

we'll get into today as they will flow from 

agenda items on the subcommittee and the full 

Board agenda and I'd like to just give you a 

heads-up on them. 

 The procedures review is something that has 

been sitting for a while. There is an issue 

there that relates to dose conversion factors. 

It turns out that that is a very important 

issue relative to our deliberations on 

Mallinckrodt, so I asked the contractor to be 

prepared to talk to us about those things. 

Again, we have to schedule it to see that we 

made progress where we need to, and if 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 

10 

means we need to get into some other areas, 

we'll be -- I'll feel free to do that. 

Also as we look at SC&A's work for next year, 

particularly on site profiles, I think we need 

to hear where they are on some of the open site 

profiles -- Savannah River, for example -- and 

again I asked the contractor to come prepared 

to give us some insights on those issues. So I 

think we will have a full day's meeting and 

again I thank you for your time and attendance. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Lew. One other item, 

Board members. As you use the mike, I've been 

told that the mikes work best if they're about 

10 inches away from the mouth. So actually 

that's -- is that right? This is a nine-inch 

span here. Do I want to be this far away? 

 THE REPORTER: Yes. Otherwise I'm getting real 

-- a buzz. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Don't get so close is what Ray is 

saying. Okay, thank you. 

 DR. WADE: Oh, one other thing. Larry Elliott 

is not with us today and I don't know if Larry 

will be with us. Just for the record, he's 

having some health problems, back problem. And 

so we are ably represented in our offices by 
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 

Stu Hinnefeld and Jim Neton. So if we need 

guidance or input from the program we will turn 

to those gentlemen. 

SELECTION OF 4TH ROUND OF 20 DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. In your 

booklet today -- I think it's -- it's the 

second tab after the agenda. It's called 20 

dose reconstruction is what the tab says. You 

will find a table which Stu Hinnefeld I believe 

has developed for us and -- is Stu in the 

assembly? 

 DR. WADE: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, could you take a minute and 

just describe for the subcommittee what you 

have included here for us as we get underway on 

the selection of cases. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe they're 

probably --

 DR. WADE: It's not on. 

(Pause) 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe there are probably 

four spreadsheets or four tables in this tab 

entirely, and -- is this -- I haven't seen your 

compilation. Is this the first one that you 

have? Is it a normal sized sheet of paper? 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Actually that's -- that's the last 

one, I think, that extra long one. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: For the selection of cases this 

time, since has been an expressed preference 

for what you might consider a best-estimate 

dose reconstruction -- recall that we, for 

efficiency purposes, will do intentional 

overestimate for cases that aren't going to be 

compensable even with an overestimated 

exposure, and an intentional underestimate for 

cases that won't be compensable even with an 

underestimating expo-- or will be compensable 

with an underestimating exposure. But there's 

been a preference to focus the review on what 

you might call a best-estimate dose 

reconstruction. 

And so in our database of cases that we have 

in-house, there is a data field that describes 

the type of dose reconstruction that was done 

and it's -- we use the term "full dose 

reconstruction" as opposed to a best estimate, 

and that field -- that field is selected by the 

health physicist -- the OCAS health physicist 

who approves the dose reconstruction report. 

So for an approved dose reconstruction report 
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 

we will have a judgment by that health 

physicist whether this was a best estimate or 

full dose reconstruction or not. 

So based on that I selected for the Board's 

consideration -- I took two possible approaches 

here because I didn't know what you would want 

to do. In one case we ran the random selection 

program, which we normally do, of cases that 

are in the sampling pool. These are cases 

where the final decision has been rendered. 

And so the one list where it has schedule -- or 

selection ID numbers 2005-08- starting with -

001 and running through 100, those were 

randomly selected in the manner that we have 

previously randomly selected cases for 

selection. 

We've added one additional data column that 

wasn't in our previous presentations, and 

that's that last column that says dose 

estimation type. And so from that dose 

estimation type you can see whether the case 

was an overestimate, an underestimate or a full 

dose reconstruction. You'll notice some of 

those columns are blank, and that's because 

this feature of selecting what kind of 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 

14 

reconstruction is in front of us was not 

incorporated at the beginning of the program. 

It was added after we had already approved a 

number of dose reconstructions and so that 

field is blank for the early approved dose 

reconstructions. 

So that's one possibility, is for selection as 

normal from the randomly selected cases here, 

with the additional piece of information of 

what type of dose reconstruction it was. 

Now the majority of the cases that we have done 

have been overestimates or underestimates, and 

so based on that, there probably won't be many 

full dose reconstructions on this list. I 

haven't actually counted how many there are, 

but I doubt there are very many. 

So we have about 160 cases that have final 

decisions that have one of the three full dose 

reconstruction categories selected. That can 

be just full dose reconstruction, mainly 

internal; full dose reconstruction, mainly 

external; and full dose reconstruction, 

internal and external -- internal and external 

talking about the kind of dose that is 

associated with the case. 
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 

So we collected all the cases, the 168 -- 160 

some-odd cases, I don't know how many it is 

exactly -- that have one of those three full 

dose reconstruction choices and prepared those 

on the other table that looks very similar, but 

the selection IDs start with 101 and then run 

on out through the completion. That's the 

entire population in the sampling pool, meaning 

that there is a final decision rendered, of 

cases that were done that have that intern-- 

you know, full dose reconstruction done. So 

those two populations are presented for 

selection, however you want to proceed. 

 The last question -- yes. Okay. The last 

sheet, the large sheet, is a statistical 

breakdown of the selections to date compared to 

that same statistic of the population as -- in 

total. Now this is actually of the total claim 

population. Not just the ones that have final 

decisions, but the total claim population that 

we have received that ultimately we will expect 

to have a dose reconstruction on. 

So the first upper left -- or the left side of 

that page apportions cases according to the 

site where -- you know, where the person 
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 

worked, the Energy employee worked, and you can 

see how many of the 60 reviewed cases are from 

these various sites. And you can see the total 

down at the bottom of 66. That's because 

several of these were multiple site cases and 

so, not knowing what to do, I counted them in 

both sites. If a person worked in two sites, I 

counted them in both sites. If one person 

worked at three sites, the three Oak Ridge 

sites, so he's counted in all three. And the 

multi-site cases are explained down below. I 

think that total adds up to six because -- 

well, I'm pretty sure it adds up to six extras 

and that's why we get 66. 

The cancer type section, which is the next 

section moving to the right, is -- oh, I'm 

sorry, I wanted to say how we arrived at the 

projected cases. The projected cases per site 

took the total number of cases from that site 

that we have received that have not been 

pulled. And the reason I subtracted the pulled 

cases is that theoretically there will never be 

a dose reconstruction for a pulled case. 

Pulled case means that Labor has told don't do 

this one -- usually it's don't do this, we sent 
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 

it to you by mistake, and so we pull it, but 

it's -- you know, it's still in our database, 

but we have a designation of "pulled" in the 

status category. So for most cases that are 

pulled, there will never be a dose 

reconstruction. 

Now some cases get unpulled and, you know, 

there's some consideration -- reconsideration 

and it's submitted back to us. Yeah, go ahead 

and do the dose reconstruction, so some cases 

do get unpulled. But as a -- the best 

approximation I could come up with was we'll 

just subtract out the pulled cases. So if you 

take the total cases we've received from the 

site minus the pulled cases from that site, 

that's how many dose reconstructions we would 

ultimately expect to have from that site based 

on the data available on the day I ran this, 

which was one day last week. So I took that 

number of cases times 2 1/2 percent and that 

gives that projected case number. 'Cause I 

believe two and a half percent -- I retained 

that original intent to review 2 1/2 percent of 

the cases, which was what we started with, I 

believe. So that's how those projected case 
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 

numbers were arrived at. 

The sample of industry groups is a little 

different, and the problem is that because of 

the multi-site experience -- you know, many of 

the cases have multiple -- worked at multiple 

sites. Many of the Energy employees worked at 

multiple sites. And so when you add up all the 

cases from -- that are represented in these 

sites, and you -- or, you know, adding up all 

the -- when you add up all the cases from all 

these sites, you're adding some numbers twice. 

And so if you added up all the columns of total 

cases from these sites you'd get probably more 

than the total cases we have in-house. So to 

arrive at the sample of industry groups number, 

the projected number, I had our TST query our 

database to find out how many cases do we have 

that don't have any representation in these 

listed sites. You know, none of these pe-- how 

many people never worked any of these sites, 

and that was about 15 percent. About 15 

percent of the cases we have didn't work at any 

-- they have no employment at any of these 

sites. And so, based on the ratio of, you 

know, 15 over 8, 5 times the original selection 
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 

number, which was something around a little 

less than 500, I added in some 80 cases for 

others. It's all other sites besides the ones 

that are listed. 

Okay. I think that's all I can think of to say 

on that. I've probably made it as confusing as 

I possibly can so it's time to move on to the 

next one. 

 DR. WADE: Could we just clarify -- not a 

clarifying question, but just to note something 

you're telling the subcommittee. So your sense 

is that for the subcommittee to -- for the 

Board to meet its original goal of 2 1/2 

percent of the cases audited, it would involve 

roughly 550 cases. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Roughly. Roughly. Now the 

arithmetic gets a little -- 

 DR. WADE: I understand. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- funky. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, so we're -- so doing 60 a 

year, we've got 10 years worth of work. Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That thought hadn't even 

occurred to me, Lew. I'm starting to look at 

retirement at that time. 

 DR. WADE: Well, I mean I'm just putting it 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 

20 

the record because I think the Board needs to 

consider these things as it sort of learns the 

reality of what it set out to do. And I'm not 

saying we go one way of the other. I think 

it's just -- it's something to note. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Moving to the right on 

the page, the next section has the -- refers to 

types of cancers, and this really requires some 

more -- better analysis than what I got onto 

this spreadsheet, as I was thinking about this 

when I was looking at the numbers. And the 

problem here is that -- counting total number 

of cancer diagnoses, which is how I arrived at 

this -- if you count the total number of cancer 

diagnoses, you will get far more than the total 

number of claims because there are many cases 

with multiple cancers. And as you look at this 

number and you see that some 40 percent of the 

cases are skin cancer, that's because skin 

cancer is a case where very, very frequently 

there are multiple cancers. Multiple skin 

cancers in particular occurs. And so the count 

number doesn't reflect necessarily that if a 

person had a basal cell carcinoma, they may 

have had 10 basal cell carcinomas. It still 
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 

counts as one because that's the way it was 

presented in the selection sheet. So there 

needs to be a better analysis here. I need to 

not count the total number of cancer diagnoses. 

I need to actually do a count case-by-case, how 

many cancers are represented in that one and 

only count a basal cell carcinoma once per 

case. So this is -- other than see what cases 

-- what now the -- the count number, the column 

on the count, that is pretty accurate in terms 

of the kinds of cancers that were present in 

the cases that were reviewed. The count is, I 

believe, accurate in terms of what cancer -- 

types of cancers have been reviewed. 

Moving to the next segment of the spreadsheet 

which has -- is job group, in this case I have 

a revised projected number. I retained the 

originally projected number from the 

spreadsheet as it originally appeared. The 

revised projected number is based on some 2 1/2 

percent of total cases, and I'm having trouble 

reconciling all my numbers here, so I'll have 

to do a little research to figure out exactly 

why this is 499. I suspect it has to do with 

not adding in sampling groups or a different 
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 

starting point from the 2 1/2 percent. The 

apportionment of the cases into these groups is 

done by matching the job title that we have on 

our database, in NOCTS, with the -- into one of 

these groups. And since there's a lot of 

question marks about how to do that, I think 

there should also be a spreadsheet in your book 

that shows the 60 cases with the job 

descriptions and the group that I chose to put 

that -- that I thought fit best with that job 

description. So that can be changed, whatever, 

'cause I'm not saying that what I did 

necessarily was right. For instance, I put all 

machinists in maintenance, even though at some 

facilities machinists are in operations because 

they're machining uranium ingots. I'm not real 

sure what support -- you know, what category -- 

I put support -- people in support if I 

couldn't figure out where else to put them, so 

there's some transportation people and security 

people and things like that in the support 

group. So -- but I believe there should be a 

spreadsheet in the book that describes the 

selection based on the job titles, so those 

could be changed and rearranged if you would 
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 

like. 

 DR. WADE: That spreadsheet requires some 

assembly in that it's in two pieces, but -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. 

 DR. WADE: -- the information's all in the 

book. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And then the next 

column, decade first employed, that broke sort 

of inconveniently so that the count falls onto 

the next page. That just shows the 

distribution. The projected was retained from 

the original spreadsheet that was prepared of 

the projected numbers that would go in those 

categories, and I just threw in the count -- 

the numbers -- the actual numbers that we have 

so far. And then when you get into the years 

worked category, the same thing. I just threw 

in the count of the cases actually reviewed. 

And then I went below and broke out some more 

five-year intervals because when you group to 

10 years and then 10 years and over, almost 

everybody's in 10 years and over. And so I 

broke it down further -- a little further into 

additional five year increments up to 30 years. 

This is on page two of that big sheet. 
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 

The next column, type of radiation and the 

count, I didn't fill that in because I wasn't 

sure I knew how to do that. And then the 

remainder is -- well, the next column is 

outcome on how many were compensable and how 

many were noncompensable. Those count numbers 

are, I believe, accurate -- 11 of the 60 

reviewed were compensable and 49 were non. 

And then the rest is sort of some of the total 

numbers that I used to arrive at the numbers 

per site and the projected number per site. 

And I've listed the numbers for the three 

gaseous diffusion plants individually that are 

summed back in the original spreadsheet. So 

these are the statistics on the sixty that have 

been selected so far in terms of -- and I guess 

it's useful in terms of knowing how many have 

been selected from what site, how many -- from 

what cancers have been selected, et cetera. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Stu. Let me ask, 

subcommittee members, you have any questions 

for Stu at this point? Is everything clear? 

 DR. WADE: John Mauro might want to say 

something 'cause --

 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro, did you have any 
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 

comments at this point or do you want to wait 

until later? 

 DR. MAURO: I'll wait until later. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now just as a reminder, we 

had our original 20 cases, then we had a group 

of -- actually of 18 because two of them were 

removed because they turned out not to be final 

or were moved back into the process. And then 

we had another actually 22 to get us up to the 

60. And -- and so -- and you have the 

breakdown of the 60. Now the question is -- 

selection of the next 20 is the immediate 

question. We have a list of 100 selected at 

random. This gives us a good pool to choose 

from, and we have the list of 100 which are in 

the special category where they were not the 

maximized or minimized ones. 

 DR. WADE: We have all of them. Not a hundred, 

but all of them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Basically all of them, yeah, not 

just a hundred. There are actually what, 100 

and whatever it is, 80 or something. 

 DR. WADE: 184 it looks like. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, 184. Now we need to think 

in terms -- there's a couple of issues that we 
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 

have to address. One is how to proceed. Do 

you want to look at a mix of -- you know, a 

priori say okay, we want to select a certain 

number of the ones from list two, which is all 

completed cases with full dose estimation -- 

and let me ask Stu, in that list as you 

presented them there, are those randomized in 

any way or are those in the order that they 

were in your database? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect they're in NIOSH 

tracking order number, although I won't swear 

to that. I believe they were in NIOSH tracking 

-- and then we took that NIOSH tracking number 

out before we made it available for 

distribution. So that's what I think the order 

is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But are these -- Stu, are these 

all the cases that have done -- were done by 

best estimate? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, these are all the cases 

where the reviewing HP clicked that -- one of 

those full dose reconstruction buttons. It's 

all of them. 

 DR. WADE: But you wouldn't encounter them in 

random order. You're encountering them in 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 

27 

order, not randomly. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe you will be 

encountering them in NIOSH tracking order 

number, I think. I don't know 100 percent, but 

I think they're in NIOSH tracking order number, 

in which case they'll be roughly chronological. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and the only reason for 

raising that is it could conceivably introduce 

some kind of bias, although I'm not sure that 

it matters that much at this point since we 

would be selecting very specifically for a 

certain parameter. So it loses its randomness 

in any event. 

But let me throw the question out to the 

subcommittee. Do you wish to specify, a 

priori, some number of full dose estimation 

cases out of the next 20? For example, do you 

want 10 of them to be in that category or all 

of them or five of them or -- because one way 

to proceed would be to use the random list but 

to reserve a spot for some number on the other 

list. Any thoughts on that? 

 DR. WADE: If I could insert myself. I mean 

John, you -- you approached this group and told 

them of the way you would like to see this go. 
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 

Could you just recall for us what your views 

are on this? 

 DR. MAURO: You folks have received a handout. 

Hans -- Kathy Behling basically tried to come 

up with a sort of what we've done to date to 

give you a snapshot of -- according to the 

criteria -- selection criteria where we are in 

terms of audits of cases. And you can get a 

pretty good feel of the degree to which we've 

captured different categories of cases. What 

is not on that list, of course, is -- as you 

all know, we've been looking at primarily, 

overwhelmingly, min/max selections and we felt 

that the value -- the value to the Board of 

doing min/max audits is not -- it's not as 

valuable as doing realistic -- for a variety of 

reasons. It doesn't fully test the full 

sophistication of the new TIBs, the new 

workbooks, the spreadsheets that would allow 

for more realistic analysis. So it was our 

recommendation at the last meeting that an 

effort be made to include certain realistic 

cases. So -- and we believe that the process 

of auditing will be better served, and that 

would move us into a new mode of looking at 
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 

workbooks, which are -- we believe are going to 

largely be the tools that will be used to 

implement the realistic analyses. So we think 

we're about to enter into a new paradigm -- to 

overuse use a term -- that will allow us to 

provide a much more powerful insight into the 

effectiveness and -- of an audit that would be 

a lot more complete. 

 One more thought, though, that struck us -- and 

this is something that struck me and I'd like 

to share with the Board and that is we recently 

have been through quite an intensive -- in this 

series of investigations related to 

Mallinckrodt site profile whereby an array of 

strategies and procedures and assumptions were 

constructed over the past month, which was 

quite an adventure and challenge -- a technical 

challenge. I think we have gotten to the point 

where we -- we, SC&A, have an appreciation of a 

new way of coming at a very complex problem. 

One of the things that might be helpful -- and 

this is something that was not brought up 

before -- is when we are in a mode where there 

is a transition occurring in how dose 

reconstructions are being performed, the extent 
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 

to which -- to get to the bottom of the story, 

we would sure like to review some Mallinckrodt 

realistic cases that are being dose 

reconstructed right now and are being completed 

using the new methods so that we could -- you 

know, we did go through some examples and that 

was an excellent exercise. But even those 

examples, as we recall during the working group 

meeting, didn't fully test a number of issues 

that are still on the table, issues that I call 

somewhat marginal, but still need to be worked 

out. I would very much like to see -- and I 

don't know how well it fits within the 

construct of case selection, but there 

certainly are certain cases that will 

demonstrate how the TBD and the procedures are 

coming together into a final form. Because as 

we all know, they are living documents, but it 

appears that some of them are approaching 

asymptotically the methodology. And those case 

-- cases that represent that methodology need 

to be reviewed, and that almost closes the 

circle because right now we really have not -- 

I know Mallinckrodt's going to be on the 

agenda, but it's not unrelated to what are 
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 

talking about today. But doing several 

realistic Mallinckrodt audits within the 

context of the new Mallinckrodt TBD and how it 

may even change a little bit further before 

this is all over is going to really help bring 

closure to the entire process we're talking 

about. So I'd like to add that as one more 

item on the table for discussion. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Hans, you have something to add to 

that? 

 DR. BEHLING: I guess on Monday -- closing day 

Monday -- Kathy had forward by e-mail to each 

of you a set of documents here that by and 

large defined the criteria -- selection 

criteria as already discussed by Stu Hinnefeld. 

But one of the criteria I wanted to point out 

is the issue of the POC category. And 

according to the selection criteria, between 45 

and 49.9 percent POC we were supposed to have 

about 40 percent of our sample selected in that 

particular category -- which is the critical 

category because if you make a mistake in one 

direction or the other, it would certainly 

determine whether or not a person should have 

been compensated that wasn't, or the other way 
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 

around. And if you look at the very last page 

of that handout, there's a fourth page there 

which has the breakdown of what the first 60 

cases represent. You will see that as of this 

point in time among the 60 cases that have been 

reviewed -- or are under review 'cause we're 

not completely finished at this point -- 82 

percent fall between zero and 44.9 percent and 

18, the balance, is greater than 50. So right 

now we have none of the cases that fall between 

45 and 49.9. And supposedly the selection 

criteria would dictate that 40 percent of the 

cases reviewed should fall into that critical 

area. So if you haven't had a chance to look 

at it, this -- these several pages that Kathy 

sent to you by e-mail identify at this point 

some of the things that Stu has already 

mentioned. That is, which facilities have been 

looked at and what types of cancers, et cetera. 

But the critical one is the issue of selecting 

the POC as a criteria, and the critical 

criteria is the one between 45 and 49.9 

percent, which we have not yet seen. And 

supposedly 40 percent of the cases we've 

audited should fall into that category. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. John, additional --

oh, a question here first from Dr. Roessler. 

 DR. ROESSLER: Most of my stuff is on my 

computer. What was the name of that attached 

file? I'm trying to find it. 

 DR. BEHLING: I am not sure. 

 DR. ROESSLER: I know I got it, but I can't -- 

 DR. BEHLING: I know some of you must have it. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's called case selection -- 

case selection. It's a PowerPoint presenta-- 

it's a PowerPoint file. 

You should be able to find it by that. 

DR. ROESSLER: Case selection. 

 DR. ZIEMER: John, did you have an additional 

comment? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. To make a complicated 

situation a little bit more complicated, as we 

discussed at the last meeting, the fact that we 

may actually have a case that falls between 45 

and 49, if it turns out it was a maximizing 

case that fell at 45 to 49, it still doesn't 

satisfy what we'd like to accomplish. So we'd 

like to see 45 to 49 -- realistic cases. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. Just one other 

question, maybe SC&A can help us on 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 

34 

Basically the first 20 cases we're essentially 

done with. We have had a couple of outstanding 

items, I think -- or did we close those off 

last time, I don't recall. But second -- the 

next 18 we still have to do the roll-up on. 

Where are we on the third 22 cases? The reason 

I'm asking this now is, for example, if we're 

talking about doing these cases and there's a 

reliance on the workbooks, and there's a need 

for a workbook review process, we need to think 

about sequentially how we do this. You know, 

are we ready to do this next 20 without having 

done the workbook review which is being 

proposed, I believe, really for next year's 

work. So -- but John, you can answer that 

after Hans gives his other comment or -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I just wanted to mention 

where we are on the third set of 22 cases. We 

are at this point very close to finishing. We 

do expect to finalize the review process by the 

end of September and have obviously the draft 

report in your hands for comments and review. 

So we're at this point finishing up all of the 

22 cases which, as I said, will be presented to 

you in a draft report. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and then we'll have to go 

through the iteration of reviewing -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- comments and resolving issues. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. John? 

 DR. MAURO: Whenever case or a TBD is put upon 

us to work on, next fiscal year, the workbooks 

are part and parcel of that. In other words, 

the idea -- the concept that there's a boundary 

between the two doesn't exist. If in fact 

we're reviewing a case that -- whereby a 

workbook was used in order to implement that 

case and the workbook, by its very nature, 

implements the provisions of a TBD, well, that 

workbook, as far as we're concerned, is just 

one more procedure that is part of the whole 

that has to be reviewed in the audit process. 

So I think that we have achieved something 

important in that we are integrating it into 

the process, and we will -- those will be 

reviewed. 

Now there are also generic workbooks, and 

here's a separate -- here's where I think 

things get a little bit more complicated. 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 

36 

from the point of view of site-specific 

workbooks -- let's say they deal with Savannah 

River -- we get a case to review it and that 

case, when it was performed a workbook was 

used, we have every reason to expect that we 

will receive that workbook along with the case 

and we will audit that case using the workbook. 

And not only that, audit the workbook against 

the procedures. So it's -- so that the whole 

story is told and that will be delivered to 

you. 

 However, there are workbooks that are generic, 

that cut across all sites. That right now is 

problematic, in that -- logistically -- in that 

they may not -- if we're in the process of 

doing task four audits and if the site -- if 

the case references that workbook as one of the 

tools that were used, yes, it will be brought 

into the audit process. But if it doesn't, it 

won't be reviewed until it's reviewed as part 

of task three. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

DR. MAURO: But maybe that's okay, as long as 

it's not, you know, needed to do task four, 

we're fine. One of the problems that could 
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 

exist is that it may have been used, a generic 

workbook or even a site-specific workbook may 

have been used, but may not be cited in the 

dose reconstruction report. That's one of our 

concerns. That is, it's important that the 

dose reconstruction report fully cite 

everything that it drew upon so that we could 

track it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Basically I'm asking if 

SC&A is comfortable in moving ahead on 

reviewing the cases -- the full dose cases 

without having completed the task of workbook 

review. And it sounds like you're saying yes -

-

DR. MAURO: Absolutely --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can proceed. 

DR. MAURO: Absolutely yes. Absolutely yes. 

In fact, we see it as the preferred method to 

have the workbook review very much -- the sitespecific workbook reviews very much part of the 

audits. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. 

 DR. WADE: I need to make one more comment. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Lew. 

 DR. WADE: Just -- just before we start 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 

38 

the subcommittee starts to deliberate, Stu or 

Jim, is there anything NIOSH would like to say 

to inform this discussion and decision, or have 

you said everything that needs to be said? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that I have 

anything else to say. The suggestion that you 

review Mallinckrodt cases might be a little 

problematic because I thought the Board 

reviewed final decision cases. And if we're 

talking about cases that will be done with the 

latest up-to-date revisions of the site 

profile, those won't be final for some period 

of time. That's the only thing that occurred 

to me during the discussion. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you. I just wanted to make 

sure we had the record full. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. That would be a departure 

from the policy of the Board to do that. 

Okay, other comments? Yes, John, you have an 

additional... 

 DR. MAURO: Hans just pointed something out to 

me that I think needs to be -- an appreciation. 

When we do an audit, Hans -- Hans' expectation 

is that the audit may very well bring in a 

particular aspect of a workbook, a particular 
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 

exposure pathway where the workbook was used. 

It may not necessarily bring in the full array 

of tools that are in the workbook. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: So we'll what we're going to have 

is an interesting situation. We will review -- 

we will audit the case, and in so doing we will 

audit those portions of the workbook that 

supports the case. But it would not be a 

complete audit review of the entire workbook if 

the workbook has a very broad scope. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. MAURO: But that workbook -- let's say it 

pertains to a particular site -- will receive 

complete review as part of our site profile 

review if it's a site-specific. So there's 

going to be a little bit of synergy between the 

two. And in addition, if there's a generic 

workbook out there that is not reviewed as part 

of either a site profile review or a case, it 

will be reviewed as part of task three. So I 

think we’re covered. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so the procedures review 

would pick it up otherwise, yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, so I think we've got 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 

40 

problem in a box. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think -- that's helpful. 

Thank you. 

Okay, Board members, have you had a chance to 

think about how to proceed on this next 20 

cases in terms of, first of all, the mix of 

random versus full dose estimation cases? Who 

wants to speak to that? Mark, you have a --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean I think we need to 

heavily weight it toward the best estimate 

cases. I did want to point out that when you 

sort this -- I guess a couple of things. Lew 

raised the total number of cases, so our 

projected numbers in our first column, you 

know, might not be correct if we don't think 

we're going to do 10 years worth of cases. So 

there's a couple of variables there, but if you 

look at these cases, there's about -- I think 

there's about 180 of them and 67 are Savannah 

River. And that -- now it may not be totally a 

bad thing because I think -- just thinking -- 

and I agree with the Mallinckrodt concept in 

general. I think that we have to wait until 

Mallinckrodt -- until those cases are fully 

adjudicated. But with that in mind, I think 
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 

maybe we want to do some parallel processing 

with the site profile reviews that are 

underway, so we'd have Savannah River, Y-12 and 

Hanford -- I think we've received reports for 

all three of those, maybe Nevada test site, 

from SC&A, so it may be good to get some best 

estimate cases that rely also on that site 

profile so we're kind of doing -- doing a dual 

track on that. So -- but I did want to point 

out that 70 cases out of those 180 are Savannah 

River, so this a -- and this is all of the best 

estimate cases. So I went through and I think 

I came up with like 10 to 15 that I'd even be 

interested in out of that whole list, so maybe 

we can get close to 15 and then do some of the 

-- five of the random ones. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So you're suggesting 15 cases out 

of the full dose estimate table and five others 

from the random table. How do others feel 

about that as a... Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: That seems reasonable enough to me. 

I would think that since we've been asked 

specifically about the 44-49 percent cases, 

that perhaps we might pick four or five that 

fulfill that requirement at the outset, 
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 

somewhat without regard to -- without focus, I 

should say, on precisely where they're from. 

And since so many of the full dose estimates 

really and truly are Savannah River, obviously 

a number of those are going to fall in that 

category. But I would think providing say five 

such cases would be a good place to start 

before we move on to the suggestion that Mark's 

made. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Do you know how many fall above 

45? I haven't sorted that way. 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would just be concerned that if 

they were all lung cancers from Savannah River, 

I'm not sure -- you know. 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's take a quick look at that. 

I think we can identify them. Case 110 is 

colon, Savannah River, 48 percent. There is a 

44 percent one. It's not at 45, but it's 

close. Okay, here's a 45, lung at Savannah 

River, case 145. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I can answer the question. 

There's three cases that fall from 45 to 50. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, there's another Savannah 
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 

River, male genitalia, case 155. Are those the 

only three? 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's it, those three. 

 MS. MUNN: And they're all Savannah River 

 MR. GRIFFON: There's some that are really 

close, 44.96, 44.86, 44.74. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's a 44.7 -- call it 45 -- at 

Savannah River. It's case 216. 

 DR. ROESSLER: There's a 44.74 that's Hanford. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's Hanford. I looked at 

the wrong line. Yes, that's the Hanford 

thyroid. So there are a few of those. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So we can probably shoot for four 

or five in that region, even if it's 44 

percent, and I think -- yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's a 44.86 -- which basically 

is 45 -- Savannah River, bone, which is case 

163. 

 DR. ROESSLER: Wouldn't you round up to 45? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I would. I don't think we know 

these to two decimal points, in any event, even 

though NIOSH likes to show us that. But that's 

the way it comes out on the computer. You want 

to start with those and see if you want to 

include them? Why don't we do that? Is 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 

44 

agreeable as a starting point? 

Let me ask about case 110, the colon case from 

Savannah River, do you wish to include that? 

 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections? Now this will be 

a recommendation to the full Board tomorrow, so 

that's one. 

There is a 44.4, malignant melanoma, case 113, 

at Savannah River. Do you want to include 

that? 

 DR. ROESSLER: Should round that one down, if 

we're going to stick to the -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's 44, but I mean... 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it seems reasonable. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would vote for two other ones 

before that one --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- 105 and 216. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 105, which is 45. -- really 44.6 

percent, which is a liver. Yeah, that's a 

little better. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Savannah River. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone object to 105? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And 216 is the one that Gen just 

mentioned, the thyroid at Hanford. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 216, the thyroid at Hanford. 

 MS. MUNN: That's good. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What about 163, the bone at 

Savannah River? Okay on that one? 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and 155? Oh, is that what we 

just did? 

DR. ROESSLER: 163 we just did. 

 MS. MUNN: Oh, we said 163. What about 155? 

Again, it's still Savannah River, but it's... 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which one? 

 MS. MUNN: 155. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 155, male genitalia and bone at 

Savannah River. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would kind of vote -- I don't 

know. We've got three Savannah Rivers in that 

region. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, there's one -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I just assumed we're holding that 

slot for now. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: The 155 may be a little better 

than 163. They're both the same cancer, 

they're both Savannah River. The 155 is 47 

percent. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, one's bone and all male 

genitalia, that (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they're both bone and all 

male genitalia. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, they are? Oh, yeah, okay. 

That's fine with me to switch those. 

 MS. MUNN: I'd say so. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Use 155. Okay, so we have 105, 

110, 155, and 216 so far out of this list. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now that's only four cases. If we 

want some other full dose cases, in the absence 

of additional cases between 45 and 50 percent, 

do you want to select some others that are, for 

example, 40 to 45? 

 MS. MUNN: Well, the issue then becomes do we 

want to continue in that mode or do we want to 

start looking at site selection rather than 

numerical POC. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I was keying more in at site at 
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 

this point, yeah. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I agree. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's fine. Let's --

 MR. GRIFFON: And my focus was -- I mean 

Hanford and Y-12 because we've got those site 

profile reviews coming, I thought it'd be good 

to have some real cases to look at while we're 

looking at the site profiles. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So with that in mind, I had 264 

for Y-12. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 264 is male genitalia, Y-12, 

basically 28 percent POC. 

DR. ROESSLER: Nervous system. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection to that? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Add that? 

 MS. MUNN: And some comment's been made about 

these smaller -- that 15 percent category that 

has been pretty much overlooked so far. How 

about 262, in that vein? 

 DR. ZIEMER: 262, acute leukemia. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's 40 percent, isn't it? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Basically -- did you say 262, 39 
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 

percent? 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, because of the facility. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, oh, because of the... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Heppenstall? 

DR. ROESSLER: What is that? 

 MS. MUNN: I have no idea, but that certainly 

falls in that 15 percent category of "others". 

 DR. WADE: Stu? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Heppenstall is an atomic 

weapons employer. I don't know right off the 

top of my head what they did, but it was one of 

the AWE sites. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it was one of those 15 

percenters they were talking about that they 

seldom see. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. WADE: Yeah, but I bring to mind Dr. 

Melius's comments to the Board last time that 

said, you know, when we -- when we decide on 

site profiles to review, we're looking at those 

that employed the most. And he was worried 

that these small sites would be lost, so I 

think there is some reason to give 

consideration to them. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: You wish to include that one? 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 262 is in. 

 MS. MUNN: In that same vein, 108 is -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: 108, Nuclear Materials and 

Equipment Corporation, that's -- actually 

that's a high -- it's a 63 percent, colon. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is that 108? 

 DR. ZIEMER: 108. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I have on here -- well, we're 

jumping around a little bit -- sticking with 

the theme of the smaller sites, I have 159. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 159 is basically a 30 percent 

probability of causation, stomach cancer, 

Chapman Valve. Any objections? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ROESSLER: I'd like to ask a question -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll include that. 

 DR. ROESSLER: -- about 190. That one, the 

four significant digits, is exactly 50 percent, 

which doesn't fall in our table at all. We 

have one group 45 to 49.9 and then we have 

another group greater than 50. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it should be 50 or greater 

because 50 is compensable. 

 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And the table or the pie chart 

should really read 50 and greater, not greater 

than 50. 

 DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, okay. I'm not 

recommending that one. I just was curious. 

 MS. MUNN: And there's 138, it's Bridgeport 

Brass. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 138, colon cancer, just over the -

- it's 53 percent --

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Bridgeport Brass. Any 

objections? Okay, we'll include that, 138. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I got like two Hanfords and a Y12 left. I don't know what count you're up to, 

Paul, but I'd like to... 

 DR. ZIEMER: 1, 2, 3, 4 --

 DR. ROESSLER: Nine, I think. 

 MS. MUNN: Nine. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I have nine so far designated, so 

we can take several more. 

Which one are you looking at? 

 MR. PRESLEY: 253, if I may speak. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, 253, esophagus, 34 percent at 

Jessop Steel. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Do we -- do we know what Jessop 

Steel -- is this similar to Bethlehem Steel, 

they did uranium -- does anyone know? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Stu or Jim, do we know what Jessop 

Steel is? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall for certain, but 

I do believe they were a metal-forming AWE. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

DR. ROESSLER: How about another Hanford, Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I got... 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's a Hanford that's right at 

exactly 50 percent that looks -- it's a 

melanoma, 256. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't have that one, only 

because of the type of cancer, really, but... 

 MS. MUNN: There's a similar POC from Bethlehem 

Steel, 279. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What do you want to do on 256? 

DR. ROESSLER: I would vote for that one 

because of the type of cancer. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: 256 --

DR. ROESSLER: But I don't know what -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- any objection? 

DR. ROESSLER: -- what others would think about 

that. 

 MS. MUNN: Go for it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'm going to include 256. 

What was your other one, Mark, you had? 

 MR. GRIFFON: 130. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mark has suggested 130. It's a 

pancreas, 20 percent, Hanford. Any objection? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'll include that. I have 

12 now designated. We can take three more. 

And we've covered -- we have an interesting mix 

of cancers and percentages here -- and 

facilities. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I have a -- well, let's see, a 

couple of different ones -- 201 is one of them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 201, a bladder, Oak Ridge National 

Lab, that -- right at 50 percent. Yeah, that 

looks interesting. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And then right --

 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to 201? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 
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. GRIFFON: And 204, because it was Y-12. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Y-12, 204, 23 percent on a colon. 

Any objections? 

 MS. MUNN: Huh-uh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, include that. 

 MS. MUNN: There's a high POC at 151 from 

another one of the small sites. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 151 is a 72 percent --

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- chronic myeloid leukemia from 

Energy Technology Energy (sic) Center. Want to 

include that? 

 MS. MUNN: I was just looking because of the 

site more than anything else. 

 DR. ZIEMER: How are we on Hanfords, before we 

decide this? There's a -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I have one more Hanford that I 

was going to recommend, but I don't know how 

many you have total. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have three Hanfords in the list 

-- on this -- on this list. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, three. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And you have a total of 14 so 

far, or how many do... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Fourteen. 
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: I mean I would say possibly 219 

is a Hanford --

 DR. ZIEMER: I was looking at that one, also, 

the breast cancer at Hanford? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That one, or what was the other 

one, Wanda? Or -- was it Wanda that -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: The ETEC, whatever that place is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What was that number and... 

 MS. MUNN: 151. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 151 versus -- versus --

 MS. MUNN: It's a high POC but an interesting 

site. 

DR. ROESSLER: How many of the smaller sites 

have we picked? We might almost overdo that. 

 MS. MUNN: It's a possibility. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, if we look at Stu's sheet -

-

 DR. ZIEMER: We have three small sites on this 

right now. We have that Heppenstall, Jessop 

and Chapman. 

DR. ROESSLER: I think I'd go for 257, the one 

that -- which one did you pick, Mark? It was 

breast cancer at Hanford. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Was it 219? 
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 

DR. ROESSLER: I thought that one was a good 

one. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 219 was the Hanford breast cancer. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any preference? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Can I speak? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Look at 76, please -- 176. 

 MS. MUNN: Ah, a good one. 

DR. ROESSLER: Ooh, yeah, very good. What does 

"other respiratory" mean? 

 MR. PRESLEY: That I -- that I don't know. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other respiratory, Stu? Well, 

that -- that's a National Cancer category. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, it could be -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other than lung. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It could be anything in your 

breathing pipe --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from the back of your mouth 

or back of your nose, through your 

(unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: Into the bronchials and -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- through the bronchials, so 

it's -- it's essentially respiratory tract 
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 

before the lung. It's ET-2 in the ICR-- ET-1 

and ET-2 in the ICRP-66 lung model. 

DR. ROESSLER: That's interesting, and on the 

years worked. 

 MS. MUNN: Isn't it. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Just one year. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, and the work decade, too. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, barely made it. 

DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, that one's interesting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You want to include that then? 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable? Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: A lot going on with 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Then case 176, West Valley, the 

other respiratory. That gives us 15 cases from 

this list, and if, without objection, we go 

back to the random list then and pick five 

more. I'm looking on the random list to see if 

we have any more that are in the 45 to 50 

category. 

 MS. MUNN: Well, you have 058 there, back at 

Savannah River -- no. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think I'd stay away from 

Savannah and Hanford and Y-12. 
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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, a lot of that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Excuse me --

 DR. ZIEMER: Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I do want to caution that 

the full -- if it's a full estimation case on 

the randomly selected list, that case also 

appears on the -- on the list you just worked 

from. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So if you select a case on the 

randomly selected list that says full dose 

reconstruction, you want to make sure it's not 

one that you selected off the other list. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, thank you. Yeah, and that 

-- that one is probably one that we selected. 

In fact it is, I see it, so we've already 

selected it. Yes, Robert? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Could you look at one -- at 0110? 

That's from Pinellas. We have not done 

anything, to my knowledge, from Pinellas, and 

it's a 1960 date. 

 MS. MUNN: That's back on the other list. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What's the number on that one 

again? 

 MR. PRESLEY: 0110. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe the zero -- 010 -- 010. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay? 

 MS. MUNN: Squamous cell. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Objection? Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Actually right after that, 111 

(sic), I was looking at. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 111 (sic), pancreas, Feed 

Materials Production Center, 33 percent. 

DR. ROESSLER: What about one from the Nevada 

Test Site, like 017? The POC, the cancer and 

the years worked is kind of interesting on that 

one. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, it is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What do we have from Nevada Test 

Site so far, Mark? Are you tracking there? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't think we have much. 

Overall we've only got three in the past 60 

cases so it's not... 

 MS. MUNN: Here's a low POC from Los Alamos, 

035. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What number? 

 MS. MUNN: 035. 
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

 DR. ZIEMER: 035, Los Alamos case, any 

objections to that one? What about 034 from 

Idaho? Do we need any more Y-12s? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think -- not this round. 

 MS. MUNN: 034 is good. 

 MR. PRESLEY: 068 is a low one from Los Alamos, 

also. It's got a 1970 time frame, that's 

urinary organs. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking for --

 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Bridgeport Brass 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: We just need one, either -- either 

that Los Alamos, 068, or the Idaho, 034. 

 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Paul. 

 MS. MUNN: Let's do 034. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Back on the other list for the -- 

all the cases with the full dose estimate, 

there's one I see here from Mound, which we 

haven't done any yet. It's a -- 234, it's 

bladder cancer, 19.65 probability of causation. 

 MR. GRIFFON: What number was that, Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: 234. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 234? We can certainly add -- 

there's no reason we can't do 16 from 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 

60 

list. Any objections to that, do the Mound? 

Okay. 

DR. ROESSLER: Let's do it, sure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's put that back in then. So 

that's 234. So we have 16 now from the full 

dose list and then we have the following from 

the random list -- let's double-check the 

randoms now. It'll be 010, 011, 017 and 035. 

Is that correct? Everybody agree? That's 

four, and we have 16 on the other list. 

 MS. MUNN: So we decided against -- oh, we did 

034, not 035, whichever. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So just for the record, can we 

have a motion that we recommend to the full 

Board these four cases from the random list, 

plus the 16 cases from the full dose estimate 

list. 

 MS. MUNN: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion? 

 (No responses) 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

Opposed? 
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

 (No responses) 

Motion carries, and we will recommend these 

then to the Board. Stu, thank you very much 

for providing the matrix material for us. And 

SC&A, you'll have your work cut out for you 

here on this next batch as they get under way. 

Any other questions or comments now on dose 

reconstruction? 

Okay, let me -- while we're on this topic, let 

me ask, where are we on the first 20? Did we 

have any out-- we closed everything, didn't we, 

on... 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, were there some things going 

back to NIOSH for -- yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- we have a series of 

actions to do and provide a report to you on 

what we did. So we -- we don't have a report 

on those today --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or this week, but we do have 

actions in our house to -- to resolve comments 

where we agreed yes, we need to go back and 

look at and re-evaluate -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: But that is the final step. We 
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 

don't necessarily need to take action today on 

that -- or even at this meeting -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That was done -- that was done 

at the last meeting, and as I understand it, we 

have -- the next action is ours to provide -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: There were a few items where we 

had to come to closure, but -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, well, there were several 

items that we deferred to the site profile 

review process. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. WADE: But just for the record, remember 

that -- we talked about the next Board meeting. 

This is a special Board meeting that we called 

to deal with issues at Mallinckrodt, so -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. WADE: -- we would expect to hear from 

NIOSH at the next Board meeting. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The October meeting was really 

what we were --

 DR. ZIEMER: And likewise then, action on the 

second 18 would -- where are we on that? I 

think we're somewhere in the matrix process on 

that. I -- Hans -- he's not here. 

DR. MAURO: Yes, they've all been completed. 
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 

They've -- all the checklists have been 

completed, and I believe we're in the process 

of filling out the -- working with Mark in 

filling out the matrix and the -- so we're well 

along on that. And as Hans pointed out, the 

last set of 22, we're about halfway through, 

and you'll be getting the full report before 

the end of the fiscal year. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you very much. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the completeness of the 

record, what do we expect to happen at the next 

Board meeting relative to the second batch of 

20? We'd have your report at that point, John? 

DR. MAURO: The second set of 18, you have the 

report. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. MAURO: The report's in your hands. My 

expectation and my -- would be the same process 

we went through, working with the Board -- with 

subcommittee on the matrix and going through 

the scorecard --

 DR. ZIEMER: Are we awaiting responses on NIOSH 

from that second 18, or are they awaiting 

responses from us, or does it -- I think we 

have your comments --
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 

DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the second 18. 

DR. MAURO: I think the ball is in the court of 

NIOSH in terms of action items related to our 

findings on the first (sic) set of 18 to be 

loaded into the matrix and then go through the 

closeout process at our next meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So I would hope -- and maybe we 

can try to get that on the subcommittee meeting 

for the next --

 DR. ZIEMER: For the next meeting. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: Just -- NIOSH -- Stu, if I could 

trouble you again. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 

 DR. WADE: Again, since my -- one of my few 

tasks is to schedule the agenda, would we have 

the materials available to the subcommittee 

before the October meeting so that they could 

take up that issue at the October subcommittee, 

on the second 18? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We can have -- we can 

get to the step in the process where we were 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 

65 

the first 20 at the last meeting. If -- you 

know, we have a matrix with the findings in -- 

you know, and our response to the finding, and 

then the amount of convergence that can occur 

between now and the end of October is a little 

open -- up in the air as to how much 

opportunity there'll be for that, but is that 

the desire then, we work that convergence, you 

know, we -- we provide our response, we talk to 

SC&A about -- well, what about this and -- and 

sort of come to an agreed-upon -- okay, this 

one goes away and this one we really need to go 

sort out. There's a -- I think we might be 

able to do that by the next meeting, to be at 

that point. 

 DR. WADE: As much convergence as possible, but 

we'll assume that intellectually at the next 

subcommittee meeting we'll be dealing with this 

issue of the matrix in front of us, the NIOSH 

comments, a report on convergence, and the 

subcommittee then will take up the open issues. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: And we'll close on the first 20 you 

said. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. 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 

66 

good progress on the dose reconstruction 

selections. 

We want to move now to Bethlehem Steel site 

profile. 

DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATE SITE PROFILES 

FOR REVIEW BY SC&A

 DR. WADE: I would suggest maybe while we're on 

this vein we could deal with the issue of the 

candidate site profiles for review. I mean 

we're talking about tasking SC&A, and it seems 

that would be a natural flow, if that's okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We can do that. 

 DR. WADE: Stu, are you in a position to walk 

us through what we have on site profiles? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Upcoming site profiles? 

 DR. WADE: What we have in our -- we have a tab 

that has been provided looking at the... Maybe 

I can give you that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think we also got a color 

version of this, the green and red, also on -- 

by e-mail. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think we did all of the 

other. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the tables you have in 

front of you is the status table for progress 
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 

on site profile documents -- site profile 

chapters. You know, each -- all six sections 

are -- for each site are listed across the top 

and the sites are listed down the side, and so 

this is the -- up-to-date as of -- it looks 

like last week -- progress. Anything that's 

marked "approved" is approved and out there. 

There are a few things here that are marked -- 

that are not quite incomplete (sic), they'll 

either have an ORAU or an OCAS in it, which 

means that -- if it's OCAS, that means we have 

it and we are reviewing it, and put to the 

right comments or approve. If it's on the ORAU 

side, that means that they either haven't 

submitted it, but more likely it means they're 

resolving comments we provided them during our 

review. So anything that is approved all the 

way across is the final product available for 

review. 

And then the remainder of the sites down 

through the well, it's -- LLNL, Lawrence 

Livermore, should be done, you know, forthwith. 

The remainder of the sites that are all white 

at the bottom of the second page are scheduled 

for this calendar year, so they should also be 
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 

resubmitted -- the original version should be 

submitted to us by December. I think their due 

dates are all actually in December, if I'm not 

mistaken. So these are the -- the site 

profiles that are complete and available for 

review are the ones that are green all the way 

across. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any questions on these? 

 (No responses) 

 Where's Mallinckrodt on this list? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This list I believe is for this 

fiscal year and --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I gotcha. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Mallinckrodt was on a 

previous list. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now John, could you -- you 

or one of your staff give us a quick update on 

where you guys are in terms of your current 

review process on site profiles? 

DR. MAURO: The full scope of services for this 

-- that'll end at the end of this fiscal year 

included nine site profile reviews. What is 

still pending are Nevada Test Site, Rocky 

Flats, INL and Y-12. Y-12 is completed. It's 

sitting in our office, but we have to sit on 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 

69 

until we get -- and Joe could tell us a little 

bit more about it -- authorization to release 

it from the Department of Energy's 

declassification process. So that's been 

completed for quite some time. 

 The other documents, the INL site profile is -- 

is in draft form. In fact, I think I have it 

in my briefcase and I'm reviewing it. We're 

probably two weeks away from delivering that 

report to you. 

 Nevada Test Site and Rocky bring up the rear 

and we have the -- our expectation is that we 

will be delivering that -- those two reports to 

you before the end of September. The only 

qualifier is the degree to which we will be 

able to get through the complete process, the 

complete process being -- especially with 

regard to Rocky -- issues related to 

declassification. Our expectation is that we 

would move that report out and avoid finding 

ourselves in the delay associated with 

declassification issues and try to get out what 

we would call a non-classified version of the 

report as best we can so that will have that 

product in your hands before the end of 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 

70 

fiscal year. 

The other areas -- I'm trying to -- Nevada Test 

Site, that is probably the one that is going to 

be going out perhaps without the benefit of 

some of the -- as much of the review cycle that 

we would have liked to have had in terms of 

working all of the interviews into the process. 

So for I would say two out of the four 

remaining, they will be complete documents, but 

may not have benefited from as much of the 

review cycle that we would've liked and as a 

result that may necessarily -- that aspect, 

what I call the back end of the process for 

those two site profile reviews, may very well 

have to carry over into next fiscal year. 

 DR. WADE: John, just for the record could you 

specify the nine site profiles that you looked 

at? 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. It's Bethlehem Steel, 

Mallinckrodt, Savannah River, Hanford, Iowa 

Ammunition Plant -- that's five -- Nevada Test 

Site, Rocky, Y-12 -- I'm missing one -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) INL. 

DR. MAURO: -- INL, thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Everybody get that list? 
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

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So there may be a little tail over 

on some of these into next fiscal year, 

particularly -- did you say Nevada and INEL? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I believe that there -- the 

way things are unfolding in the six-step 

process, I believe that there will be several 

site profiles that clearly closure of the -- of 

issues will carry over to next fiscal year. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The main body of your review, 

though, is going to be largely done this fiscal 

year. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, a good way to look at is 

virtually 90 percent, 80 percent of the work on 

-- the ones that are -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: The front end work. 

 DR. MAURO: The front end work. You'll have a 

product that will be of sufficient completeness 

that will allow the process to move forward 

productively. Unfortunately there will be some 

carryover because of the six-step process, and 

in fact in our proposal of work to you folks 

that I guess will be the subject a little later 

on this week, you'll see that we -- in our 

proposal to you we've set aside some resources, 
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 

recognizing that there would be some carryover, 

to continue that work. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just in terms of selection for 

future site profiles that -- the note that 

Mallinckrodt and Bethlehem Steel aren't on that 

other list. Are there other -- are there a lot 

of others that are not on there that are 

completed site profiles that we might have as 

part of our pool to select from? I'm getting a 

little confused at what we have available to 

select from. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what's available to select 

from I guess is on this table. I mean you have 

some that are done, like Bethlehem and 

Mallinckrodt. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Mallinckrodt and Bethlehem 

weren't on there, but are there other ones on 

there that we didn't review -- not on there 

that we didn't review. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The gaseous diffusion plants. 

Are they on there? Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: IAAP is done and gone, fortunately. 

 DR. WADE: And the question, Stu, is -- the 

subcommittee needs to understand the universe 
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 

of sites essentially available to it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I might have to go do a little 

research to know for sure. 

 MS. MUNN: Well, we did IAAP. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Especially from the smaller 

sites. That's where I'm really at a loss. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Just for clarity, the GAO date I 

think is the date that NIOSH told the 

Government Accounting Office that -- was your 

target date for completion of the profile. Is 

that correct? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Target date for completion of I 

believe the initial draft of the profile. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Initial draft, uh-huh. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And a 60-day implementation 

period following that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. TOOHEY: The only ones not on this list 

that come to mind are Blockson Chemical and -- 

that's -- that's the only one I can think of 

right now that's not on here. Sandia -- no, 

that is on there, never mind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sandia is on the list. 

 DR. TOOHEY: Yeah. Okay, that's about the only 

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 

74

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Lew? 

 DR. WADE: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. Okay, any other questions? 

And remind us, Lew, how many have to be 

selected? Can we give that number this time, 

or do we need to wait? 

 DR. WADE: If I had to plan a number, I would 

say six. I mean, I think it remain-- the exact 

number will have to await the full Board 

discussion as to tasking the contractor for 

next year and it will eventually await budget 

determinations, but I think six. From my very 

selfish point of view as Technical Project 

Officer, we want to keep the contractor working 

at the start of the year. 

 DR. ZIEMER: As a minimum we can specify what 

the next six cases will be, regardless of 

whether we do them all this year or not. 

 DR. WADE: I think that would put us in a very 

good position. 

 DR. ZIEMER: In terms of the dose 

reconstruction cases being reviewed and so on, 

do the Board members have any feeling for which 

-- which of these you believe should be near 

the top of your list? For example, 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 

75 

cases from Hanford coming into the picture, 

probably Los Alamos. What is your pleasure, 

Board members? Any -- any preferences? 

 DR. ROESSLER: It seems Hanford would be high 

on the list. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see if we can identify -- 

put it out as a strawman. 

How many -- any objections to Hanford being in 

the next list of six? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Where is Hanford? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Hanford is completed. 

 MS. MUNN: It's still in Washington. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Hanford's been delivered to us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we have Hanford. I didn't 

mark it down. 

 MS. MUNN: A monster. 

DR. MAURO: Are you referring to cases now? 

didn't quite follow the -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, we're looking at site 

profiles, but I forgot to check off Hanford on 

the list here. 

 DR. MAURO: When I was listening to the 

discussion, I -- in my head I thought you were 

talking about a priority of the next 60. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Next six, yeah. 

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 

76 

DR. MAURO: Next six -- oh, not 60. But there 

was a thought came to mind that might be worth 

consideration and I'll -- it also was a step 

backward, though. When we look back over the 

nine site profiles that we reviewed, certain of 

them we have raised certain issues that we find 

-- and there's general consensus in our group -

- that are very compelling. Example, Hanford 

we have -- have cert-- serious concerns with 

the neutron to photon ratios and how they're 

developed. We consider that to be something of 

profound importance in dose reconstruction and 

how you go about selecting your neutron to 

photon ratio. Each -- out of the nine that 

have been done, maybe three or four of them 

have raised certain concerns that we consider 

to be extraordinary importance because they 

have the potential to have a very large effect 

on doses and also on a large number of cases. 

We've never talked about that before, and 

perhaps that should somehow play out when we're 

selecting realistic cases for the purposes of 

doing the audits themselves. So I apologize 

for stepping back a bit, but it was -- while 

you were talking I was thinking in terms 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 

77 

priority of the 60 cases and that -- that's 

something that crossed my mind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: But from a historical point of view, 

the last time the Board took up this issue it 

went with the largest employers, as I 

understand. I mean now you could continue with 

that and you could get numbers, you could use a 

different logic. I think we're much more 

experienced now -- also the interconnectedness 

of this whole process -- so I think it's a good 

discussion to have. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I got a -- I got a list of seven. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, go ahead. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm looking at Fernald, Los 

Alamos, Mound, X-10, LLNL -- Lawrence 

Livermore, and then on the small sites, 

Bridgeport Brass and Combustion Engineering. 

should note -- I just caught it myself -- is 

that it's not approved yet, so -- 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I didn't realize that when 

I was checking off --

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we can do that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So maybe I do have six, I don't 

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 

78 

know. I'd just throw those out there. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's very close to -- it's 

got a 9/05 target date on it. 

 DR. WADE: Would you say those again for the 

record, Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Fernald, Los Alamos, Mound, 

X-10, Lawrence Livermore, Bridgeport Brass and 

Combustion Engineering. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Just -- yeah, Robert, you have a 

comment on that? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Can I speak? Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Where are we on Pinellas? 

Pinellas is marked ORAU. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, generally we're in 

comment resolution. That would mean we've 

commented and it's back to ORAU to resolve our 

comments. So that's where that is at the time. 

 MR. PRESLEY: The reason I bring Pinellas up, 

it's -- it's different from anything we've 

done. I believe it's a non-uranium type 

facility. It would be interesting to see what 

they find out on their site profile for a nonuranium facility. 

 DR. ROESSLER: Lawrence Livermore is -- doesn't 
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 

look like it's near completion. It does have a 

6/05 date on it, but there's a lot of red and 

yellow on that. I'm wondering how -- if we 

consider that, how far along that is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dick Toohey maybe can speak to 

that. 

 DR. TOOHEY: I just happened to have a message 

regarding those on my portable mind received 

this morning. On Pinellas I think the only 

things that are open, and this should hopefully 

match what's on your color chart there, is the 

internal and external TBDs, and they're in the 

final comment resolution stage. So if NIOSH is 

happy with our response to their comments, 

those will be signed off shortly. 

 Livermore, the introduction, environmental, 

internal dosimetry and external dosimetry TBDs 

are also -- we think -- we've responded to 

NIOSH comments on it and they're back to NIOSH 

for their review and approval of those 

comments. So again, if we were successful in 

addressing their comments, those should be 

approved shortly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. So 

actually we have a suggestion of seven or eight 
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 

possibilities. Remind us, though, Pinellas -- 

didn't Pinellas do largely timers and so on? 

Did they have maybe some tritium work? Tritium 

was the main thing there, right? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Tritium, beryllium. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Tritium, and they had some 

neutron generator work, as well. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Since Lawrence Livermore is still 

having work done on it, if we wanted to look at 

a laboratory would we do just as well to look 

at Argonne West? 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's a possible suggestion, 

Argonne West. Uh-huh. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me go down through these and 

maybe we can just order them. Any objection to 

Fernald? Los Alamos? Mound? And X-10? Those 

four are completed and are probably excellent 

candidates. Any objection to using those as, 

for example, our top four? Not necessarily in 

that order, but -- there appears to be no 

objection. 

Now let's look at -- we have Lawrence Livermore 

-- I'm sorry, what -- Pinellas -- 
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

 DR. ROESSLER: Argonne West. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Argonne West. 

DR. ROESSLER: And Bridge--

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And we have two -- two of the AWE 

sites, Bridgeport Brass and Combustion 

Engineering. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess I would be willing to 

take Combustion Engineering off the list for 

now since it's got no -- you know, not 

completed yet. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest that we include 

Combustion Engineering in our list so we have 

at least an AWE site. 

 MR. PRESLEY: You mean Bridgeport Brass? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I meant Bridgeport Brass, say that 

three times rapidly, and then perhaps select as 

our sixth one, one of -- Argonne, Pinellas or 

Lawrence Livermore. And then the other two -- 

carry those along as the next two in case the -

- in case we get there. 

 DR. WADE: Resources available. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Resources available. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I will throw out one other thing 

that I just thought of, Blockson Chemical -- 
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 

and the only reason I bring that up is because 

in previous meetings we've had some discussion 

on how the radon issue is being handled and I 

know that -- that we've had several -- quite a 

bit of dialogue on that and I don't think -- it 

wasn't on the list, that's why I forgot about 

it, but I'm assuming it's complete. Right? 

 MS. MUNN: It's done. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or is it? 

 DR. WADE: You need to ask... 

UNIDENTIFIED: Blockson Chemical? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Blockson Chemical. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think Stu said it was -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Beg your pardon? 

 MS. MUNN: Blockson Chemical, is it complete? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking about radon at 

Blockson? Is that what you're talking about? 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. WADE: Is it -- is it available for us to 

consider for review? 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's done, Blockson is done. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, Blockson -- the site 

profile is published, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But the ra-- the radon section is 

still reserved at this point? 
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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, so maybe we should hold 

off on that until -- all right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. ROESSLER: I would speak for Pinellas for 

the reasons Bob mentioned. It's a very -- 

seems like a very different site and I think 

that should be looked at. 

 DR. ZIEMER: How do the rest of you feel? You 

want to add Pinellas then as the sixth one? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Pinellas will be six, and 

then perhaps Argonne West and Lawrence 

Livermore can be seven and eight then. So we 

have a pool here to draw from. Can I have a 

motion to that effect? 

 MS. MUNN: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The motion is that Fernald, 

Lawrence -- or Los Alamos, Mound, X-10 and 

Pinellas and Bridgeport will be our first six. 

I don't know that we necessarily have to 

specify the order at this time, do we? 

 DR. WADE: Well, I mean I think we will have 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 

84 

do something first. If you want to leave that 

to my and the contractor's discussion, that's 

fine. If you want to inform that decision, 

please do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll come back to that. 

And then Pinellas and -- or I'm sorry, Argonne 

West and Lawrence Livermore would be seven and 

eight. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed? 

 (No responses) 

 Motion carries, and we'll recommend that to the 

full Board. Do you wish to prioritize these 

first six for the contractor? Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would say let's hold off and 

maybe get some input from them, the contractor, 

'cause I'd like to also look at the maybe pool 

of dose reconstructions and what NIOSH is 

prioritizing as far as case work. That might 

drive our decision on what we want to look at. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And some of those issues, like the 

-- was it the photon to neutron ratio issue -- 

that's surely going to come up at some of these 

places like Los Alamos, big time, and probably 
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 

at X-10, Lawrence Livermore. Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Some of the sites -- we might also 

need to think about -- they're scheduled for 

closure here in the next six months to a year 

and it's going to be kind of hard for me to 

track people down to review the site profiles, 

so you may want to try to prioritize those. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's a good point, yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, actually Pinellas is good 

for that reason. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Pinellas is -- and what's Mound's 

status? 

 MR. GIBSON: It's similar. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's similar. Right? So get them 

while you can. Uh-huh, good point. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: So maybe we can hear from the 

contractor and NIOSH when the Board discusses 

this if there are any thoughts that need to be 

considered as to priority. 

 DR. MAURO: Just one thought comes to mind now 

that is of a practical matter. The degree to 

which the site profile review has been 

completed prior to us doing the detailed review 

of the cases -- it's almost a -- when the ca-- 

the three sets of 20 cases move through 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 

86 

system it would be desirable -- for example, 

let's say the next set of 20 that move through 

starting October 1st, it would be very 

desirable for those -- for that set of -- first 

set of 20 to be cases that already have sitting 

behind them the fact that we've done a site 

profile review. So almost to the extent that 

it's possible -- and I realize the logistics 

are very difficult -- but when we have the site 

profile review done and then we are asked to 

review a case, the power of our -- the ability 

for us to review that case increases 

dramatically by having that behind us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: Mark. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I was just going to say -- 

I was -- I was thinking a similar -- similar 

thought as you, John, but I could also see a 

benefit of sort of parallel processing because 

I know in Mallinckrodt this process that we've 

gone through -- we looked at the site profile, 

but we also found that it was beneficial to see 

a couple of -- of how they were going to do the 

dose reconstruction, actually how they were 
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 

going to apply some of those things in the site 

-- and so either before or parallel to, I think 

I'm in agreement. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the record, I think this 

whole issue of timing of case review, site 

profile reviews, SEC petitions is something the 

Board really needs to discuss. They are all 

interconnected and I think the Board really 

needs, when it sits as a full Board, to talk 

about these issues. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Anything further on the 

site profile review schedule? Okay. I'm 

looking at the clock here to see whether we 

have time to get underway on Bethlehem. We 

didn't schedule a particular lunch break, but 

we're almost at the noon hour. So rather than 

try to get underway on a new topic I think I'll 

declare a recess here, and I'm not really 

certain what the eating arrangements are. Do 

we need more than an hour in this area? We 

should try to be back by 1:00 if we can. Thank 

you. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:50 a.m. 

to 1:20 p.m.) 

MALLINCKRODT SITE PROFILE 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 

88

 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to go back into 

session. I trust everybody had a good break. 

There are two main items this afternoon. One 

is the discussion on the Mallinckrodt site 

profile. The other is discussion on Bethlehem 

Steel. Jim Melius wanted to particularly be 

here for the Bethlehem Steel discussion and is 

due to arrive yet this afternoon. So since Jim 

is not here yet, if there's no objection, we'll 

proceed with the Mallinckrodt material and 

begin discussion on that. 

To kick that off I'd like to call attention -- 

in your Board booklet there's a tab called -- 

 DR. ROESSLER: Mallinckrodt. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mallinckrodt. What a surprise. 

And there behind that tab you'll find a summary 

of the action that the Board did take at the 

last meeting in identifying priority issues 

relative to that petition and that site 

profile. And there were six tasks that were 

identified at that time, and these are 

enumerated in the material there, tasks where 

we asked NIOSH to complete those and for those 

to be worked with our contractor so that we 

could identify any issues that were 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 

89 

resolvable and identify any outstanding issues 

that the Board may need to consider in its 

final decisions. So I think it would be useful 

if both NIOSH and SC&A had an opportunity to 

summarize for us what has transpired. 

Of course you're all aware that we did have a 

workgroup meeting of the Board with NIOSH and 

SC&A and the petitioners about a month ago, as 

well. And I think the Board members have also 

been apprised as we proceeded with all of the 

exchange of information, including the 

exchanges between Dr. Neton and Dr. Makhijani, 

in terms of attempting to resolve a number of 

the issues and questions. 

Perhaps I could ask Jim Neton or one of his 

staffers to kick it off and summarize your sort 

of take on the six issues, and then if Dr. 

Makhijani could follow it up after that. And 

this doesn't necessarily have to be the formal 

presentation, but if you could summarize for us 

-- 'cause I think the Board members also have 

been tracking this pretty closely, but just to 

get us all on the same page here, summarize 

where you think we are and Dr. Makhijani then 

can summarize where SC&A has come down. Then 
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 

we'll have a chance for questions and 

discussion. 

 DR. NETON: Yeah, I can do that. I'm not 

prepared I guess to do a formal -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, I understand. This is just 

informal. 

 DR. NETON: I'm actually looking for my listing 

of the six issues so that I can speak to them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I have an extra copy, Jim, right 

here. 

DR. NETON: I got it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you got it? 

 DR. NETON: A lot of water has gone under the 

bridge since last Board meeting and we've had 

very fruitful interchange with SC&A on these 

issues. I'll just go through them one by one. 

The handling of raffinate exposures, item 1-A, 

NIOSH should specify the radionuclide ratios 

for all ore processing. We have developed some 

ratios -- let me take a step backwards. The 

proposal at the last Board meeting was that we 

were going to use air sampling data and some 

multiplier on top of the urinalysis data to 

come up with intakes of the non-equilibrium 

ratios. Since that time NIOSH has reevaluated 
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 

data and has determined that for areas where 

there is high radium-bearing ores -- the early 

part of the extraction process, disequilibrium 

with radium, that we believe that the radon 

breath data that we have from the CER database, 

as well as the HASL data, are better approaches 

to bound the radium intakes. And then we will 

apply ratios to radium, not using -- we'll not 

rely on the uranium urinalysis data for that -- 

that aspect. 

 At the working group meeting we had, though -- 

and by the way, the ratios that we propose to 

use, and I think SC&A is in substantial 

agreement with us for the radium-bearing ores, 

are those that were derived from the raffinate 

-- the K-65 material that's been stored at the 

Fernald site. I got ahold of those ratios. It 

was suggested at the last Board meeting by SC&A 

that that might be a good point. It turns out 

almost all of that material came from 

Mallinckrodt and is stored there, so it's -- I 

think it's a pretty representative value to 

use. 

It's a little hard to discuss without some 

graphics, I suppose, but when you get -- 
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 

there's two -- there's two slits here. You 

have the radium-bearing ores, and then once you 

remove the radium, SC&A has correctly 

identified that the radon breath analyses are 

not useful for people who are working with -- 

these are raffinate workers -- who are working 

with raffinate material that is -- only 

contains thorium and its daughters and radium 

is gone. So we have proposed to use the 95th 

percentile of the air sample data in Plant 6, 

time-weighted -- 95th percentile of the timeweighted average air sample data and to -- to 

bracket the exposures from -- from that 

pathway, and then use ratios that we've 

developed based on a few literature values that 

we have. 

And I have some -- oh, an update on those 

ratios, of what they are in my formal 

presentation, but I guess -- I can hand it out, 

I suppose, if we want later. But essentially 

what it ends up being is the ratio of thorium 

to -- protactinium is about I think 15 percent 

of the thorium value in the waste stream. And 

that's a fairly conservative estimate. 

What we've done is we've taken the thorium 
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 

values, which we know the activity per gram is 

about ten to the fourth picocuries per gram, 

based on some laboratory analyses in the -- 

what -- this is what's known as the AM-7 

material. And we've also looked at analyses of 

the Sperry cake, which is known to be a very 

good source of protactinium -- taken that value 

and assumed that that was present in the 

thorium ore itself. And that's where you end 

up with about a 15 percent ratio, 15 percent 

protactinium to thorium. And we are further 

assuming that the actinium daughter of the 

protactinium is in 100 percent equilibrium with 

the protactinium, even though we have seen some 

laboratory analyses that indicate that it is -- 

it is depleted in actinium, but we felt that it 

was not prudent to make that judgment based on 

just one laboratory analysis. 

So I think -- I think we've got those ratios 

defined, and I'm sure SC&A would be willing to 

comment on that. 

 Once these ratios are developed and we have -- 

if we have radon breath data for a person -- 

let me just outline the scenario now -- we will 

use the radon breath data to estimate an intake 
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 

of radium and daughters, and then also take the 

thorium air sample data to estimate an intake 

in the thorium areas, and pick the scenario 

that delivers the highest dose to the worker 

and therefore the highest probability of 

causation. 

 Lacking radon breath data, we propose to use 

the 95th percentile of the radon breath data 

for residue raffinate workers, and that would 

be applied -- and then we would compare the 

95th percentile intake for radon breath to 95th 

percentile of the -- of the thorium air 

concentration. 

By job title, it's -- we've gone through the 

database and it appears to us that there's 

substantial overlap in jobs, to the point where 

it's difficult for us to separate out people 

who purely worked with raffinate and residues 

and who worked with uranium. Where we can, we 

will be very careful and select that, but in 

general I think a very large percentage of the 

workforce, particularly in Plant 6, are going 

to be assigned doses as if they were raffinate 

residue workers. 

I think that covers most of what's in six -- 
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 

item one. 

The radon exposure issue has an interesting 

history behind it. If you recall the last 

Board meeting, SC&A proposed that the radon -- 

the doses -- systemic organs from radon 

inhalation could be substantial given that 

there are very large concentrations of radon in 

the air. And we've looked at that and we've 

looked at SC&A's model. We found -- there were 

some issues with that model. We've proposed 

our own model, came up with values -- it turns 

out that in general there is dose to systemic 

organs from radon. It's mostly -- for the most 

part it's due to the dissolved gas in the body 

and not the progeny that becomes systemic. But 

rather than assign radon doses to systemic 

organs, since we're using the radon breath data 

to bound radium intakes, we've done an analysis 

and we've distributed this widely that has 

demonstrated that is sufficiently claimantfavorable in itself so that we don't need to 

account independently for that source term to 

the -- to the claimants -- or the cases. So I 

think that we are in reasonable agreement with 

SC&A on this approach. 
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 

Application of dose correction factors, 

external organs, we've issued and distributed 

to the Board and others a Technical Information 

Bulletin that deals with this issue. We have 

determined that doses for certain work 

activities could be a factor of two higher than 

were recorded by the badge and we're prepared 

to make that adjustment in the appropriatelyaffected work-- workers. 

 The intermittent exposure issues, we -- we 

provided some data and some descriptions -- we 

picked an actual case and went through and -- I 

think that we are in agreement that the use of 

a chronic exposure model will in fact be 

claimant-favorable when there are intermittent 

acute exposures in the middle. So I think that 

we have general agreement there. 

 Specification of dose reconstruction 

methodology for unmonitored workers, we have 

decided that we will use the 95th percentile, 

as I indicated earlier, of the air sample data 

and if -- we pick the highest, the 95th 

percentile air data or the radon breath data 

for unmonitored workers, and that would include 

people working at SLAPS and in the D&D 
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 

activities. The unmonitored workers who were 

secretarial, administrative type locations, 

would get the -- the full distribution of the 

workers' dose. That is the -- you know, the 

best estimate would be the median value of that 

distribution and some assigned geometric 

standard deviation that brackets the range of 

exposures observed in the workforce itself. 

And then the example dose reconstructions for 

representative cases, it's going to be very 

difficult to talk through this, but we have 

constructed a -- we have picked -- picked a 

worker and reconstructed dose using radon 

breath, and then taken the same worker and 

assumed we didn't have radon breath and 

estimated the doses, and then we also used the 

same case using the 95th percentile air. It 

turns out that for those workers it's -- the 

metabolic organs are extremely high, and in 

general I think it'd be hard to imagine, for 

any reasonable duration of employment, that 

metabolic cancers -- that is liver, bone, 

leukemia, those type of cancers -- would not be 

compensated under this model. The metabol--

the systemic can-- the non-metabolic cancers 
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 

are -- are large, but they're not all over -- 

over the top. This is just one example. And 

again, the internal dose calculations that we 

did did not include external. The missed dose 

for external is going to be large, so that will 

be added, so it's -- it's very difficult to 

predict what percentage of the non-metabolic 

cancers would get paid, but -- but certainly, 

in my estimation, a fairly large percentage -- 

a very large percentage. 

 Then internal dose reconstruction for Plant 7 

thorium workers, we have identified -- we 

picked a worker who had a bioassay sample for 

thorium 230. It turns out that the thorium -- 

the thorium 230 workers did have bioassay in 

the early period of operation. We've located 

about 70, 72 samples, somewhere in that 

vicinity, of thorium bioassay that were in the 

HASL database. It turns out that Plant 7, in 

our -- to our estimation, really only processed 

March '55 through April 19th of '55, and they 

stopped operation because of concerns of -- 

they needed to -- you know, it was not designed 

for this operation and they wanted to have 

better controls in place, and they restated 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 

99 

1956. We don't know exactly in '56, but we 

would assume sometime early in the year -- 

January -- and processed through '57. 

We have -- those 70 bioassay samples that I 

spoke of cover March and April of that 

operation, so we have bioassay data for that 

period, and we have located more than 200 air 

samples that covered the process in '56 and '57 

in Plant 7E. I have them on my computer if 

anybody wants to see them in more detail. So 

we believe we have sufficient information for 

that particular operation to -- to do dose 

reconstructions for thorium 230. Those doses 

from the bioassay samples I -- are large. You 

can see the example case that we've handed out. 

The -- I think it was a pancreatic cancer, and 

that was 200 rem just from the one bioassay 

point, which is well over 50 percent. 

 That's a quick nutshell summary. I'll be more 

than happy to answer any questions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks, Jim. Let's see if there's 

any immediate questions from Board members. 

If not, before Dr. Makhijani goes to the mike, 

I want to make sure that all the Board members 

received the August 16th draft from SC&A, which 
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 

is the -- let's get -- it's the third 

supplemental review of Mallinckrodt site 

profile -- third supplemental review of Rev. 1. 

And particularly in -- you'll notice not only 

in the Executive Summary but once you get into 

the report itself, particularly section three 

of that report deals specifically with the six 

priority issues. And is there anyone that did 

not get a copy of that? I want to make sure 

you all have it. Okay. 

Okay, Arjun, if you want to approach the mike 

and make any comments relative to those six 

items or related issues, that would be fine. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, I also sent 

around a SC&A slide presentation, I believe -- 

must have been on August 19th or 20th, a few 

days after. I don't know if you have that, or 

if you would like to see it projected I do have 

it in my computer. I also have a hard copy and 

you can follow along with me, or we could make 

copies later on. I don't know what you would 

prefer. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is this one that you were going to 

use tomorrow? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, in case you asked me for 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 

101 

presentation, I was going to use -- use that, 

but I could go through it now more informally 

if you'd like --

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- or project it, as you'd 

prefer. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask the Board members, did 

you all get a copy of this? 

DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: We've all seen it, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I guess if you want to -- 

if you want to use that, we can track along. 

Is this available to the members of the public, 

as well? Do we have copies? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Not -- not yet. There will be 

 DR. ZIEMER: We will have copies out here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn't -- at least I didn't 

see copies. Well, I did send it to NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I suspect LaShawn would probably 

have made copies. We'll -- we'll double-check 

to make sure there are copies available for the 

 DR. WADE: Why don't you project it then, just 

so the public will be able to see 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 

102

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we need to set... He can just 

hook in directly, probably. Can you hook in 

right here, Arjun, or can you... 

(Pause) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Am I on? Can you hear me? 

Well, Dr. Ziemer, I will go through the details 

of the -- how we prepared the report and so on. 

Since this is more informal thing I can go 

through that. So the priority issues Jim has 

already listed. 

 Our overall conclusion was that NIOSH has 

suggested approaches to the six areas that in 

principle could be applied to estimate maximum 

doses. And there's this proviso, as you see, 

that may still -- at the time -- now this is 

all as of August 16th when we submitted the 

report, and there are a couple of issues that 

I'll mention that came to my attention since 

that time, and new things that Dr. Neton 

mentioned today. But -- but I felt -- we felt 

that there still was some work to do on 

defensible values for critical parameters, and 

so some work remained to be completed. There 

are some parameters and correction factors that 

should be demonstrated to be claimant-
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 

favorable. And for Plant 7-E, about which 

there was new information today in Dr. Neton's 

presentation, we felt the coworker bioassay 

database needed to be developed. And the basis 

-- I won't go into the basis of this. That's 

just a summary. 

And we had some recommendations for completion 

of the work. As -- as you can see from the 

case studies that were done by NIOSH and 

distributed on August 4th, and there was a 

slightly updated version -- Jim, correct me if 

I'm wrong, the subsequent updated version was 

not much different -- it had some different 

ratios, but it was not materially different 

than what you sent me. 

DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

thorium air concentrations (unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. But I -- there was some 

work that was sent after that I did not have 

time to incorporate, but the -- NIOSH has 

suggested that the normal uranium -- if I step 

back, the whole problem of non-equilibrium 

presence of radium, thorium and so on comes in 

because when uranium was taken out and 

processed these other radionuclides, which are 
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 

much more -- which had much higher dose 

conversion factors so produced much higher 

doses, become very important. And it turns out 

that whenever you assign these non-equilibrium 

ratios of thorium, actinium, protactinium and a 

couple of other -- polonium, lead, you get 

much, much higher doses than if you assign 

equilibrium doses. 

And one of the things that has happened in the 

last month, as we perceive it, is the detailed 

dependence on analysis of job categories has 

been put aside. They're now much broader -- 

production workers, maintenance workers, 

unmonitored workers, much broader categories. 

And NIOSH has suggested that equilibrium 

values, which produce lower doses, be assigned 

to uranium process workers. We're not in 

disagreement with that, but since it makes a 

very large difference to the dose -- I did -- I 

did look at the radon breath data, and radon 

breath was monitored for workers who were 

exposed to more radium in non-equilibrium 

concentrations, and I found that there may have 

been workers in metal working areas who were 

exposed to radium, but they may have been 
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 

roving workers. I could not establish from the 

raw data the meaning of all the datapoints, and 

I did not in all honesty go through all of the 

451 pages and thousands of entries of raw data. 

I just did not have time to do that. 

But one of the critical things is going to be 

how it's decided who was not exposed to nonequilibrium ratios, because if you assume 

equilibrium, it will be a much, much lower 

dose. And we -- our recommendation from SC&A 

would be that -- that that be assumed only with 

definitive evidence that workers did not go 

into and work in these non-equilibrium areas 

because it will make a very material 

difference. 

One of the things that had not yet been done in 

our analysis is -- Dr. Neton presented this 

idea that there were areas where there was very 

little uranium and very little radium, and so 

primarily thorium dominated air concentrations 

and exposures. In those areas, the 95 

percentile of the air concentrations has -- was 

not developed, at least as of August 16. I 

don't have -- I tried to find sort of quickly 

the air concentration data for those areas but 
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 

could not locate, and in the April report that 

we presented to you we had some analysis of how 

95 percentiles are to be developed. It's not 

an entirely straightforward matter in those 

case where there are just a few measurements, 

and there are these air concentrations where 

there are only a few measurements and it makes 

a very significant difference how you calculate 

that 95 percentile. So the way NIOSH has 

chosen the Plant 6 95 percentile we're not in 

agreement with at this stage. So that number 

needs to be developed. And as of August 16th 

there needed to be some research to be 

completed on the values of the ratios. 

We did -- I had Dr. Thorne -- just so you know, 

there was really a whole team of experts that 

looked at this. I had Dr. Thorne look at the 

feasibility of using radon breath data, whether 

it was a sensible method, whether it was 

technically defensible, and his memo is in your 

report in Attachment 8, and he did say that it 

was a technically defensible method. Because 

of the centrality of this issue, I had that 

memo reviewed by Joyce Lipsztein and 

(unintelligible), the two internal 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 

107 

experts, and they were also in agreement. So 

we are -- we are in agreement with NIOSH on 

that principle that you can use it. 

At the August 4th meeting Dr. (sic) Griffon 

pointed out that some problems with the raw 

radon breath data -- as I said, I didn't go to 

that. Much of the data is not readable -- in 

electronic form, at least -- and there is a 

question about what to do with unanalyzed 

points. And one of our suggestions has been 

that the database needs some cleaning up. The 

lower values of duplicates should be 

eliminated. Some workers have scarce data and 

missing data, and how you handle that -- 

measurement errors, so there's some fine print 

cleaning up that needs to be done on radon 

breath data, which could take a considerable 

amount of work. But it appears to be -- we are 

in agreement with NIOSH that there doesn't 

appear to be any serious tampering with the 

data or anything like that, 'cause that was 

initially an issue. 

All right, so this is -- this is further detail 

on radon breath data that I've just explained. 

This is the point where Dr. Neton has said 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 

108 

new things today that I was not aware of until 

-- until today. The -- it seemed to us that -- 

a coworker bioassay data needs to be put 

forward. The air concentrations that are in 

the site profile Revision 1 which we have been 

reviewing for the past six months were clearly 

not an adequate basis. And just to give you a 

reference, the intakes calculated in the case 

study done and presented on August 4th are I 

think 100 times bigger than inferred from the 

early air concentration data. I have not 

looked at the -- had a chance to look at the 

air concentration data that Dr. Neton talked 

about today. In fact, today is the first time 

I heard about it. But if there are such data, 

clearly they would have to be compared to 

bioassay and some determination made about a 

claimant-favorable method, and we haven't had 

that discussion yet, obviously, because I 

haven't looked -- we haven't had a chance to 

look at the data. 

 The Board working group at the August 4th -- 

there are three issues in relation to external 

dose correction factors. One of them relates 

to the geometr-- location of the organ relative 
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 

to the location of the badge. NIOSH did some 

work in this area. We are in agreement with 

the approach and with the correction factor 

suggested. Dr. Behling did the expert work on 

that for -- for SC&A, and the -- there are two 

other issues of correction factors that remain. 

They're broader issues and the Board working 

group kind of deferred them to this meeting. 

But we did include them in our report as -- as 

they were in our last report of July because we 

don't think that Mallinckrodt dose 

reconstructions can really go forward unless 

this -- this issue is settled, and -- and Dr. 

Behling can address that as he is the one... 

But the correction factors overall will be 

substantially bigger than two if all three 

things are put together. In SC&A's estimate 

for lower torso organs and radium-type of 

photons, you'd have correction factors or six 

to eight. And then of course it depends on 

photon energy whether they're bigger or lower 

than other energies. 

So there were some other priority areas. I 

sort of went over the most important things 

first. We agree with NIOSH about the radon 
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 

doses. We've gone over -- Dr. Anigstein had 

done this work and -- and Dr. Lipsztein -- a 

number of us, but specially Dr. Lipsztein and 

Dr. Anigstein have looked this over and we are 

in agreement with NIOSH's current approach 

about that. 

I think we also think that the unmonitored 

worker approach is satisfactory. 

 Regarding incidents, NIOSH has said, if I'm not 

-- if I'm remembering the report correctly, 

that usually the continuous intake approach 

will bracket it. I think the examples do seem 

to demonstrate that. Just as a caution, we did 

not verify the numerical calculations of the 

case studies presented. This -- this was 

clearly not feasible within the time frame 

because a lot of this stuff came after August 

4th -- like August 8th, 9th, 10th -- and it was 

just not possible to verify it in any sensible 

way. It does turn out that there are some dose 

conversion factors that may be wrong 

(unintelligible) source documents -- some 

source documents, I don't know which source 

documents, that need to be attended to. That 

is a point of detail that needs to be cleared 
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 

up and probably can be cleared up. 

(Whereupon, Dr. Jim Melius joined the 

subcommittee.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There are some incidents that 

may be so unusual that this may not bracket it. 

We did document -- afterwards I went and looked 

at our previous report, and when I came here to 

St. Louis in May -- was it, Denise? -- there 

was someone who mentioned an incident in the 

ionium processing where the stuff boiled over 

and was spilled on the worker, and I think this 

type of incident may not be adequately 

bracketed. It certainly needs -- unusual 

incidents need to be examined, but since this 

is a TBD review, I think overall it seems okay. 

But there is a caveat there for dose 

reconstructors I think that should not be 

ignored. 

 Routine environmental dose, NIOSH's approach is 

satisfactory. I think they've done -- they've 

demonstrated that. There is a question of 

accidental environmental doses. Ms. Brock did 

provide -- gave me a disk full of documents on 

August 4th in Cincinnati. I did take a look at 

many of them and found data from which 
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 

dispersion coefficients can actually be 

inferred, and that is in the report, and we 

think that NIOSH does need to take a look to 

see at least whether doses from accidents and 

incidents could make a difference in some 

cases. 

And then finally NIOSH has -- we pointed out in 

July that NIOSH has used a Technical 

Information Bulletin 2 to maximum internal dose 

estimates, and now there's a different approach 

to maximum internal dose estimates that shows 

considerable intakes. And while we haven't 

done the calculations, there is some question 

in my and in our minds as to whether the prior 

maximum dose estimate is -- well, really a 

maximum dose estimate. 

And so here this -- these are the four critical 

issues -- there are some issues with radon 

breath data, but these are the critical issues 

where work remains to be done, and I've given 

you some idea of who all worked on the report 

and so on. The ratios, the 95 percentile air 

concentration -- which I again remind you is a 

non -- non-trivial issue -- the external dose 

correction factors and the Plant 7-E data which 
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 

we have not yet examined. That's... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. Makhijani. Let's 

see if there's any questions now from Board 

members on the information that you've provided 

for us. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I guess I'd be interested -- I 

think Jim mentioned two files, one -- and I 

think this -- this final slide sort of outlines 

the notes I was making of the sort of remaining 

major things to consider. I think we -- in the 

workgroup process we did come to a lot of 

agreement on most of the issues, but there's a 

couple critical points here and I -- I mean the 

-- you know, as -- as Arjun said, the -- the 

implication -- these ratios sort of end up 

driving a lot of things because of the dose 

consequences of thorium, actinium and 

protactinium, so I -- I would like to see -- I 

know this -- the air sampling data for the 7-E 

stuff hadn't been provided previously, so 

that's new to me. And -- and I -- it would be 

nice to see sort of the source document by 

which these ratios were based. Was it a couple 
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 

samples and they had an -- and -- and generated 

an average, or -- we -- we haven't seen that. 

We've talked about it -- okay. And -- and a 

lot -- I guess the other thing I just wanted to 

-- maybe a little clarification. On the radon 

breath data, the -- the last question I had on 

that, for -- earlier I had -- I had raised a 

question about the lost or not analyzed -- 

there's a number, I think it's 25 to 30 percent 

in the '52 to '53 -- I looked at the data, the 

raw data, and did a quick assessment of roughly 

25 to 30 percent were lost or not analyzed. 

But I -- I came to a similar conclusion than 

NIOSH did, which is that there didn't appear to 

be any trend. They weren't --

 DR. WADE: I have some --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- they weren't skipping certain 

high-risk workers or anything like that. There 

wasn't -- wasn't like they were not monitoring 

-- not analyzing all the warehouse workers and 

analyzing all the administrative people. It 

wasn't anything -- didn't look like any trend 

like that. So it -- it may not be an issue in 

terms of the overall distribution and the 

values that he calculate. 
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 

115 

The second issue that I -- that I raised 

recently was I had time to go back and look at 

'54/'55. I hadn't had that data before, and it 

wasn't only that a lot of values were 

illegible, as Arjun pointed out. There are 

some questions -- and that might be a result of 

scanning the documents, too, I don't know. But 

I also found a number of points in '54 that I 

could -- they were very legible on the -- on 

the scanned copy that did not appear in the CER 

database, and it -- and it was a number of the 

values that were greater than .7 and -- and in 

the scheme of things, most of the values in 

this database are around .1, if you look at it, 

so that .1 is sort of the -- probably near the 

geometric mean on a lot of these things, so .7 

and then all the way up to as high as values of 

-- one value of 4 that I -- that -- that seems 

pretty clear in the scanned copy were not in 

the CER database. And all these radium intakes 

are generated off the CER database, so I was 

questioning whether the database had been 

validated in any way and is that going to be a 

-- you know, result in a problem or hold-up on 

using this data, or is it going to change 
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 

116 

intakes significantly? I'm not sure I know the 

answers to those questions, but those are some 

things that I've (unintelligible) about. I 

think Jim's right here -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, is that something you can 

respond to? 

DR. NETON: Way to go, Mark, I could think 

about this for over a month. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was just giving you time 

to --

DR. NETON: That's good. You raised some -- I 

can't tell if this is working or not, is it? 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: You've raised some really good 

issues, and I'm not sure which one to tackle 

first. I think I'll start with the HASL radon 

breath data. 

As we talked about, there's 451 pages of data, 

fully agree that it's hard to read some of 

these images. And it's our interpretation it's 

a scanning problem. We actually have a team in 

Germantown starting yesterday that are rescanning the entire 451 pages. And matter of 

fact, I expect by Wednesday or so we're going 

to have this whole thing re-coded. 
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 

117

 The issue with the radon breath data are -- is 

that when ORAU inherited the Mancuso dataset, 

they did a validation of all the data they had. 

They did a 10 percent sampling of the radon 

breath data and came to the conclusion that the 

air rate was about three percent or something -

- which was acceptable for -- for an 

epidemiologic study. 

To do that, though, they went and polled 

against the original medical records. They did 

not use the HASL data. Once I found that out, 

we decided to go back and capture -- recapture 

the HASL data in complete format and generate 

the distribution from the data there. 

 I'll agree with you there's some -- what appear 

to be high values, but it turns out that 

analysts use different ways of recording 

values. A good scientist would have a 0.7 so 

you'd know. Many analysts would just put .7. 

The scan is such that those little points are 

not showing up, I think. That's -- it's 

possible it's as high as 7. I'd be surprised 

if there was a 7 picocurie per year -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: No, I didn't say -- the highest I 

saw was 4, and would even question the 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 

118 

(unintelligible) --

DR. NETON: Even 4 sounds really, really -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and that might have been a .4, 

right. 

DR. NETON: That's what I was saying -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: The other ones were very clearly 

high values that weren't in the database. 

DR. NETON: Right. We -- we can't tell from 

that. We're re-scanning the entire dataset. 

It's in the posses-- I was in the original data 

capture effort at EML offices in Manhattan. 

DOE picked up that dataset and is maintaining 

it now in Germantown -- Roger Anders*, Office 

of Worker Advocacy. We know where it is. 

We're there. It's -- it should -- it's 

probably been re-scanned by now, I don't know. 

So -- so we're addressing that issue. And --

and to me, that is the gold set. That is the 

original analytical data at HASL. 

 Now let's talk briefly about the missing data 

and what happened there. 

I got in touch with Dr. Naomi Harley, who was 

an analyst and ran the radon breath data -- at 

least in the latter periods of that time -- and 

I asked her what -- what does a lost sample 
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 

119 

mean. You know, what does this -- what does 

this mean, and why -- especially like in August 

of 195-- I forget which year -- there's a lot 

of missing data. Sorry, it actually says -- a 

whole sheet would be not analyzed. And her 

memory was clear on the analysis, not clear on 

real specifics, but her -- her guess was at 

that time that the -- the shipment problem -- 

they did not have Federal Express back then. 

These samples were shipped from Mallinckrodt to 

New York, and if they sat too long on one end 

of the loading docks, radon's got a fin-- a 

three-day half-life or so, it may be that those 

samples had just decayed too long that they 

couldn't be analyzed or to have any meaningful 

information, or it may be that the person who 

was the primary runner of the instrument at 

that time was also gearing up and being 

involved with fallout data collection around 

the country and he may have been on travel 

status at that point, when the samples arrived, 

and didn't get to them. So there's a number of 

issues that can explain this. That doesn't 

make it right, but I guess at least it points 

to the fact that there was no intentional 
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 

120 

censoring or biasing of analyzing which 

datasets. 

In fact, we went back and looked at this to 

some extent, and I have to rely on my slides 

for later, so you guys are going to have a 

repeat performance of some of my slides maybe 

later in the week. But we went back and 

collapsed the job categories -- I thought I'd 

fixed that typo in the title -- but we 

collapsed the job categories of radon breath 

data, and they fall into a pretty wide 

distribution, and kind of what you might 

expect. About 58 percent were operations 

folks, 13 percent trades and crafts, 

laboratory, warehouse, and then some 

administrative and miscellaneous. But it looks 

to me there's a fairly broad -- broad sampling. 

This was based on an analysis of the HASL data. 

Well, actually the data that were coded. 

But what we did was look -- and went to that 

month of August where a lot were missing -- oh, 

this is just another breakdown of the percent 

of the samples by year, and so it kind of flows 

by year, the same distribution by year of radon 

breath. There's a lot of data. I mean there'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 

121 

thousands of samples here. But what was more 

significant is we said okay, what happened with 

these people that were missing in August? They 

just didn't analyze their samples. Did they in 

fact have any valid radon measurements? 

Remember, radon breath is an indication of the 

amount of radium in the body, so it's a longterm indicator, much like any other bioassay 

that has a long half-life in the body. If you 

miss a sample and you get one three months 

later, there's really not much difference there 

'cause it's a long-term deposition measurement. 

So to make a long story short, within one year 

of the 40 -- the 40 workers that we identified 

in that month of August that didn't have 

samples, 98 percent of them had a valid radon 

sample at least in the HASL database someplace. 

So we feel pretty comfortable it was not 

selective censoring. They went back and we 

have data on a routine program where we at 

least have one sample for -- for the people 

that appear to have missing information. 

So I think there's a pretty good story here on 

the radon. I agree that the missing data looks 

suspect, but you know, we've done everything we 
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 

122 

can to try to answer it. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can you just explain, what do you 

mean by selective censoring? 

DR. NETON: Well, I mean did they go in and 

throw out -- not analyze the people that were 

likely to be high, you know, the raffinate 

workers, and say we're not going to analyze 

those people because they were over-exposed or 

we don't believe the data because they're high 

or something like that. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but that wouldn't 

rule out some other kind of selective sampling 

-- August was high or whatever. I mean all you 

can say is that the individuals weren't -- 

DR. NETON: But the individuals were resampled. I mean 98 percent of the individuals 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's fine, I'm just trying 

to understand. I'm not trying to argue with 

you about it. I'm just trying to understand 

your conclusion there. 

DR. NETON: Okay. It just appears to us to -- 

the people who were on the routine program have 

samples and they just were missing August for 

whatever reason. 
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 

123

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my -- the second part we 

had seen in the workgroup, too, and I -- you 

know, I did a similar sort of look at that data 

by job and things, and I get that general 

conclusion, as well. The first part I have a 

little more heartburn with -- 

DR. NETON: What's that? 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- which is the CER database 

potentially missing elevated values and -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, yeah, and we're going to recode based on the HASL data, the original data 

itself. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And there's another item in there 

which -- you know, just from the validation 

standpoint, it's clear many times in the raw 

data that -- that something was labeled a resample -- or, I'm sorry, a repeat. Not a resample, but a repeat. And in some cases they 

put it in the database in a second column and 

in some cases they put a whole new sample line 

in. So there's -- there's some questions on 

the -- you know, the quality of that database 

for individual dose reconstructions, anyway. 

mean --

DR. NETON: Right, I'll grant you that. So I 

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 

124 

think -- I think that's about all I can say 

about radon breath. I think we're recapturing 

it. We've got the original 5,000 samples or 

whatever there were and we're going back and 

putting those issues to bed, I hope. 

Now the other issue you brought up, Mark, was -

- well, the ratios, the raffinate ratios. And 

we passed out a sheet -- I apologize for some 

of the preliminary nature of these things, but 

this is real-time science. Essentially what 

we're doing is developing a workbook here. 

You've all talked about site profiles and we 

have the Mallinckrodt site profile. We're --

we've been developing the workbook to do these 

individual cases on the fly, so to speak, in a 

-- you know, in real time. 

What you see here is a summary, and there 

aren't many samples to quantify the amount of 

thorium -- there aren't many references. We've 

listed the references here. There's actually 

one on here that we just got that's even a 

little more recent, an Argonne Laboratory 

analysis, but basically what we end up having 

is a couple of references that put the -- put 

the airport cake thorium in the low tenths of 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 

125 

part per million range, which equates to about 

70,000 picocuries per -- per gram of material -

- pretty high material. In fact, it's almost 

the same -- the thorium 230 content of the 

airport cake is about the same concentration as 

in the K-65 material, which kind of surprised 

me. You wouldn't think a process would split 

selectively like that and go fifty-fif-- well, 

I don't know if it's fifty-fifty or not because 

the mass of concentra-- the masses could vary, 

depending on additives during the process. But 

nonetheless, it's about 70,000 picocuries per 

gram. I think we feel fairly comfortable it's 

in that range. 

What we were having more difficulty with is the 

protactinium content. The sample that we chose 

to use for the protactinium analysis was a 

couple of analyses that were done of the Sperry 

cake itself. Now Sperry cake was identified 

early on as a very good source of protactinium. 

In fact they selectively used Sperry cake to 

isolate protactinium because it was such a good 

source. 

We are assuming that the protactinium content 

of the AM-7, the airport cake material, 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 

126 

equal to the protactinium concentration of the 

Sperry cake itself. We believe that to be a 

fairly sufficiently bounding calculation. If 

you do that, you end up with about a 15 percent 

of the alpha activity in the air is going to be 

related to protactinium 231 and about 85 

percent related to thorium 230. Actinium 227 

itself is not an alpha emitter -- it has a lot 

of daughters that are -- so that doesn't come 

into the mix, but we're assuming 100 percent 

equilibrium with actinium 227. 

So that -- that results in some fairly high 

doses, and I think what I'd like to show is 

something that's fairly interesting as a result 

of the example cases that we've done. And let 

me pull up what we call Case 1-2, which is the 

dose reconstruction example for a person who -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Jim --

DR. NETON: Yes? 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- before you go into that, you 

don't have any spreadsheet that -- that will 

show me this stuff in similar units? I mean 

this is a -- this is -- it's sort of difficult 

to get a sense of an average value when you 

have -- I don't even know for the first 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 

127 

two grams of protactinium for 20 tons of cake -

-

DR. NETON: Well, that wasn't used in the 

calculation, I can tell you that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. NETON: If you read all the way through it, 

it will tell you which values were ended up -- 

we ended up using. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. NETON: It's only a couple of analyses, but 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'll hold on. 

DR. NETON: -- I can get that to you. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would like that. 

DR. NETON: But let me show you something I 

think is of significance here. This is the 

case where we had a worker -- a -- these are -- 

as a matter of fact, this only applies, by the 

way, to residue raffinate workers at 

Mallinckrodt, which is going to be a large 

percentage, based on, you know, how we ended up 

realizing that workers shared a lot of jobs. 

But this person we assumed had no radon breath, 

even though he did, and did the analysis as if 

we had to use the thorium -- the 95th 
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 

128 

percentile of the time-weighted average of the 

air concentrations in Plant 6. That ends up to 

be about 607 disintegrations per minute per 

cubic meter, roughly about 8 or 9 times the 

maximum allowable concentration at the time. 

By the way, these are not several samples. For 

instance, in 1950 when they did an air dust 

study in Plant 6, they went and collected 500, 

600 samples, and then they collapsed those 

samples into a distribution of workers -- they 

had job occupations, so they used all -- this 

is all the (unintelligible) for 600 samples and 

came up with a time-weighted average for about 

30 or 40 different occupations within Plant 6. 

It seems to me that that's the best way to 

figure out what the 95th percentile worker is 

exposed to. Otherwise, if you used a -- you 

know, the data -- the raw data in itself, then 

you run into the situation that SC&A has 

rightfully criticized NIOSH for doing sometimes 

is how do you know that those samples are 

representative of the whole distribution? How 

do you know that they didn't go and selectively 

pull more samples in administrative areas 

versus production areas? 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 

129 

representative of the 403 workers in 1950. 

But let me -- nevertheless, we used the 9 MAC 

air or whatever it was and came up -- this 

ratio's a little different than what you have, 

so the doses will actually even be higher. We 

used a ratio of about 12 percent protactinium 

to thorium 230. 

But what I want to point out here is the doses. 

If you look at the dose to what I would 

consider the non-metabolic -- what we consider 

the non-metabolic organs -- and this would be 

here, and that would include things like 

prostate and pancreas and all those kind of 

organs, the organs that do not specifically 

concentrate the thorium -- or the protactinium 

or actinium -- almost all the dose is driven by 

thorium 230. I mean there's some from the 

uranium, but I think 95-plus percent of the 

dose for a non-metabolic organ is driven by the 

thorium 230. So in some respects, the 

protactinium/actinium ratios are almost 

irrelevant for this calculation. In fact, it's 

better to assume all thorium 230 for those 

organs. And in fact, I would suggest that we 

may want to do that because we don't know 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 

130 

ratios perfectly. It's accepted that it's 15 

percent or so, in that ball park -- and that's 

a high -- if we use 15 percent and we assume 

that's a high estimate, which we believe it is 

because it's based on Sperry cake, then we 

would probably be lowering this dose by putting 

more actinium and protactinium into these nonmetabolic organs. So for those situations it 

would seem to be appropriate just to use 

thorium 230, assume all the air concentrations, 

use thorium 230. 

What you end up with -- and there's only 

several organs that concentrate 

actinium/protactinium. Clearly actinium 227 is 

the heavy hitter in the liver, the bone 

surfaces. We don't have it shown here, but it 

would also be similar for red bone marrow and 

the gonads, the testes and the ovaries. Those 

are the only organs where actinium really 

produces doses, and you can see that these 

doses are huge. I mean we're talking 30,000 

rem to the bone surfaces from just that intake. 

So for those organs I think it's claimantfavorable to take that 15 percent -- and 

they're going to be even higher than this now 
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 

131 

if we use 15 versus 12 -- and apply them to the 

non-metabolics. 

 The issue that Arjun alluded to here was the 

surprising low value here in the liver for 

protactinium 231. Our ICRP documents and IMBA 

come up with -- shows that this is not too 

unreasonable. Arjun has access to a FRG-13 

(sic) report that says there should be closer 

unity. I'm not sure which is right. All I 

know is we've used ICRP. It needs to get to 

the bottom of the issue. That would only, 

though, tend to drive these doses even higher, 

if the protactinium were closer in unity, so 

these metabolic organs would even go -- go 

higher, even though they're already fairly 

high. 

In fact, if you look -- well, we didn't even 

bother with the PC calculation here because 

these are all well over 50 percent, and in the 

kidneys, as well. The kidneys, interestingly, 

are driven by thorium, as well. So again, the 

liver, bone surfaces, red bone marrow and -- 

and gonads are metabolically active, but 

particularly for actinium, possibly 

protactinium, and that's what drives those -- 
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 

132 

those doses. 

 Although I might add that the thorium doses are 

not trivial. In fact, these doses alone -- the 

thorium intakes alone would -- would more than 

likely make this case compensable without any 

actinium or protactinium. So I just want to 

point that out. 

Okay, so I think I've talked a little bit about 

the ratios. I'm not sure what else there -- 

did you -- what other -- what other issues did 

you bring up, Mark, that -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just the -- the new thorium air 

data for the --

DR. NETON: Right. Right, thank you. As I 

indicated, there was a couple campaigns for 

thorium, and this is a fairly busy spreadsheet 

but you can see we have samples identified by 

pretty good job description -- good location 

here, covering a wide range of years -- 

somewhere on here I have the year. But I think 

the most significant thing to point out is this 

is the fit to the couple of hundred datapoints. 

You get a nice lognormal fit to the 

distribution. R-square is .99, so you get a 

reasonable fit, and these are for that second 
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 

133 

campaign in '56 and '57. These samples were 

collected -- and I don't have the dates handy 

here, but they were over that '56/'67 time 

frame. I'm not sure where the dates went on 

here. 

So we have these data for the second campaign. 

And the first campaign, I don't have the 

bioassay samples here, but we have 70 bioassay 

samples that were -- that were taken on workers 

during the fir-- what I call the first 

thorium/ionium campaign. 

So I apologize. This is fairly late-breaking 

information, but I thought it was important to 

throw it out here, you know, when we get it. 

This of course would only affect workers who 

worked on that ionium project in Plant 7-E for 

the campaigns. And we have workers who -- we 

have cases that do have Plant 7 -- 7-E 

indicated in their work history. 

I'm trying to see where -- oh, here's the 

dates. Sorry. The dates are there now. You 

can see '56, '57 -- and clearly we're going 

through trying to figure out what the -- what 

the airborne was in the plant during that time 

period. 
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 

134

 MR. GRIFFON: Jim, do you have -- could you 

provide us with that electronically and -- 

DR. NETON: Sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and the -- you said you have 

something else that might have the same units 

for those fractions that -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I can send electronically a 

spreadsheet that actually is the basis for 

that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I'd like to see. 

Thank you. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, it's a -- you know, it may 

take a little work to decipher. It's not 

prettied-up for public consumption necessarily, 

but you should be able to figure it out. 

DR. ROESSLER: I might have kind of forgotten -

- can I talk? In the previous slide where you 

had the table with the various radionuclides on 

it, and then you said something about NIOSH is 

using ICRP data, and then you said Arjun has 

access to something else. What was that? 

DR. NETON: FRG-13 -- FGR-13, Federal Guidance 

Report 13. 

DR. ROESSLER: FRG-13 (sic). 

DR. NETON: Which is -- you know, it should be 
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 

135 

the same values. 

DR. ROESSLER: I would think you could track 

that back, because --

DR. NETON: We're going to. 

DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: We've got Keith Eckerman's ICRP, 

whatever number it was, and Arjun's got the 

Federal Guidance, and -- but what's interesting 

is our values that IMBA calculated tend to 

agree with the ICRP. The Federal Guidance 

Report seems to be up, but it doesn't mean that 

ICRP doesn't have a mistake and was annotated 

later but been fixed, we just don't know. And 

those are only 50-year doses. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Arjun has a comment. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is actually, in light of 

what Jim just said, more than a point of 

figuring out which official reference is 

correct. Because for instance, in regard to 

the breast, the -- in Federal Guidance Report, 

leaving the liver aside where the discrepancy 

is orders of magnitude, and there's something 

wrong somewhere in some official publication -- 

but if you look at other organs and compare 

protactinium and thorium, the dose conversion 
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 

136 

factor -- committed 50 years, admittedly -- for 

the breast is four times bigger for 

protactinium than it is for thorium. So I --

I'm not sure -- some -- somehow I think these 

discrepancies in what radionuclides are 

important really does need to be cleared up 

because it will go to your assumption that 

thorium is the most important radionuclide 

because if the Federal Guidance Report dose 

conversion factors are correct, then you're 

going to have to revisit the question of 

whether protactinium is more important or 

thorium is more important. And at this stage, 

I just -- I don't know which is right. 

DR. NETON: Right. I looked at all the organs 

that we have modeled, and I didn't -- unless I 

missed it, I didn't see breast be higher, but 

it's possible. I mean I don't know. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I'm just making a 

statement of what is in the Federal Guidance 

Report 13, which is supposed to be from ICRP68, I think. I just checked up the numbers, 

and -- just to try to understand your results 

in a quick, back-of-the-envelope way, and I 

couldn't quite understand them exactly. 
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 

137 

DR. NETON: Well, I think -- I think the point 

is, though, that -- you know, the -- the organs 

that have metabolically been modeled as 

concentrating actinium or protactinium are 

going to clearly have much higher doses. The 

doses that are considered the remainder, which 

is all other soft tissue, are going to be 

driven by thorium 230. There just -- that's 

just a fact, because there is no sync/sink* for 

those organs -- for the -- in those organs for 

actinium or protactinium. I don't know what 

the metabolic model is, in my head, for 

protactinium versus actinium. The other issue 

is, actinium -- even if they have the same 

metabolic model -- is going to deliver five 

times the dose per unit intake because it's got 

a string of very short-lived alpha-emitting 

daughters that -- that grow in fairly rapidly, 

very easily within the first year or two of 

exposure. And that's why the actinium doesn't 

surprise me as being high. 

Now being that far off, I don't know. We do 

need to get to the bottom of it. I totally 

agree on that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. Board members, 
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 

138 

other questions at this point? Mark, did you 

have another one? You look a little restless. 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

stumbling around (unintelligible). 

You know, I guess -- I mean it -- it just dawns 

on me in some of this, the path we've taken -- 

and I know a lot of work has gone into all this 

-- but what -- what's striking, and I think 

people -- maybe everybody realizes this, but 

the part that's driving the doses and the POC 

in this whole thing is the part that we know 

the least about, and we have the least data 

for. You haven't heard much about uranium 

urinalysis lately. That's because we've gone 

away from -- you know, all that tons of data 

that we have, it's not really being used 

anymore because, like Jim said, the dose is 

being driven by these other -- other isotopes. 

It's important to remember that there's no 

personal data -- well, there -- there is the 

radon breath data, but there's no personal data 

for the thorium, actinium, protactinium, except 

for that one small sector. Am I wrong on that 

or... 

DR. NETON: Right, we have ionium data 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 

139 

about 70 workers. 

 MR. GRIFFON: For two months. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But -- so I mean, you've got -- 

that -- that's why everything comes down to the 

importance of these fractions and where they 

came from and who they're going to apply to. 

And I think -- and I've been involved 

throughout this process, and I'm still a little 

bit unclear on who, where, when. And I think 

your intention is to be favorable, given -- 

whether radon breath or thorium -- you use the 

higher of the two derived values. But is it --

and I think what I heard, maybe I'm wrong, is 

that short of a very clear work history that 

says that they weren't in Plant 6, you'll 

assume they were a residue worker. Is that --

DR. NETON: Absolutely. Yeah, I mean I totally 

agree with SC&A's position on this, that 

lacking evidence to the contrary, we're going 

to assume that these people were raffinate 

residue workers in Plant 6. And as far as the 

95th percentile, I think if you look at it, 

assigning the 95th percentile of the radon 

breath data to a worker will usually result 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 

140 

higher doses than using the 95th percentile of 

the air data. I can't say across the board, 

but it's almost a certainty that most of the 

time it's going to be higher. And then if you 

apply the -- a distribution of the values to 

the people who were not considered to be 

raffinate residue workers, but just in the 

vicinity of the area, is also a claimantfavorable approach I think. 

'Cause you've got to remember, I think these -- 

these thorium values we're talking -- this was 

a wet process. This is not like they're 

manufacturing thorium metal here. This is a 

wet process until you get to the -- to the end 

where you generate the cakes. And admittedly 

there was a large amount of that, but this was 

not manufactured, ground -- you know -- I mean 

so you can get air concentrations, don't get me 

wrong. But I think to assign the full air 

concentration, as we're doing, to either 

thorium 230 or the actinium is a fairly 

claimant-favorable approach. And you can't 

discount the thousands of air samples we have, 

Mark. I mean I think you're right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: No, I know. I guess -- I guess 
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 

141 

the other -- to -- to go on your point, I guess 

the other interesting observation in all this 

is the case -- the case comparison, when you 

look at somebody who have radon breath data 

versus the person who didn't have radon breath 

and use the coworker model assuming the 95th 

percentile, that individual gets quite a bit -- 

I forget the numbers, but quite a bit higher 

dose assigned overall. So --

DR. NETON: That's part and parcel of this 

program. Unmonitored workers where you're 

claimant favorable, and you don't know, get 

higher -- that's not unique to Mallinckrodt. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I underst-- I'm just pointing 

that out. That's a --

DR. NETON: I mean I don't know how you get out 

of that box. I mean if you want to be claimant 

favorable and you don't know -- but again, 

you're going to -- you're not going to be just 

stuck with using the radon breath data because 

then you're also going to do the 95th 

percentile of the air data and compare the two, 

and that's going to drive you into the 

situation where you've got the high -- high 

thorium intakes that are going to drive 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 

142 

some pretty high values. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Additional questions or comments? 

 (No responses) 

Now we will have extensive time again later in 

the meeting for discussion of the Mallinckrodt 

petition and the materials here. One of the 

questions for the subcommittee was whether or 

not the subcommittee wishes to raise any 

further questions for the Board to consider, or 

any -- to make any recommendations for the 

Board to consider relative to any follow-up on 

this, additional questions or information that 

we identify. 

 Yes, Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I actually just have a follow-up 

question for Jim. You don't need to get up, I 

don't think, but are you planning on handing 

out anything else new in terms of documentation 

or something? 'Cause it'd be better to have it 

now than wait until --

DR. NETON: I understand. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- if it's ready now. 

DR. NETON: No. No, I don't really have 

anything else to offer other than maybe 

electronic spreadsheets that Mark has 
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 

143 

requested. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, thanks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: In response to your direct question, 

Dr. Ziemer, from my perspective, NIOSH and SC&A 

have fulfilled our request for additional 

information and I feel that we've taken this 

issue as far as it needs to be taken. I am 

hoping that the subcommittee will recommend 

that we remove the tabled item and consider it 

at this meeting this week. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It certainly is in order if you 

want to recommend that the subcommittee make 

that recommendation. The subcommittee cannot 

un-table the motion, but we can make a 

recommendation to that effect, if you so wish. 

Are you making such a motion? 

 MS. MUNN: That was my hope, that the 

subcommittee would provide that recommendation 

to the full Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'll interpret that as a motion. 

Wanda has made a motion that the subcommittee 

recommend that the Board remove from the table 

the previous -- previously-tabled action for 

consideration. Is there a second to 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 

144 

motion? This is not a motion to un-table, it's 

a motion to recommend that the Board take the 

motion from the table and consider it. Is 

there a second? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Second. Does it have to come 

from a committee member? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We're all members of the 

subcommittee. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I'll second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion on that motion? 

Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I believe, from the agenda, we're 

going to be considering the issue of the 

Mallinckrodt Special Exposure Cohort on Friday 

morning. And again, I may have missed some of 

the discussion that's gone on here, but I think 

a motion to do with the -- Wanda's motion that 

was tabled at our last meeting would be more 

appropriate in the context of the full Board 

meeting. I'm not sure what we gain or lose or 

-- from having a recommendation from the 

subcommittee. I think we're all assuming it's 

on the agenda. Let's deal with it in the 

context of the NIOSH presentation on the 

petition and then, you know, presentation 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 

145 

what work's been done by our contractor and so 

forth. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I might comment if this motion 

passes it still requires a motion at the Board 

meeting to take it from the table, yes. 

Denise, did you have a question or comment? 

I'll recognize you --

MS. BROCK: I do. Is it all right if I -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 

MS. BROCK: -- ask something? I was just 

curious about the external dose conversion 

factors. Can that be addressed now? I'm --

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

MS. BROCK: -- very curious about that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the record, I mean the 

petitioner's been involved throughout this 

working group process so I think it's most 

appropriate that she has an opportunity to 

speak as she likes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was actually going to 

ask, once we moved past this, that we do the 

procedures review. And one of the first items 

we should consider is the dose conversion 

factors. 
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 

146

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. Let me ask if 

there are any -- anyone wish to speak for or 

against this motion? 

 DR. MELIUS: I guess I was speaking against the 

motion in my --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: Perhaps my understanding was 

erroneous. It had been my understanding that 

one of the reasons the original motion was 

tabled at the full Board was so that the 

subcommittee could pursue with SC&A and NIOSH 

the resolution of these specific issues that we 

had requested. Because that was my 

understanding, I was then wishing to make very 

clear that the subcommittee was accepting of 

the information and the work that had been done 

since that past meeting and was ready to have 

the full Board consider this again. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the context of the motion is 

with respect to the completion of the 

addressing of the six issues. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Additional discussion? 

 (No responses) 

Let me call for a vote now, so if you vote yes, 
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 

147 

you're simply recommending that the issue at 

the -- recommending to the full Board that the 

issue of the motion on the petition be removed 

from the table and considered in the full Board 

meeting. Again, this motion is not binding on 

the Board in any event. It still would require 

an actual motion to remove from the table. 

Okay, all in favor of this motion, say aye. 

 (Affirmative responses) 

Okay, let me get a show of hands -- one, two, 

three, and the Chair will vote for it, that's 

four. 

Those not favoring the motion, say -- raise 

your hand. Let's see, one, two, three, four. 

In essence the motion fails for lack of a 

majority. One of the awkward things about the 

way we operate with the subcommittee is that 

since all members are members of the 

subcommittee, we don't have a defined number to 

work from, which is a problem we may have to 

address in the future. 

So -- now it may -- it may be harder to have a 

motion, if the -- if the subcommittee so feels, 

that is more the nature of your preliminary 

comments, that -- that the subcommittee 
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 

148 

believes that NIOSH and our contractor have 

addressed the six issues appropriately. This 

doesn't necessarily mean that every point has 

been brought to closure, but unless there are 

additional things we want to send them back to 

do, it may be appropriate to make some motion 

along those lines. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I just -- I'm a little 

confused because I -- as I recall, when we 

originally established the working group, we 

weren't contemplating a subcommittee meeting. 

So it was really after the fact that we 

suddenly decided that the workgroup reports to 

the subcommittee and then reports to the 

committee. And I'm -- I don't think -- I don't 

think this materially changes anything we're 

going to be doing in our full Board meeting, 

but it is a little --

 DR. ZIEMER: It does not. It simply gives this 

subcommittee an opportunity, if you so wish. 

You -- they were under no obligation to take 

any action. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and may I also say that the 

working group really -- I don't think it was 

charged with coming up with a report. I mean 
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 

149 

if we were going to sort of do something to 

accept a report -- the subcommittee accepting a 

report from the workgroup, then -- then maybe 

this sort of procedure's appropriate. But it 

seems to me that -- seems that we're spending a 

lot of time on something that I -- I don't 

think it's going to change materially what we 

do at the meetings the next two days, so I 

guess that's my concern. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That certainly is correct. Again, 

I'd simply point out that if the subcommittee 

wishes to go on record, you can -- you have 

that opportunity to do so. 

There appears to be hesitation on the part of 

the subcommittee to take a formal action on 

this. Let me ask if you have any additional 

issues or comments, and then we'll go on with 

the next item, if we don't, relating to the 

Mallinckrodt petition or -- and more precisely 

the review that we have been looking at. 

 (No responses) 

Okay. If not, we have two other items -- let 

me check our clock here first to see where we 

are. We're at 2:40. We need a comfort break? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 
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 

150

 DR. ZIEMER: Comfort break, 15 minutes, and 

we'll reconvene. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:40 p.m. 

to 3:05 p.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Time to reconvene. Just prior to 

the break we had a question raised by the 

petitioner, Denise Brock, about the dose 

conversion factors. And this might be an 

appropriate time for us to address one other 

item that we spoke about this morning. It's 

not just dose conversion factors, but in fact 

generically the issue of the procedures review, 

of which the dose conversion factors were a 

portion. 

Let's see, I guess before I do that, Denise, I 

believe you said you had an additional comment 

and I'd like to give you the floor if you'd 

like to make that now. 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, we'll -- we'll catch you 

later. Thank you. 

TASK III REPORT 

So the kind of generic issue that we need to 

consider is the issue of what the Board would 

like to do with the task three report. 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 

151 

a report from our contractor, which is the 

summary of the procedures review. We've had 

that report for some time. It contains a 

number of findings. Earlier in the week Board 

members were sent an e-mail copy of a matrix 

showing all the findings. There are copies 

available here, also, on the table if you 

didn't get that in your e-mail. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's a -- a --

 DR. ZIEMER: It's called Summary of Task Three 

Procedure Findings Matrix. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I should say it's a -- a partial 

listing. Kathy's still working on it, but -- 

so this is a partial listing of what's in the 

full report. 

 DR. ZIEMER: May have some additional items, 

but it captures a lot of what's in -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in there, and basically it's a 

findings matrix, which is somewhat analogous to 

what -- the matrices that we've developed on 

other reports. It has the NIOSH procedure 

number -- or maybe an ORAU procedure number, I 

think, in many cases. It has a finding number 

and a description of the finding 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 

152 

location of where that occurs in the SC&A 

report. As she developed her matrix, in 

anticipation of perhaps how the Board might 

proceed, there's a -- currently a column 

designated "NIOSH response", and you'll notice 

there's nothing there because we've not asked 

NIOSH to respond to this report, but we may 

wish to. 

Now in connection with that report, if you look 

on the second page, starting with Finding 

Number IG001-09, 09 and 10, and really 12, 13 

and 14, I believe. Those five at least have to 

do with dose conversion factors of one type or 

another. And I think for -- for the -- our 

immediate needs as far as the Board's 

concerned, we may want to ask the question, for 

the Mallinckrodt site profile what issues come 

out of this? That is, what are the dose 

conversion factors that would be used. And of 

course generically you have these questions in 

terms of the procedures in general, across the 

board. 

It would seem to be appropriate to ask -- to 

raise the dose conversion factor with respect 

to Mallinckrodt. Now Jim, you talked a little 
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 

153 

bit about that earlier today, did you not, 

in... 

DR. NETON: I just addressed the issue that was 

raised regarding the exposure geometries at 

Mallinckrodt, and we -- I think we're in 

agreement that the factor of 2.1 is 

appropriate. 

There's a second separate issue that was raised 

related to the dose conversion factors in the 

implementation guide and their application 

generically. I mean it certainly applies at 

Mallinckrodt, but it would apply to every 

single site that we're doing dose 

reconstruction -- where we're doing dose 

reconstructions and so it's the applicability 

of the -- and -- and the angle of the incidents 

of the radiation. And also I believe SC&A 

raised some issues where they do environmental 

effects on dosimeters and how that's accounted 

for, and we have not addressed that at this 

point. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now as far as Mallinckrodt is 

concerned, what questions are still open as far 

as dose conversion factors -- in SCA's mind? 

Let's see, where's Arjun? Is Arjun here? 
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 

154

 Arjun, we're talking about dose conversion 

factors. And specifically in the Mallinckrodt 

case, what are the open issues in your mind on 

dose conversion factors as far as Mallinckrodt 

specifically is concerned? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, the two open issues are 

the generic issues, and I think Hans would be 

better to address them. He knows -- he wrote 

the memo. It's in Attachment 8/A*. The one 

issue relates to the angle of incidents on the 

badge because you have the shielding, and when 

it's incident at other than normal, it goes 

through a greater depth of shielding and so 

there's an attenuation there. And other --

second issue is the dose conversion factor, 

mostly in geometries other than AP. But I 

think Hans is the person who developed the 

issue -- these two issues, and since they are 

multiplicative, it makes a fair amount of 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: So in case of this matrix here, 

it's item 12 and 13 then, the geometry issue, 

and perhaps rotational and isotropic geometry. 

Basically it's the angular issues and 

geometrical issues. 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 

155

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, that's right. 

And in the table -- there's a summary table in 

the report, the third supplemental review, in 

the summary table under external dose, I think 

it's item three dash -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: In the procedures review or in -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, in -- in the Mallinckrodt 

report --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, in the Mallinckrodt report. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that you have. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: They are listed as items 3-2 

and 3-3 in the summary report, I believe. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's -- it's close to the front 

of the report, in that big table. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I found it -- 3-2, angle of 

incidents to badge for deep dose and 3-3 is AP, 

PA and rotational isotopic geometry. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So those look like 13 and 14 on 

our -- on our procedures review spreadsheet. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's correct. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and then there also is an 

external deep dose conversion factor that has 
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 

156 

been identified here, as well, in the 

Mallinckrodt report. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is that the 2.1 -- that's the 

factor --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's -- the 3-1 part of it I 

think has been addressed by the Attila modeling 

by NIOSH and -- and we are in agreement with 

that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which one is that? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The 3-1 in the third 

supplemental Mallinckrodt -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, organ versus badge? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Organ versus badge, we believe 

NIOSH has addressed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, right. So on 3-2 and 3-

3, that remains to be -- our -- I'm trying to 

get a determination of whether we are in 

disagreement or if that's just going to be 

followed up. Where --

 MR. GRIFFON: Disagreement. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't believe that the -- 

that NIOSH has addressed it, at least in the 

context of Mallinckrodt. I think -- Hans, 
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 

157 

would you... 

DR. NETON: Could I just say something for -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, yeah. 

DR. NETON: I just think -- the confusion I 

think exists is what the Board has identified 

as priority issues, and I think NIOSH has gone 

off and addressed the priority issues, of which 

in the external arena was the organ dose versus 

the badge reading. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

DR. NETON: Now the other two issues that 

remain are generic issues that were raised in a 

task three review, and those are complex-wide 

issues. They --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- are not unique to Mallinckrodt. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: I'm not suggesting they don't need 

to be addressed, I'm just saying that it's not 

a Mallinckrodt-unique situation related to an 

SEC evaluation, in my mind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay. Thank you, Jim. 

Yes, Denise. 

MS. BROCK: With all due respect to Dr. Neton, 

it may be generic, but we are addressing 
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 

158 

Mallinckrodt on my petition this week, and 

until a bow is tied completely around this 

thing and these things have been addressed, 

each and every one of them, then we have a 

situation here that's going to create a lot of 

problems. I need to know exactly how you plan 

on doing this, and I need to know that right 

away -- not later, not years from now, right 

away. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Jim, additional 

comment? Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Denise is concerned, in the case of 

Mallinckrodt, dose reconstructions have not 

used -- for badged workers -- the dose 

conversion factors for anything other than the 

AP geometry, so we -- we agree, we've looked at 

SC&A's issue related to the dose conversion 

factor for rotational. It needs some work. 

It's based in ICRP-74 -- I think the values are 

correct. The application of those values -- 

certainly there's room for inappropriate use of 

those values and they could be wrong if applied 

exactly as written in the profile, that's true. 

But we're not proposing to use rotational 

geometry, we're proposing to use AP geometry 
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 

159 

for these dose reconstructions. So I think 

that -- that eliminates the dose conversion 

factor issue, I think. 

Now angle of incidents is a different issue. 

When we were working on that, the angle of 

incidents does vary, it's -- actually as a 

function of angle and also as a function of 

energy. We have seen the 1959 reference by 

SC&A, the Hines and Brownell -- well, we 

haven't seen it yet. We've heard what they 

said. We've been trying to get a copy and 

they're going to send us I think the relevant 

pages, but we've evaluated other data by Fix 

and others that we believe that the effect 

that's portrayed is not as severe as indicated 

in the review comments, to the point where, for 

high energy photons, the film badge respond 

almost the same as a parallel normal incident 

beam even at 90 degrees. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Jim, I'm just cur-- and I mean 

this would be good to hear -- hear, but you're 

-- you're confirming now that you'll only use 

AP geometry for these? 'Cause I'm looking 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 

160 

the revised site profile, 2-A that we just got 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and there's table 18 which 

gives all these different jobs and different 

geometry percentages that -- 

DR. NETON: Right, yeah. That's -- you know, 

we were trying to -- trying to clean that up. 

The -- it's been our policy -- not our policy. 

It's been our -- our way of doing business very 

much in the recent times, even before this, 

that the AP geometry was pretty consistently 

used. When we drafted this implementation 

guide, we envisioned rotational isotropic -- in 

reality it turns out that it's very difficult 

to position someone in time and space in the 

workplace and know that with any certainty -- 

it just was not a defensible calculation we 

believed we could do. So we've been defaulting 

for -- for the most part. Some of the earlier 

dose reconstructions I think you will find 

rotational, and we're going to address that. 

But it's AP geometry we believe -- with some 

caveats. I mean AP geometry, after our 

analysis, might not end up being the most 
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 

161 

claimant-favorable geometry. We're in the 

middle of this analysis. It turns out that a 

rotational geometry -- believe it or not, it 

may end up being a little higher, but it's not 

a factor of -- you know, it's within a factor 

of two, I believe, but I'm quoting very 

preliminary results. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Hans. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, just for the benefit of the 

Board, I just need to make you understand what 

the issue is. The dose conversion factors that 

are cited here are technically correct, but 

misrepresented for the application that's being 

used here. If -- and I was just talking to Jim 

during the break. 

If this was a room that was a radiologicallycontrolled area, and we had sources -- either a 

surface area -- infinite surface area or even 

an immersion exposure which is totally then 

isotropic, those values would be correct if -- 

in other words, if I came in here and I said to 

a worker, I'm not going to badge you but I'm 

going to measure the actual radiation field. 

And I would take a victorine-R* chamber and 

measure a air dose in R and measure that 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 

162 

then say go ahead in. I know what my air dose 

is and I know I'm going to send you in there 

for eight hours. I could then use these DCFs, 

based on an R measurement, and they would be 

perfectly correct. 

The truth is, what we're looking at here is a 

measurement that was done by film or TLD that 

is taken with the presence of a body. It's no 

longer an air dose. What you're measuring is 

now a dose that is measured by my film or TLD, 

and if this is -- if this radiation field was 

all around me, part of that radiation has to 

traverse my body. It's no longer an R dose. 

 Moreover, the badge has a filter on it that's 

10 millimeter -- or one millimeter silver, and 

that already measures a deep dose, so we're not 

talking about an R dose value that gets 

converted to a kerma dose that gets converted 

to an organ dose using ICRP-74. We're dealing 

with a starting point that's cons-- totally 

different from the starting point that's being 

used to derive these DCFs, and that's the -- 

that's the center stage issue that makes me 

believe that we're underestimating the organ 

dose if we use an R value and then convert 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 

163 

to a kerma and using ICRP-74. The only time 

those values would be correct -- it would be 

for those individuals who were not monitored 

but we had an air monitoring measurement. 

In other words, an R02 or some other instrument 

was used as a surrogate, then those values 

would be correct, but not using a film or TLD. 

And if you look at the 30 to 250 keV photon 

range and you look at most of the organ doses, 

whether it's the female breast, the eyes, the 

thyroid, male testes, so forth, very surficial 

tissue, the -- the dose conversion values for -

- PA geometry is of course the -- the worst of 

it because it is -- makes an assumption that 

the dosimeter is really on the backside as 

opposed to here. All the surficial tissues 

that -- that are on the anterior side would 

really only be approximated by an AP geometry 

DCF. All the other ones would be off by at 

least a factor of two, and that's my 

conclusion. 

And so when Arjun earlier talked about an 

effective value of six to eight, that really 

was the multiplicative (unintelligible) of 

three independent measurements. In other 
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 

164 

words, the 2.1 which says I'm wearing my TLD 

here but I have organ doses that are below the 

level here that are much closer to the close, 

and that's the 2.1. Another potential value of 

two is the issue of DCF that I just discussed. 

And thirdly, possibly the issue of angle of 

dependence, because all film dosimeters and 

TLDs are always calibrated with the face of the 

film or the TLD normal to a single source monoenergetic beam. The minute I start to rotate 

it, that same exposure translates to a much 

lower response on a part of the film or the 

TLD. And if you were to integrate the reduced 

efficiency by which your dosimeter responds to 

an incident beam of photons as I rotate it, you 

would probably come up with a potential 

correction factor of about two, and that would 

approximate an isotropic source, basically a 

summation of angle of dependence that deviates 

from normal. And so you have two times two 

times two, which possibly may result in an 

underestimate of a factor of eight. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Additional comments, Jim? 

Well, while you're coming up there, let me -- 

do we know, in Mallinckrodt's case -- 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 

165 

many film badges are actually calibrated with 

phantoms, not in air, anyway. Do we know in 

Mallinckrodt's case how the badges were 

actually calibrated? 

DR. NETON: Yes, I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: Were they using a commercial 

service or --

DR. NETON: You know, I don't recall right now. 

I didn't -- you know, I haven't looked at that 

recently, but we have and we've discussed the 

calibration of the badges I think in previous 

workgroup meetings. We believe that we've 

accurately portrayed the HP10 dose. I think 

that's not an issue. I think we've -- we've 

got an HP10 dose. I think where Hans is -- I 

take a little exception to what Hans said is 

that Hans is thinking in terms of radiation 

protection quantities. HP10 is -- is, pure and 

simple, a radiation protection construct to 

make sure that workers are not exposed -- their 

individual organs are not exposed above a 

certain level. 

What the ICRP-74 has done is taken and allowed 

an HP10 reading to be inferred as to what the 

actual organ dose is. For example, the breast. 
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 

166 

It -- I would argue that the dose at one 

centimeter in the breast is equal to the deep 

dose, which is equal to the breast dose. If 

you look in ICRP-74, it's actually about .8 

something because they actually modeled -- 

they've taken air kerma, the dose to the actual 

organs themselves, so that's -- that's the 

subtle difference there. 

The issue of dose conversion factors, I agree 

with Hans. The values in our tables certainly 

need to -- need to be adjusted to represent a 

more appropriate application what they were 

intended for for rotational and PA. I think, 

for the record, we've never done a dose 

reconstruction using the PA dose conversion 

factor. I think it's just not -- we don't have 

any workers who had badges on their backs while 

they were being monitored or anyone that has 

been exposed univ-- you know, unilaterally to a 

PA geometry. 

So I believe that the ICRP-74 calculations are 

correct and you need to go to air kerma to come 

up with individual organ doses themselves. 

And the issue is a little more complicated than 

Hans I think is indicating because you have two 
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 

167 

competing things going on here. As the -- as 

the geometry changes and the energy goes down, 

yes, the badge is reading less dose than is 

really measured. But at the same time, the 

individual organs themselves are receiving less 

dose because of the -- of the particular 

geometry, and it's very difficult to project 

based on -- first -- I mean you just can't 

project what -- how the effect is going to be, 

so you know, if you have 30 keV and the badge 

under-responds by a factor of three, that may 

be true, but then the organ dose itself may be 

lower by a factor of three -- and we've seen 

this quite often, that there's competing -- 

competing interests here going on and we're -- 

we're drafting a Technical Information Bulletin 

that addresses all these issues in some detail. 

We just unfortunately don't have that complete 

right now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Has -- is there any data in the 

literature, Hans, that you're aware of on -- 

basically, you could imagine an -- a typical 

case, a person is not standing still, they're -

- they're moving around, and you sort of end up 

integrating all possible angles, maybe -- maybe 
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 

168 

weighting it a little bit, but what -- what do 

you end up with? Is it kind of a weighted 

average of the extremes from -- from the acute 

angle all the way to the perpendicular? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I believe in the handout 

that Arjun had provided as part of an 

attachment you will see discrete measurements 

at -- at angles that start with zero, 22 and a 

half, 45, 67 and a half and 90. And you'll see 

obviously, as the energy photon -- energy is -- 

decreases, the -- the angle of dependence is 

much more pronounced. When you get to the 

point where you're measuring something like 

cesium 137, the issue of angle of dependence 

starts to diminish drastically. It's most 

pronounced at the energies of 100 to 200 keV, 

which is oftentimes the energy that we're 

talking about here, or sometimes even lower. 

And so if you look at the average value of 

zero, 22 and a half, 45, 67 and a half and 90, 

you end up with a value that is approximately a 

factor of two too low, based on a reduced 

response. And -- and I do intend to -- to 

provide NIOSH with the Hines and Brownell 

reference which -- from which that information 
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 

169 

comes from. And I do believe, if I recall, 

that it does involve the 502 DuPont film, which 

is the more sensitive component of a twocomponent film badge that has a low sensitivity 

and a high sensitivity film, and I think the 

502 is the high sensitivity film. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now those are done just with films 

in the air, I believe, usually. It would be 

surprising to me if someone hasn't in fact done 

something similar with a phantom, looking at 

the angle of incidence on the badge but seeing 

the impact of that on organ doses by using 

implanted TLDs or something like that in a 

Rondo phantom. Do -- isn't there such data 

available? 

 DR. BEHLING: (Off microphone) I think Fix had 

done (unintelligible) that. There are some 

data that Fix has measured angle of dependence 

by means of a phantom. 

DR. NETON: There's actually about five 

different studies that have been done 

contemporaneously -- within the last ten years, 

anyway. Fix has done it. There was a 

(unintelligible) study done from a 15-country 

radiation worker study that was just released 
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 

170 

by IR where Fix was involved in that analysis. 

Grossfeldt* also, in Radiation Protection 

Dosimetry, published a -- an article related to 

this where he did a Monte Carlo simulation of 

what is the HP10 dose for dosimeters for -- not 

a dosimeter, for actually a ten -- one 

centimeter deep detector at various angles. 

And there's another article that was published 

-- I forget who did -- Tierrychef* published an 

article. So there's a number of data that are 

out there. Most of them indicate not as severe 

declines as indicated in the Hines and Brownell 

article. I don't know if the Hines article -- 

Hines (unintelligible) used a phantom or not. 

These all use either a Rando phantom, an ICRU 

sphere or a PMMA slab. So they -- they were 

done with some pretty good science, and they're 

readily available in Radiation Protection 

Dosimetry for anybody to look at, and that's 

what we're basing our analysis on. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Hans? 

 DR. BEHLING: (Off microphone) Yeah. The issue 

that also has to be addressed in some of the 

findings that are cited in our matrix is the 

uncertainty. I believe that -- for instance, 
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 

171 

it's correct and Jim has pointed out, we can 

introduce this as part of the uncertainty. But 

if you look at the uncertainty discussion in 

Implementation Guide 1, you realize that it's 

really addressing only laboratory uncertainty. 

And of course laboratory uncertainty is defined 

by a very controlled exposure to a monoenergetic beam at zero degree angle, and it's 

acute exposure, et cetera, et cetera. So what 

we have to look at is uncertainty that goes 

beyond laboratory, and that is the radiological 

uncertainty which is part of this discussion 

here. And that is probably dominated by 

angular dependence. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So is it -- is it 

correct to say that although you may not be 

prepared, Jim, today to say what -- as Denise 

has suggested, to say what those numbers are, 

when in fact it comes time for dose 

reconstruction you would in fact have analyzed 

and determined a number that would be used in 

some particular cases. 

DR. NETON: Yes, we're very close. I just am 

not -- won't be able to release the document 

right now. I'm reviewing it currently. But 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 

172 

think we will have a va-- this is a generic 

issue that was brought up in task three. It's 

not necessarily linked to Mallinckrodt. This 

is a complex-wide issue, I mean, and -- and to 

bring this up in the SEC evaluation, I -- I -- 

we weren't tasked with doing that -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, I understand. 

DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) six highpriority issues. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: It was thrown into SC&A's report at 

the -- at the -- when it came out and we agree 

it's an issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: But we did not give it as high a 

priority as the other six priority issues that 

we were evaluating --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- as instructed by the Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Board members, 

additional questions on the general topic of 

dose conversion factors? Though as I -- I 

would like to ask if the Board -- or if the 

subcommittee has some suggestions on how to 

proceed with the general task three findings 
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 

173 

and how to go forward from -- with -- with that 

set of findings. Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Someone may have to refresh my 

memory or -- I seem to recall that one of our 

earlier discussions of this issue -- it had 

been pointed out that a number of these 

procedures have changed, that there were 

supplemental documents to them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, for example, many of these, 

in practice, are replaced by workbooks. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And so that one possible step in 

moving forward would be to identify which of 

these in fact are even utilized anymore -- or 

if they're utilized, are they utilized by way 

of a workbook. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So that's one possible thing that 

we could ask be done by NIOSH, to tell us 

either -- well, what is your response. One 

response is we don't use this procedure 

anymore, or this procedure is superseded by a 

workbook, which may be subject to procedures 

review, too, under next year's task. 

 DR. MELIUS: 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 

174

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would propose that we, you know, 

segregate in that way, we go through and sort 

this and categorize these. And those that are 

being used, then we, you know, set up a 

procedure where we request that NIOSH respond 

to them. And -- and then we take steps to -- 

you know, our usual sort of resolution process 

to -- to try to address these and that -- that 

for those of which have been superseded or 

supplemented, whatever you want to call it, by 

a workbook or a revisi-- revised document, that 

we then consider for, you know, their 

prioritization -- appropriate prioritization 

for SC&A review for next year. I mean I don't 

think we should spend time trying to review 

something that's already been changed. It just 

doesn't make sense. I would hope that NIOSH, 

in developing the workbook and so forth, would 

have at least read the document and tried to 

address concerns or make sure that appropriate 

technical concerns are addressed in what 

they've developed, but I don't think we need to 

spend time, given the length of time it's been 

since SC&A finished -- finished their 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 

175

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you making a motion then, 

which would be a recommendation to the full 

Board? 

 DR. MELIUS: I would so move. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know what the motion is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The motion got lost in a multitude 

of words here. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, let's try to -- 

 MS. MUNN: You can second it anyway. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The motion is to ask that NIOSH, 

in a sense, segregate these to identify those 

that are still in effect and those that may 

have been superseded by -- by work-- workbooks 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and then to address those that 

are still in effect. I think that's the 

motion. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you thinking you want to 

second it? 

 MR. GIBSON: I'll second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's seconded by Mike, 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 

176 

Thank you. Now let's discuss. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Now I might friendly amend the 

motion. I mean my -- my only -- superseded, 

I'm a little concerned about that. I think all 

these are findings, and I -- I agree that if -- 

we don't want to go back in time, but some of 

these procedures were used for cases that were 

already done, so -- but what -- what I was 

thinking more of was to -- to look at the 

findings and determine whether we -- there's -- 

do go through our normal resolution process and 

then for those that we determine that this 

finding is addressed or -- or that this finding 

is sort of a -- is handled in a workbook which 

was not reviewed under this initial review, we 

can defer those as an action. We can defer 

that to the extent -- the next stage in the 

review process. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So I'm going to interpret here. 

think Mark's concern is that insofar -- even if 

something is not currently being used or is 

superseded, if it in fact had been used to 

bring to closure some cases previously and was 

an incorrect procedure, one might want to know 

what the impact of that would have been on 

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 

177 

those cases, and that would be -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, I -- I would have a friendly 

amendment to Mark's friendly amendment. That 

would be that -- it seems to me that it would 

be more efficient to do that at the time of the 

-- the follow-up review that -- say there's a 

procedure, now it's been -- there's a workbook 

that supplements or changes that or whatever, 

that particular procedure. We ask SC&A to 

review that new process -- they would -- 

procedure, workbook, whatever it is. They've 

already got the review of the first one. Then 

-- then we consider them both at the same time, 

both the initial review and the -- the sort of 

follow-up review of the workbook. In that way 

-- if not, we're just going to spend a lot of 

time saying -- you know, NIOSH is going to 

respond and say we've already taken care of 

that, and then well, have they really taken 

care of it and -- you know, we'll go back and 

forth a lot. I just don't think that's a very 

efficient use of SC&A's time and effort, nor 

NIOSH's. And I still think we would be able to 

address the concern about the initial -- you 

know, potential impact on other ca-- 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 

178 

earlier cases by NIOSH's -- you know, by 

NIOSH's response to the follow-up and so forth. 

I think that would get addressed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, these friendly amendments 

are becoming so extensive even the Chair 

doesn't know what they are. I have a feeling 

that we're almost back to where you started. 

 DR. MELIUS: That was -- I'm -- so it's -- 

actually I reject Mark's friendly amendment for 

the reasons --

 DR. ZIEMER: And withdraw your friendly 

amendment --

 DR. MELIUS: It's not so friendly, Mark. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Basically what we're asking is for 

NIOSH to review these and kind of tell us which 

are still in effect, which aren't, and perhaps 

what their response is. And then we can --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I -- I guess my -- and Jim 

spoke to my intent, which is to not lose a 

finding just because a procedure's got Rev. 2 

out. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: We don't want to lo-- you know -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: And when we get that list back and 

if -- if -- we can look at that and say 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 

179 

we -- we still want you to do something with 

this. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote on this? We 

had a second. This would be a recommendation 

to the full Board in a meeting later this week 

to take action on. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 Any abstentions? 

 MS. MUNN: I'm not sure what I'm voting on 

still, so --

 DR. ZIEMER: Those that are so confused that 

they're abstaining? 

(Indicating) 

Okay, two abstentions. We will make that 

recommenda-- the recommendation will be for 

NIOSH to respond. That's really what we're 

recommending. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would also, though, like to 

recommend that we then move on to have NIOSH do 

-- their response would be just to identify 

what's been revised, but they would also 
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 

180 

include a response to those that haven't been 

revised yet or supplemented -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Start the resolution process. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) resolution 

process in place where SC&A would -- you know, 

what -- what we've done on other things. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I actually thought that was what -

-

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- part of the -- I interpret that 

as part of the motion. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Either what is the response to it 

or what -- whether it's in effect. Okay, we 

will so recommend. 

I think we're ready now to address Bethlehem 

Steel. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think the other --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- just -- just a practical thing 

on those lines is that -- that this is only a 

partial matrix, so I think SC&A will provide -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think SC&A has said there 

are some additional items that -- not yet 

appeared on the list with -- 
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 

181

 MR. GRIFFON: Just didn't have time to complete 

it, that's all, yeah. 

BETHLEHEM SITE PROFILE

 DR. WADE: As we get to Bethlehem Steel if I 

could just have a -- I was contacted by Kevin 

Riley of Senator Schumer's office, who asked if 

I would share with the Board the Senator's 

belief that the Bethlehem issue -- the 

Bethlehem site profile issue will not be fully 

resolved until SC&A has an opportunity to 

formally comment. Certainly that is not 

binding on this group, but he asked me to make 

that statement and I did. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Let me 

remind the Board, we had an action at the 

February meeting. There were five motions made 

at the February meeting with respect to 

Bethlehem Steel. These are contained in the 

February Board minutes. There were a number of 

items that said the Board concurs with NIOSH's 

-- NIOSH's approach and so on. There were 

several outstanding items -- all our items are 

outstanding, actually, but these were carryovers. Here's one of them. 

 (Reading) The Board requests that NIOSH 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 

182 

SC&A meet to discuss and resolve any remaining 

technical issues related to SEC's (sic) 

comments and NIOSH's responses, and members of 

the Board should be present at the -- at the 

meeting. 

And then let me identify for you those items 

which fell into that category. Let's see --

now let me just go down through -- work 

quickly. 

 The Board concurred with use of 95th percentile 

of distribution of air samples at Bethlehem 

Steel. 

 Board requested NIOSH review the use of ICRP 

default values. 

 Board concurs with NIOSH's characterization of 

aerosol size and density. 

Board concurred with NIOSH approach to 

characterizing external exposures. 

I guess that was it. Now you'd have to lay 

this beside the finding table of SC&A to see 

what the unresolved issues were, I guess. And 

I don't --

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) Was 

(unintelligible) on breathing rate or the 

residual 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 

183

 MS. MUNN: I think it was the mouth breathing 

thing. 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: (Reading) Board concurs with use 

of 95th percentile distribution of air samples 

at Bethlehem Steel to characterize upper limits 

of exposure. However, NIOSH should continue to 

evaluate other approaches to characterize 

exposures in the work environment similar to 

Bethlehem Steel, including better ways to 

characterize exposures to workers in high-risk 

job categories and better methods to identify 

such workers. 

And then (reading) NIOSH -- review the use of 

ICRP default values for heavy work to determine 

if appropriate. 

I think that was the issue of the -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Now in the meantime, there 

was a revision and you have all received some 

material from Mr. Walker, and should have 

received Larry -- Larry's reply -- Larry 

Elliott's reply -- or NIOSH's reply to -- to 

those issues that were raised by Ed Walker. 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 

184 

insofar as those may be considered new issues, 

we may wish to respond or indicate whether or 

not we accept that response or not. I guess my 

question is is there anything else besides this 

that is new material that we need to respond 

to? 

 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) I mean if I could 

offer -- oh, Jim has his (unintelligible). 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, go -- if you want to clarify 

the sequence, which is what I was going to 

clarify. 

 DR. WADE: I mean I think -- you spoke to the 

motions that were made by the Board. It's my 

understanding that there were discussions 

between SC&A and NIOSH. NIOSH then prepared a 

revision to the site profile, a draft revision 

to the site profile. When the Board last met 

it -- it started to discuss it and then 

realized it didn't have that material in its 

hands for long enough, so we postponed 

discussion until this subcommittee meeting and 

Board meeting. So theoretically, what you have 

is the NIOSH revised site profile and a 

judgment at least to be made as to whether that 

(unintelligible) -- profile conforms with 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 

185 

issues that -- that you have placed on the 

table. Then you have the Ed Walker material 

that you introduced, but it's that revised site 

profile that I think is the pertinent 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I just add one more piece of 

information? We had also left unresolved at 

our last meeting as to whether we would have 

SC&A review the NIOSH response to the revised 

site profile, as well as their -- their 

response to -- to SC&A's comments. And right -

- shortly after our last meeting, John Mauro 

sent all of us a e-mail -- okay -- asking 

whether he -- he -- they -- we wanted to 

formally task -- I think that's the correct 

verb, task them with doing a review. And I 

think we all dutifully didn't respond to the email, so it's been left open. And I don't --

and when I checked just before the meeting, my 

understanding was that SC&A had not done any -- 

anything further. They'd not reviewed the 

revised site profile, nor have they responded 

to NIOSH's --

 DR. ZIEMER: And in fact the Board cannot do 

that by e-mail anyway. We cannot task our 
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 

186 

contractor --

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in that fashion, so -- so the 

absence of e-mails probably reflects the fact 

that we can't -- even if all of us had said 

yes, go ahead, it has no -- no bearing 'cause 

it's not done in a public forum, so -- any-- 

 DR. WADE: So everyone understands, John's 

question was should SC&A proceed with the 

closeout process based upon the draft revised 

Bethlehem Steel site profile or await the final 

version to be posted. That was his question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So what the Board really has 

before it then is -- is what to do with the 

revised site profile, vis-a-vis our contractor 

or closing things out. And now is it safe to 

say that -- does anything in Larry Elliott's 

response to Ed Walker become part of the NIOSH 

profile, per se, or is that simply a response? 

 DR. MELIUS: My reading of that -- of Larry's 

response was -- was that it -- it basically 

dismissed Mr. Walker's concerns, and I think -- 

I think addressed them by saying, in effect, 

that they had been addressed in the revised 

site profile. Is that -- 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 

187 

characterization, Jim? 

 DR. ZIEMER: It didn't appear to change however 

DR. NETON: Right, there was no modification 

made to the profile or the draft, I -- as -- 

and I think Dr. Melius characterized it 

appropriately there. We believe that the 

revised site profile substantially addressed a 

number of Mr. Walker's concerns. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So I think the question 

then remains what -- what do you like -- what 

would the subcommittee recommend to the Board 

as far as the revised site profile review? Dr. 

Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would propose that we ask SC&A 

to -- we need to come to closure on this, but I 

think first we need to have SC&A review NIOSH's 

response, as well as review the revised site 

profile, which I think has made some 

significant changes, and -- and report to us on 

that at our next meeting, and we then try to 

come to closure on this. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you making that as a motion? 

 DR. MELIUS: I will make that as a motion, 

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 

188

 DR. ZIEMER: Second? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I second that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's seconded. Now discussion, 

pro or con. Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Just a question. Do we have a feel 

for how many major items must be placed in 

SC&A's hands from this revised site profile? 

-- I saw some changes, but nothing that -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah --

 MS. MUNN: -- appeared so major to me that it 

be --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Jim, could you or one of the 

staff just very quickly summarize -- I don't 

recall any really big changes. 

DR. NETON: I think we were in substantial 

agreement with SC&A on most issues. 

 MS. MUNN: I thought so, too. 

DR. NETON: I think the 95th percentile was -- 

there may be some issues left remaining there 

as to -- you know, what 95th percentile is 

used, I suppose. And the breathing rate issue 

we -- we chose -- we evaluated it and we -- we 

determined that we didn't believe we needed to 

make any changes, so that's certainly out 

there. The oro-nasal breathing and the -- the 

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 

189 

use of the 1.7 cubic meter per hour heavy 

worker we're -- we're sticking with. So those 

are some issues that they need to look at and 

review our opinions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What about changes in the profile 

itself? 

DR. NETON: Well, the profile added the 95th 

percentile. The triangular distribution is 

gone. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: I mean that's a --

 DR. ZIEMER: That was based on their 

recommendation. 

DR. NETON: I believe we added some residual 

contamination issues related to in between 

rollings. I'm trying to think -- those are -- 

those are --

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, my point is, I think the 

review would not require as substantial effort. 

Now I know everything you guys do is 

substantial, but you understand what I'm 

saying. 

DR. MAURO: Jim has -- along with the revised 

site profile, Jim had also provided us with a 

very nice what I call white paper -- 
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 

190

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah --

DR. MAURO: -- where he --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- summarizing --

DR. MAURO: -- summarizing --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible) I forget the 

number of items --

 DR. ZIEMER: No, so you could -- you could step 

through it pretty --

DR. MAURO: And it is not going to -- it's -- 

it's a matter of us -- in fact, many of us have 

already read --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

DR. MAURO: -- that material. It's really a 

matter for us to get together -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: You haven't charged us for reading 

it yet, have you --

DR. MAURO: I've read it. I believe Arjun's 

read it, and I marked mine up. I have -- I'm 

formulating my -- my own thoughts on the 

matter, but I'd rather not discuss 

(unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: No, I understand. 

DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible) an opportunity 

to caucus with (unintelligible) our team -- 
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 

191

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

DR. MAURO: -- but we're not far away from 

being able to -- going down the list of items 

and having this material in your hands, 

certainly well before the next meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, Robert. 

 MR. PRESLEY: What we -- what you are 

requesting them to review is not this draft, 

but the new revised site profile. 

 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: I do think that what is out there is 

a draft. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

DR. NETON: The revised site profile is in 

draft form. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I want to make sure, though, that 

we're not going to review a draft and then 

somebody's going to come back and want to do a 

revised site profile. 

DR. NETON: (Off microphone) Well, it's 

(unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: -- the chicken or the egg. I mean 
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 

192 

we -- we could finalize it, submit it to SC&A 

and then go through a negotiation process and 

issue Rev. 3. I mean -- but it's our best 

shot. We intend to -- we believe it's -- it's 

ready to go, but we -- I think it would better 

serve to leave it open as a draft rather than 

issue it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are we ready to vote on the 

-- the motion is to proceed to have it -- yes, 

Jim, a comment for -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Just one more further comment. 

Some of these issues are also generic in the 

sense they will affect other site profiles and 

other dose reconstructions, so I think there's 

some value to making some additional effort on 

this --

 DR. ZIEMER: On this first one, yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- site -- particular site profile 

that'll help us in the -- the longer term, as 

well as I think contribute to the -- sort of 

the credibility of -- of the NIOSH -- of the 

new site profile. 

 DR. WADE: But also Robert's clarification 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 

193 

not a trivial one. We do need, as a Board, to 

talk about when we take something in time to 

say here it is and then move forward from it. 

So Robert, your point is -- is strong and needs 

to be discussed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are you ready to vote then 

on this motion? The motion then is to 

recommend to the Board that this draft revision 

of Bethlehem Steel be reviewed by our 

contractor. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

It's so ordered. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: The only item that Mark had asked be 

talked about in the context of this agenda was 

possibly an update on where we were with 

Savannah River. I don't know, Mark, if you 

would like to (unintelligible) we have time. 

We also have a very tired group of folks, so... 

DR. ROESSLER: So be short. 

 DR. WADE: But we could do that 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 

194 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Just a status report in terms of -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: The status report is it's in our 

hands. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well... 

 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I guess I just would say 

-- I think this was the first -- was this the 

first one provided to us, John, of the ones you 

reviewed? Savannah River I think was the fir-- 

DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) First one was 

Bethlehem Steel (unintelligible). 

 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so Savannah River -- yeah, 

so -- so after Bethlehem Steel, this was the -- 

so -- and I think we've got Hanford and -- in 

the hopper, and do we have another one? 

Anyway, I just thought we should initiate this 

and maybe sort of start the ball rolling, even 

if it has to be on the workgroup level. Let's 

get something going on this where we can have 

some discussion of the findings -- you know -- 

-- talk specific--

 DR. WADE: Decide the steps you want us to 

take. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have the Savannah River 
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 

195 

on the agenda, though, per se -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to --

 MR. GRIFFON: I thought we did. 

 DR. WADE: I think it is -- is acceptable to 

talk about in terms of looking at SC&A's 

tasking for next year and our -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. 

 DR. WADE: So I think it's legitimate to talk 

about. I did send the site profile out to 

everyone. But it's the subcommittee to -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: -- as to how much detail you want to 

go into. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But I assume you will want a full 

re-- presentation, perhaps at the next Board 

meeting, of that. We're ready to go on that --

right, Joe --

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Savannah River? Yeah, you're -

-

 MR. FITZGERALD: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- dust it off and -- right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I don't know 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 

196 

there's any -- I mean I -- I hate to wait to 

have all these things backed up for another 

Board meeting, so my concern is, is there any 

way between now and the next Board meeting that 

we can have some real work done on this thing 

at the workgroup level and come back with 

here's the list of findings, here's what NIOSH 

agrees with, here's their action -- you know, 

some resolution process (unintelligible) -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, one of -- one of the -- one 

of the possibilities, if we agree that the 

general process will be one where the findings 

go to NIOSH for the initiation of the 

resolution process, and I think the question 

here would be do you want that to happen before 

the Board has even officially looked at the 

document? I know you have it, but it has not 

been presented to us. 

 MS. MUNN: No, it hasn't. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I concur with Mark. I think 

we need to get going on this, and I see no 

advantage of -- or necessity to wait to have a 

formal presentation. I think we'd be much 

better off being able to try to go from 
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 

197 

presentation into resolution of this. It's a 

lot easier and I think it's a much more 

efficient process, and -- and I would hope that 

we could, either the subcommittee or the 

meeting -- come -- full Board meeting is sort 

of set up a schedule now to get some of these 

other ones moving --

 DR. ZIEMER: Under way. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- Hanford and I can't recall what 

else, but we need to get those -- now obviously 

we can't do them all at the next meeting, but I 

think we ought to get some processes started to 

address these. And I think also -- some of 

these are old enough now we also have got to 

have some concerns about are there additional -

- are there -- revisions or are there workbooks 

or other documents -- changes that -- that we 

ought to get reviewed so that we -- and handle 

those changes at the same time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's get some other input and 

then we'll call for a motion, one way or the 

other. Wanda Munn. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Do we -- it's been so long 

since I've looked at the Savannah River 

material, do you recall, Joe -- were 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 

198 

extensive findings? 

 MR. GRIFFON: They can't remember everything 

we're doing. 

 MS. MUNN: I'm -- I'm just drawing a complete 

blank is the reason --

 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that's understandable. 

No, there were certainly some relatively 

significant findings. The high five, if you 

recall, that was one -- 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- thing we wanted to 

certainly focus on and provide some feedback 

on, which the report does. 

I might add that we did do an issue resolution 

process for the first phase of Mallinckrodt. I 

think you were actually there for that session 

in Cincinnati, and I thought that was a pretty 

productive session where we had a working 

session and went through the issues and 

findings and were able to provide the Board -- 

Board members were present, I think there were 

two or three present --

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, worked very well. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and that turned out to be I 

think a pretty productive use of time and 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 

199 

moved the ball forward I thought fairly 

productively. We were able to identify where 

we had factual issues, where we had issues that 

needed to be resolved or where we agreed or 

disagreed, so that tended to move the thing 

forward. 

That's the only time we actually attempted that 

was for Mallinckrodt the first time around, and 

we really haven't been back to that again. I 

think we've been sort of looking at 

Mallinckrodt in this process, gone on to other 

reviews. But that might be a possibility in 

the sense that that would be a working session. 

It would be focused on the issues, but you 

still -- what was unresolved from that which we 

can agree on -- or that which has been 

superseded by ongoing revisions to the site 

profile, which I think is an issue for things 

like Savannah River. So I just wanted to 

remind the Board that, you know, we did start 

that process. I think it's been called the 

six-step process. That process I thought 

worked pretty good at the beginning of 

Mallinckrodt. We haven't been back there 

again, but certainly that's a possibility 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 

200 

Savannah, to both bring the Board up to speed 

and bring ourselves up to speed on the issues, 

and then get into a process where we can 

distill what's left that has to be addressed, 

and maybe get to the same place that task -- 

what is it, task three or four has been -- 

where task three has been where we can come up 

with a matrix and be very clear on where, you 

know, we need to resolve some issues. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, what the issues are and how 

they're resolved and track them 

(unintelligible). 

Okay. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I actually -- you 

know, I actually think, since we're not busy 

enough with work on this Board, that we should 

do Savannah River and Hanford. That might be a 

little -- a little ambitious on my part, but 

they've both been out there a while and I hate 

to see them sitting there and having new revs 

come out while we're -- and have the workgroup 

take those up initially and come back 'cause 

that's where we can really get into the meat of 

these issues. And the Savannah River ones have 

come up -- you know, these -- the organically-
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 

201 

bound tritides and the high five are showing up 

in the procedures review, the first 20 cases, 

they're hanging -- they're ongoing, hanging 

issues that I think we need to just -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest something to you 

here. Let's -- let's vote on the Hanford thing 

and then we can go ahead wi-- or Savannah 

River, rather, and then we can go ahead with 

Hanford and suggest that in the -- you may not 

necessarily want to put a timetable on it, but 

make sure that it's in the wings waiting to go 

as soon as the -- as soon as the contractor's 

able to do that, and NIOSH. I mean you're 

superimposing these things on some other things 

that they're working on, so -- Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Are we thinking -- is the 

subcommittee going to recommend a workgroup for 

that process and then maybe it's worth some 

thought as to whether -- I believe the meetings 

were held in Cincinnati, the one on 

Mallinckrodt, is -- is -- would -- is people's 

preference that two workgroups or have one 

workgroup that sits through them both, you 

know, for a two-day meeting or whatever? I 

mean not -- again, not necessarily that we 
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 

202 

would try to then address both at the next 

meeting, but that we would have a process 

that's ongoing and give, you know, NIOSH and 

SC&A some time to -- whatever needs to be -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think we need to hear from both 

NIOSH and SC&A whether that's feasible in terms 

of practicality of their staff and so on to -- 

Jim is saying, you know, can we do basically 

both of these back-to-back as -- get them both 

underway or do we need to sequence it? 

 MS. MUNN: Well, you know, this is -- this is a 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, a comment. 

DR. MAURO: My expectation was that the month 

of September would be dedicated to moving out 

the last three site profiles -- Rocky Flats, 

Nevada Test Site and INL. So with regard to 

our task one activities, all of our resources 

are being dedicated to moving that out. 

 However, that being said, I think we can take 

on the Bethlehem Steel. It's a very welldefined set of issues. We have been giving a 

lot of thought to that for quite some time, so 

we're prepared to take that on also. 

I'd have to say, though, that to engage 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 

203 

six-step process on Savannah River and Hanford 

in the month of September would be -- would 

over-extend our resources. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But in terms of the sense of the 

motion, it would be that as you're able to move 

into that, you wouldn't have to wait for 

another Board meeting; you would proceed. 

Isn't that -- you weren't necessarily, Jim, 

moving that they do -- start this this week or 

something. 

 DR. MELIUS: Oh, no, no. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's just so you're not sitting 

there waiting for something to happen before 

the next Board meeting. 

DR. MAURO: Oh, I --

 DR. ZIEMER: What -- have you run out of stuff 

to do, we --

DR. MAURO: No, we would appreciate that. Just 

a --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understand you have a 

workload and that's why I asked the follow-up 

question. Would you be prepared -- you want to 

do those sequentially as opposed -- that is 

Savannah River and then Hanford, versus -- and 

I ask the same question of NIOSH 'cause you 
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 

204 

have issues to address in those cases, too. 

DR. MAURO: From our perspective, yes, we can -

-

 MS. MUNN: I cannot hear. 

DR. MAURO: -- move those (unintelligible) once 

we clear the backlog of September, we can -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Once you know that you have the 

green light to proceed. 

DR. MAURO: Yes, if you have -- if we have the 

green light to proceed, beginning of October we 

certainly could move forward with both, the 

Savannah River (unintelligible) -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and again, subject to 

scheduling time with NIOSH and Board members. 

DR. MAURO: Sure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, you want to add to that? 

DR. NETON: We have a pretty heavy workload. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

DR. NETON: I don't think that we could commit 

to having anything done by the October Board 

meeting for those two processes, although we 

(unintelligible) engage in the Savannah -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: At least get it under way. 

DR. NETON: Under way, but to have that 

completed, resolution of this (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 

205 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think the sense of the motion, 

though, was to get it under way. 

DR. NETON: We -- we are certainly in agreement 

with that. 

 DR. WADE: I think the spirit would be maybe an 

early October working group. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, and then Wanda. 

 DR. MELIUS: I'd just point out that if we 

aren't able to address Savannah River at the 

next meeting, that would be putting it off 

until January of next year is our next 

scheduled Board meeting, and -- 

 MS. MUNN: We can change that. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that puts us further behind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: I can't believe that I'm the only 

member of this group who is physiologically and 

intellectually incapable of handling the 

processes of four or five sites at the same 

time in my brain. I just simply can't follow 

all those. I'm sorry. And I have serious 

questions as to whether or not this Board has 

the resources to be able to pursue, in a very 

focused fashion, two or more new site 
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 

206 

undertakings in addition to the not-yet-closed 

issues that we have before us. I would far 

prefer to see our -- our decision made to take 

these in a logical sequence and to, if 

necessary, schedule more Board meetings and/or 

workgroup meetings than we have on our current 

calendar than to try to put two or more on the 

table right now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. The motion before us 

is to give the contractor the authority to move 

ahead with NIOSH on the comment resolution 

process for Savannah River. You ready to vote 

on that motion? It does not have a timetable 

on it. We already understand that it probably 

wouldn't start till October and is subject to 

availability of NIOSH staff getting together 

with the contractor. But it does give them the 

green light to proceed. Yes? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask, when is our next Board 

meeting scheduled? Is it October -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: 17th. It's scheduled for Oak 

Ridge, I believe. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I would like --

 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- a timetable on it, and even 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 

207 

we have one preliminary workgroup meeting in 

early October -- I'm not saying that we're 

going to resolve all the issues, but we have to 

have that initial workgroup meeting to get -- 

to get a matrix fleshed out, where are we on 

these different issues, is there agreement, is 

there not, that kind of thing. So I would ask 

 DR. ZIEMER: And I think John is saying that 

they would be prepared in October to -- 

sometime to get that underway and the workgroup 

would have to be involved in... 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we're scheduled October 17th, 

18th and 19th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, this -- this would probably 

be before that, but -- okay, you ready to vote 

then? This is simply on Savannah River. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 All opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 And abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

It carries. Now do you wish to make a motion 

on Hanford? 
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 

208

 DR. WADE: Before you do that, could you at 

least identify the workgroup members for 

Savannah River so I could begin to work to 

schedule a meeting? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We would like to have at least 

four individuals again. 

 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

take this up when the full Board 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: We probably should do it in the 

full Board. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So everybody has an opportunity if 

they want to participate. 

 MS. MUNN: That's a wise idea. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But I would like to have four 

members, at least two of whom have -- at least 

are sort of technically oriented. 

Okay, do you wish to take any action dealing 

with Hanford? Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm a little scared to. I mean I 

-- I guess -- I guess I'd like Wanda's 

statement that maybe I'm willing to hold off on 

a motion on Hanford, but we might want to 

consider scheduling more workgroup meetings 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

209 

and/or Board meetings, but you know, I think we 

need to -- to get that started soon to -- so 

maybe it's right after the next Board meeting 

(unintelligible) -- but I will hold off -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: And there again, it doesn't -- it 

doesn't appear to me that -- that NIOSH is 

going to be ready to do issue resolution on 

Hanford by -- by October, in any event, so we 

can still take action at the next meeting if 

necessary. 

Okay, thank you. Do we have any other items 

for the subcommittee today? If not, we're 

going to adjourn the subcommittee. Is there a 

motion to adjourn? 

 MS. MUNN: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Second? All in favor, please 

leave. 

 (Whereupon, the subcommittee meeting adjourned 

at 4:10 p.m.) 
______________________________ 

210 

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 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 August 24, 

2005; 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 

7th day of October, 2005. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102